* Login   * Register
It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:18 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:46 pm 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Posts: 2757
Location: New Zealand
Doondi69 wrote:
hmmmm would you not agree that MLK had a vested interest besides his alleged CL position?
This goes to my point to why I have to keep saying WHITE CLs. and to my point that even a racist so and so like Rommeny claim MLK - but at the same time hold a derisive theology of blacks.

Secondly, WHITE CLs are likely to vote for Obama over Ron Paulistas are just as likely to do so, to the same proportion they have historically attended MLK (that exemplary CL) Day parades. Or am I over reaching?

and finally and most importantly Dan may not be a racist but his position and his public statements will never prevent racist from feeling quite comfy in his company. The ML will ride in the wake of the CLs small government movement while the CL would never propose any legislation that would offend MLs senisbility... Again, white CL.

So I'm saying I think that Dan has left the door open for some nasties - just as Goldwater and Obama with the NDAA.


You are making mad generalisations here, ANY Civil libertarians can vote for Obama. Actually any Civil libertarians who vote for Obama are mad because Obama doesn't give two tosses about civil liberties.

Also saying that racists will feel quite comfy in Dans company is mad, Dan has stated many times that he is not a racist, and probably when pushed would decry racism as the ugly belief that it is. Saying that Dan has "left the door open for some nastiness" shows your lack of knowledge about the man.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:00 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 102
Runicmadhamster wrote:
Doondi69 wrote:
hmmmm would you not agree that MLK had a vested interest besides his alleged CL position?
This goes to my point to why I have to keep saying WHITE CLs. and to my point that even a racist so and so like Rommeny claim MLK - but at the same time hold a derisive theology of blacks.

Secondly, WHITE CLs are likely to vote for Obama over Ron Paulistas are just as likely to do so, to the same proportion they have historically attended MLK (that exemplary CL) Day parades. Or am I over reaching?

and finally and most importantly Dan may not be a racist but his position and his public statements will never prevent racist from feeling quite comfy in his company. The ML will ride in the wake of the CLs small government movement while the CL would never propose any legislation that would offend MLs senisbility... Again, white CL.

So I'm saying I think that Dan has left the door open for some nasties - just as Goldwater and Obama with the NDAA.


You are making mad generalisations here, ANY Civil libertarians can vote for Obama. Actually any Civil libertarians who vote for Obama are mad because Obama doesn't give two tosses about civil liberties.

Also saying that racists will feel quite comfy in Dans company is mad, Dan has stated many times that he is not a racist, and probably when pushed would decry racism as the ugly belief that it is. Saying that Dan has "left the door open for some nastiness" shows your lack of knowledge about the man.


Of course Dan would say he is against racism.....but it's no different than Wallace said about blacks. Just keep them over there.

I'm not really accusing Dan of racism I'm accusing him of not make his position soooo odious to MLs (because he cant) that they would turn him off.
I think MLs are CLs that put such an emphasis on states rights over federal legislation....nullification. To the detriment of others easily dismissed as whiners.... and wealth redistributors...etc

I don't believe that most whites are racist (it just takes a small amount, like islamist to cajole the rest into inertia toward nastiness) ....but I don't see many small government types making a stand with MLK in Selma. Or protesting in the streets for the rights of those many many guys (years after Jim Crow) who had confessions tortured out of them. Or standing up to historical victims of single witness convictions.... their CL is used pragmatically at will.
Not as a principle that demands them to take to the streets in protest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:13 pm 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Posts: 2757
Location: New Zealand
Doondi69 wrote:

Of course Dan would say he is against racism.....but it's no different than Wallace said about blacks. Just keep them over there.

I'm not really accusing Dan of racism I'm accusing him of not make his position soooo odious to MLs (because he cant) that they would turn him off.
I think MLs are CLs that put such an emphasis on states rights over federal legislation....nullification. To the detriment of others easily dismissed as whiners.... and wealth redistributors...etc



So your accusing Dan of not making his position distasteful to Market libertarians, but then acknowledging he cant, so why the complaint, it would be like complaining about how a German cant speak English because he only knows German.

