Hillary Pulls it Out.

[cantdog]

To my knowledge only prez candidtate who has ever issued a wholly unqualified repudiation of the whole enterprise - Iraq in particular and "muscular" internationism in general - is Ron Paul.

And the Republican candidates, all in a row, with his lone exception, endorsed torture camps and vied with one another to expand Guantánamo and similar facilities. Even the current front runner, and most spectacularly Rudy.

McCain ought to know better. He used to be a voice of dissent against the wackos, but he has left that behind now, and joined the True Believer camp. Very disappointing. But Rudy would say anything to show macho.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Rox, when race is no longer an issue then it won't have to be discussed as such.

As of right now, and for the foreseeable future, discrimination is still something that happens with frightening regularity.

To the extent this is true, it's simply an indication that changing the hearts and minds of an every individual in a huge nation is not the work of a few years, but a few generations. Nevertheless, widespread, systematic, legal discrimination is a thing of the past in this country Yet to hear the high priests on campus tell it, we are still a Jim Crow nation. That's nothing but a smear - the broad mainstream of the American public believes in equal opportunity, and expresses that in their actions.

Incidentally, when that's not enough, and the coercive insititutions of government are misused to root out "impure thoughts" in the hearts and minds of individuals, you get travesties like that exposed by the subject of my "OMG! Best defense of free speech" thread.

 

[cantdog]

To the extent this is true, it's simply an indication that changing the hearts and minds of an every individual in a huge nation is not the work of a few years, but a few generations. Nevertheless, widespread, systematic, legal discrimination is a thing of the past in this country Yet to hear the high priests on campus tell it, we are still a Jim Crow nation. That's nothing but a smear - the broad mainstream of the American public believes in equal opportunity, and expresses that in their actions.

Incidentally, when that's not enough, and the coercive insititutions of government are misused to root out "impure thoughts" in the hearts and minds of individuals, you get travesties like that exposed by the subject of my "OMG! Best defense of free speech" thread.

I rather preferred the Skinnerian approach. Fuck the thoughts, yannow-- it's the actions that are to be made illegal. No discrimination in housing, but you have to show you were injured. No lynching, but go ahead and hate.

I don't think you need a whole lot of extra laws for that.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And the Republican candidates, all in a row, with his lone exception, endorsed torture camps and vied with one another to expand Guantánamo and similar facilities. Even the current front runner, and most spectacularly Rudy.

McCain ought to know better. He used to be a voice of dissent against the wackos, but he has left that behind now, and joined the True Believer camp. Very disappointing. But Rudy would say anything to show macho.

Rudy is a prosecutor, and once a prosecutor, always a prosecutor. In addition to the thing you describe, it's why he cannot issue a broad "Reaganesque" appeal to the core Madisonian/Jeffersonian values of this nation.

 

[cantdog]

He sweats, too.

I went to NYC not long ago, on business (why else?) and it interested me to notice that the talk in the bars (I was in bars and restaurants) was that the Towers were either a case of the government deliberately allowing it to happen, or a put-up job with collusion.

New Yorkers are a cynical bunch of bastards. The firemen resented Rudy, but blew me off. I guess they still risk losing their job if they criticize his handling of the incident.

 

[cantdog]

I'm baiting you, Rox, I admit. But I have a bad feeling in the gut about Giuliani, always have had. He let all those people move about breathing the dust. He bungled the Towers fire and rescue operation. He destroyed the evidence.

Since then, he has acted the hero about it, without cavil.

I agree about his fiscal cred, though. You have a very good point on that score. And I suppose one should accept a large proportion of humbug and dishonesty in a politico. Still.

Anyway, sorry to be baiting you; I'll quit. I respect you more than that.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm baiting you, Rox, I admit. But I have a bad feeling in the gut about Giuliani, always have had. He let all those people move about breathing the dust. He bungled the Towers fire and rescue operation. He destroyed the evidence.

Since then, he has acted the hero about it, without cavil.

