2012 Elections

[timwakefield 68]

And you know this because he was a Republican? Whereas comments from Byrd, Biden, and Reid that are explicitly racist can be overlooked because they are Democrats?That seems to be the only unifying logic of the race card.

I made it extremely clear how I knew that it implicitly referred to segregation. Thurmond ran for President exactly once, on an explicitly segregationist ticket.

[timwakefield 68]

Yes, he apologized for his racist past as a KKK member less than two years after he used the phrase "white ******" in a TV interview. Really convincing. Especially since he had been apologizing for years and he used that objectionable, racist phrase *after* he had apologized and said he was no longer racist.

Byrd apologized for his KKK membership a thousand times. Thurmond actually refused to apologize for his massive support of segregation even when given an opportunity to do so. I don't see how the two can be equated. Byrd also immediately apologized for his use of the term "white niggers," which itself is an odd and somewhat confusing term. It's not like he called black people niggers.

If you believe him, you are either hopelessly ideological devoted to Democrats,

I don't think either of us can know how he actually felt about race relations, and if all his apologies were sincere or just lip service.

or too naive to leave the house.

I don't know what you mean by this, or why you think a random personal attack against me is a good way to have a debate/discussion.

[hblask 1]

Byrd apologized for his KKK membership a thousand times. Thurmond actually refused to apologize for his massive support of segregation even when given an opportunity to do so. I don't see how the two can be equated. Byrd also immediately apologized for his use of the term "white niggers," which itself is an odd and somewhat confusing term. It's not like he called black people niggers. I don't think either of us can know how he actually felt about race relations, and if all his apologies were sincere or just lip service.

We are not talking about whether Thurmond was racist (he clearly was), so I'm not sure why you keep bringing him up.You know how you can tell if someone's apologies about being racist are insincere? If they keep using the word "******" in public and don't even realize how racist it is.Look, I know you don't want to believe that racism exists in the Democratic party, but it does and always has. The Democrats have always been far more racist than Republicans. They still love to implement racist policies which imply that minorities cannot succeed unless the Whitey comes to rescue them.And yes, Republicans and every other group has racists. The Dems seem to be the only ones to have institutionalized it to the point where it is blatantly ignored within their own party.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Are people actually interested in this "racism by party" discussion, or do people continue it simply to try to land punches?

[hblask 1]

Are people actually interested in this "racism by party" discussion, or do people continue it simply to try to land punches?

It's an issue that has come up again this week: a Republican who has no history of racism and in fact has spoken up more for the rights of minorities and the underprivileged more than anyone in Congress over the last couple decades is now being smeared with wild racism claims -- mostly by the same people who regularly ignore much more flagrant racism within their own ranks.As a general rule, no, it's not interesting, because racism exists and is not limited to any group; in specific cases it may be important to point out the hypocrisy of one side always playing the race card when they practically invented racism.

[Balloon guy 158]

One man was a member and rose in the ranks to become the leader of an organization the actually linched, killed, raped and burned blacks for over a century.The other thought blacks and whites should live separately.Guess which one is the worse in Tim's eyes?Lott was trying to say something nice at an old man's 100th birthday party, never thinking of the racial implications that Tim sees as evidence by the fact he was a Mississippi representative.

[timwakefield 68]

We are not talking about whether Thurmond was racist (he clearly was), so I'm not sure why you keep bringing him up.

Strategy brought it up. Then you replied and expounded on it/him. Then I replied to your reply, and so on. I don't "keep bringing him up." I was simply disagreeing with what you had said about Trent Lott's comments about him and then it went from there.

Look, I know you don't want to believe that racism exists in the Democratic party, but it does and always has.

Southern Democrats in the first half/two-thirds of the twentieth century were some of the worst racists ever. This is well established and I've never not believed it. Quite the opposite.

The Democrats have always been far more racist than Republicans.