Doondi69 wrote:

I don't believe that most whites are racist (it just takes a small amount, like islamist to cajole the rest into inertia toward nastiness) ....but I don't see many small government types making a stand with MLK in Selma. Or protesting in the streets for the rights of those many many guys (years after Jim Crow) who had confessions tortured out of them. Or standing up to historical victims of single witness convictions.... their CL is used pragmatically at will.
Not as a principle that demands them to take to the streets in protest.


So in your mind because you don't see small government types making a stand with MLK in Selma, or protesting in the streets for the rights of those many many guys (years after Jim Crow) who had confessions tortured out of them, or standing up to historical victims of single witness convictions, that makes them racists? That is ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:35 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 102
Runicmadhamster wrote:
Doondi69 wrote:

Of course Dan would say he is against racism.....but it's no different than Wallace said about blacks. Just keep them over there.

I'm not really accusing Dan of racism I'm accusing him of not make his position soooo odious to MLs (because he cant) that they would turn him off.
I think MLs are CLs that put such an emphasis on states rights over federal legislation....nullification. To the detriment of others easily dismissed as whiners.... and wealth redistributors...etc



So your accusing Dan of not making his position distasteful to Market libertarians, but then acknowledging he cant, so why the complaint, it would be like complaining about how a German cant speak English because he only knows German.

Doondi69 wrote:

I don't believe that most whites are racist (it just takes a small amount, like islamist to cajole the rest into inertia toward nastiness) ....but I don't see many small government types making a stand with MLK in Selma. Or protesting in the streets for the rights of those many many guys (years after Jim Crow) who had confessions tortured out of them. Or standing up to historical victims of single witness convictions.... their CL is used pragmatically at will.
Not as a principle that demands them to take to the streets in protest.


So in your mind because you don't see small government types making a stand with MLK in Selma, or protesting in the streets for the rights of those many many guys (years after Jim Crow) who had confessions tortured out of them, or standing up to historical victims of single witness convictions, that makes them racists? That is ridiculous.


Ummmmm your analogy is not correct. The analogy ought to be a German guy walks into the bar to find his boss saying as bad Nazism maybe I'll vote for them because they are good for the Father Land. Does he take the risk to his paycheck to raise his voice to say - as good as it would be I won't vote for him because a lot of fellow citizens are going to be hurt by his policies. The analogy is the White American Guy in the 50's who would run a restaurant Alabama open to all / one counter / one drinking fountain / one bathroom and no preference.... nullification of the Laws on the books - or would he just "well I'd like to but the law says...." I challenge the notion that a person is going to be willing to risk life and treasure for his rights of fellow citizen when an opportunity to stand in celebration of those that did, happens every year at an MLK parade - free of those threats.

Otherwise if were saying what you said I was saying then I'd be saying that its wrong for a dong not to be a cat ---which is not what I'm saying.

If he can't is it because there is no difference between the two or because the risk is not worth the reward?

No not necessarily racist but unprincipled? spineless? and/or at least politically "pragmatic" and not very likely (?) to vote different in private than the ML when it comes down to a vote for a guy who "may be racist but at least he's not big government". On the flipside of the coin the MLs in Dans audience will go right along with his "small government" position because it gets them 90% of the way while they'd happily use the inertia created by the anti "small government" sentiment shared by both to carry them the remaining 10% as history shows.

So my accusation (if I'm making one) is that if Dan could see how a nasty future president MIGHT use NDAA he ought to be able to see how ML HAVE USED the platform of "small government" at all costs to nullify federal legislation to the detriment of fellow red blooded americans. After all he is the history guy.... his HISTORY side should inform his CL side to make sure - for the sake of these others - that his statements force the MLs in his flock run for cover at every turn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:36 am 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:01 pm
Posts: 1187
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Doondi69 wrote:
I challenge the notion that a person is going to be willing to risk life and treasure for his rights of fellow citizen when an opportunity to stand in celebration of those that did, happens every year at an MLK parade - free of those threats.


