L.A. Times Treats Reid as Victim, Treated Lott as Racist
Time for another classic example of liberal bias in newspapers — this one involving Harry Reid.
I decided to compare the L.A. Times‘s coverage of Harry Reid’s racially insensitive remarks to the paper’s 2002 coverage of Trent Lott’s racially insensitive remarks.
The contrast is striking.
But first let me explain how this paper handles criticism it likes, and criticism it doesn’t like.
In 2004 I wrote of the L.A. Times:
When the paper disagrees with criticism of a [politician], it is portrayed as an attack by political opponents. When the paper agrees with the criticism, the criticism becomes a mysterious and disembodied (but ever-growing) entity. Doubts grow. Criticism emerges.
Sure enough, the L.A. Times spin on the Harry Reid story portrays the controversy as the GOP opening fire on Reid:
The story repeatedly discusses the controversy as an attack by the Republicans:
The Nevada Democrat — who, over the years, has called Alan Greenspan a hack, Washington tourists smelly and President George W. Bush a liar — was pummeled by Republicans on Sunday for impolitic comments about President Obama’s potential for winning the White House.
. . . .
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who is black, led the charge.
. . . .
With Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) choosing not to run again, Reid is the largest target in [Republicans’] cross hairs.
(The paper has sent the original version of the story down the memory hole, along with that last quote — replacing the story with a new version at the same Web address. But the first two quotes remain in the current version. I figured they would do this, so I saved the original version of the story here.)
By portraying Republicans as attackers, the editors take the focus off Reid’s remarks, and allow him to play the victim. What’s more, the paper emphasizes that Obama has accepted Reid’s apology:
Although Reid apologized to Obama on Saturday for his “poor choice of words” — and the president accepted because “I know what’s in his heart” — his remarks dominated the Sunday talk shows, where Republicans called for the senator’s head.
Note again the stark image of Republicans as violent attackers.
Well, in 2002, after Trent Lott praised former segregationist Strom Thurmond, he too apologized. But that didn’t keep the editors of the L.A. Times from spinning that story in a very different way.
Lott was never portrayed as the victim of Democrat attacks. Editors didn’t describe Democrats as “opening fire” or “pummeling” Lott. They didn’t describe Tom Daschle as “leading the charge.” Nobody said Democrats were “calling for Lott’s head” or that they had Lott “in their cross hairs.”
Instead, the editors emphasized the bipartisan nature of the criticism of Lott. (To be fair, the criticism of Lott was more bipartisan, because Democrats circle the wagons in these situations and Republicans don’t.) In an effort to portray Lott’s remarks as a major gaffe, editors portrayed the controversy as a disembodied, ghostly entity that grew daily.
Thus, a December 10, 2002 story was titled Lott Tries to Quell Furor Over Remark. A December 14, 2002 story was titled Lott Decries Segregation, Struggles to Keep Post. A deck headline read: “Senator apologizes again for his remarks as GOP rumblings about his leadership role grow.” The story opened:
Scrambling to salvage his hold on power, besieged Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) on Friday offered his most extensive apology yet for comments that seemed to endorse segregation and spurred criticism from across the political spectrum, including from President Bush.
Despite Lott’s latest bid to defuse the controversy, Republicans say it remains uncertain that he will survive a growing clamor — from conservative GOP activists as well as from Democrats — for him to resign his leadership post.
Reporter Janet Hook wrote: “The spiraling controversy has caused trouble for Republicans in the aftermath of their triumph in the November elections, in which they seized control of the Senate and expanded their House majority.”
Phrases like “spiraling controversy” and “growing clamor” came straight from the playbook I described in my 2004 post, in which I said that criticism supported by the paper’s editors “becomes a mysterious and disembodied (but ever-growing) entity. Doubts grow. Criticism emerges.”
This pattern was repeated in story after story. Democrats were never portrayed as attackers. The controversy was always portrayed as ever-growing.
Keep an eye on this newspaper in coming days. See how many articles editors run about Reid’s remarks. And watch closely to see whether the controversy comes to be portrayed as a “growing” entity all on its own — or whether, as I expect, it will instead be portrayed as fueled by attacks from those damn Republicans.
its the Slimes: the outcome is as predictable as the tide or the sunset….. which is what they are headed to, just not soon enough for me.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:27 amOpinion very thinly disguised as reportage.
Icy Texan (418ee0) — 1/11/2010 @ 3:14 amAnd, of course, the very same race-card players that wondered aloud if Obama was “black enough” will now join the circling wagons in support of the man who concluded that Obama succeeded precisely because he wasn’t “too black”. In other words, if the particular person is considered important enough, he’s spared from being tossed under the bus.
Conclusion: Harry Reid is more important to Obama than his own grandmother was.
“The contrast is striking.”
Not really. Just think about the difference in the content of the remarks: Lott was wishing for the win of a segregationist, Reid was noting what would help the first black president. Rather the opposite. You don’t even need to feel sorry for Reid for belonging to a religion with creepy views on race. To put it nicely.
imdw (de7003) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:02 amWhich of these is racist: Harry Reid, a Doritos commercial or the St. Petersburg Times’ Adam Smith?
http://bit.ly/6dG25z #sayfie
Peter (643417) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:22 amAnother lie by imdw. No surprise there. Lott was being polite to a 100 year old man on his birthday. This is almost as good an example of leftist thinking as the Times story.
The other good example of leftist bias today is The Hill’s treatment of the Steve Schmidt jihad on Sarah Palin. The Hill has deteriorated into another DNC talking point dump. Nobody is surprised at the Times anymore but there were people hoping that The Hill would be a little more objective.
MIke K (2cf494) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:24 amYou don’t even need to feel sorry for Obama for belonging to a church with creepy views on race. To put it nicely.
Fixed that for you, imdw.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:27 am“Lott was being polite to a 100 year old man on his birthday”
There’s lots of nice things to say to an old man that aren’t “I’m proud we voted for segregation and wish the country had gone with the segregationists.” Like pick something good the old man did. Not one of the more reprehensible things he did.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (f7b257) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:34 amFor a political party that has a history of keeping the african americans enslaved, and in modern history, do everything in their power to keep them uneducated, unemployed and openly state that their race is incapable of functioning on a level with the rest of society, the only surprising thing about the Reid comment (or the Biden comment)is that the african americans continue to embrace the political party that is bent on their race’s failure.
J (2946f2) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:57 amI think by using Lott as contrast you’re playing into the fallback “revenge” narrative.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:23 am🙂
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:24 amIt’s a conundrum.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:26 amIt’s an obvious contrast: insensitive remarks by the Senate Majority Leader.
Patterico (9b946d) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:26 amomg. It’s all a pernicious Team R vote suppression scheme…
that’s quite ballsy of junior propaganda whore Ashley Powers I think
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:28 amMike K,
I don’t like Schmidt either. And I think he and the other folks from the McCain camp mishandled her.
And yet …
Do you think he’s just making all that up?
Patterico (9b946d) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:30 amoh. I know it’s an obvious contrast I’m just saying… brb
ok like here…
& etc.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:34 amDo you think he’s just making all that up?
I don’t. If they made stuff up it would have been way more devastating. This doesn’t touch her. No one on Team Sarah is on Team Sarah cause of she’s so polished and super smart.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:37 amI can never tell when you’re being serious, happy.
Patterico (9b946d) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:38 amI need to work on that Mr. P.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:38 amAren’t the LA Times out of business yet?
Metallica (e4735c) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:40 amTwo thirds of this nation is adamantly against the healtcare bill. So, according to the L.A. Times premise, everyone who’s against this impending disaster must be Republicans.
Rovin (363536) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:40 amI gotta say, though, that I find Reid’s comment to be mostly defensible. i mean this is the way i always hear the quote:
> The hubbub stems from the book, “Game Change,” in which Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin and New York magazine’s John Heilemann write that Reid “believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.”
So he is not saying that he prefers black people to be that way, just that he thought the american people preferred black people to be that way. And to me that is a defensible position–and if anything it reflects an inappropriate pessimism about race relations which i think can more fairly be attacked.
Except there is one other thing. Negro dialect? um, negro? i mean besides the US census who calls black people negroes anymore. so that is the weird part.
btw, exit quesiton. i wonder if the mormon church’s questionable history with african americans might come into play here.
P.S.: none of which means i support reid generally. the man is a major tool. but even they deserve fairness.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:49 amI will add, btw, that i wasn’t as harsh on Lott either. I think the man just didn’t think through all the implications of his comment, and he just was paying an old man a very cliched sort of compliment.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:51 amWhy not just go with the new PC salutation (insert skin-tone) Negro and be done with it. I notice that the Black Caucus is cool with it, Blago and others seem to prefer it anyway.
I always thought the (insert country of race origin here)-American was stupid.
And what’s with the ‘Negro dialect’, Harry? You must know something about ‘light-skinned Negros’ and their way of speaking to different audiences, that the rest of us are not privy to. Where did you get your insight?
bill-tb (541ea9) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:01 am[…] Lived It Politico: Republicans charge Lott-Reid double standard Patterico’s Pontifications: L.A. Times Treats Reid as Victim, Treated Lott as Racist Sister Toldjah: Just what exactly is a “Negro dialect,” Senator Reid? Hot Air Green Room: It […]
Black Caucus & Rev. Al Sharpton Forgive Harry Reid’s Racist Comment… Ann Coulter Challenges Sharpton on Democrats’ Race Card Double Standard (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:06 am” Harry Reid of Nevada, encouraged Mr. Obama to run early on, arguing that “the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’ ”
Lott said: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”
And Reid was right of course.
Your comparison is absurd, if not obscene.
anonymous (de8c8a) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:08 amFrom the same book …
Did Joe “Go Rouge“ ?
Neo (7830e6) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:11 amneo
I am still continually amazed that Obama won Pennsylvania. Sheesh.
As a bitter clinger originally from Mechanicsburg, he lost any hope of getting my vote when he said that.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:15 amHas Professor Gates weighed in on this subject? /sarc.
Remember, Gates “imagined” what was in the police officers’ minds at the Harvard incident, so he was sure it had nothing to do with law enforcement, but instead was motivated by deep cultural feelings on race, And Obama apparently agreed. President Obama on he other hand “knows” what is in Harry Reid’s heart, so it can ONLY be explained as a reflection of practical politics, and can not possibly be about his deep cultural feelings on race.
It seems to me the Reid so-called apology, to have any belief whatsoever, needs to be made to the entire country, but specifically to the African American population of the nation he is senate majority leader of–not just a few black politicians and political thought influencers in Washington. David Axelturf is obviously all over this problem with message “management” trying to shape it a Republican attack. I don’t think he is going to succeed in salvaging Harry’s career and I don’t think insulting the intelligence of the black middle class in America (who see what is going on here) is going to help Democrats in the long run, either.
elissa (5a3ff3) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:27 amimdw,
I don’t think the quote you attribute to Lott is correct. Will you provide a link to a credible source or admit you made it up and retract it?
Quotation marks mean something.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:29 amReid’s comment was nothing for a man of his age. And from the reactions of the BCC, it looks to me like the left has finally taken some Insensitivity Training. About time. Of course I know it only goes one way but it is a start.
Now how does the left see this remark in light of Clinton’s call for coffee, Blago’s claim, Chuck Schumer’s name calling …
Ill chosen words know no political boundries, but the leftist press and sycophants don’t seem to be willing to admit it.
quasimodo (4af144) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:30 amAs much as I detest Reid, I think this attack is over reaching and contrived. I fear it distracts from the more valid issues with this lowlife and I wish the right would drop it. Clearly some people I respect disagree.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:33 am“I don’t think the quote you attribute to Lott is correct. Will you provide a link to a credible source or admit you made it up and retract it?”
Oh I’m sorry. That was a paraphrase. What he said was:
“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”
I just made clear that meant segregation. To make clear what an abhorrent view it is. Want to say something nice about Thurmond? Talk about something nice he did. Not something terrible.
Now, contrast this with Harry Reid wanting a black president….
imdw (cd45b0) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:36 amSo you use quotation marks on your paraphrasing of others’ remarks? Would you be comfortable with others doing that to your comments here? I think that this has been forbidden on this site.
Your characterization assumes that segregation was the only possible issue. If I recall, Thurmond was repeatedly reelected by a constituency that was 70% black, wasn’t he? Would that not suggest there was more to the man’s politics than segregation?
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:47 amLott’s statement was just wrong. But it doesn’t make Reid’s condescending statement right.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:49 am“So you use quotation marks on your paraphrasing of others’ remarks?”
I used quotation marks to signify something being spoken, not to say what the person actually said. I think its an equivalent paraphrase. Do you disagree?
“Would you be comfortable with others doing that to your comments here? I think that this has been forbidden on this site.”
Happens plenty.
“Your characterization assumes that segregation was the only possible issue. If I recall, Thurmond was repeatedly reelected by a constituency that was 70% black, wasn’t he? Would that not suggest there was more to the man’s politics than segregation?”
So you don’t know what Lott was talking about, do you? Good thing I paraphrased so that now you do. Maybe you’ll look up Thurmond’s presidential run and figure out what is so heinous about praising that.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (037e5d) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:51 amI don’t claim to be an expert as I’ve never been a fan of the man but he did apologize for his views and make peace with this constituency to the point of earning their support. Can Byrd make the same claim?
