A few 
conservatives are stomping their feet in anger that I would say more than a few on the right would like to see churches like Trinity United firebombed.
I’m sorry, really.
I’m sorry that conservatives throughout American history have been the ones opposed to racial progress. I’m sorry conservatives once infected the Democratic party with their hate and then found a home in the Republican party to practice their rage.
I’m sorry conservatives beat those fighting for equal rights. I’m sorry conservatives firebombed churches, meeting places, and the like in order to fight the civil rights movement. I’m truly sorry more than a few conservatives believe in these things, and I’m truly sorry to have to point this out.
In all likelihood, I’m sorry that I’m going to have to keep pointing this out. Perhaps if you guys dealt with this issue on your side of the aisle, we could move on to other things. Sorry!
OW, You have found your voice.
Oliver,
We have been trying.
There is no place for racism in modern conservative philosophy. But apparently gross generalizations (the key element of racism) are OK for you to apply to us.
I am sorry however that you continue to mix up dissent from the Obamamania as some sort of racism or desire for violence.
BTW, why have “liberals” not kicked Grand Cyclops Byrd out of their “side of the aisle”.
Respectfully,
The Squid
Hey Oliver, just who are these “conservatives [who] once infected the Democratic party with their hate”?
I challenge you to name them.
Could it be:
Albert Gore, Sr., a Democrat, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
President Bill Clinton’s political mentor, J. William Fulbright, of Arkansas also a Democrat, who also voted against The Civil Rights Act.
Robert Byrd, also a Democrat), the only Senator to oppose both black Supreme Court nominees.
Squid Shark – Pointing out Byrd’s old KKK days is the political equivalent of a fat pitch down the middle. He has admitted he was wrong. Repeatedly. Contrition remains, as ever, the path to forgiveness.
Today’s GOP still props up Tom Tancredos and George “Macaca” Allens, along with a host of other politicians whose bigotry extends across racial, religious, and sexual orientation lines.
You are intellectually vacuous if you even have believe half of what you’ve posted here.
Conservatives come from the party of Lincoln, the party specifically formed for the purposes of abolishing slavery. Your side was its opposition. It was Democrats who opposed earlier civil rights acts, and it is the Democratic Party today who hosts a former keagle in the Klu Klux Klan.
And of course as Jon Henke has already pointed out in a response to your earlier childish rant, the public figure in support of domestic bombing us Ayers, Obama’s “mainstream” colleague.
It’s little wonder I’ve never read your blog before. You’ve nothing to offer to the current political debate except for playing a race card that isn’t even yours to play. Bravo. To paraphrase a recent statement from Garry Kasparov, I’m grateful that the opposition has demonstrated the level of discourse we should anticipate, though his opposition was far more clever.
SpiderJ, so he claims he now sees the error of his ways, and you believe him, even though two years after making this “apology” he uttered a racial slur on national television, and even though he’s already lied about his status within the Klan. Three years after claiming he had cut off his ties to that racist group, he sent them a letter addressing his former status and stating that the group was needed then more than ever, especially in his state. And a year after that, he wrote a letter about a desegregated military, saying he’d rather die.
And what about how he LED the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the one Willis is whining about Republicans not supporting?
There is no place for racism in modern conservative philosophy.
While I agree with this statement, let me just say that, coming from a conservative,
Bwahahaha!
It was Democrats who opposed earlier civil rights acts
Yes it was. That’s why they switched parties. And good riddance to them too.
Kelly,
I knew it wouldn’t be long before we heard the “party of Lincoln” argument. But of course that was long ago, before Nixon’s Southern Strategy converted those crackers to your grand old racist party.
Although Wikipedia is not the end-all reference, it certainly describes it adequately:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
There’s a quote there from Kevin Phillips, who at the time was working for Nixon: “The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”
I’m sorry that instead of backing up your argument with actual facts, you resort to irrelevant tales of days gone by. Your argument was that folks want to firebomb Trinity United TODAY. And so far, you’ve shown no proof other than your own vitriol and contempt.
Kinda sad, really.
Kelly – Lincoln was a progressive liberal. You’re going to have to deal with that.
Ask yourself who keeps hoisting Confederate flags in state courthouses and then tell me that the GOP is any more the party of Abraham Lincoln.
Everybody’s sort of going around the twist with the “Your team’s racist,” “no yours is” talk. The truth – as usual, more nuanced than easy entertaining sound bytes – is that there are racist Democrats and racist Republicans (though their racism is often clothed differently), and any attempt to quantify which party has more racists is likely to fall apart under even a moment’s scrutiny.