Correct me if I am wrong but you think that because there is an annual MLK parade, people aren't willing to "risk life and treasure for his rights of fellow citizen"?

_________________
Neither suffer nor oppose. You just abolish the slings and arrows. It's too easy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:49 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Posts: 6816
Location: Clarksville, TN
:popcorn:


Maybe a bit clearer point of view is this.

Buisnesses like it or not are supported by the communities that they are established in. Part of their benefit is the support of tax payer services; fire, police, roads, etc. So why would it be proper for my tax dollars to go to the support of a communitie and the buisnesses located there, if that buisness has the right to say :stop: "wrong color darky, take a hike"?

Also, like I have stated before in other threads, it would be easy for small communities to create this

Image

all over again.

We would guarantee this kind of thing popping up in the country again. Think of the selling point that could be made, if gated communities could advertise that their properties are 'Whites Only'.



I know Ron Paul thinks that the ultimate freedom is for businesses to do as they please, but in reality land, sometimes you have to 'give and take' in a civilization. The idea that the cost of ADA and civil rights legislation to us as a civilization is to great is bullshit. (BTW: I don't give a fuck what Penn and Teller think, they are entertainers, it's like saying Toby Keith thinks the ADA is bullshit) An American in a wheel chair is still an American and he or she deserves to be able to enjoy going out also and not stuck at home because you are to much of a cheapskate to get a wider door. These examples of 'Hooters' and 'my wife's business' are lame examples. It shows that the laws work so well that the only examples of business hurt by civil rights, is a restaurant that caters to idiots.

We HAVE history, and LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of it that proves without a shadow of a doubt, that our society loves to discriminate based on race.

Quote:
(AP) NEW ORLEANS A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."


Quote:
The President of the Constitutional Convention stated in his inaugural address that their intention was "within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State." (Day 2 of 54) Section 181 required the use of literacy tests to enroll voters, while Section 180 grandfathered in anyone who served in the military, or descended from them; these have since been outlawed by the Voting Rights Act. Section 194 requires the payment of 1.50 USD poll tax (Worth approximately 37.74 USD by CPI[1]).
Originally it outlawed interracial marriage (Section 102), but this provision was rendered inoperative by Loving v. Virginia. It was finally removed in 2000 by Amendment 667 (that is 12 years ago, 12)


Quote:
Detroit Lakes, Minn– A 25 year old woman who was turned away as a tenant because she was African-American will be receiving $25,500 as part of a settlement filed Thursday in federal court in Minneapolis. When Ranesha Halliburton arrived to see the property with her boyfriend and his father, landlord Pearl Beck said it was not for rent, adding, “No way. No way. It’s not for rent. I can’t do this. I’m not renting to these kinds of people.”


Quote:
NEWTON (CBS) – Newton landlord Alfred Defazio is adamant: he is no racist.

Though, he admits he has reservations about renting any of his apartments to African Americans.

Last week, the Massachusetts Commission on Discrimination ended a complicated, three-year battle between Defazio and Newton real estate broker Keisha Willis.

The Commission ended up fining Defazio $15,000 for allegedly telling Willis, who is African American, he wouldn’t rent to her or to other black tenants.

Investigators claim DeFazio said, “They party too much, make too much noise, and cost me too much money to kick out.”


Quote:
A Taste for Hate

Gliebe says he hopes that as younger racist listeners mature, so will their tastes for harder, angrier music like that of Shawn Sugg of Max Resist.

One of Sugg's songs is a fantasy piece about a possible future racial war that goes: "Let the cities burn, let the streets run red, if you ain't white you'll be dead."
-Owner of Resistance Records, and producer of the group Prussin Blue

Quote:
Last month, the girls were scheduled to perform at the local county fair in their hometown. But when some people in the community protested, Prussian Blue was removed from the line-up.

But even before that, April had decided that Bakersfield was not "white" enough, so she sold her home, and hopes that she and the girls can find an all-white community in the Pacific Northwest.



Racism is hardly dead, it is just waiting for a chance.

_________________
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:13 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 6505
Location: The 50th State
Racism, like religion, is a product of indoctrination and personal experience. No one is born racist just like no one is born Baptist.

