Liberal Racism And Historical Revisionism

I have previously reported on liberal racism on several occasions, such as Let’s Talk About Racism, which is my personal experience facing racism, Liberals Are Racists, which is my personal experience on “Sadly, No!”, a brain-dead liberal blog which uses profanity and a lack of logic to push the left agenda, Democrat Civil Rights History, where I gave a long history of Democrats opposing the granting of civil rights to blacks. (I did not research that history. I copied it, with permission, from Black&Right.)

Remember this Democrat Party line:

Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.

That is blatant revisionist history. That is a blatant lie. As the Democrat Civil Rights History article showed, Democrats have been on the front line, fighting against equal opportunity for all Americans. On the vast majority of civil rights issues, Democrats have been forefront in opposition, as history shows. Where Democrats have been in favor of civil rights for all, it has been on issues of personal choice and not issues of personal being.

And even in the realm of personal choice, Democrats are racist and exclusionary. This is very obvious. Try being a prominent black Conservative, or weaker, a prominent black Republican. According to a huge number of Democrats, especially in positions of power, those blacks are race-traitors. Hispanic Republicans and Conservatives are also race-traitors. My article showing my experience at “Sadly, No!” proved it, case closed. The person going by the moniker “Some NY Guy” very clearly said, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any non-whites who vote Republican are traitors to their race. And that is a clear example of racism and the exclusionary nature of “personal choice” that Democrats would love for you to ignore, while they claim to be the champions of the opposite.

But you needn’t go to the outrageously inflammatory and intellectually vacuous site “Sadly, No!” to see the inherent racism among Democrats and Liberals. You only need witness the left’s treatment of Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes, both staunch Conservatives, JC Watts, a Republican I believe to be a staunch Conservative, Condoleezza Rice, a hispanic woman who I believe is a Conservative and is most definitely a Republican, and Michael Steele, a wishy-washy Republican. Steele actually had oreos thrown at him! And, of course, Thomas is castigated by members of the left for doing the unthinkable: marrying a white woman. Talk about racism.

In many cases, today’s Liberals and Democrats are no less racist than those of yesteryear. And today’s Liberals and Democrats, many of them, focus on racism when anyone attempts to counter anything the current half-white President pushes. It is a major wedge issue those on the left use, while hoping most of the population never learns the truth. And the truth is Democrats and Liberals have been wedded to racism for over 150 years.

I have shown how today’s Liberals and Democrats are very much racist, calling any non-white “race traitors” and hurling insults and objects at non-white Conservatives and Republicans. I have given a link showing the very long history of Democrats fighting against equal treatment of blacks. I have given the quote showing the very blatant Democrat revisionist lie. Today’s “affirmative action,” which had its uses back in the day (remember your history regarding Democrats and Liberals), is another example of racism. If you’re a member of the “wrong race,” you get extra points on your test scores for college placement and job placement. That means, if you’re a member of the “wrong race,” you’re too dumb and unqualified to get the job without special assistance. What could be more underhandedly racist than that?

But there are those of the left who always try to shift the goalposts. They don’t want to talk about the history they lied about. They don’t want to talk about current events they lie about. They want to bring up another subject, which they also lie about. And here’s the current revisionist Big Lie: Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans. That’s right, somewhere along the lines, everyone switched sides. And, amazingly, many people who actually hear about the history of Republicans and Democrats actually buy that lie.

I got this comment from my Democrat Civil Rights History article:

[T]hose whom you quoted as white southern democrats now affiliate themselves with the republican party. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

If you disagree there are plenty of places to start at wiki. And if you disagree with wiki, pickup a high school American History textbook. It’s all spelled out in history’s narrative.

Now the full comment was an attack-and-condescension-filled comment, as if I didn’t know anything about anything. But there was another comment I recently read on a different topic by a different commenter whose chosen moniker is unfit to be used on my site.

The real Constition, JH, not the one the Texas Textbook Taliban fantasizes about when they rewrite history.

So it’s obvious the left wants to focus on history books, but only the history books the left writes. Without revisionist history or total ignorance, the left loses. And, unfortunately, many Americans do not know their own history, nor do they care about history at all. Let’s take this idea that Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans, as that commenter on my site suggested (along with a large number of leftists). When did this happen? Before or after the Democrats fought every effort to make blacks equal to whites (where they dishonorably claim to the uninformed they fought for every effort to make blacks equal to whites)? Apparently, they choose to suggest to the moderately informed that the change occurred during the Dixiecrat days. Or they suggest the “everybody switch sides” event occurred at the famous “Democrat” civil rights victory of 1964. This is merely a furtherance of lies and revisionism.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, over which a Democrat President presided, was made possible by Republicans in spite of, rather in cooperation with, Democrats. Yes, Democrats were the major blockage. The true history shows:

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

Mackubin T Owens provides more insight into the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.

So, obviously, the purported 1964 Democrat victory was actually a Republican victory in furtherance of black rights, despite revisionist leftists’ claims. So the sudden “let’s switch parties” game happened after 1964. After the then-102-year history of Republicans supporting equal rights for all races and both genders and Democrats fighting against civil rights for some races and females, everybody switched sides. Think about that. Is there any logic in that at all?

