It’s scary because how do you defend yourself when someone calls you a racist? Trying to defend yourself leads the accusers to claim that it is only to protect your job and is further evidence of racism.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 3:23 pm
You’ve made it this far, rodet, now recognize that proving a negative is impossible. Therefore proceed to the next step, which is, the best defense is a superior offense.Hit first in all cases, and keep hitting until the opponent is destroyed. In the meantime you might say a “God bless you, Jame O’Keefe”, he understands.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 5:53 pm
How do you defend yourself from being called a communist or a socialist when the mere suggestion of a govenment solution brings out such cries?
It’s easy you remind the ignorant name calling person what socialism and communism are.
If some one called my positions racist I’d define sopecifically what my position is and how it has nothing to do with racism.
But cries of “we want our country back” , and pictures of the president as The joker (really a Sambo) picture are nothing but racism thinnly vieled as legitimate arguments.
Watch all of the Right America Feeling Wronged and the racism is out in the open clear to see. and the fervor is stirred up more by the ccires of socialism and communism and the comparisons to Hitler.
Since you believe that only government can determine how much liberty a man needs in order to be free – you’re a socialist.
Since you believe that government should decide who gets health care, and when – you’re a socialist.
Pelosi compared those who disagree with the Obamessiah to Nazis. Like you, she doesn’t comprehend that Nazis are socialists.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 2:03 pm
It’s interesting that the first example Harsanyi uses is Joe Wilson. While I think Dowd’s insinuation is baseless, it’s actually Joe Wilson that’s supporting larger government in his opposition to liberalized immigration. Obviously the health care reform itself is bigger government – but the underlying critique, that some portion of the pool of people wanting to come to this country shouldn’t be allowed in – is hardly a “small government” position.Just an observation. Overall I agree with Harsanyi. Many people are hypersensitive and overstate the extent of the racism charges (when one signholder gets accused of racism, a lot of people assume that all tea-partiers are accused of it, which obviously isn’t true), but to the extent that racism charges are made they are as inappropriate and misleading as the “socialist” or “fascist” charges. It’s not helping the Democratic position any more than the “fascist” charges helped the Republican position.Still – we should be on guard against real racism too – which is certainly out there as a result of Obama’s election. Observing that the vast, vast, majority of the opposition isn’t racist doesn’t detract from the fact that Obama’s very life is in more danger than most presidents because of the color of his skin. It’s sad, but that’s still the world we live in.
You know what’s inappropriate and misleading? Equating accusations of racism and fascism with accusations of racism just because the object of criticism is a politician who happens to be black. Welcome to the scrambled-eggs-for-brains of Jimmy Carter.
“Obama’s very life is in more danger than most presidents because of the color of his skin.”
Hilarious.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I’m glad we agree on Jimmy Carter’s assessment, methinks, but it’s unfortunate you don’t seem to realize how wide-spread scrambled-eggs-for-brains are.
RE: “Hilarious”
That’s really disturbing you find such a thing hilarious.
No, of course. Without you to shine the light, I would never realize anything, Danny. It’s a wonder I’ve lived this long without you. I lived in a bubble until you graduated college last week and taught how many morons are out there. I can never thank you enough.
Since you missed the point: What’s hilarious, Danny, is that you provide no evidence to support your your bombastic assertion. Even if it were true, how do you propose we “guard” against a few inbred racists finding a new lightening rod? You’re race bating, pure and simple. Pretty nasty stuff, Danny – for someone who considers himself such an enlightened intellectual.
What’s especially hilarious is that the only people who seek to profit from racism are obsessed with it. There are fringe elements of racists who won’t like someone simply because they’re a certain race. But, on the left, the majority can’t stop thinking about race. Racism is breeds like bacteria on the left. It has to. How else can leftist politicians pimp minorities for their personal gain. And it’s such a convenient (albeit ineffective) tool to silence the opposition. Just reminds me of Barbara Boxer using other “coloured folks” against the president of the Black Chamber of Commerce.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 5:12 pm
You know – this weird “you’re so sophomoric” thing you pull makes you come across as really insecure.RE: “You’re race bating, pure and simple.”How exactly? I’m saying it’s a real risk notwithstanding Carter’s long series of imagined risks, and it would be a bad thing. I’m at a loss for how that is race baiting.
What’s especially hilarious is that the only people who seek to profit from racism are obsessed with it.
See the quote from Booker T Washington below in my post. I totally agree with you there.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 12:53 am
No shit Duplicitous Kuehn!
“but it’s unfortunate you don’t seem to realize how wide-spread scrambled-eggs-for-brains are.”
We all know how many people voted for obama, and I think Methinks knows that as well.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 1:45 am
Scrambled-eggs-for-brains is on many a voter roll menu.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 3:24 pm
What is not fascist about the government control of private companies? What is not socialist about the government ownership of production and services companies?Nobody is saying it is the government is completely socialist or fascist but how many socialist or fascist actions does a government have to take before it we consider that government to be socialist or fascist? What percentage of the economy has to be under socialist or fascist control before we recognize socialism or fascism taking root? People who are using these words are referring to individual acts of socialism or fascism. They are not suggesting that the entire economy has transformed. Anyone should be able to see this.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 3:34 pm
We’ve been over this time and time again. Every definition of fascism I’ve seen implicates authoritarian as opposed to representative government. There’s an effort lately to make fascism a synonym for corporatism, but it’s not. I’ve personally come out on this blog opposing the federal take-over of equity in an EXTREMELY small percentage of America’s private firms. It bothers me too. But the fact that it is carried out by a legitimate representative government rather than an authoritarian regime makes accusations of “fascism” as fatuous and misleading as accusations of racism against Joe Wilson.Socialism is trickier, because of course socialism is state ownership of the means of production. I think the fact that actual socialists are still disgusted with the way we run our country is a pretty good sign that we’re not really socialists – but it is true that the government controls a portion of the means of production. I’d simply turn it around and ask you if there is any prospect for a “mixed economy”, or is every departure from the market tantamount to “socialism”. We have and we enforce private property rights. The private market is dominant despite some public ownership. The “socialism” case may be easier to make than the “fascism” case, but I still think you have about as much evidence for it as Carter does for the “racist” charge. Socialism is usually thought of as some degree of nullification of private property rights. You’re turning it into “some degree of public provision”. I’m not sure that’s a defensible revision. As long as property rights are maintained in the context of the public provision of very specific goods, it’s not the kind of “socialism” that people usually think of. It’s not the kind of socialism that Methinks’ family fled, for example.
AlexeiSeptember 16, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Dude, I hate to break it to you, but as of a couple years ago we have no private property rights. Or do you forget the Supreme Court’s New London decision? The state can take your property on a whim, and never mind whether it’s for public uses or not.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 4:40 pm
It was an unfortunate ruling. I wouldn’t say it’s the same as no property rights, but it certainly is a threat to them.
The problem with your definition of fascism is that authoritarian regimes come about through democratic processes. Hitler and El Duce, where voted in democratically, then they used emergency powers (in Hitler’s case, I forget in Italy’s case) in the guise of a “crisis” to take authoritarian control. The similarities with Obama are striking, don’t forget that Obama hasn’t tried to relinquish the powers that Bush acquired in the aftermath of 9/11, in fact Obama wants even more power than Bush! 30+ “Czars” is strikingly similar to top down authoritarian control, the only thing holding Obama back is the opposition, which, how conveniently, shouldn’t be listened to because they are all racist after all. The only difference between that and Hitler, is that Hitler’s government was in of itself racists. Obama and the Dem’s are trying to portray everyone else as racist.
Your problem is that your thinking that Fascism and Socialism are diametrically opposed, they are not. They are just different means to the same end. Hayek was very clear on that.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 5:08 pm
That’s not a problem with the definition – that’s just a reason to be careful who you elect. Is all democracy fascist now because fascism has come out of democracy on a couple occassions?
RE: “Obama and the Dem’s are trying to portray everyone else as racist. ”
Name me one situation where Obama has tried to “portray everyone else as racist”.
RE: “Your problem is that your thinking that Fascism and Socialism are diametrically opposed, they are not. They are just different means to the same end. Hayek was very clear on that”
I’d appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said fascism requires hierarchical authoritarian control. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. You can have democratic socialism. You can have fascist socialism. You can have a fascist market economy. I never said they are diametrically opposed. I said they are different. It’s your tendancy to think of all differences as polar opposition that leads you to think I’m making the case that they are opposed.
I give more points to the fascism/socialism arguments. While they may not gain supporters on the other side, those forms of political organization are at least on the political spectrum. You can go down the list and argue what elements are or are not fascist or socialist, as you have attempted to do.
Charging racism, however, against someone who has only shown disagreement is baseless name calling.
I think Dan is trying to tie the two together, racism and socialism, so that he can throw them both out together. The problem is, the socialism argument has facts on it’s side, whereas the racism one does not.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 10:26 pm
It’s not just about where we are today. It’s about the path we are on. Nobody is saying we are in a state of fascism or socialism. What we are saying is that we continue to take on more and more fascist and socialist traits to our government. We are giving up freedoms. We are giving up control of our money. We are giving up whole companies. If we continue on this trend it’s not a far fetch to reason, we will be in some form of mixed fascist/socialist system. Have you never heard of a democratic dictatorship? It doesn’t matter how the the dictator is put in power, it only matters that he or they is/are a dictator(s).
One important step to this process is seduction. All dictators get their power from the people. Most people are seduced into giving it to them. The rest are brought on through fear. Believe me, our government is scary and threatening. Try flying somewhere or crossing the border. This is true because there are a lot more people than there are dictators. So what difference does it make if he is elected or not?
Things the government currently does:
Force you to show ID and submit to search and seizure of property to travel–people who have items with them the government doesn’t like will be harrased. (this happens every day)
Break into your home and shoot your dogs on a whim of suspicion (this happens every day)
Kidnap elderly people and hold them against there will at their own expense. (I don’t know how often this happens)
Spy on you with no warrent.
Put fathers in jail because they lost their jobs and can’t pay debts to mothers.
Force people to sell real property to other people whom the government thinks would be better suited to own it.
Own means of production
Control means of production without owning it
Stop and search all people traveling roads at random times
that Obama’s very life is in more danger than most presidents because of the color of his skin.
Most of the Presidential assassins and would be assassins were Left leaning progressives, communists and socialists.
The truth of the matter is, the only opposition that is racist is coming from the Democratic Party itself. You couldn’t expect Conservatives to rally around a far Left leaning President could you? So, I’m speaking in general now, equating opposition to the President with racism is absurd! Conservatives and Libertarians are going to oppose Obama’s government takeover, no matter what color, religion or gender is in office.
we should be on guard against real racism too
The Democrats, good ole Jimmy Carter and the like, are just using Obama’s skin color to bludgeon the opposition with the ultimate cultural taboo. Again, it’s the Dems that are racist not the opposition.
Look at Rep. Hank Johnson’s comments that Joe Wilson is somehow bringing in a new era of KKK. Of course Rep. Johnson clearly forgets that the KKK were Democrats! How is Johnson accusing Wilson of being a KKK grand wizard not racist in itself? Again it’s the Democrats that are racist here.
What about the Harvard Professor accusing the white police officer of racism? The very act of automatically assuming that the white cop was harassing him because he was black is itself racist against whites. Do I have to repeat who the racists are again?
I characterize most liberals with this quote by Booker T Washington.
There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.
One thing I see as a positive coming out of this, is that the Dems are pretty much trying to tar everyone with the racist label. People are not going to buy it anymore. Like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, people will become desensitized to the race card and stop paying attention to whoever is throwing it out. Then maybe, just maybe we can have a good dialogue on race. Holder was right, that people are cowards when it comes to talking about race. They don’t like to because any views that aren’t exactly PC are automatically assumed to be racist.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 5:03 pm
RE: “it’s the Dems that are racist not the opposition”Since Don’s post is an outcry against gratuitous charges of racism I have to ask you – is this meant to be ironic?I’m glad that at least you agree with me on Jimmy Carter, Hank Johnson, and Prof. Gates. I’m a little confused on how you get from those three to the Democratic Party.RE: “Most of the Presidential assassins and would be assassins were Left leaning progressives, communists and socialists.”I don’t know where you get this, but that’s all well and good. I don’t care about their motivations – I just don’t want to see it happen, and I personally think there is a greater risk of it happening to Obama than to most previous presidents. It honestly would not surprise me if Obama doesn’t outlive his presidency, and while I hope it doesn’t happen it wouldn’t surprise me. To hell with who does it. The problem is the very real risk which we shouldn’t dismiss just because you and I agree that Carter said something really stupid and inaccurate (not really anything new). Let me put it this way – if a communist pro-choice activist was on the list of those threatening Obama, I’d be just as concerned.
Re: “It honestly would not surprise me if Obama doesn’t outlive his presidency”
Ironic don’t you think…don’t have much respect for your fellow man? Or is everyone else just a hater?
My point is that most would be assassins came from the Left so to say that Obama’s life is even more danger now is absurd. If anything does happen to him, I’m convinced it will come from the Left.
RE: “Since Don’s post is an outcry against gratuitous charges of racism I have to ask you – is this meant to be ironic?”
Yes a bit huh? No my charge is that you can’t expect Conservatives or Libertarians to go happily along with Obama’s plans. That’s just a fact. Conservatives are going to oppose Obama no matter what, regardless of his skin color. While I’m sure there are those in that party that are “real” racists, the charge coming form the Left-wing camps are predicated on thinking that the entire Conservative party are full of “racists,” since that can only the the “real” reasons to oppose Obama. Which of course is in itself a “racist” view.
Although I do have to give Obama some props for calling Kanye West out as a “Jackass.”
The basis for my argument is my belief that the real racists are the one that see it everywhere. They distrust “white people” because they are racists themselves. Either that or like Booker T Washington said in the quote, they do if for profit motives.
I think people like Gates, Sharpton, Jackson and the like are either racist themselves or rent seekers…either one is despicable in my eyes. In my view, the use of racism to secure profit is even worse than racism, since racist views can and have been changes. Profit motives usually never change.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 8:03 pm
RE: “Ironic don’t you think…don’t have much respect for your fellow man? Or is everyone else just a hater?”
Good Lord man – you’re as bad as Jimmy Carter!
Can I say anything about a small but disconcerting segment of the population without you thinking I’m insulting vast swaths of America?
RE: ” No my charge is that you can’t expect Conservatives or Libertarians to go happily along with Obama’s plans. ”
I don’t expect them to. This is a complete non-sequitor. My point was you said “it’s the Dems that are racist” in a post of Don’s AGAINST gratuitous racism charges. It struck me as extremely ironic.
And the rest of your post just proves it.
Can’t you see the disconnect between you saying: “The basis for my argument is my belief that the real racists are the one that see it everywhere” and you accusing HALF THE FRIGGIN COUNTRY of being the “real racists”? If that’s not “seeing it everywhere” on your part, I don’t know what is.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 7:54 pm
You’re too overly concerned Daniel. The biggest threat right now is to your and my freedom courtesy of Obamacrats. You are whistling past the graveyard.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 8:25 am
“… how you get from those three to the Democratic Party.”
Rahm Emmanuel, Van Johnson, Robert (“Sheets”) Byrd, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Cynthia McCommie, Major Owens, Charlie Rangel. That’s in thirty seconds.
Oh, and the KKK was founded as an arm of the Democratic Party.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“Most of the Presidential assassins and would be assassins were Left leaning progressives, communists and socialists.” JP
Really lets start a list. But lets expand it to generalized terrorist acts.
I’ll start with both Kennedy assassinations
MLK
Oklahoma City Bombing
The recent shoot up of the Unitarian Church
Multiple abortion doctors slayings
The Atlanta Olympic bombing
What do you have for left wing terrorist.
Uni bomber, PETA, ELF???
