November 27, 2012

“Ex-GOP Chair: Florida Voting Laws Were Meant to Suppress Democratic Vote”

Or, “bitter dismissed embezzler looks to harm the GOP by giving cover to Democrat talking points and is corroborated by establishment-backed loser Charlie Crist, who like establishment-backed losers Dick Lugar or Lisa Murkowski or the late Arlen Specter seem to care less about what party they back so long as they maintain power.  And if they don’t, well, they’ll turn on a dime against those they’d previously supported.”

Frankly, I like my headline better, uncapitalized though it may be.

The comments to the Mediaite piece are particularly edifying, in a kind of social sciencey sense:  The GOP — formed by the abolitionists and the party of Civil Rights, who beat back southern Democrats — have always been interested in voter suppression of minorities, we’re told. Confidently. By people for whom history likely began with Obama, dialectical materialism and the march of historical progress notwithstanding.

Further, it was just a “marketing ploy” that the Florida GOP — or the GOP in any other state working to clean voter roles — was at all interested in voter fraud.  They were interested in keeping power.  Nothing more.  And this is why they are evil.  Because lord knows the Democrats would never do such things, being champions of the middle class and the poor and the Others, etc.

Left unanswered by the smirking commenters, however (who lack the wherewithal to question on such a level):  does it matter more, for the purposes of keeping a lawful  representative republic, what motivation the GOP may or many not have had for cleaning the voter roles; or that the voter roles be cleansed in order to protect the sanctity of the franchise necessary for laying claim to a lawful representative republic?

Those are the kinds of questions that cause progressives’ heads to pop — and that’s just not good for their self-esteem.  Meaning, my having even raised the issue is probably a hate crime.  So.  No dessert for me.

 

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:50am
321 comments | Trackback

Comments (321)

  1. If they’re a tad confused we can understand, insofar as they earnestly desire to be on the right side of history which they’re given to grasp is the left side of history, hence their confuzzlement which way they’re turning at the moment. Somebody surely will explain the conservation of angular momentum or something, so’s the barkers can orient. Oh, wait. Does that mean they’ll be going east?

  2. It doesn’t matter whether the creators of The Narrative thought they were serving some Greater Trvth — as soon as the mundane truth wasn’t good enough, The Narrative became a lie and a servant of liars.

  3. Put them on the stand and ask them tough questions under oath until carrying the blue water isn’t fun any more and they look dumb for doing it. They show them where they can conveniently start back tracking.

  4. If voter fraud were easy and wide spread, the only concern Republicans would have is in how to master it.

  5. Projection, thy name is slipperyslope.

  6. Speak of a servant of liars, and look what shows up.

  7. Folks seem to be very confused about this story. First and foremost: Jim Greer has not been Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida since before the 2010 election. That being the case, he has no idea at all of what’s going on under the hood, and given the circumstances of his departure, no one is going to have anything to do with him long enough to spill whatever beans there may be to spill.

    Second: neither is Charlie Crist in any position to know. He is PNG with GOP/Florida. Crist has not only screwed over GOP agendas while governor, he has gone to work for a huge supporter of Democratic candidates.

  8. That’s why I like my headline better, slart.

  9. “slipperyslope says November 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm
    If voter fraud were easy and wide spread, the only concern Republicans would have is in how to master it.”

    Voter ID says you are full of shit as usual.

  10. If voter fraud were easy and wide spread, the only concern Republicans would have is in how to master it.

    And that would be unfair, because it would take away one of the Democrats’ advantages.

    After which the Republicans might start going after the media. And then where will you be?

  11. Because it’s impossible that Republicans would do any such thing to try to tip the scales in their favor. Inconceivable. Preposterous.

  12. Where will we be?

    Soapbox ruined . . . check

    Ballot box (all but) discredited . . . check

    What does that leave us with again?

  13. That’s why I like my headline better, slart.

    But your link only pointed to something mediaite drooled out while it was seizing.

    I admit you have a significant edge on me in the brutal-truth department, though.

  14. Because it’s impossible that Republicans would do any such thing to try to tip the scales in their favor

    And the goalposts round the first turn, sprinting at world-record pace!

  15. After which the Republicans might start going after the media.

    The Republicans already go after the media. Incessantly. In their whinny victim sort of way.

  16. And the goalposts round the first turn, sprinting at world-record pace!

    How so?

  17. There’s an easy way to settle this: sophistryslope can point us to a single precinct anywhere in the United States where Mitt Romney won 100% (or more) of the vote, in which case we’ll all bow before his superior intellect, or he can shut the hell up.

  18. Slipperysophist is never not tiresome.

    Racists

  19. In their whinny victim sort of way.

    Have you ever been traumatized by a horse?

    Neigh!

  20. Too Hard? What about an example where a Republican won office —any office— after a trunkful of ballots appeared in the courthouse basement?

    I’m referring to the ’08 MN Senate Race and the Washington Governor’s race between ’02 and ’06, but I don’t remember the year and don’t have the time to look it up.

  21. In going from Republicans cheated because these former Republican office-holders said so to I completely believe that Republicans cheated.

  22. if they’re suppressing votes and stuff they really need to step up their game I think cause apparently they suck ass at it

  23. I think slippy is really worried that ongoing efforts to clean up the voter rolls and identify voter fraud are going to trash his community organizing efforts. I mean, it’s just in the last ten years that we’ve had the tools to document and disseminate evidence of the bias and malfeasance of the mainstream media, and just look at the circulation and viewership numbers since then! No way can he allow that to happen to his precious ward machinery!

