WaPo Approved!
Apparently this Jennifer Rubin recommended, Fred Hiatt approved discourse doesn’t apply to just any random group of people; the children being fed to the sharks have to be the Right Sort of People. Unfortunately, this leaves a broad gray area; where’s the line between the people we can wish thrown into the sea and people we can’t? So for example, right now I’m really quite irritated that the Stanford Cardinal football team seems to think that it has any business trying to beat my Ducks. If I suggest that death worshiping, innocent butchering, child sacrificing savage Andrew Luck and his band of thugs (and their offspring) should be rounded up and thrown, not into the prisons where they can bide until someone sensible points out that they shouldn’t be in prison, but rather into the San Francisco Bay, where they’ll be food for sharks, stargazers, and a variety of God’s other oceanic carnivores, then can I still have a job at the Washington Post? Especially if I promise not to try to appeal to a large segment of the WaPo readership?
But hey, at least this time Jennifer Rubin didn’t try to decorate a paean to the defense budget with the corpses of Norwegian children. That’s progress, of a sort…
…I have failed in not linking to TBogg.
We select only the choicest Palestinians, lightly kill them, then chop them up and broadcast them for our sharks.
Do I hear echoes of Crunchy Frog?
Clearly the person who’s going to be fired is the ombudsman, for saying what’s supposed to be left unsaid.
Wouldn’t upset this blog.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/10/worst-ombudsman-ever
I’d always thought that “stargazers” were amateur astronomers, so when I first reads Rubin’s re-tweet, I wondered why astrononomers were engaged in oceanic flesh-eating.
I’ve since learned the much less exciting truth: stargazers are a kind of fish. Well, perhaps for the first time in her life, Jennifer Rubin has caused someone to be better informed.
stargazers has become open since Jack Horkheimers death
And now I’ve learned who Jack Horkheimer was! Education really is a life-long process. Thank you, Neo-Conservative warmongers, thank you!
Keep looking up!
On going back over it all, I realize that the “stargazer” reference comes from a longer Rachel Abrams post–not the thing re-tweeted by Rubin.
Well, I think my original point stands: I know more about fish today than I did, and more about the depravity of these two ladies.
I like the “it’s quite possible they would be fired”. They wouldn’t let you clean your desk out. Security would throw you into the street.
“That’s progress, of a sort…”
Woops! Hold on there; this is Ms. Rubin. It’s not progress, it’s merely the erratic random (Brownian?) motion of her metnal processes as she howls her maddened way from one outrage to another. One point doth not a trend make. I think you might be wise to consider this one an outlier.
@actor212: Crunchy muslim? My favorite! Although, not perhaps, Superintendent Parrot’s.
Superintendent Parrot et one of those!
What on earth is Hiatt talking about?
hometeam?
Needless to say, if she’d endorsed such rhetoric against Jews, or blacks, she’d be gone.
But this does shed light on Hiatt’s support for various Muslin-killing imperial adventures.
I have not the faintest idea. Incoherence breeds incoherence…
Incoherence breeds incoherence…
Yes, but using sports metaphors to talk about people far away dying horribly adds the most delightful little soupçon of sociopathic depravity, don’t you think?
Yet more reasons why the WaPoo editorial room should be declared a Super Fund site.
How the hell could you not have included a link to the great tbogg?
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2011/11/11/patrick-pexton-wants-to-hang-on-to-his-fake-job/
Come on!
I would like Jennifer Rubin to know she is responsible for my waning, almost nonexistent support for Israel. It was pretty high in 1967.
That’s repugnant.
I’m not easily shocked. I’m shocked.
Their children? Their “devil-spawn?”
This is the way someone talks before a pogrom.
Rubin’s that rare blend of insipid and despicable.
Kind of like if you morphed David Brooks and Jerry Sandusky.
Or Douthat and Pam Geller/Michelle Malkin.
What’s wrong with “devils’ spawn”? Its the parent, not the child, who she’s calling “devil.”
If you are “strapping bombs” onto your kids then you are “child-sacrificing savages”. Devil is appropriate.
I recognize you rightwingnuts don’t beleive in genetics, but “devil’s spawn” would be baby devils.
“Sexual harasser’s victim” would refer to the likes of Sharon Bialek or Kathleen Willey, but its a rebuke to Herman Clinton.
