Enough with the philosophizing bullshittery. We have Nazi sympathizers in the White Houseand you're wondering if some particular group's response to that is morally acceptable.
Is there a moral difference between one person claiming I am superior and you are lesser, and the other punching that person in the face? Aren't they both actually saying the same thing? In fact, I've heard that direct on this thread..."trump is a piece of s*#t" or something akin to that...not that his ideas are wrong, but that he is in fact less than me.
Enough with the philosophizing bullshittery. We have Nazi sympathizers in the White House and you're wondering if some particular group's response to that is morally acceptable.
Completely different moral universes. Even if the protesters turned up in tanks bearing flamethrowers you wouldn't weaken their argument that racism (and Nazism for that matter) needs to be combated even if it were dressed up in the clothes of an angel, (EDIT: i.e although you might want to discuss the severity of the response, you can't use that to dismiss their underlying premise).
Is there a moral difference between one person claiming I am superior and you are lesser, and the other punching that person in the face? Aren't they both actually saying the same thing? In fact, I've heard that direct on this thread..."trump is a piece of s*#t" or something akin to that...not that his ideas are wrong, but that he is in fact less than me.
Kurtster, you are doing exactly the same as Trump, assuming a moral equivalence where none exists. This is not about whether one group or the other has a greater predilection to violence. This is about one group (whether they be armed with pitchforks or doves bearing olive twigs in their beaks is wholly irrelevant) who espouses quite openly racial superiority and another group who finds that anathema to everything that the constitution stands for.
Completely different moral universes. Even if the protesters turned up in tanks bearing flamethrowers you wouldn't weaken their argument that racism (and Nazism for that matter) needs to be combated even if it were dressed up in the clothes of an angel, (EDIT: i.e although you might want to discuss the severity of the response, you can't use that to dismiss their underlying premise).
I'll preface this by saying, I'm not agreeing with how the administration handled any of this.
Nevertheless, there were clear examples of counter-protests violently reacting to nazi/alt right…protestors. This should not be swept under the rug.
Until the day we outlaw nazis and white supremacists, it is ok to believe in whatever you want. If you believe the white race is supreme, fine…it’s just never gonna happen. But to protest against this belief physically is still wrong.
No, its more like there are so many stains on the bed how do you tell which one is Trump's ?
Want to hang him and everyone who supports him with guilt by association ? Carry on.
There is an attempt at a coup underway. Racism is the excuse. Power is what is going on.
First its the statues then its the books then its ... the people.
Two factions showed up loaded for bear and a fight. The politicians told the police to stand down and allow the fight to get started. One side gets blamed and the other gets a pass. It could have been prevented, but the establishment powers that be wanted a fight, too. They got it and now the worm turns.
I'm sure that you and most everyone else disagrees with the above.
Kurtster, you are doing exactly the same as Trump, assuming a moral equivalence where none exists. This is not about whether one group or the other has a greater predilection to violence. This is about one group (whether they be armed with pitchforks or doves bearing olive twigs in their beaks is wholly irrelevant) who espouses quite openly racial superiority and another group who finds that anathema to everything that the constitution stands for.
Completely different moral universes. Even if the protesters turned up in tanks bearing flamethrowers you wouldn't weaken their argument that racism (and Nazism for that matter) needs to be combated even if it were dressed up in the clothes of an angel, (EDIT: i.e although you might want to discuss the severity of the response, you can't use that to dismiss their underlying premise).
Trump sh*ts the bed and the discussion turns into an argument of who manufactured the bed.
No, its more like there are so many stains on the bed how do you tell which one is Trump's ?
Something about glass houses, rocks and those without sin come to mind ....
Want to hang him and everyone who supports him with guilt by association ? Carry on.
There is an attempt at a coup underway. Racism is the excuse. Power is what is going on.
First its the statues then its the books then its ... the people.
Two factions showed up loaded for bear and a fight. The politicians told the police to stand down and allow the fight to get started. One side gets blamed and the other gets a pass. It could have been prevented, but the establishment powers that be wanted a fight, too. They got it and now the worm turns.
I'm sure that you and most everyone else disagrees with the above.
God I love it when the staffers spend 48 hours arguing that Trump didn't mean what he said and then he bursts through the wall like the goddamn Kool Aid Man and is all I MEANT THE SHIT OUT OF IT JABRONIS!
I'm sorry but this is intellectually dishonest. I haven't been following the discussion here very closely but your post reads like an attempt to draw attention away from Trump's failed statesmanship and the full exposure of his attitudes about race and protest.