I agree about his fiscal cred, though. You have a very good point on that score. And I suppose one should accept a large proportion of humbug and dishonesty in a politico. Still.

Anyway, sorry to be baiting you; I'll quit. I respect you more than that.

Well, you're very kind, and the respect is mutual. Really, I don't mind anyone rolling around in the mud when it comes to this campaign, however. The whole thing is so vapid when it's not toxic that no vituperation can be over the top. So I didn't even perceive any baiting in this sequence of posts. (I am puzzled about the "offensiveness" of my "altar of race/class/gender" crack, though, per my response - it that what you mean by baiting? If so, then thanks for the clarification. If not - then we agree to disagree, and hopefully agreeably.)

One point - I think the "breathing the dust" thing is an unfair Monday morning QB charge, 20/20 hindsight. The stress and confusion of that moment cannot be overstated, when our nation had been attacked, we thought 10,000 had been murdered (rather than a "mere" 3,000), and everyone was anticipating the other shoe dropping. Can you imagine the recriminations had the mayor ordered the public safety people to withdraw? They were looking for survivors, for goodness sake - it's just 20/20 hindsight that there weren't any. No, if you want to tar Rudy there are far better challenges than that.

 

[cantdog]

One point - I think the "breathing the dust" thing is an unfair Monday morning QB charge, 20/20 hindsight. The stress and confusion of that moment cannot be overstated, when our nation had been attacked, we thought 10,000 had been murdered (rather than a "mere" 3,000), and everyone was anticipating the other shoe dropping. Can you imagine the recriminations had the mayor ordered the public safety people to withdraw? They were looking for survivors, for goodness sake - it's just 20/20 hindsight that there weren't any. No, if you want to tar Rudy there are far better challenges than that.

No.

I was a fireman.

Look here. There was dust, tons and tons of it, filling the street. Like St. Helens. But the Mayor's office, over the objections of the pros, told people it was a good idea to go ahead and go to work (and whatnot) inthe affected area. They even said why, in so many words, in public statements, at the time. The idea was, these cuntheads have NOT beaten us. We will carry on, business as usual, just to show 'em.

A completely backwards ass public-safety decision, taken for political reasons. A message to the ghosts of a bunch of dead Saudis.

 

[cantdog]

Really, I don't mind anyone rolling around in the mud when it comes to this campaign, however. The whole thing is so vapid when it's not toxic that no vituperation can be over the top. So I didn't even perceive any baiting in this sequence of posts.

I was denigrating Rudy, specifically, on purpose, to get your goat. I believed every word, mind you, but I selectively hit Giuliani on your account. That was the baiting.

The idea that the Left is offensively racist-- that's the one i found silly in the extreme. Wallace, the KKK, the various forces out West, arming against the ZOG, McVeigh, what the hell? Who has the racist label? The fucking Left??


The Left??


Completely outrageous. And you still haven't shown me where you get this drivel. You often have access to the very latest talking points, and I don't know where to look for those. Where? That was my question.

Because the Right has perfected this snide, projectionist, style of discourse, and they put it out to everyone somewhere, man. Everyone uses, all of a sudden, the same phrases, all at the same time. You see it in print, in the pundits on the tube, everywhere at once.

Where is the vitriol dispensed from?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I was denigrating Rudy, specifically, on purpose, to get your goat. I believed every word, mind you, but I selectively hit Giuliani on your account. That was the baiting.

The idea that the Left is offensively racist-- that's the one i found silly in the extreme. Wallace, the KKK, the various forces out West, arming against the ZOG, McVeigh, what the hell? Who has the racist label? The fucking Left??


The Left??


Completely outrageous. And you still haven't shown me where you get this drivel. You often have access to the very latest talking points, and I don't know where to look for those. Where? That was my question.

Because the Right has perfected this snide, projectionist, style of discourse, and they put it out to everyone somewhere, man. Everyone uses, all of a sudden, the same phrases, all at the same time. You see it in print, in the pundits on the tube, everywhere at once.