Likewise, Devils’ spawn is a rebuke to the parents, particulary when seen in context:
Plus, “innocent” could be referring to the spawn.
Google Images search on “Devil’s Spawn”
So, no.
…unless you don’tedit the quote in order to obscure its meaning, at which point it becomes quite clear that “innocents” refers only to Israeli Jews:
But if people like Manju didn’t deceptively edit, they’d be completely unable to even mount an argument most of the time.
You can see the bind he’s in …
Well, he could just pull it out of his ass the way he usually does.
Speaking of pulling shit out of ones ass, here are 2 turds from DrDick:
I suspect, because its so easily checkable and b/c I noticed you quietly stopped saying it (wihout acknowledging error) after i protested yet again on a recent thread after your “oops you did it again”;
You know its false b/c of me. Yet now you have the audacity to claim I make up things?
You fucking Dixiecrat.
There you go with that rather copious ass of yours again. I have never learned a single thing from you and never will as you know nothing.
I really love Google Images.
I like to throw up the Google Image link for “thug” when some wingnut insists that there’s nothing the slightest bit racial in his rant about “Chicago-style urban thugs.”
Its not clear. It could be either.
But “child-sacrificing savages” is clear. The children being sacrificed are the “devils’ spawn”.
You sacrifice stuff of value. Ergo, “devils spawn” was not a swipe at the spawn, since by her own account, they have value.
I have never once in my life heard “devil’s spawn” NOT used as an epithet towards the aforementioned “spawn”.
Yes, “spawn” is a perfectly neutral word with no negative connotations.
Seriously, Manju, what the fuck is wrong with you? You’re really THAT married to the need to defend the indefensible?
An ESL student who first encountered the word in print and looked it up would probably not know those connotations.
Seriously, Manju, what the fuck is wrong with you?
He is a libertarian. He is also clearly a moral relativist and a sociopathic monster, none of which should surprise anyone around here.
Dr Dick, you repeated yourself
You are an ESL student, aren’t you?
Your communicative competency trails your linguistic competency.
Did you just look up “spawn” for the first time, and then put together “devil’s” and “spawn” to try to glean the term’s meaning?
But when you looked up “sacrifice,” why did you choose the second definition instead of the first? If you had trouble understanding, the context about “devil’s” and “murder god” and “death-worshiping” and “seventy-two virgins” helps to make it clear that this:
is better than:
Are you an ESL student?
Your grammar and syntax are terrific.
When someone calls you a son of a bitch, that is a comment on you, not your mother.
Devil’s spawn is usually meant to be taken the same way.
It sounds like she’s referring to the captors and other evildoers. You guys are reacting as if she’s talking about the entire Palestinian population.
I approve too.
Then you’re evil.
This comes as a surprise?
Manju is right, in that the horrible passage is talking about specifically rounding up the “captors” and then feeding them to sharks.
Which means that Manju merely approves of dumping someone you’ve captured and rendered helpless into the ocean to die of either exposure, drowning, or shark-eating as standardized punishment for some crimes.
I’m curious, how should this work, Manju? Should we take steps to assure that the guys dumped into the ocean are ACTUALLY eaten by sharks, say by inflicting a bleeding wound first and covering them in chum? Or is just dumping them in the ocean sufficient? What crimes would warrant shark-eating? Would it be the standard form of capital punishment, or would there be other kinds?
Please, unpack this. I’m genuinely curious.
Also; in before laser sharks.
She speaking figuratively. I read it as a call for war. She means kill ‘em.
You know, one of those wars where we use sharks.
She could have just said “kill ‘em.”
Instead, she drew out an elaborate fantasy about how to kill them, in a manner specifically designed to be cruel and unusual. She put in the effort to dream up a strange death, and lingered on it.
Look, I don’t get my panties in twist every time someone expresses a little bloodlust toward those doing genuinely evil stuff.
I’m sure you can find Malcolm X speaking rather colorfully about ‘devils”…maybe even dismissing an assassination by describing, as the body was still warm, a US President as a chicken who just got roasted.
Since he was referring to a man who did some genuinely evil stuff, I don’t hold it against him. Ain’t nothing wrong with a little over-the -top outrage in certain contexts.
“Roasted chicken?”