Perhaps, instead of kicking back and forth the believed actions of diferently motivated individuals in a limited government, we could instead debate the causes and solutions to racism.

_________________
Griz

“We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
-Edward R. Murrow

My political compass score


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:49 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Posts: 6816
Location: Clarksville, TN
Quasigriz wrote:
Racism, like religion, is a product of indoctrination and personal experience. No one is born racist just like no one is born Baptist.

Perhaps, instead of kicking back and forth the believed actions of diferently motivated individuals in a limited government, we could instead debate the causes and solutions to racism.



Excellent point Quas, the only true solution I can think of is time.



I dont think Mr. Paul is hoping that racists run in and get to create a white paridise. To be honest I don't think he thinks anyone would ever take advantage of the lack of civil rights laws and abuse the minorities.

However, I can see just that happening. I got lucky, my father is black (so much in fact, the old joke about only seeing him at night if he smiled would be accurate) my mother is a mixed Irish woman, I look like a white man. Being that I look white I have been privy to comments and actions that would never have been done in front of someone who looks black.

I am sad to say that racism is still alive today.

Maybe someday the ADA and civil rights laws will be silly and unnecessary, but that someday has not come to pass yet.

:drunk: Here is to hoping that I get to see that day. Untill then lets leave the current laws alone and concentrate on the importants stuff, like runnaway wars and good ol boy corruption.

_________________
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:25 pm 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Posts: 2757
Location: New Zealand
Doondi69 wrote:

Ummmmm your analogy is not correct. The analogy ought to be a German guy walks into the bar to find his boss saying as bad Nazism maybe I'll vote for them because they are good for the Father Land. Does he take the risk to his paycheck to raise his voice to say - as good as it would be I won't vote for him because a lot of fellow citizens are going to be hurt by his policies. The analogy is the White American Guy in the 50's who would run a restaurant Alabama open to all / one counter / one drinking fountain / one bathroom and no preference.... nullification of the Laws on the books - or would he just "well I'd like to but the law says...." I challenge the notion that a person is going to be willing to risk life and treasure for his rights of fellow citizen when an opportunity to stand in celebration of those that did, happens every year at an MLK parade - free of those threats.






You complained that Dan doesn't make his position offencive enough to certain groups, then acknowledge that he can't, analogy's aside why did you even make the point.

Runicmadhamster wrote:
So in your mind because you don't see small government types making a stand with MLK in Selma, or protesting in the streets for the rights of those many many guys (years after Jim Crow) who had confessions tortured out of them, or standing up to historical victims of single witness convictions, that makes them racists? That is ridiculous.



Doondi69 wrote:
No not necessarily racist but unprincipled? spineless? and/or at least politically "pragmatic" and not very likely (?) to vote different in private than the ML when it comes down to a vote for a guy who "may be racist but at least he's not big government". On the flipside of the coin the MLs in Dans audience will go right along with his "small government" position because it gets them 90% of the way while they'd happily use the inertia created by the anti "small government" sentiment shared by both to carry them the remaining 10% as history shows.


So do you see Jews, Germans and Communists as unprincipled, spineless? because they didn't stand with MLK at Selma, your accusation that the small government types are unprincipled, spineless is ridiculous, modern day small government types never had the chance to stand with MLK because they where born at different times, also assuming that all small government types of MLK's time were spineless and unprincipled is ridiculous, for a start do you even know that there weren't any small government types standing with MLK, if so provide evidence.

Doondi69 wrote:

So my accusation (if I'm making one) is that if Dan could see how a nasty future president MIGHT use NDAA he ought to be able to see how ML HAVE USED the platform of "small government" at all costs to nullify federal legislation to the detriment of fellow red blooded americans. After all he is the history guy.... his HISTORY side should inform his CL side to make sure - for the sake of these others - that his statements force the MLs in his flock run for cover at every turn.