Where is the vitriol dispensed from?

I didn't say the Left was racist. I said (in shorthand) that they had elevated the stolen concept of "group rights" and the meaningless blather of "multiculturalism," "sensitivity" and "diversity" above the genuine principles of true liberalism, individual liberty and equality under the law. Minority preferences in government hiring and state university admissions, thought crime laws, campus speech codes, most sexual harassment laws, exquisitely tuned "I'm offended" receptors - it's all of a piece, and it's all of the left.

It's not going too far afield to cite the Danish cartoons that are the subject of another thread, and we saw this all played out in spades in that imbroglio. In that and similar events there have been many voices -all on the left - willing throw the "babies" of free speech, separation of church and state, and even equal rights for women to the wolves of "diversity, "sensitivity" and "multiculturalism."

Liberal tolerance and equality under the law or the Bosnification of America? As long as the left remains confused on these things they will be vulnerable to the kind of unkind characterizations I posited in the post you called "offensive."

 

[Boxlicker101]

I didn't say the Left was racist. I said (in shorthand) that they had elevated the stolen concept of "group rights" and the meaningless blather of "multiculturalism," "sensitivity" and "diversity" above the genuine principles of true liberalism, individual liberty and equality under the law. Minority preferences in government hiring and state university admissions, thought crime laws, campus speech codes, most sexual harassment laws, exquisitely tuned "I'm offended" receptors - it's all of a piece, and it's all of the left.

It's not going too far afield to cite the Danish cartoons that are the subject of another thread, and we saw this all played out in spades in that imbroglio. In that and similar events there have been many voices -all on the left - willing throw the "babies" of free speech, separation of church and state, and even equal rights for women to the wolves of "diversity, "sensitivity" and "multiculturalism."

Liberal tolerance and equality under the law or the Bosnification of America? As long as the left remains confused on these things they will be vulnerable to the kind of unkind characterizations I posited in the post you called "offensive."

Rox, you didn't say the Left was racist; you said they were obsessed with race and gender. I agree, for reasons I gave before and that you have elaborated on. Generally speaking, the Right looks on people as individuals, to be judged by what they do or say. Like you, I consider myself to be a Libertarian.

 

[cloudy]

Generally speaking, the Right looks on people as individuals, to be judged by what they do or say.

Since when?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"Generally speaking, the Right looks on people as individuals, to be judged by what they do or say."

I think we can agree that genuine liberalism in the classical, Enlightement sense views people as individuals, endowed with inalienable rights. "Right" and "Left," "liberal" (modern sense) and "conservative" are political labels that denote and connote vague combinations of policy preferences, often disconnected, not infrequently contemptable, and generally uninformed by any overriding or consistent principles. It's really an impoverished political vocabulary, and all of us, myself included (perhaps myself especially), should be cautious about using those terms, and extremely cautious about applying any of them to each other.

An example: I posted that "OMG! Breathtaking free speech defense" thread today, in which an extraordinarily articulate individual demolished one of the ugliest excesses of PC fascism. The demolished policy was a product of "the left," yet principled individuals here who in the modern parlance would be cast as "liberals" (modern sense) were just as enthusiastic about the item as I was. This is a perfect example of Liberal values (Enlightenment sense) being shared by people with different policy preferences on various issues.

 

[Pure]

on rox,

RA1: The assertion that the US left is obsessed with race, class and gender is hardly an extreme opinion, and I'm sorry if you don't like my way of expressing it. As for the truth of it, my goodness - look at these candidates! Each is either basing his or her candidate on one of these, or at the very least isn't afraid to fall back on it when under stress. (Obama is more the latter - to his credit, and the country's, he has not based his candidacy on race, but is willing to use it when needed.)

RA2I didn't say the Left was racist. I said (in shorthand) that they had elevated the stolen concept of "group rights" and the meaningless blather of "multiculturalism," "sensitivity" and "diversity" above the genuine principles of true liberalism, individual liberty and equality under the law. Minority preferences in government hiring and state university admissions, thought crime laws, campus speech codes, most sexual harassment laws, exquisitely tuned "I'm offended" receptors - it's all of a piece, and it's all of the left.