All political parties pre-Civil War were racist. Civil rights as a national political force didn't show up in American politics until after WWII. No one party "instigated" the Civil War and the KKK had a grassroots beginning that really didn't have a grounding in the Democratic party. One historian demolishes the major implication of your post: that the Democratic and Republican parties are the same as they were back in the 19th century and even in the pre-Great Depression 20th century: "The party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today," <Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo>, wrote to us. "Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century."
I urge you to read the Politifact piece, if only to read the thoughts of other historians who support Emberton's position.
While a greater percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats, a close analysis of the vote shows that the politicians' positions were based on geography than party affiliation. This quote is telling: "In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both housesis statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act." The Dixiecrats did not force the GOP to turn away from civil rights as an issue when they joined the party in the 60s. No one put a gun to Nixon's head when in 1968 and 1972 he enlarged the Southern Strategy of other opponents to civil rights and racial integration. In 1980, no one forced Ron Reagan to give his first post-convention speech in Philadelphia MS, a small town only known as the place where in '64 three civil rights volunteers were murdered and secretly buried because of their activism. Reagan's speech promised to restore states' rights to prominence, a dog-whistle to those opposed to civil rights, integration, affirmative action, etc.
No one is forcing the GOP to engage in voter suppression attempts focused on minorities and the poor. No one is forcing Trump to sympathize with the alt-right and white nationalists.
Your claim that Democrats today are "Plantation Masters" is offensive and deeply patronizing. Your support for Trump, a man completely unfit to be President, has become blinkered and irrational. You used to post words like "I reserve the right to change my mind about Trump" and "I may be quite wrong about Trump", kurtster. I invite you to revisit those positions.
I hope things on the health front are improving/good/no problemo for you.
Thanks, I had my last dose of radiation yesterday.
OK, while the Democratic Party did not 'create' the Klan, it was part and parcel of the Democratic Party from its inception.
Historian Eric Foner observed: "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.<59> To that end they worked to curb the education, economic advancement, voting rights, and right to keep and bear arms of blacks.<59> The Klan soon spread into nearly every southern state, launching a "reign of terror against Republican leaders both black and white. Those political leaders assassinated during the campaign included Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, three members of the South Carolina legislature, and several men who served in constitutional conventions"
I am well aware of the Parties changing / evolving positions over the years. My statement regarding the list of offenses institutionalized by the Democratic Party for the hundred years after the Civil War to the 1960's is correct. That is when the Dixiecrats migrated to the Republican Party en masse. My point is that The Democratic Party needs to formally apologize for its racist ways for the 100 years after the Civil War.
This is not shifting anything away from Trump. It is calling out the attempt to revise history and blame all the racist ills of this country on Republicans. That racists are the exclusive property of the Republican Party is dishonest at best. They exist and need to be purged, with prejudice, to use a legal term. They exist everywhere and to say that only white Republicans are racist is offensive and delusional. But that is the narrative we are dealing with. The roots of modern institutionalized racism are being ignored, conveniently and dishonestly in my opinion. Its time to set the record straight and move forward.
We hung Paula Deen 30 years after the fact for using the N word. Her apology didn't cut it. Yes, there is a real double standard, I'll argue that forever. But if apologies are needed and do work, then how about the whole damn Democratic Party formally apologize to the American people for being the original racist party, the instigators of the Civil War, the creators of the KKK, the party of segregation, separate but equal, lynchings, poll taxes and Jim Crow.
Individuals may have apologized but the organization that institutionalized all of the above never has. Instead they hung this terrible mantle on the Republican Party in the 60's with the infiltration of all the Dixiecrats who effectively hijacked the repubs in the South and have since managed to taint the whole party.
Its time, especially before we take this history revision too far. Fess up, Democrats, apologize for your despicable past. You're still the Plantation Masters no matter how hard you deny it. Maybe then we can move on and start to heal as a country.
I'm sorry but this is intellectually dishonest. I haven't been following the discussion here very closely but your post reads like an attempt to draw attention away from Trump's failed statesmanship and the full exposure of his attitudes about race and protest.
All political parties pre-Civil War were racist. Civil rights as a national political force didn't show up in American politics until after WWII. No one party "instigated" the Civil War and the KKK had a grassroots beginning that really didn't have a grounding in the Democratic party. One historian demolishes the major implication of your post: that the Democratic and Republican parties are the same as they were back in the 19th century and even in the pre-Great Depression 20th century:
"The party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today," <Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo>, wrote to us. "Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century."
I urge you to read the Politifact piece, if only to read the thoughts of other historians who support Emberton's position.
"In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both housesis statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act."