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:53 amimdw
First, i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that quote, in other words, you didn’t mean it as a quote, and you thought we would understand it as such.
But how about showing Lott the same fairness? just because, when you looked at Strom, you wouldn’t stop thinking of the man being a segregationist, doesn’t mean everyone else is equally fixated. i mean lott was a man who worked with him on a day-in-day-out basis. you think even 1% of the time we had Strom going, “too bad jim crowe ain’t still around.” So after a while Lott had that shoved out of his mind and thus he didn’t think of the full implications of what he said.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:53 amBrother Bradley, I don’t necessarily disagree with you about Lott but if his remarks are an endorsement of segregation then wouldn’t the Democrats calling Byrd the “conscience of the Senate” also be endorsing his KKK views?
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:56 amThurmond’s racial views did evolve. I think Lott’s mistake was to praise the 1948 Thurmond.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:57 am“First, i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that quote, in other words, you didn’t mean it as a quote, and you thought we would understand it as such.”
Yeah I was thinking people were familiar with the actual words. So that I could do this and make clear the problem with praising Thurmond’s candidacy.
Machinist though, shows he has no idea what Thurmond was about. So…it shows some sort of extra information was needed, but it should have been presented better.
“just because, when you looked at Strom, you wouldn’t stop thinking of the man being a segregationist, doesn’t mean everyone else is equally fixated”
No it doesnt. But what Lott praised was Thurmond’s segregationist candidacy. I’m not the one that picked that out. Lott did. As I said, if Lott wants to praise Thurmond, he should find something else to praise about Thurmond. Something other than his segregationist candidacy and the fact that Lott is proud that his state supported that.
imdw (7c85b9) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:59 amMachinist,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:00 amI don’t particularly care for Byrd, but in all fairness his nasty racist views also evolved.
Clinton’s remark could certainly be viewed as racist but I disagree about Reid’s. It strikes me as a political assessment that he was in a position to make. Embarrassing, but not racist as such.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:00 am“Machinist though, shows he has no idea what Thurmond was about. So…it shows some sort of extra information was needed,…”
So objecting to a fabricated quote means I have no idea about Thurmond? You don’t object to people misquoting you here if they think everyone will know they are making it up?
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:04 amMachinist,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:10 amClinton’s “coffee” remark surprised me. I thought he was slicker than that. And yes, it was worse than Reid’s insensitive statement. So where are the demands that Clinton apologize?
imdw
> But what Lott praised was Thurmond’s segregationist candidacy.
No, he praised his candidacy. You are the one who keeps inserting the word “segregationist” not Lott.
That’s not to say that Strom didn’t make segregation a big part of his candidacy, but we are talking Lott’s mentality on this, and having worked with the man for many years, he can be forgiven if he forgets that part of that memory.
I mean seriously, do you really think Trent Lott was a closet segregationist or something?
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:11 amMany people here think Reid’s remark was racist but I disagree. This is why it is important when relating someone’s remark to use a quote, so you know you are seeing someone’s exact words and not another listener’s subjective interpretation of them, which might differ from your own. Quotation marks indicate the use of a speakers exact words. Their use on a deliberate paraphrase indicates ignorance or malice.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:11 am“So objecting to a fabricated quote means I have no idea about Thurmond? ”
This is the part that shows you don’t know what was up:
“Your characterization assumes that segregation was the only possible issue. If I recall, Thurmond was repeatedly reelected by a constituency that was 70% black, wasn’t he? Would that not suggest there was more to the man’s politics than segregation?”
Lott didn’t just praise “the man’s politics.” Or talk about his repeated re-election. He praised the man’s segregationist presidential campaign. And wished it had won. You didn’t know that. Now you do. Thanks to me making it clear for you.
imdw (017d51) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:13 amMachinist:
Lott’s quote is this: “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”
This is Lott’s apology:
“A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.”
These comments have been reported by multiple sources, including one you may respect, FoxNews. I think people should know what they’re defending when they defend Lott. It was beyond praise for an old man. He specifically supported the old man’s segregationist campaign and said the rest of the country should have supported it, too.
One of Lott’s staunchest critics at the time was Republican President George W. Bush.
There have been a lot of comments on this thread but imdw pretty much said it all in comment No. 3. It’s absurd to compare the two statements.
As for nasty racist views, both those of Byrd and Thurmond evolved over time.
Myron (6a93dd) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:15 amHarry Reid being able to be a snob is a really remarkable feat–since snobbery implies being able to look down on someone. When, like Harry, you’re lower than whale feces on the bottom of the Marianas Trench, well, snobbery is quite an accomplishment.
Mike Myers (3c9845) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:16 amLott was and remains a taco.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:18 amI am aware of his past views. I am also aware that Lott did not use the word segregation. You fabricated that quote and I take issue with it. As with Reid, if there is fault there than go after it but don’t make up false quotes and don’t presume you know what I know or think because I object to you making up quotes.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:19 am” No, he praised his candidacy. You are the one who keeps inserting the word “segregationist” not Lott.”
That’s what his candidacy was! Oh I guess it was also against laws that made lynching illegal, and for the poll tax.
“I mean seriously, do you really think Trent Lott was a closet segregationist or something?”
I let Lott speak for himself — he’s proud his state voted for Thurmond and he wants the candidate that ran on segregation, lynching, the poll tax, and anti-civil rights to have been president.
imdw (5dda1a) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:22 am(I apologize in advance for the words I use in this comment. I’m trying to make a point here.)
Trent Lott was trying to say something nice about a colleague on his 100th birthday, but what he said was stupid and offensive.
In the most charitable interpretation, Lott was saying, “I’ve come to respect your judgment, Strom, and I think you would have made a good President.”
In the least charitable interpretation Lott was saying, “Segregation was a great idea, and America wouldn’t have any problems if we had just kept the niggers in their place.”
Harry Reid was trying to say something about the role race plays in American politics, and ended up saying something stupid and offensive.
In the most charitable interpretation, Reid was saying that Obama’s appearance and speech would not cause pangs of racism in most voters.
In the least charitable interpretation, Reid was saying that Obama could be elected because he didn’t look and talk too much like a nigger.
In my private life, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, accepting the most charitable interpretation of what they say. But I understand why a Senate Majority Leader should be held to a higher standard than John Q. Public. While I wasn’t calling for Lott to resign after is comment, I understood why it was done.
That said, why isn’t Harry Reid held up to the same standard: that of using the least charitable interpretation of his statement?
All of this is tangential to the point Patterico was making in his post: that The Times reports criticism differently based on whether it agrees with the criticism (or whether it agrees with those criticizing). And he’s so obviously right that there’s no need to argue that point.
Some chump (d97978) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:23 amMyron,
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:24 amClinton was a known abuser of women, so by your standards we may characterize anyone who supported his candidacy as supporting misogyny, infidelity, and abuse of women?
^and like the proverbial dog – whistle, here comes our own little special boy who likes to call others he disagrees with politically “tea baggers.” But take it from him, he knows a nasty and slime – filled characterization when he sees one.
Dmac (a964d5) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:24 am“I am aware of his past views”
Ok sorry. It didn’t look like you knew that Lott was referring to the dixiecrat campaign. And it didn’t look like you knew what that meant.
imdw (5dda1a) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:25 amHmm. I wonder if Myron and imdw share some sock lint. I mean, every time they both post, I think of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdZ4JgGm2p4
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:28 amMachinist: You are stretching. The core of Thurmond’s campaign was segregation of the races.
It was No. 4 on his party’s platform.
Clinton did not run on womanizing.
Myron (6a93dd) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:29 am“I let Lott speak for himself —
Comment by imdw — 1/11/2010 @ 8:22 am”
No you don’t. That’s the problem. You made up a false quote. You have not said yet if it’s OK for people to do that to your remarks here, just to clarify your meaning.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:30 amThe attempts by imdw and Myron to defend their hypocrisy and double-down on it are no surprise.
Their utter lack of credibility is not even funny any longer.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:31 amMachinist: This is point No. 4 on the platform Lott said the people of Mississippi supported and the rest of the country should have:
We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one’s associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one’s living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.
Myron (6a93dd) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:33 amSPQR: If you think advocating a segregationist campaign and saying a black man could be president are the same thing, then you don’t understand a whole lot.
Myron (6a93dd) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:35 amHmm. I wonder if Myron and imdw share some sock lint. I mean, every time they both post, I think of:
Probably not, but has anyone else noticed that every time Moron posts here it’s always during normal business hours, and only on weekdays? I’m thinking that he has access to a real computer only through his local library – there’s really no other reason that comes to mind for such odd posting hours and behavior. Most likely a student of some sort, or he’s still living with his unfortunate parentage. OTOH, he has claimed that he works in some sort of “journalism,” which may be another polite way of saying “shopper weekly.”
Dmac (a964d5) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:36 amThere’s lots of nice things to say to an old man that aren’t “I’m proud we voted for segregation…”
Machinist, we have come to expect lies from imdw so this was no surprise.
Patrick, the O’Biden story was in Palin’s book. There was no scoop. She also was fairly candid, I thought, about what happened. Schmidt has taken a number of incidents and given them the worst possible interpretation. For example, I thought she knocked the VP debate out of the park. Biden relied on a steady series of lies in his statements in that debate.
I think Schmidt has killed his career with this anti-Palin stuff. I can’t imagine a Republican hiring him in a high profile campaign as a lot of people would consider his role a reason to vote against the employer.
I have ordered the book and will read it and post a review on Amazon. I think that Palin was very poorly handled by the McCain people although she failed at a number of critical times, such as the Couric interview. On the other hand, she speaks to a powerful chord in the electorate.
MIke K (2cf494) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:40 am“#58 It was No. 4 on his party’s platform.”
The first three deal with respect for the Constitution. How does this make it a segregationist candidacy rather then a Constitutional candidacy? Had this been #20 you would still describe him as a segregationist candidate.
I remember the civil rights marches of the sixties and I have no use for racism or bigotry, but this does not justify fabricating quotes. If the man is bad there will be legitimate criticisms to make. This is why I disagree about Reid’s remarks. He is a target rich environment, no reason to stretch.
Wanting fairness and truth do not make me racist or mean I am justifying or approving of racism.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:43 amIf you think advocating a segregationist campaign and saying a black man could be president are the same thing, then you don’t understand a whole lot.
I just love it when the Trolls put words and mischaracterizations in other people’s mouths. Awesome – since they can’t argue on the actual facts of the matter, throw as much sh-t on the wall and see what sticks. So typical – and pathetic.
Dmac (a964d5) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:53 amWanting fairness and truth do not make me racist or mean I am justifying or approving of racism.
Of course it does, at least in the Leftist world view – simply because they cannot be racists in any way, shape or form, for the sole reason of the way they vote and the feelings they so ardently express.
Dmac (a964d5) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:56 am“The first three deal with respect for the Constitution. How does this make it a segregationist candidacy rather then a Constitutional candidacy?”
How do you think he defined himself vis-a-vis Truman? How do you think he defined “respect for the constitution” when it came to things like…. segregation? You don’t have to play dumb here. Look into what the dixiecrat campaign was about. It was about opposition to civil rights, opposition to the federal government helping blacks having the right to vote, opposition to federal anti-lynching laws, and opposition to federal anti-poll tax measures.
imdw (7b51eb) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:00 amHad this been #20 you would still describe him as a segregationist candidate.
Yes, Machinist, I would have. Advocating segregation is a pretty important part of a national party platform. That’s kind of a “big deal,” at least to most people who aren’t defending Lott’s remarks.
Myron (6a93dd) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:03 amMyron, I understand that you feel the need to misrepresent, exaggerate, obfuscate and make up stuff to create a tissue thin excuse for your hypocrisy and I understand it just fine.
Just don’t think you have any credibility left, Myron, because you really don’t. And that’s most of what is left of incredulity among us here, that you bother to try to pretend you do.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:05 amSPQR: Your post No. 70 doesn’t really address any points, I don’t think.
Myron (6a93dd) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:06 amDmac,
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:07 amone of the ironies of getting old is remembering seeing film of white southerners in the sixties talking about how “colored” childrens’ brains worked differently and it was unfair to put them in schools with white children because they could not learn and compete with the white children. Later I heard black racists using almost identical arguments in favor of affirmative action and different grading scales in schools. Of course they were still Democrats making that argument.
That’s pretty hilarious Myron, since all of your comments fail to address any points – other than by putting words in others’ mouths.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:09 am“That’s kind of a “big deal,” at least to most people who aren’t defending Lott’s remarks.”
I have not defended Lott or his remarks. I have said they should not be misquoted. You seem to have problems with concepts like truth and objectivity.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:10 amMachinist: OK. But I properly quoted Lott’s remarks. Do you have a response to them?
Myron (6a93dd) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:13 amSPQR: OK. You’re not serious today, obviously, just having fun on the computer. Carry on. We’ll talk another day when you have something relevant to add.
Myron (6a93dd) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:14 amYet another Irony Alert:
Wow.
These folks, vulgar and reflexively partisan, just post to irritate.
