Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ] |
| Subject: Re: one more thing | |
Author: Dan | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 05:11:02 12/14/02 Sat In reply to: sammy 's message, "one more thing" on 21:30:40 12/13/02 Fri Fair enough. Characterize it that way if you like. I don't think changing how we classify that conflict changes my argument any. For an example, look to the soon to be minority leader of the House. She's not quite as extreme by any means, but she's farther out there than most. It'll be interesting to see which direction she moves once she has power. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:38:48 12/14/02 Sat once again, how do racism and environmentalism equate in your argument? environmentalism is, at least, accepted in society, whereas racism has been reputiated time and time again in the united states (since the 60s). environmentalism falls under the umbrella of political ideology, whereas racism no longer does, in my (very humble) opinion. environmentalism has the interests of humanity in mind, while racism does not. no matter how you look at it, nancy pelosi's concern for the environment comes out of a belief that such a concern is in the best interests of not only our country, but all the people of the world. racism has a well defined history of violence and death in this country, environmentalism does not. on top of that, your argument completely shifts the focus from the original debate, which rests upon my statement that it sucks that there are still republican leaders with racist/white supremacist beliefs. you have done nothing to show me why that statement isn't true, which sucks. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing | |
|
Author: Dan [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:08:24 12/14/02 Sat I am just going to answer both threads here since I am tired of writing two simulataneous messages. Why did President Bush speak at Bob Jones University in 2000. He spoke at a lot of places. Speaking at a venue does not constitute complete agreement with the institutions policies. He made no attempts to congratulate the university for its racist practices, and, in fact, left the race issue completely alone. He did not attempt to recruit voters on issues of racism. Bush chose the school on its religious grounds. The religious right, as opposed to racists, are a group that the republican party actively courts. In my humble opinion, they probably felt they could focus on real issues and avoid the racist issues of the school. Probably not a smart move, but not one endorsing racism. John Ashcroft did speak to that periodical. Probably not a politically savvy move, but I do not believe a damning one either. This gets into more of a historical debate than a political one, but I see a clear distinction between the actual fighting of the civil war, and the reasons for fighting the war. Sammy, you know as well as anyone that I certainly am not a racist in any way shape or form. However, I hold people like Lee and Jackson in very high esteem. To them, slavery was the least of the things they were fighting for. I am happy that they did lose the war, but they fought it in a very honorable and professional way. Lee still has the best marks of any of the 50,000 or so cadets that have graduated West Point and his name is more visible than anyone else's on post. From my studies, I think that Lee and Jackson fought for ideals greater than slavery, but the general populace connects them only with slavery. I will defend his remarks on those grounds. Now, I believe it sucks that you are very selectively listening to my argument. I have concurred that it does suck that there are a very few racist leaders in the republican party. My argument is not that they are not racist nor that they should be safe in their jobs but that they are the exception and not the rule. In parties as large and diffused as in America some people are going to slip through the cracks that are not representative of the party's view. This does not necessarily make a difference to voters. Hell, Jesse Ventura got elected governor. I am not defending Lott, I am defending the party. Each has its share of morons, but that cannot lead to a condemnation of the party en masse. There are subtle effects of democratic racism as well (http://www.nysun.com/sunarticle.asp?artID=405), not that it makes any of it right, but that it does not condemn the party. If Lott does not go, then you might have an argument, but that matter is far from over and I will be disappointed if he serves another session as the leader of the party. Again it sucks that I am giving the very condensed version of what I should be saying, but this grows too long as it is. I also think it sucks that no one else will jump in on this. I'd like to hear what others have to say as well. But Sammy, for being so ungodly smart as you have always been, you do not suck. Merry Christmas all. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing (longest one yet) | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:46:05 12/14/02 Sat alright dan, every time i read what you say, i can't keep myself from responding: first, i agree that it would be nice to hear other points of view here. somehow, people like trent lott, strom thurmond, and jesse helms have risen to levels of LEADERSHIP in the republican party. majority leader is an elected position in the senate, which means, obviously, the rest of the party ELECTED lott to be their leader. that is the crux of my argument. no matter what you may say lee and jackson were fighting for, there is no way you can divorce slavery from amongst those principles which were central to the confederate army's purpose for fighting. i don't recall ever calling into question either of these men's military ability (i, too, see a difference between the actual fighting of the civil war, and the reasons behind the fighting), but please do not try to say that they weren't fighting for slavery. no matter how you look at it, you must ultimately come to the conclusion that the confederate army was fighting for the right to continue slavery. and in mentioning these two generals, and defending their military practices, you forget to mention jefferson davis as one of the people ashcroft mentioned. ashcroft was speaking to a magazine which has said things like: "Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery, despite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was." --Samuel Francis, Southern Partisan, Third Quarter/1995 On John Wilkes Booth: "His behavior was not only sane, but sensible. His background, loyalties, beliefs, and experiences had led him to that end." --Mark Brewer, Second Quarter/1990 Praised former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke as "a candidate concerned about 'affirmative' discrimination, welfare profligacy, the taxation holocaust ... a Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal." --Fourth Quarter/1990 "Feminists, ethnic minorities, sodomites and other 'victims' of majority culture are demanding special recognition and privileged status." --Second Quarter/1992 and two of my favorites so far (in researching the publication): "Newly arrived in New York City, I puzzled, 'Where are the