And here is the crux of the issue, honestly why do you hate market libertarians so much, i know a few and they seem alright. You seem to heap excessive amounts of hatred on the market libertarians and they don't deserve it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:05 pm 
Offline
Resident Medicaid Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:30 am
Posts: 5737
Location: New York, NY
Yes, much of the South is still a lot like this......



I've decided to make a new thread to give my take on the racism, segregation and CRA arguments in a comprehensive and FACTUAL manner (drawing from multiple sources). And drawing from my upbringing in Alabama. The new thread here: Yes Virginia, We DO Need the Civil Rights Act

_________________
Nick

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power." – President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Simple Truths message to Congress (April 29, 1938)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:08 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 102
NickDupree wrote:
Yes, much of the South is still a lot like this......

I've decided to make a new thread to give my take on the racism, segregation and CRA arguments in a comprehensive and FACTUAL manner (drawing from multiple sources). And drawing from my upbringing in Alabama. The new thread here: Yes Virginia, We DO Need the Civil Rights Act



no no nick.... post all it here. please.
One big facet of my question is to find out just exactly how WHITE CLs voted for these inititiaves in the past compared to WHITE MLs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:24 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 102
raistian77 wrote:
Quasigriz wrote:
Racism, like religion, is a product of indoctrination and personal experience. No one is born racist just like no one is born Baptist.

Perhaps, instead of kicking back and forth the believed actions of diferently motivated individuals in a limited government, we could instead debate the causes and solutions to racism.



Excellent point Quas, the only true solution I can think of is time.



I dont think Mr. Paul is hoping that racists run in and get to create a white paridise. To be honest I don't think he thinks anyone would ever take advantage of the lack of civil rights laws and abuse the minorities.

However, I can see just that happening. I got lucky, my father is black (so much in fact, the old joke about only seeing him at night if he smiled would be accurate) my mother is a mixed Irish woman, I look like a white man. Being that I look white I have been privy to comments and actions that would never have been done in front of someone who looks black.

I am sad to say that racism is still alive today.

Maybe someday the ADA and civil rights laws will be silly and unnecessary, but that someday has not come to pass yet.

:drunk: Here is to hoping that I get to see that day. Untill then lets leave the current laws alone and concentrate on the importants stuff, like runnaway wars and good ol boy corruption.


YOU ARE THE KINDA GUY THAT I'VE BEEN WAITING TO HEAR FROM.....!!!!! :worship:
:welcome: :welcome: :dudesign:

Note: As you've probably picked up that there are a group here devouted to the 'drive by' red herring. you'll recognize then by their accusations. If you say why does racism still exisit in our country?
And where does it show itself in our legislation. They'll respond by name calling, dismissive of you yourself never mind the question or calling you a racist for asking the question. (Instead of answering the question). Or they'll do the OJ Simpson glove test by insiting that the question doesn't make sense. Don't take the bait.... they don't want a discussion they want to deflect. I myself have chosen to ignore them.

They will insist that a vote for a KKK guy is a vote for racism but Ron/Rand Paul or Niggerhead Ranch owners are not a KKK guys.
They seem to be insisting that until it is proven that someone burns a cross or attends a lynching or is reguistered KKK then guy cant be called a racist.
And along with that, voting for polices that resonate with the sensibilites of the racist does not make them a racist.


At the moment there's another member in another thread where one of the Civil Libertarians is saying that even if Ron Paul is a racist that he is the best representitive of Civil Libertarian values so he will vote for him.

That noise you are right hearing now is a group of banging on their keyboard to say Ron Paul is a Market Libertarian....as if it's the title that makes the differenc


I am looking for some CL outthere to state history as precedence, the legislation that would demonstrate the difference in the two positions in practice.....in history.... and not merely as an ideal. ie what a CL WOULD do is.... no no no I want to see what CLs HAVE DONE/ARE DOING legislatively in opposition to MLs.

Why am I interested in this.
I think Dan has left the door open for some unsavory types to come into his congregation and sit quite undisturbed, beacuse they themselves have heard nothing that rubs their ML sentiments the wrong way and Dan himself does not see it because he never grew up with the stories his dad told him about living under Jim Crow.