You can hardly even by ammo in a gun shop because the right wing nut jobs have stocked up their militias to the teeth. And the number of militias and their activities is well on the rise.
NameSeptember 16, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Oswald was a Communist. Sirhan was an Arab nationalist. Those are hardly what I would consider right wing positions. Your other examples have nothing to do with Presidents or Presidential candidates and are therefore irrelevant to the original poster’s comment.
Go back a little further in history as well please…and don’t forget the attempts on Reagan’s life as well.
Like Name said, Oswald was an staunch Communist. Communism = Left Wing.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 1:14 am
JP–It’s just that the Democrats were hoping Obama’s skin color would insulate him against anti-statist critics. Surely you can understand their disappointment. They thought they had a winning political strategy for the advancement of their central planning agenda. It didn’t occur to them that to most people, race is not in the front of their minds. So now, they are struggling to put it there.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 10:13 am
You’re on to us! As a voter that went for Obama in the primary that’s EXACTLY what I was thinking!
Are you serious? Reread what you just wrote. If you actually believe that was going through people’s heads, you have a very tenuous faith in humanity.
Yeah, I think so as well. Read Victor Hanson’s article that I linked to above.
Rich BergerSeptember 16, 2009 at 3:07 pm
This would be a lot easier if some spokesman for the Obama administration would give us a list of acceptable criticisms and then we could all be friends and be “constructive”.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Yep, the president can stand on a national stage and lie his ass off and have it just be part and parcel of politics as usual; but, for someone to promptly and publicly call him a liar is just plain racist horror.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 5:05 pm
On the other hand if there is anyone out there who believes this anger is ALL policy driven you have no clue.
The party of the south that Lyndon Johnson knownly abdandoned has not suddenly transformed into the party of pure intentions.
The most outragous claims and protestations come from those who are completly controled by right wing media. They use ignorance and fear to rev-up the forces of rascism and bigotry.
These people given the chance and the power would gladly take over to become the American Taliban. yeah there’s plenty of scary racism out there amongst the legitimate critisisms.
Rich BergerSeptember 16, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Of course not all of it is policy-driven. A big part is just astonishment at the arrogance and high-handed behavior of the Obama administration (which is made up mostly of white guys).
“The party of the south that Lyndon Johnson knownly abdandoned has not suddenly transformed into the party of pure intentions.”
Do you realize that the Party of the South was Democrats. That the Southern Democrats were the ones that enacted the Jim Crow laws?
It was the Party of the North, Republicans, that “Freed the Slaves.”
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 9:17 pm
muirgeo’s thin grasp on the history of the Democratic party doesn’t change the fact that Southern Democrats jumped ship in the 60s for the Republican Party. I think the point still stands. Who were the racists among the Democrats? Where are they now? How common do we think enlightenment among these men and women is?
I like to think enlightenment is fairly common – that most of them aren’t racists anymore. Or they’re dead now. The fact that muirgeo has his history a little jumbled doesn’t change the fact of the mass exodus of Southern Democrats.
muirgeoSeptember 17, 2009 at 4:17 am
“muirgeo’s thin grasp on the history of the Democratic party doesn’t change the fact that Southern Democrats jumped ship in the 60s for the Republican Party. ”
DK
There is no thin grasp on of history on my part. This is exactly my point. Johnson abandoned the Southern Democrats knowing they would become Republicans which would hurt his parties dominance in the short run. But he chose doing the right thing with a long term look at things.
The main point being those NOW Southern Republicans were abandoned by the Democratic Party BECAUSE they WERE racist and THEY STILL ARE. They are the ones fomenting thinly veiled arguments against policy that are covertly based on racism. You have a black on the White House you bring him down anyway you can even with pathetic arguments against logical policy. They don’t even care that the policy is in their own best interest because their racism supersedes logic as it always does.
MWGSeptember 17, 2009 at 7:40 am
“You have a black on the White House you bring him down anyway you can even with pathetic arguments against logical policy. They don’t even care that the policy is in their own best interest because their racism supersedes logic as it always does.”
Wow, a brilliant analysis!
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 10:16 am
Ah-ha. That was just very confusing, because I think most people think of the Southern Democrats as being the ones that abandoned the party.
I like to think that the Southern Democrats we have now are some of the best and most responsible Dems in the party. It’s a nice penance for the South, in that way.
GuestSeptember 16, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Good to see the dialogue has improved around here…
Most people aren’t socialists per se, but they think like socialists; the questions they pose, the problems they perceive, and the solutions they offer usually betray a socialist-like way of thinking about economic issues.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I disagree. More of the people are socialist than they even know, because they have been quietly and consistently enculturated and inculcated in the beliefs and scriptures of socialism while their teachers deliberately kept the label out of the picture.
Where you find out what they are, is what do they support when it has to come from their gut, that first reaction…..and that friend, Lee Kelly, is more often than not, a plea to the government and acceptance of the government solution.
How many union thugs and members think of themselves as communists, yet the unions were recognized by Marx himself as the most perfect example of communism in existence?
It is obvious to any intelligent individual that social security figures do not add up when you examine them. Anyone retiring at age 63 and living to 75 is most certainly get back more in payments than they ever made in contributions, even had the contributions actually been invested in a decent money program. Yet they scream like hell about touching “their lockbox” of security! What is that if not socialism, having others pay for their existence?
No sir, my own opinion is that more Americans are socialist than you could possibly believe. However, I will concede one point, once this is pointed out to them, their noses rubbed into it, it is possible that they may disavow their past beliefs and look to self sufficient……but I ain’t holding my breath.
I agree with you that Americans are more socialist than they believe. I think the only thing that saved us from the Socialism has been our diverse culture and immigration. Socialism doesn’t work to well in a heterogeneous society. You can’t get anyone to agree on anything.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 10:19 pm
I think what saved us was the notion of American rugged individualism however mythical, and the strength of local communites. In the Sixtes, during LBJ’s war on poverty, the federal government sent a small army of people into poor neighborhoods and rural areas to convince people to accept welfare programs. The government had been having difficulty getting people to accept what they felt were handouts because of the shame of being on the dole. Forty years later that type of response to the welfare state has been educated out of existence.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I think what is really saving us is our historical fear of a socialist enemy. The people know socialism is bad even if they don’t know what it is. That’s why you can’t use the label.
That’s why they bastardized the language and call themselves “Liberal” now. Modern Liberalism is the same as FDR progressive which was socialist.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I had this exact conversation with my own father a few months ago. He was railing on about the government and how there needs to be a revolution against it (because apparently it doesn’t do enough for poor people) and I interrupted him to ask if he had ever done the math regarding his own contributions to Social Security vs. how much he would draw if he lives to be 90 or older (his own father lived to 92) and where he thought all that extra money would come from.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 12:56 am
I hope you still have a relationship with your dad.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 1:52 am
Yeah, we’re good. He took it in the spirit it was given – a gentle prod to revisit assumptions. But my concern has been that a lot of people are currently coming from a similar place; what the government should be doing for me. A lot of the push back against Obama seems to me to be more along the lines of leave my piece of the welfare pie alone rather than on a let’s get government back to its Constitutional limits, even if it means I lose some benefits.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 10:07 pm
muirgeo wrote:
How do you defend yourself from being called a communist or a socialist when the mere suggestion of a govenment solution brings out such cries?
And danielkuehn added:
…but to the extent that racism charges are made they are as inappropriate and misleading as the “socialist” or “fascist” charges.
There is a fundamental distinction between the accusation that the disagreements with Obama are motivated by racism versus the accusation that a given idea or proposal (or the person pushing them) is socialist or fascist.
The former is an accusation that can never be proved or evaluated, inasmuch as it makes a claim about a person’s motivation. That makes it nothing but a cheap smear intended to divert discussion from the real issue. In Joe Wilson’s case, it is easier to scream “racist” than to address the fact that HR3200 contains no means of screening out illegals and that Obama knows this fact full well. (Just to be clear, I am very much pro-immigration and opposed to the notion that government has a right to limit the numbers of people seeking to come here. Government has a right to screen for infectious diseases and criminal/terrorists associations, but no right to set arbitrary limits on numbers. But that’s not the issue here: the issue is that Obama is indeed a liar — he’s the Great Prevaricator.)
The accusation that a given proposal is socialist or fascist, by contrast, is quite easy to evaluate, inasmuch as those terms have definitions. Socialism is the doctrine that your life and your property belong to society (as represented by the government), not to you, and may be disposed of by society as it sees fit, to fulfill any of its alleged needs or to satisfy any of its alleged goals. Politically, socialism usually includes nationalization of the means of production. Fascism is socialism without the nationalization. It nominally leaves private property intact — but it empowers the government to issue unlimited rules and regulations dictating what may or may not be done with that property. Under both set-ups, the government is omnipotent and the citizens are rightless creatures who may be sacrificed to whatever ends the state wants.
The Obama agenda is fascist/socialist to the core, with both elements present. Consider his proposals so far:
“Economic stimulus program” means that the GOVERNMENT, not YOU, will decide how much of your money will be spent versus saved — and that the government may seize whatever portion of your wealth is necessary to finance the program.
“Bailouts” means that the GOVERNMENT, not YOU, will decide whether or not your money will be used to save those who made foolish business decisions — and that the government may seize whatever portion of your wealth is necessary to finance the program.
“Health care reform” means that the GOVERNMENT, not YOU, will decide what healthcare you receive — and that the government may seize whatever portion of your wealth is necessary to finance the program.
“Cap and trade” means the GOVERNMENT, not YOU, will decide how much energy and what form(s) of energy you may purchase and use — and that the government may seize whatever portion of your wealth is necessary to finance the program.
I could go on, but the point is clear: every Obama program is based on the belief that our lives and our property belong, not to US, but to GOVERNMENT, who may dispose of either as it sees fit.
That makes Obama both a fascist and a socialist — and it makes any of you who support these programs equally fascist and socialist. (And yes, the Bush administration was also guilty of fascism — but Bush was a piker compared to the ambitions of the Great Prevaricator.)
muirgeoSeptember 17, 2009 at 4:35 am
“In Joe Wilson’s case, it is easier to scream “racist” than to address the fact that HR3200 contains no means of screening out illegals and that Obama knows this fact full well.”
“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
Barack Obama
Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes “SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE,” which says that “[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.
If it was Obama’s intention that illegals NOT receive healthcare benefits under his proposals, he would have instructed the Democrats in Congress to pass the amendments requiring proof of citizenship. He didn’t and they defeated two efforts to add such amendments.
What’s more, if, in fact, the bill does as you claim — if it clearly rules out any benefits for illegals — it would be very easy for the Obama administration to cite page and verse from the bill refuting Wilson’s claim and destroying his credibility. Instead, Obama’s supporters chose to revert to the “racist” smear — which indicates a desire to silence the opposition as opposed to a desire to present the truth.
All of that, however, is a secondary point. The main point is that you and danielkuehn endlessly twist, squirm, wiggle, conflate, hair-split, obfuscate and prevaricate in an effort tohide, evade and/or apologize for the fundamentally fascist/socialist nature of Obama’s agenda and your support for it.
Such is precisely the goal of your effort to categorize all accusations of “socialist” and “fascist” with the smear-term “racist” –it’s done in the hope of diverting attention from the actual nature of Obama’s agenda.
But the two of you are fooling no one. Obama’s agenda is fundamentally fascist/socialist in nature and so are you and danielkuehn and all the rest of Obama’s spinners and apologists.
Fact Check is funded by leftist groups so using them as proof is like me quoting Limbaugh as proof, you wouldn’t accept it and so I don’t accept “factcheck.org”
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 12:27 am
Cries of racism are essentially an admission that the leftists have lost the argument. Big fat surprise.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 11:48 am
seanooski wrote: Cries of racism are essentially an admission that the leftists have lost the argument.
Exactly. The charge of racism today is generally made in an effort to evade any critical examination or discussion of the accuser’s ideas and proposals. It’s an attempt to silence the opposition, as opposed to answering their criticisms.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 1:08 am
List of leading black-hating racists:
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams
Shelby Steele
Michael Steele
J.C. Watts
Alan Keyes
Armstrong Williams
Larry Elder
Condoleezza Rice — it’s safe to assume this one is a woman-hater too.
By the same way that we know that they’re really Communists.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 10:23 am
EXACTLY.
Pure fabrication. That’s how “they” know (since I’ve been saying this whole time these racist charges are stupid I don’t count myself among the “they”), and that’s how “you” know (whoever “you” may be). Pure fabrication.
Don’t we have a new health care bill on the table to talk about????
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Which bill DK? As Kling points out today there is no single complete bill or plan and that Obama’s use of the words “my” and “this” in relation to a Bill during his speech were pure politcal obfuscations -the small lie or the big lie depending on your views.http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/09/the…
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 2:56 pm
The new one out of the Senate finance committee was what I was refering to. It came out a day or two ago – seems like a more productive conversation.I’m not really concerned about Obama on this, Congress will pass it. I usually just assume he’s talking about his ideal plan that he’ll support. That’s not really an obfuscation, but it can get a little confusing.
I enjoy reading Harsanyi, but it disappoints me that he devotes an entire column to this topic. He took the bait and is off topic.
What would be interesting from O’Dowd or Harsanyi is a discussion on what exactly Joe Wilson claimed Obama was lying about and whether there was any merit to the claim.
Also, nobody mentioned that seconds before Wilson’s outburst, Obama himself claimed that high level politicians on the other side were lying. Again, I’d love to see what Obama claims these people are lying about it so I can judge the merits of the claim.
If anybody has seen any writings on these subjects, I’d love to know. Thanks.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Which bill DK? As Kling points out today there is no single complete bill or plan and that Obama’s use of the words “my” and “this” in relation to a Bill during his speech were pure politcal obfuscations – the small lie or the big lie depending on your views.
Not at all. The other ones were getting boring. The Dalai Bama was an instant hit around here. The bush presidency produced a long list of names as well.
So I can keep my stuff unless some government dude decides to take it, for whatever reason. And because that dude deems to maybe not take it today, I’m supposed take that as the government dude acknowledging my right to it?
I’m just an Engineer, but that seems a bit bass ackwards to me. It seems to me that he should have no right to it at all without due process and for specific public uses. Or if I use it to break the law or the like….but then that’s just the penalty for my malfeasance, not really an assertion of his right to it.
To my (untrained) legal eye, that court decision seems to have thrown that completely out.
What am I missing?
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Ah yes – well secret service has reported that death threats quadrupled. I’m not privy to justifications. I don’t think you lose any argumentative ground by admitting that (a.) many Americans are racist, and (b.) that racism and racist violence go hand in hand, and that (c.) that might be a cause for concern. It’s a logical argument… based on a few basic axioms. I thought that sort of praxeology flew pretty well around here.Look – you want evidence that he is more in danger because he is black. Your two other options are that he is less in danger as a result of his blackness, or he is equally in danger. I don’t get secret service updates forwarded to me, but I think it’s reasonable to be concerned that danger wouldn’t stay exactly the same or decrease because of the color of his skin. You often reference your national history, I’ll reference mine. Racist violence is not a fantasy in America, it is unfortunately a real concern.
Re: Name me one situation where Obama has tried to “portray everyone else as racist”.
Obama: “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.” – Dreams of my Father.
Obama: “Typical White Person”
Obama declared that the sergeant “acted stupidly” while doing his duty, when all Obama knew, admittedly, was that the sergeant was white and the person arrested, Obama’s friend Harvard Processor Henry Gates, was black. Obama focused like a laser beam on the skin color of one man and engaged in grievance mongering about “racial profiling,” a charge that hampers law enforcement in black communities and was not even a factor in the Cambridge case. In an instant, Obama abandoned any pretense of being “post racial” and, before our very eyes, was transformed into our “race-baiter-in-chief”.
Don’t forget the other part to my statement as well, the other Democrats. I already mentioned a few, very few, examples of racism coming from the Democrats like Hank Johnson, don’t forget Jimmy Carter as well. There are lots more, like how mysteriously the Black Panther charges were dropped, how convenient.