It’s pretty unproductive to point out each other’s racist members (because there are no doubt plenty in each party), and for that matter to point out Senate votes cast without including a piece of their reasoning for casting the vote. The Senate, as I’m sure everyone reading here knows, uses a pretty complex process, and a ‘no’ vote doesn’t necessarily mean one is against something, only that they are against it in its currently presented form.
Kelly, no political party today can lay claim to Lincoln’s program. The times are just too different. His assertion of the federal government’s power (and, by the way, the signing of more executive orders than any president in history) over the rights of the states doesn’t strike me as very classically conservative, (especially the conservatism that was in vogue in Lincoln’s day) nor does being an advocate for somewhat radical social upheaval (emancipation, though he was rather moderate before being elected). However, his attitudes toward ‘free labor’ and the ability of a farm boy to become wealthy in the American system strike me as pretty conservative, as do his support for the Homestead Act and National Banking Act.
The point is that it’s a mixed bag trying to compare politicians from different eras to the present. Just because Lincoln’s party was called ‘Republican’ doesn’t mean it has anything to do with the modern incarnation.
So, conservatives, where are your contradictory arguments? Why not reply to Mr. Willis with, “No, no one on the right thinks it would be a good thing to firebomb Trinity.”
Instead of “Look! William Ayers!” why not dispute Mr. Willis assertion directly?
“crackers to your grand old racist party.”
Crackers. Ha. So does that make you the kettle, or the pot? No one answers that question, but I’m curious anyway.
“Kelly – Lincoln was a progressive liberal. You’re going to have to deal with that.”
The denotation of words is completely lost on you it seems. Of course he was a liberal. He was advocating change. Those who do so are liberal. Liberal and conservative are not political parties. Those words specifically denote those who advocate change and those who advocate returning to something past. The words are utterly meaningless when talking about anything but the present US situation, as they mean completely different ideologies in different times or regions.
“The point is that it’s a mixed bag trying to compare politicians from different eras to the present.”
I don’t disagree with that or anything else you wrote. I’m not trying to paint any group with a broad brush, though Willis certainly is and in doing so ignores much of history, which is fitting considering the current state of education in this country.
The words are utterly meaningless when talking about anything but the present US situation, as they mean completely different ideologies in different times or regions.
Then why did you bring it up?
“The denotation of words is completely lost on you it seems. Of course he was a liberal. He was advocating change. Those who do so are liberal.”
“Conservatives come from the party of Lincoln, the party specifically formed for the purposes of abolishing slavery.”
I do just fine with language denotation, but you either willfully or accidentally confused the communication with your above two comments.
Republicans came from the Party of Lincoln, not conservatives.
So, conservatives, where are your contradictory arguments? Why not reply to Mr. Willis with, “No, no one on the right thinks it would be a good thing to firebomb Trinity.”
Actually, it would have been better for people to have said nothing. Oliver’s statement is so breathtakingly stupid that it’s not worthy of a response. Oh and the “No, no one on the right thinks it would be a good thing to firebomb Trinity” is the equivalent of “I don’t beat my wife.” Oliver’s accusation is so vacuous it doesn’t deserve a response.
It’s idiotic on its face as it seeks to equate conservatism with racism.
“So, conservatives, where are your contradictory arguments? Why not reply to Mr. Willis with, ‘No, no one on the right thinks it would be a good thing to firebomb Trinity.’ ”
So you’ll listen if we say that no one wants to firebomb Trinity?
OK. No, no one on the Right thinks it would be a good thing to firebomb Trinity.
Believe me now?
No? I’m just a faceless screen name who can’t speak for the intentions of everyone on the Right?
Well, how about this… Trinity is the best thing to happen to McCain. It opened peoples’ eyes about Obama’s lack of judgment and/or his radicalism. Either way, it’s win/win for Republicans. The longer that church stands, the better hope McCain has of convincing constituents that Obama isn’t the post racial candidate he once claimed to be.
Don’t believe me? Check the polls. Wright’s ranting hurt Obama and succeeding in doing what even Clinton could not, as it tarnished the man’s one spotlessly shining coat of armor.
I’m sure there are nuts who want to firebomb Trinity, but it’s impossible to say which party they belong to, as Democrat volunteers attested to during the primaries. They called registered Democrats and frequently heard racial slurs. And look at the polls. There’s a significant segment of the Democrat Party who voted for Clinton who claimed race was an important factor.