===
P: More humorous, along the same lines, is box:

BoxGenerally speaking, the Right looks on people as individuals, to be judged by what they do or say. Like you, I consider myself to be a Libertarian.

==
P: One scarcely knows where to begin with such off-the-wall assertions, devoid of historical sense.

Let us start with the US abolitioinist movement: Were Rox and Box around they'd be saying that the anti slavery folks were obsessed with race.

RA the genuine principles of true liberalism, individual liberty and equality under the law.

P: true liberalism is an abstraction. the alleged right of every person to 'life liberty and pursuit of happiness', affirmed by such 'genuine' liberals as Jefferson, excluded Blacks, Indians, and women.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights both ignore the elephant in the room. OR should i say elephantS. Slavery, specifically. The right of each "person" to due process, extends only to "persons," e.g. not slaves or indians.

The movement to give women the vote, extending from 1850 to 192x, likewise, in Rox's terms, committed the mistake of looking at 'group rights'. WHO could imagine a need to talk of "women", when the rights of all persons were guaranteed in the Bill of Rights!! Such whining!

Extending ourselves to the civil rights mvt of the 1960s, was the small matter of Black people being disenfranchised. Further "obsesseion" with race by MLK, Johnson, and others! "Equality before the law" already existed, rox would say. Who's whining for 'group rights'?

What Rox and Box take far too seriously are situations where the public discourse and documents are silent about an issue while *talking* equality. The Constitution is silent on slavery, and you have to read pretty closely to see that the poor, the black, and the women had no vote.

I think Cantdog had a useful term. "Projectionist". The right wing, represented in roxanne and box, the ones who can *talk* nicely about liberty, have *intense* obsessions with race and gender, e.g. with keeping the slaves as such. They project their obsessions onto the left. Conservatives often sit high up in the castle, very calm, and comment on the 'passions' of the peasantry. (The passions of southern US conservatives, e.g. in stringing up black persons, do not figure in the equation; it's the genteel pro slavery of Jefferson that is 'true' conservatism.)

Ami is our own best, i.e. pathological, example of obsessions with race and gender, along with highflown sham libertarian mouthings.

Lastly, I don't see either HRC or Obama as 'obsessing' about such things, but the right and Repug slime machines are revving up. A further obsession of the right is Xian religion, who's got it and who's an infidel. The equation of Obama and Osama, the focus on Obama's middle name, Obama as a product of a madrassa, show these obsessions.

I note Roxanne recognizes Obama's lesser emphasis on race. Doesn't it follow that his opponents, esp. on the right are the more obsessed ones.?

Lastly mr box. carries out a faux-libertarian line, of 'focus on the individual'. He ignores times when women, blacks, and even Jews were not admitted to universities.. Same with Rox with complaints about 'minority preferences.' Any attempt to fix such things, to take away a rich white focus of universities, who admit white 'legacies' like GWB, is said to violate "Individualism." That's rich! Let's be 'color blind' they say! Ha! (Some of these idiocies flow from the mouth of Clarence Thomas-- himself with a law degree because of affirmative action! Again, that's rich!)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Lastly mr box. carries out a faux libertaraian line, of 'focus on the individual'. He ignores times when women, blacks, and even Jews were not admitted to universities. Same with Rox with complaints about 'minority preferences.' Any attempt to fix such things, to take away a rich white focus of universities, who admit white 'legacies' like GWB, is said to violate "Individualism." That's rich! Let's be 'color blind' they say! Ha! (Some of these idiocies flow from the mouth of Clarence Thomas-- himself with a law degree because of affirmative action! Again, that's rich!)