Dan is supposed to be the conscience of the group. and as such his job is guard dog.
Guarding the Family of Civil Libertarians from intruders....
If you wake one morning to find the criminal sitting comfy in your living room is it wrong to think that the guard dog either:
A. Recognizes the criminal as a frequent guest.. CL=ML (for all practical purposes 90%=)
B. Was distracted by meat tossed to him (and Ben) by the criminal
C. Was a sleep on the job....in which case I think I have an argument to find him guilty of the same 'Media asleep at the switch' he has CORRECTLY pointed out about the Meet The Press guy.

Is Dan a racist? I don't think so.... he's not burning any crosses anytime if that's what you mean.
But should Ron/Rand Paul and the like end up on the same ballot as Obama (or some other big government Republican) then I'm not sure what Dan would do.
Not what he would SAY OUGHT to be done by a CL but what the Dans of his audience have done based on their historical voting pattern when it comes down to EEO, OSHA, Affirmative Action, EHA...etc.

Does Dan deserve a chiding for not plugging the loopholes (by exposure and discussion) that racist have used in the past, in the effort to preserve "state rights"/ "small government"/"wealth redistribution"/"nullification" ?

As of yet I've heard no argument that appeals to historical voting pattern (vice appealing to what they ought to do, ought to have done) that would lead me to believe that when it comes to "state rights"/ "small government"/"wealth redistribution"/"nullification" ----- both CLs and MLs are willing to allow minority rights to be sacrificed. The later out of volition and the former out of a sort of inertia.

I myself do not know of any historical legislation that can be said CLs definitively turned the tide in opposition to any ML.
In lieu of that I tried to use MLK Day parade to as a snapshot of CLs willingness to be publiclly associated with black civil rights....much more what they do in private in the voting both.

Someone said that MLK was indeed a CL. I had to then modify again the CL to white CLs (for which I was called racist...) in order to point out that MLK vote in the CRA era might have been influnced by that German Sheppard gnawing on his leg --- vice a mere ideal of some CL principle. So indexing the # of White Cls at annual MLK Day parades against the general White CL population.

I'm trying to get them to see that thier blindeye to the concerns of the rest of us "CLs" is what cause more of us "CLs" to reach for more government.

Even if the laws are clumsy, over reaching and potentially harmful in the long run....
It keeps the immediate oppression at bay.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:42 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 102
Kiltman wrote:
Doondi69 wrote:
I challenge the notion that a person is going to be willing to risk life and treasure for his rights of fellow citizen when an opportunity to stand in celebration of those that did, happens every year at an MLK parade - free of those threats.


Correct me if I am wrong but you think that because there is an annual MLK parade, people aren't willing to "risk life and treasure for his rights of fellow citizen"?


Not his fellow citizen...his fellow black citizen.

I more meaning to see if its valide to use it as a proxy for the "Voice of History".
I'm using the "Voice of History" to pull a "Tim Russert" .
So there are at least three voices that can answer my question.

The Voice of Reason - Rational Actors
The Voice of Doctrinal Ideals - "well ideally a true CL would vote like ....."
The Voice of History - When it came down to it X% White CLs voted yes and X5 of MLs voted the same way

Since I don't know myself of any breakdown of % of Whites CLs and MLs when it comes to Equal Housinge Lending
EEO
OSHA etc...

Since my "beef" is that Dan deserves a good chiding because he's left the door open for nasties to come in --- and historically if these nasties have their way White CLs will not be affected and as such they are not likely come to the rescue....

So i'm trying to index the population of White (no offense) CLs that would attend a 4th of July Parade against the number that would attend an MLK Parade (as an act of solidarity with fellow CIVL Libertarians) against the total population of White CLs... this would give insight to into wether or not Black (no offense taken) CLs have a reason to feel comfort be cause the % are the same or fear beacuse the % of White CLs that would stand with them in public --- gives insight into how many would vote against a "Small Government"/ so-called "Anti-Wealth Redistribution" / "States Rights" ML.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:52 pm 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Posts: 2757
Location: New Zealand
Doondi69 wrote:
So i'm trying to index the population of White (no offense) CLs that would attend a 4th of July Parade against the number that would attend an MLK Parade (as an act of solidarity with fellow CIVL Libertarians) against the total population of White CLs... this would give insight to into wether or not Black (no offense taken) CLs have a reason to feel comfort be cause the % are the same or fear beacuse the % of White CLs that would stand with them in public --- gives insight into how many would vote against a "Small Government"/ so-called "Anti-Wealth Redistribution" / "States Rights" ML.