  24. Slart, those aren’t goalposts. The question is, is it plausible that Republicans sought to limit who could vote to depress legitimate Democratic turnout and tip the election in their favor. I find the claim plausible.

    Ernst, what does this have to do with early voting in Florida?

  25. happy, they’ll be much better at it in 2016.

  26. I find the claim plausible.

    Your personal credulity is not really in question, here.

  27. I find it plausible that slippery sophist molests underage goats.

  28. 2016 is like a thousand years from now

  29. The primary concern of any serious political Party should be to stop voter fraud, greasy. Because instances of voter fraud invalidate our entire elective system, Unless, of course, O!ne Party seeks complete domination and control, PRC-style.

  30. Your personal credulity is not really in question, here.

    You apparently find it hard to believe that power hungry politicians would do icky things to stay power hungry politicians. That makes you gullible.

  31. His slope, it is very slippery. Teflon-coated, possibly.

  32. I find it plausible that slippery sophist molests underage goats.

    JD, as usual, offers nothing of substance.

  33. You apparently find it hard to believe that power hungry politicians would do icky things to stay power hungry politicians. That makes you gullible.

    My personal credulity, or lack thereof, is also not in question, here.

    Do I have to explain everything?

  34. My final commentary here is that someone who can’t see a lot of daylight between what he believes could be true and what actually is true is going to have some serious problems in life.

    And quite possibly already has had some.

  35. what’s so funny about this is the libs spent 8 years wailing that Bush stole the 2000 election. Now all of the sudden major voter fraud is no big deal and only Hobbits worry about such things. ACORN didn’t count. Nobody should need an ID to vote.

  36. The primary concern of any serious political Party should be to stop voter fraud, greasy. Because instances of voter fraud invalidate our entire elective system

    It should be. So lets dig into those machines that rang up 100% for Obama, because that’s a real issue. But is any real money going there? Nope. It’s things like ending early (paper) voting where there’s a hard copy record of exactly how someone voted and no ability for the vote to flip in the software.

    Why is that?

  37. “How so?”

    How not?

  38. “Why is that?”

    Because you are full of shit?

  39. missfixit, Democrats have been dismissive of the whole voter-fraud thing since they first realized that there were vast untapped constituencies in the ranks of the dead and otherwise ineligible vote.

  40. I prefer to think of it as responding to a lying douchebag in the manner in which it deserves.

    How many different names are you up to now, slipperysophist?

  41. My final commentary here is that someone who can’t see a lot of daylight between what he believes could be true and what actually is true is going to have some serious problems in life.

    My irony meter just exploded.

    what’s so funny about this is the libs spent 8 years wailing that Bush stole the 2000 election. Now all of the sudden major voter fraud is no big deal and only Hobbits worry about such things. ACORN didn’t count. Nobody should need an ID to vote.

    Bush didn’t steal the election. There are places where the voting works extremely well. Like my state, where everyone votes by mail, on a paper ballot. Arizona and Florida, OTOH, can’t seem to count ballots to save their lives.

    Sorry, but the Republicans have no interest in genuinely increasing access for legitimate voters and improving the accuracy of the process.

  42. I find it plausible that slippery sophist molests underage goats.

    I prefer to think of it as responding to a lying douchebag in the manner in which it deserves.
    How many different names are you up to now, slipperysophist?

    Still no substance.

  43. Sorry, but the Republicans have no interest in genuinely increasing access for legitimate voters and improving the accuracy of the process.

    And this is just a fact because it was introduced with a “Sorry, but” construction.

    QED!

  44. My irony meter just exploded.

    Another person who needs to understand that Alanis Morissette had ironic all wrong.

  45. Sorry, but the Republicans have no interest in genuinely increasing access for legitimate voters and improving the accuracy of the process.

    Tis is how you feeeeeeeeeeeel. It is what you want to believe. That does not make it true.

  46. It’s not early voting that bothers me, slippy. It’s early voting that’s overseen by a community organizer, who also plans to organize Election Day voting by those same early voters. You seem to be really fixated on voting machines that you consider untrustworthy, while placing full trust in the political machines that organize turnout and tally the votes.

  47. Slippery sez:

    It’s things like ending early (paper) voting where there’s a hard copy record of exactly how someone voted and no ability for the vote to flip in the software.

    ‘cuz nobody nowhere never faked no paper ballots, no how.

    Except for when they do.

  48. Why does cat grooming suddenly lurch to mind?

  49. How many different names are you up to now, slippery?

  50. Sorry, but the Republicans have no interest in genuinely increasing access for legitimate voters and improving the accuracy of the process.

    bahahahaa

    because letting anyone walk off the street and vote without an easily-accessible voter ID card is the smart and inclusive way to do it! I bet you went to college, didn’t you?

  51. Nope. It’s things like ending early (paper) voting where there’s a hard copy record of exactly how someone voted and no ability for the vote to flip in the software.

    Besides, with paper voting, nobody has to see you or see who it is who is actually doing the voting, and with voter roles filled with the names of the dead, or pets, or people eligible, thanks to a vast cumbersome bureaucracy, to vote in several states, that’s what’s really important.

    Why, proving you are you — and that the you who is you is a citizen eligible to vote — that’s like some sort of poll tax aimed at keeping minorities down.