But leftists like to claim that southerners quit being Democrats and became Dixiecrats and then became Republicans, which made the entire change for both parties. Nevermind that the Dixiecrats were very much regionalized to the former slave states. Nevermind that the Dixiecrats reached their zenith in 1968, where they won 4 states and garnered less than 10 percent of the overall vote during the Presidential general election, where the Republican garnered nearly 56 percent of the overall vote. Forget about the fact Robert Byrd filibustered the bill for 14 hours all by himself. Forget about the fact Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr (recognize the names?) both voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Forget about the 21 Democrat Senators voted against the bill, which would, at the very minimum, equal 10.5 states while the Dixicrats won only 4 in 1968. Ignore all those facts.

According to Democrats, when talking to people who actually know a thing or two about history, everyone switched sides between 1964 and the Reagan Revolution of 1980. The goalpost-shifting left, when talking to people who actually know history, ignore their lies about the longitudinal racist nature of the left and push lies about short-term history and push the totally unbelievable concept that everyone switched sides over a brief 16-year span. They claim a large group of Democrats became Dixiecrats and then all the Dixiecrats became Republicans, when the facts show the vast majority of Dixiecrats returned to the Democrat Party.

The left hopes you don’t know your history at all. And when the left finds out you do actually know history, they try to revise recent history in absurd ways without even so much as a mea culpa about longitudinal history. All the while, the left continues its racist agenda, overt and covert alike.
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor

46 Comments

  1. There’s a problem here. “Republican” and “Democrat” today typically mean “conservative” and “liberal,” respectively. This has certainly not always been the case. There certainly have been racist Democrats and Republicans, and, in fact, the Republican Party seems to have been founded based on the split between the Democrats that were divided on the slavery issue. If you were to research incompletely, you might assume that a Republican is just a Democrat that’s against slavery.

    What I don’t buy is that Liberals have always been racists and blockers of civil rights while conservatives have always been champions of the downtrodden minorities. That’s crazy talk. It’s like saying conservatives have always been interested in change.

    Is this article meant to paint all current Democrats with the racist brush of politicians past? And therefore attach historical conservative attitudes to modern liberal thought?

    It’s the fricken’ definition of conservatism that they don’t want change. This country started with slavery legal and minorities disenfranchised and oppressed. That has changed. Some people fought that change. Do the math.

  2. You will note, naggy, that I added qualifiers in my various “liberal = racist” articles, including at least one qualifier in this one. Those qualifiers were meant to eliminate any “broad brush” reading of my articles. I have a hard-edge attack style and personality and I know it. But I try to add enough qualifiers so as not to paint with too broad a brush. Perhaps I didn’t add enough qualifiers in this instance.

  3. blu, even high school teachers reject wiki as a reliable source. Perhaps it’s time for you to do so as well. And while you’re at it, you might want to rethink your using of Providence’s name in vain. But, then again, you might want to amp up your using of Providence’s name in vain. I dunno.

  4. It’s not just the past.

    The racism – or racial bigotry for lack of a better term – of some famous recent liberals has pretty well been documented, as they characterized certain segments of the public as taco eaters or the like.

    And of course these hypocritical compound-dwelling political elites reserve their exercises in coercive inclusion and social direction for the average citizen, not themselves.

    There is however a curious and somewhat related phenomenon observable on the left, noticed by many, but first commented on in public by Ann Coulter to the best of my knowledge.

    As she observed, the human trait that leftists seem to exalt above all others is intelligence.

    It is through the ostensible possession of that characteristic that they view themselves as having a right to rule over others, especially those who wish to be free of their meddling.

    And it, intelligence, is the trait that they hold to be particularly lacking in people like libertarians and conservatives; the political class of people they see as most unfit to politically govern or to even be allowed to direct their own lives.

    Thus, human value and the right to political dominance, is held by the modern liberal to be gauged by an intelligence standard.

    According to their scheme, modern liberals and progressives are good, supposedly possessing intellectual gifts in abundance; whereas anarchists and Red Necks and various other kinds of uncooperative Neanderthals(demonstrably self-sustaining types nonetheless) are bad, and therefore unfitted to have a say within the walls of the New Progressive Jerusalem.

    And because their ideology includes the militantly aggressive notion of “one society” in one polity(the reason for which will be explained in the next-to-last paragraph below), they must rule, and rule to an unlimited extent, over everyone.

    However there is a problem with this lefty paradigm; and that problem is reality.

    A large portion of those who most consistently identify with the tenets of modern liberalism and support the Democrat party at the polls, are segments of the civil population that are according to statistical measures manifestly unintelligent, dysfunctional, illiterate, state dependent, and/or hapless.

    Detroit, is a very good example of this: pure and unhindered Democrat rule for generations, and a 47% functional illiteracy rate. The corrupt blind leading the indifferent blind.