It's late and I don't have time to respond in detail, and besides there is some validity to some of what you say, but I will challenge this one. The fix for past discrimination is present discrimination? Sorry Pure, but the contradictions are broad in deep in that socially destructive policy. Sure, let's get rid of "legacies" - did you really think I would disagree with that? - but lets not forget that the group most victimized by minority preferences is Asians. Or perhaps it's African Americans themselves, on two counts:

First, the same system that uses preferences to admit unqualified students to elite schools is indifferent to the fact that huge numbers of them (a majorty?) can't do the work and drop out, left with a stigma and wounded self esteem. Without preferences the same students are admitted to less elite schools and perform adequately. Secondly, the preferences give cover to the rotten, corrupt public schools from which many of those students come, contributing to their destroying generation after generation inner city black children's futures.

You want to redress past discrimination? Fine - find ways to do it without violation the very principles anti-discrimination is based on.

~~~~~~

Pure: "I note Roxanne recognizes Obama's lesser emphasis on race. Doesn't it follow that his opponents, esp. on the right are the more obsessed ones?"
Take out the "especially on the right" and you get no argument from me. Not saying they won't go there if he wins the nomination, but his opponents on the Dem side are there already, so why focus on right-shibboleths that are only potential?

 

[Pure]

rox,
right wing slurs and insinuations against Obama are not just 'potential,' but actual, including some of the cases i've given. another is the circulation of the Obama picture with his hand NOT on his heart, alleging this occurred during the pledge of allegiance.

see newsbusters, who say they combat 'liberal bias' in the media:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ma...a-no-hand-heart-pledge-either-will-msm-notice

===

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/obama_nabbed_by_the_patriotic.html


http://www.drudge.com/news/102692/anatomy-anti-obama-smear

Dec. 13, 2007: Despite being debunked by mainstream news organizations, the claim that Obama didn't place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance is repeated on Bill O' Reilly's show. In response to a caller who says she's disturbed by Obama's alleged action, O'Reilly doesn't correct her and, according to MediaMatters.org, replies: "I think that Obama needs to answer some questions about his point of view, not only on the USA, but on a lot of things."

====
====
obama and 'spade' work, in limbaugh's talk:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/15/limbaugh-gets-his-spade-and-hoe-work-in-for-obama/

Limbaugh:…Obama is holding his own against both of them–doing more than his share of the “spade” work. Maybe even gaining ground at the moment. Using not only the spade ladies and gentleman—that when he finishes with the “spade” in the garden of corruption planted by the Clinton’s, he turns to the “hoe.” And so the spade work and his expertise using a hoe.

As I reported back then, Rush inflamed many black talk radio employees at the time when he played his Obama parody song. I doubt it made an impression on him.

 

[Boxlicker101]

RA1: The assertion that the US left is obsessed with race, class and gender is hardly an extreme opinion, and I'm sorry if you don't like my way of expressing it. As for the truth of it, my goodness - look at these candidates! Each is either basing his or her candidate on one of these, or at the very least isn't afraid to fall back on it when under stress. (Obama is more the latter - to his credit, and the country's, he has not based his candidacy on race, but is willing to use it when needed.)

RA2I didn't say the Left was racist. I said (in shorthand) that they had elevated the stolen concept of "group rights" and the meaningless blather of "multiculturalism," "sensitivity" and "diversity" above the genuine principles of true liberalism, individual liberty and equality under the law. Minority preferences in government hiring and state university admissions, thought crime laws, campus speech codes, most sexual harassment laws, exquisitely tuned "I'm offended" receptors - it's all of a piece, and it's all of the left.

===
P: More humorous, along the same lines, is box:

BoxGenerally speaking, the Right looks on people as individuals, to be judged by what they do or say. Like you, I consider myself to be a Libertarian.

==
P: One scarcely knows where to begin with such off-the-wall assertions, devoid of historical sense.

Let us start with the US abolitioinist movement: Were Rox and Box around they'd be saying that the anti slavery folks were obsessed with race.

RA the genuine principles of true liberalism, individual liberty and equality under the law.

