<p>He stopped responding to my posts after I made similar arguments about lumping a group on the fringe in with the conservatives or the liberals. You can’t stop someone from voting for a candidate…even if you don’t want their vote.</p>
<p>^Clearly, you point was so good that no debate was possible. :)</p>
<p>Part good point, part flame.</p>
<p>This should be a good one…</p>
<p>[Op-Ed</a> Columnist - Racism and the Race - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09blow.html?ex=1376020800&en=c34e85d3525968e3&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink]Op-Ed”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09blow.html?ex=1376020800&en=c34e85d3525968e3&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)</p>
<p>I would like to point out something that some on here seem to think is unthinkable:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dross is just one of many I have seen on here talk about how liberals aren’t like conservatives about racial issues. According to this, they are wrong. If Sydney wins it will be all racism all the time. They are already laying the groundwork…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A few things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I am on record here as saying that race is very much important to white Democrats, to whites generally, and I referred to [this</a> article](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301776.html]this”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301776.html) to support the view.</p></li>
<li><p>You make a grave error of reasoning when you confuse liberals with Democrats. The Democratic Party is brimming with old Democrats who did not move to the Republican Party during the 1950’s and 1980’s. Their reasons for staying varied, with some citing the Party’s tradition of “looking out for the average man” and with others refusing to give up the fight for the party. Though they remained in the party, they did not become liberal where race is concerned. So a twenty percent racist Democrat vote is surprising to me only because it is so low. I suspect the real number is even higher, around fifty percent.</p></li>
<li><p>Read your article closely. Even if we accept the Democrat=liberal error, the article still points out that Democrats are “behind” Independents and Republicans on the number of voters who vote by race. This essentially supports my point, not yours.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Liberals are less racist than conservatives, though very many liberals are racists. I do not claim liberals have opened arms for blacks. But the right harbors almost 100 percent of White Supremacy, despite the protests of some here. The Klan, Confederate Flag waving Neo-Confederates, the Neo-Nazis, and “Aryan” movements are all on the right, which is why they favor right wing views and candidates while despising the left. It is also why many right wing politicians fraternize with these racist groups. Liberal candidates do not tend to visit Bob Jones University, where learning how to be a racist hick is an everyday affair. Conservative candidates visit it faithfully, and they have even [fought</a> for the school’s comfort in its racism](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html]fought”>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html). And everyone knows this.</p>
<p>Dross - just want to make 2 points in response to your post:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It is the Consrvative viewpoint which says that ALL men have self-determination (even AfAms) and are free to raise themselves up to become whatever their drive & abilities can achieve - and not be dependant upon a “Nanny State” which dictates how much money thay can have (welfare), where they live(projects), what they eat (WIC & Foodstamps) and practically prevents them from holding a decent job lest they lose their home, foodstamps, etc.</p></li>
<li><p>Don’t forget that McCain spoke out against the racism at BJU in 2000 and called for the removal of the Confederate flag over the statehouse in SC. He took so much heat for those statements that he has essentially come out that the flag, etc. should be a state issue. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t still believe what he said - he just made his point & now will stay out of it. He IS for giving the states more control over many issues. (States can then suffer the boycotts or whatever actions CITIZENS - not GOVERNMENT - choose to levy upon the state in response).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I do not think liberals are interested in creating a “Nanny State”. The fact is, where blacks are concerned America has been nothing but a “Nanny State” since blacks have been here. Indeed she has been a wicked nanny, and blacks are still suffering the fall out of her wickedness. Liberals tend not to overlook this fact and how it contributes to our modern problems. We may disagree with them, but I do not think they aim to create a “Nanny State”. Rather, they wish to address the problems over the long haul, with the aim of correcting it.</p>
<p>As for McCain, his actions certainly do not counter my claim. They in fact verify them. You see, McCain was [for</a> the flag before he was against it](<a href=“http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E7DD153AF930A25752C0A9669C8B63]for”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E7DD153AF930A25752C0A9669C8B63). And when he received the heat for calling it “offensive” that heat did not come from the left. It came from the racist right. Moreover, while Bob Jones claims to have lifted its ban against interracial dating, it in fact treats interracial dating differently than other sorts of dating, notifying parents whenever it occurs, but failing to do so otherwise. Yet John McCain was [against</a> Bob Jones]( <a href=“http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/02/29/bush.2.t_9.php]against”>http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/02/29/bush.2.t_9.php) and now is [for</a> it]( <a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17146257/]for”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17146257/). All of this racist ugliness rests squarely on the right, not on the left.</p>
<p>It may take bz a while to counter this one, Dross. Get comfy.;)</p>
<p>Oh, boy–this is getting good! I’ll just pour a glass of wine, pull up a chair, and watch the show. :D</p>
<p>I’ll bring the popcorn!;)</p>
<p>Popcorn and wine? Great idea!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where you are making your mistake is assuming that your everyday conservative republican likes or even gives credence to these people. I would imagine the vast majority of those who are racially biased can’t stomach the tactics of the groups you try to saddle them with. </p>
<p>Republicans cannot control who votes for or supports their candidates. They can repudiate them all they like but they can’t stop them from voting. Please stop blaming folks like me and the other conservatives with real reservations about Obama for these screwballs. It gets old. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the key is despising the left. They don’t really care much for the religious right either but I guess they are the lesser of 2 evils. When there are only 2 choices every radical group will end up on one side of the aisle or the other. Trust me, we wish they were on your side. If the panthers still existed they would be on your side of the aisle. Would you like that?</p>
<p>