Your right I may have put words in your mouth. I do that from time to time, for that I apologize.
No I don’t think everything is polar opposites. I think there is a lot of subtle nuance involved in everything and everything is much more complicated that people think, which is why I’m so against Keynes and more in line with Hayek.
OK – Obama at one point in his life found solace in nursing what could legitimately be called racist hatred against whites. Two questions about that (1.) why? we can agree this was wrongheaded of Obama, but what motivated it and how does that motivation compare to the motivations of white racists? I’m guessing the motivation of Obama’s (wrongheaded) hatred has something to do with the legacy of slavery and segregation. I’m guessing the motivation of white racism has something to do with an understanding of biological hierarchy and a racial caste system. It’s not a justification, but it’s worth thinking about. Question (2.) since I’ve never read that book before and clearly you have access to it, could you provide the sentence or two that follows that one? The past tense of that sentence makes me wonder if the next sentence says something like “but I realized that was counter-productive, stupid, and wrong and I grew out of it”. Look – I don’t begrudge people like Strom Thurmond who grew out of their racism to later sponsor civil rights legislation. I begrudge the people that maintain it. If he was a pissed off kid growing up but learned from it that’s fundamentally different. “Typical white person” – I have to laugh at this one. Yes, I suppose marginally racist because it presupposes a “typical white person” – but the point of that whole statement was that his grandmother felt the tensions of race in society but WASN’T racist because of that. It makes no sense for you to then turn it around and use it as an example that he thought white people ARE racist. You’re making exactly the opposite point he was!And I’m sorry, but the officer was stupid. He wasn’t racist, but he was stupid. And for the record Gates was stupid too. Either way, I hardly see how Obama’s commentary on this one situation is Obama portraying “everyone as racist”. Is Obama calling Kanye a jackass proof that he thinks all black people are racist too. After all, Kanye is black, Taylor Swift is white, Obama criticized the black guy so that must mean… give me a break Justin!RE: “I think there is a lot of subtle nuance involved in everything and everything is much more complicated that people think, which is why I’m so against Keynes and more in line with Hayek.”Funny, nuance is exactly why I think Hayek is great as a rule of thumb but ultimately inadequate relative to Keynes.
The death threats quadrupled from the time he was a candidate to the time he took office. The number of death threats against any president aren’t very high (all things considered), thus not difficult to quadruple. How does that compare to previous candidates? Seems like you’re abandoning all your academic rigour. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Just because the president is black and the country (like every other) has a racist history does not mean his race is the cause of a few additional death threats.
Yes, despite my the fact that I wasn’t born here, I went to school in the South and know all about your history. The news flash for Americans is that racism is not unique to you and neither is racial violence. Most other countries are far more racist and far more violent – and far more critical of America for things they are far more guilty of.
It’s interesting that you insist that the vast majority of Americans aren’t racists and then in your last post you say that so many are. Which is it?
Of course, none of this has anything to do with criticism of Obama and his policies. What’s far more scary to me than human tribal tendencies is the willingness to overlook racism and racist violence when it is being perpetrated by a minority group and the attempt to use accusations of racism to silence political opposition. The same thing happens with “sexism”. THAT is what we should “guard against” in a free country.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 8:20 pm
RE: “Seems like you’re abandoning all your academic rigour.”
Ummm… like I said, I’m not exactly privy to this information.
RE: “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc”
And to prove I’m not a know-it-all elitist type, I have no clue what the hell this means, but thanks to Google I’ll know in about thirty seconds.
RE: ” The news flash for Americans is that racism is not unique to you and neither is racial violence. Most other countries are far more racist and far more violent – and far more critical of America for things they are far more guilty of.”
Well of course – I’m not making the claim that Obama’s chances of survival are worse than, say, a Chechen journalist. But I have somewhat higher standards than the life expectancy of a Chechen journalist.
RE: “It’s interesting that you insist that the vast majority of Americans aren’t racists and then in your last post you say that so many are. Which is it”
I’m not sure what you mean. I expect that a very low percentage of Americans are actually racist. I’m not sure when I’ve ever said otherwise. “Many” doesn’t have to be a high percentage, but for the life of me I can’t find where I said “so many are”.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 8:23 pm
RE: Post hoc, ergo propter hocOh, wow. I’m insulted you even think I’m committing this fallacy.How exactly do you draw that conclusion? I’m saying that racist violence is a reasonable thing to be concerned about if you’re a powerful black man in this country. I’m additionally pointing out the quadrupling of the threats as something else to be concerned about. My causal claim, you’ll note, was not based on the relationship between these to things. My causal claim was based on building off the basic axioms of the existence of racism and the threat of violencei n this country.Thank you google!
I’m sorry you’re insulted by reality. That racists exist and the president is black and the death threats increased when his power increased, is not proof that his life is in any more danger because of his race than the threat to any other president’s merely because they were presidents. Yet, that is exactly your argument. Who knows. Maybe the KKK really has it in for them (I gave up my membership when they found out my last name was Jewish and we don’t keep in touch /sarcasm), but the evidence you provide doesn’t support your assertion.
BTW – it occurs to me that I don’t really care about racial violence as much as I care about violence in general. The source of the violence is less important than the violence itself. For example, I’m not bothered that some people are racist and sexist because they have a right to their opinion – no matter how distasteful to me. I do care that people are violent regardless of the reason (barring defense).
The KKK really has it in for HIM (although, they might be after the wife and kids too).
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Let me repeat this again more slowly:
I don’t base the causal relationship on the fact that death threats have quadrupled at the time that a black man took office. I have never made that relationship. I have made a LOGICAL case for the concern, and mentioned the quadrupling as a reasonable reason for additional concern.
It’s very easy to come to the conclusion that I’m illogical when you take the liberty of imputing illogical ideas to me.
RE: “but the evidence you provide doesn’t support your assertion”
Quite astute. As I said, I don’t have evidence on this – I have logic. I think any reasonable person familiar with America would have some degree of additional concern for Obama’s safety upon him taking office. Reasonable? I think so.
RE: “The source of the violence is less important than the violence itself. ”
Good, we agree on this at least. The concern isn’t that the violence is racial – the concern is that racism might be a reason to worry about additional violence.
Perhaps some exceptions – a “negative externality”, if you will. Racial violence contributes to social division in a way that non-racial violence might not. In that sense it risks setting off more violence. JFK and MLK’s assasinations were both equally tragic. MLK’s set off the riots. So maybe that’s one exception, but generally I agree with you.
“I’m guessing the motivation of white racism has something to do with an understanding of biological hierarchy and a racial caste system. It’s not a justification, but it’s worth thinking about.”
You’ve given absolutely no reason for why it’s worth thinking about. You do softly (so that you cannot be pinned down as having that position) suggest that black racism is justified but not white racism. Obama did not have a typical upbringing. Obama was never a slave and neither was his father or his father’s father. In his book, he describes a fascination with the black Marxists he met in college. I don’t find his motivations to be anything like you describe, and if they are, he needs to get over it. Unless, of course, you think it’s a-okay for me to discriminate against men because women have been discriminated against in the past. Do you want to bear the burden of the mistakes of your ancestors because of your Y chromosomes?
BTW, when the Dalai Bama first came on the scene, I decided to grab his book. Putting those sentences into context does not change their meaning.
You need to read that “typical white person” quote again. He said she’s not a racist and then went on to say that she was. He’s either as inarticulate as the Bushicle or you’re making excuses for Dear Leader.
“And I’m sorry, but the officer was stupid. He wasn’t racist, but he was stupid. And for the record Gates was stupid too.”
I think Justin Palmer was referring to Obama’s admission that he didn’t know the facts and details of the incident but in the next breath accusing the white officer of acting “stupidly”. If he didn’t know anything about the case other than the race of the two people involved, on what basis is he calling the officer stupid? It smacks of racism. There is evidence that Strom Thurmond overcame his racism. There is no evidence that Obama has – no matter how much you wish it weren’t so.
AnonymousSeptember 16, 2009 at 9:14 pm
RE: “You’ve given absolutely no reason for why it’s worth thinking about. You do softly (so that you cannot be pinned down as having that position) suggest that black racism is justified but not white racism. ”
Wow – really methinks? First, no. I said quite explicitly that BOTH are wrong. It’s “worth thinking about” (I didn’t think I NEEDED to spell this one out for you) is that being pissed at whites because of segregation seems a lot easier to understand and sympathize with than being pissed at blacks because you think they need to stay in their place. Can we please just separate this from saying it’s not wrong (because I said just the opposite) and jsut step back and admit “ya, if I was black and lived through segregation I’d have a chip on my shoulder too”.
RE: “Unless, of course, you think it’s a-okay for me to discriminate against men because women have been discriminated against in the past”
It’s not OK, just like Obama’s views were not OK. But I’d understand it if you have some resentment. My grandma, who never had a career, has expressed that resentment. You know what I told her? “ya – I totally get that – that would piss me off too”.
RE: “He’s either as inarticulate as the Bushicle or you’re making excuses for Dear Leader”
Wait a minute… the fact that I don’t think Obama thinks he’s surrounded by racists means that I have some sort of slavish, servile relationship to him? I’d defend you against those charges too. That doesn’t mean anything.
RE: “If he didn’t know anything about the case other than the race of the two people involved, on what basis is he calling the officer stupid?”
He knew a lot more than that. I can’t believe I’m having this conversation.
As I said to Justin, I can’t believe you don’t see the irony that you’re saying these things in a post directed against gratuitous, ill-founded accusations of racism.
Pretty much took the words out of my mouth Methinks. Thanks
I was referring to Obama’s admission of ignorance and then rash accusation with the Gate’s flap. He not to subtly accused the white officer of being stupid why? The only thing he had to go on was what? Race? If so then it’s racist. I might give him the benefit of the doubt on it but not much, nothing Obama has done before or since has made me think that he is “post-racial.”
Let ME repeat very slowly to you since you either flunked or slept through your logic class:
You did NOT make a logical case. Your presented a FALLACY. Now, go Google “fallacy”.
“It’s very easy to come to the conclusion that I’m illogical when you take the liberty of imputing illogical ideas to me.”
The familiar, “I’m misunderstood” defense.
“the concern is that racism might be a reason to worry about additional violence.”
I don’t worry about that. Most racism doesn’t lead to violence and I don’t think most violence stems from racism – I think most interracial incidence get blown out of proportion by the media and blamed on racism when race wasn’t the reason for the violence at all.
“that being pissed at whites because of segregation seems a lot easier to understand and sympathize with than being pissed at blacks because you think they need to stay in their place”
Let me spell this out for you real slow:
It’s the same thing. By holding an entire race of people accountable for the actions of SOME people who happened to belong to the same race IS defining a “place” for white people. Whites are forever caste in the role of guilty former slave master. I find nothing to sympathize with. Would you be sympathetic to me if I despised you because you’re of German descent (at least your name is) and a large number of my Jewish family were slaughtered by Nazis in Belarus?
“My grandma, who never had a career, has expressed that resentment.”
Do you see the difference between general resentment of past behaviour of a time gone by or resentment of individuals who continue to engage in that behaviour and resenting all men? This is what I’m getting at.
“the fact that I don’t think Obama thinks he’s surrounded by racists means that I have some sort of slavish, servile relationship to him?”
You’re off on a tangent. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Obama: Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that’s just a fact.
In fact, Gates was being belligerent to a cop who was trying to protect Gates’ property. The black policeman on the scene backed up the arresting officer. Once the facts were examined, race had nothing to do with anything. What’s interesting is how Obama immediately starts implicating the arresting officer’s actions as racist – even as he admits that he doesn’t have the facts, only stuff he’s heard third and fourth hand. The back peddling afterward was fascinating to watch.
I think a logical argument can be made that the gates incident revealed to us that Obama, unlike Thurmond, hasn’t outgrown his racism.
No matter how much you wish it, there is no irony here. Criticism of presidents and their policies is not racist unless one says pretty much what Obama said about the police: “As you know, I used to live in a ghetto and I have a lot of experience with shiftless black people on welfare and it’s pretty clear they the fact that blacks on the welfare roles pretty heavily outnumber whites lead me to believe they would make for shiftless and incompetent presidents”. That would be racist – and pretty close to what the president said about the Cambridge police. Huffpo has the full quote.
The article Don quoted was the about the knee jerk reaction to the opposition. While you might think I’m making blanket accusations against the Dems, I’m trying to support my argument with facts.
What the Dems are doing to the opposition is completely different.
They are making blanket accusations with no factual basis at all except to say, well that’s what I “think.”
Hank Johnson, Jimmy Cater and the rest don’t have any facts, they only tell what they think. They think the opposition is motivated by racism. Where is the fact?
Yes there is some irony there, but only on the surface.
Oh lord my friend this: “A lot of the push back against Obama seems to me to be more along the lines of leave my piece of the welfare pie alone” is dead on and an observation I made to me back when I got shoved off the train flatcar and saw life as it really was, that was in the mid 60s.Being an old guy, I have lots of anecdotes to support your conclusions too.The only thing I would say is that getting government back to constitutional limits, as the constitution is written today, would not accomplish anything.This, Art 1, Sec 5. para two “each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings” must be changed via amendment to put them back under our control, otherwise every effort to corral them is wasted as long as that is untouched.Consider, let your imagination run, and think of all the ways you could use that phrase to isolate yourself from your voters, responsibility, and the laws you make, yet enrich yourself at their expense.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 9:54 am
The only fallacy you’ve pointed out (which I admit would be a fallacy) I’ve never said, methinks.
RE: “The familiar, “I’m misunderstood” defense”
No, the defense is “you misundertand”. Somewhat different. But I can understand your incentive to deflect.
I agree entirely with your last paragraph (except the first sentence). All I’m saying is the first black president might have some crazies gunning for him, and that’s a bad thing. I’m perplexed about why this is getting you so heated.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 10:08 am
RE: “It’s the same thing. By holding an entire race of people accountable for the actions of SOME people who happened to belong to the same race IS defining a “place” for white people.”
And maybe you need to reread my post – I said in my post that it was racism. So are you agreeing with me here or what? I just qualified that I can’t get as frustrated with a reaction against segregation as I can with a reaction against simple skin color.
RE: “Would you be sympathetic to me if I despised you because you’re of German descent (at least your name is) and a large number of my Jewish family were slaughtered by Nazis in Belarus? ”
It would be somewhat odd because that only occured for a couple years and my family was out of Germany by the 1890s, but you know – if we were there at the time and you had relatives that were killed of course I would understand why you would have some unease with me. That seems like a perfectly natural reaction. Not an intelligent reaction – like Obama’s reaction wasn’t intelligent – but natural. Slavery and segregation went on for centuries. Whereas my family was out of Germany before the Nazis, I did have slave-holders in my family. I think it isn’t a perfect analogy you make, but a good one.
RE: “You’re off on a tangent. I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
I was responding to your “Dear Leader” remark. I understand, you probably toss it out so often that when someone actually addresses your point it’s a little confusing for you, because you forget you’ve made that point.
Re: “In fact, Gates was being belligerent to a cop who was trying to protect Gates’ property. The black policeman on the scene backed up the arresting officer. Once the facts were examined, race had nothing to do with anything.”
Ummm, yes. I’d agree with all three of these statements. I’d also agree the cop was stupid to actually arrest him for being belligerent, and that the black cop was stupid for agreeing with him.
Re: “What’s interesting is how Obama immediately starts implicating the arresting officer’s actions as racist ”
When did he say this? Nowhere in the quote you provided. Again – you’re imputing things to Obama just like you imputed things to me earlier. How can anyone argue with you in a reasonable way when you do that all the time, methinks?
And you might take a moment to pick up a dictionary and look up these words: “separate and apart from this incident”. He seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what you’re saying, that this incident cannot be tied to profiling (otherwise why say “separate and apart”??????), but that since there’s so much talk swirling around profiling it’s a good opportunity to address that problem.