That's an extraordinarily vague statement that cannot be verified or disproved, because it's so vague. Also, you complain that I'm acting silly for arguing the opposite (which I never actually did), and then you make the same argument but on the other side of the coin. I thought we'd already established that it was a ridiculous argument to have? The Democratic and Republican parties have, in general, changed drastically over the last hundreds of years. To a large extent they actually switched many of their codified beliefs early in the 20th century. So it's just an awful argument to try to engage in.

They still love to implement racist policies which imply that minorities cannot succeed unless the Whitey comes to rescue them.

Yes, because the NAACP and similar organizations totally were against AA and welfare and didn't push hard to get those laws passed. That is something very true. I'm being very sarcastic.

Lott was trying to say something nice at an old man's 100th birthday party

He did not succeed. "Thurmond has been a great lawmaker for many decades," would be a nice thing to say. "We all wish you'd been elected President as a segregationist," is a very stupid thing to say.

[strategy 4]

Strategy brought it up.

yeah, sorry, I wasn't really interested in the discussion at all. I don't know why I hit "reply."

[hblask 1]

Yes, because the NAACP and similar organizations totally were against AA and welfare and didn't push hard to get those laws passed. That is something very true. I'm being very sarcastic.

The difference between what organizations SAY they stand for and what they actually stand for is frequently quite stark. This is one of those examples. Believing that certain groups deserve special rights is pretty much the definition of racism.

He did not succeed. "Thurmond has been a great lawmaker for many decades," would be a nice thing to say. "We all wish you'd been elected President as a segregationist," is a very stupid thing to say.

If that's what Lott said, that would be a relevant point.

[timwakefield 68]

The difference between what organizations SAY they stand for and what they actually stand for is frequently quite stark. This is one of those examples.

Are you talking about the NAACP or the Democratic party?

Believing that certain groups deserve special rights is pretty much the definition of racism.

No it really isn't. First of all you left out the qualifier, "deserve special rights based on their race..." but I can assume that's what you meant. But, like, you don't need to be black to be on welfare. And affirmative action was an attempt to combat an inherently racist system. The concept was that African-Americans were being specially neglected for certain things like white-collar jobs based solely on their race, rather than their qualifications and abilities. AA was an attempt to level a playing field that was believed to be inherently and unfairly unbalanced. I don't see how that equates to giving a certain group special rights.

If that's what Lott said, that would be a relevant point.

It is essentially what he said. You're trying or pretending very hard to not understand this, and I don't know why. Lott said, paraphrasing, 'We all supported you and voted for you when you ran for President and wish you'd been elected and maybe we wouldn't have had all these problems if you had been.' And as we've discussed, Thurmond ran for President once, as a strict segregationist. The two things cannot be divorced.

[Balloon guy 158]

What Lott said was basically: "Its too bad you didn't become president because you could have been a good president"Lott never meant to say " I wish we could have segregated the blacks back 50 years ago." That was pure democrat spin on a poorly worded impromptu speech Lott made.Lott's entire life proves he isn't racist, that's why he doesn't have to be extra careful that everything he says can't be misconstrued, unlike democrats who are racists at heart, so they have to filter every word through a racism filter.

[mk 11]

Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum is only a 4:1 dog to win Iowa!Yes, he actually said that.

[timwakefield 68]

The guy in the foreground is voting for Romney.

[DJ Vu 176]

Hey, there was a caucus or something yesterday, right?*goes to google*Yeah, Iowa.Isn't this a big deal? Or at least some kind of a deal?*actually clicks on a google link*"Romney beats Santorum by 8 votes."8 votes??? Out of how many? 50 or something? 120,000?!?!I don't remember reading much about Santorum here. Do we like him?Edit: Oh look, we were talking about him right before this post. Looks like Iowa burned for him.