Obama’s lack of judgment and/or his radicalism
I’m still waiting for somebody to tell me what they think the “radical” Barack Obama is going to do when he attains office.
I suspect that they never mention anything specific because they know they will sound like paranoid, delusional nutcases.
Parthenon,
Well said…
“Then why did you bring it up?”
I was using the proper context. Today’s conservatives (meaning what you know of conservatives today) come from the party of Lincoln.
I’m not calling Lincoln a conservative.
My argument isn’t hard to follow.
“I do just fine with language denotation, but you either willfully or accidentally confused the communication with your above two comments.
Republicans came from the Party of Lincoln, not conservatives.”
In this time period in this country, conservatives ARE Republicans. Seriously, this isn’t rocket science.
“I’m still waiting for somebody to tell me what they think the ‘radical’ Barack Obama is going to do when he attains office.”
Really? Then you must not know a single person who thinks Obama is wrong for the office, because they are entire websites devoted to tell anyone who will listen just what they believe Obama’s radical policies are and what those policies will do to harm the country.
Take any issue and just Google. It will take you less time than posting another comment here.
Spider,
Since Obama has no real record (except voting present alot) all we have is his supposedly superior “judgment”.
One of the halmarks of “judgment” is the company we keep.
Bill Ayers, unrepentant terrorist
Benadine Dohrn, same as above
Jeremiah Wright, race baiter and conspiracy nut
Tony Rezko, corrupt best buddy fundraiser.
I learned early on that you could tell alot about a person from the company he keeps…
Kelley,
I think you are wrong on this one.
This angle is not a valid one.
Oliver is right that the Democratic racists of the 60’s were “conservatives” in the sense that they faught change.
Modern Day Conservatives have no room for such idiocy, no matter what Nixon (who was no conservative) did. William Buckley was VERY supportive of civil rights after watching what those idiots did in the South.
I learned early on that you could tell alot about a person from the company he keeps…
Yep.
“I learned early on that you could tell alot about a person from the company he keeps…
Yep.”
Thats funny, Oliver, is that supposed to be a rebuttal?
John McCain has an independent record that we can judge him on. We know where he differs and where he is the same as Bush.
What do we know about Obama?
He apparently wont commit too many votes to paper.
Good thing he cant vote “present” in the U.S. Senate, otherwise we would have no clue what he stands for at all.
He actively cavorts with some radical folks, seemingly of his own volition, rather than political expediency.
He is nothing but a doctrinare liberal with no record of actually working with republicans even though he is selling himself as a post-racial, post-partisan candidate.
So, yes, I have never been a fan of President Bush, and was not happy when McCain started snuggling up to him. But I know who he is and where he stands.
What little I know about what Sen Obama actually stands for
(besides Hope and Change) is not acceptable.
Oliver’s statement is so breathtakingly stupid that it’s not worthy of a response.
And yet….
Oh stop it, Squidward. Who someone knows is not indicative of what someone believes unless they come right out and say “I agree.”
Show us one thing you think Obama is “radical” about.
I mean, other than all of this stuff.
Oh stop it, Squidward. Who someone knows is not indicative of what someone believes unless they come right out and say “I agree.”
Oh but some racists firebombed churches 40-50 years ago, and that gives Oliver enough latitude to accuse conservatives of wanting to firebomb Trinity Church?
Duros,
His crypto-Marxist (to paraphrase Gore Vidal) economic theory would seem to suggest he is at best out of touch with most of middle America.
But screw us, right, were all racist fire-bombers.
Duros,
Also, Obama seems to be trying to peg McCain with everything G.W. Bush has ever done. Of course if you talk in nothing but Generalities, its easy not to get pegged down.
One of the halmarks of “judgment” is the company we keep.
Bill Ayers, Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago
Benadine Dohrn, Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law, Director of Northwestern’s Children and Family Justice Center, board member of numerous human rights committees
Jeremiah Wright, ex-marine, previously member of presidential medical team, recipient of seven honorary doctorate degrees
Tony Rezko, investor in lower-income neighborhoods, “Entrepreneur of the Decade”
“Oliver is right that the Democratic racists of the 60’s were ‘conservatives’ in the sense that they faught change.”
I don’t and have not disputed that. That’s my whole point about context.
These days liberals talk about change but don’t actually do anything about it. And with positions on things like school vouchers, government spending and abortion, conservatives are fairly liberal. The connotation of the words is so ingrained in minds though that the association is knee-jerk, even when the context changes.