Which is sort of what I’m doing in approaching this Carter/Dowd thing that Don raises. I’m saying OF COURSE Carter and Dowd are making stupid, inaccurate, and slanderous claims about Joe Wilson, but “separate and apart from this incident” racism is a problem in this country and that should still be disconcerting. Ie – the fact that Carter is dead wrong in this incident doesn’t mean racism isn’t out there.
Re: “I’d also agree the cop was stupid to actually arrest him for being belligerent, and that the black cop was stupid for agreeing with him.”
So what are cops supposed to do then? Just let anyone act out how ever they please?
Cops have to keep order, and they have to do it fairly. That means that if they arrest one person for belligerence, then they have to do it for everyone regardless of race, gender or celebrity status.
Should Mel Gibson have just walked when he got arrested for belligerence while making anti-semetic remarks to the cops? Should I get walk, if I go up to a cop and yell at him in public and call him a “pig?”
RE:”He seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what you’re saying, that this incident cannot be tied to profiling (otherwise why say “separate and apart”??????), but that since there’s so much talk swirling around profiling it’s a good opportunity to address that problem.”
It might “seem” that way to you. Not to me, and I’m guessing not to Methinks as well. What he did do, IMO, is use the fact that there is a “long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately” as an excuse to make a blanket accusation against the cop. In other words, Obama stereotyped the cop. Now would Obama have said it differently if the arresting officer had been the black cop? We will never know will we? All we can do is infer Obama’s past statements and see how they fit in to context with his current ones. He may or may not have changed his racial views. Like Methinks, I see no evidence that he did. He didn’t leave Trinity United until Rev. Wright became a political liability, that is just a plain fact. Which leads me to believe that Obama actually believes what Wright was spewing. Now after spending 20 years there, is any reasonable person supposed to believe what ever he says now? Obviously most did, they voted for him. But that doesn’t get Obama off the hook though.
I can’t improve on Justin Palmer’s response to the Gates thing, so I’ll just deal with the other issue. Let’s look at your statements:
“I just qualified that I can’t get as frustrated with a reaction against segregation as I can with a reaction against simple skin color.”
You don’t seem to grasp that since there is no segregation now and there wasn’t any by the time BHO was 8 years old. He was out of the country by at least age 6, when the family moved to Jakarta. His father is African and no member of his black family was subject to segregation or slavery in the U.S. So, any “reaction to segregation” on his part as an older child and young adult was purely a reaction to skin colour. Now, you may agree that a reaction to skin colour is wrong, but, but that’s not my point. The thing that you call a “reaction to segregation” is plain vanilla racism and not understandable at all.
“It would be somewhat odd because that only occured for a couple years and my family was out of Germany by the 1890s”
Here, you make the same point as I do. It would never occur to me to hold you responsible for Nazi atrocities. All white people weren’t for segregation and millions of immigrants and people who weren’t around or were children during segregation can’t be held responsible for it as they were young or not even in this country. My family certainly owned no slaves. So, how can you possibly be sympathetic to black racists today on the basis of segregation?
“Slavery and segregation went on for centuries.”
It still goes on. And it went on all over the world for thousands of years and nobody ever thought it was immoral. Islam still allows it. In fact, my people – the Slavs – were enslaved so often by so many that the we became synonymous with the institution. The word “slave” comes from the word “Slav” as in “Slavic people”. While blacks were enslaved a for a piddly 350 years or so, my people were enslaved for much much longer. We were enslaved by Germans (that means YOU, Kuehn) and Africans (give rise to jokes with my husband that I should really hate his guts). So, really, Kuehn, your peeps hit me from both sides. You white people owe me BIG.
Joking aside, the institution of slavery is not unique to blacks and not unique to America and human history. Slavery was only questioned until the late 18th century, and then only by a small handful of Western countries. The milking of slavery as an excuse for racism is just bullshit.
What do you mean “throw them out together”? You have to evaluate each accusation on it’s face. There are racists out there. There are socialists out there (this van Jones guy is a great example of a socialist accusation that might actually carry some weight). The point isn’t to “tie the two together”, the point is to point out recent incidences of both that have been particularly weak on evidence.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I looked at buying Road the other day but it was $138. I wonder if Capitalism and Democracy is any better priced.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 2:41 pm
OK, Justin. Let’s walk through this:
You wrote, “What the Dems are doing to the opposition is completely different”… doesn’t that clue you in to why I might think you’re “making blanket accusations against the Dems”
RE: “Hank Johnson, Jimmy Cater and the rest don’t have any facts, they only tell what they think. They think the opposition is motivated by racism. Where is the fact?”
I’m not challenging your point on whether the opposition is motivated by racism. I AGREE with you on that point. My point is that I’m a Dem and I’m not making that kind of statement about the opposition, and a lot of us aren’t making that kind of accusation. And I’m a little confused about why you’re accusing the whole party of this without presenting any facts to that effect.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 2:46 pm
If you just yelled “pig” at a cop, I hope to God you wouldn’t be arrested for it. As for Mel Gibson – do you really think he was arrested for the anti-semitic remarks, or do you think the DUI might have had something to do with it? Michael Richards made comparable remarks around that same time, and he wasn’t arrested for it. You know why? Because he wasn’t DRIVING DRUNK, he was in a comedy club. He was socially censured for it, as Mel Gibson should be and as Prof. Gates should be. But no, getting arrested for it is stupid and the cop was stupid for doing it. This cop isn’t some evil bad person. But he’s not exactly a shining example of the Cambridge police force, either. I’m sorry – but I’m not accusing anyone of racism by speaking clearly about this cop’s failings (just like I’m not BEING racist by speaking clearly about Prof. Gates’s failings).
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 2:50 pm
RE: “The only thing he had to go on was what? Race? If so then it’s racist.”
Um, no. What he had to go on was that Gates was arrested for being a jackass. That doesn’t reflect well on Gates, but it’s no justification for an arrest. You’re reading race into this when the reasons are utterly clear: it’s NOT GOOD for cops to think they can arrest people for not liking cops and saying they don’t like cops.
Geez, you’d think I wouldn’t have to explain this on a libertarian blog. That’s a REALLY bad precedent, and while no one should be calling the cop a racist, nobody should be praising him for what he did either!
I got “Road” for like 14 buck on amazon. “Captialism…” is about the same price…you might be looking at the whole collected works of Hayek…all his books which might cost $138
You ever stop to think that maybe your in the minority position then? Read Daily Kos, Huff Po or our own Muir.
I’d say the majority of hardcore liberals and at least 50% of regular Dems think that the opposition is all due to racism. I don’t have any numbers but that is just my gut feeling. Just because your a Dem and that your not explicitly making those kind of accusations, doesn’t let the rest of the party off.
Re: “I’m a little confused about why you’re accusing the whole party of this without presenting any facts to that effect.”
I’m not going to sit here and link to every comment on Daily Kos, Huff Po and the rest of the left wing blog. Suffice to say, when Pelsoi, Johnson, Clyburn, Carter, etc say it…it’s pretty much a prevailing thought in Dem circles…like I said above…maybe your just in the minority on this one.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Oh wow – please don’t operate under the assumption that the Daily Kos represents a majority of the Democratic Party.
America is a big place. I may be totally wrong about this, but Kos and other groups like that are quite fringe. PARTICULARLY right now, when the Democratic Party has taken in so many moderates (me for example – I’ve only actually called myself a Democrat in the last couple years).
You can continue to argue the motives of the cop and Gates. That still doesn’t let Obama off the hook for making his rash judgment based on, his own admittedly, faulty data.
Might carry weight? Your being too generous, the guy was self admitted communist. There is no “might” about it. If your going to be that generous to a self described communist, that doesn’t hold well for people you let off the hook.
If a self described communist only “might” be a socialist, then what actually constitutes socialist for you?
The only reason the evidence is “weak” for you, IMO, is because you don’t want to see it. I know your aware of the term “Cognitive Dissonance.”
Just so you don’t get all defensive on me, I’m not accusing you of any willful disregard of the facts. Hell I’ve been guilty of it myself.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Just read the stupid quote. He said he didn’t have all the facts on what? On what exactly? Don’t quote this selectively – read back the entire sentence. He said he didn’t have all the facts on the role that race played, Justin. That’s what he admited he didn’t have the facts on, and that’s why he never once said that cop was motivated by race.
The fact that was ABUNDANTLY obvious to any objective person was that there were no grounds for arresting Gates. I’m sick of this “gotcha” approach.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Yes – definitely an avowed communist. I was thinking more in terms of the policies he was advocating while he was in office, which I’m not aware of in any great detail and which might not be socialist. But ya – no doubt he was personally a socialist. I should have been more clear on that.
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Maybe I was looking at a special addition because I now see it for $11.56. the one I was looking at had Milton Friedman stuff in it too. $25.20 for hard cover.
Again I have to ask if maybe your in the minority and the Kos, MoveOn, Huff Po are the majority of the Dems.
Ironically I was a Dem until those groups took over in the wake of Iraq. That’s when I left and found Hayek, now I’m libertarian.
Yes I do see the irony of my statement. I’m talking about the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharpton, Rev. Wrights of the world, that explicitly use race for profit. I’m a Chemist, the only time race comes up at my workplace is when we are talking about Susan Komen Race for the Cure.
I think it’s only ABUNDANTLY clear that Gates shouldn’t have been arrested to apologists like you. To me, the whole situation is deeply UNCLEAR and these situations usually are very unclear at the time the cop has to make a decision. Gates wasn’t arrested until he decided to take the full force of his outrage to the street outside his house and disturb the peace. At that point, it was a judgment call on the cop’s part. You may not agree with the call, but nothing was ABUNDANTLY CLEAR at the time the cop made the decision.
Obama could have avoided stepping into this pail of putride feces if he’d just said “I haven’t enough facts to make a comment at this time”. Instead, he decided to wax philosophical on race relations and issue judgments without enough evidence – AT A HEALTH CARE SPEECH! Rookie mistake. Revealing too much of himself is as disastrous for Obama as extemporaneous speaking is for the Shrub.
AnonymousSeptember 18, 2009 at 10:22 am
You don’t think racism and segregation still have a legacy in America? You don’t think they have something to do with the position of blacks relative to whites in America (just like, I might add, the trampling of the Slavic peoples might have some impact on the relative poverty of Eastern Europe today?).
I don’t know why I have to keep reminding you and Palmer that I agree with you and Palmer that this early anger on Obama’s part is unjustified. You’re making the case to me that it was unjustified – I know that. I’ve said that. But the legacy was all around him in Chicago. My family didn’t benefit at all from the Nazi regime. The point is, in the United States every white person benefited from preferential treatment, even if you were opposed to segregation. It’s not an issue of logic, Methinks. I’m with you on that. It’s not an issue of whether every white person deserved to be hated. I’m saying I can understand why someone might have that kind of resentment, even if I think it’s riddled with logical holes. Resentment generally isn’t particularly logical. And just because you’re frustrated with the situation that past wrongs put you in in the present doesn’t mean you’re gunning for a reparation – I’m not sure how that came into the picture.
AnonymousSeptember 18, 2009 at 10:29 am
Huh? Look – I can say “it was a flash decision and those decisions are tough on cops and he’s not a bad person for making that call” and still say “but it was a stupid decision”. I’m not sure why everybody is taking sides on this Gates affair. I think Gates was clearly stupid for ranting when there didn’t seem to be a racist bone in that cop’s body. I think the cop was stupid for arresting him for that (and I’m very amused that libertarians on this board are cheering that sort of indiscriminate use of police power), and as I thought I said on Cafe Hayek when the issue broke (maybe not), Obama was also very stupid for opening his mouth about it – much less having that stupid beer summit.
This isn’t about taking sides, Methinks. And yes, I’M sick of this “gotcha” approach to things. When people are saying “Joe Wilson is a racist”, “no Carter is a racist”, “no Obama is a racist”, “no the whole Democratic Party is a racist”, and I’M the one saying “there are racists out there, but I don’t think Wilson, Carter, the cop, Gates, or the Dems are racist” how am I engaging in “gotcha” tactics? Only on Cafe Hayek can “I think they both are making legitimate points” be considered an inflammatory position to take.
The “legacy” of slavery and segregation is the Democrats pimping out blacks and “keeping them in their place” for personal political gain. Just try being black and disagreeing with the left. Ask Condi Rice what happens. Suddenly, racism is a-okay because she’s not black black.
No, I don’t think the Slavs suffer from a legacy of slavery because I actually know enough history. The poverty in those countries can be traced to many things – the most recent of which is a socialism. The Slavs were enslaved because they were weak. They didn’t get weak from slavery. Slaves were the booty of war and slavery had nothing to do with racism – ever. In the U.S. it was LATER justified on some weird species grounds after it was discovered slavery didn’t mesh well with the constitution. “Trampling” of Slavic people”! LOL. We were all trampled upon and did our fair share of trampling throughout history.
The reason Palmer and I keep hammering you is you keep spewing rubbish. You say it’s stupid in the first sentence and then proceed to justify the behaviour in the very next sentence.
Segregation only happened in the South. If your argument is based on who benefited, then my counterargument is that every single descendant of slavery in America benefited because slavery brought them to live in America and not the shithole that is Africa today and historically. What would have happened to them in Africa? Well, they’d probably be slaves anyway because Africans regularly enslave each other – to this day. I know Al Sharpton and his fellow race baiters have popularized among less educated blacks that they were all kings in the great Ancient kingdoms of Egypt until the American slave trade plucked them out of this exalted position. Unfortunately, the don’t happen to realize that those kingdoms predated the American slave trade by some three thousand years and the Nubians were SLAVES in Egypt, not kings.
Humanity has a terrible legacy of intra-species atrocities – or what we would call atrocities today, but may not have been called atrocities at the time. Blacks in America don’t have a uniquely bad history in that regard and, in fact, did better than most of the world’s population out of it. So, why should their racism be justified, qualified (pick your adjective) on any grounds? What about the descendants of white indentured servants?
BTW, you keep brought up the Nazi’s brief history and contrasting it to black slavery in America (cherry picking a time a place). What does the length of time (an accident of history – they lost the war) have to do with it? At least slave owners didn’t seek to exterminate whole races like vermin.
I was thinking of socialism as the most recent form of slavic slavery.
RE: “Segregation only happened in the South”
Ummm…. not… quite. If only.
RE: “So, why should their racism be justified, qualified (pick your adjective) on any grounds?”
Because their “racism” isn’t the same as white “racism”. That’s the whole point. The fallacy of (most) black racism is pointing to a whole group of people and blaming them for the bad acts of individuals. That’s not good. The fallacy of (most) white racism is pointing to a whole group of people and suggesting they are inferior. Both are bad – I see the later as being much more heinous than the former (which is also why I think Nazi racism is much more heinous than the racism of a theoretical Jew who hates all Germans).
Taking a faulty tribal view of the world (ie lumping groups of people together) is very bad. It’s not nearly as bad as having a faulty genetic superiority view of the world. Obama lumped people together when he was younger. He didn’t think he was racially superior to those people. That’s my point.
AnonymousSeptember 18, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I’d also be very careful about these “they’re better off than they would have been in Africa” comments. I’m not shy about admiting that Western civilization has distinct advantages over all other civilizations. I think that’s just a fact of life.
But aside from those civilizational superiorities, exactly why do you think Africa is a shithole today? Don’t you think it has something to do with centuries of imperialism and exportation into slavery? Some of it inflicted by outsiders… some inflicted internally.
Share
{ 125 comments }
It’s scary because how do you defend yourself when someone calls you a racist? Trying to defend yourself leads the accusers to claim that it is only to protect your job and is further evidence of racism.