I believer the Malcolm X quote was to the effect of chickens coming home to roost, a reference to the depraved violence so common to these United Snakes.
Lying or moron.
ESL student.
You’re right about the aphorism but that doesn’t change the fact that Malcolm dismissed the assassination because the President committed acts of evil in regards to civil rights.
Specifically, Malcolm believed Kennedy did little to stop lynching because he benefited from it politically (without the southern racist vote, there is no JFK Presidency).
Anyone, and this likely excludes the majority of commentators here, who knows real civil rights history knows how true this is. In the quote above, he is expressing pleasure over the news of Kennedy’s death.
I don’t share his feelings on the matter, but considering the lynchings and church bombings that were on his mind, I don’t begrudge the man his moment of hyperbole.
So, in other words, absolutely nothing about the production of a graphic fantasy about how to kill someone.
So, in other words, absolutely nothing about the production of a graphic fantasy about how to kill someone.
Being completely wrong is central to Manju’s point.
Yes.
Lying or moron.
A little from Column A, a little from Column B.
You know, one of those wars where we use sharks.
Back in Reagan’s day, the US did not suffer from a crippling shark gap. But now? Obama and the Defeatocrats won’t even allow prisoner-based testing of sharks. How will Manju ever get an erection without knowing that someone, somewhere, is willing to do what needs to be done to ensure his shark-based violence needs do not go unmet?
“Wah wah wah, the ocean ecosystem could collapse.”
Take a bath, hippie!
Now we have you on record as advocating genocidal warfare. I am not surprised, as you have always clearly been a xenophobic extremist (though that usually is directed at “liberals”).
I read it as a call for war.
Happy fucking Armistice Day to you as well, you shark-jumping reprobate.
Dulce et decorum pistrix
It’s a call for war that she wants us to fight.
And their children.
We know you do.
Well, why don’t you battle it out with Murc, who is probably of your political ilk, and let know who wins.
You know what’s really striking?
The two images she uses – “rounding up” people and “throwing them into the sea” – are imagery that Israelis frequently invoke to suggest massacre and genocide.
Which is apparently fine for groups of people that certain Jews (a group that includes, naturally, Rubin) don’t like.
It is always said when the abused become their abusers. Sadly, ethnic cleansing (if not outright genocide) has effectively been official Israeli policy since the Likud took power. Manju is now on record as approving this.
i made the mistake of reading one of rubin’s columns recently, and lost of couple of IQ points in the process. i didn’t realize she was a pajamasmedia alumni, i just assumed she was an independently formed idiot. i don’t know where these people come from, but it’s clear they have found a home at the once prestigious wp, which is quickly turning into a tabloid.
liberal press indeed!
Only I said:
“a graphic fantasy about how to kill someone” falls under the category of “bloodlust toward those doing genuinely evil stuff”.
As does Malcolm X’s expression of pleasure over the assassination of JFK, who collaborated with the Jim Crow regime while posing as an ally of the civil rights movement…in the eyes of X of course, though I certainly agree with his astute assessment.
You’re really, really determined to try to get people to declare your depraved murder fantasies morally acceptable, aren’t you? I’m thinking this blog maybe isn’t a place where that’s going to happen.
You may want to quit while you are ahead. Nobody has gone full Godwin on you yet, but if you keep up this genocidal excuses bullshit, it is only a matter of time.
Malcolm X didn’t describe an elaborate fantasy in which he took pleasure at the detailed imagery of Kennedy experiencing a bizarre, tortuous death.
Some people need killin’. Nobody needs to sit around getting a chubby at the thought of torturing them to death.
And if it hasn’t sunk in by now, your trolling about JFK’s role in the Civil Rights Act isn’t going to work.
Please don’t feed the troll.
According to the wiki article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict
So even if you guys are right about “Devils’ Spawn” being a reference to the children who commit acts of terrorism, not the parents who make them, the term would be not be offensive…since teenagers aren’t exactly like 5 year olds.
Why’d she have to piss all over the memory of Ronny James Dio?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0wrARDmwio
Don’t think I didn’t notice your dodging of my specifics. I’ve demonstrated that these statements from you:
…are false. And they are therefore racist, in the sense that they constitute denialism.
I could be wrong, but I believe you know they are false…though I also believe you genuinely thought them true upon utterance. After all, they are part of a very common American-lefty racist meme.