    Many of the most famous liberal leaders of the modern era are also men and women who by their personal histories have demonstrated that despite their apparent social advantages, they are sorely lacking in real brainpower. Ted Kennedy and the rest of that idiot clan, Christopher Dodd, and Mr. Teresa Heinz(aka John Kerry ) are particular recent examples.

    And that is what constitutes the progressive political leadership.

    With leaders such as that, and with political clients such as they have, and especially with their joint history of manifest incompetence in constructing civil societies in urban areas where they have complete and unchallenged, but limited geographical control, what evidence have they that they are fit to manage the lives of others?

    None. For from the moment that they are thrown upon the resources of their own kind, the moment the redistributionist beast they ride is tax starved by the voters, or the moment that productive people manage to vote with their feet and migrate beyond its expropriative reach, it, the beast, collapses, and them with it.

    The modern liberal: if it can’t “lay eggs in your nest” it flails, fails and eventually dies.

    If you allow it to do so, however, you will.

  5. John Hitchcock wrote:

    “blu, even high school teachers reject wiki as a reliable source.”

    Another amusing thing about the left is their recent attempts to refashion an authoritarian image out of what they had recently called an anarchist tendency.

    They have now called people desiring self-governance
    “anarchists” for so long, that they undercut the rhetorical usefulness of their older charge of “fascism”.

    Their new challenge therefore, has been to find some formula for combining the two apparently contradictory charges.

    Much tortuous “reasoning” and rhetorical effort has been expended by persons like John Dean in bringing this possibility about.

    As modern progressivist liberalism is essentially a totalitarian doctrine itself, recognizing no limits to its commands, no boundaries to its sway, and no point of satiety, the liberals have been understandably sensitive to the possibility of it being pointed out how logically speaking, they are themselves pan-social fascists of a kind.

    One can see the hysterical reaction that the mere possibility of this issue being raised provoked in persons like the blogger Jon Swift(the now deceased Al Weisel), as he took out after Jonah Goldberg, in a preemptory strike.

  6. I see that Mr. Hitchcock has attained Advanced Unhinged Ranting certification – congratulations are in order!

  7. Hey, I heard that it was actually the Amish that landed men on the moon, not scientists, engineers and test pilots. Of course, your wacky non-Luddite websites are full of lies about it.

    I read this awesome parchment yesterday. I guess it took, like, hundreds of draft horses and enough lumber to raise five barns. The real trick, though, is getting up way early. And drab clothing.

  8. John,

    Watch Perry cry that he has been unfairly characterized as an opportunist and thief, as he simultaneously seeks to pick the contents of your pockets now, while promissing to pay you off with rationed services in the future.

    This is the guy remember, who cannot bring himself to say why he can’t voluntarily better the Catholics when it comes to health care; given that there are supposedly more American lefties yearning for Perry’s version of health care reform, than there are inhabitants of Switzerland.

    Looks like he admits by default that a society composed of Perry types just can’t work.

  9. DNW, as always, your prose sparkles, and your thinking is crystal clear.

    The lefties here write about as well as a three legged elephant trying to dance.

  10. Seeking the attention that may convince him that his life has some meaning, and thus postpone the inevitable closet and noose for a little while longer, the NZ troll Phoenician in a time of Romans, writes:

    “Shorter DNW: Liberalism is a floor wax AND a dessert topping BECAUSE I SAY IT IS”

    Well Troll, let’s review a bit of what I have said shall we?

    I have for example said that you had in your pathetic ignorance and lack of critical sense, deployed a falsified George Washington quote, and you did.

    I recently said that Al Weisel, before blowing a gasket, had attacked Jonah Goldberg over the very prospect that Goldberg might dare to publish “Liberal Fascism”, and he did.

    I have stated that the progressivism characterized by the first Humanist manifesto was a kind of religion. And so the authors of the same explicitly admitted it to be.

    I recently said

    “Detroit, is a very good example of this: pure and unhindered Democrat rule for generations, and a 47% functional illiteracy rate. The corrupt blind leading the indifferent blind.”

    and so it is, a liberal Democrat felon mayor in Kwame, Democrat liberal council members sentenced to prison as per Representative John Conyer’s wife, Monica, a current mayor who recognizes that the failing city cannot support the infrastructure built in previous times, and who wishes to return parts of the city to tillage.

    Face it Phoenician, if you and your kind couldn’t leverage the law so as to suck a portion of the economic life blood of the unwilling productive, you would be long dead by now.

    It may be rude to point this out to you. But “them’s the facts”, chump. “Deal with it.”

  11. Of course the liberals don’t want to talk about the documented facts, so they obfuscate.

    DNW posts from a paranoid fantasy world where whatever he chooses to consider “facts” prove that Obama is actually Adolf Hitler and Bill Clinton is an alien face-hugger. He’s busy ranting on some demented crusade based on boogeymen who exist on his head, and his use of “documented facts” is at about the same level as people who rant on about the Illuminati and the Knights Templer.

    Did you know, PB, that in 1618, a collection of noblemen threw the lawfully appointed Regent from a high window in Prague? This is a DOCUMENTED FACT and SHOWS just how ANARCHISTIC AND VIOLENT the right-wing ARE, being merely PARASITES intent on OVERTHROWING LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTS!!!