[timwakefield 68]

It was still a very small number of votes though compared to a general election or a primary in a larger state. Romney and Ricky each got 30,000 votes (30,015 vs 30,007) and Paul got over 26,000. In an early primary "caucus" it's largely based on who campaigned the hardest in that specific state and who is focusing on other states and what their big picture plan is, etc. In other words, it was a fairly unimportant outcome I think, although Santorum did apparently set Iowans on fire to a somewhat surprising degree. And Newt failed hard, which is nice. Also, Michelle Bachman finally dropped out

[timwakefield 68]

"There is a question here of academic freedom, freedom to learn, as well as to teach. The debate over origins is an excellent example. Just as has happened in other subjects in the history of science, a number of scholars are now raising scientific challenges to the usual Darwinian account of the origins of life. Some scholars have proposed such alternative theories as intelligent design."

Rick Santorum, 2001, in a statement to Congress on the so-called "Santorum Amendment," which promoted the teaching of ID in public classrooms

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)).... In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)). After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania decision, 2005Also this:

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Rick Santorum, 2003, on his belief that a right to privacy is not guaranteed by the Constitution, as well as his general opposition to anal sexBut yeah, let's elect this asshole.

[AmScray 355]

If you took a random sampling of voters, say 1000.1k Paul voters, 1K Santorum voters, 1K Romney voters... 1K Obama voters.You then immolated everyone who had an IQ that registered average or below, what group would have the most people left standing?

[CaneBrain 95]

Paul, then Romney, then Obama, then Santorum.

[brvheart 1,752]

Paul, then Romney, then Obama, then Santorum.

I probably agree with this assessment.

[AmScray 355]

Whites Only: Paul, Obama, Romney, SantorumAll-Inclusive: Paul, Romney, Obama, Santorum

[The Ocho 970]

From the socially liberal viewpoint, what do you think it is that Santorum could do with his beliefs that would affect you or things you care about?

[CaneBrain 95]

From the socially liberal viewpoint, what do you think it is that Santorum could do with his beliefs that would affect you or things you care about?

---set gay marriage back a decade---direct the DOJ to challenge Roe v. Wade---encourage more states to make the time limit on abortion decisions shorter and shorter---set stem cell research back a decade---direct the DOJ to challenge the Supreme Court on sodomy laws---re-institute school prayer (I dont care about this one much)

[FCP Bob 1,312]

---set gay marriage back a decade---direct the DOJ to challenge Roe v. Wade---encourage more states to make the time limit on abortion decisions shorter and shorter---set stem cell research back a decade---direct the DOJ to challenge the Supreme Court on sodomy laws---re-institute school prayer (I dont care about this one much)

He would also defund all programs involving birth control in the US and around the World which is a recipe for a lot of unwanted pregnancies and an increase in sickness.

[The Ocho 970]

---set gay marriage back a decade - states issue---direct the DOJ to challenge Roe v. Wade - states issue---encourage more states to make the time limit on abortion decisions shorter and shorter - states issue---set stem cell research back a decade - this could be an issue ---direct the DOJ to challenge the Supreme Court on sodomy laws - sodomy is already illegal in many states---re-institute school prayer (I dont care about this one much) - states issue

[CaneBrain 95]

---set gay marriage back a decade - states issue---direct the DOJ to challenge Roe v. Wade - states issue---encourage more states to make the time limit on abortion decisions shorter and shorter - states issue---set stem cell research back a decade - this could be an issue ---direct the DOJ to challenge the Supreme Court on sodomy laws - sodomy is already illegal in many states---re-institute school prayer (I dont care about this one much) - states issue

this is just your opinion. school prayer is not a states issue because the Supreme Court banned it under Federal Law. Gay marriage could be harmed by a Federal Marriage Amendment. Roe v. Wade is not a states issue at all; it's a Supreme Court ruling that applies to all 50 states. Directing the Dept. of Justice to work on overturning that ruling is not a states issue. Just saying "oh that's a states issue" isn't remotely persuasive or accurate.sodomy, btw, is not illegal in ANY states. It WAS illegal in 14 states until a 2003 decision by the Supreme Court invalidated those laws. So, if the President decided to challenge that 2003 ruling that could change things. I'm not sure you understand that a Supreme Court ruling is binding on all 50 states.