P: true liberalism is an abstraction. the alleged right of every person to 'life liberty and pursuit of happiness', affirmed by such 'genuine' liberals as Jefferson, excluded Blacks, Indians, and women.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights both ignore the elephant in the room. OR should i say elephantS. Slavery, specifically. The right of each "person" to due process, extends only to "persons," e.g. not slaves or indians.

The movement to give women the vote, extending from 1850 to 192x, likewise, in Rox's terms, committed the mistake of looking at 'group rights'. WHO could imagine a need to talk of "women", when the rights of all persons were guaranteed in the Bill of Rights!! Such whining!

Extending ourselves to the civil rights mvt of the 1960s, was the small matter of Black people being disenfranchised. Further "obsesseion" with race by MLK, Johnson, and others! "Equality before the law" already existed, rox would say. Who's whining for 'group rights'?

What Rox and Box take far too seriously are situations where the public discourse and documents are silent about an issue while *talking* equality. The Constitution is silent on slavery, and you have to read pretty closely to see that the poor, the black, and the women had no vote.

I think Cantdog had a useful term. "Projectionist". The right wing, represented in roxanne and box, the ones who can *talk* nicely about liberty, have *intense* obsessions with race and gender, e.g. with keeping the slaves as such. They project their obsessions onto the left. Conservatives often sit high up in the castle, very calm, and comment on the 'passions' of the peasantry. (The passions of southern US conservatives, e.g. in stringing up black persons, do not figure in the equation; it's the genteel pro slavery of Jefferson that is 'true' conservatism.)

Ami is our own best, i.e. pathological, example of obsessions with race and gender, along with highflown sham libertarian mouthings.

Lastly, I don't see either HRC or Obama as 'obsessing' about such things, but the right and Repug slime machines are revving up. A further obsession of the right is Xian religion, who's got it and who's an infidel. The equation of Obama and Osama, the focus on Obama's middle name, Obama as a product of a madrassa, show these obsessions.

I note Roxanne recognizes Obama's lesser emphasis on race. Doesn't it follow that his opponents, esp. on the right are the more obsessed ones.?

Lastly mr box. carries out a faux-libertarian line, of 'focus on the individual'. He ignores times when women, blacks, and even Jews were not admitted to universities.. Same with Rox with complaints about 'minority preferences.' Any attempt to fix such things, to take away a rich white focus of universities, who admit white 'legacies' like GWB, is said to violate "Individualism." That's rich! Let's be 'color blind' they say! Ha! (Some of these idiocies flow from the mouth of Clarence Thomas-- himself with a law degree because of affirmative action! Again, that's rich!)

Before I say anything else, I would like to say that I am referring to now, not hundreds of years ago. Had I been born 150 years earlier, I like to think that I would have been a conductor on the Underground Railroad. However, I know that what I did and felt would have been entirely dependent on my circumstances and upbringing. Most likely, I would have been trying to eke out a living as a dirt farmer in Ohio or some place, and wouldn't have thought much about such broad subjects.

LBJ and Nixon weren't very far left, but both of them, like most Americans were strongly in favor of civil rights, of everybody being equal, of the hypothical level playing field. Having essentially won that battle, those who believe in equality have gone back to their own pursuits.

However, leftists are always looking for a fight and, having the playing field leveled is not enough for them. They want to tip it in the other direction, to punish the current generation for things their mothers and fathers might or not have done. Here, the left focuses on race and gender. There is nothing wrong with Affirmative Action when it reqres honest efforts but, when it becomes quotas, it is a farce.

The Right, looking on people as individuals, say "Why not promote and hire and admit to medical school, etc. those who are most qualified? After all, those are the most deserving persons." The Left says "No no! We can't do that. All benefits must be parceled out in the same ratio as the racial and gender makeup! Otherwise, it is discrimination!" In other words, the Right wants to ignore such extraneous things as race and gender as being of little or no importance, and reward competence and hard work. The Left wants to concentrate on race and gender.