    That’s a documented fact, PB. Prague, 1618. Argue with that, sucker!!!

  12. John,

    The New Zealand troll, somehow feeling its own government-issue rice bowl to be threatened merely at the mention of the terms “voluntary association” and “limited government” back in the United States, and fearing an ensuing defenestration of Trolls at the hands of irate N.Z. taxpayers should the contagion spreat across distant waters, begins raving:

    “DNW posts from a paranoid fantasy world where whatever he choose to consider “facts” prove that Obama is actually Adolf Hitler and Bill Clinton is an alien face-hugger. He’s busy ranting on some demented crusade based on boogeymen who exist on his head, and his use of “documented facts” is at about the same level as people who rant on about the Illuminati and the Knights Templer.

    Did you know, PB, that in 1618, a collection of noblemen threw the lawfully appointed Regent from a high window in Prague? This is a DOCUMENTED FACT and SHOWS just how ANARCHISTIC AND VIOLENT the right-wing ARE, being merely PARASITES intent on OVERTHROWING LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTS!!!

    That’s a documented fact, PB. Prague, 1618. Argue with that, sucker!!!”

    As you can see John, this display of Phoenician’s, nicely illustrates the limited forensic techniques of the so-called progressives.

    Unable to logically demonstrate – for the fallacy of composition stands in their way – how one moves from the proposition that ” most humans require the society of others for a fulfilling life” to the proposition that ” ‘X’ human requires the society of and is morally obligated to open-ended relations with ‘Y’ human” (to whom the collectivist wishes to direct benefits), they are forced to simply disengage from reasoning, and resort to emotional appeals and attack.

    This is because if they try to reason from their premisses, they are logically led into the counter-factual trap of asserting either that all persons are in reality mere fungible elements of a greater whole that represents the true phenomenon, i.e., the hypostatization of “society”; or, that we all have insect-like “roles to fill” in the name of the greater good; i.e., some to produce, and some to direct and to consume the production of the producers.

    Again one can see the weakness of the progressive’s self-serving “greater good” argument right from its initial positing by Bentham and Mill; wherein they admit more or less upfront that utilitarianism (read any form of collectivist reasoning) cannot provide or even point to a justification for itself, and that one according to them either accepts the premise of directed and involuntary redistribution, or accepts the title of misanthrope.

    This of course, (coming as it does from unitary state inhabiting theorists who were culturally predisposed toward accepting a unitary sovereign in the first place) politically discounts (in effect nowadays) the fact that it may be in my best interest to establish differing levels of relationship and mutual obligation with different people; and that the deeper the relationship and obligation the more important the virtue of the person so related.

    (That the obviousness of this proposition is invisible to so many leftists can probably be also partly explained by the astounding dysfunction of their close and family relationships -which are of course merely reflections of what happens when psychologically troubled persons reproduce and then live with other troubled persons. For them the rest of the race is composed of f-ups like themselves, just less intelligent.)

    So, back to relations, while it does not bother me for a neurotic to inhabit the same landmass as I do, nor to benefit from the freedoms of movement and self-direction that this polity provides, (while allowing it to stumble its malevolent and nihilistic way to self-destruction) the prospect of being forced to underwrite the process with my taxes and life efforts, does.

    I have better things to do, and better ways to spend my time than expressing open-ended and unlimited political and social solidarity with, say, Peter Singer and his living canine sex toy.

    Our form of constitutionally limited government made the political toleration of dysfunctional, obnoxious, and relationally destructive persons – like Phoenician in a time of Romans – comparatively easy. They were not legally empowered to intrude very deeply into one’s life, or to lay significant costs against it through the agency of government.

    But as we can see, the whole thrust of their existence is to overturn that system of legal limitation of claims, and to off load the costs of their dysfunction ever more intimately and inescapably onto you, through the coercive power of the state.

  13. Misplaced bracketing

    Read this,

    This of course, coming as it does from (unitary state inhabiting theorists who were culturally predisposed toward accepting a unitary sovereign in the first place) politically discounts …

    as this,

    This of course,(coming as it does from unitary state inhabiting theorists who were culturally predisposed toward accepting a unitary sovereign in the first place)politically discounts …

    [Misplaced bracketing fixed -- ph]

  14. DNW:

    “But as we can see, the whole thrust of their [Liberals] existence is to overturn that system of legal limitation of claims, and to off load the costs of their dysfunction ever more intimately and inescapably onto you, through the coercive power of the state.”

    Firstly, this statement is both paranoid and hyperbolic, as most everything that comes off of the fingers of DNW here.

    But worse, DNW ignores the facts, while making unsupported assumptions about those he/she/it perceives to be his opposition.

    The undeniable truth is that our financial meltdown has come at the hands of corruptions of the rich and powerful Wall Street charlatans who, underregulated, have greedily precipitated a global Great Recession, while still maintaining their influence in Washington with bribes and campaign contributions and outright lies.