You’ve made it this far, rodet, now recognize that proving a negative is impossible. Therefore proceed to the next step, which is, the best defense is a superior offense.Hit first in all cases, and keep hitting until the opponent is destroyed. In the meantime you might say a “God bless you, Jame O’Keefe”, he understands.
How do you defend yourself from being called a communist or a socialist when the mere suggestion of a govenment solution brings out such cries?
It’s easy you remind the ignorant name calling person what socialism and communism are.
If some one called my positions racist I’d define sopecifically what my position is and how it has nothing to do with racism.
But cries of “we want our country back” , and pictures of the president as The joker (really a Sambo) picture are nothing but racism thinnly vieled as legitimate arguments.
Watch all of the Right America Feeling Wronged and the racism is out in the open clear to see. and the fervor is stirred up more by the ccires of socialism and communism and the comparisons to Hitler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpQ4nWqUGFM&feature=related
Since you believe that only government can determine how much liberty a man needs in order to be free – you’re a socialist.
Since you believe that government should decide who gets health care, and when – you’re a socialist.
Pelosi compared those who disagree with the Obamessiah to Nazis. Like you, she doesn’t comprehend that Nazis are socialists.
It’s interesting that the first example Harsanyi uses is Joe Wilson. While I think Dowd’s insinuation is baseless, it’s actually Joe Wilson that’s supporting larger government in his opposition to liberalized immigration. Obviously the health care reform itself is bigger government – but the underlying critique, that some portion of the pool of people wanting to come to this country shouldn’t be allowed in – is hardly a “small government” position.Just an observation. Overall I agree with Harsanyi. Many people are hypersensitive and overstate the extent of the racism charges (when one signholder gets accused of racism, a lot of people assume that all tea-partiers are accused of it, which obviously isn’t true), but to the extent that racism charges are made they are as inappropriate and misleading as the “socialist” or “fascist” charges. It’s not helping the Democratic position any more than the “fascist” charges helped the Republican position.Still – we should be on guard against real racism too – which is certainly out there as a result of Obama’s election. Observing that the vast, vast, majority of the opposition isn’t racist doesn’t detract from the fact that Obama’s very life is in more danger than most presidents because of the color of his skin. It’s sad, but that’s still the world we live in.
You know what’s inappropriate and misleading? Equating accusations of racism and fascism with accusations of racism just because the object of criticism is a politician who happens to be black. Welcome to the scrambled-eggs-for-brains of Jimmy Carter.
“Obama’s very life is in more danger than most presidents because of the color of his skin.”
Hilarious.
I’m glad we agree on Jimmy Carter’s assessment, methinks, but it’s unfortunate you don’t seem to realize how wide-spread scrambled-eggs-for-brains are.
RE: “Hilarious”
That’s really disturbing you find such a thing hilarious.
No, of course. Without you to shine the light, I would never realize anything, Danny. It’s a wonder I’ve lived this long without you. I lived in a bubble until you graduated college last week and taught how many morons are out there. I can never thank you enough.
Since you missed the point: What’s hilarious, Danny, is that you provide no evidence to support your your bombastic assertion. Even if it were true, how do you propose we “guard” against a few inbred racists finding a new lightening rod? You’re race bating, pure and simple. Pretty nasty stuff, Danny – for someone who considers himself such an enlightened intellectual.
What’s especially hilarious is that the only people who seek to profit from racism are obsessed with it. There are fringe elements of racists who won’t like someone simply because they’re a certain race. But, on the left, the majority can’t stop thinking about race. Racism is breeds like bacteria on the left. It has to. How else can leftist politicians pimp minorities for their personal gain. And it’s such a convenient (albeit ineffective) tool to silence the opposition. Just reminds me of Barbara Boxer using other “coloured folks” against the president of the Black Chamber of Commerce.
You know – this weird “you’re so sophomoric” thing you pull makes you come across as really insecure.RE: “You’re race bating, pure and simple.”How exactly? I’m saying it’s a real risk notwithstanding Carter’s long series of imagined risks, and it would be a bad thing. I’m at a loss for how that is race baiting.
See the quote from Booker T Washington below in my post. I totally agree with you there.
No shit Duplicitous Kuehn!
“but it’s unfortunate you don’t seem to realize how wide-spread scrambled-eggs-for-brains are.”
We all know how many people voted for obama, and I think Methinks knows that as well.
Scrambled-eggs-for-brains is on many a voter roll menu.
What is not fascist about the government control of private companies? What is not socialist about the government ownership of production and services companies?Nobody is saying it is the government is completely socialist or fascist but how many socialist or fascist actions does a government have to take before it we consider that government to be socialist or fascist? What percentage of the economy has to be under socialist or fascist control before we recognize socialism or fascism taking root? People who are using these words are referring to individual acts of socialism or fascism. They are not suggesting that the entire economy has transformed. Anyone should be able to see this.
We’ve been over this time and time again. Every definition of fascism I’ve seen implicates authoritarian as opposed to representative government. There’s an effort lately to make fascism a synonym for corporatism, but it’s not. I’ve personally come out on this blog opposing the federal take-over of equity in an EXTREMELY small percentage of America’s private firms. It bothers me too. But the fact that it is carried out by a legitimate representative government rather than an authoritarian regime makes accusations of “fascism” as fatuous and misleading as accusations of racism against Joe Wilson.Socialism is trickier, because of course socialism is state ownership of the means of production. I think the fact that actual socialists are still disgusted with the way we run our country is a pretty good sign that we’re not really socialists – but it is true that the government controls a portion of the means of production. I’d simply turn it around and ask you if there is any prospect for a “mixed economy”, or is every departure from the market tantamount to “socialism”. We have and we enforce private property rights. The private market is dominant despite some public ownership. The “socialism” case may be easier to make than the “fascism” case, but I still think you have about as much evidence for it as Carter does for the “racist” charge. Socialism is usually thought of as some degree of nullification of private property rights. You’re turning it into “some degree of public provision”. I’m not sure that’s a defensible revision. As long as property rights are maintained in the context of the public provision of very specific goods, it’s not the kind of “socialism” that people usually think of. It’s not the kind of socialism that Methinks’ family fled, for example.
Dude, I hate to break it to you, but as of a couple years ago we have no private property rights. Or do you forget the Supreme Court’s New London decision? The state can take your property on a whim, and never mind whether it’s for public uses or not.
It was an unfortunate ruling. I wouldn’t say it’s the same as no property rights, but it certainly is a threat to them.
The problem with your definition of fascism is that authoritarian regimes come about through democratic processes. Hitler and El Duce, where voted in democratically, then they used emergency powers (in Hitler’s case, I forget in Italy’s case) in the guise of a “crisis” to take authoritarian control. The similarities with Obama are striking, don’t forget that Obama hasn’t tried to relinquish the powers that Bush acquired in the aftermath of 9/11, in fact Obama wants even more power than Bush! 30+ “Czars” is strikingly similar to top down authoritarian control, the only thing holding Obama back is the opposition, which, how conveniently, shouldn’t be listened to because they are all racist after all. The only difference between that and Hitler, is that Hitler’s government was in of itself racists. Obama and the Dem’s are trying to portray everyone else as racist.
Your problem is that your thinking that Fascism and Socialism are diametrically opposed, they are not. They are just different means to the same end. Hayek was very clear on that.
That’s not a problem with the definition – that’s just a reason to be careful who you elect. Is all democracy fascist now because fascism has come out of democracy on a couple occassions?
RE: “Obama and the Dem’s are trying to portray everyone else as racist. ”
Name me one situation where Obama has tried to “portray everyone else as racist”.
RE: “Your problem is that your thinking that Fascism and Socialism are diametrically opposed, they are not. They are just different means to the same end. Hayek was very clear on that”
I’d appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said fascism requires hierarchical authoritarian control. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. You can have democratic socialism. You can have fascist socialism. You can have a fascist market economy. I never said they are diametrically opposed. I said they are different. It’s your tendancy to think of all differences as polar opposition that leads you to think I’m making the case that they are opposed.
I give more points to the fascism/socialism arguments. While they may not gain supporters on the other side, those forms of political organization are at least on the political spectrum. You can go down the list and argue what elements are or are not fascist or socialist, as you have attempted to do.
Charging racism, however, against someone who has only shown disagreement is baseless name calling.
I think Dan is trying to tie the two together, racism and socialism, so that he can throw them both out together. The problem is, the socialism argument has facts on it’s side, whereas the racism one does not.
It’s not just about where we are today. It’s about the path we are on. Nobody is saying we are in a state of fascism or socialism. What we are saying is that we continue to take on more and more fascist and socialist traits to our government. We are giving up freedoms. We are giving up control of our money. We are giving up whole companies. If we continue on this trend it’s not a far fetch to reason, we will be in some form of mixed fascist/socialist system. Have you never heard of a democratic dictatorship? It doesn’t matter how the the dictator is put in power, it only matters that he or they is/are a dictator(s).
One important step to this process is seduction. All dictators get their power from the people. Most people are seduced into giving it to them. The rest are brought on through fear. Believe me, our government is scary and threatening. Try flying somewhere or crossing the border. This is true because there are a lot more people than there are dictators. So what difference does it make if he is elected or not?
Things the government currently does:
Force you to show ID and submit to search and seizure of property to travel–people who have items with them the government doesn’t like will be harrased. (this happens every day)
Break into your home and shoot your dogs on a whim of suspicion (this happens every day)
Kidnap elderly people and hold them against there will at their own expense. (I don’t know how often this happens)
Spy on you with no warrent.
Put fathers in jail because they lost their jobs and can’t pay debts to mothers.
Force people to sell real property to other people whom the government thinks would be better suited to own it.
Own means of production
Control means of production without owning it
Stop and search all people traveling roads at random times
Force people to show pappers to get a job
Hayek spelled it all out in “Road.” Schumpater’s “Capitalism, Democracy and Socialism” makes the same sorts of arguments as well.
Most of the Presidential assassins and would be assassins were Left leaning progressives, communists and socialists.
The truth of the matter is, the only opposition that is racist is coming from the Democratic Party itself. You couldn’t expect Conservatives to rally around a far Left leaning President could you? So, I’m speaking in general now, equating opposition to the President with racism is absurd! Conservatives and Libertarians are going to oppose Obama’s government takeover, no matter what color, religion or gender is in office.
The Democrats, good ole Jimmy Carter and the like, are just using Obama’s skin color to bludgeon the opposition with the ultimate cultural taboo. Again, it’s the Dems that are racist not the opposition.
Look at Rep. Hank Johnson’s comments that Joe Wilson is somehow bringing in a new era of KKK. Of course Rep. Johnson clearly forgets that the KKK were Democrats! How is Johnson accusing Wilson of being a KKK grand wizard not racist in itself? Again it’s the Democrats that are racist here.
What about the Harvard Professor accusing the white police officer of racism? The very act of automatically assuming that the white cop was harassing him because he was black is itself racist against whites. Do I have to repeat who the racists are again?
I characterize most liberals with this quote by Booker T Washington.
One thing I see as a positive coming out of this, is that the Dems are pretty much trying to tar everyone with the racist label. People are not going to buy it anymore. Like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, people will become desensitized to the race card and stop paying attention to whoever is throwing it out. Then maybe, just maybe we can have a good dialogue on race. Holder was right, that people are cowards when it comes to talking about race. They don’t like to because any views that aren’t exactly PC are automatically assumed to be racist.
RE: “it’s the Dems that are racist not the opposition”Since Don’s post is an outcry against gratuitous charges of racism I have to ask you – is this meant to be ironic?I’m glad that at least you agree with me on Jimmy Carter, Hank Johnson, and Prof. Gates. I’m a little confused on how you get from those three to the Democratic Party.RE: “Most of the Presidential assassins and would be assassins were Left leaning progressives, communists and socialists.”I don’t know where you get this, but that’s all well and good. I don’t care about their motivations – I just don’t want to see it happen, and I personally think there is a greater risk of it happening to Obama than to most previous presidents. It honestly would not surprise me if Obama doesn’t outlive his presidency, and while I hope it doesn’t happen it wouldn’t surprise me. To hell with who does it. The problem is the very real risk which we shouldn’t dismiss just because you and I agree that Carter said something really stupid and inaccurate (not really anything new). Let me put it this way – if a communist pro-choice activist was on the list of those threatening Obama, I’d be just as concerned.
Re: “It honestly would not surprise me if Obama doesn’t outlive his presidency”
Ironic don’t you think…don’t have much respect for your fellow man? Or is everyone else just a hater?
My point is that most would be assassins came from the Left so to say that Obama’s life is even more danger now is absurd. If anything does happen to him, I’m convinced it will come from the Left.
RE: “Since Don’s post is an outcry against gratuitous charges of racism I have to ask you – is this meant to be ironic?”
Yes a bit huh? No my charge is that you can’t expect Conservatives or Libertarians to go happily along with Obama’s plans. That’s just a fact. Conservatives are going to oppose Obama no matter what, regardless of his skin color. While I’m sure there are those in that party that are “real” racists, the charge coming form the Left-wing camps are predicated on thinking that the entire Conservative party are full of “racists,” since that can only the the “real” reasons to oppose Obama. Which of course is in itself a “racist” view.
Although I do have to give Obama some props for calling Kanye West out as a “Jackass.”
The basis for my argument is my belief that the real racists are the one that see it everywhere. They distrust “white people” because they are racists themselves. Either that or like Booker T Washington said in the quote, they do if for profit motives.
I think people like Gates, Sharpton, Jackson and the like are either racist themselves or rent seekers…either one is despicable in my eyes. In my view, the use of racism to secure profit is even worse than racism, since racist views can and have been changes. Profit motives usually never change.
RE: “Ironic don’t you think…don’t have much respect for your fellow man? Or is everyone else just a hater?”
Good Lord man – you’re as bad as Jimmy Carter!
Can I say anything about a small but disconcerting segment of the population without you thinking I’m insulting vast swaths of America?
RE: ” No my charge is that you can’t expect Conservatives or Libertarians to go happily along with Obama’s plans. ”
I don’t expect them to. This is a complete non-sequitor. My point was you said “it’s the Dems that are racist” in a post of Don’s AGAINST gratuitous racism charges. It struck me as extremely ironic.
And the rest of your post just proves it.
Can’t you see the disconnect between you saying: “The basis for my argument is my belief that the real racists are the one that see it everywhere” and you accusing HALF THE FRIGGIN COUNTRY of being the “real racists”? If that’s not “seeing it everywhere” on your part, I don’t know what is.
You’re too overly concerned Daniel. The biggest threat right now is to your and my freedom courtesy of Obamacrats. You are whistling past the graveyard.
“… how you get from those three to the Democratic Party.”
Rahm Emmanuel, Van Johnson, Robert (“Sheets”) Byrd, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Cynthia McCommie, Major Owens, Charlie Rangel. That’s in thirty seconds.
Oh, and the KKK was founded as an arm of the Democratic Party.
“Most of the Presidential assassins and would be assassins were Left leaning progressives, communists and socialists.” JP
Really lets start a list. But lets expand it to generalized terrorist acts.
I’ll start with both Kennedy assassinations
MLK
Oklahoma City Bombing
The recent shoot up of the Unitarian Church
Multiple abortion doctors slayings
The Atlanta Olympic bombing
What do you have for left wing terrorist.
Uni bomber, PETA, ELF???
You can hardly even by ammo in a gun shop because the right wing nut jobs have stocked up their militias to the teeth. And the number of militias and their activities is well on the rise.
Oswald was a Communist. Sirhan was an Arab nationalist. Those are hardly what I would consider right wing positions. Your other examples have nothing to do with Presidents or Presidential candidates and are therefore irrelevant to the original poster’s comment.
Key words Muir….PRESIDENTIAL!
Go back a little further in history as well please…and don’t forget the attempts on Reagan’s life as well.
Like Name said, Oswald was an staunch Communist. Communism = Left Wing.