Dmac has a point about the real agenda of these two poseurs.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:31 amImdw
You know what this is like? This is like the Letterman-Brisol-Palin kerfluffle. Letterman made a joke that had an implication he didn’t intend. Everyone who is fair with the man knows that all he did was read that Sarah Palin was there with her daughter, thought that this meant Bristol (the one who was of age), and made a joke about her. He didn’t think it through enough to realize he was joking about sex with a 14 year old girl. And I always thought it was a little unfair to impute that meaning to him.
Mind you the joke is wrong for several other reasons, but that isn’t one of them.
Similarly Lott told a joke that had an implication he didn’t intend. And you want to pretend he intended it. It just doesn’t wash.
God forbid you should ever find yourself judged so harshly as to be expected to recognize every subtlety imaginable in what you said. Its gotcha politics, and I am not interested.
> I let Lott speak for himself
Except you ignored the part where Lott said he didn’t intend the meaning you impute to him.
[By the way, what else was wrong with Letterman’s joke? 1) he was making fun of a member of Palin’s family, and 2) what is the joke? That all women who get pregnant out of wedlock are sluts? Well, given that Letterman had only recently at the time married a woman he had been shacking up with for years, and even fathered a child with, that was rich. The fact we later learned he was cheating on her only more so.]
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:33 amMy comment has been delayed by the server for a while but…
There’s lots of nice things to say to an old man that aren’t “I’m proud we voted for segregation…”
Machinist, we have come to expect lies from imdw so this was no surprise.
Patrick, the O’Biden story was in Palin’s book. There was no scoop. She also was fairly candid, I thought, about what happened. Schmidt has taken a number of incidents and given them the worst possible interpretation. For example, I thought she knocked the VP debate out of the park. Biden relied on a steady series of lies in his statements in that debate.
I think Schmidt has killed his career with this anti-Palin stuff. I can’t imagine a Republican hiring him in a high profile campaign as a lot of people would consider his role a reason to vote against the employer.
I have ordered the book and will read it and post a review on Amazon. I think that Palin was very poorly handled by the McCain people although she failed at a number of critical times, such as the Couric interview. On the other hand, she speaks to a powerful chord in the electorate.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:38 am“Similarly Lott told a joke that had an implication he didn’t intend.”
Lott didn’t tell a joke. He was being honest and praising Thurmond, as others here have pointed out. There was no “implication.” There’s what he clearly said: he supported Thurmond’s candidacy and wanted it to win.
If you want to get to “implications” then you can start wondering what he was talking about when he got to saying that “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years” if the segregationists had defeated civil rights, kept poll taxes, stopped integration, and stopped anti-lynching laws.
imdw (017d51) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:39 amSorry for the double post. I had left the computer for a half hour and it did finally post.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:39 amA side point of Patterico’s is being proven here:
Some chump (d97978) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:40 amLott didn’t tell a joke. He was being honest and praising Thurmond
Another lie. Lott was being polite to a 100 year old man. His comment was not taken seriously by anyone, including the race hustlers that jumped on Lott. The big difference was that Republicans went after Lott, more for stupidity than anything else, while Democrats circle the wagons around Reid who has already shown himself a racist in his comments about Clarence Thomas in the past.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:44 am“Machinist: OK. But I properly quoted Lott’s remarks. Do you have a response to them?
Comment by Myron — 1/11/2010 @ 9:13 am”
Not really. They were careless words. He admitted this and claimed he meant nothing racist but were interpreted that way. I felt it was a cheap shot at him and was blown out of proportion but I don’t buy his complete innocence either. I think I already suggested they were worse than Reid’s remarks, didn’t I? I think he was stupid and I certainly will not defend them. Why would I?
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:45 am“#58 It was No. 4 on his party’s platform.”
As I recall, in 1948, Seperate But Equal was the law of the land (Plessy) thanks to SCOTUS fifty-some years earlier.
So, you may disagree with SBE, but it was the law, and the Dixiecrats, as demonstrated in points 1-3, just wanted the law upheld, IMO.
But then, I was only seven at the time, so I don’t have the immediate, intimate association with the Dixiecrat Campaign that imadumbass and moron do.
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:47 amMyron, I’m always serious. Not least about your lack of credibility.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:48 amImdq
I will put this to you again, because you dodged it last time. Do you believe that Lott really wanted us to return to segregation? Yes or no.
And besides that one remark, what evidence do you have supporting the notion that Lott supported segregation?
> Lott didn’t tell a joke.
1. You’re splitting hairs
2. Yes, he was. I heard the audio.
> There’s what he clearly said: he supported Thurmond’s candidacy and wanted it to win.
And your logic in turning it into a pro-segregation statement is exactly the same as it was with Letterman. The logic goes like this.
1. Letterman joked that A-rod got Palin’s daughter pregnant at the game
2. The only daughter there was 14 years old.
3. Therefore he was joking that a-rod would have sex with a 14 year old girl.
Except that assumes that part 2 is also on Letterman’s mind. That isn’t clear.
Same with the Lott joke:
1. Lott joked that Thurmond should have won the election.
2. Thurmond’s candidacy was 100% about segregation.
3. Therefore Lott was joking that he wished segregation hadn’t ended.
But again, you are assuming part 2 was the way Lott saw things without proving it.
> If you want to get to “implications” then you can start wondering what he was talking about when he got to saying that “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years”
Yes, you are right. The only problems we have had over the years is purely race related. *rolls eyes*
Shouldn’t that have been the first clue that it was all a joke. And part of it was the implication that if only Strom was president, every problem would be solved. I mean I know that was the actual campaign slogan of barrack obama, but to most rational people it is so over the top as to be a joke.
Of course to be fair, there is the fact that Trent Lott belonged to a church that subscribed to a particular breed of Christianity, called “white surpremacy christianity” which stated that God should be for White people and against black people. Oh, wait, I am sorry, that Barrack Obama, and the doctrine was called “black liberation theology” and of course they believed that God should be for black people and against white people. So I guess its all okay now.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120585801828545495.html
The hypocrisy on the is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:00 amA.W., it is nice that you are treating this character respectfully, but look at his past. He doesn’t care a whit about anything except scoring what he considers as points. He also wants you to go look things up. That’s another TrollGoal.
As I say, he will be back in school soon, and will stop being such a troll.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:08 amPutting the best face on a statement; or, in a phrase used previously, the most charitable interpretation:
Bubba’s remarks about Obama serving coffee.
If memory serves, the most junior Justice at SCOTUS has traditionally been assigned certain duties of a servile nature when the Justices confer privately. Bubba could have meant something similar; ie, This guy is barely qualified to be an intern here, let alone to be the Party’s nominee for President.
That said, Bubba, Obambi, and most politicians are afflicted with an insufferable hubris.
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:18 amAD
Yeah, with Bubba, i have to say that hubris is usually the best explanation for pretty much everything he does or says.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:23 am“As I recall, in 1948, Seperate But Equal was the law of the land (Plessy) thanks to SCOTUS fifty-some years earlier.
So, you may disagree with SBE, but it was the law, and the Dixiecrats, as demonstrated in points 1-3, just wanted the law upheld, IMO. ”
Here’s more about what the Dixiecrats wanted, from a Thurmond speech:
“I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”
This is the campaign Lott praised.
“But again, you are assuming part 2 was the way Lott saw things without proving it.”
Are you really that dense that you think Lott doesn’t know what the Dixiecrats were about? That you think he wasn’t serious when he said he was proud of them or that they should have won?
“Shouldn’t that have been the first clue that it was all a joke. And part of it was the implication that if only Strom was president, every problem would be solved.”
I don’t think it’s a joke that he was saying Thurmond shouldn’t have won. I think it’s a joke that has certain implications for what “all these problems” are.
imdw (8f8ead) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:25 amSee what I mean? Classy sophomore troll behavior.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:31 am[…] Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott’ Patterico’s Pontifications: L.A. Times Treats Reid as Victim, Treated Lott as Racist and Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing Nice Deb: Congressional Black Caucus Defends Reid, […]
The Black Sphere Presents “Great Moments in Democrat Racist History” (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:32 amImdw
I think you have answered this question by dodging it so much:
> I will put this to you again, because you dodged it last time. Do you believe that Lott really wanted us to return to segregation? Yes or no.
Obviously you know in your heart he was not a neo-segregationist, which is why you don’t go out and say it. You don’t have the gonads to do it.
> Are you really that dense that you think Lott doesn’t know what the Dixiecrats were about?
I think he knows better than most people what Strom Thurmond was about, on that date he was talking to him. And here is a hint: it was not 100% about segregation. In fact, as of that date, it was 0% about segregation.
And notice your shift from his actual praise of Thurmond, to all of the Dixicrats.
> I think it’s a joke that has certain implications for what “all these problems” are.
Jesus, have you never even talked to a southerner? “All these problems” means literally all of our problems. That is one of the reasons why it should have been obvious he was just making a joke—praise so lavish that no one would take any of it as anything but hot air.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:42 amI greatly enjoyed that imdw could attribute a quote made by another person, but justify inserting his own words inside the quotation marks (@7).
This practice was further defended by Myron.
Putting words into people’s mouths, then debating or using those words as genuine, is dishonest. Not that there was much credibility before this incident, but this highlights the lack of intellectual honesty and the inability to debate truthful/accurate statements. Instead, imdw made an interpretation of an actual remark by another person, presented it as an actual quotation, then later admitted, but justified this falsehood as a “clear” interpretation (@32).
In this incident, their own actions and justifications say it all.
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:47 am“See what I mean? Classy sophomore troll behavior.”
Eric this thread also has a treat for you — partisan me critiquing a democrat: Strom Thurmond.
“> I will put this to you again, because you dodged it last time. Do you believe that Lott really wanted us to return to segregation? Yes or no.”
No and that’s not what he said. He said he was proud his state supported the segregationist and thought he should have won.
“In fact, as of that date, it was 0% about segregation.”
That may be, and I’ve pointed out, there may be nice things to say about Strom Thurmond, but those aren’t what Lott picked. Lott picked to go back and praise the man’s segregationist past. Rather than praising the fact that the man is now “0% segregation.”
“And notice your shift from his actual praise of Thurmond, to all of the Dixicrats.”
I’m referring to the Strom Thurmond presidential candidacy when i refer to the Dixiecrats here.
“Jesus, have you never even talked to a southerner?”
So if I ask an old white male southerner what “all these problems are” that could have been prevented by electing Strom Thurmond, he’ll tell me about what? And it won’t have much to do with race? Ok…
imdw (1635c7) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:49 amImdw
> No and that’s not what he said. He said he was proud his state supported the segregationist and thought he should have won.
Ah, so let’s see here. You feel that what Lott actually felt was that segregation should never have gone away? Yes or no.
> Lott picked to go back and praise the man’s segregationist past. Rather than praising the fact that the man is now “0% segregation.”
Except he not praising his segregationism, only in your mind by implication. The fact was the man, Thurmond, by your own admission was not on the day of the comments a segregationist at all. And if Lott had forgotten that he ever had been, is that so unusual? I mean, Thurmond ran in 1948. Trent Lott was born in 1941 (if wikipedia is to be trusted on this). So he was 7 years old at the time. It was a long time ago, is my point, and to impute that much care or sophistication to his comment is just silly gotcha politics.
> I’m referring to the Strom Thurmond presidential candidacy when i refer to the Dixiecrats here.
Sorry, I am calling bullshit on that. Thurmond is one man, not a plural.
> So if I ask an old white male southerner what “all these problems are” that could have been prevented by electing Strom Thurmond, he’ll tell me about what?
He would tell you to stop being an idiot and that Lott was saying every single problem this nation had, period, from 9-11 to Enron, to a bloated federal government.
And I love how you inserted “old white” in there to ignore the fact that you are apparently culturally ignorant about your own country. Presuming you are an American, of course. I find it constantly amazing that the party that lectures us about being tolerant of other cultures, doesn’t know jack shit about their fellow Americans, and has even less respect for them if they disagree.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:06 amAgain, imdw: don’t you have to buy your textbooks?
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:09 ambtw, i find this sensitivity kind of selective. Right now, our president has an ornament on his tree featuring the image of a mass-murdering dictator. you know, Mao. But that’s fine and dandy, you can even happily quote from him in this administration and all is good.
Likewise, how many youngsters wear t-shirts that depict a mass murderer who rounded up people he didn’t like into concentration camps. of course wearing a pro-hitler shirt is rightly verboten, but why is it okay to wear a Che’ shirt?
And when the left praises these people certainly they are praising people with more actual blood on their hands, and arguably more evil in their hearts than Strom Thurmond at his most racist. But that’s okay. that’s just a little harmless communist worship.
sigh.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:14 amYes, it was overly high praise and not a joke from Lott, but I think he would have to be an extremely politically astute and aware 7 or 8 year-old to have supported Thurmond’s candidacy on its policies and wanted it to win. I was for Reagan at the same age, but didn’t understand his importance or policies in the Cold War until much later.
As Myron and you note, Strom evolved, like Byrd, on race. Don’t you think Lott was reflecting more on the current man being celebrated for his 100th birthday as opposed to the past policies of a failed candidacy? Isn’t it more likely, that Lott liked his co-Senator, knew he ran for the Presidency, knew about the history (mostly through the prism of his childhood), but didn’t factor them into his comments when reflecting on the man? Or do you think it is more likely that the “problems” referred to were due to the collapse of segregation? Really?