    These are the folks that DNW admires, and wishes to continue to empower, while looking down his nose from within his gated forest at the people who are suffering, those who have lost their jobs, their pensions, their health insurance, their homes, and god knows what else. For these folks, DNW has no empathy and offers no support!

    Instead, DNW’s apparent erudition may fool the likes of Eric, but he/she/it does not fool anyone who dispassionately understands the obvious facts surrounding the manipulations and corruptions of the rich and powerful in this country, then passionately cries out for corrections to be made!

    Given a choice between what is good for this nation and what is good for DNW and his ilk, DNW has chosen the latter, time and time again on here. Shame on you, DNW!!!

  15. As I have shown from unadulterated history, Democrats have a 150-year history of fighting equal rights for blacks. As I have also shown with my bolded quote of a DNC statement, the DNC also uses revisionist history to feed a lie to those who don’t actually know the history. As I have also shown, the 1964 Civil Rights Act which Democrats proudly claim as a great Democrat accomplishment was filibustered by a Democrat and had 21 Senate Democrats vote against it.

    Jesse Jackson called NYC “hymietown” without any real damage to his position of power among Democrats. Al Sharpton was arguably the main catalyst in a racially motivated riot that got people killed. There is a huge number of Democrats who call Conservative blacks “Uncle Toms” and “oreos” and actually throw oreos at black Conservatives. A large swath of Democrats and Liberals also call non-whites who vote Republican “race traitors.” If a black man marries a white woman, especially if one or both are conservative, a large swath of the left will castigate the black man, suggesting he considered his own race undesirable. Then there’s the liberal hispanic-American group “La Raza” which translates “The Race”.

    And nobody can deny, without using revisionism (meaning without lying about the facts), that KKK was created by Democrats as a terrorist organization to keep blacks down. There’s also the fact NAACP was founded by two black REPUBLICAN women. And there’s the fact the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King, Jr was a Republican. And let’s not forget Reverend Wright is very clearly racist.

    And who can forget the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who created Planned Parenthood and wanted to make sure blacks never learned about her ultimate goal?

  16. Start with Democrats (post Civil War), substitute Dixiecrats for Democrats, then Republicans for Dixiecrats, then there might be some nibbles of truth to your claims. It is indisputable that LBJ played the key role in turning our nation around following our centuries of blatant racism practiced nationwide. And, we are still fighting it, as in ACORN, as in still segregated K-12 segregation, as in …!

    That said, you are making a number of unsubstantiated claims that need citations, as usual, therefore need be taken with a grain of salt.

  17. Perry, I already covered the Dixiecrat thing in my article. Dixiecrats, who were Democrats, reached their Zenith in the 1968 Presidential elections, where they won four states and 10 percent of the popular vote while the Republican won nearly 56 percent of the popular vote. Even accepting the (absolutely wrong) suggestion the Dixiecrats all became Republicans, you are demanding this switch occurred over a 12-year period. You are also suggesting Republicans switched over to Democrats in a much greater number in the same 12-year period. And you are not even approaching accounting for 21 Democrat Senators (one of which is still in office today as a Democrat) who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which would be a bare minimum of 10.5 states. You are in fact a historical revisionist.

  18. Perry writes:

    “Firstly, this statement is both paranoid and hyperbolic, as most everything that comes off of the fingers of DNW here.

    But worse, DNW ignores the facts, while making unsupported assumptions about those he/she/it perceives to be his opposition.

    The undeniable truth is that our financial meltdown has come at the hands of corruptions of the rich and powerful Wall Street charlatans …”

    Would you like to name some of these charlatans? If you don’t, I will below.

    And who was it that was running Freddie Mac on October 25th 2000, when they advertised a full page on A11 of the WSJ boasting of their expansion of a secondary mortgage market,and how it allowed them to make loans at 3% down?

    Supposedly he’s a Republican?

    “… who, underregulated, have greedily precipitated a global Great Recession, while still maintaining their influence in Washington with bribes and campaign contributions and outright lies.”

    I never could get you to say who it was that signed the banking reform act. Still too shy?

    These are the folks that DNW admires,

    Really? Let me give you a list of names and you tell me which ones I have expressed an admiration for:

    The buyers:
    Richard Fuld
    Franklin Raines
    Alan Fishman
    Angelo Mozilo
    Charles Prince
    Jimmy Cayne
    Stanley O’Neal
    Kerry Killinger

    the enablers:
    Barney Frank

    The bought:
    Christopher Dodd …$133,900.00
    John Kerry ………$111,000.00
    Barak Obama ……..$105,849.00
    Hillary Clinton ….$ 75,500.00

    ” … and wishes to continue to empower, while looking down his nose from within his gated forest at the people who are suffering, those who have lost their jobs, their pensions, their health insurance, their homes, and god knows what else. For these folks, DNW has no empathy and offers no support!…”

    Sure I do. I wish to see the laws enforced impartially, the energetic freed from service as dray horses to your crappy vision of life in the hive, and finally, much less hysteria from persons like yourself.

    “Instead, DNW’s apparent erudition may fool the likes of Eric, but he/she/it does not fool anyone who dispassionately understands the obvious facts surrounding the manipulations and corruptions of the rich and powerful in this country, then passionately cries out for corrections to be made!”