So you think that the percentage of white CLs going to the 4th of july event compared to the percentage of white CLs going to a MLK event will show you weather Black CLs can feel safe or not? That's absurd, have you done a course in stats, there are way too many variables to determine weather or not black Cls can feel safe or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Giving Dan a Black Eye
PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:06 pm 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Posts: 2757
Location: New Zealand
Doondi69 wrote:

Note: As you've probably picked up that there are a group here devouted to the 'drive by' red herring. you'll recognize then by their accusations. If you say why does racism still exisit in our country?
And where does it show itself in our legislation. They'll respond by name calling, dismissive of you yourself never mind the question or calling you a racist for asking the question. (Instead of answering the question). Or they'll do the OJ Simpson glove test by insiting that the question doesn't make sense. Don't take the bait.... they don't want a discussion they want to deflect. I myself have chosen to ignore them.


All good points



Doondi69 wrote:
They will insist that a vote for a KKK guy is a vote for racism but Ron/Rand Paul or Niggerhead Ranch owners are not a KKK guys.
They seem to be insisting that until it is proven that someone burns a cross or attends a lynching or is reguistered KKK then guy cant be called a racist.
And along with that, voting for polices that resonate with the sensibilites of the racist does not make them a racist.


Like i have said before, a KKK member is a active racist and so we can expect his racism to influence his policy, where as Ron Paul isn't racist at all, just very incompetent (which you could argue is worse) and so his polices will not be racist, however i have said before that humans are unpredictable and it is possible that Paul might do a 180 degree turn.


Doondi69 wrote:

Why am I interested in this.
I think Dan has left the door open for some unsavory types to come into his congregation and sit quite undisturbed, beacuse they themselves have heard nothing that rubs their ML sentiments the wrong way and Dan himself does not see it because he never grew up with the stories his dad told him about living under Jim Crow.


Dan has not left the door open at all, there is nothing in his podcasts that indicate that he is catering to unsavory types in the slightest. And trying to claim that Dan cant see this imaginary threat because he didn't grow up with Jim Crow stories is absurd.


Doondi69 wrote:
Dan is supposed to be the conscience of the group. and as such his job is guard dog.
Guarding the Family of Civil Libertarians from intruders....
If you wake one morning to find the criminal sitting comfy in your living room is it wrong to think that the guard dog either:
A. Recognizes the criminal as a frequent guest.. CL=ML (for all practical purposes 90%=)
B. Was distracted by meat tossed to him (and Ben) by the criminal
C. Was a sleep on the job....in which case I think I have an argument to find him guilty of the same 'Media asleep at the switch' he has CORRECTLY pointed out about the Meet The Press guy.


Dan just does the podcasts and gets involved in the debates on the board every now and then when he has time, he isn't the guard dog, he isn't the leader of this group as you would see him.




Doondi69 wrote:
Is Dan a racist? I don't think so.... he's not burning any crosses anytime if that's what you mean.
But should Ron/Rand Paul and the like end up on the same ballot as Obama (or some other big government Republican) then I'm not sure what Dan would do.
Not what he would SAY OUGHT to be done by a CL but what the Dans of his audience have done based on their historical voting pattern when it comes down to EEO, OSHA, Affirmative Action, EHA...etc.

Does Dan deserve a chiding for not plugging the loopholes (by exposure and discussion) that racist have used in the past, in the effort to preserve "state rights"/ "small government"/"wealth redistribution"/"nullification" ?


Dan doesn't have to plug any loopholes at all, i have yet to meet a single racist on this board, Dan's style and views don't attract racists, your conjuring imaginary threats from the aether.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us