While your non-paraphrased quote is correct, Lott’s and Reid’s comment are gotcha politics. While I give a more charitable reading in both cases, I think the precedent has been set for racially clueless statements doing harm on race. You have to vacate leadership. It doesn’t mean you can’t serve in the Senate, but you don’t get to speak for America. I don’t care what the Black Caucus or Sharpton say in this situation. Sharpton may not find this offensive now, but clearly he did until Lott’s name was brought into contrast. The offense is the same, the stature of the offender, so the result should be as well.
Frankly, I think he should have been gone for months as well as a few others for this reason. If you cannot avoid calling your opponents racists (and I mean all of your opponents, not just a couple of LaRouchies or bigots with signs), then you are not meant to be leadership.
pwr (3b9dc1) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:17 amSorry, the conversation had moved on. I was too slow.
pwr (3b9dc1) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:20 am“Ah, so let’s see here. You feel that what Lott actually felt was that segregation should never have gone away? Yes or no.”
He said the segregationist should have won in 1948. That’s not enough for me to conclude that they should have continued to win. Though there’s some evidence he believed in their continuing in power — “wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years” — that’s not enough for me to conclude that he felt that segregation should still exist today. Specially given his overwhelming commitment to civil rights. To me it’s damning enough that he would go back and pick the 1948 candidacy to praise.
“And if Lott had forgotten that he ever had been, is that so unusual? I mean, Thurmond ran in 1948. Trent Lott was born in 1941 (if wikipedia is to be trusted on this). So he was 7 years old at the time.”
Lott knew Thurmond had won his state, and that he had not won many other states. I don’t find any evidence that Lott is ignorant of the achievement of Thurmond that he picked to praise. I think Lott is minimally aware of the role Thurmond has played in our country, and the significance of the 1948 campaign to split the democrats along civil rights and segregation.
“And I love how you inserted “old white” in there to ignore the fact that you are apparently culturally ignorant about your own country.”
Hey i’m not the one that has to claim that Trent Lott had no idea what the dixiecrats were all about in 1948. Speaking of ignorance.
imdw (5bc028) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:23 amImdw
> He said the segregationist should have won in 1948. That’s not enough for me to conclude that they should have continued to win.
So if I understand you correctly, you precisely believe that Trent Lott wanted segregation to go on a little longer.
Its hilarious to watch you get yourself more and more painted into a corner.
> I don’t find any evidence
Well, its your burden of proof, genius.
> Hey i’m not the one that has to claim that Trent Lott had no idea what the dixiecrats were all about in 1948.
Nor did I, but now you have gone and mischaracterized what I said. I didn’t say he had no idea, I said that what would be on his mind would be the man before him that day, not the man he was when he was 7 years old. What he actually knew about Thurmond back then is beyond me.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:29 amMyron and imdw just prove the point Patterico was making about the LA Times, and the MSM in general. The most generous assessment will be given to the Dem, and the most damning assessment will be given to the Republican. Period. Imagine, for a moment, if Bush had said the exact same words Reid did. Or if Lott had. Actually you do not have to imagine, you know damn good and well how it would have played out. This reminds me of Sen Dodd’s comments about how Sen Grand Kleagle would have been right for the country at any point in history. Nary a whimper from the Dems or MSM. Because Byrd “evolved”, but Thurmond was never anything but a racist segregationist.
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:34 am[…] Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott’ Patterico’s Pontifications: L.A. Times Treats Reid as Victim, Treated Lott as Racist and Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing Nice Deb: Congressional Black Caucus Defends Reid, […]
More Bizarre Democrat Racist Comments… Disgraced Ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich Claims “I’m Blacker Than Barack Obama” « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:47 am[…] Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott’ Patterico’s Pontifications: L.A. Times Treats Reid as Victim, Treated Lott as Racist and Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing Nice Deb: Congressional Black Caucus Defends Reid, […]
More Bizarre Democrat Racist Comments… Disgraced Ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich Claims “I’m Blacker Than Barack Obama” « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:47 amActually, imdw, you are the veritable poster child for smug, uneducated bumper sticker style politics.
You really are a student, aren’t you? You can’t be more than 25, and if you are a grown man or woman, I am very, very sorry for you. Your prior posts demonstrate that you have a typical veneer of Leftist can overlaid on the now-typical lack of ignorance of history and politics. Again, your mind is a bumper sticker, and a self-satisfied and vulgar one at that.
Such a child, angry at Daddy, and working out your, um, personal issues.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:56 amWell, my typos got the better of me, but at least I am not that joker.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:57 am“So if I understand you correctly, you precisely believe that Trent Lott wanted segregation to go on a little longer.”
I precisely believe that Trent Lott thought it would be goof for the segregationist candidate to win in 1948. I’ll add that despite Thurmond’s loss, segregation did go on a bit longer. So it seems like Lott was pining for more than what we actually got. I do not know how far Lott wanted the segregationists to go, but I do assume he wanted more than what we got with their loss.
“Well, its your burden of proof, genius.”
Pardon me for assuming the guy knows what he’s talking about then.
“I didn’t say he had no idea, I said that what would be on his mind would be the man before him that day, not the man he was when he was 7 years old.”
And the man before him that day ran a segregationist campaign in 1948. And Lott chose to praise that. When I talk about a historical event from my childhood, i don’t talk about it with the knowledge I had in my childhood, I talk about it with the knowledge I have acquired since then.
Though maybe it is different for you.
“Myron and imdw just prove the point Patterico was making about the LA Times, and the MSM in general. The most generous assessment will be given to the Dem, and the most damning assessment will be given to the Republican”
That’s not true, for example I could give a very damning assessment to what Lott meant when said following the segregationists lead would mean “wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years.” I just don’t.
imdw (6951c3) — 1/11/2010 @ 11:59 amimdw,
Why don’t you end this debate by making up a few more quotes that prove your point? Myron will support you.
I think the worst hit a positions credibility can take is for someone to try to prove or support it with fake documents or quotes. Could anyone ever be taken seriously about Bush’s ANG service after Dan Rather tried to pass off obviously forged documents as fake but accurate? Could anything kill the Birther movement deader than if a credible conservative commentator tried to pass off an obviously forged certificate? This is why you don’t fake quotes.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:07 pmImdw
> Pardon me for assuming
You are not excused.
> Pardon me for assuming the guy knows what he’s talking about then.
Not jus that, but knew in detail what all the campaign was about, knew that it was 100% about segregation (and was it? I doubt if any candidacy is 100% about anything), and was thinking of all that when he said it.
> And the man before him that day ran a segregationist campaign in 1948
What a dodge.
> i don’t talk about it with the knowledge I had in my childhood, I talk about it with the knowledge I have acquired since then.
And I am sure those morons in che shirts are pro-concentration-camps, right? And then the white house must be pro-communist-murderous-dictatorship for having a mao image on its Christmas tree. Or are you going to concede that sometimes a person has blind spots when they look at a person?
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:15 pm“Why don’t you end this debate by making up a few more quotes that prove your point? Myron will support you.”
Machinist, why can’t you wrap your head around the fact that my intent was to offer a paraphrase, and that the use of quotes was to denote what a paraphrase said — setting it off from my sentence — as opposed to the actual praise that Lott used? I’m sorry this was misunderstood — I even put the actual quote up in a different thread. And I recognize it takes away from my other points.
“Could anything kill the Birther movement deader than if a credible conservative commentator tried to pass off an obviously forged certificate?”
I don’t think credible conservative and Birther would go together at all.
imdw (017d51) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:16 pmY’know, I seem to recall Dodd specifically saying that Byrd would have been a great Senator during the Civil War. Think it was Daschle, and the lack of press scrutiny, that helped him out on that one.
Uncle Pinky (e4d7c2) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:18 pm“Not jus that, but knew in detail what all the campaign was about, knew that it was 100% about segregation (and was it? I doubt if any candidacy is 100% about anything), and was thinking of all that when he said it.”
I told you it wasn’t 100% about segregation. It was also against opposition to: civil rights, federal anti-lynching laws, and federal anti-poll tax laws.
But you don’t need to know “in detail” to know what the significance of the Thurmond campaign was. It was an insurrection against the national democratic party that was bringing civil rights.
imdw (f8211e) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:20 pm“…my intent was to offer a paraphrase…”
Your intent was to lie!
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:22 pmYup, it was Daschle.
Dodd+Byrd=/=Lott+Thurmond
Uncle Pinky (e4d7c2) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:23 pmAh, good analogy Machinist. imdw’s quotes are faked but true.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:26 pmUncle Pinky – But that is … different.
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:27 pmSince imdw is willing to allow people to paraphrase, and use a paraphrase as a direct quote, I think we should feel free to do so with its words.
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:29 pmJD, I think the basic point remains that Lott’s racism was so obvious … that to prove it they have to rewrite it.
Its all of a kind of the basic hypocrisy that all of this race pimping wallows in.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:33 pmOh look, the sky is blue, the grass is green, and people are mad at IMDW for being dishonest. This must mean the sun will come up tomorrow.
Lott was daffy and sloppy, but didn’t endorse any particular policy and said nothing about race. He praised a guy who did a lot of good, and some bad, and was very general and polite about it. And he lost his position.
Reid was overtly a typical democrat racist, and will only lost his position when the voters kick him out (and become another millionaire lobbyist). Why blacks don’t look at their Byrd/Reid/Gore/Clinton party and look at their party’s pet projects like Baltimore, DC, Detroit, and Chicago and realize they are being given a pittance for their loyalty is a question that will be asked for centuries.
The reason the democrats rallied being Obama was that he isn’t an African American to them. He’s no Clarence Thomas (who Reid knows, instinctively, is the dumbest guy on the Court without actually looking into it).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:36 pmThis is great. Imdw is funnier than hell!
Quote or not to quote…why not both?
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:37 pmClinton used to claim Fulbright, a devout segregationist, as an inspiration and role model, no? Now run along and get Clinton some coffee, or serve Hodean at a hotel.
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:38 pm“Since imdw is willing to allow people to paraphrase, and use a paraphrase as a direct quote, I think we should feel free to do so with its words.”
Oh have you held back before? How nice of you.
imdw (98371d) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:40 pmAs imdw said above …
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:40 pmHe would make an awesome fact checker at the White House.
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:41 pmPons – Usually those sources get $300-400,000 first.
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:44 pmJD, Fulbright was not merely Clinton’s role model but was actually his mentor early on.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:44 pmIs there no end to Republican Conservative hypocrisy? I came here figuring I would find more manufactured outrage, self-pity, persecution phobias and half truths over a non-issue and I wasn’t disappointed.
If a Republican had made these remarks and Democrats had criticized them, I would be reading all about the horrible “political correctness” that liberals insist on.
But that is an aside..
The real truth is that Reed told the truth and some cant handle that and others, who never gave a damn about racial matters, see this as an opportunity to play their usual carping role.
Harry Reed told the truth when said Barack Obama was electable “because he was ‘light-skinned’ and had ‘no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one’
I defy anyone living in on this planet or on this blog to tell me that a very dark skinned Negro with a heavy dialect could be elected.. Anyone who denies the truth of what Reed said or thinks that is racism or racial insensitivity is either lying or living on a different planet.
Thurmond, on the other hand, was clearly a white supremacist and Lott’s lamenting his failure to win the Presidency shows where his thoughts and feelings lie, as if we didnt already know.
Yet Republicans are drumming up more outrage and trying to equate Lott with Reed and pretending to be so suddenly concerned about racial issues.
So many Republicans..so many hypocrites!!
VietnamEraVet (9f20cf) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:44 pmSPQR – But that is somehow okay, yet giving a compliment to an old dude at a 140th Birthday Party is a bad bad bad thing? Or stating that Sen Byrd would have been right for the country at any point in history. Or stating that Baracky would have been getting Clinton’s coffee for him. Or Hodean stating that the only blacks would have been the wait staff …
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:46 pmIt’s spelled Reid, VEV. And that you come to this blog, of all blogs, to say that the right never criticizes others on the right for racist language, makes you obviously extremely ignorant.
This blog has done exactly what you swear we never do, and it’s done so repeatedly and recently.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:47 pmVeV is consistent. Consistently disingenuous and predictable.
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:48 pm#127 JD — yeah, they call it stimulus money.
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:49 pm“#
Ah, good analogy Machinist. imdw’s quotes are faked but true.
Comment by SPQR — 1/11/2010 @ 12:26 pm”
He seems to be making that assertion, or that his fakes are truer than the real quotes. How else could you interpret his remark at #112. The quotation marks on his distortions were to separate what he made up from the real words Lott spoke? If I wrapped my head around that I might find myself lost on a mobius strip.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:52 pmYou are more likely to open up a rift in the space/time continuum.
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:54 pmJust when you think it can’t get any worse, the sewer overflows, and the non-hero of PhuBai floats in.
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:54 pmImdw
> I told you it wasn’t 100% about segregation. It was also against opposition to: civil rights, federal anti-lynching laws, and federal anti-poll tax laws.
Yes, I know what you said, and I am skeptical. I mean are you really going to stand there and say he had no positions on economic issues, the new deal, foreign policy? I mean this is the start of the cold war, after all.