    Corrupt manipulators: you refer to Frank and Dodd ?

    “Given a choice between what is good for this nation and what is good for DNW and his ilk, DNW has chosen the latter, time and time again on here. Shame on you, DNW!!!”

    I’m for the good of the liberty preserving and enhancing republic, and for the good of the country, and of the good people within it. Claims of nation, like “society” though common enoughly made, I find a little suspect. Too much opportunity for organisms like yourself to weasel themselves into a conceptual framework that implies an organic unity and the validity of certain relations as assumed,rather than demonstrates them.

  19. John H.:You are in fact a historical revisionist.

    No, John, I am not. I am trying to deal with your penchant for labels, which do not tell the story. The fact is that racism has been rampant through centuries, and over that time, more obviously in the South, nevertheless in the North as well, and continues to exist, while you continue to try to pin the atrocity on the current Dems, which gets us nowhere!

  20. DNW: “I’m for the good of the liberty preserving and enhancing republic, and for the good of the country, and of the good people within it.”

    Well gee, DNW, that’s good to know. Your writings have never indicated such a sentiment. Instead, it is white and black, you being white and the rest of us Liberals being black.

    In the same paragraph you say: “Too much opportunity for organisms like yourself [sic] to weasel themselves [sic] into a conceptual framework that implies an organic unity and the validity of certain relations as assumed,rather than demonstrates [sic] them.”

    Not very good English grammar there, DNW, beneath your usual quality. Eric will be disappointed! :)

    Nevertheless, you are the one preaching disunity, DNW, as you do everything in your power on here to segregate yourself from the rest of us whom you consistently label as collectivists, rather than to seek out solutions that will benefit this nation as a whole. With you it is all attack mode, with little to offer to help.

    It is quite telling that in your lists of people to blame for our fiscal demise, you lean on the Democrats and ignore the Republicans, as if lots of this did not happen on your watch. If you were capable of objective critical thinking, and honest, and honorable, you would strive to convey a more complete list. I’ll be waiting for that complete list.

  21. Perry, your siccing DNW’s wholly accurate grammar makes you to be the fool, not DNW. And seriously, Perry, are you trying to castigate someone for being unable to think critically as you have shown yourself incapable? That’s not going to fly, Perry.

  22. Perry you want labels regarding racism? Try these: Black History Month, The Black Caucus, BET (Black Entertainment TV), Black Cof C, Black Miss America Pagent, Black Pride Day, Hispanic Pride Day, Hispanic Caucus, Hispanic C of C or the United Negro College Fund. Now replace black and hispanic (whatever that is) with caucasian or white. There are about 60 colleges which call themselves “Black Colleges”. Try that using “White College”.

    These are the real racists in America today. And to a man they are all Democrat operatives, supporters or get their funding from Dems.

    When hireing I look for the best person for the job but in the back of my mind I have to remember the “proper balance” lest I find myself back in Harrisburg in front of the EEOC. I need to be aware of a persons race not because I want to but because the racists and their enablers in government force me to.

    I, like DNW believe in the preservation of Liberty and in that we will preserve the Republic. I believe my (and your) rights flow from God, not the government and it is our duty as free people to honor and preserve those rights even if they don’t always work out the way we want them to.

  23. As I have shown from unadulterated history, Democrats have a 150-year history of fighting equal rights for blacks.

    Which Democrats have been fighting equal rights for the last 150 years, PB?

    Just like the term “Conservative” in American politics these days now refers to whiny corporate whores rather than anyone with any principles, the term “Democrat” just might have changed as well.

  24. DNW, you’re like the only sane man in a room full of lunatics. Your courage is to be admired, all the same, these dead equines are no longer in need of your manful thwacks.

    Anyway, off to watch either 633 Squadron or The Princess Bride on DVD. A far more useful enterprise than trying to lead the brain dead to either facts or logic.

  25. Perry wrote:

    “Nevertheless, you are the one preaching disunity, DNW, as you do everything in your power on here to segregate yourself from the rest of us whom you consistently label as collectivists, rather than to seek out solutions that will benefit this nation as a whole. With you it is all attack mode, with little to offer to help.”

    All the rest of you? No.

    But do keep waving that “unity’ banner as you engage in your dishonest and obnoxious board practices, Perry old boy.

    Then take a moment, and ask yourself, why anyone with the kind of experiential insight into your moral make-up we get, would really find it in their best interest to unite with you socially and politically to the extent that you feel the need for it.

    If you cannot be trusted for so little here …

    And speaking of grammar, Perry …

    Looks like [sic!!!!], as with Goldilocks and her porridge and beds, there is virtually no satisfying you when it comes to either grammar or facts. This one’s too hot, this one’s too cold, this one’s too soft, this one’s too bold.

    So let’s instead address your posting strategy here.

    Basically it’s for you to try and edit your way out of a moral hole, instead of squarely confronting the facts that have dumped you there. Par for the course.

    I gave a list of names from among the class of people you falsely asserted I admired.