But now you appear afraid to repeat them. That means I schooled your southern apologist ass. That might be a hard pill to swallow for someone as unhinged as you, but it would make you a better liberal. And I do genuinley hope to you become a better liberal once I’m done with you.
The alternative is you still believe. That would make you worse than Haley Barbour, since at least he apologized when made aware of the facts.
So which one is it, Dr.Dick?
Wait, you did? Because all three of those statements seem mostly true to me. I wouldn’t say ALL the hard line segregationists switched the Republican Party, but enough did that I’m willing to accept a small amount of hyperbole on that point.
Democrats DID cast out segregationists; anyone who continued to advocate it was made no longer welcome in the party. I know personally three people who were involved in the effort to cast them out (all at statewide levels, one of them in Texas) and they received copious support and approval from the national party.
Most Dixiecrats DID switch to the GOP or leave politics entirely after 1968. Some did not.
I would be curious to see your demonstration that all three of these points are false. They seem eminently true to me. Furthermore, I have severe doubts you ever managed to prove DrDick wrong. I mean, you can’t even get his political affiliation right; I do believe that the good Doctor is not, in fact, a liberal, but is a self-described socialist. (Although I don’t know what he means by that; I’ve never seen him advocate for the State to remove all means of production from private hands and manage them for the common good of the proletariat, which is what I think of when I think of socialism.)
You are, of course correct. I spoke somewhat carelessly in saying “all,” as a small handfull of the segregationists remained in the Democratic Party in a highly marginalized position. This in no way, as you point out, contradicts my larger point (which Manju is too dim to see). I merely revised my statement to avoid exactly the kind of bullshit nitpicking we see here, which primarily serves to shift the focus away from the facts that the vast majority of racists are in the Republican Party, that conservatives (including the Dixiecrats) have always supported racism and continue to do so, and that the primary champions of civil rights in the 20th century have been the Democrats.
Manju remains brain dead wrong in calling any of these segregationsits “liberals”. They were always social conservatives, though some were moderately liberal on some economic issues. What Manju refuses to acknowledge is that “Democrat” is not the same as “liberal”, especially before 1968 (when there were also significant numbers of liberal Republicans like Rockefeller). The basic absurdity of his list is revealed in its inclusion of Robert Byrd and Lyndon Johnson as lifelong racists, as both repented and later actively supported civil rights (Johnson at the cost of his career). His radical conservative revisionism, which tries to site racism in the left rather than the right, where it has always been at home, is almost amusing in the intellectual gymnastics it requires.
Also you are correct that I am a socialist and not a liberal (who are too conservative for me). I am not, however, a state socialist, which is what you refer to and the dominate form which has been implemented. I think that too much centralization of the economy (whether through centralized state control or capitalist monopoly/oligopoly) is destructive and prefer a decentralized approach which confers direct ownership of companies to the workers. I do think that there are some industries, mostly utilities and other natural monopolies, that should be government controlled at some level, but am not sure it should be national. While he never clearly spelled out his vision of what socialism would look like, the available evidence indicates that this is also what Marx preferred (based on the Paris Commune).
So you’re a syndicalist, then?
I was pretty sure I remembered that you weren’t a liberal and that you diverged from liberalism to the left. I just didn’t know if I was confusing you and DocAmazing, as I am wont to do.
I wouldn’t say that Johnson’s support of civil rights cost him his career. The Democratic Party as a whole took some backlash from it, but Johnson’s reputation was torpedoed based on his foreign policy decisions rather than domestic ones, and he’d reached the pinnacle of his career anyway; even supposing he’d had a second term in office, he would have dropped dead during it.
Pushing through the Civil Rights Acts ultimately cost the Democrats the South in that election, which was compounded by the foreign policy issues. He himself said that would be the result when he did it.
Also, yes, I am basically a syndicalist, though on a CIO industrial/shop union model. I advocate breaking up the large oligopolic companies and conglomerates into their constituent units and then conferring ownership to the employees of each company with corporate governance based on a workers’ council model. I think this model retains the primary advantage of capitalist systems (competition among diverse actors) and socialism (most rewards go to the workers how produce the value in the system).
He said ‘syndicalist’ like there was something wrong with it. Funny things, people.