> But you don’t need to know “in detail”
Apparently you don’t feel you have to know anything in detail.
I mean I get it. you think the main feature of the “Thurmond ’48” campaign was segregation and racism. And I tend to say that is what floats up to the mind first when you talk about it. But just because it is the top of my mind and yours, doesn’t mean it is the top of Lott’s mind. Unlike Lott, I didn’t know Thurmond. I didn’t work with him for decades. And it is wholly possible and reasonable that Lott just thought of him as always being the man HE knew, rather than the man he had been in 48. And therefore it is unfair to say what he said was racist.
And notice you keep dodging the implications of our white house having mao ornaments, and the morons who were che tees. You obviously avoid these points because it would force you to choose between partisanship and consistency.
And notice your assertion that Lott wanted segregation to go on longer (by the way, I love your silly hair-splitting on what I meant there), is based solely on that comment. I challenged you to show any other evidence and you failed to produce any. So all of this is based on a joke.
I suppose next you will allege that Jonathan Swift thought Irishmen were delicious.
Dustin
> Oh look, the sky is blue, the grass is green, and people are mad at IMDW for being dishonest. This must mean the sun will come up tomorrow.
Wait, wait, wait… are you implying that if imdw was honest, IT WOULD RIP A HOLE IN THE UNIVERSE!?
Okay, I am backing off of him now. Sorry imdw for tying to get you to be honest with us. I didn’t realize that the entire universe was riding on this.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:56 pmSince VeV can’t even bother to learn the names of the people being discussed, and doesn’t seem to be aware that the topic is now the LA Times treats the same kind of scandal drastically differently in a partisan way, I guess there’s not much hope that he can be talked to.
But he’s better than imdw in that he’s very upfront about his absolute hostility to republicans. Democrats have thought this way about Republicans for the entire life of the GOP. This is why they lynched over 1000 white Republicans. They see no way people can’t be motivated the way they are, and thus, the GOP must simply be totally sinister.
There’s no way, in VeV’s head, that the GOP really just wants Republican Martin Luther King’s dream to come true, that we simply not care about the color of someone’s skin for any reason. That each individual be responsible for himself as much as possible. That the government needs to be less intrusive in this kind of thing.
I don’t understand how this is hypocritical of the GOP to point out how they are forgiving Reid, even using Al Sharpton, while swearing that any and all opposition to Obama is racism. You can criticize and stereotype dialects and skin colors without being racist, but the TEA protests as “racism straight up”. You can say Obama is a glorified coffee fetcher, and paint the N word on Tawana Brawley, but you can’t accuse Obama of being lazy or incompetent.
We’re pointing out the hypocrisy, VeV. You’re trying to spin that around, which is the boring and obvious retort to proven hypocrisy. that will work on the weak minded, but anyone looking into this will see that the GOP actually doesn’t accept this kind of behavior. There’s a reason Lott didn’t remain in his position while Reid does.
There are actual obvious facts which absolutely demolish your point. The democrats called for Lott to be removed. Why don’t they do the same now? The LA Times says that the GOP called for both Lott and Reid to be removed. Aren’t you obviously wrong?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:57 pmVietnamEraVet,
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:57 pmyour rant would be less silly if Republicans had not forced Lott to resign his leadership position. Democrats had no power to do that. It is Democrats that excuse and embrace corruption in their members.
VEV
No, Reid did not tell the truth. We are not half as backwards as Reid would have you think. That doesn’t make him a bad guy, or a racist, just inappropriately pessimistic.
But on the other hand, that “negro dialect” remark is not proof of racism, but it is suspicious as f—.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 12:59 pm“Yes, I know what you said, and I am skeptical. I mean are you really going to stand there and say he had no positions on economic issues, the new deal, foreign policy? I mean this is the start of the cold war, after all.”
Just look at their literature and how they advertised themselves. Google up the 1948 dixiecrat sample ballot, for example.
“And notice your assertion that Lott wanted segregation to go on longer (by the way, I love your silly hair-splitting on what I meant there), is based solely on that comment.”
Hair splitting? I’m trying to be precise. If we wanted to *really* indict Lott, we’d unpack the whole “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.” And compare how, over the years, Lott has fared on things like civil rights. You think he’s been a supporter? Or you think he’s more like, well, 1948 Strom Thurmond?
“This is why they lynched over 1000 white Republicans.”
I wonder what Strom Thurmond would say…
imdw (f4e36f) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:06 pmNote how they ignore the Dems history of overt racism, gloss over Byrd, shove Fulbright aside, pay no mind to algore sr, and the role the Dems played in opposing their beloved Civil Rights legislation.
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:09 pmA.W. has a very strong point in noting that Reid’s racist beliefs make no sense and are indefensible. Even Reid claims he didn’t mean them, though he hasn’t told us what he meant to say (which is a critical aspect of this defense).
VeV thinks there’s nothing at all wrong with the racism. And that we’re the bastards. No, VeV, AW has nailed you. This kind of talk is corrosive and retarded. There’s nothing inherently wrong with black people, their skin color, or whatever else lives in your head. Americans have no problem voting for black people. Obama isn’t proof enough for your type, because now it’s darker blacks who speak eubonics that Americans are irrationally mad at.
We don’t care. We do want our leaders to be well spoken, whether they are white or black, but race means nothing to the voters.
Face it: Obama would have had no chance at all if he were lilly white and had no traits associated with your democrat myth of blackness. A white Obama would have a hard time even getting into a good law school, much less accepted into major democrat elections. Democrats pushed Obama up because of reverse racism. They found someone who was black enough for them, without being the kind of black democrats make fun of in MLK parties and KKK rallies.
He’s clean, he’s articulate, he’s not that dark, he can speak proper english. Of course, he’s also never completed a single term of office or enacted a single piece of legislation or had a single successful leadership position. He’s black enough to be promoted without being black enough to bother VeV, the Reid (most powerful Democrat other than Obama), or the “truth”.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:16 pm“Note how they ignore the Dems history of overt racism, gloss over Byrd, shove Fulbright aside, pay no mind to algore sr, and the role the Dems played in opposing their beloved Civil Rights legislation.”
Hello? We’re talking about the overt racism of Strom Thurmond — a “dem”! AW is the one telling us to ignore it.
imdw (d077dd) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:17 pmIt’s all about Teh Narrative!
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:18 pmCan’t let any of those pesky fact things get in the way.
Some segregationists are worse than others.
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:21 pmI love this opening….
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:21 pmJames Taranto, BOTW, 1/11/10
“Harry Reid is in trouble again, which means that he opened his mouth…”
imdw
> Just look at…
Your burden of proof bub.
> Hair splitting?
Yes. When I said that you were claiming that Lott wanted Segregation to go on “a little longer,” you pretend you don’t understand what I was saying, due to silly and pointless hair-splitting.
And don’t pretend you are being precise. You have yet to split the hair between how you and I might see Thurmond and how Lott did. Nor do you split the hair between what a northern man would mean when he says “all these problems” and a southern man would mean when he said the same words. You fail to understand that in southern dialect he was talking about all the problems our nation faced, circa 2002, from Enron, to 9-11, and so on. You fail to understand that or you do, and you don’t want to admit how it demonstrates conclusively that Lott was just jawboning, speaking broadly in humorous tones, painting a patently ridiculous image of the utopia that would have occurred if Thurmond was president (embarrassing to the left because it sounds so much like what Obambi said in seriousness) and therefore your analysis is as silly as a person asserting that Johnathan Swift was a cannibal.
And you still haven’t answered my question about the Mao ornament. Care to do so now?
Do you think this means the white house admires mao including his mass murder and the establishment of dictatorship over china?
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:22 pmJust remember, A.W., the goal is to make you do the work. Why not force this character to link all of his nonsense to non-partisan sites and see how quickly he goes away. Or she.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:32 pmAW,
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:34 pmI can’t agree with you about Lott joking. I think he was referring to the idea of states rights and the intrusion of liberalism through Federal laws taking over state prerogatives. There were plenty of issues there beside segregation. The trolls are just refusing to see that.
So, amongst his constant repititions of “segregationist candidate,” the ONLY thing imdw says in defense of Reid’s comment is “Harry Reid wanting a black president”; and even that comes after damning Reid with faint praise for holding this view while being a “creepy” Mormon.
Maybe he thinks that if he dwells on “Lott wrong,” the question of whether or not Reid was wrong will somehow be lost in the blather. That’s a little tough to do, however, since the ONLY question before us — despite the way in which the thread is presented — is: Is what Harry Reid said wrong (politically incorrect, insensitive, etc)?
Oh, and one other slightly important question as an addendum: Who said that Reid WANTED a black president? Where’s the proof of your one assertion about Reid, imdw?
Icy Texan (1470aa) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:38 pmAs I think pwr said earlier, Lott deserved to lose his leadership position but for making a stupid remark, not for racism. One could say the same about Byrd using the words “White niggers”when he addressed a black audience but that is that double standard again. Republicans condemn corruption, racism, and stupidity while Democrats excuse and embrace it, circling the wagons when their members are exposed. He’s a criminal but he’s our criminal.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:41 pmpress IMDW enough, and he’ll start calling Beck a child rapist murderer again, because it’s a valid question in imdw’s head… since Beck asked if a bunch of mao enthusiasts are communists.
He’s so angry and bitter, like VeV, but at least VeV has the backbone to take his stand in the open. imdw is afraid to say what he really thinks, so he keeps lying about quotes or truth or lawsuits, and even when absolutely proven false, will keep going and going and going.
You can’t get anywhere with a sophist with no self awareness. It’s just a strange game. Fun, but pointless. I’m glad AW is getting enjoyment out of the game or this entire thing would be a waste.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:42 pmMachinist gets it. Lott was incompetent. He made it harder for the GOP to pass legislation and made a seriously foolish gaffe. Of course what he said can’t be provably racist since he never discussed race or segregation whatsoever (as proven by imdw’s need to invent quotes).
But he was still not good enough for the job.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:44 pmRe: Comment by Dustin — 1/11/2010 @ 1:16 pm
— That’s it, exactly! Reid was saying that Obama could win BECAUSE he wasn’t “too black”, thereby DIRECTLY IMPLYING that a candidate that is “too black” has no chance of winning because of his/her blackness.
Icy Texan (1470aa) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:44 pmVEV, that’s your usual mix of incoherence and complete ignorance of reality.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:45 pmHere’s my take on the ‘good’ racist Reid:
ERACISM
Bosch Fawstin (14f7a8) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:46 pmThe Non-hero of PhuBai…
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 1:55 pmSee, if he hadn’t been stuck stateside all that time, he wouldn’t have destroyed all of those synapses with that bad shit he was taking;
if only he could have gotten overseas and laid his hands on the good shit he could have ended up a U.S.Senator.
IIRC, VEV claims two years of Air Force duty in the Phillipines during that time. He never answered my question of about 18 months ago on whether he completed his enlistment or was administratively separated/OTH-discharged. He has a lot of hostility towards the military for someone who uses that particular name.
He’s also nuts. On a related note, with all the times imdw and Myron have been proven dishonest, why are people engaging them as if they were serious? I understand swatting them around for fun, but treating their “points” as worth considering is a waste of time. Just sayin’
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:03 pmAD,
I always thought the VeV thing was a reference to Harkin. Probably not. I respect all vets, especially wartime vets. There’s a real difference between being a vet in combat and wearing a uniform in Wisconsin, though, and I don’t see why someone would use that as a moniker almost 40 years later. It’s a much bigger deal for democrats to point out their service, for some reason.
You never saw Bush salute the camera and say ‘reporting for duty’, even though Bush had a much riskier and more difficult job during the Vietnam effort than Kerry, and served far longer than Kerry. Mccain mentioned his service more than usual, but it’s amazing to me that Mccain’s amazing heroism was far more muted than Kerry’s service-promoting. Alas, Mccain’s service is one of his few great points, and underlines that I distrust people who point out their service as an argument.
I served too. You aren’t supposed to do it for credit and praise.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:07 pm[…] Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott’ Patterico’s Pontifications: L.A. Times Treats Reid as Victim, Treated Lott as Racist and Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing Nice Deb: Congressional Black Caucus Defends Reid, […]
Hey, Reid, Blago, Clinton: Check Out Hilarious SNL ‘MacGruber’ Spoof on Racism (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:08 pm[…] Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott’ Patterico’s Pontifications: L.A. Times Treats Reid as Victim, Treated Lott as Racist and Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing Nice Deb: Congressional Black Caucus Defends Reid, […]
Hey, Reid, Blago, Clinton: Check Out Hilarious SNL ‘MacGruber’ Spoof on Racism (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:08 pm[…] Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott’ Patterico’s Pontifications: L.A. Times Treats Reid as Victim, Treated Lott as Racist and Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing Nice Deb: Congressional Black Caucus Defends Reid, […]
Hey, Reid, Blago, Clinton: Check Out Hilarious SNL ‘MacGruber’ Spoof on Racism (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:08 pm[…] Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott’ Patterico’s Pontifications: L.A. Times Treats Reid as Victim, Treated Lott as Racist and Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing Nice Deb: Congressional Black Caucus Defends Reid, […]
Hey, Reid, Blago, Clinton: Check Out Hilarious SNL ‘MacGruber’ Spoof on Racism (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:08 pm[…] Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott’ Patterico’s Pontifications: L.A. Times Treats Reid as Victim, Treated Lott as Racist and Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing Nice Deb: Congressional Black Caucus Defends Reid, […]
Hey, Reid, Blago, Clinton: Check Out Hilarious SNL ‘MacGruber’ Spoof on Racism (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:08 pm[…] Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott’ Patterico’s Pontifications: L.A. Times Treats Reid as Victim, Treated Lott as Racist and Harry Reid’s History of Racial Posturing Nice Deb: Congressional Black Caucus Defends Reid, […]
Hey, Reid, Blago, Clinton: Check Out Hilarious SNL ‘MacGruber’ Spoof on Racism (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:08 pmWTF was all that?