Squid – The nuances of Obama’s “present” votes have been analyzed in more depth than I’m willing to go into here. Suffice to say that there’s more going on in an Illinois legislature “present” vote than is convenient for you to mention.
Convenient is a very appropriate word, SpiderJ.
Wait, Republicans are racist for splitting the vote? Your civil rights hero JFK voted against the civil rights act by sending it to the judiciary committee where he was sure it would die because it was controlled by the Dixiecrats (Chaired by Byrd). He only later decided the Negro vote was important because it was the only way he could win the South. Robert Kennedy was famously quoted as saying ,”I don’t lose sleep at night worrying about the plight of Negroes.” These are the “so-called” champions of civil rights but Nixon and the Republicans are the racists?
Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.
Face it; the only people burning black churches and lynching Negroes were white, Christian Democrats, same Democrats who were fighting busing in the South End of Boston in the 60’s (hardly a bastion for Conservatism today).
You and every other “victim” groups are nothing but a voting block to the Democrats that are discarded the second power has been attained. The Democrats have been in charge of the inner cities and education for four decades and have done nothing to battle poverty, violence or the high drop-out rates of blacks that reside there. The single largest obstacle to the achievement of true equality in the United States is not poverty, but education. If Democrats sincerely wanted to help minority children they would embrace school choice to help poor African American children escape the trap of crappy school systems. But that would offend the teachers’ unions upon which the Democrats depend for financial support. So as has often been the case with the group politics of the Democratic party, African-American interests are sacrificed to other groups who have more pull. Always have been, always will be.
And with positions on things like school vouchers, government spending and abortion, conservatives are fairly liberal.
Oh, please do go on.
School vouchers=want
Government spending and abortion rights = Do Not Want.
What’s so liberal about that?
Bill Ayers, Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, founder of the violent American radical left organization the Weatherman group, unrepentant domestic terrorist
Bernadine Dohrn, Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law, Director of Northwestern’s Children and Family Justice Center, board member of numerous human rights committees, former leader of the 1969–1980 radical leftist organization the Weathermen with publications committing to Marxism-Leninism
Jeremiah Wright, ex-marine, previously member of presidential medical team, recipient of seven honorary doctorate degrees (offer of eighth degree from Northwestern University recently dropped due to his publicized statements), 20 year association with Barack Obama (officiated at his wedding, baptized his daughters, inspired the title of his autobiography), appointed to Barack Obama’s African American Religious Leadership Committee (but later dropped amid contraversy), scheduled to give the public invocation before Barack Obama’s presidential announcement (but dropped the night before), accused (by Barack Obama) of exploiting racism and “giving comfort to those who prey on hate”.
Tony Rezko, investor in lower-income neighborhoods, “Entrepreneur of the Decade”, assisted Barack Obama with below-market value property purchase in 2005, campaign contributor ($250K) to Barack Obama, convicted felon, guilty of six counts of wire fraud, six counts of wire and mail fraud, two counts of corrupt solicitation, and two counts of money laundering
You left a few things off. Fixed it for ya.
Others have said it, but it bears repeating: the only unrepentant firebombers I know of are close Obama associates Ayers and Dohrn.
And then there are those mysterious people who firebombed churches in Arkansas. If only someone besides Bill Clinton remembered it happening.
I believe Condoleezza Rice knew at least one of those four little girls who was killed in one of those bombings. She says she will never forget that particular atrocity.
Firebomb Trinity? Hell, no. But an investigation into their tax-free status, considering their considerable involvement in politics, would seem appropriate.Them’s the rules for tax exemption — you do NOT meddle in politics. And most of what we’ve seen of them is very, very, very political.
J.
One of the most interesting things to me about this election is that the points where I find Sen. Obama to be most legitimately assailable, conservatives are ignoring (at least, relative to Wright/Ayers/etc.), and the points that I find to be generally cosmetic (see above scandals, add in the ‘bitter’ and ’sweetie’ comments), they’re hyping like it’s 1998.
The experience issue is one of those legitimate points, but how often is that really raised relative to the ‘associations’ issue? Since there are some genuine conservatives on this message board, I’ll just raise the question – why not raise the issue of economic protectionism, or the fact that Obama voted for a farm bill that subsidizes (among many other people who don’t need subsidies) the farms of David Letterman and the owners of the Utah Jazz, and your guy voted against it? Why beat the Wright drum all day when you can raise the question of who will better improve on President Bush’s absolute rejection of fiscal conservatism? It’s an ironic fact of history that the last fiscal conservative to occupy the office was Bill Clinton, so one can’t dismiss out of hand that Obama’s record might be better.