JP–It’s just that the Democrats were hoping Obama’s skin color would insulate him against anti-statist critics. Surely you can understand their disappointment. They thought they had a winning political strategy for the advancement of their central planning agenda. It didn’t occur to them that to most people, race is not in the front of their minds. So now, they are struggling to put it there.
You’re on to us! As a voter that went for Obama in the primary that’s EXACTLY what I was thinking!
Are you serious? Reread what you just wrote. If you actually believe that was going through people’s heads, you have a very tenuous faith in humanity.
Yeah, I think so as well. Read Victor Hanson’s article that I linked to above.
This would be a lot easier if some spokesman for the Obama administration would give us a list of acceptable criticisms and then we could all be friends and be “constructive”.
Yep, the president can stand on a national stage and lie his ass off and have it just be part and parcel of politics as usual; but, for someone to promptly and publicly call him a liar is just plain racist horror.
On the other hand if there is anyone out there who believes this anger is ALL policy driven you have no clue.
The party of the south that Lyndon Johnson knownly abdandoned has not suddenly transformed into the party of pure intentions.
The most outragous claims and protestations come from those who are completly controled by right wing media. They use ignorance and fear to rev-up the forces of rascism and bigotry.
These people given the chance and the power would gladly take over to become the American Taliban. yeah there’s plenty of scary racism out there amongst the legitimate critisisms.
Of course not all of it is policy-driven. A big part is just astonishment at the arrogance and high-handed behavior of the Obama administration (which is made up mostly of white guys).
“The party of the south that Lyndon Johnson knownly abdandoned has not suddenly transformed into the party of pure intentions.”
Do you realize that the Party of the South was Democrats. That the Southern Democrats were the ones that enacted the Jim Crow laws?
It was the Party of the North, Republicans, that “Freed the Slaves.”
muirgeo’s thin grasp on the history of the Democratic party doesn’t change the fact that Southern Democrats jumped ship in the 60s for the Republican Party. I think the point still stands. Who were the racists among the Democrats? Where are they now? How common do we think enlightenment among these men and women is?
I like to think enlightenment is fairly common – that most of them aren’t racists anymore. Or they’re dead now. The fact that muirgeo has his history a little jumbled doesn’t change the fact of the mass exodus of Southern Democrats.
“muirgeo’s thin grasp on the history of the Democratic party doesn’t change the fact that Southern Democrats jumped ship in the 60s for the Republican Party. ”
DK
There is no thin grasp on of history on my part. This is exactly my point. Johnson abandoned the Southern Democrats knowing they would become Republicans which would hurt his parties dominance in the short run. But he chose doing the right thing with a long term look at things.
The main point being those NOW Southern Republicans were abandoned by the Democratic Party BECAUSE they WERE racist and THEY STILL ARE. They are the ones fomenting thinly veiled arguments against policy that are covertly based on racism. You have a black on the White House you bring him down anyway you can even with pathetic arguments against logical policy. They don’t even care that the policy is in their own best interest because their racism supersedes logic as it always does.
“You have a black on the White House you bring him down anyway you can even with pathetic arguments against logical policy. They don’t even care that the policy is in their own best interest because their racism supersedes logic as it always does.”
Wow, a brilliant analysis!
Ah-ha. That was just very confusing, because I think most people think of the Southern Democrats as being the ones that abandoned the party.
I like to think that the Southern Democrats we have now are some of the best and most responsible Dems in the party. It’s a nice penance for the South, in that way.
Good to see the dialogue has improved around here…
Racist!!!
/sarcasm off
Ha ha
Most people aren’t socialists per se, but they think like socialists; the questions they pose, the problems they perceive, and the solutions they offer usually betray a socialist-like way of thinking about economic issues.
I disagree. More of the people are socialist than they even know, because they have been quietly and consistently enculturated and inculcated in the beliefs and scriptures of socialism while their teachers deliberately kept the label out of the picture.
Where you find out what they are, is what do they support when it has to come from their gut, that first reaction…..and that friend, Lee Kelly, is more often than not, a plea to the government and acceptance of the government solution.
How many union thugs and members think of themselves as communists, yet the unions were recognized by Marx himself as the most perfect example of communism in existence?
It is obvious to any intelligent individual that social security figures do not add up when you examine them. Anyone retiring at age 63 and living to 75 is most certainly get back more in payments than they ever made in contributions, even had the contributions actually been invested in a decent money program. Yet they scream like hell about touching “their lockbox” of security! What is that if not socialism, having others pay for their existence?
No sir, my own opinion is that more Americans are socialist than you could possibly believe. However, I will concede one point, once this is pointed out to them, their noses rubbed into it, it is possible that they may disavow their past beliefs and look to self sufficient……but I ain’t holding my breath.
I agree with you that Americans are more socialist than they believe. I think the only thing that saved us from the Socialism has been our diverse culture and immigration. Socialism doesn’t work to well in a heterogeneous society. You can’t get anyone to agree on anything.
I think what saved us was the notion of American rugged individualism however mythical, and the strength of local communites. In the Sixtes, during LBJ’s war on poverty, the federal government sent a small army of people into poor neighborhoods and rural areas to convince people to accept welfare programs. The government had been having difficulty getting people to accept what they felt were handouts because of the shame of being on the dole. Forty years later that type of response to the welfare state has been educated out of existence.
I think what is really saving us is our historical fear of a socialist enemy. The people know socialism is bad even if they don’t know what it is. That’s why you can’t use the label.
That’s why they bastardized the language and call themselves “Liberal” now. Modern Liberalism is the same as FDR progressive which was socialist.
I had this exact conversation with my own father a few months ago. He was railing on about the government and how there needs to be a revolution against it (because apparently it doesn’t do enough for poor people) and I interrupted him to ask if he had ever done the math regarding his own contributions to Social Security vs. how much he would draw if he lives to be 90 or older (his own father lived to 92) and where he thought all that extra money would come from.
I hope you still have a relationship with your dad.
Yeah, we’re good. He took it in the spirit it was given – a gentle prod to revisit assumptions. But my concern has been that a lot of people are currently coming from a similar place; what the government should be doing for me. A lot of the push back against Obama seems to me to be more along the lines of leave my piece of the welfare pie alone rather than on a let’s get government back to its Constitutional limits, even if it means I lose some benefits.
muirgeo wrote:
How do you defend yourself from being called a communist or a socialist when the mere suggestion of a govenment solution brings out such cries?
And danielkuehn added:
…but to the extent that racism charges are made they are as inappropriate and misleading as the “socialist” or “fascist” charges.
There is a fundamental distinction between the accusation that the disagreements with Obama are motivated by racism versus the accusation that a given idea or proposal (or the person pushing them) is socialist or fascist.
The former is an accusation that can never be proved or evaluated, inasmuch as it makes a claim about a person’s motivation. That makes it nothing but a cheap smear intended to divert discussion from the real issue. In Joe Wilson’s case, it is easier to scream “racist” than to address the fact that HR3200 contains no means of screening out illegals and that Obama knows this fact full well. (Just to be clear, I am very much pro-immigration and opposed to the notion that government has a right to limit the numbers of people seeking to come here. Government has a right to screen for infectious diseases and criminal/terrorists associations, but no right to set arbitrary limits on numbers. But that’s not the issue here: the issue is that Obama is indeed a liar — he’s the Great Prevaricator.)
The accusation that a given proposal is socialist or fascist, by contrast, is quite easy to evaluate, inasmuch as those terms have definitions. Socialism is the doctrine that your life and your property belong to society (as represented by the government), not to you, and may be disposed of by society as it sees fit, to fulfill any of its alleged needs or to satisfy any of its alleged goals. Politically, socialism usually includes nationalization of the means of production. Fascism is socialism without the nationalization. It nominally leaves private property intact — but it empowers the government to issue unlimited rules and regulations dictating what may or may not be done with that property. Under both set-ups, the government is omnipotent and the citizens are rightless creatures who may be sacrificed to whatever ends the state wants.
The Obama agenda is fascist/socialist to the core, with both elements present. Consider his proposals so far:
“Economic stimulus program” means that the GOVERNMENT, not YOU, will decide how much of your money will be spent versus saved — and that the government may seize whatever portion of your wealth is necessary to finance the program.
“Bailouts” means that the GOVERNMENT, not YOU, will decide whether or not your money will be used to save those who made foolish business decisions — and that the government may seize whatever portion of your wealth is necessary to finance the program.
“Health care reform” means that the GOVERNMENT, not YOU, will decide what healthcare you receive — and that the government may seize whatever portion of your wealth is necessary to finance the program.
“Cap and trade” means the GOVERNMENT, not YOU, will decide how much energy and what form(s) of energy you may purchase and use — and that the government may seize whatever portion of your wealth is necessary to finance the program.
I could go on, but the point is clear: every Obama program is based on the belief that our lives and our property belong, not to US, but to GOVERNMENT, who may dispose of either as it sees fit.
That makes Obama both a fascist and a socialist — and it makes any of you who support these programs equally fascist and socialist. (And yes, the Bush administration was also guilty of fascism — but Bush was a piker compared to the ambitions of the Great Prevaricator.)
“In Joe Wilson’s case, it is easier to scream “racist” than to address the fact that HR3200 contains no means of screening out illegals and that Obama knows this fact full well.”
“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
Barack Obama
From http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/ ;
Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes “SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE,” which says that “[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.
Not so fast moron…
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/from-the-fact-check-desk-illegal-immigrants-and-health-care-reform.html
If it was Obama’s intention that illegals NOT receive healthcare benefits under his proposals, he would have instructed the Democrats in Congress to pass the amendments requiring proof of citizenship. He didn’t and they defeated two efforts to add such amendments.
What’s more, if, in fact, the bill does as you claim — if it clearly rules out any benefits for illegals — it would be very easy for the Obama administration to cite page and verse from the bill refuting Wilson’s claim and destroying his credibility. Instead, Obama’s supporters chose to revert to the “racist” smear — which indicates a desire to silence the opposition as opposed to a desire to present the truth.
All of that, however, is a secondary point. The main point is that you and danielkuehn endlessly twist, squirm, wiggle, conflate, hair-split, obfuscate and prevaricate in an effort tohide, evade and/or apologize for the fundamentally fascist/socialist nature of Obama’s agenda and your support for it.
Such is precisely the goal of your effort to categorize all accusations of “socialist” and “fascist” with the smear-term “racist” –it’s done in the hope of diverting attention from the actual nature of Obama’s agenda.
But the two of you are fooling no one. Obama’s agenda is fundamentally fascist/socialist in nature and so are you and danielkuehn and all the rest of Obama’s spinners and apologists.
Fact Check is funded by leftist groups so using them as proof is like me quoting Limbaugh as proof, you wouldn’t accept it and so I don’t accept “factcheck.org”
Cries of racism are essentially an admission that the leftists have lost the argument. Big fat surprise.
seanooski wrote: Cries of racism are essentially an admission that the leftists have lost the argument.
Exactly. The charge of racism today is generally made in an effort to evade any critical examination or discussion of the accuser’s ideas and proposals. It’s an attempt to silence the opposition, as opposed to answering their criticisms.
List of leading black-hating racists:
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams
Shelby Steele
Michael Steele
J.C. Watts
Alan Keyes
Armstrong Williams
Larry Elder
Condoleezza Rice — it’s safe to assume this one is a woman-hater too.
I’d really like to see Russ have Williams or Sowell talk about race in the current administration.
The good news is…
…since much worse things were said about Bush and Clinton, than about Obama, we must conclude that the country is becoming LESS racist!
And how do they know that we’re really racists?
By the same way that we know that they’re really Communists.
EXACTLY.
Pure fabrication. That’s how “they” know (since I’ve been saying this whole time these racist charges are stupid I don’t count myself among the “they”), and that’s how “you” know (whoever “you” may be). Pure fabrication.
Don’t we have a new health care bill on the table to talk about????
Which bill DK? As Kling points out today there is no single complete bill or plan and that Obama’s use of the words “my” and “this” in relation to a Bill during his speech were pure politcal obfuscations -the small lie or the big lie depending on your views.http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/09/the…
The new one out of the Senate finance committee was what I was refering to. It came out a day or two ago – seems like a more productive conversation.I’m not really concerned about Obama on this, Congress will pass it. I usually just assume he’s talking about his ideal plan that he’ll support. That’s not really an obfuscation, but it can get a little confusing.
I enjoy reading Harsanyi, but it disappoints me that he devotes an entire column to this topic. He took the bait and is off topic.
What would be interesting from O’Dowd or Harsanyi is a discussion on what exactly Joe Wilson claimed Obama was lying about and whether there was any merit to the claim.
Also, nobody mentioned that seconds before Wilson’s outburst, Obama himself claimed that high level politicians on the other side were lying. Again, I’d love to see what Obama claims these people are lying about it so I can judge the merits of the claim.
If anybody has seen any writings on these subjects, I’d love to know. Thanks.
Which bill DK? As Kling points out today there is no single complete bill or plan and that Obama’s use of the words “my” and “this” in relation to a Bill during his speech were pure politcal obfuscations – the small lie or the big lie depending on your views.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/09/the_biggest_lie.html
Although, I’m devastated that you think I’m insecure, I still ask you to prove that the Dalai Bama’s life is in more danger because he’s black.
That’s right Alexei. The government still asserts rights over your property, thus we have property rights.
Dalai Bama – I like that one
I’m glad that you’re coming up with new material. I was getting bored with the other ones.
I’ll let you write post now that says “Oh I’m so disheartened that I bore you”.
LMAO @ Dalai Bama!!!!!!!
Not at all. The other ones were getting boring. The Dalai Bama was an instant hit around here. The bush presidency produced a long list of names as well.
Still waiting for evidence, though.
I’m not sure I follow.
So I can keep my stuff unless some government dude decides to take it, for whatever reason. And because that dude deems to maybe not take it today, I’m supposed take that as the government dude acknowledging my right to it?
I’m just an Engineer, but that seems a bit bass ackwards to me. It seems to me that he should have no right to it at all without due process and for specific public uses. Or if I use it to break the law or the like….but then that’s just the penalty for my malfeasance, not really an assertion of his right to it.
To my (untrained) legal eye, that court decision seems to have thrown that completely out.
What am I missing?
Ah yes – well secret service has reported that death threats quadrupled. I’m not privy to justifications. I don’t think you lose any argumentative ground by admitting that (a.) many Americans are racist, and (b.) that racism and racist violence go hand in hand, and that (c.) that might be a cause for concern. It’s a logical argument… based on a few basic axioms. I thought that sort of praxeology flew pretty well around here.Look – you want evidence that he is more in danger because he is black. Your two other options are that he is less in danger as a result of his blackness, or he is equally in danger. I don’t get secret service updates forwarded to me, but I think it’s reasonable to be concerned that danger wouldn’t stay exactly the same or decrease because of the color of his skin. You often reference your national history, I’ll reference mine. Racist violence is not a fantasy in America, it is unfortunately a real concern.
Re: Name me one situation where Obama has tried to “portray everyone else as racist”.
Obama: “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.” – Dreams of my Father.
Obama: “Typical White Person”
Obama declared that the sergeant “acted stupidly” while doing his duty, when all Obama knew, admittedly, was that the sergeant was white and the person arrested, Obama’s friend Harvard Processor Henry Gates, was black. Obama focused like a laser beam on the skin color of one man and engaged in grievance mongering about “racial profiling,” a charge that hampers law enforcement in black communities and was not even a factor in the Cambridge case. In an instant, Obama abandoned any pretense of being “post racial” and, before our very eyes, was transformed into our “race-baiter-in-chief”.
Don’t forget the other part to my statement as well, the other Democrats. I already mentioned a few, very few, examples of racism coming from the Democrats like Hank Johnson, don’t forget Jimmy Carter as well. There are lots more, like how mysteriously the Black Panther charges were dropped, how convenient.
Your right I may have put words in your mouth. I do that from time to time, for that I apologize.