School busing for racial balance is still practiced and, if the Left had their way, it would be practiced even more extensively. Never mind that almost everybody opposes it, most of all the students who would have to spend hours riding on buses, and their parents. The Right would say: "Why not just have all these kids attend the school nearest to where they live? That seems simple enough." The Left says "No no! We can't do that! Everybody must attend a school that reflects the same balance as the school district (or city or county or state or whatever). This means spending scarce dollars on buying and fueling and maintaining and garaging and driving a flt of buses, and on some unfortunate students being forced to ride on them when they should be studying or working or practicing football or doing something else more productive.

Here, the Left focuses entirely on race.

 

[Pure]

box

the Left focuses entirely on race.

and as you say, race probs were pretty much solved, in the US, in the 60s. as of today, any Black--or Indian, or brown skinned person--- complaining of racism is generally a whiner, or someone seeking 'special advantage' for 'group identity,' in short a lazy SOB.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

What blacks dont get is the monolithic nature of American Elites. They 'get it' in the black community because someone like Bill Cosby is not gonna hang-out with your average ghetto rat. And George Bush or John Kerry or Teddy Kennedy is not gonna let me near their house.

 

[Pure]

exactly, jbj. sometimes you speak the truth, unerringly. the solid facade of elites, e.g. in higher ed, on the bench, etc is why the 'left' and reformers try for 'guidelines' 'targets' and 'reflection of the community composition'-- and even 'quotas'.

unless there are guidelines and 'targets'--e.g. ordered by the courts-- some monolithic white male institutions are not going to crack, regardless of "individualist" , pure merit policies recommended by C. Thomas and mr. box.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

But is isnt gonna happen because the leaders of the Left are Elites, too. It's like Orwell's point in ANIMAL FARM. The pigs and the humans socialize and its tough to distinguish the two groups.

Like Dubya and Chelsea Clinton. When each of them graduated college they stepped into high paying jobs that most kids will never have a shot at. Neither got the jobs because theyre prodigies.

 

[Boxlicker101]

box

the Left focuses entirely on race.

and as you say, race probs were pretty much solved, in the US, in the 60s. as of today, any Black--or Indian, or brown skinned person--- complaining of racism is generally a whiner, or someone seeking 'special advantage' for 'group identity,' in short a lazy SOB.

You're quoting me out of contest, you know. Anybody wanting to see what I actually said can look at the post directly above yours and do so. In the matter of school assignment, the Left does focus on race. They do so in other ways too, which is why "Affirmative Action", a generally good idea, has frequently devolved into quotas and set asides.

Obviously, race problems are not solved and never will be completely. There will always be people who believe that their specific group, be it race, national origin, gender or anything else, is inherently superior to all others.

I hope you are aware that racism comes in all colors. There are black and brown and red and yellow racists, as well as white ones. "MuhammeSpeaks", which was the paper published by the Black Muslims in the sixties, was the most racist screed I ever saw, probably worse than something published by the KKK.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Let's be clear about something. Not all forms of racism are toxic. If you dont appeal to me sexually, because of your racial traits, you dont appeal to me! No one has to justify their appetites. But it's morally wrong to use my sexual scorecard to discriminate you for employment or housing or commerce or education, etc.

I sure as hell dont have to sleep with you, though.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Let's be clear about something. Not all forms of racism are toxic. If you dont appeal to me sexually, because of your racial traits, you dont appeal to me! No one has to justify their appetites. But it's morally wrong to use my sexual scorecard to discriminate you for employment or housing or commerce or education, etc.

I sure as hell dont have to sleep with you, though.

This is true, but there is a related form of racism, which goes something like:

I don't want no white woman fucking no n_______.

Or: I don't want no black woman fucking no h_____.

Or other variation of that. These ARE toxic, and can lead to extreme violence.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOXLICKER

I dont get why anyone woulda wanna fuck a lotta people, but thats just me.

In fact, I have a fair body of evidence that it wasnt the men raping black women in slave days, it was white women fucking black men. Irish girls, especially, seemed to be the most susceptible to jungle fever. I even have a few newspaper accounts of plantation belles eloping with black servants.