    Because you would have to be even more delusional than you are, to assert that I do in fact admire the moral miscreants I listed, you now are reduced to complaining over the political makeup of the list. In effect: “How come it’s all Demonicrats and no Repukes?”

    You therefore concede by implication that I do not admire the thieves and scoundrels and manipulators I listed there; all of whom were active in either fomenting the crisis, or financially co-opted by those who did.

    You made a claim. I rebutted it; with examples of names, roles, and dollar amounts providing some indication of their degree of complicity.

    And your squirming response?

    It’s to edit out the list.

    And then to demand balanced damnation from me for certain unnamed Republicans who are, you insinuate, equally culpable.

    You lose.

    Again, par for the course.

  26. Eric,

    You’re right. I’m wasting my time arguing with feral lunatics.

    “Logic” is just a word the loony left likes to brandish about for the sophisticated impression they imagine it creates on hearers.

    They know nothing about it of course.

    Yet they still imagine that they are smarter than everyone else.

    Because of that, they conclude that what they don’t know, no one else will know either, and their idiocy will go unnoticed.

    They are wrong on all counts.

    In any event, I am done here at work for the night, and will probably grab some mindless entertainment too; as if kicking Perry around wasn’t diversion enough … LOL

    Night all.

  27. Did you know, PB, that in 1618, a collection of noblemen threw the lawfully appointed Regent from a high window in Prague? This is a DOCUMENTED FACT and SHOWS just how ANARCHISTIC AND VIOLENT the right-wing ARE, being merely PARASITES intent on OVERTHROWING LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTS!!!

    Looks like somebody’s ready for the Funny Farm. Where is John’s “They’re coming to take me away!” video when we really need it?

  28. Looks like somebody’s ready for the Funny Farm.

    I swear, there’s a PhD thesis lurking somewhere in the wingnut inability to deal with analogy, satire or self-consciousness.

    [Released from moderation mid-morning -- JH]

  29. So let’s instead address your posting strategy here.
    Basically it’s for you to try and edit your way out of a moral hole, instead of squarely confronting the facts that have dumped you there. Par for the course.

    It should be noted that the Man of Moral Mush couldn’t even decide whether it was just for Pontius Pilate to have Jesus sentenced to death!

    Spinelessness doesn’t even begin to describe these moral cowards (tho, personally, I’d rate Internet Static as being far worse than Perry in this regard). Perry is, at least most of the time, a fairly decent fellow whereas Mr. Static has about as much compassion as a junkyard dig and a personality to match.

  30. Perry is, at least most of the time, a fairly decent fellow whereas Mr. Static has about as much compassion as a junkyard dig and a personality to match.

    Agreed. I used to think Phoeny was just overly adamant in his beliefs to the point of super-arrogance; however, his recent comments in the interstellar travel thread — where he purports to know the future — demonstrate that he really has a screw loose.

  31. — where he purports to know the future —

    Cite, please, liar.

    I don’t pretend to know the future. I do know that (a) the laws of physics will continue to apply and (b) anybody throwing the terms “warp-drive” or “hyper-space” around as if they had meaning is engaging in the functional equivalent of talking about magic.

  32. John Hitchcock wrote:

    “Perry, your siccing DNW’s wholly accurate grammar makes you to be the fool, not DNW. And seriously, Perry, are you trying to castigate someone for being unable to think critically as you have shown yourself incapable? That’s not going to fly, Perry.”

    Some, John, might find it admirable that someone with so ungainly a prose form as Perry, would dare appoint himself house grammarian. And so, they might also say: Let those who depart from standard usage and allow case to fly by, or deploy a reflexive in place of a standard pronoun for the sake of a downright and emphatic effect, beware of the Perr. No Irishisms allowed!

    Other’s, perhaps less generous, might view Perry’s tactic as the chickenshit work of a bitter and flaccid schoolmarm type, who, having lost the debate in terms of facts and logic, and feeling offended that the whole world is not panting to meld their genes with his, seeks to get a little of his own back by pouncing on colloquialisms not usually seen in the criticized author’s work.

    My own view is that Perry is welcome to his entertainment.

    He’s had so little success, and submitted to so much debilitating mockery, that the rigor of this self-imposed exercise may actually help to improve his mental functioning.

    We can only hope.

    All the best to Perry, then. As long as it costs me nothing …


  33. It should be noted that the Man of Moral Mush couldn’t even decide whether it was just for Pontius Pilate to have Jesus sentenced to death!”

    Could he decide if his own execution, in the name of social convenience, was just, do you think?

  34. “Perhaps people won’t notice I’m a sad chronic masturbator if I make sexual jibes about others.”

    You are of course referring to yourself, Phoenician? Nothing I said in that response was sexual.

    Much of what you say to John and others however, is. Typical Internet troll behavior, that.

    By the way, Troll, now that you have broached the topic, the peculiar term you habitually use in attacking John is one I have only heard used a few times before.

    Not that those “men” who used it would dare to have done so in a situation where they might have been held to account.