  52. I would like to see an end to early voting. It encourages monkeyshines and shenanigans.

    In the interest of integrity in voter counts, I’d like to see on-going voter identification by picture ID. Now is the time. Get all those po’ folk, oldsters and undermotivated types down to the DMV and get them a free, you heard me FREE ID for next time. I’d like to see the purging of the dead from the rolls and a general house-cleaning of all voters in every state. Many states won’t remove voters from their rolls unless they are notified (who does that?) of the death of the voter. I know that I am registered to vote in three states although I only reside in one and have no intentions of voting in the other two.

    I’d also like to win the Powerball this week, but cranky already called it.

  53. Tis is how you feeeeeeeeeeeel. It is what you want to believe. That does not make it true.

    He doesn’t understand that kind of thinking. Don’t be using reason and shit like that on him.

  54. So lets dig into those machines that rang up 100% for Obama, because that’s a real issue. But is any real money going there? Nope.

    I beg to differ. Your godfather Soros is putting plenty of money into spreading the word that there’s nothing amiss there. Meanwhile, voting “irregularities” continue to proliferate, to the point where they’re considered business-as-usual in places like Chicago, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia.

  55. The Republicans already go after the media. Incessantly. In their whinny victim sort of way.

    That’s right. I almost forget how they said “Candy Crowley, Martha Radditz, Jim Lehrer? Really? Are you fucking kidding me?”

    Then Boehner didn’t do a Diane Sawyer interview.

  56. Omg. Sdferr, is this balloon fence boi we’re wasting time talking around?

  57. I find it plausible that slippery sophist molests underage goats.

    JD, as usual, offers nothing of substance.

    If you understood what he was doing you’d find it wholly substantial. If.

  58. leigh – you get no argument from me on needing ID and having clean voter rolls. But ending early voting seems stupid.

    You seem to be really fixated on voting machines that you consider untrustworthy, while placing full trust in the political machines that organize turnout and tally the votes.

    How you gonna fix that Squid? ’cause you could require all the ID you want and still stuff ballot boxes.

  59. leigh – you get no argument from me on needing ID and having clean voter rolls.

    Cough cough bullshit cough cough

  60. JD – still no substance.

  61. But ending early voting seems stupid.

    Why? I think the same thing about absentee ballots. Unless one is deployed or immobile, getcher ass down to the polls.

  62. what’s so funny about this is the libs spent 8 years wailing that Bush stole the 2000 election. Now all of the sudden major voter fraud is no big deal and only Hobbits worry about such things.

    Don’t forget Ohio and DIEBOLD!!!111!!!111111! in ’04.

    Vote fraud is how they know Bush stole the election twice. How else could he have won when they were cheating?

  63. If voting needs to be convenient for you to even bother,

    you probably shouldn’t.

  64. leigh – you get no argument from me on needing ID and having clean voter rolls.

    You should be able to show us where you have argued on behalf of voter ID and cleansing voter rolls, under whatever name you chose that week.

    Why is it that you can support those ideas, and not be racist, but if we support the same ideas, we are racist?

  65. Early voting didn’t even exist before 2004. No one ended early voting.

  66. JD, didja ever notice that the slipperyone never ever never answers any questions? He just makes stuff up and voila! it’s gospel, man.

  67. Early voting didn’t even exist before 2004.

    In Florida, I add.

  68. How you gonna fix that Squid?

    Well, I would encourage my neighbors to get more involved on Election Day, as judges and observers. I would also insist that my Legislature take necessary steps to ensure that our Secretary of State and our various County election bodies allow residents (biased or unbiased) to observe ballot handling and counting at every point in the process.

    These efforts would be greatly enhanced if the narrative set by the Left and their compliant press didn’t paint people like me as unhinged racist conspiracy nuts, by seizing on every instance they can find of stuff like the above, while brushing actual, proven fraud under the rug, and ignoring the thousands of people trying to do good work in spite of all the crap flung at us.

    It would also be enhanced if concern trolls argued in good faith.

  69. It would also be enhanced if concern trolls argued in good faith.

    Or didn’t lie. Or make shit up. Or attribute malicious intent. Or post under an ever-increasing variety of names. Or engage in general asshattery Etc …

  70. …or imagine what his interlocutors are thinking, and then advanced that as if it were established fact.

  71. It’s been my experience that there are a tremendous number of would-be mind-readers on the port side.

  72. You should be able to show us where you have argued on behalf of voter ID and cleansing voter rolls, under whatever name you chose that week.
    Why is it that you can support those ideas, and not be racist, but if we support the same ideas, we are racist?

    Sorry, but I don’t spend so much time here that my every position on every issue will be found somewhere in the logs. AFAIK, this is the first time I’ve talked about voting here.

    And when did I call you a racist? How about if *you* go show me where I did that.

    You’re getting close to substance, but still not there. Keep trying. You can do it!

    Squid: Completely agree.

    Early voting didn’t even exist before 2004. No one ended early voting.

    Wrong. Oregon’s been completely vote-by-mail since ’95. Dipshit.

    If voting needs to be convenient for you to even bother,
    you probably shouldn’t.

    That’s how these vote suppression things start, someone (like you) appoints himself arbiter of who deserves to vote. I thought you had your knickers all in a twist over Teh Comink Tyranny.

  73. Wrong. Oregon’s been completely vote-by-mail since ’95. Dipshit.

    Which is why he immediately posted the follow-up, noting that he was speaking of Florida. Did you miss that while you were off Googling?