Americans?' for I met only Italians, Jews, Puerto Ricans." --Patrick Brophy, Second Quarter/1991 "Melting Pot: An instrument by which distinct forms of distinct material are melted into a common sludge." --"The Partisan Dictionary," Spring/Summer 1981 (again, all of these were taken from the fairness and acuracy in reporting website) i repeat my question: why say ANYTHING to such a magazine? as for bush in 2000: i agree, speaking at a venue does not constitute complete agreement with the institution's practices. but it does constitute, at the very least, tacit approval. by the very nature of speaking at such a place during a campaign, you are sending a message that you support those people who live/work/go to school there, and you want their vote. let me remind you that bush had just lost the nh primary to mccain, and speaking at bob jones was tantamount to him reaching out to the university, and its supporters, for votes. as to not recruiting on race explicitly, my point in quoting paul krugman's article was that he didn't have to. doing so would cripple his efforts to get the "open-minded majority" of republicans on his side as well. to win, he needed both. also, in keeping with krugman's own opinion, i believe that "religious right" is, oftentimes, just a code word for "racist." it sucks that these people hide their racist beliefs behind a wall of supposed religious beliefs. my own beliefs aside, in this case, the religious right you speak of, and those people with racist practices, are one and the same. so if you are going to go to a place like bob jones university in an effort to reach out to the religious right, you are reaching out to racists. that is a plain fact. it doesn't matter if you only appeal to their religious beliefs. if you want to appeal to the religious right why not go somewhere else, like a church? and upon reading the article you mentioned, i honestly believe that it runs counter to everything you have been saying. is your stance that al sharpton is racist himself? or maybe that the party is trying to pull votes away from a black man? the article talks about donna brazille (who is black herself) trying to pull black voters AWAY from al sharpton by using a "coalition of local African-American candidates — like Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, and former New Orleans mayor Marc Morial — [that] could pick up enough delegates to have a say in the party platform and, potentially, a role as kingmakers." the democratic party is, understandably, a bit embarrassed by his pending candidacy (since he can rightly be painted as a bit of a racist himself). the "favorite son" plan mentioned is a plan to "increase black voters’ impact," while at the same time, to pull black voters away from al sharpton's questionable record on issues of racial harmony (there's no way around it, he's anti-semitic). where, may i ask, is the "subtle racism" in all of that? if anything, it shows a way that the republican party could have delt with its own racist candidates who embarrassed the party (i.e., lott, duke, helms, thurmond, etc., etc.). i guess it sucks that the republicans never did anything similar to brazille's plan, in attepmts get voters to vote for someone other than these "very few" racists. also, it sucks that you say things like "very few" and "exception and not the rule" as if to diminish the impact of admitting that there are ANY racists in the republican party's leadership. THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:28:28 12/16/02 Mon Regarding Bush: It sucks that I didn’t think of this the first time. I thought of it a couple hours after my post on Dec. 14, but I wanted to wait and see how you might respond. However, I want to say it now, since I’ll probably forget it if I wait any longer – In what way does Bush leaving the race issue alone at Bob Jones defend him from my charges? I think it only serves to damn him, since, if he was there to appeal to the religious right (as you claim) and he did not endorse the University’s practices regarding race (as you also claim), then why did he not speak out AGAINST the University’s policies at the time? Why not say something along the lines of, “I’m here to appeal to this crowd on the basis of its deeply held religious beliefs. I feel that Christianity has lost much of its importance in modern day politics, and my candidacy is based on an effort to shift more focus to the good that comes from religion, in society. That is why I have proposed that federal funds be used to support faith-based programs in our communities. In coming here today, I hoped to appeal to you all on those grounds. However, I do not, in any way, support this University’s current ban on interracial dating. I think such a policy is counter to everything this nation stands for, blah blah blah” – You know, something like that. Obviously, saying something like that would have turned off many in the audience, which would have meant less votes in the SC primary. As I see it, there are only two ways of looking at his actions in choosing to speak at Bob Jones University: one, Bush was truly there to speak to the religious right, and in doing so, he saw a clear difference between reaching out to the religious right and reaching out to racists, in which case my post today applies; or two, Bush was concerned about recently losing the NH primary to McCain and he decided to play into the long-acknowledged Republican “Southern Strategy” (a term coined by Nixon, I believe, and described by Krugman in my post on Dec. 13), in which case my post from Saturday night applies. So, if you are trying to defend his visit to Bob Jones by saying that he “left the race issue alone,” I leave it to you to respond to my last post on Saturday, as well as this one today, since I believe the points brought up in this post have added a crucial element to my original argument from Saturday night. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing (longest one yet) | |
|
Author: Dan [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:39:07 12/17/02 Tue So my internet is finally working at a tolerable speed again. Our argument really boils down to just this: is the Republican party by its nature and leadership a racist party? We have agreed Trent Lott did wrong and has to go. We have agreed that racists do not belong in any leadership positions. We seem to disagree as to whether the party chose them FOR their racist views - either overtly or subtly. Until a few weeks ago no one ever questioned Trent Lott on his views of race. Looking back, there was a pattern, but not an overt one. If anyone had suspected of these views he would have never gained the power he had. That is my firm belief. Maybe that is a naive view, but in either case there will be some serious housecleaning throughout the party. If not by choice, then by political necessity. That is good, there is some housecleaning that needs to be done. But, I will stand by the belief that there is no intent to build any racist beliefs into the platform or political base of the Republican party. I know I did not answer any of your questions in this, but with all the finals this week I've lost most of my mental functioning. Three more days...... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |