Did someone mention Robert Byrd?

Just one question before I'm thrown bodily out the door- would any of you withdraw your support for Mr. Bush if he killed a kitten with a carpenter's hammer?

Just askin', 's all...

A Framing Hammer would make the job easier. They typically weigh a bit more and have a longer handle, thus giving you a bit more bang for your buck, or in this case, crack for the swing.

And would I vote for 'em. Damned skippy, what's killin' a kitten or ten got to do with running a country? Other than being decent stress relief, second to kickin’ puppies I can’t think of a better past time.

Dang! Sorry to keep running back. I'll get the axe soon enough. But before I go, I'd like to ask one serious, honest question:

What do you folks think about this essay?

And Phin, I quite agree. In fact, I think my 4-pound engineer's hammer (looks just like a big sledge only smaller) would be most appropriate, considering the requirement that the President be sitting at his desk to do the deed.

But, alas, the rules specifically forbid anything bigger than a carpenter's hammer.

Thanks, FB, for stepping up and proving why I keep you around for "illustrative purposes" as I alluded to in the main post.

I didn't want to name names, but when you step up to the plate like you have with the disjointed Robert Byrd shout-out and your odd liberal kitten-killing fantasties, it becomes rather obvious.

Indeed, CY. Fat Bastard is an excellent example of what is so wrong with the Left. Very illustrative, indeed.

"What do you folks think about this essay?"

Not much, FB. Personally, I couldn't get past the title. Is vulgarity the mark of a good liberal blogger/commenter? I have noticed when the left cannot support an argument, the next step is either Hilter, Nazis or vulgarity.

I thought the kitten thing was funny. You guys would support the President pretty much right to the wall, so...

Also, I thought that essay was exceptionally well written and thought provoking-- all insult, joking, and even disagreement aside. It was an essay not directly associated with any of the various political/philosophical wrangling that normally goes on. That is to say-- I posted the link to that essay not as a troll, but as a fellow human and fellow American.

"Can't we all just get along?"

"Can't we all just get along?"

Those words are most frequently uttered from a position of weakness, and intended to stall while strength can be regained; much like OBL's offer of a truce - very disingenuous.

Hmm, you say you want to get along FB, and at the same time link to a post suggesting that Bush supporters are mindless followers to the extreme, simply because he's spying on terrorists at home and abroad, and interrogating them with methods other than hugs?

That is an interesting avenue you've chosen to 'get along'.

Weirdly FB's essay is true; vulgar, gross and crass but true. The world has never seen a race as adept at slaughter as the mix of Viking stock with the darker Pictish peoples. While, capable of vast kindness and true friendship, pound for pound the Northern Europian crossbred is the most lethal creature to every walk the Earth. The ancient Greeks, Persians, Romans, and Assyrians were almost unbelievably cruel but I'd send a pack of Scots and Irish against them on even money. Its only the inevitable infighting that stops the 'Super Celts'.

I think its a feature, not a bug.

Tob

Toby-

The essay wasn't mine; I just happened to stumble across it. I offer no judgements on it's accuracy or whether it's a feature or a bug; I just found it fascinating.

As for the kitten/hammer thing-- well, its pretty acidly tongue-in-cheek, but the question remains: what would it take for you to drop your support for Mr. Bush?

Old Soldier:

Hey, I expect to get banned; and the Joe Bageant essay link was meant to be a last moment of not-trolling.

Honestly, I was very much moved by the post; it reminded me that while white privilege is a wonderful thing to have; for too many it's not enough.

"what would it take for you to drop your support for Mr. Bush?"

A viable alternative.

Tob

And sorry, I meant to type FB's linked essay but brain farted.

Tob

Would you drop your support of Mr. Clinton if he had sex with a government employee in a government office during normal government work hours?
He did - and I'll bet you didn't.

Actually, at the time of the Lewinsky thingie I was still a member in good standing of the Libertarian Party; and in fact had supported Harry Browne for the White House (that worked out real good).