    As for where you suggested we were racists (not “called”, that’s where you want to escape on a technicality), go back to your original list, and behold the “impression” we’re supposed to be leaving: “* Brown people who are police and fire fighters are an aberration, because most of them are benefit mooching criminals”

  74. Or post under an ever-increasing variety of names.

    … because Jeff (quietly) bans people …

    All those people that you assume went away with their tail between their legs? Odds are, Jeff banned them and never said anything.

    You pay to win, after all, so why mess with the illusion?

  75. Jeff, you’re not a racist because you support voter ID. You’re a racist for completely different reasons.

  76. So it is Jeff’s fault that you are dishonest. Epic.

  77. Jeff, you’re not a racist because you support voter ID. You’re a racist for completely different reasons.

    by slipperyslope on Nov 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    This I want to hear.

  78. Really. Do tell.

  79. All those people that you assume went away with their tail between their legs? Odds are, Jeff banned them and never said anything.

    That’s difficult to believe when you’re still here. After all those bannings.

  80. So it is Jeff’s fault that you are dishonest. Epic.

    I your quest for substance, you’re getting colder.

    Jeff, do you favor legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate solely on the basis of race?

  81. Ernst, ask Jeff how many people he’s banned.

  82. He also quietly starts posting as them, so as to make it seem like they refuse to honestly engage questions or simply don’t know what they’re talking about outside of a C-SPAN Book Talk they once half watched.

    Also, we’re all really secretly Jeff so as to better be his echo chamber.

    But would it even really matter if all that were true? Because even if it was, we’d still have the conversations recorded and publicly displayed, regardless of how they came about. Almost as if the motivation isn’t as important as the…

    ***JEFF SPAMBOT ERROR 4345

  83. Policy disagreements are racist.

    Banning one person under multiple names only counts as 1. You have used so many you can’t even remember them all.

  84. Is it legal to discriminate solely on the the basis of race?

    Oh, yeah: it’s called Affirmative Action. Silly me.

  85. But would it even really matter if all that were true?

    William, apparently it matters a great deal to JD. He’s the one that brought it up.

    Banning one person under multiple names only counts as 1. You have used so many you can’t even remember them all.

    See!

    JD, you’re pissed that I don’t spend a lot of time recording names I use that get banned just so I can have them at the ready when you ask? And, Jeff already gave the names. So you have the names anyways. And finally, as William says, what difference does it make?

  86. All those people that you assume went away with their tail between their legs? Odds are, Jeff banned them and never said anything.

    No, I usually say something.

  87. That’s how these vote suppression things start, someone (like you) appoints himself arbiter of who deserves to vote.

    We don’t appoint anybody arbiter of who votes. We petition our state legislatures to enact what we consider reasonable requirements on voting. We offer reasons for our policy preferences. We tirelessly deflect the accusations of racism that automatically and invariably come from our opponents, who have no actual counterarguments to offer.

    This arrangement, I’ve been led to believe, is how things in our representative republic are supposed to work! But no — in your world, we’re evil masterminds bent on world domination. We couldn’t possibly be free citizens who simply want to be left in peace, supporting charities and helping our neighbors as we see fit, rather than having ever-increasing shares of our labor siphoned away to pay off the Left’s herd of moochers.

    What was I saying earlier about arguments in bad faith?

  88. Jeff, you’re not a racist because you support voter ID. You’re a racist for completely different reasons.

    I’m racist? Okay, I’ll bite. What are the reasons you would make such an ugly accusation? Online, naturally. Under a fake name. Where it’s easy to do. But still.

  89. But Slippy, if you’re admitting that you’ve been banned several times… while…posting here…

  90. JD, you’re pissed

    Lie. I simply point out your asshattery. You are not meaningful enough to piss me off.

  91. Ernst, ask Jeff how many people he’s banned.

    I honestly couldn’t tell you. The site’s been around for going on 11 years now. Frankly, most of the people I’ve banned simply reappear under new names and try to goad me into banning them again.

    In the early days, nearly nobody was banned. Now, I let the trolls stay around until I don’t. Which is generally after they stop being useful as foils — and when they take to getting personal.

  92. JD, you’re pissed that I don’t spend a lot of time recording names I use that get banned just so I can have them at the ready when you ask? And, Jeff already gave the names. So you have the names anyways.

    It’s usually considered polite to link to your sources. Manners!

  93. Jeff, do you favor legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate solely on the basis of race?

    Don’t we already have such legislation?

    Look, you came out and called me racist. I’m waiting to hear your bill of particulars. Again, it’s put up or shut up time.

  94. Jeff, do you favor legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate solely on the basis of race?

    We don’t appoint anybody arbiter of who votes. We petition our state legislatures to enact what we consider reasonable requirements on voting. We offer reasons for our policy preferences.

    There was a big citizen petition in these states to ban early voting for everyone except the military? ‘Cause it seems like it was Republican politicians taking it upon themselves.

    I’m racist?

    Jeff, do you favor legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate solely on the basis of race?

  95. Don’t we already have such legislation?

    So you favor it?

  96. You called me racist. Now it’s on you to provide the bill of particulars and the evidence for such an ugly accusation. You aren’t Socrates and I’m not your student. Put up or shut up.

  97. So you favor it?

    Do you?