Of course, the real trouble with syndicalism, like most forms of anarchism, is that it’s too sensible for the assholes who’d have to live with it. Capitalism, OTOH, is just made for assholes.
He did?
There is a major difference between socialist syndicalism, which is what I am, and anarcho-syndicalism, which I am emphatically not. As a cultural anthropologist I am well aware of the need for collective rules and their enforcement.
I did?
I don’t actually know enough about syndicalism to have a critique of it one way or the other. I suspect it’s not for me, but I basically only know the wikipedia definition.
Murc -
I did not think you did and was rather pleasantly surprised that you knew what it was (and did not confuse it with anrcho-syndicalism).
DrDick’s racist turds:
Murc:
Fair enough. Obviously, the simplest way to do this is to take a look at the known segregationists, like Strom Thurmond, and count how many became Repubs. Of those left, we then identify those who were cast out. Of those still left we identify those who publicly repented. If they did, we find out when.
(The part about “left politics after 1968” I’ll put aside because its meaningless. Its 2011 so pretty much all the villains of the civil rights era are dead. I suppose if they were kicked out by the Dems before 68 this might be meaningful, but DrD didn’t say that. I took umbrage at the “shifted to the GOP” part.)
This is a task that will take a huge amount of data crunching and more than a little analysis, so consider this comment just the beginning….though I can get us considerably down the road to the truth by starting with the Senators who voted against the 64cra.
Power matters, so this is a logical starting point. By virtue of the role the Senate filibuster played in maintaining the regime, these men represented the most powerful segregationists in the land. There were 27 of them…29 if you go by the more sophisticated cloture vote count, but let’s keep things simple. 6 were Repubs so that leaves 21 dems. Here they are:
1. Byrd, Harry
2. Byrd, Robert
3. Eastland, James
4. Ellender, Allen
5. Ervin, Samuel
6. Fulbright, James
7. Gore, Albert
8. Hill, Joseph
9. Holland, Spessard
10. Johnston, Olin
11. Jordan, Benjamin
12. Long, Russell
13. McClellan, John
14. Robertson, Absalom
15. Russell, Richard
16. Smathers, George
17. Sparkman, John
18. Stennis, John
19. Talmadge, Herman
20. Thurmond, J.
21. Walters, Herbert
Only Strom Thurmond switched parties. One. That’s it. So already the “switched to the Republican Party” part is in deep deep trouble.
So who was cast out? #21 was appointed to replace Aldlai’s segregationist running mate Estes Kefauver. He was 71 at the time and was just a caretaker. #10 died in ‘66 but was eventually replaced by another segregationist, Fritz hollings, who voted against the 68 and 70 cra/vra. Ditto for #14 as his replacement went on to vote against the 68cra.
With the exception of Gore, the rest of the pack stuck around to oppose the 68cra, including R.Byrd who voted for it (I’ll elaborate on this later). The rest did a straight no vote. So much for the “The Democrats cast out the segregationists” bit.
So who publicly repented? I’m going to put aside Byrd again, because his story deserves its own space, but AFAK none of them. Maybe Gore by virtue of his vote but I do not know of any actualy expression of regret, remorse, or admittance.
So that’s just a beginning. Chew on that and let me know what you think.
Let’s all follow Mrs Tilton’s good advice and ignore the troll.
Good advise, Mal.
Because this has gone from stupid, to being stupider, and is now getting even more stupid, to the point of being stupidest beyond measure.
But then, so is Manju.
We have now witnessed the singularity of the black hole of stupid and I refuse to get any closer lest I be sucked into the wormhole.
Shorter Malaclypse, c u n d gulag, and DrDick: “How dare you use facts to counter my racist beliefs”.
You fucking Dixiecrats.
At the risk of continuing an unproductive discussion, I will, in fact, let you now what I think. Let’s start here:
Uh, no. No, it’s not. Your entire post seems to be set on proving that the Democratic Party was the institution of choice for segregationists during the civil rights era.
We already knew that. That’s a fact not in dispute! What does appear to be in dispute is that after the liberal Democrats, in alliance with liberal Republicans but doing most of the heavy lifting themselves, managed to shift the party during the Johnson administration so that it was no longer a place that welcomed them. This makes the 1968 date relevant.