This has deviated seriously from the original topic… I hope there are no rules against that…
If I ever use the phrase ‘raise the question’ again, feel free to ignore my comments forever more… yikes, these things need an edit button. And I need more sleep.
Firebomb Trinity? Hell, no. But an investigation into their tax-free status, considering their considerable involvement in politics, would seem appropriate.Them’s the rules for tax exemption — you do NOT meddle in politics. And most of what we’ve seen of them is very, very, very political.
Only because it has been made so.
Perhaps we could delve into Hagee’s tax-exempt status as well, yes?
Dave in SoCal: You left a few things off. Fixed it for ya.
Which is exactly what I had done to fix Squid Shark’s original post.
You want to mention Ayers’ history? Then mention ALL of it. You want to call him “unrepentant” based on his NYT interview? Then also note how he describes the mis-characterization of that.
And similar goes for every one of the people mentioned. To describe Wright as only a “race baiter” is to take things out of context and to focus only on his recent activities is to ignore DECADES of service to his congregation.
You want to make sure nothing gets left off? Then don’t leave off the things that don’t support your narrow one-sided view.
And most of what we’ve seen of them is very, very, very political.
And most of what you’ve seen of them is a tiny fraction of what they’ve done. But, let’s judge them entirely on that little slice. That seems appropriate, right?
But wait! The associations don’t end there. Look no further than Obama’s VP search committee:
“James Johnson, one of three people tapped by Mr. Obama recently to oversee the search for his running mate, took at least five real estate loans totaling more than $7 million from Countrywide Financial Corp. through an informal program for friends of the company’s CEO, Angelo Mozilo, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday. The Journal said at least two of the mortgages, among a series of loans made available to people Countrywide officials called “friends of Angelo,” were at rates below market averages, though it is difficult to predict a market rate without access to nonpublic information about a borrower’s credit history and other factors that can reduce interest charges on a loan.
Among the loans to Mr. Johnson, according to the Journal, were a $5 million home equity line of credit against a house in Ketchum, Idaho, a 5.25% loan of $1.3 million for a home in Palm Desert, Calif., and a 3.875% loan of $971,650 for a home in Washington, D.C. The interest rates applied for the first five years of the loans.
“That reeks most high,” a public relations specialist and vocal critic of Mr. Mozilo, Bonnie Russell of Del Mar, Calif., said. “Where’s the ‘change to believe in’ if they’re playing the same old game using the same old players?”
On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has criticized Countrywide’s executives. “These are the people who are responsible for infecting the economy and helping to create a home foreclosure crisis. Two million people may end up losing their homes,” Mr. Obama said in March at a town hall meeting in Lancaster, Pa.
The Chicago Tribune reported that the senator from Illinois “fumed” over a total of $19 million in bonuses set to be paid to Mr. Mozilo and the president of Countrywide, David Sambol.
“They get a $19 million bonus while people are at risk of losing their home. What’s wrong with this picture?” Mr. Obama asked.
Maybe Obama should ask the people on his VP search committee for the answer to his question.
Countdown to “That’s not the James Johnson I knew” and jettisoning him from the campaign in 3…2…1…
“What’s so liberal about that?”
A liberal simply advocates change. Cutting government spending, allowing for school choice, and making abortion illegal but for rare circumstances would all be serious changes to government.
Extending abortion “rights” to the moments after a baby is born from a failed abortion is not advocating change. Continuing to pump money into failed schools is not change. Pork barrel projects are also business as usual.
“The experience issue is one of those legitimate points, but how often is that really raised relative to the ‘associations’ issue?”
That’s because when Obama supporters are told about Obama’s lack of experience, they turn a deaf earn. Some even admit it’s one of his attractive qualities. In response to this attack, Obama has said that we should instead look to his judgment to see whether or not he’ll make a good president.
It’s his judgment that’s being called into question when people bring up his association with radicals.
He claims to have the judgment to lead but never once spoke out against Wright until he was forced to do so. He considers Ayes “mainstream” and somehow manages to be (or act) surprised when his associates are caught doing something stupid but completely within character.
Which isn’t to say there aren’t critiques about his lack of experience. Those are often reported in blogs, but they’re just not as interesting and thus have no legs.
“Only because it has been made so.”
Right. Trinity has only RECENTLY become political. That’s why Father Pfleger and the congregation laughed when he joked about his political sermons right before launching into an attack against Hillary Clinton.