  98. Squid —

    That’s just under the one IP address. I have no doubt this one’s been here for ages under various names and IPs — and long before I went to registration. He’s got that air of someone who has fixated on me. There have been many of the years so I’ve come to sniff them out with a good degree of success. It was only a matter of time before the personal accusations emerged from the pretend fog of “argument.”

  99. Jeff, it’s odd that you won’t answer such a simple question. Yes, I favor it being illegal to discriminate purely on the basis of race. It’s not even hard. Just answer it.

  100. I don’t know. It’s kind of fascinating. Especially since this issue in particular is so one-sided.

  101. Jeff, do you favor legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate solely on the basis of race?

    I’m not Jeff, but let me ask you, slope, were a particular race guilty of a particular crime or a particular virtue or a particular talent or a particular trait, and were I to point those crimes or virtues or talents or traits out as that race’s wont, would I be racist?

    slope, do you favor legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate for any reason?

    See, I don’t. In the private realm — which in my ideal is virtually everything — behavior of all kinds shy of murder, theft, and fraud should be legal. It should be your right to be a complete jackass; wrong on every count.

  102. Jeff, it’s odd that you won’t answer such a simple question. Yes, I favor it being illegal to discriminate purely on the basis of race. It’s not even hard. Just answer it.

    No, what’s odd is that you seem to think you can demand answers from me.

    You called me a racist. Let me ask again, on what basis? What’s your proof? Where’s your evidence. I’ve got 10 years worth of archives, and many discussions on race from which you can pull your illustrations of my supposed racism.

    So why haven’t you offered any particulars after having boldly declared me racist?

  103. Come on, Jeff. Doesn’t Slippery deserve at least a little Affirmative Action?

  104. Well, the thing is, William, as I pointed out in another comment, my views on all these types of questions are archived right here on the site. I don’t feel compelled to do his research for him. Bottom line is, Sloppyslope called me a racist. I’ve now asked him a number of times on what he bases that ugly accusation. What particulars?

    No answer.

    So I say again: if I am the racist you have now declared me, slipperyslope, and it isn’t on the basis of voter ID laws, then what is it that makes me racist? Be specific. I mean, clearly you had some examples of my racism in mind if you were willing to both bracket my views on voter ID laws and still declare me a racist.

    What are they? I’m still waiting.

  105. Is slippery done with regurgitating the same old, weak, stupid, tired, bullshit yet? I think it’s begin boring itself these days.

  106. begin -> begun

  107. Looking up the previous names, we see:

    the_pill, demonstrating his deep understanding and commitment to First Amendment freedoms: “I’m just confirming that in defending the Catholic Church’s first amendment rights, you are, in this specific case, defending the right to act on a belief that’s nuts.”

    As johntaylor, defining how a church loses its First Amendment protection if it dares venture into charity efforts: “If you’re a church, and you’re in the business of spreading your faith and tending to your flock, then sure, you can make sure that you only hire priests that are Catholic. You can probably make sure that *everyone* you hire is catholic, from the organ player to the church office workers. But if you open a hospital, and you are hiring people of any faith, and your treating people of any faith, then you’re not in the faith business, you’re in the hospital business.”

    Bear in mind that the above is all in the context of castigating the Catholic Church for not wanting to buy other people’s contraceptives.

    Later, as sometroll, we see our favorite good-faith debate partner getting all passive-aggressive about the site owner deciding he’s seen enough time and energy wasted already: “Jeff quietly bans troll. PW’ers celebrate victory of having run off another hapless troll with their overwhelming intellect.”

    As shotbythedictator, proving in the same thread that he really can’t take a hint: “But Jeff, who really is knowledgeable about the founding fathers and original intent and ‘it means what it means’, and who really is rightly fearful of government tyranny is fully supportive of religious tyranny. Because of teh founders. Except they hated religious tyranny too. Now quick, ban me, lest I fuck up the next fund raiser by interfering with the regulars’ satisfaction in paying to win.”

    It’s nice to see that slippy has put his really ugly religious biases behind him, and has moved on reflexively playing the race card and pretending that well-organized urban Democrat election machines are totally on the up-and-up. Doesn’t leave the same bad taste in one’s mouth.

  108. Yes, palaeomerus. He’s now moved on to declaring in no uncertain terms that I’m a racist. I’ve asked him on what he bases that vile accusation. He hasn’t answered.

    Also, I’m curious if by “racist” he means racist generally (like a white supremacist, say), or whether he believes I only harbor my hatreds toward particular “races”.

  109. It always amuses me how leftists get their panties in a knot over voluntary fundraisers.

  110. So, slippery is an anti-Catholic or just an anti-Christian bigot?

    I’m not surprised.

  111. Lame. You could put this issue to bed with a “yea” or “nay”, but you won’t, because you know you’ve been trapped. Not trapped by the question, but trapped by your belief.

    I feel a ban coming from the direction of brave Sir Robbin.

  112. Also, it really sucks that so many godbothers open hospitals while “Mercy of the Heart Because You Have No Soul” still doesn’t have any funding.

    But at least that almost has a worldview. “You’re racist because you only want people to vote once,” is a bit of a stretch, even before you get into how we’re brokedy broke.

  113. You are a coward, johntaylor. You made the assertion, yet you are either unwilling or unable to support it.

  114. You could put this issue to bed with a “yea” or “nay”, but you won’t, because you know you’ve been trapped. Not trapped by the question, but trapped by your belief.