    And, it’s also worth remarking I suppose, that in those cases where it was habitually used, it turned out that those who used it were probably the kind of men who would personally know whereof they spoke. Men like you maybe.

    Well in most instances. One, according to his ex-wife, was “just” a transvestite.

    Not that I’m saying you, Phoenician in a time of Romans, are a transvestite either, of course.

    A disciple of Peter Singer, would be more likely …

  35. That’s the thing about the internet, DNW. No librarian who has never experienced a callous on his hand would even consider using that language a second time to someone whose hands are full of callouses. Of course, that librarian might be more in favor of free government healthcare than previously, but he wouldn’t think of spouting off like that a second time. The internet allows weasily librarians the opportunity to be as macho as John Rambo. Ya know?

  36. John regarding Phoenician in a time of Romans

    “That’s the thing about the internet, DNW. No librarian who has never experienced a callous on his hand would even consider using that language a second time to someone whose hands are full of callouses …”

    The only callouses on the hands of that flabby sub-moral monkey, are the result of engaging in the very behavior he accuses others of.

    It’s a remarkable phenomenon really; the more incompetent and repulsive the individual as a person, the more intent he likely is on artificially tightening social bonds, and increasing interpersonal levels of obligation, through the coercive power of the state.

    I wonder why that is … not

  37. You are of course referring to yourself, Phoenician? Nothing I said in that response was sexual.

    To quote: “Other’s, perhaps less generous, might view Perry’s tactic as the chickenshit work of a bitter and flaccid schoolmarm type, who, having lost the debate in terms of facts and logic, and feeling offended that the whole world is not panting to meld their genes with his,”

    Now, the interesting thing about wingnuts, especially the ranting types, is what they come out with out of the blue as insults. This goes right along with the wingnut inability to deal with metaphor and analogy, and the massive projection they engage in. When a wingnut chooses an angle of attack unrelated to anything in the discussion, it seems to always appear to reflect one of their own flaws which is weighing heavily on their minds.

    DNW, out of the blue, started attacking Perry on a “lack of sex” angle. This is interesting, as it seems to indicate his own flaws.

    We could test this hypothesis by poking him in this area and seeing if he overreacted. Lo and behold, he did.

    I’m going to have to pass this along to Spike, DNW. She deserves a good laugh as well.

  38. I don’t pretend to know the future. I do know that (a) the laws of physics will continue to apply and (b) anybody throwing the terms “warp-drive” or “hyper-space” around as if they had meaning is engaging in the functional equivalent of talking about magic.

    Yes, indeed you DO pretend to know the future. Once AGAIN — (a) sure the laws of physics will always apply. That doesn’t mean that our knowledge of these laws won’t continue to grow and expand. Or, do you think such knowledge will perpetually remain as it currently is? Imagine if we held such a conceited belief 300 yrs. ago. (Of course, Phoeny didn’t exist 300 yrs. ago so the folks could all be the beneficiaries of his omniscience!) And (b) I’ve SHOWN that working (yes “working” — check a dictionary) theories about warp drive and hyperspace (multiple dimensions, etc.) currently exist.

    Anyone — go check out the thread. Please. And enjoy the fool Phoeny was made out to be. (And on his own terms, at that!)

  39. “Now, the interesting thing about wingnuts, especially the ranting types, is what they come out with out of the blue as insults. This goes right along with the wingnut inability to deal with metaphor and analogy, and the massive projection they engage in. When a wingnut chooses an angle of attack unrelated to anything in the discussion, it seems to always appear to reflect one of their own flaws which is weighing heavily on their minds.

    DNW, out of the blue, started attacking Perry on a “lack of sex” angle. This is interesting, as it seems to indicate his own flaws.

    We could test this hypothesis by poking him in this area and seeing if he overreacted. Lo and behold, he did.

    I’m going to have to pass this along to Spike, DNW. She deserves a good laugh as well.”

    Gawd Almighty ….

    You realize that you are jabbering nonsensically, don’t you?

    You place quotes around figments of your own imagination.
    Like the sniggering and simpering Beavis and Butthead cartoon clowns of some years ago [Hehehe he said “flaccid”!), you impute to terms meanings that are not there, in order to accuse me of doing what you do, rather than what I actually did. LOL

    Then, clown, you basically admit through implication that it is so that you made it up; but you deploy the self-justifying excuse that you were deliberately trying to provoke a response along those lines, in order to prove that I was thinking of something I wasn’t adverting to.

    And now when you think you have successfully dragged me into the matter on which you have been publicly fixating for some months, you state that you can’t wait to share this astounding news with something you have apparently been conversing with called “Spike”.

    What are you going to do next, jump in front of my moving car and then tell “Spike” that I’m out to get you?

    Yeah, Phoenician in a time of Romans, go tell it to “Spike”.

    Spike is calling you.

    Spike likes to hear all that you say.

    Spike cares about you and values your opinion.

    Your talking to “Spike” may even serve to keep you busy and off this board for a while.

    It’s just that I do feel a somewhat sorry for your cat; having to walk around your little apartment with your lipstick drawn smiley face blazoned on its arse.

Comments are closed.