JD (fd1993) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:17 pmI think Stashiu3 has the track on this bunch of trolls…they all have significant issues that they are unable to deal with…and the beauty of the ‘net is that you get to poke a hornet’s nest without having to jump in a nearby pond.
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:17 pm“I fervently disagree with Lott because he wouldn’t go the extra mile and propose that instead of being segregated they should be exterminated, as I believe.”
-imdw
what imdw really meant (2c2009) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:20 pmAre these repeated trackbacks a DDOS attack, Stashiu? I always see these things before the site has major troubles.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:23 pm#167 JD — WTF was all that?
I blame Global Warming.
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:34 pmI think Reid’s comments, while perhaps un-PC (oh noes!) are MUCH more forgivable because unlike Lott, Reid is much more in favor of social justice and empowerment for Black Americans. The same cannot be said about Lott and Republicans.
jarjar (d2a215) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:41 pmOh, Noes!! The dreaded wall-o-pingbacks!
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:41 pm“I fervently disagree with Lott because he wouldn’t go the extra mile and propose that instead of being segregated they should have been exterminated, a solution in which I currently believe and fully support.”
-imdw
what imdw really meant (2c2009) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:53 pmjarjar, it’s insane to think Reid is in favor of empowerment for poor blacks. They are on the plantation of social welfare, which is what you mean by social justice.
I think it’s revealing that you forgive comments because someone is in line with your politics, with no analysis of the comments, and condemn comments in the same way of someone out of line with your comments. Indeed, you’re the kind of democrat the GOP has always been fighting… you don’t care about anything but allegiance.
Real social justice = each individual having the opportunity to have a good life, and a shot at great success if they work hard and have good fortune. That’s what Reid is taking away. Of course, what you really mean by social justice is taking money from A and giving to B, which is why Al Sharpton also forgives Reid.
You’ve sold your soul for just words.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 2:58 pmDustin, I think they are a symptom rather than a cause. The site has been slow and troublesome all day.
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 3:00 pmTranslation: Because Reid has politics that I like, I will apply a different standard to him than I would to Lott, who has politics I don’t like.
How intellectually honest of you.
Some chump (d97978) — 1/11/2010 @ 3:06 pmI’ve been distracted today with “stuff” and not clearing the cache as often as usual. Instead of every 5-10 minutes, it’s been every hour or two. Of course, clearing the cache too often makes the site go wonky as well, so balance is important. The multiple pingbacks are likely from their post being edited, republished, and having multiple links. Sorry for the inconvenience and tomorrow should be better. I’m usually the only one on during the daytime.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/11/2010 @ 3:14 pmRight now, I think the problem is a Hot Air link and global-warming… but mostly the Hot Air link.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/11/2010 @ 3:15 pmDustin, if your wildly inaccurate definition of social justice actually held any water, then why aren’t Black Americans voting for the far right in droves?
Maybe it is because you have no idea what social justice really means. You need to listen to what churches and community leaders say when they call for social and economic justice.
Y’all just might learn something, and maybe even get more than 5% of the Black American vote.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
jarjar (d2a215) — 1/11/2010 @ 3:19 pmStashiu3,
Machinist (9780ec) — 1/11/2010 @ 3:29 pmTell them I said to give you a raise. How does 30% sound?
#180
On the contrary. We know exactly what it means.
It means dividing people into different classes, and promoting hatred between them.
It means stuffing people into ovens because they belong to the wrong class.
It means starving millions of people because they are the wrong class.
It means gulags stretched across continents in order to have a place to put those of the reactionary class.
“Social justice” has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with the empowerment of the apparatchik class.
And everyone else be damned, or better, dead.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/11/2010 @ 3:53 pm“And you still haven’t answered my question about the Mao ornament. Care to do so now?”
I googled some pics but I can’t see enough of the ornament to tell what is shows.
“So, amongst his constant repititions of “segregationist candidate,” the ONLY thing imdw says in defense of Reid’s comment is “Harry Reid wanting a black president”; and even that comes after damning Reid with faint praise for holding this view while being a “creepy” Mormon. ”
I’ve also added that I think he was referring to the country’s acceptance of a black president. Maybe it’s not in this thread though. But if you want I got plenty more to damn Reid with, and it ain’t just faint praise.
“Oh, and one other slightly important question as an addendum: Who said that Reid WANTED a black president? Where’s the proof of your one assertion about Reid, imdw?”
You mean like besides Reid endorsing Obama?
“press IMDW enough, and he’ll start calling Beck a child rapist murderer again, because it’s a valid question in imdw’s head… since Beck asked if a bunch of mao enthusiasts are communists.”
You know I even sent you to a statement explaining how it is not quite a “valid question.” But then again, you didn’t even bother to read the letteheard of that statement… so why would I expect you to know it’s contents?
imdw (603c39) — 1/11/2010 @ 3:55 pmI think that “social justice” is code for “retribution for perceived past wrongs.”
I love the idea of a meritocracy. That is justice. But that is not—NOT—what the “social justice” crowd means.
Finally, regarding “justice,” one of the great philosophers wrote that when we say we wish “justice” we really mean “mercy.”
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 3:58 pmOh, and regarding imdw? What Stashiu3 said.
Besides, imdw needs to go to the Learning Center to get a head start on his algebra homework.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:00 pm“On the contrary. We know exactly what it means.”
Interestingly, Thurmond’s 1948 dixiecrat platform said “we stand for social and economic justice.”
imdw (bb8086) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:00 pmMake that “pre-algebra.”
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:01 pmEric – I leave, come back, and ten hours later imdw is still beating the same dead horse – and losing the argument badly.
Anything else new?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:02 pmNope. The usual. At least he hasn’t said “teabagger” today, but he has tried to call people stupid, which is noughty rich irony.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:03 pm#189 Eric Blair:
The irony could almost be amusing, were it smart enough to see it. But, alas, all is for nought, as its last above illustrates.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:11 pm“That’s it, exactly! Reid was saying that Obama could win BECAUSE he wasn’t “too black”, thereby DIRECTLY IMPLYING that a candidate that is “too black” has no chance of winning because of his/her blackness”
Icy – Exactly, because those those damn racist Democrats would not vote for a candidate who is too black. Forget about qualifications, which they obviously did for Obama, as long as he was light-skinned and did not have that “negro dialect,” the racist Democrats could overcome their bigotry, act on their guilt and vote for him. Sort of simple.
Republicans actually care about qualifications, which is why Palin was better suited than Barcky for a national ticket.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:12 pmimdw – In how many states was Thurmond on the ballot?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:15 pmI hope the wildly inaccurate and unfortunately paranoid “understandings” of social and economic justice as posted here are NOT typical of mainstream rightwing thought.
Come to a church or a community event in the inner city and you will see what the average Black American worker means by social justice. Y’all might even be surprised to learn that your goals are not entirely dissimilar from the goals of progressives of all colors.
And you might even apply social justice to rightwing/Republican thought someday. Who knows, maybe Blacks will not look at rightwing thought as a closed-minded ideology that portrays Black Americans, social justice and community reinvestment as boogeymen to be ridiculed.
Heck, if y’all learn about social justice and about the immigrant experience you may even win an election or two in the future.
jarjar (d2a215) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:15 pmHi EW:
That is the amusing part: he or she thinks him or herself very smart, and an effective debater.
I don’t know if this is more appropriate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690
Or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU
Either way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:17 pmFrom a great advocate for social justice (and the Feds/Treasury’s bailout of her husband’s failed banking investment):
No Justice, No Peace!
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:18 pmWell, as soon as jarjar quits trying to sound…what? Southern?
I also think a nice sentence diagram might help him.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:25 pmHe couldn’t diagram a sentance if he used Tom-Tom.
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:26 pmjarjar – Weren’t you banned here or are you a new jarjar?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:28 pmTomTom for the TrollTroll jarjar? Too funny for words!
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:33 pm“imdw – In how many states was Thurmond on the ballot?”
He won 4 states in 1948. I don’t know on how many states he was on the ballot.
imdw (6951c3) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:36 pm#180 — JarJar
Dustin, if your wildly inaccurate definition of social justice actually held any water, then why aren’t Black Americans voting for the far right in droves?
Aside from your inability to understand what was presented, at heart, you ask a great question JarJar. I sincerely hope you think about that long and hard.
“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Letter by Thomas Jefferson, April 6, 1816
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:42 pm““To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.””
You know what’s social justice? This being said by a slaveowner.
imdw (9af31a) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:50 pmMaybe just plain addition and subtraction?
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:52 pmYou know what’s social justice? This being said by a slaveowner.
So, I suppose we should remove the Declaration of Independence from its’ protective capsule, burn it, and re-proclaim our fealty to the British Crown?
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 4:58 pmCan’t be upholding any basic principles of freedom and liberty written by some cracker slaveholder.
I sometimes wonder if some people only use their brain to keep their ears from banging into each other.
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:00 pm#202 — You go imdw!
You are quite amusing, a grown-up unable to distill wisdom in the 21st century from a 19th century source — despite the rest of the world not really having a problem making that distinction (they have these things called books and one can find a whole bunch of information and discussions on such topics).
Anyway, please feel free to make up some more quotations attributed to other people and then, when caught, defend that practice as “paraphrasing”. That was a blast, ILMAO — thanks imdw.
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:11 pmHey, Pons. I’m guessing the character is a college sophomore. Your guess?
I mean “callow ignorance” mixed with “arrogance” just screams sophomore.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:15 pmI apologize if someone upthread already posted Sandy Banks column in the LAT today but it’s another indicator – perhaps- of where the paper stands and the level one will go to to defend the party, no matter how without context, explanation, and ultimately, misleadingly absurd their points may be. The article is entitled, It’s Not Harry Reid Who Should be Apologizing.
Steele has called for Reid to step down as majority leader, likening him to Trent Lott, the former Mississippi senator rebuked in 2002 for saying he was “proud” that his state had supported a segregationist candidate in the 1948 presidential election.
That candidate was Strom Thurmond, who famously declared during his White House campaign: “All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches.”
Either Steele is playing politics with a combustible case, or he thinks Americans are so incapable of thinking intelligently about race that we can’t tell the difference between Lott and Reid.
Now that offends me.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:19 pmNot sure Eric, I would have said college sophomore, but since he does not seem to have a problem with attributing his words as someone else’s quotation — well that tells me he has not turned in a research paper.
He sure has been amusing today. Caught red-handed and proud of it.
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:21 pm#207 Eric Blair:
Yes, it does.
High school.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:21 pmDing..Ding..Ding!
We have a Winner.
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:26 pmDana, Sandy Banks has always been an alphabetist. It just takes us all to Thomas Sowell’s “Vision of the Anointed.” Banks thinks she is one of the anointed, and people who agree with her must be good.
Which means if you don’t agree with her….
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:27 pm#208 — wow! Reid suggested that Americans are too racist to elect a black African-American as opposed to a light-skinned African-American, and the RNC chairman should apologize? Bizarre.
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:27 pmSandy Banks (is that a real name? LOL) is entirely correct, and mirrors my analysis on this issue. There is a lot of difference between the hearts of Reid and Lott; all you need to do is look at their voting records and see which one cares about Black Americans and social justice.
It’s pretty clear which one should resign and which one should be given a slap on the wrist — and a pass.
jarjar (d2a215) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:27 pm“So, I suppose we should remove the Declaration of Independence from its’ protective capsule, burn it, and re-proclaim our fealty to the British Crown?”
It’s not like the document is meaningless. It’s just that Thomas Jefferson talking about guaranteeing someone the fruits of their industry has a certain je ne sais quoi about it. One we might as well term “social justice.”
imdw (795ee1) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:28 pmAgain, is this jarjar a banned troll?
Although I do appreciate the dropping of the fake Southern nonsense in his or her last message.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:29 pm#215: perhaps back to pattycake now.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:30 pm#193
You had better hope that they become typical all across the political landscape. Centuries of learning, death, war, and immigration have resulted in the recognition that human rights are best served when individuals are accorded freedom because they are individuals, and not some group whose power to gather together as mobs and thugs reigns over others as despots.
That you would sacrifice human rights to push an agenda based on theft says a great deal about the bullshit underpinning your beliefs in “social justice” and its moral bankruptcy. That you would assume no one here is familiar with the inner city or the immigrant experience is testimony to a stunning narrow mindedness and calcification of thought possible only on the left.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:31 pm“208 — wow! Reid suggested that Americans are too racist to elect a black African-American as opposed to a light-skinned African-American, and the RNC chairman should apologize? Bizarre.”