    That’s a lie. No matter the answer, you would continue to dog him with inane attempts at “gotcha” questions. Now, on the other hand, you could quite easily win this argument by pulling just a single instance of Jeff’s racism from his extensive archives. It’s not that hard, as evidenced by my research into your previous attempts at “argument” here.

    Go on, man. Pull up a quote. You could totally pwn the site owner! It would be a slam dunk! You’d be all “In your FACE, racist bastard!” and we’d all be like “Oh, man, Jeff, he totally made you his little bitch! BURN!”

    Wouldn’t that be awesome? You should totally do it!

  115. Anything? Evidence?

    Busy Googling to see what Roy Edroso, eg., has to offer on the subject?

  116. And then none of us would look up the link to see the context. Cause we only read the headlines anyway. It’s racing towards racism, a total win-win!

  117. Lame. You could put this issue to bed

    There is no issue save the one you have asserted. You accused me of being a racist. Do you or do you not have any evidence to back that up? On what do you even base the assertion?

    Be specific. You can do this. I will even walk you through it:

    Jeff Goldstein is racist because:
    1.
    2.
    3.
    etc.

  118. It’s your claim, slope. It’s on you to substantiate it.

  119. But at least that almost has a worldview. “You’re racist because you only want people to vote once,” is a bit of a stretch, even before you get into how we’re brokedy broke.

    William, I already said voter ID laws aren’t racist. Try to keep up.

    You are a coward, johntaylor. You made the assertion, yet you are either unwilling or unable to support it.

    A JD’s feeling safe with his buddies behind him, so he ventures out. I think you spelled Jeff’s name wrong. He’s the one afraid to answer a question. Now he’d look really weak if he did actually answer it at this point – like he caved in to the troll. The only face saving way out is a ban. That’s usually how it goes.

  120. My wife’s cat once caught a sleepy wasp by the back stairs. I saw him batting it around when I headed down to my shop to put away some tools. Ten minutes later, the cat was at the bottom of the stairs, still messing with the poor wasp. It had lost a wing and a couple of legs, and just kind of flailed around weakly. I tried to explain to the cat that continuing to torment the poor insect was pointless and cruel, not to mention a complete waste of time; the cat blinked once and then continued to bat the wasp across the floor.

    Don’t know why that scene sprung into my head, but I felt the need to share.

  121. slope, do you favor legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate for any reason?

  122. So now johntaylor the bigoted coward is doing a pre-emptive flounce.

    Your claim, your burden of proof.

  123. That’s a lie. No matter the answer, you would continue to dog him with inane attempts at “gotcha” questions.

    Do you favor legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate on purely on the basis of race?

    That’s a gotcha question? Where’s the gotcha?

    Yes = Not a racist
    No = Racist

    It’s that simple. Really.

  124. The only face saving way out is a ban.

    Or perhaps a reasonable request that you provide some evidence for your accusation. A request which has been made a number of time now.

    Dude, your vindication is just sitting there, waiting for you to grab it! Here, let me help you. Type

    site:proteinwisdom.com “Racist shit Jeff said”

    into Google, and then check out the links that come up. Given what a total racist jerk you assert Jeff to be, pulling up a link or two should be child’s play. Hell, you should grab a quick half-dozen and serve them up to Jeff in front of all of us regulars. Forget banning you — he’d probably shut the whole site down out of embarrassment and shame.

    Dude, how awesome would that be? Super cool scalp for your belt. Go for it, man!

  125. I’ll go one further: I don’t believe race-based affirmative action is Constitutional, nor do I believe in the “diversity” movement, because it trivialized true diversity in favor of promoting the superficiality of the self-satisfied (and intellectually dishonest) Crayola crowd. Multiculturalism is dangerous bunk, as well, in that it denies the need in a civil society for a degree of assimilation while making the claim that the only valid critique of a particular identity group must come from within that identity group — and even then, that criticism is blunted by charges that anyone who criticizes the group is by that action inauthentic, and so no longer has the validity necessary to make the critique.

    Some of my earliest significant posts here dealt with race. My debates with Aaron Hawkins or Steve Sailer, for instance. I also took on Ric Caric, who liked throwing around the suggestion that I am racist — the difference being that the last time he did so he actually tried to marshal evidence. Like, for instance, that because I believe in color-blindness, I’m engaging in racist code.

    That didn’t end well for him, as I recall.

  126. JHoward – Can you state your question a little more clearly? I’ll be happy to answer it.

  127. Wouldn’t that be awesome? You should totally do it!

    It would be totally sweet. I cannot wait for slipshod to show us his true metal.

  128. It’s that simple. Really.

    Forgive me, but I honestly believe you’d follow it up with questions about context, or assertions that when Jeff agreed that discrimination was wrong, it meant that he’d support laws against discriminatory thoughts or feelings.

    Better that you just do a quick Google search and pwn Jeff like a little bitch. That would be a total slam-dunk.

  129. Jeff, I think you’re saying, “Yes, it should be illegal to discriminate purely on the basis of race.” But I want to be clear. If so, if you agree with that statement, then I take it back. You’re not a racist.

  130. JHoward – Can you state your question a little more clearly? I’ll be happy to answer it.

    How about you answer my question?

    What evidence do you have of my supposed racism? You made the accusation. Give me your reasons and the particulars, then I’ll answer them.

  131. Before the charge of racism became trivialized by the left, people were fairly careful about throwing it out there without any evidence. Now, apparently, one can just charge another with racism and then take it back when they realize they have no evidence and all will be well.