“Perhaps we could delve into Hagee’s tax-exempt status as well, yes?”
I don’t know much about the man, but if there’s evidence that he’s endorsing political candidates and/or demonizing other candidates and/or endorsing or speaking ill of a political party from behind the pulpit, then I fully support you trying to get his tax-exempt status revoked.
I believe he has endorsed McCain, but if he’s done that simply as an individual, then that alone wouldn’t be enough to take away his tax-exempt status. But again, I have no problem delving into his political life. I have no affinity for the man and couldn’t care less if he lost money in taxes.
“You want to mention Ayers’ history? Then mention ALL of it. You want to call him ‘unrepentant’ based on his NYT interview? Then also note how he describes the mis-characterization of that.”
You mean this interview?
“I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.
Fine, upstanding gentleman.
I don’t know much about the man, but if there’s evidence that he’s endorsing political candidates and/or demonizing other candidates and/or endorsing or speaking ill of a political party from behind the pulpit, then I fully support you trying to get his tax-exempt status revoked.
No, I was speaking more towards his use of tax-exempt status to turn a profit for himself. i.e. fraud.
Right. Trinity has only RECENTLY become political. That’s why Father Pfleger and the congregation laughed when he joked about his political sermons right before launching into an attack against Hillary Clinton.
Right. They laughed when he told joked about his own sermons. Clearly that’s a political act.
And all those years I say Johnny Carson joke about his own monologues I never realized I was watching someone being political.
Kelly, I read recently that Ayers clarified that to say that he felt like he personally failed in not doing enough to stop the Vietnam War, not that he failed in not blowing more things up. So with the blanks filled in, it reads ‘I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough [to stop the war].”
Razor-thin difference perhaps, and perhaps somebody else could help me to elaborate on that. But it is a difference nonetheless. We can of course decide for ourselves whether he’s telling the truth, or, if he is, whether that matters.
How do you mischaracterize the statement “I don’t regret setting bombs”? Seriously, how do you spin that or put it “in context” so that Ayers’ actions are justified?
Dave, these guys can spin anything to make themselves feel righteous, see my above post. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960’s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! But the Republicans, according to Oliver, have a history of racism.
These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. The Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement so it’s not much of a stretch when they lie, distort and spin some of the most egregious elements among them to this day.
Parthenon,
The associations (at least in my case) are always raised in relationship to the experience question.
Since Obama knows he has no experience, he asks us to rely on his judgment. Who he, as a very intelligent man, chooses to associate with would be a key indicator of his supposedly stellar judgment.
Respectfully,
The Squid
Ugh. Is there no end. I’d like to know who the OP has spoken with that has mentioned church bombing as a good idea. For god’s sake, if anything, there are more racist blacks in that one church alone than there are klansmen in the whole country. And can someone tell me when the last time a church was firebombed?
Really, I stumbled onto this site from a link as I’m sure many other have. I’ve never heard of this Oliver Willis character, but after browsing the site for a bit, this guy appears to be another leftist clinging to the “perpetual victim card” to help get votes.
Truly pathetic.
Honestly….church bombings???? I don’t ever want to hear Oliver Willis talk about making sweeping generalizations, because this is the mother of all of them.
What a hypocrite.
“But an investigation into their tax-free status, considering their considerable involvement in politics, would seem appropriate. Them’s the rules for tax exemption — you do NOT meddle in politics.”
While were at it, can we have the IRS investigate the tax-free status of any number of evangelical mega-churches?
The idea that conservatives are shocked, simply shocked, that a pastor might speak about politics at Trinity is laughable on its face.
Jay Tea,
You call the IRS about these guys, and I’ll get right on the complaint about Trinity:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-christian-cover_x.htm
“We have been trying.
There is no place for racism in modern conservative philosophy.”
Liar. Fucking liar. The Republicans are still using the Southern Strategy in election, or a modified form using illegal immigrants.
Oh but some racists firebombed churches 40-50 years ago, and that gives Oliver enough latitude to accuse conservatives of wanting to firebomb Trinity Church?
No.
“Liar. Fucking liar. ”
Classy.
Once again, I say…
There is no room for racism in modern conservative philosophy.
Belief in individual freedom, self-reliance, and respect for the rights of others are completely incompatible with the racism.