But as a small-"l" libertarian, I still didn't care if Clinton (or Johnson or Kennedy or Nixon or Ford or Bush or Bush or...) got his weenie wet, or where he got his weenie wet, or how he got his weenie wet. It did seem a rather silly reason to hold an impeachment trial, but there it was.

I never actually supported Clinton; but I was always amazed at the depth of hatred social conservatives have for him. Most if not all of the policies he espoused would be considered right or center-right; but the Right's hatred seemed to be personal.

I just never got that.

Tob:

Fair enough. Just out of simple curiosity, who would you consider a viable alternative?

By the way, CY--

The Robert Byrd thing was about right wing racists; and their tendency to point at Robert Byrd and say "he's a racist too, why don't you go after him?"

No one touched the fact that Senator Byrd was given a 100% rating by the NAACP. An outfit I should think has some credibility in identifying official bigotry, wouldn't you? Granted, I did through it up there kinda "apropos of nothing," but that's whatcha get from a troll...

Oh, and the kitten-killing thing-- it was meant in the same context as Swift's "Modest Proposal."

Satire, y'know?

Thanks to Tob for answering the accompanying real question: what would it take to end your support for this President.

Well...let's see....would I support and reelect a Senator that drove off a bridge into a river, got and, ran away and hid for several hours, and left a young lady to die in a car? I guess it's the same question.

The Robert Byrd thing was about right wing racists; and their tendency to point at Robert Byrd and say "he's a racist too, why don't you go after him?"

No one touched the fact that Senator Byrd was given a 100% rating by the NAACP. An outfit I should think has some credibility in identifying official bigotry, wouldn't you?

When a Klansman (current or former) is a top pick for a so-called civil rights organization, it simply proves that the leadership is so in bed with the DNC that they have ceased to function as a legitimate social advocate. That is why you've seen their political clout wane over time.

Read my latest post about Shelby Steel's OpinionJournal article. You're in for a rude awakening, as I've been predicting.

CY-- perhaps you're right, perhaps I am in for a rude awakening.

On this issue, however, I don't think so. Tell me, why is it that men like Shelby Steele have so little influence on American black folks?

Mr. Blofeld--

Since I'm not from Massachussetts, I really "ain't got no dawg in that fight."

You'll have to take it up with them.

I'd suspect its because the majority of Massachussetts voters consider him to accurately represent their views in the Senate.

Or, it could be that they're all too stupid and too deluded to recognize what they're Senior Senator is really like.

Tell me, why is it that men like Shelby Steele have so little influence on American black folks?

As an individual, perhaps Shelby Steele doesn't have that much influence on the ordinary black voter, but people who feel similarly to him are beginning to change things. In New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, blacks are running for governorships, and they are not running as Democrats. Likewise, Michael Steele is running for a Senatorial seat in Maryland, again, as a Republican.

I also notice again, FB, that once again, you bring up yet another variation of the theme that blacks are "too stupid."

It seems that is your belief, as no one else on this site has ever stated such a thing, other than you.

All I ask is that all voters pick a candidate based upon issues, not some twisted notion of "racial loyalty" that Democrats keep trying to push.

Why are you against that?

FB, I'll answer your question about Bageant's lameass article. It's amateurish, insulting, and downright ridiculous. He sucks. Webb's "Born Fighting" is an actual book with actual research that touches on the same subject matter without resorting to gross generalization or Indian hog anecdotes.

You say its "racial loyalty," I say it's that black people look at Republican policies and disagree with them.

Tell me-- why do you think the vast majority of black Americans consider conservative positions and polices anathema?

Rob-

Thank you for that cogent, well reasoned response. [/sarcasm]

It wasn't an "article," in the commonly understood sense of that word; but an essay.

As such it was completely anecdotal and deeply personal, which is why I found it moving.

"Senator Byrd was given a 100% rating by the NAACP. An outfit I should think has some credibility in identifying official bigotry, wouldn't you?"

FB, I would not agree that the NAACP has any credibility in this area after seeing the Byrd dragging death ads that they ran against Gov Bush.

As to viable alternatives, I was pretty much a anti-abortion Jackson/Truman anti-communist American hegemonist Democrat. I want a party that cares more about the working man and less about the non-working man. More about the worker and less about the union (although I am a union backer). One that believes in American exceptionalism and is willing to fight to protect it. In sort, I'm a conservative by conviction and a Republican by default. I have voted for a Bush three times even though I don't trust them a bit. Like many conservatives, I always expect them to sell out the conservatives at some point. I may be wrong about W since he's made it halfway through his second term without the major screw that I fear (yes, the government is too big and spends too much, the BCRA is bad policy and IMHO unconstitutional etc). But what am I to do, the current Democratic party has offered me nothing and no one that I can support.

No particular person has set me on fire to support them in '08 in any party but I'm looking.

Tob

But you won't debate policy differences, will you?

To black voters Democrats pitch racial loyalty, and those blacks that do think differently about matter of policy are branded as race traitors, Aunt Jemimas, Uncle Toms, and "simple Sambo" by your racist liberal friends.

Democrats refuse to engage on issues, because they have consistantly failed to produce positive social change. Instead, you cling tightly to the bigotry of the race card instead.

"Illustrative purposes" indeed.

A late thought, the Democrats would be wise to get to the right of the Republicans on immigration reform. That's a hot button issue for many voters. If the Republicans were smart they would own this issue, illegal workers take the entry level jobs that American blacks and poor whites need while simultaniously driving down the wages accross the entire economy and making it difficult for a family to live on a single paycheck. This forces mothers from the home and leads to many social ills.

Tob

But you won't engage on policy differences, will you?

To black voters, Democrats pitch racial loyalty, and those blacks that do think differently about policies are branded as race traitors, Aunt Jemimas, Uncle Toms, and "simple Sambo" by your racist liberal friends.

Democrats refuse to engage on issues, because they have consistantly failed to produce positive social change. Instead, you cling tightly to the bigotry of the race card instead.

"Illustrative purposes" indeed.

-FB

You stated "Tell me-- why do you think the vast majority of black Americans consider conservative positions and polices anathema?"

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. On most issues that we have polling data for, Black Americans side with conservatives - school vouchers, immigration, gay marriage, abortion, to name a few. Indeed, the better question is to ask why Black Americans do not overwhelmingly vote for republicans since they side with republicans on most issues.

I would posit that it is because of race-bating by democrats that makes black americans distrust the GOP. I note that most liberals cannot argue with logic and facts, so instead immediately begin to name call - facsist, bigot, racist, sexist, etc. Just look at how hard liberals and black victomology groups work to keep any black from hearing a black conservative voice (doing repugnant things like throwing oreos at Michael Steel, questioning his blackness, etc.). they don't try to argue policy or ideas, they argue "blackness".

The poorly written, poorly thought out, idiotic "essay" that you linked, demonstrates how liberals think perfectly. The fact that it "moved" you states more about your ability to think past liberal cliches and stereotypes than anything else you could say. The guy basically wrote a long screed about how in his experience the rural white man is basically ignorant, evil, prone to violence and easily led by manipulative people.

If I wrote a similar "essay" about inner-city blacks would you find it "thoughtful" or "moving"? Why not? What specifically about the "essay" was "moving" to you? For what possible purpose did you link it on this blog? What did you want conservative readers to take away from it?

You also asked what would stop us from supporting the President. Fair enough, if he were to adopt (another) liberal policy, I would not support him. He tested me with the Prescription Drug benefit, and with No Child Left Behind, and with signing the CFR legislation. And, he tests me with his position on immigration. The only reason I continue to back him is the war on terror and judges. Otherwise, he is far to liberal.

but, let me reverse the question. Is there anything he has done, or could do, that you would support him? I pointed out some extremely liberal legislation above - did you support him on any of that? Do you support the fact that unemployment is low? That interest rates are low? That government revenues are up? that there has not been another 9/11?

I think that I am much more intellectually honest in my grudging support for President Bush than you and liberals generally are in your total opposition to everything he does and/or says. Hell, I even supported some things Clinton did. I never oppose everything any democrat does just b/c they are democrats, I oppose the things I disagree with. I would argue that liberals, in contrast, oppose people they don't like regardless of the actual policy.

Thanks, Tob-- now that was a thoughtful, cogent response.

We have philosophical differences: I don't believe in American exceptionalism; I think we're just one more bunch of people on this planet. But I understand where you're coming from.

Also, w/r/t being behind the working person, I do believe that the Republicans and conservatives have dragged the pendulum too far towards capital (that is, dem what's got) and away from work (the rest of us who go to work every day-- and the vast majority of us do exactly that).

I hear you about the Democrats... in fact it's a big reason why I was a Libertarian for so many years. Nowadays, though, it just doesn't seem that there's much room in the 'conservative movement' for libertarianism. I find myself agreeing with the 'civil libertarians' that hang out on the 'left'- you know, enemies of America like the ACLU-- more than anyone on the right side anymore.

CY-- We can debate individual policies if you wish; just bring them up and we'll go at it.

But first... tell me, why do you think black Americans so generally oppose Republican positions and policies?

Vanilla--

Interesting thoughts.

First-- Joe Bageant is a white man; and it seemed to me to be written not as a screed against poor white people but recognizing their strength, and their courage in the face of their poverty (note, he believes there should be some sort of educational affirmative action for poor white kids, and I don't disagree).

That is, I read the essay as being about seeing the nobility in people who are in the shit but keep on keepin' on; doin' the best they can. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.

As regards black people and the GOP-- your position appears to be that they're led astray by the 'race baiting' of the Democrats.

I'm sorry, but that seems to say, "they can be lied to and led by the nose."

Do black Americans not read, analyze, or think? Or-- how is it that this 'race-baiting' is SO effective that only 2% of black Americans support Mr. Bush?

As for what could Mr. Bush do to make me support him? Too late for that. I supported him after the Supremes anointed him in December of 2000 (I voted for Harry Browne that time). I supported him after the 9/11 attacks (his line, "the folks who knocked these buildings are gonna be hearin' from all of us soon enough" just sent chills down my spine).

He lost my support, never to be regained, by invading Iraq, and not using those valuable resources to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Osama Bin Laden is still alive. And that just pisses me off.

Thanks to Vanilla Thunder for taking the time to respond to FB. My suspicions were that Bageant is ashamed of his origins and his country, and after hearing FB say the essay/article/whatever was "exceptionally well written and thought provoking", I knew what I was dealing with.

Now I hear you say you "don't believe in American exceptionalism". How do you square that sentiment with recommending Bageant's article? Isn't he saying that certain groups of people are predisposed to certain kinds of behavior or achievement? Why aren't the Scots-Irish "mutts" just "one more bunch of people on this planet", FB?

That's just it. Blacks don't "generally oppose" Republican position and polices when the label "Republican" is removed. In many instances, they are conservative, with the examples VT provided (school vouchers, immigration, gay marriage, abortion) being excellent examples. Even on other specific issues, they rarely support the Democratic position to the 90th percentile. Yet despite their much more centered view of individual policeis, they still vote close to the 90th percentile for Democrats.

Therefore, something else is in play, and I agree with the judgement Shelby Steele when he states it is Democratic race-baiting. He is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution who specializes in the study of race relations, multiculturalism, and affirmative action, so his professional judgment alone carries quite a bit more weight than your denials ever will.

He lost my support, never to be regained, by invading Iraq, and not using those valuable resources to finish the job in Afghanistan.

You really don't have a handle on the diffrence between types of military conflicts at all, do you?

Afghanistan was at the beginning, and continues to be, primarily a war of special forces operators and limited precision airpower.

Iraq did not take away from the execution of the limited war in Afghanistan. They are different kinds of conflicts altogether.

- FB

Not sure how you can claim to be a liberterian and support any liberal (which, unfortunately, is where the democratic party is these days). I have an extremely large liberterian streak and would never in good consciounse be able to support a liberal.

So, methinks you either don't understand liberterianism, or are simply claiming liberterianism to garner yourself some kind of credibility among conservatives. My guess is a mix of both.

You and I both know that all of the polls over the last 20 - 30 years demonstrate that black americans support conservative ideas much more than they support liberal ideas and positions. So, you tell me, why do they support a party so at odds with all of the individual positions they take? If not b/c of the democrat race-baiting, then why? And, if it is for policy reasons as you claim to believe, whey then do democrats and professional race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton forgeo debate about ideas and simply race-bait? if they could win on their ideas, they would argue thier ideas, rather than always claiming that conservatives want to "go back to segregation" or saying/implying that conservatives are all racists.

And, you did not state what purpose you posted a link to that "essay". by the way, very creative read of the essay that you give. I suppose if you view all liberal cliches as facts, you could, possibly, with a lot of work, come to such a view of the essay. Even so, it would still take a lot of effort.

Rob-

I think perhaps we're running on different definitions of "American exceptionalism."

I take that to mean that Americans are somehow 'better' than other peoples on the planet, and that we would be justified in imposing our will on the rest of the people on the planet.

If that's not what VT meant, then I've answered the wrong question.

I believe those "scotch-irish mutts" ARE just one more bunch of people on the planet-- and more than that, they're Americans, my countrymen.

Look, y'all, I saw it as overall a positive view of those 'mutts.' They go through shit, they put up with shit, they get shit on every bit as much as inner-city black people. And yet they are clearly capable of great courage, intense friendship, true nobility. To me, that essay was not a put-down of the "mutts", but a put-down of the system that exploits them and leaves them in the shit.

CY- So, it's only race-baiting that keeps black people voting for the Democrats. It has nothing to do the behavior of the Republican party.

"To me, that essay was not a put-down of the "mutts", but a put-down of the system that exploits them and leaves them in the shit."

Spoken like a true liberterian - let me ask you, what income/capital redistribution system would you propose instead? Are they exploited in the Marxist sense or in what sense? Exploited because they vote conservative? The "essay" seems to state that the exploitation is that they serve in the military and/or vote republican. So, that is what you consider exploitation? Or, is it that they aren't given more entitlements through wealth re-distribution?

Some of my favorite quotes from this "thought invoking" "essay" that is "Moving" and is about "nobility":

Anyway, as all non-whites the world round
understand, white people can be mean. [yes,
all other-colored-skinned people are warm,
loving, patient, and un-mean in all ways]

Said meanness is polished to a high gloss
murderous piety most useful to the military
establishment. Thus, by the time were are of
military age (which is about twelve) we are
capable of doing a Lynndie England on any
type of human being unfamiliar to us from
our culturally ignorant viewpoint -- doing
it to the “other.” Sent to Iraq or
Afghanistan, most of us, given the nod, can
torture the other as mindlessly as a cat
plays with a mouse. That we can do it so
readily and without remorse is one of the
darkest secrets of underlying the “heroes”
mythology the culture machine is so
fervently ginning up about the ongoing
series of wars now just unfolding. [really,
do I need to make a comment about this kind
of asinine statement?]

So we will either see that Americans,
religious or not, get educated equally so
they won’t be suckered by political and
religious hucksters. [i.e., republicans].
If not, then we must accept that uneducated
people interpret politics in an uninformed
and emotional manner, and accept the
consequences. [i.e., that they vote for
republicans].

Thus, at sixteen and choosing options, I
decided that launching fighter jets from the
deck of an aircraft carrier to kill gooks and
the notion of pussy and booze on some exotic
foreign shore looked damned good. When I
think about what happened to my boyhood
friends who stayed home and put in 30 years
at Rubbermaid, my choice doesn’t sound that
bad even today. They all became redneck
ultra-conservatives, mostly out of some sort
of fear and bitterness that I can never seem
to put my finger on. [because, of course, it
is impossible for anyone to be a conservative
unless it is out of a) ignorance; b) fear; c)
bitterness; d) greed, or e)
racism/sexism/homophobia.]

As to black american voting patterns, I would point out that the reason black republicans (any any other minority republican for that matter) are so attacked and vilified by the left is the fear that Black americans will finally begin to notice the difference between the party they vote for, and the positions they hold. It has been building up steam, and, my guess is that within 10 years, black american voting patterns will be as varied as any other group's. the problem is, when that happens, there is no way for democrats to ever win another national election. And, in most states they will be finished as well. Indeed, the entire liberal establishment will be finished. that explains the hate from the left against these black republicans.

Political campaigns, like any other enterprise, have finite resources. People tend to put their time and money where they think it will do the most good.

Sadly, however sincere they may be, white Republicans simply won't break through the race-baiting the left has perfected over the years, at least until they get a foot in the door.

That is why the emerging black conservatives are so important, in that they can level the playing field. Democrats of course know this, and that is exactly why Democratic race-baiting has become especially vicious this election cycle.

That the furious attacks by Democrats on emerging black conservatives are based upon appeal to race instead of their positions on the issues proves this, though you'll never get him to admit this rather obvious truth.

FB,

I read the article you referenced. The article says over and over again that the reason the black community does not support the Republicans is that they have not given the black community enough money. That's race-baiting? Please explain.

Fat Bastard, you repeated the canard that the loony-left says over and over; the former attorney general of Arkansas and president of the U.S.A. was not impeached because he "got his weenie wet" with an intern; he lied under oath to a Grand Jury! Now what system of justice in your perfect world would you have?

better to lie to the american people than to a grand jury, that's all i can say.

Yeah, but Clinton did both.

about sex- not about life and death.

>> FB
The article "Revenge of the Mutt People" is a first person account, work of fiction! Written by someone who may have driven past a hog farm, but NEVER actually worked on one. TOO Many factual errors. I really laughed about the part where he held the pig and slit its throat! NOT POSSIBLE for any pig weighing more than 20lbs. I can assure you it takes 3 people to castrate one, and THATS a whole lot easier procedure than attempting to slit a live hogs throat.

Reads like the "Ward Churchill" school of creative writing! Decide on the point you want to make, then create facts to back it up!

So Fat Bastard, I guess you mean that we should have a justice system where a president who has taken an oath before a Grand Jury, (the American People), can decide which questions to answer truthfully, and which ones he can lie about, depending on the subject! Some system of justice!

no, i just expect you guys to demand the same level of accountability from your guy as you did for the last guy.

well, i don't *expect* it. but i would hope for it.

the essay may well have been a complete lie from beginning to end; i don't know. it wasn't presented as fiction.

i thought it was a lyrical piece of writing that grabbed at the heart.

mind, you'd have to have a heart to notice that.

You play down Clinton's perjury because it was "about sex- not about life and death." Scooter Libby's perjury was not about life or death either. The folks from Enron and WorldCom were not testifying about life or death either.

Sorry, FB. Your defense of Clinton is pretty empty.

FB said "i thought it was a lyrical piece of writing that grabbed at the heart."

All you need to do is actually read the piece of crap he linked to in order to see his lack of intelligence. If he considered that a "lyrical piece of writing" he certainly has no ability to discern anything of value. How it grabbed at his heart is beyond me. Of course, I've questioned him repeatedly about the same, but he avoids answering because he knows he has no answer.

Hey idiot bastard - which of the quotes from the article that I cite above do you consider "lyrical?"

Retired spy -

Don't you understand, lying only matters when it is a republican who allegedly lies.

Right on!!