  132. You made the accusation. Based on what? What gave you the idea? It must have come from somewhere. Is it that I’m a “right winger”? On what basis did you decide to call me a racist?

  133. Yes = Not a racist
    No = Racist

    It’s that simple. Really.

    No, it really isn’t. There’s a lot of the opposition that’s based purely on property rights, having nothing to do with race. It’s also irrelevant.

    Where’s your evidence? You made a claim. Now back it up. Stop flailing.

  134. Pablo, property rights let you discriminate based on race?

  135. You have a right to be an asshole, as you’re proving.

  136. So now you’re not answering questions either Pablo?

  137. JHoward – Can you state your question a little more clearly? I’ll be happy to answer it.

    Probably not but I’ll try: Is it the federal government’s role to enforce specific moralities?

    I look forward to your analysis.

  138. Back to the original topic, Greer needs to round up some liars co-conspirators and hold a hearing called Winter Soldier Voter describing the horrible acts and unconscionable crimes they were forced by their heartless leaders to commit, then throw throw a bucket of hanging chads over the White House fence.

  139. I’m waiting for you to answer one, slope. What’s the evidence that substantiates your claim against our host?

  140. Man, this has really got me thinking about the dangers of assigning racial motives to some of the more essential principles of citizenship that used to define our Republic.

    We really have sacrificed a lot to our soundbite and name calling culture. I can definitely see how there’s no way out when you’re forced to engage in the EITHER OR!!!! that the Left so loves these days.

  141. Racism is their default position for those that disagree with them.

    Caric and Yelverton were epic.

  142. Pablo, property rights let you discriminate based on race?

    This is a libertarian issue. But it’s also not the point, so stop dodging what is: you rather confidently called me a racist. You have yet to provide a single bit of evidence to prove this. In fact, you haven’t even offered a reason for making the accusation — pointing to nothing I’ve written or said.

    Do you have any particulars to point to or not? And if not, on what basis did you call me a racist, an ugly accusation and one I take seriously?

  143. Slipshod made the accusation under the assumption he would be banned immediately. When that didn’t happen, he walked it back.

  144. Disagreement with a leftist policy position is racist. Or a dog whistle.

    Affirmative action is awesome.

  145. Here, let me help you out again: I defended John Derbyshire. I defended Trent Lott. That should give you two things to search in the archives to see if they reveal my “racism,” and if so, how.

    Also, you may want to check out an essay I wrote titled “there’s no such thing as race (and it’s a good thing, too)”. That may also help you pin down my racism.

  146. assigning racial motives

    Which involves interpretation > which calls for an interpreter > which calls for practical authority > which aims at some ostensible outcome > which results in the inevitable unintended consequences > which requires patchwork second generation legislation to repair the effects of the original legislation > which initiates a whole new wave of unintended consequences > which eventually but certainly causes system failure > which is America ca. 2012.

    This is called positive feedback, slope, in case you’re following along, which is a material outcome. Yet I still want you to demonstrate the logical structure that supports your aim that the federal government enforce such specific moralities (regardless of their merely professed outcomes).

  147. I haven’t walked it back, Jeff just won’t play.

    Probably not but I’ll try: Is it the federal government’s role to enforce specific moralities?

    That’s a completely different question. But I’ll give it my best shot. The answer is: sometimes. For example, the government should, and has, enacted legislation to make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.

    Agree or disagree?

  148. Johntaylor – so you are against affirmative action too, huh?

  149. the government should, and has, enacted legislation to make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.

    Agree or disagree?

    Three paragraphs from the wiki for you, slope:

    “Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.

    “Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.

    “The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is “something eminently social”. A global 2012 poll reports that 59% of the world’s population is religious, 23% are not religious, and 13% are atheists.”

    Now let’s try another three with a slight revision, substituting “progressive leftism” for each instance of religion:

    “Progressive leftism is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and a worldview that relate humanity to an ersatz spirituality and, frequently, to approved, collective moral values. Progressive leftism has narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred revised histories that are intended to give meaning to life and to explain the origin of life or the universe. It tends to derive morality, ethics, political laws and a preferred lifestyle from its ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to its own efforts and definitions, there is one predominant progressive school of leftism in the world. It has infiltrated one of the two major political classes in the United States.

    “Progressive leftism has organized behaviors, an academic ‘clergy’, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, sacred values, and political scriptures. The practice of progressive leftism may also include social rituals, political sermons, commemoration or veneration of Jesus figures, social sacrifice, race or gender studies and accreditation, central education, retirement and medical programs, festivals, parades and demonstrations, initiations, matrimonial services, environmental meditation or prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Progressive leftism may also contain mythology.

    “The words progressive leftism are sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system; however, in the view of many, progressive leftism differs from private belief in that it is eminently socialistic, which is to say collective and statist. Polls report that roughly 20% of the nation’s population self-identifies as progressive leftists, 40% as moderate, and 40% as conservative.”

    Uncanny, isn’t it? It appears that just as religion is collective, progressive leftism is religious.

    Someone once said the organization was an inherently doubtful and dubious proposition because segmenting and isolation short circuit what had been rich, rounded, responsible individual and full human experiences, and the unnaturally divided environment induced an inevitable corruption of soul.

    Likewise, Emile Cammaerts observed that “the first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything”.