It’s amusing how the trolls think we won’t notice when they claim Oliver was talking about Republicans vs. Democrats instead of what he actually said, which was conservatives vs. liberals. Regardless of what political party has welcomed them during different eras of history, the long view of history has consistently shown conservatives to be wrong-They supported slavery, supported Jim Crow, opposed women getting the vote, opposed civil rights for African Americans, opposed people of different races being able to marry, and currently oppose people of the same gender being able to marry.
C.D. Ward,
How far is too far?
You can define liberal however you want. Yes in the classic sense, liberals are anyone pushing for change. But is it always good change. Capitalism is considered to be Liberal Economic Policy or Classic Liberalism. But “liberals” today advocate socialist/statist policy. So yes, in your definition, conservatives WERE on the wrong side of the issues. I contend that “liberals” today are trying to re-hash and reheat a failed economic system whose inevitable result is the antithesis of American Ideals.
Respectfully,
The Squid
Me: “Liar. Fucking liar.”
Squid Shark: “Classy.”
Got a problem with what I said? Then next time you shouldn’t fucking lie.
Squid Shark: “Once again, I say…
There is no room for racism in modern conservative philosophy.”
Once again, I say…
The ‘modern conservative’ movement is using racism to win elections. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it any less of a lie.
Squid Shark: “But ‘liberals’ today advocate socialist/statist policy.” … “I contend that ‘liberals’ today are trying to re-hash and reheat a failed economic system whose inevitable result is the antithesis of American Ideals.”
I bet you can’t even define socialism.
Squid,
FYI – a few things to keep in mind, you seem new to this site. Most of the commenters here are partisan but more or less fair, and engaging with them can make for a good conversation, even if minds are unlikely to be changed on either side.
Oliver will rarely honestly debate the merits of his positions (but his commenters will) regardless of contrary evidence, so don’t expect to hear anything meaningful from him.
C.S. is an example of the old saw: Arguing with him is like wrestling with a pig, at the end you are both filthy and exhausted –and you get the distinct feeling that the pig enjoyed the experience.
Is squidboy the new dugger, or the new frank?
“C.S. is an example of the old saw: Arguing with him is like wrestling with a pig, at the end you are both filthy and exhausted –and you get the distinct feeling that the pig enjoyed the experience.”
Hey, I call them like I see them and I will treat people with as much dignity and respect as they deserve. If someone lies, I’m going to say they lied.
Also, I’m not a child. I’m not scared of a four-letter word, which apparently you guys are. Why is that?
On the other hand, I will debate anyone in whatever form they want. I don’t ignore someone’s point and concentrate on their style, because that would not be intellectually honest.
On the other hand, I will debate anyone in whatever form they want.
Must… not… laugh.
Me: “On the other hand, I will debate anyone in whatever form they want.”
Sean: “Must… not… laugh.”
You want to go through this debate, again. You would think after kicking your ass the last time it would have sunk in. Or do I need to cut and paste the definition of style over substance in every response to you?
“Also, I’m not a child. I’m not scared of a four-letter word, which apparently you guys are. Why is that?”
Because only fools with nothing to back up their argument use swear words in it.
I can say “fuck” a hundred times, it does not make my argument stronger, it just makes me look like a jerk.
BTW, Thank you for the advice Haplo.
Respectfully,
The Squid
“Or do I need to cut and paste the definition of style over substance in every response to you?”
You seem to have neither.
CSS: You want to go through this debate, again. You would think after kicking your ass the last time it would have sunk in. Or do I need to cut and paste the definition of style over substance in every response to you?
In order:
- No. (Not that I expect that will stop you.)
- You didn’t, because you keep talking around the point being made.
- Thanks for providing the example of the above. I deliberately didn’t respond to your style/substance comment but to your claim you can debate in any form the other side wants, yet THAT isn’t what you responded to. You responded to what I didn’t comment on.
“Because only fools with nothing to back up their argument use swear words in it.”
Who says? Where does it say you can’t have a point and swear at the same time? It this rule of yours based in science? Is it based on international law? Or is is something you just made up?
“I can say “fuck” a hundred times, it does not make my argument stronger, it just makes me look like a jerk.”
Again, who says? Why does that word matter to you? Having such a hang-up like that is a personal weakness of yours and is something you should try and fix.
In order:
- No.”
Then why did you respond?
“- You didn’t, because you keep talking around the point being made.”
This is simply a lie. I gave a post-by-post breakdown showing that I advanced my argument every single time.
“- Thanks for providing the example of the above. I deliberately didn’t respond to your style/substance comment but to your claim you can debate in any form the other side wants, yet THAT isn’t what you responded to. You responded to what I didn’t comment on.”