See, like Reid, Steele has his own problems. But I don’t want him gone.
imdw (795ee1) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:31 pm“social justice.”
When you enter a room, does the band break out with “Poor Johnny One-Note“?
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:32 pmBanks thinks she is one of the anointed, and people who agree with her must be good. Which means if you don’t agree with her….
Comment by Eric Blair — 1/11/2010 @ 5:27 pm
Well, color me bad to the bone then.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:36 pm218 — I’ll let him know, he’ll be most relieved. Say, shouldn’t you be attacking Thomas Jefferson about now — all those awful concepts about Freedom and Liberty and such — get that repealed and replace by social justice (its current name).
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:40 pmSocial justice and progress go hand in hand.
jarjar (d2a215) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:42 pmand also impoverishment
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:43 pm223 — You’re right, Mr Feets. The social justice concept did a great job in Detroit.
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:46 pmFor the record, IMDW will be serving detention for the rest of the semester.
Miss Crabtree (68a574) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:46 pmWasn’t “social justice and progress” codefied into the Soviet Constitution (along with a couple hundred other “rights”)?
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:47 pmHow well is that working these days?
#223
“Social justice” and slavery go hand in hand. It is the antithesis of real progress.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:50 pm226 — yeppers, goes by a whole bunch of names, but the concept is the exact same (and sadly so are the results when implemented).
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:50 pm““Social justice” and slavery go hand in hand.”
So it seems that calling the Thomas Jefferson quote “social justice” is quite apropos!
imdw (de7003) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:53 pm#227 EW –It’s kind-of like, you see someone about to accidentally go over a cliff. So you shout “Hey, stop!”.
Then they call you a racist and give you the finger.
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:54 pmSomebody must have bought a copy of Roget’s….all the new interesting words and phrases… my, my!
AD - RtR/OS! (abf624) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:57 pmDemocrats and the KKK
This might get Cosby’ed
And after 200 plus pissing matches I’ve come to summarize, or rather reduce liquid by 2/3, ;
Some white guy at a private birthday party of a white centurion says he thought he would have made a good pres and many problems we have today would/could have been prevented.
OK; Next.
Some old white mormon guy says the milk chocolate boy is light skinned enough and speaks with smooth, if not forked, tongue so he would be possibly be electable.
Democrats are EVIL KKK members! STILL!!
Don’t be fooled by that old mormon guy, they have never respected those of color unless they could be using them for something that eventually provide personal gain! And that’s history!
TC (0b9ca4) — 1/11/2010 @ 5:59 pm#229 — go imdw, go!
Don’t let a little bit of ignorance stop ya. TJ was just a slave-owning white guy with nothing of substance to offer and no lessons to learn. You should burn his books in the name of social justice.
Not like you need his books anyway — you are good at inserting your own words and pretending they are actual quotations from other people (and make sure to keep defending that dishonesty as “paraphrasing”).
Faster that way — and quite funny.
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:06 pm“TJ was just a slave-owning white guy with nothing of substance to offer and no lessons to learn. You should burn his books in the name of social justice.”
Nothing of substance? did you not read that quote?
imdw (8f8ead) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:47 pmLike you read, oh paraphraser?
Eric Blair (42a8c3) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:52 pm#231 Pons Asinorum:
Happens every time.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/11/2010 @ 6:55 pmNothing of substance? did you not read that quote?
Most hilarious (and utterly clueless) line of the day.
Dmac (a964d5) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:05 pm#194 Eric Blair:
Oh, that’s the one, most definitely.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:20 pmThe final Senate vote on the Voting Rights Act on August 4, 1965 was 49 Democrats and 30 Republicans in favor, one Republican and 17 Democrats opposed.
The Senate passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 by a 73 to 27 roll call vote, with 52 Democrats and 21 Republicans voting yes, while 6 Republicans and 21 Democrats were opposed.
Senator Reid comes from a long line of proud Democrats.
GeneralMalaise (68a574) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:21 pm“Senator Reid comes from a long line of proud Democrats.”
Like strom thurmond?
imdw (de7003) — 1/11/2010 @ 7:40 pmYou don’t see warhol’s mao?
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/22/transvestites-mao-and-obama-decorate-white-house-christmas-tree/
Sheesh, talk about not seeing what is right in front of you…
A.W. (f97997) — 1/11/2010 @ 8:57 pmI guess imdw is trying to get someone to point out that Strom’s worst views coincided with his time as a democrat. I don’t know why it matters, really, since he’s dead. The Al Gores and Bob Byrds are still kicking. We know where the Al Sharptons and Harry Reids are, imdw. The democrats have plays race against race for a long, long time, and it’s no contradiction that they let Baltimore and South Carolina crumble, a century apart. It’s the same playbook.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:03 pmWith apologies to my friends on both the left and right, arguing about which old white guy is the most racist is fairly amusing.
But, I have to say that jarjar takes the award for the most unenlightened, condescending comment:
I hope the wildly inaccurate and unfortunately paranoid “understandings” of social and economic justice as posted here are NOT typical of mainstream rightwing thought.
Come to a church or a community event in the inner city and you will see what the average Black American worker means by social justice. Y’all might even be surprised to learn that your goals are not entirely dissimilar from the goals of progressives of all colors.
And you might even apply social justice to rightwing/Republican thought someday. Who knows, maybe Blacks will not look at rightwing thought as a closed-minded ideology that portrays Black Americans, social justice and community reinvestment as boogeymen to be ridiculed.
Heck, if y’all learn about social justice and about the immigrant experience you may even win an election or two in the future.
What with the “y’alls” and “social justice” and “inner city” and “immigrant experience(?!)” and everything, you would think Abbie Hoffman and Huey Newton hadn’t died about two decades ago.
I’m not quite up on current “rightwing” thought, but I do know this: The whole political paradigm in this nation may have shifted a bit and you’re arguing on the wrong side of the fault.
Also, if you want to make a point about racism, you might want to steer away from the “boogeyman” accusation and read up on the history of “progressives.”
Ag80 (76c798) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:11 pmIt’s really sad to see someone justify Chicago, Detroit, DC, Baltimore, and other towns by noting that the blacks in these towns keep electing monstrous democrats. jar jar defines this as social justice. It’s vague and perverse. He doesn’t explain what this justice is in any way… he just says that blacks prefer democrats, and if we listen to black community organizers, maybe we would get more than 5% of the black vote. Of course, it’s freaking obvious that local communities run by democrats are disasters, and ones with very strong racial politics are insane disasters. The more ‘social justice’ the worse.
I would bet my pride that we will get more than 5% of the black vote in the next election. But it is a good question.
We’ve had welfare of various kinds for a long time. It doesn’t help anybody. But it’s easy to think it’s some vital lifeline.
Why did whites vote for teh democrats for so long? They were told they were preserving their racial superiority, saving their country, and avoiding the madness of equality among races. They were told that whites had to defend white interests against the interests of others, while republicans said we should simply not divide ourselves into races.
The democrats haven’t changed much. They still tell us to vote for self interest. The carrot changes. This year it’s free health care. Obama’s whole career has surrounded the community idea of giving bad loans that aren’t enforced to people in the right races.
This isn’t getting us anywhere resembling justice. Everyone taking care of themselves and living with the consequences is much closer to justice, but first, we have to tell Reid and Sharpton that race is a myth. I don’t care if you’re black or white. You shouldn’t either. There’s your social justice, and I don’t care if we don’t get 6% of the black vote because there’s no such thing as a black race in my world.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:15 pm[…] would do well to point out (as has been done exquisitely by the always sharp Patterico) that this is simply one more example of how Democrats get handled with kid gloves no matter the […]
Harry Reid and the Great Double Standard « Iles of Right (725c82) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:46 pmWe all read and heard about what Obama’s mentor, the infamous race pimp Rev. Wright felt about social justice. That must be what jarjar is talking about.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/11/2010 @ 9:59 pmMeesa think jarjar be a stereotype.
Don’t you think, daley?
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:29 pmWow. Commenter Some chump was absolutely spot on early in the match (8:23am), excellently reiterating P’s point, and the pearl is stomped on in the pig pen in favor of last week’s club sandwich.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:38 pmYeah, Apogee, you’re right. Some Chump’s comment gets right to the heart of the discrepancy.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/11/2010 @ 10:46 pmIt’s not like the document is meaningless. It’s just that Thomas Jefferson talking about guaranteeing someone the fruits of their industry has a certain je ne sais quoi about it. One we might as well term “social justice.”
Comment by imdw — 1/11/2010 @ 5:28 pm
— Gee, is it even just slightly a little bit possible that he was kinda sorta maybe speaking of NOT instituting an income tax, and/or NOT redistributing the fruits of each workers’ industry? Do ya think?
Well . . . do ya?
Ever?
Icy Texan (5dc763) — 1/12/2010 @ 2:21 amME: So, amongst his constant repititions of “segregationist candidate,” the ONLY thing imdw says in defense of Reid’s comment is “Harry Reid wanting a black president”; and even that comes after damning Reid with faint praise for holding this view while being a “creepy” Mormon.
imdw: I’ve also added that I think he was referring to the country’s acceptance of a black president.
Comment by imdw — 1/11/2010 @ 3:55 pm
— THAT’S RIGHT! He was characterizing the American voter as racist. Are you okay with that?
ME: Oh, and one other slightly important question as an addendum: Who said that Reid WANTED a black president? Where’s the proof of your one assertion about Reid, imdw?
imdw: You mean like besides Reid endorsing Obama
— YES. Like besides Reid endorsing the front-runner of his party. Supporting the guy his party was going to nominate, or supporting the guy he thought was gonna win, is NOT the same thing as saying that he wanted a black president.
Icy Texan (5dc763) — 1/12/2010 @ 2:41 amSim-ple.
“You don’t see warhol’s mao?”
It’s warhol’s mao? That’s what people are freaking out about? See why I had to google it for myself and see it?
“I guess imdw is trying to get someone to point out that Strom’s worst views coincided with his time as a democrat”
Its just that some folks out there were pointing to Reid coming from some ‘long line of democrats’ as if it was a surprise, when along this whole thread I’ve been trying to explain that Strom was a white supremacist democrat. It makes me think like folks aren’t paying attention.
“– Gee, is it even just slightly a little bit possible that he was kinda sorta maybe speaking of NOT instituting an income tax, and/or NOT redistributing the fruits of each workers’ industry? Do ya think?”
No shit. I doubt he was talking about slavery.
“– THAT’S RIGHT! He was characterizing the American voter as racist. Are you okay with that?”
I think he’s accurate in his assessment that Obama’s code-switching and lighter skin were political assets. But even if he’s not, this does mean his comments are no more racist than the use of outdated terminology.
“Like besides Reid endorsing the front-runner of his party. Supporting the guy his party was going to nominate, or supporting the guy he thought was gonna win, is NOT the same thing as saying that he wanted a black president.”
So when he was speaking positively of Obama’s political assets or skills, and endorsing him, this wasn’t wanting or supporting a black president? I see.
imdw (795ee1) — 1/12/2010 @ 4:39 am@235 — imdw, you had a busy day: falsifying quotes, then defending that practice. This was followed by misconstruing quotes and justifying racially insensitive remarks. You even made an impotent attempt to dismiss the writings of Thomas Jefferson (although you later rescinded).
Here are a couple of quotes for you to have fun with (feel free to misconstrue or learn, your choice). Since Thomas Jefferson was too to controversial for you, I started with Lincoln. The bold is my emphasis that perhaps suggests why “social justice” (as it is currently known) fails, and why it impedes most especially, our most vulnerable citizens.
Good luck!
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/12/2010 @ 9:35 amAnd here we go again. A mixture of faux-tough talk and rank ignorance. Nothing new. Pretty soon he will be back to snickering over the term “teabagger,” like the vulgar little troll he is.
I particularly like his use of googling instead of his textbooks. Don’t you think?
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/12/2010 @ 9:44 amWhat you might see is that you still have not provided a scintilla of evidence that equates Harry Reid’s support of Obama’s candidacy with Harry Reid “wanting a black president”. Okay, he wanted a man that happens to be black to be president. Who says that he supported Obama because he wanted a black president? Are you so entrenched in a “race matters” or “race means everything” mentality that you can’t separate the two? The mere fact that he supported Obama means that he WANTED a black president? No chance that he made a color-blind choice based on liking the man’s politics? No doubt that many who voted for Obama did so out of some sense of “it’s time for a black president”. Who says that Harry Reid was one of those people?
Icy Texan (cd390d) — 1/12/2010 @ 12:27 pmIcy, following his logic, Reid doesn’t want blacks to be on the supreme court.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2010 @ 12:30 pm“Okay, he wanted a man that happens to be black to be president.”
Just happens to be black.
“Who says that he supported Obama because he wanted a black president?”
Not me. I said he wanted a black president. I deduce this from his support for obama, who as you note, is black. I didn’t say that’s why he supported Obama.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (92dd4d) — 1/12/2010 @ 12:38 pmI feel another difference between Reid and Lott is that if you look at their voting records and their outlooks on social justice, you will see which one came down on the right side of history, and which one sided with racism, despotism and bigotry.
