Falsely accusing others of racism. Even if Clyburn did hear the N-word, (I think he’s probably lying), it doesn’t justify tarring (and I choose that word deliberately) everyone at the protest. This, and similar comments by Janeane Garafolo, is contemptible. And I and a lot of other people are getting pretty damned tired of it.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I agree with Dana Loesch:
I mean, if you’re going to smear a group of people by claiming that they were shouting slurs, perhaps make sure you don’t post video that completely refutes your claim and makes you look like a race hustler. Just saying.
That’s exactly what it is: race hustling. Identity prostitution and the Democrat party is the biggest pimp of all. To say nothing of Al Gore’s fleecing of the Cheyenne and Arapaho (I take interest in indigenous affairs because of my family’s proud heritage); the evisceration of under-privileged kids in DC to go to better schools via vouchers; Obama bringing in Sharpton to quiet the black community’s concerns that the administration’s economic policies are hurting them; or the cover up of the Gladney hate crime (and the socialists who called him an array of slurs); Democrats use minorities as nothing more than tools to claim power. It’s disgusting and as many, including Jay Stewart, Andre Harper, Charles Lollar, Stephanie Rubach, and others have said, inherently racist. These activists have spent so much of their lives asking the Democrats where is the progress? and pointing out how certain policies destroy their communities.
Socialists go about their concern for civil rights in the same manner that fake Christians go about their faith: they only take it out for the times they think people are watching or when they think that they could gain something from it. They hang it up in the closet when not in use.
And they keep them on the “liberal” plantation. Where they want to put all of us, and this bill, if it survives the vote and the courts, will be a big step in that direction.
All I can think of in these moronic incidents is how, during the Iraq/Afghanistan war protests, every “peace” march was chock-full of abhorrent individuals spouting either racism, anti-semitism, or outright communism. Not rumors of said individuals, mind you, but photographic documentation of their existence. But when you pointed out to someone that the marches were laden with these individuals, they would always say “Just because some of those people showed up at the event, it doesn’t mean the rest of us feel that way. You can’t tar us all because a few wackos came.” But now, if one bigot gets within two blocks of a Tea Party event, the entire group of them are little more than disrobed Klansmen.
> But now, if one bigot gets within two blocks of a Tea Party event, the entire group of them are little more than disrobed Klansmen.
This is why calling the Tea Parties racist is racism.
Yours,
Tom
They may; but as long as it’s their own businesses and housing, I have no right to interfere.
So you’d repeal the Civil Rights Act? Legalize Whites-only water fountains and bus seats?
What part of “liberty” do you seem to have such trouble understanding?
By your telling Selma, Alabama had a lot more liberty in 1960. If that’s what you mean by liberty, I have trouble understanding why anyone would want it.
So you’d repeal the Civil Rights Act? Legalize Whites-only water fountains and bus seats?
You are confusing private and public discrimination. No surprise.
“You are confusing private and public discrimination. No surprise.”
No surprise, indeed, Rand. Do you think Jim, Chris and Ethan are actually as stupid as they appear, misunderstanding and confusing the simplest ideas, or do you think it is a deliberate obfuscation tactic?
> Do you think Jim, Chris and Ethan are actually as stupid as they appear, misunderstanding and confusing the simplest ideas, or do you think it is a deliberate obfuscation tactic?
I think it’s a lack of familiarity with libertarian arguments, as opposed to conservative arguments. Fewer conservatives would argue thus, because it carries high negatives (you will be called racist) and only moderate positives (it’s hard to be enthusiastic about protecting bigot’s rights). Libertarians, who are fond of idealistically reasoning from a limited number of principles which all point to individaul liberty have other priorities.
Yours,
Tom
Bilwick1 wrote as long as it’s their own businesses and housing, I have no right to interfere. So he’d allow companies with no-blacks hiring policies, private whites-only apartment buildings, privately owned malls with whites-only water fountains, etc., in the name of liberty.
Discriminating against job applicants, potential tenants, and customers on the basis of race are precisely the sorts of liberties that used to be enjoyed in the U.S., but were eliminated by the Civil Rights Act. And good riddance to them.
Jim,
Consider this. If a landlord were so foolish to want to keep out blacks and he said so, and you were black, why would you want to live in his apartments? These days he can be utterly biggotted and discriminate against blacks using many difficult to detect ways and they would never know.
I know that I would rather see a sign saying “I hate whites. Keep out.” than go into a store and be hated by some black guy. Even if he was a good bigot and tried hard to treat me right, why ruin his day, and if he fails, why ruin mine?