No I don’t think everything is polar opposites. I think there is a lot of subtle nuance involved in everything and everything is much more complicated that people think, which is why I’m so against Keynes and more in line with Hayek.
you’re missing my sarcasm
OK – Obama at one point in his life found solace in nursing what could legitimately be called racist hatred against whites. Two questions about that (1.) why? we can agree this was wrongheaded of Obama, but what motivated it and how does that motivation compare to the motivations of white racists? I’m guessing the motivation of Obama’s (wrongheaded) hatred has something to do with the legacy of slavery and segregation. I’m guessing the motivation of white racism has something to do with an understanding of biological hierarchy and a racial caste system. It’s not a justification, but it’s worth thinking about. Question (2.) since I’ve never read that book before and clearly you have access to it, could you provide the sentence or two that follows that one? The past tense of that sentence makes me wonder if the next sentence says something like “but I realized that was counter-productive, stupid, and wrong and I grew out of it”. Look – I don’t begrudge people like Strom Thurmond who grew out of their racism to later sponsor civil rights legislation. I begrudge the people that maintain it. If he was a pissed off kid growing up but learned from it that’s fundamentally different. “Typical white person” – I have to laugh at this one. Yes, I suppose marginally racist because it presupposes a “typical white person” – but the point of that whole statement was that his grandmother felt the tensions of race in society but WASN’T racist because of that. It makes no sense for you to then turn it around and use it as an example that he thought white people ARE racist. You’re making exactly the opposite point he was!And I’m sorry, but the officer was stupid. He wasn’t racist, but he was stupid. And for the record Gates was stupid too. Either way, I hardly see how Obama’s commentary on this one situation is Obama portraying “everyone as racist”. Is Obama calling Kanye a jackass proof that he thinks all black people are racist too. After all, Kanye is black, Taylor Swift is white, Obama criticized the black guy so that must mean… give me a break Justin!RE: “I think there is a lot of subtle nuance involved in everything and everything is much more complicated that people think, which is why I’m so against Keynes and more in line with Hayek.”Funny, nuance is exactly why I think Hayek is great as a rule of thumb but ultimately inadequate relative to Keynes.
The death threats quadrupled from the time he was a candidate to the time he took office. The number of death threats against any president aren’t very high (all things considered), thus not difficult to quadruple. How does that compare to previous candidates? Seems like you’re abandoning all your academic rigour. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Just because the president is black and the country (like every other) has a racist history does not mean his race is the cause of a few additional death threats.
Yes, despite my the fact that I wasn’t born here, I went to school in the South and know all about your history. The news flash for Americans is that racism is not unique to you and neither is racial violence. Most other countries are far more racist and far more violent – and far more critical of America for things they are far more guilty of.
It’s interesting that you insist that the vast majority of Americans aren’t racists and then in your last post you say that so many are. Which is it?
Of course, none of this has anything to do with criticism of Obama and his policies. What’s far more scary to me than human tribal tendencies is the willingness to overlook racism and racist violence when it is being perpetrated by a minority group and the attempt to use accusations of racism to silence political opposition. The same thing happens with “sexism”. THAT is what we should “guard against” in a free country.
RE: “Seems like you’re abandoning all your academic rigour.”
Ummm… like I said, I’m not exactly privy to this information.
RE: “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc”
And to prove I’m not a know-it-all elitist type, I have no clue what the hell this means, but thanks to Google I’ll know in about thirty seconds.
RE: ” The news flash for Americans is that racism is not unique to you and neither is racial violence. Most other countries are far more racist and far more violent – and far more critical of America for things they are far more guilty of.”
Well of course – I’m not making the claim that Obama’s chances of survival are worse than, say, a Chechen journalist. But I have somewhat higher standards than the life expectancy of a Chechen journalist.
RE: “It’s interesting that you insist that the vast majority of Americans aren’t racists and then in your last post you say that so many are. Which is it”
I’m not sure what you mean. I expect that a very low percentage of Americans are actually racist. I’m not sure when I’ve ever said otherwise. “Many” doesn’t have to be a high percentage, but for the life of me I can’t find where I said “so many are”.
RE: Post hoc, ergo propter hocOh, wow. I’m insulted you even think I’m committing this fallacy.How exactly do you draw that conclusion? I’m saying that racist violence is a reasonable thing to be concerned about if you’re a powerful black man in this country. I’m additionally pointing out the quadrupling of the threats as something else to be concerned about. My causal claim, you’ll note, was not based on the relationship between these to things. My causal claim was based on building off the basic axioms of the existence of racism and the threat of violencei n this country.Thank you google!
I’m sorry you’re insulted by reality. That racists exist and the president is black and the death threats increased when his power increased, is not proof that his life is in any more danger because of his race than the threat to any other president’s merely because they were presidents. Yet, that is exactly your argument. Who knows. Maybe the KKK really has it in for them (I gave up my membership when they found out my last name was Jewish and we don’t keep in touch /sarcasm), but the evidence you provide doesn’t support your assertion.
BTW – it occurs to me that I don’t really care about racial violence as much as I care about violence in general. The source of the violence is less important than the violence itself. For example, I’m not bothered that some people are racist and sexist because they have a right to their opinion – no matter how distasteful to me. I do care that people are violent regardless of the reason (barring defense).
The KKK really has it in for HIM (although, they might be after the wife and kids too).
Let me repeat this again more slowly:
I don’t base the causal relationship on the fact that death threats have quadrupled at the time that a black man took office. I have never made that relationship. I have made a LOGICAL case for the concern, and mentioned the quadrupling as a reasonable reason for additional concern.
It’s very easy to come to the conclusion that I’m illogical when you take the liberty of imputing illogical ideas to me.
RE: “but the evidence you provide doesn’t support your assertion”
Quite astute. As I said, I don’t have evidence on this – I have logic. I think any reasonable person familiar with America would have some degree of additional concern for Obama’s safety upon him taking office. Reasonable? I think so.
RE: “The source of the violence is less important than the violence itself. ”
Good, we agree on this at least. The concern isn’t that the violence is racial – the concern is that racism might be a reason to worry about additional violence.
Perhaps some exceptions – a “negative externality”, if you will. Racial violence contributes to social division in a way that non-racial violence might not. In that sense it risks setting off more violence. JFK and MLK’s assasinations were both equally tragic. MLK’s set off the riots. So maybe that’s one exception, but generally I agree with you.
“I’m guessing the motivation of white racism has something to do with an understanding of biological hierarchy and a racial caste system. It’s not a justification, but it’s worth thinking about.”
You’ve given absolutely no reason for why it’s worth thinking about. You do softly (so that you cannot be pinned down as having that position) suggest that black racism is justified but not white racism. Obama did not have a typical upbringing. Obama was never a slave and neither was his father or his father’s father. In his book, he describes a fascination with the black Marxists he met in college. I don’t find his motivations to be anything like you describe, and if they are, he needs to get over it. Unless, of course, you think it’s a-okay for me to discriminate against men because women have been discriminated against in the past. Do you want to bear the burden of the mistakes of your ancestors because of your Y chromosomes?
BTW, when the Dalai Bama first came on the scene, I decided to grab his book. Putting those sentences into context does not change their meaning.
You need to read that “typical white person” quote again. He said she’s not a racist and then went on to say that she was. He’s either as inarticulate as the Bushicle or you’re making excuses for Dear Leader.
“And I’m sorry, but the officer was stupid. He wasn’t racist, but he was stupid. And for the record Gates was stupid too.”
I think Justin Palmer was referring to Obama’s admission that he didn’t know the facts and details of the incident but in the next breath accusing the white officer of acting “stupidly”. If he didn’t know anything about the case other than the race of the two people involved, on what basis is he calling the officer stupid? It smacks of racism. There is evidence that Strom Thurmond overcame his racism. There is no evidence that Obama has – no matter how much you wish it weren’t so.
RE: “You’ve given absolutely no reason for why it’s worth thinking about. You do softly (so that you cannot be pinned down as having that position) suggest that black racism is justified but not white racism. ”
Wow – really methinks? First, no. I said quite explicitly that BOTH are wrong. It’s “worth thinking about” (I didn’t think I NEEDED to spell this one out for you) is that being pissed at whites because of segregation seems a lot easier to understand and sympathize with than being pissed at blacks because you think they need to stay in their place. Can we please just separate this from saying it’s not wrong (because I said just the opposite) and jsut step back and admit “ya, if I was black and lived through segregation I’d have a chip on my shoulder too”.
RE: “Unless, of course, you think it’s a-okay for me to discriminate against men because women have been discriminated against in the past”
It’s not OK, just like Obama’s views were not OK. But I’d understand it if you have some resentment. My grandma, who never had a career, has expressed that resentment. You know what I told her? “ya – I totally get that – that would piss me off too”.
RE: “He’s either as inarticulate as the Bushicle or you’re making excuses for Dear Leader”
Wait a minute… the fact that I don’t think Obama thinks he’s surrounded by racists means that I have some sort of slavish, servile relationship to him? I’d defend you against those charges too. That doesn’t mean anything.
RE: “If he didn’t know anything about the case other than the race of the two people involved, on what basis is he calling the officer stupid?”
He knew a lot more than that. I can’t believe I’m having this conversation.
As I said to Justin, I can’t believe you don’t see the irony that you’re saying these things in a post directed against gratuitous, ill-founded accusations of racism.
Pretty much took the words out of my mouth Methinks. Thanks
I was referring to Obama’s admission of ignorance and then rash accusation with the Gate’s flap. He not to subtly accused the white officer of being stupid why? The only thing he had to go on was what? Race? If so then it’s racist. I might give him the benefit of the doubt on it but not much, nothing Obama has done before or since has made me think that he is “post-racial.”
Let ME repeat very slowly to you since you either flunked or slept through your logic class:
You did NOT make a logical case. Your presented a FALLACY. Now, go Google “fallacy”.
“It’s very easy to come to the conclusion that I’m illogical when you take the liberty of imputing illogical ideas to me.”
The familiar, “I’m misunderstood” defense.
“the concern is that racism might be a reason to worry about additional violence.”
I don’t worry about that. Most racism doesn’t lead to violence and I don’t think most violence stems from racism – I think most interracial incidence get blown out of proportion by the media and blamed on racism when race wasn’t the reason for the violence at all.
“that being pissed at whites because of segregation seems a lot easier to understand and sympathize with than being pissed at blacks because you think they need to stay in their place”
Let me spell this out for you real slow:
It’s the same thing. By holding an entire race of people accountable for the actions of SOME people who happened to belong to the same race IS defining a “place” for white people. Whites are forever caste in the role of guilty former slave master. I find nothing to sympathize with. Would you be sympathetic to me if I despised you because you’re of German descent (at least your name is) and a large number of my Jewish family were slaughtered by Nazis in Belarus?
“My grandma, who never had a career, has expressed that resentment.”
Do you see the difference between general resentment of past behaviour of a time gone by or resentment of individuals who continue to engage in that behaviour and resenting all men? This is what I’m getting at.
“the fact that I don’t think Obama thinks he’s surrounded by racists means that I have some sort of slavish, servile relationship to him?”
You’re off on a tangent. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Obama: Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that’s just a fact.
In fact, Gates was being belligerent to a cop who was trying to protect Gates’ property. The black policeman on the scene backed up the arresting officer. Once the facts were examined, race had nothing to do with anything. What’s interesting is how Obama immediately starts implicating the arresting officer’s actions as racist – even as he admits that he doesn’t have the facts, only stuff he’s heard third and fourth hand. The back peddling afterward was fascinating to watch.
I think a logical argument can be made that the gates incident revealed to us that Obama, unlike Thurmond, hasn’t outgrown his racism.
No matter how much you wish it, there is no irony here. Criticism of presidents and their policies is not racist unless one says pretty much what Obama said about the police: “As you know, I used to live in a ghetto and I have a lot of experience with shiftless black people on welfare and it’s pretty clear they the fact that blacks on the welfare roles pretty heavily outnumber whites lead me to believe they would make for shiftless and incompetent presidents”. That would be racist – and pretty close to what the president said about the Cambridge police. Huffpo has the full quote.
The article Don quoted was the about the knee jerk reaction to the opposition. While you might think I’m making blanket accusations against the Dems, I’m trying to support my argument with facts.
What the Dems are doing to the opposition is completely different.
They are making blanket accusations with no factual basis at all except to say, well that’s what I “think.”
Hank Johnson, Jimmy Cater and the rest don’t have any facts, they only tell what they think. They think the opposition is motivated by racism. Where is the fact?
Yes there is some irony there, but only on the surface.
Most of what I’ve said about how this is going to utterly fail as a tactic can be summed up by Victor Hanson’s article here : http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OThmZmY5YzNhMDY2NmY3MjBhZjcyZWU1ZWFkMjBhN2Q=
Oh lord my friend this: “A lot of the push back against Obama seems to me to be more along the lines of leave my piece of the welfare pie alone” is dead on and an observation I made to me back when I got shoved off the train flatcar and saw life as it really was, that was in the mid 60s.Being an old guy, I have lots of anecdotes to support your conclusions too.The only thing I would say is that getting government back to constitutional limits, as the constitution is written today, would not accomplish anything.This, Art 1, Sec 5. para two “each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings” must be changed via amendment to put them back under our control, otherwise every effort to corral them is wasted as long as that is untouched.Consider, let your imagination run, and think of all the ways you could use that phrase to isolate yourself from your voters, responsibility, and the laws you make, yet enrich yourself at their expense.
The only fallacy you’ve pointed out (which I admit would be a fallacy) I’ve never said, methinks.
RE: “The familiar, “I’m misunderstood” defense”
No, the defense is “you misundertand”. Somewhat different. But I can understand your incentive to deflect.
I agree entirely with your last paragraph (except the first sentence). All I’m saying is the first black president might have some crazies gunning for him, and that’s a bad thing. I’m perplexed about why this is getting you so heated.
RE: “It’s the same thing. By holding an entire race of people accountable for the actions of SOME people who happened to belong to the same race IS defining a “place” for white people.”
And maybe you need to reread my post – I said in my post that it was racism. So are you agreeing with me here or what? I just qualified that I can’t get as frustrated with a reaction against segregation as I can with a reaction against simple skin color.
RE: “Would you be sympathetic to me if I despised you because you’re of German descent (at least your name is) and a large number of my Jewish family were slaughtered by Nazis in Belarus? ”
It would be somewhat odd because that only occured for a couple years and my family was out of Germany by the 1890s, but you know – if we were there at the time and you had relatives that were killed of course I would understand why you would have some unease with me. That seems like a perfectly natural reaction. Not an intelligent reaction – like Obama’s reaction wasn’t intelligent – but natural. Slavery and segregation went on for centuries. Whereas my family was out of Germany before the Nazis, I did have slave-holders in my family. I think it isn’t a perfect analogy you make, but a good one.
RE: “You’re off on a tangent. I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
I was responding to your “Dear Leader” remark. I understand, you probably toss it out so often that when someone actually addresses your point it’s a little confusing for you, because you forget you’ve made that point.
Re: “In fact, Gates was being belligerent to a cop who was trying to protect Gates’ property. The black policeman on the scene backed up the arresting officer. Once the facts were examined, race had nothing to do with anything.”
Ummm, yes. I’d agree with all three of these statements. I’d also agree the cop was stupid to actually arrest him for being belligerent, and that the black cop was stupid for agreeing with him.
Re: “What’s interesting is how Obama immediately starts implicating the arresting officer’s actions as racist ”
When did he say this? Nowhere in the quote you provided. Again – you’re imputing things to Obama just like you imputed things to me earlier. How can anyone argue with you in a reasonable way when you do that all the time, methinks?
And you might take a moment to pick up a dictionary and look up these words: “separate and apart from this incident”. He seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what you’re saying, that this incident cannot be tied to profiling (otherwise why say “separate and apart”??????), but that since there’s so much talk swirling around profiling it’s a good opportunity to address that problem.