It is a very easy call for me to make. Reid should be given a pass.
jarjar (d2a215) — 1/12/2010 @ 4:01 pmjarjar, name three bills for each Senator please. I think you made that up.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2010 @ 4:09 pmalso, jar jar, the people get to decide history, not the democrat party. It’s circular to define what your platform of huge bailouts, bad loans, and government cheese as social justice and then point to huge bailotus, loans, cheese as proof that your friends support the right side of history.
The horrible state of Chicago, Baltimore, detroit, DC and many other social justice examplars prove that your ‘social justice’ is wrong for everyone, especially blacks. Your only reply so far has been very circular.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2010 @ 4:13 pmOh my. Cue the Percy Dovetonsils video from YouTube, please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he3s9gQ134Y
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 1/12/2010 @ 4:24 pm#259
For having “sided with racism, despotism and bigotry?”
What the hell is wrong with you?
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/12/2010 @ 4:53 pmHe should be given a pass for this incident I mean. I was referring to Mr. Lott as the senator who was on the wrong side of history, for having sided with racism, segregation, despotism and homophobia.
jarjar (63b1f1) — 1/12/2010 @ 10:18 pmjar jar, you are refusing to explain what bills you’re referring you. You said you knew of legislation int heir record that showed Lott on one side and Reid on the other, of all this segregation, racism, despotism (hahaha) and homophobia.
you made that up.
You probably voted for Barrack “No gay marriage” Obama. You have no concept of social justice or you wouldn’t have to make stuff up.
Prove me wrong, and I’ll admit fault. But I don’t think you actually know anything about Lott or Reid’s record on these issues, because you don’t care about them. It’s (D) or (R), and that’s it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2010 @ 10:21 pmjarjar has said the exact same thing repeatedly.
He asserts that Lott is a racist, and is on the wrong side of history, and can prove it (despite the fact that Lott fought segregation at his college).
He asserts that Reid can say whatever the hell he wants, even say that skin color is a qualification for president, and should be forgiven because of a similarly vague and unproven assertion that he’s a champion of some vague ‘social justice’.
People ask him to explain this, and he simply repeats the same silly thing.
Fact is, America would happily elect a dark skinned black man with a “negro dialect”. People like jar jar swore that America would never elect any black man as president, so now the goal posts are shifting. Once we elect a black man with dark skin, they will shift again. Always the theme is that Americans are bigots. I guess irony eludes jarjar: this itself is bigotry against America. America’s a damn good place to be black. The most successful and powerful blacks in the history of the world owe it to America, but this truth isn’t in support of the social justice scam.
Jar jar doesn’t care about the truth. That’s his basic thesis. There is some vague and secret truth that makes it unnecessary to look into what Lott says or what Reid says. It doesn’t matter who really championed civil rights. It matters who is the democrat. Who got the civil rights score from the democrats.
Who in the hell even uses that term “negro dialect” anyway?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/12/2010 @ 10:35 pmNice projection.
jarjar (63b1f1) — 1/12/2010 @ 11:18 pmHow can you defend Mr. Lott whilst at the same time ridiculing social justice?
Actually, it makes sense. Defense of despotism, bigotry and segregation go hand in hand with opposing social justice.
jarjar (63b1f1) — 1/12/2010 @ 11:20 pm—
Liberty and Tyranny are opposites.
Oppose Liberty for a few, then you oppose it for all. What is left is Tyranny, in all its forms, with or without appealing words.
Liberty is hard; Tyranny, not so much.
And for all Tyranny’s forms, it is in the guise of Social Justice — fairness for all, comforts from hardship, justice for past wrongs – that appeals to the well-intentioned heart. In the end, however, it is nothing more than candy for the fool and starvation for the gifted, but mostly it is camouflage for Power.
The Tyrant’s Promise of Social Justice is a baited-trap for those poor souls who think they know where they are going, but have no idea from where they come. Such are lost.
Pons Asinorum (68944a) — 1/12/2010 @ 11:34 pmComment by Pons Asinorum — 1/12/2010 @ 11:34 pm
How can you quote Thomas Sowell?
AD - RtR/OS! (049607) — 1/13/2010 @ 12:31 amHe’s…he’s… a Black Black Man!
Blog names Reid as Mormon of the Year
Mormon of the Year
“The staff of a popular Mormon blog announced Monday it has chosen embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as the 2009 Mormon of the Year, even as several top Republicans called for his resignation.”
*********
“”You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind….Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110)”
**********
The blog and award are basically meaningless, don’t matter, the comments on the article are pretty entertaining. Some informative as above.
NOTE: That is the Mormonism that Harry Reid was raised in! He was but early 40’s at the time. Had only spent 40 years being told that blacks were not worthy! That J Wright Feller is a total amateur by comparison to the Mormons. It was not until 1977-78 AFTER a police officer was shot and killed by a fellow officer while staking out the black guy that was pressuring the church to finally accept coloreds, meaning any other color than white, (though the negro more specifically…). The red man had their own wards and own structure that continues today and only reports to the local stake house or such. The brown guys… well could only hope for a long winter and learning to speak without accent.
Oh yeah, they were sent by the SLCPD at the request of the church, (that’s what it’s called in Utah), to watch this guy, one officer got bored and was literally playing with his gun, it went off and killed his partner!
It was not long after that evening the “Revelation” came down from the guy at the top and blacks, browns, reds, et all could possibly create enough good will to hold the priesthood. (Basically the position of a male member of the church). That is not the level of Deacon in any other church BTW.
I remember my father in law the very day! Holy gawd you would have thought that lightening was about to strike the house. I told his daughter it might be time to leave. See since I and his daughter, my wife, attended the “Lutheran” ward, (for the ignorant all wards have a number, we were not Members), there was an element to me fitting in the family that was challenged. FYI, she threw out the Mormon religion from her life, I did not pressure her to do so. She is on her own today, and still does not flock to the flock. Enuff o dat crap!
I’ve experienced some first and second hand conversations with SLCPD folks that were on duty, so to speak during the time. Several of them are no longer within the fold either, and they did say it was due to the man made events, “created by the Church”, surrounding that summer, not the decision/revelation that had anything to do with their decision. They never understood the problem to begin with. Having been around the church and it’s members for all of my life, I take them at their word.
Is Reid a racist? YES YES and YES! He can’t back pedal this event, it is what he is, and deep down he does not RESPECT the race of black persons! Red persons, yellow, or brown. Why would he give a pass to Oboma? cuz he really really really hates Hillary and hobo Clinton! Edwards dick was leaving trails, and so he looks…… So he basically said, well this one, (negro), is light of skin tone, (that also contains many other white man characteristics as well), and can talk English, like a white man, lets see if he can make it.
TC (0b9ca4) — 1/13/2010 @ 12:40 amComment by imdw — 1/12/2010 @ 12:38 pm
— Well, either you’re agreeing with my assessment of your silly statement, saying that because Reid supported a black candidate he therefore wanted a black to win, or else you’re just playing a juvenile game of semantics.
In fact, feel free to stop playing dumb, imdw. You know exactly what I’m saying: Reid supported Obama because A) He’s a far-left Democrat that agrees with most of Obama’s positions; and B) Because he felt — as expressed quite clearly in his racially insensitive remarks — that Obama could win, DESPITE being black.
You, in your stupefying simplicity, seem to be claiming that the mere fact that Reid pledged support for Obama completely negates the condescension revealed by his comments. Reid’s support for Obama was nothing but self-serving “i was on the right side of history” posturing. His comment PROVES this.
If all you were saying is “he supported the black candidate, therefore he wanted the black candidate to win”, then YES, you are correct. Congratulations, you’ve stated the obvious. Now, what’s the point? Answer: there is no point to your statement, whatsoever . . . unless, you really did mean that Reid’s support of Obama directly correlates to Reid wanting a black to be president; an assertion that is refuted by Reid’s own words. He didn’t WANT a black to be president; he was HOPING that Obama would overcome the handicap of being black, and win anyway — again, only because of political philosophy and alliances, not out of any concern for, or love of, black people.
Okay? Have you got it now? He didn’t care two shits about having a black president; ALL he wanted was a Democrat president.
Icy Texan (70e01d) — 1/13/2010 @ 2:27 am“You said you knew of legislation int heir record that showed Lott on one side and Reid on the other, of all this segregation, racism, despotism (hahaha) and homophobia.”
Yeah how does Lott vote on Civil Rights jarjar?
imdw (842182) — 1/13/2010 @ 4:44 am#268
No, “social justice” is the new name this century for despotism, bigotry and segregation. And worse.
You’re a frickin’ tool.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/13/2010 @ 6:50 am“No, “social justice” is the new name this century for despotism, bigotry and segregation. And worse.”
Actually it is from last century. As I pointed out, the dixiecrat 1948 platform called for “social and economic justice.” Apparently this was how they tried to sell their white supremacist plan for the south.
imdw (5e02e4) — 1/13/2010 @ 7:19 amYou are so funny, Percy! It’s almost cute, the way you want people to believe you are all intellectual and everything.
You didn’t point out a thing. Wikipedia did.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/13/2010 @ 7:26 amSocial justice is such a vapid term more suited for a chant or a sign in a protest. My Jeusit high school use to mandate a senior religious studies class called “Social Justice” and the hippie teacher who looked like Mr. Van Driesen from Beavis and Butthead spent every class telling the students that they were wrong for living in the suburbs (even though most of us lived in the inner city), that corporations were evil, and that Ronald Reagan was the reincarnation of Satan. People who invoke “social justice” as what they stand for while tossing racist, homophobe, sexist, etc. just reveal how one-dimensional and shallow they are.
SPC Jack Klompus (c1922b) — 1/13/2010 @ 7:33 amAnd that doesn’t give you any pause when someone else comes along with the same line of shit, selling a newly wrapped up whoever-supremacist plan in the same old wrapper?
That has to about take the cake for idiocy.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/13/2010 @ 7:33 am“You didn’t point out a thing. Wikipedia did.”
See #186. Perhaps you’re reading a different wikipedia article than I am. The wiki entry on the dixiecrats doesn’t contain the phrase “social and economic justice.” But it does have a link to the platform. Also you can google the platform and find it on a few sites, such as the smoking gun.
imdw (5ca773) — 1/13/2010 @ 7:34 amNo, I am just reminding you of what everyone here sees: poseur.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/13/2010 @ 7:48 amAnd you do have a cap key on your Nickelodeon netbook, right?
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/13/2010 @ 7:51 am“No, I am just reminding you of what everyone here sees: poseur.”
Oh I see. So did you not read the wiki article or the platform yourself?
imdw (66f2a5) — 1/13/2010 @ 8:03 amOh, I am not here to debate your mad sophomore skillz. Your history here (over a long period) is one of dishonesty and misattribution; your goal is to make everyone else run around to engage you so that you can continue with your first goal. It’s a waste of time. So I heap scorn on you.
You are a silly little troll, and I treat you as your actions merit.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/13/2010 @ 8:07 amOh, and isn’t Cartoon Network on this morning for you?
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/13/2010 @ 8:08 am“Oh, and isn’t Cartoon Network on this morning for you?”
I prefer adult swim. That’s on at night.
“Oh, I am not here to debate your mad sophomore skillz”
If you read the 1948 dixiecrat platform or the wiki article then you wouldn’t need to be debating me as you could just tell that I was right.
imdw (f8211e) — 1/13/2010 @ 8:23 amUm. I’m not debating you, genius. I’m poking fun at your trollishness.
And I’m not surprised at Adult Swim. Most college students like it.
Where is that caps key of yours?
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/13/2010 @ 8:43 am“I’m not debating you, genius”
Oh yeah I can tell you’re quite informed on this dixiecrat issue and you don’t need me to tell you about it.
“And I’m not surprised at Adult Swim. Most college students like it.”
True, but it’s not quite like when MST3K was on late nights. That was gold.
imdw (ae4236) — 1/13/2010 @ 9:03 amWell, I can tell you are a poorly informed poseur. You might even learn punctuation, as well as the use of a capitalization key.
Keep in mind that my dismissing you as a troll is not merely my own opinion. It’s based on how you have interacted with people for a long, long time here and elsewhere.
There are plenty of people with strong progressive/Left ideas whom I respect and treat respectfully. They are not trolls, like you are. They don’t pretend knowledge they don’t have, as you do. They are not vulgar and arrogant in equal measure, as you are.
You are too precious for words, and much less intelligent than you think. I teach people just like you every day, and the one thing I have observed that is relevant to you is the complete lack of self-awareness of your type. You really do think you are all clever.
And you fool no one, except yourself. Soon enough, it will be time for you to go back to class. One way or another.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/13/2010 @ 9:16 am“Well, I can tell you are a poorly informed poseur”
That’s why you brought up the wikipedia right? Why I was citing to the primary documents before then, right? Yeah I’m getting where you’re going with this.
imdw (d2c60c) — 1/13/2010 @ 9:23 am“dixiecrat platform; dixiecrat platform; SQUAWK!”
Icy Texan (ad594b) — 1/13/2010 @ 1:35 pmI think Polly’s needle is stuck in the groove.
Okay buddy. You failed to refute any of my points. I’m declaring victory. 🙂
Icy Texan (012080) — 1/14/2010 @ 2:06 am