By the same token, however, if I did see a shop with a sign that said, “No blacks”, I wouldn’t shop there. I wouldn’t rent in an all white apartment complex, either.
What about, “Good fences make good neighbors?”
I think the solution to both white and black separatism is to let them separate. Good riddance and everyone is happy.
Yours,
Tom
No danger of that here. I’d rather live next to Tom than to Jim.
I suspect Tom would be an honest neighbor and not motivated by white guilt.
If a landlord were so foolish to want to keep out blacks and he said so, and you were black, why would you want to live in his apartments?
Because you needed an apartment?
These days he can be utterly biggotted and discriminate against blacks using many difficult to detect ways and they would never know.
And the solution is to let him discriminate openly as well?
By the same token, however, if I did see a shop with a sign that said, “No blacks”, I wouldn’t shop there. I wouldn’t rent in an all white apartment complex, either.
You should know that when it was legal to have such signs, there were millions of white Americans who saw no problem with shopping at such stores, and living in such apartments, so that individual “private” bigotry was knitted together into a social fabric of oppression.
I think the solution to both white and black separatism is to let them separate. Good riddance and everyone is happy.
You really think that blacks were happy under Jim Crow?
Jim: “You really think that blacks were happy under Jim Crow?”
No; but most of them today are far less happy living without it. Pictures of modern Detroit are a very short click away. So are statistics of black-on-black crime and out-of-wedlock births. And, culture-wise, recordings of what black people were listening to in the 1920s (jazz) versus what they are expected to endure today (won’t even get into it).
But to be fair, a lot of whites need a Jim Crow regimen too. The whole edifice of democracy is overrated. I came to these shores a “resident alien”. I survived happily enough not having a vote.
You really think that blacks were happy under Jim Crow?
As usual, you demonstrate a profound ignorance of history. “Jim Crow” was about government enforcement of racial discrimination. Businesswise, it’s stupid. Not that there would be none in a private world, but in a free market, it would be nuts to exclude customers or suppliers.
It’s also worth noting here that racism in business is far easier to counter than racism in government. For example, most retail and restaurant chains will buckle under to a boycott threat. Government stayed racist for almost a century after the end of the Civil War.
Jim, I’ve got sad news for you. A free society means people can behave in ways you don’t approve of. If they’re only allowed to behave in ways you approve of, it’s not a free society.
In Jim Powell’s THE TRIUMPH OF LIBERTY, a collection of mini-biographies of people who have advanced the cause of liberty (a book that even if it goes through 100 new editions and updates will never have a chapter on Obama or Nancy Pelosi), there’s an interesting chapter on Martin Luther King. I had my doubts about Powell including King, since King seems to have been a socialist if not a secret Communist. But Powell shows how much of the segregation in the South was the handiwork of the State, (in this case the individual Southern states), and how opposing that kind of State-enforced (and often State-created) segregation was de facto libertarian.
> And the solution is to let him discriminate openly as well?
Yes.
> You should know that when it was legal to have such signs, there were millions of white Americans who saw no problem with shopping at such stores, and living in such apartments, so that individual “private” bigotry was knitted together into a social fabric of oppression.
I do know this. It was enforced by the government power you love. And it was all set free by social pressure though the actions of free people, followed by government power. Well before the government was ready to act business people were begging it to change the Jim Crow laws so they could serve blacks.
Yours,
Tom
I never did find out why Bob thinks racism is worse than false accusations of racism. It is legal, it is commonplace even among groups which claim to abhor racism, and it even is institutionalized in government through fostering more racism, allegedly to rectify past bouts of racism. Yet contrary to the practice of racism, being tarred as a “racist” seems to have considerable negative implications, including not being allowed to have an opinion on a great deal of current legislation.
> I never did find out why Bob thinks racism is worse than false accusations of racism.
Well, in various parts of the world racism is leading to slavery, murder and genocide, among other things. In the South Philadelphia part of the world Asian students are being called names, abused and beaten up by black students because of what appears to be racism. That’s pretty bad.
The combination of false accusation of racism and racism is can be really bad.
Yours,
Tom
> but what are the grounds for calling the congressman a liar?
His lips were moving.
Titus,
> I suspect Tom would be an honest neighbor and not motivated by white guilt.
Thanks. But I am an ex-liberal and retain many of the vestigal emotional responses.
Yours,
Tom
Since we’re on the subject, is there any doubt that if Obama had been some other ethnicity, he would still pancake just as hard as he has?