Which is sort of what I’m doing in approaching this Carter/Dowd thing that Don raises. I’m saying OF COURSE Carter and Dowd are making stupid, inaccurate, and slanderous claims about Joe Wilson, but “separate and apart from this incident” racism is a problem in this country and that should still be disconcerting. Ie – the fact that Carter is dead wrong in this incident doesn’t mean racism isn’t out there.
Re: “I’d also agree the cop was stupid to actually arrest him for being belligerent, and that the black cop was stupid for agreeing with him.”
So what are cops supposed to do then? Just let anyone act out how ever they please?
Cops have to keep order, and they have to do it fairly. That means that if they arrest one person for belligerence, then they have to do it for everyone regardless of race, gender or celebrity status.
Should Mel Gibson have just walked when he got arrested for belligerence while making anti-semetic remarks to the cops? Should I get walk, if I go up to a cop and yell at him in public and call him a “pig?”
RE:”He seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what you’re saying, that this incident cannot be tied to profiling (otherwise why say “separate and apart”??????), but that since there’s so much talk swirling around profiling it’s a good opportunity to address that problem.”
It might “seem” that way to you. Not to me, and I’m guessing not to Methinks as well. What he did do, IMO, is use the fact that there is a “long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately” as an excuse to make a blanket accusation against the cop. In other words, Obama stereotyped the cop. Now would Obama have said it differently if the arresting officer had been the black cop? We will never know will we? All we can do is infer Obama’s past statements and see how they fit in to context with his current ones. He may or may not have changed his racial views. Like Methinks, I see no evidence that he did. He didn’t leave Trinity United until Rev. Wright became a political liability, that is just a plain fact. Which leads me to believe that Obama actually believes what Wright was spewing. Now after spending 20 years there, is any reasonable person supposed to believe what ever he says now? Obviously most did, they voted for him. But that doesn’t get Obama off the hook though.
I can’t improve on Justin Palmer’s response to the Gates thing, so I’ll just deal with the other issue. Let’s look at your statements:
“I just qualified that I can’t get as frustrated with a reaction against segregation as I can with a reaction against simple skin color.”
You don’t seem to grasp that since there is no segregation now and there wasn’t any by the time BHO was 8 years old. He was out of the country by at least age 6, when the family moved to Jakarta. His father is African and no member of his black family was subject to segregation or slavery in the U.S. So, any “reaction to segregation” on his part as an older child and young adult was purely a reaction to skin colour. Now, you may agree that a reaction to skin colour is wrong, but, but that’s not my point. The thing that you call a “reaction to segregation” is plain vanilla racism and not understandable at all.
“It would be somewhat odd because that only occured for a couple years and my family was out of Germany by the 1890s”
Here, you make the same point as I do. It would never occur to me to hold you responsible for Nazi atrocities. All white people weren’t for segregation and millions of immigrants and people who weren’t around or were children during segregation can’t be held responsible for it as they were young or not even in this country. My family certainly owned no slaves. So, how can you possibly be sympathetic to black racists today on the basis of segregation?
“Slavery and segregation went on for centuries.”
It still goes on. And it went on all over the world for thousands of years and nobody ever thought it was immoral. Islam still allows it. In fact, my people – the Slavs – were enslaved so often by so many that the we became synonymous with the institution. The word “slave” comes from the word “Slav” as in “Slavic people”. While blacks were enslaved a for a piddly 350 years or so, my people were enslaved for much much longer. We were enslaved by Germans (that means YOU, Kuehn) and Africans (give rise to jokes with my husband that I should really hate his guts). So, really, Kuehn, your peeps hit me from both sides. You white people owe me BIG.
Joking aside, the institution of slavery is not unique to blacks and not unique to America and human history. Slavery was only questioned until the late 18th century, and then only by a small handful of Western countries. The milking of slavery as an excuse for racism is just bullshit.
Corrections and clarifications:
blacks were enslaved for 350 years in AMERICA – not in total. In total, we are all descend from both slaves and slave owners…
.and slavery was NEVER questioned until the late 18th century.
Now where are my reparations, you German!?!?
Agreed.
What do you mean “throw them out together”? You have to evaluate each accusation on it’s face. There are racists out there. There are socialists out there (this van Jones guy is a great example of a socialist accusation that might actually carry some weight). The point isn’t to “tie the two together”, the point is to point out recent incidences of both that have been particularly weak on evidence.
I looked at buying Road the other day but it was $138. I wonder if Capitalism and Democracy is any better priced.
OK, Justin. Let’s walk through this:
You wrote, “What the Dems are doing to the opposition is completely different”… doesn’t that clue you in to why I might think you’re “making blanket accusations against the Dems”
RE: “Hank Johnson, Jimmy Cater and the rest don’t have any facts, they only tell what they think. They think the opposition is motivated by racism. Where is the fact?”
I’m not challenging your point on whether the opposition is motivated by racism. I AGREE with you on that point. My point is that I’m a Dem and I’m not making that kind of statement about the opposition, and a lot of us aren’t making that kind of accusation. And I’m a little confused about why you’re accusing the whole party of this without presenting any facts to that effect.
If you just yelled “pig” at a cop, I hope to God you wouldn’t be arrested for it. As for Mel Gibson – do you really think he was arrested for the anti-semitic remarks, or do you think the DUI might have had something to do with it? Michael Richards made comparable remarks around that same time, and he wasn’t arrested for it. You know why? Because he wasn’t DRIVING DRUNK, he was in a comedy club. He was socially censured for it, as Mel Gibson should be and as Prof. Gates should be. But no, getting arrested for it is stupid and the cop was stupid for doing it. This cop isn’t some evil bad person. But he’s not exactly a shining example of the Cambridge police force, either. I’m sorry – but I’m not accusing anyone of racism by speaking clearly about this cop’s failings (just like I’m not BEING racist by speaking clearly about Prof. Gates’s failings).
RE: “The only thing he had to go on was what? Race? If so then it’s racist.”
Um, no. What he had to go on was that Gates was arrested for being a jackass. That doesn’t reflect well on Gates, but it’s no justification for an arrest. You’re reading race into this when the reasons are utterly clear: it’s NOT GOOD for cops to think they can arrest people for not liking cops and saying they don’t like cops.
Geez, you’d think I wouldn’t have to explain this on a libertarian blog. That’s a REALLY bad precedent, and while no one should be calling the cop a racist, nobody should be praising him for what he did either!
I got “Road” for like 14 buck on amazon. “Captialism…” is about the same price…you might be looking at the whole collected works of Hayek…all his books which might cost $138
You ever stop to think that maybe your in the minority position then? Read Daily Kos, Huff Po or our own Muir.
I’d say the majority of hardcore liberals and at least 50% of regular Dems think that the opposition is all due to racism. I don’t have any numbers but that is just my gut feeling. Just because your a Dem and that your not explicitly making those kind of accusations, doesn’t let the rest of the party off.
Re: “I’m a little confused about why you’re accusing the whole party of this without presenting any facts to that effect.”
I’m not going to sit here and link to every comment on Daily Kos, Huff Po and the rest of the left wing blog. Suffice to say, when Pelsoi, Johnson, Clyburn, Carter, etc say it…it’s pretty much a prevailing thought in Dem circles…like I said above…maybe your just in the minority on this one.
Oh wow – please don’t operate under the assumption that the Daily Kos represents a majority of the Democratic Party.
America is a big place. I may be totally wrong about this, but Kos and other groups like that are quite fringe. PARTICULARLY right now, when the Democratic Party has taken in so many moderates (me for example – I’ve only actually called myself a Democrat in the last couple years).
You can continue to argue the motives of the cop and Gates. That still doesn’t let Obama off the hook for making his rash judgment based on, his own admittedly, faulty data.
Might carry weight? Your being too generous, the guy was self admitted communist. There is no “might” about it. If your going to be that generous to a self described communist, that doesn’t hold well for people you let off the hook.
If a self described communist only “might” be a socialist, then what actually constitutes socialist for you?
The only reason the evidence is “weak” for you, IMO, is because you don’t want to see it. I know your aware of the term “Cognitive Dissonance.”
Just so you don’t get all defensive on me, I’m not accusing you of any willful disregard of the facts. Hell I’ve been guilty of it myself.
Just read the stupid quote. He said he didn’t have all the facts on what? On what exactly? Don’t quote this selectively – read back the entire sentence. He said he didn’t have all the facts on the role that race played, Justin. That’s what he admited he didn’t have the facts on, and that’s why he never once said that cop was motivated by race.
The fact that was ABUNDANTLY obvious to any objective person was that there were no grounds for arresting Gates. I’m sick of this “gotcha” approach.
Yes – definitely an avowed communist. I was thinking more in terms of the policies he was advocating while he was in office, which I’m not aware of in any great detail and which might not be socialist. But ya – no doubt he was personally a socialist. I should have been more clear on that.
Maybe I was looking at a special addition because I now see it for $11.56. the one I was looking at had Milton Friedman stuff in it too. $25.20 for hard cover.
Again I have to ask if maybe your in the minority and the Kos, MoveOn, Huff Po are the majority of the Dems.
Ironically I was a Dem until those groups took over in the wake of Iraq. That’s when I left and found Hayek, now I’m libertarian.
Well half the country is Dem right? ha ha
Yes I do see the irony of my statement. I’m talking about the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharpton, Rev. Wrights of the world, that explicitly use race for profit. I’m a Chemist, the only time race comes up at my workplace is when we are talking about Susan Komen Race for the Cure.
You’re not hard to understand. You’re backpeddling.
I’m perplexed because I thought Clinton was our first black president!!
YOU’RE sick of the “gotcha” approach.
I think it’s only ABUNDANTLY clear that Gates shouldn’t have been arrested to apologists like you. To me, the whole situation is deeply UNCLEAR and these situations usually are very unclear at the time the cop has to make a decision. Gates wasn’t arrested until he decided to take the full force of his outrage to the street outside his house and disturb the peace. At that point, it was a judgment call on the cop’s part. You may not agree with the call, but nothing was ABUNDANTLY CLEAR at the time the cop made the decision.
Obama could have avoided stepping into this pail of putride feces if he’d just said “I haven’t enough facts to make a comment at this time”. Instead, he decided to wax philosophical on race relations and issue judgments without enough evidence – AT A HEALTH CARE SPEECH! Rookie mistake. Revealing too much of himself is as disastrous for Obama as extemporaneous speaking is for the Shrub.
You don’t think racism and segregation still have a legacy in America? You don’t think they have something to do with the position of blacks relative to whites in America (just like, I might add, the trampling of the Slavic peoples might have some impact on the relative poverty of Eastern Europe today?).
I don’t know why I have to keep reminding you and Palmer that I agree with you and Palmer that this early anger on Obama’s part is unjustified. You’re making the case to me that it was unjustified – I know that. I’ve said that. But the legacy was all around him in Chicago. My family didn’t benefit at all from the Nazi regime. The point is, in the United States every white person benefited from preferential treatment, even if you were opposed to segregation. It’s not an issue of logic, Methinks. I’m with you on that. It’s not an issue of whether every white person deserved to be hated. I’m saying I can understand why someone might have that kind of resentment, even if I think it’s riddled with logical holes. Resentment generally isn’t particularly logical. And just because you’re frustrated with the situation that past wrongs put you in in the present doesn’t mean you’re gunning for a reparation – I’m not sure how that came into the picture.
Huh? Look – I can say “it was a flash decision and those decisions are tough on cops and he’s not a bad person for making that call” and still say “but it was a stupid decision”. I’m not sure why everybody is taking sides on this Gates affair. I think Gates was clearly stupid for ranting when there didn’t seem to be a racist bone in that cop’s body. I think the cop was stupid for arresting him for that (and I’m very amused that libertarians on this board are cheering that sort of indiscriminate use of police power), and as I thought I said on Cafe Hayek when the issue broke (maybe not), Obama was also very stupid for opening his mouth about it – much less having that stupid beer summit.
This isn’t about taking sides, Methinks. And yes, I’M sick of this “gotcha” approach to things. When people are saying “Joe Wilson is a racist”, “no Carter is a racist”, “no Obama is a racist”, “no the whole Democratic Party is a racist”, and I’M the one saying “there are racists out there, but I don’t think Wilson, Carter, the cop, Gates, or the Dems are racist” how am I engaging in “gotcha” tactics? Only on Cafe Hayek can “I think they both are making legitimate points” be considered an inflammatory position to take.
one word at a time posting. annoying.
You can’t complain about taking sides as you’re picking a side.
The “legacy” of slavery and segregation is the Democrats pimping out blacks and “keeping them in their place” for personal political gain. Just try being black and disagreeing with the left. Ask Condi Rice what happens. Suddenly, racism is a-okay because she’s not black black.
No, I don’t think the Slavs suffer from a legacy of slavery because I actually know enough history. The poverty in those countries can be traced to many things – the most recent of which is a socialism. The Slavs were enslaved because they were weak. They didn’t get weak from slavery. Slaves were the booty of war and slavery had nothing to do with racism – ever. In the U.S. it was LATER justified on some weird species grounds after it was discovered slavery didn’t mesh well with the constitution. “Trampling” of Slavic people”! LOL. We were all trampled upon and did our fair share of trampling throughout history.
The reason Palmer and I keep hammering you is you keep spewing rubbish. You say it’s stupid in the first sentence and then proceed to justify the behaviour in the very next sentence.
Segregation only happened in the South. If your argument is based on who benefited, then my counterargument is that every single descendant of slavery in America benefited because slavery brought them to live in America and not the shithole that is Africa today and historically. What would have happened to them in Africa? Well, they’d probably be slaves anyway because Africans regularly enslave each other – to this day. I know Al Sharpton and his fellow race baiters have popularized among less educated blacks that they were all kings in the great Ancient kingdoms of Egypt until the American slave trade plucked them out of this exalted position. Unfortunately, the don’t happen to realize that those kingdoms predated the American slave trade by some three thousand years and the Nubians were SLAVES in Egypt, not kings.
Humanity has a terrible legacy of intra-species atrocities – or what we would call atrocities today, but may not have been called atrocities at the time. Blacks in America don’t have a uniquely bad history in that regard and, in fact, did better than most of the world’s population out of it. So, why should their racism be justified, qualified (pick your adjective) on any grounds? What about the descendants of white indentured servants?
BTW, you keep brought up the Nazi’s brief history and contrasting it to black slavery in America (cherry picking a time a place). What does the length of time (an accident of history – they lost the war) have to do with it? At least slave owners didn’t seek to exterminate whole races like vermin.
“keep bringing up…”
I was thinking of socialism as the most recent form of slavic slavery.
RE: “Segregation only happened in the South”
Ummm…. not… quite. If only.
RE: “So, why should their racism be justified, qualified (pick your adjective) on any grounds?”
Because their “racism” isn’t the same as white “racism”. That’s the whole point. The fallacy of (most) black racism is pointing to a whole group of people and blaming them for the bad acts of individuals. That’s not good. The fallacy of (most) white racism is pointing to a whole group of people and suggesting they are inferior. Both are bad – I see the later as being much more heinous than the former (which is also why I think Nazi racism is much more heinous than the racism of a theoretical Jew who hates all Germans).
Taking a faulty tribal view of the world (ie lumping groups of people together) is very bad. It’s not nearly as bad as having a faulty genetic superiority view of the world. Obama lumped people together when he was younger. He didn’t think he was racially superior to those people. That’s my point.
I’d also be very careful about these “they’re better off than they would have been in Africa” comments. I’m not shy about admiting that Western civilization has distinct advantages over all other civilizations. I think that’s just a fact of life.
But aside from those civilizational superiorities, exactly why do you think Africa is a shithole today? Don’t you think it has something to do with centuries of imperialism and exportation into slavery? Some of it inflicted by outsiders… some inflicted internally.