I guess my question is this. Do you believe that people should allowed to be racist? To restrict that ability is to restrict freedom of thought. I believe that liberals have a distressing desire to eliminate all forms of distasteful thought (Larry Summers, James Watson, et al.). That is why I do not like the current Liberal institution. It certainly wasn’t always this way.</p>
<p>One of the things that separates “liberals” from their more radical brethren is just that, Mr. Payne: Liberals tend to be ga-ga over values like “freedom of speech” and “the marketplace of ideas”. So, yes, liberals care A LOT about letting people express racist ideas. Conservatives and left-wing radicals alike tend to quickly fall in line on plans to decide which kinds of ideas shouldn’t be expressed at all. How many legislative conservatives voted against the flag-desecration amendment? (Some of them did, I know.) </p>
<p>However, there’s a big difference between supporting free expression of unpopular views, and believing that unpopular views are irrelevant. I may have disagreed with them, but it was perfectly proper for the Harvard faculty to say “We don’t want to be led by someone with the ideas Lawrence Summers expressed.” Conservatives are ALWAYS doing this. Look at StickerShock’s thread on Michelle Obama: conservatives don’t want to be led by someone whose WIFE has the temerity to suggest, in passing, that American had some problems. Even if they agree that, yeah, American does have some problems, and maybe even some of THOSE problems, saying it makes you a “crepe-hanger,” which means your husband is not fit to lead.</p>
<p>And just TRY to question military strategy! You will be hooted down by a chorus of SUPPORT THE TROOPS! SUPPORT THE TROOPS! TIME OF WAR! TIME OF WAR!</p>
<p>In my experience, conservatives have much more sensitive PC buttons than liberals do, and they are much more willing to try to silence views they do not like.</p>
<p>
Among the plebs that might be true. Among the high-IQ blogosphere I’d say the exact opposite. Libertarian/conservative blogs are far more expansive in the topics of discussion.</p>
<p>
No, I do not make this mistake because I do not believe such a thing as an everyday conservative republican exists. As I said, we are all on a continuum, with loosely defined poles, one left, and one right. When answering the question of which is most racist, reason compels me to agree that it is the right.
Well, I disagree with this, and so we simply disagree. Very many Americans still flirt with notions of the Old South and its abomination of a flag. And these are almost all on the right.</p>
<p>
Of course they can’t control them. That is not the point. The point is, their views more closely reflect those of the racists, which is why they gain racist support.
I blame you for nothing. I do not know you.
</p>
<p>The Panthers were only reacting, albeit inappropriately, to the very real evil that first began on your side and that now continues to spew forth from your side.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well of course I think people have a right to be racist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ERROR: People certainly have a right to be racist. They do not have a right to maintain company with the people (or their allies) that their ideas harm. If I have a company, and a racist works there, he has a right to his views, but not in my company. What you and racists apparently fail to understand is that rights are double-edged. You have them, and so do I. I do not have the right to kill you because of your racism. The government has no right to imprison you for it. But you have no right to keep a job or to be liked or praised for your racism. The Constitution does not grant this and never has. Things used to be better for you (and not me) for the same reason slavery and Jim Crow once existed. America was almost 100 percent racist and openly so. Today, its racism has changed, and thankfully so.</p>
<p>
I’m sure you have a problem with parts of the Civil Rights Act then, correct?</p>
<p>
No one has the right to maintain company with anyone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I have a company, and a racist works there, he has a right to his views, but not in my company.
[quote]
So you think owners should be able to fire/hire whoever they want, right? Just as employees have the ability to accept employment or quit whatever company they want.</p>
<p>
You are wrong, I understand that point.</p>
<p>
Of course, people have very few true rights.</p>
<p>
Agreed.</p>
<p>
Things used to be better for me? No, I’d have to say this very moment is the pinnacle of betterness in my life. Now, if you were somehow happening to lump all white people in one big group I’d still have to say any single moment in the last 5 years is better than it previously was than any moment previously. Technological progress tends to do that.</p>
<p>
Agreed.</p>
<p>
I do not see how the Civil Rights Act keeps you from being a racist. The Klan, as well as very many other right-winged groups, are all racist, and that is their right under the law. But if you wish to live in comfort as a racist, while living around people who struggle against racism, you will likely encounter difficulty, and that is also right under the law. You have no right to be accepted. You only have right to think as you do without incurring government force because of it.
</p>
<p>Blacks, Asians, Jews, Native peoples, whites, hispanics, and others all pay taxes on public roads and services upon which businesses depend. They are all part of American society. And American law recognizes this, which is why the government forbids discrimmination against American citizens because of race, sex, and national origin. If a business wishes to discrimminate against one group, then it acts contrary to society and ought to account for it. Avenues exist for this. The Klan, for example, has never been forced to hire blacks in any of its enterprises. And churches need not hire gays. But if owners wish to avail themselves to the United States’s tax code for profit, then they must join the rest of us in society and abide by the position of the United States concerning race, sex, and national origin. That seems most fair to me.
But of course it would be even better for all racists if they could have their racism and eat it too, as it once was in America’s racist “Halcyon” days. Indeed, the longing for the right to be openly racist and roundly accepted is yet another rightist position supporting the contention of there being more racism on the right than on the left. And it has nothing at all to do with the right to free speech because, as the Klan proves, [you</a> can be so openly racist that you can parade your racism in the street in broad daylight, with the protection of the American government](<a href=“http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=4020533]you”>http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=4020533). So free speech is not the issue. What many conservatives wish is to be able to use societal resources for commerce while discrimminating against law-abiding elements of the society that makes their commerce possible. No. I am thankful life is not better for you, while being happy you are having the best life ever. It seems there is really no problem here.</p>
<p>
I guess I don’t understand this logic. Citizens can choose not to work or do business with any company based on the people who work there. They are still able to use the roads (and all other government services). Seems like they should not be able to do this under your logic.</p>