The Dixiecrats did not force the GOP to turn away from civil rights as an issue when they joined the party in the 60s. No one put a gun to Nixon's head when in 1968 and 1972 he enlarged the Southern Strategy of other opponents to civil rights and racial integration. In 1980, no one forced Ron Reagan to give his first post-convention speech in Philadelphia MS, a small town only known as the place where in '64 three civil rights volunteers were murdered and secretly buried because of their activism. Reagan's speech promised to restore states' rights to prominence, a dog-whistle to those opposed to civil rights, integration, affirmative action, etc.
No one is forcing the GOP to engage in voter suppression attempts focused on minorities and the poor. No one is forcing Trump to sympathize with the alt-right and white nationalists.
Your claim that Democrats today are "Plantation Masters" is offensive and deeply patronizing. Your support for Trump, a man completely unfit to be President, has become blinkered and irrational. You used to post words like "I reserve the right to change my mind about Trump" and "I may be quite wrong about Trump", kurtster. I invite you to revisit those positions.
I hope things on the health front are improving/good/no problemo for you.
But you need to look at trajectory. Bird denounced and apologized for his past, the Democratic party moved to actively promoting equality while the Republicans moved to actively obstructing equality.
We hung Paula Deen 30 years after the fact for using the N word. Her apology didn't cut it. Yes, there is a real double standard, I'll argue that forever. But if apologies are needed and do work, then how about the whole damn Democratic Party formally apologize to the American people for being the original racist party, the instigators of the Civil War, the creators of the KKK, the party of segregation, separate but equal, lynchings, poll taxes and Jim Crow.
Individuals may have apologized but the organization that institutionalized all of the above never has. Instead they hung this terrible mantle on the Republican Party in the 60's with the infiltration of all the Dixiecrats who effectively hijacked the repubs in the South and have since managed to taint the whole party.
Its time, especially before we take this history revision too far. Fess up, Democrats, apologize for your despicable past. You're still the Plantation Masters no matter how hard you deny it. Maybe then we can move on and start to heal as a country.
To model your Nationalist white boy group after the Nazi's is to not understand how far beyond nationalism the Nazi's went. The German's banned the Nazi flag, as they should. This is America. But read many random sections from Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. And if you don't rip down your posters and your paraphernalia from the wall then you have a deeper ignorance than we suspected. Though I realize I am speaking to the RP audience here. I suspect there are few among the confused in this musical grouping.
And the debate has already happened and a decision reached BY THE RESIDENTS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE. The debate was respectful and inclusive. What happened last weekend, starting on Friday night, had nothing to do with the statue or free speech.
To the extent there is a debate to be had about the removal of statutes of prominent figures from the Confederacy, that debate has been shrouded by what happened in Charlottesville. For the great majority of those purportedly protesting the removal of a statute of Robert E. Lee, that was just an excuse to rally for despicable themes. Preserving American history is not the same as celebrating slavery.
And the debate has already happened and a decision reached BY THE RESIDENTS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE. The debate was respectful and inclusive. What happened last weekend, starting on Friday night, had nothing to do with the statue or free speech.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Aug 15, 2017 - 5:11pm
kurtster wrote:
Since we're tearing down statues and cleansing the country side of Civil War memorials because they are racist, the KKK and all, even though the KKK was formed by the Democratic Party after the Civil War, we need to immediately remove Senator Robert Byrd's name from all buildings, bridges, roads, anything visible by the public because he was a KKK Grand Wizard. There are other names that need to disappear as well including another famous segregationist Senator William Fulbright
No passes, no exceptions. Its all or nothing.
To the extent there is a debate to be had about the removal of statues of prominent figures from the Confederacy, that debate has been shrouded by what happened in Charlottesville. For the great majority of those purportedly protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, that was just an excuse to rally for despicable themes. Preserving American history is not the same as celebrating slavery.
But you need to look at trajectory. Bird denounced and apologized for his past, the Democratic party moved to actively promoting equality while the Republicans moved to actively obstructing equality.
Since we're tearing down statues and cleansing the country side of Civil War memorials because they are racist, the KKK and all, even though the KKK was formed by the Democratic Party after the Civil War, we need to immediately remove Senator Robert Byrd's name from all buildings, bridges, roads, anything visible by the public because he was a KKK Grand Wizard. There are other names that need to disappear as well including another famous segregationist Senator William Fulbright
No passes, no exceptions. Its all or nothing.
Step by step, mate.
But you need to look at trajectory. Bird denounced and apologized for his past, the Democratic party moved to actively promoting equality while the Republicans moved to actively obstructing equality.