After the Democrats made it unacceptable to be a segregationist and a Democrat at the same time, most of them left them party or stopped being segregationists. Those who didn’t were DRIVEN out, a process that took awhile. As I said, I know personally people who were involved in it. It was hard work! In some states you basically had to go precinct-by-precinct de-certifying existing Democratic Party mechanisms and building new ones that refused to cooperate with the racist shitbags who were running the old ones. (This is how it happened in Mississippi.) No, it didn’t happen prior to 1968. It happened afterwards.
Ok, Murc…”“left politics after 1968” = ” no longer a place that welcomed them” after ’68. So soonafter they are either gone or were no longer segregationists.
I’ll address that next, maybe tomorrow as I’m heading out to watch Pac v JMM tonight.
But I am a little concerned about your “unproductive discussion” assertion. A big part of this meme is that the segregationists became republicans. So I listed all the Dems who voted against the 64cra and proved to you that only one switched.
Presumably the rest were cast out or repented? As I said, I’ll go there next.
I understand we still have more ground to cover…congressmen, Grosvenors, etc…but unless Strom Thurmond was the only hard line segregationist of the most powerful segregationists in the land, the “all of the hard line segregationists switched to the Republican Party” line appears to be in serious trouble.
And isn’t it interesting that I’m falsifying assertions rather than DrDick proving his?
Your list had very few names on it. I speak of the literally millions of segregationists and racists who were members of the Democratic Party and who either left politics or switched to Republican.
If you were a hardline segregationist in 1960, especially in the south, you were almost certainly a Democrat in good standing. In the 1968-1972 period, you may have still been a Democrat, but you’d have been deeply disgusted with the party and would likely have voted for Nixon. In 1980, you would most likely be a Republican, and if you still tried to be a Democrat and a segregationist you’d have been actively shunned, denounced by the party, and generally treated like a pariah.
I have yet to see you refute this broad trend in any way that’s convincing.
As far as your list goes, a quick scan reveals that the vast majority of the people on it either retired from, died, or were driven from politics in the mid-seventies and early eighties. I’m not sure how that has any bearing on the millions of former Democrats who became Republicans because the former would no longer tolerate their racism and the latter was willing to turn a blind eye. That’s not snark; I’m literally not sure how it has any bearing. It’s not like those guys hung around while continuing to win elections as Democrats with the support of the party and its electorate, which would at least have some bearing on the discussion.
You are wasting your breath. Facts and logic have no effect on Manju, who only believes what he hears on Limbaugh and Fox or reads in Jonah Golberg or Red State (possibly Stormfront). Truly pathetic and ultimately boring.
I’m sort of curious as to how this ultimately plays out, which is why I keep engaging. Not even ‘curious in a car wreck’ sort of way, I really want to know where he’s going with this. So far he’s succeeded in proving two facts that weren’t in dispute. I kinda want to know where he goes from there.
In circles. We have been over this before (as represented by the quotes from me on other threads) and all he does is constantly recycle the same pathetic statements as if they were conclusive of his point (when in reality the reverse is true). I am increasingly beginning to think that Manju is really a not very bright 14 year old. He has that style of argument.
Why do people bother talking with Manju? This only makes it feel wanted. If you do not feed the nazi-wannabe troll, it will eventually grow frustrated and depart to places where it is amongst its own, like Pam Geller’s site, Free Republic and Stormfront.
The idea of slaughtering your enemy’s children is nothing new;
“‘Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill”
It’s probably a mistake for me to jump into this at all, but what the heck:
Abrams’s original post is not noteworthy for its clarity, but about halfway in, she has the phrase “and their offspring,” which I think is in apposition with “his captors” up above.
Here, sadly, is the whole sentence:
So she really does appear to me to be saying “throw his captives AND their offspring into the sea.”
Of course I should have said: “Throw his captors AND their offspring into the sea.”
And I see above that Robert Farley understands “and their offspring” in the same way.
I think that’s misplaced, actually.
Strip out the mess of invective and the syntax is “Round up the monsters who hide behind women* and their own children* and throw them to the sharks” (*not counting those women and children who are also monsters).
It’s so full of frothy rage that it’s easy to lose track of it.
Yeah, on a second look I think you may be right.
Nonetheless, her mention of “devil’s spawn,” and her pointed contrast with the normal activities of Israeli children, convict her pretty conclusively of an undiscriminating hatred.