In other words, you ignored my main point, went on a tangent, an complain about me doing exactly what you did.
Fine. How’s this for going right at your argument.
… Prove it. You made a claim, supply some evidence.
Capitalism is considered to be Liberal Economic Policy or Classic Liberalism.
Yes, but according to Jonah Pantload, that’s Fascism.
Is squidboy the new dugger, or the new frank?
Wondering that myself. Frank v2.0
“Who says? Where does it say you can’t have a point and swear at the same time? It this rule of yours based in science? Is it based on international law? Or is is something you just made up? ”
Clearly you need to take rhetoric class as much as I need a economics class.
Respectfully,
The Squid
“Again, who says? Why does that word matter to you? Having such a hang-up like that is a personal weakness of yours and is something you should try and fix.”
I curse plenty, CS, when I stub my toe, when my dog does his business on the carpet, just not when I try to make an argument.
I was more referring to you calling me a “Liar. Fucking liar” and then talking around my point.
You justification that modern conservatism does indeed support racism is that the Republican part chose to court racist idiots 30+ years ago. That is not an argument, it is a statement which does not contradict anything I said. Nixon was not a conservative so his adoption of that strategy proves nothing.
The tenents of modern conservatism are decidedly un-racist, individual achievement and equal economic opportunity.
Markets open to all not just those who are white.
Support of military service which arguably did much to ease integration and allow the civil rights movement to gain widespread support from northern whites.
These things are not the core of a racist society, neither are they the philosophy of a movement so hung up on collective guilt that they can not move foreward without taking two steps back.
Respectfully,
The Squid
“Capitalism is considered to be Liberal Economic Policy or Classic Liberalism.
Yes, but according to Jonah Pantload, that’s Fascism.”
I would have to read this fellow, however, the core of Fascism is economic planning and statism which would seem to be antithetical to capitalism or economic liberalism.
Respectfully,
The Squid
The tenents of modern conservatism are decidedly un-racist, individual achievement and equal economic opportunity.
That looks fine on paper. White paper.
I would have to read this fellow, however, the core of Fascism is economic planning and statism which would seem to be antithetical to capitalism or economic liberalism.
No, you really don’t. No one should. You got right to the gist of it right there in that one sentence. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Well done, sir.
SShark: Because only fools with nothing to back up their argument use swear words in it.
CSS: Who says? Where does it say you can’t have a point and swear at the same time? It this rule of yours based in science? Is it based on international law? Or is is something you just made up?
See, this is where I think some of the inconsistency in your own arguments breaks down a bit. I know you won’t agree or even acknowledge there might be a point there because, well, you tend not to agree with anything I say in this area simply because I’m the one to say it, and you apparently see yourself as flawlessly reasonable and no amount of reason will dent that self-image.
But, for example, you’ve referred to other posters here with derogatory terms, “sub-human” being the most notable. And your argument for that tends to resolve to: they’ve said something you personally find particularly unreasonable and callous so they are, QED, not human. Really? Where is the science, rule or international law to back that up? I certainly could put forward science that shows, despite what anyone may say/write, they are in fact still actually human.
Point being: Even lacking a rule or international law the statement that people don’t have sufficient support for their argument tend to cover that up with bluster isn’t unsupportable. And it’s the kind of supportable-but-perhaps-not-strictly-scientifically statement you’ve made yourself on occasion.
CSS: Why does that word matter to you? Having such a hang-up like that is a personal weakness of yours and is something you should try and fix.
Another example of a double stantard of sorts at work? Who has the hang up? A person who says using “fuck” isn’t ever necessary, or the person who insists on using it?
CSS: Prove it. You made a claim, supply some evidence.
Which claim? That I’m amused by your statement “”I will debate anyone in whatever form they want.”? Or my observation that you don’t respond to the point being made?
In either case, why should I bother? Why should I spend time locating the numerous examples in other threads where you refuse to modify the form of your debate, and the many places where you don’t respond to the point actually being made but instead pick some smaller beside-the-point aspect to pick apart and attack on.
What purpose would it serve? Can you show me any examples of you ever conceding a point or your making a shift in your position based on what others have said or the evidence they’ve presented?
You claim to be a reasonable man, governed by rational argument. How reasonable would it be for me to spend time gathering examples to attempt to sway a closed mind?
I do have to note, I don’t always agree with him, but I’m enjoying and appreciating Squid Shark’s contributions.
Respectfully,
The SDM