Agreed.
Murc,
The civil rights era is generally ’55 -’68. I started to demonstrate that hardly any of the famous segregationists migrated toward the Republican Party. Since almost all the fuckers who opposed the 64cra were still fucking us by opposing the 68cra, my use of the all-important Senators as a metric helps demonstrate what I just said above…in addition to what you just said.
Here I am respecting progressive thought. Racism = power + prejudice. So I begin the analysis by naming the most powerful Segregationists in the land. Yet you protest.
Your list has no names on it.
Actually, to be fair, I think you needed to soften if you had Presidential or Vice-Presidential ambitions. But you either endorsed Kennedy or Byrd.
May? 17 of the 20 Senators who voted against the ‘68cra were Dems (not including those who opposed it by other means). So “very likely were” is better than “may”.
In ’68 you would have voted for George Wallace. ’72 Nixon. ’76 Carter.
In 1977, Democrats elected a then-unrepentant Segregationist to be their Senate Majority Leader. He was still their leader, albeit the minority one, in 1980. He still believed in Segregation at that point. (I suspect you think I’m lying, so feel free to ask for me to prove it.)
As late as 1989, their Speaker of the House was a man who opposed the 64 cra. I don’t if or when he repented.
So no, that sentence of yours doesn’t work either.
See, by feeding the troll, we’ve derailed completely from his genocidal fantasies, and are now going on and on about how Democrats are the Real Racists ™.
Feeding trolls is a bad idea.
Yeah, now I feel bad. I should maybe have listened to you guys upthread. Apparently if I can’t produce a list of specific names of voters who were segregationists who switched parties, and instead rely on things like established scholarship based on studying broad demographic trends, I lose.
I mean… he has a pseudo-legitimate point that the Democratic Party harbored a few unreconstructed racists at higher echelons well into the 80s. Then he takes that ball and runs off into crazy land with it. I mean hell, by that logic I can claim that the Republican Party was friendly to the working class and labor issues because it had Linc Chaffee and Arlen Specter in it at the time.
I’m also baffled by Manju’s ‘racism = power + prejudice’ formulation. If this is a strain of progressive thought I haven’t encountered it. It seems dumb and wrong to me.
Voters? Produce a list of specific names of politicians who were segregationists who switched parties. Take a look at DrDicks words in context:
See that? “Retirement.” Voters don’t retire from voting. Voter also don’t get rated by the naacp. He referenced “Byrd”, not Joe the Plumber.
Now of course the two issues are related, if “All of the hard line segregationists [politicians] switched to the Republican Party”, segregationist voters would surely be inclined to vote for them. This would help explain the Southern Shift. But did it happen?
DrDick thinks so:
Got that? Strom Thurmond, not Joe-the-Plumber, tho of course the latter would follow the former. Not clear enough? Take alook at this exchange:
That reads: “[the most vociferous proponents of segregation in Washington and in the State Governments] are Republicans now”, according to DrDick.
Indeed, you said this:
Voters don’t leave politics.
Ergo, I’ve falsified DrDick’s Haley Barbouresque denailism. I think you know this.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/05/bernie-vs-rand
At best, you’ve proven that DrDick possibly formulated his words badly. At best.
And you’re flat-out, straight up, wrong about this:
Yes. Yes they do. All the time. I know some personally. I suppose if you define ‘voter’ as ‘someone who is actively voting’ then no, they don’t, but if someone votes for a set of political ideals for awhile, and then stops voting entirely, they’ve left politics. They’re a ‘voter who has left politics.’
Take the pledge, Murc.
I’ve proven that DrDick (perhaps unwittingly at first) asserted a denialist narrative designed to whitewash racism from certain segments of the American polity. If the above-referenced context is not enough for you, consider this:
The context is clear:
“The Dixiecrats represented over a dozen states and your list is not even long enough to cover all their senators, let alone the representatives.”
DrDick thought my list (not the one on this thread) excluded a huge amount of segregationist politicians who migrated. So I began expanding the list, demonstrating not much migration with that expansion.
He (and I suspect many here) have a substantial misunderstanding of the southern shift and the degree to which lib-dems were in colluson with the Regime, as Malcolm X explained rather well:
The dems never kicked them out. This is true of post-64 as well.