    Adding those two together we find that the relentless, individual pursuit of the Absolute is the key to mind, and from mind the fullness that switches on the soul. The opposite of this is the stultifying, collective human Hive … which seems to have found its contemporary argument, advocacy, and benefactory in, among other places, progressivism.

    Belief in the sacredness of Cammaert’s Anything is what best enables the hivemind inside the unhealthy collective organization: If anyone can assert anything, then what stands between the “progressive” New Reality that is the inevitable, first effect of insisting that truth is subjective and therefore that anything goes, including to fashion the religious system that progressivism evidently is?

    The second, as it turns out, is that there is a supreme irony to the secular progressive movement’s long slow march through the Enlightenment’s institutions in order to assert that its postmodern intellectual Nihilism is legitimate as an article of faith. After all how reliable is a platform that absolutely insists that there are no absolutes and that enforces that obvious blunder in an increasingly unavoidable, intellectually-protected collective structure?

    In the historical context rebranded collectivist progressivism is a renewable faith in a presumed but never acquired prosperity faithfully cultivated and re-cultivated in the sterile soil of the political State.

    Progressivism thereby gets to its own god with just a short hop. Like they’ve always been, the warm, syrupy confines of heaven on Earth are eternally but faithfully just out of reach.

    Remember when 2008 was the moment the oceans started to recede? In 2012 we were reminded again that we are who we’ve been waiting for. The words mean absolutely nothing but they’ll be projected onto the progressive christ all over again.

    So I ask you again, slope, what morality will you entrust to your State and how shall you define that State so as to constrain it as you know you should?

  150. And freedom of religion

  151. I haven’t walked it back, Jeff just won’t play.

    I’m the one who won’t play?

    Do you have anything you can point to that I’ve written or said that lends credence to the accusation you’ve leveled at me?

    Or are we to assume that you think it perfectly fine to call someone a racist with no reason and no proof — that the accusation is in and of itself enough, and the burden then shifts to me to prove my non-racist bona fides to you?

    In what world do you think that dynamic is operative?

  152. That’s a good point, JHoward. And with each layer, you have to respond to each layer, so, eventually, before even trying to move, you have to respond to sideways, the start, and the finish. Hmm. Interesting stuff to think about.

  153. In what world do you think that dynamic is operative?

    Best I can tell, the Progressive Inquisition, Jeff.

    None dare call it religious.

  154. this is like watching a cat lick a mouse. repeatedly.

  155. JD:

    Johntaylor – so you are against affirmative action too, huh?

    Yes, I’m against affirmative action.

    If anyone can assert anything, then what stands between the “progressive” New Reality that is the inevitable, first effect of insisting that truth is subjective and therefore that anything goes, including to fashion the religious system that progressivism evidently is?

    When did I say, “Anything goes?” You’ve crafted a caricature and taken a stick to it.

    The second, as it turns out, is that there is a supreme irony to the secular progressive movement’s long slow march through the Enlightenment’s institutions in order to assert that its postmodern intellectual Nihilism is legitimate as an article of faith. After all how reliable is a platform that *absolutely* insists that there are no absolutes and that enforces that obvious blunder in an increasingly unavoidable, intellectually-protected collective structure?

    When did I say there are no absolutes. I’m not sure who you’re arguing with, but it’s not me.

    So I ask you again, slope, what morality will you entrust to your State and how shall you define that State so as to constrain it as you know you should?

    Oh, at least the one where it should be illegal to discriminate on the basis of race. You’ve poured out a lot of ink, but I think you’re saying you disagree with that statement. Correct?

  156. When did I say, “Anything goes?”

    When you accused others of bring racist based on absolutely nothing. Or when you assumed racism because you anticipated a policy disagreement.

  157. First came the Law. Then came the Judges. Next the Kings. Then the Kingdom split. Then, Exhile.

    Hmm? Oh, sorry. I’m probably OT.

  158. When did I say, “Anything goes?”
    When you accused others of bring racist based on absolutely nothing. Or when you assumed racism because you anticipated a policy disagreement.

    That’s the same as saying, “Anything goes”? English much? You’re out of your league Donny.

  159. So William, I’ll put you down as being in favor of it being legal to discriminate based on race. That’s JHoward and William on that side. Jeff made it sound like he was opposed, but then wouldn’t really nail it down, so it’s hard to say.

  160. what morality will you entrust to your State and how shall you define that State so as to constrain it as you know you should?

    Oh, at least the one where it should be illegal to discriminate on the basis of race. You’ve poured out a lot of ink, but I think you’re saying you disagree with that statement. Correct?

    I disagree with narrow moralities producing uneven outcomes — or even horrible outcomes like generational poverty and divided nations — especially when those moralities cannot be defined, such as you have not defined yours except to blindly assert it regardless of those outcomes.

    Or are you in this just for the appearances? I ask because it’s blindingly clear that that’s what you’re using against the site host: The merest of moralistic, religious appearances, the outcomes be damned.

    Which makes you, what?

    But to continue, mostly I despise logical inconsistency, false blame, reverse discrimination, haughtiness, and religiosity such as yours.

    And your State’s. So slope, what morality will you entrust to your State, how and why, and how shall you constrain that State as you know you should from your evident views on “racism”? Answer the fucking question. Constitutions were written by infinitely finer minds than yours for just that purpose.

  161. Johntaylor is kind of defensive. It doesn’t like getting called out on its asshattery.

    No, it is not identical to anything goes. Duh. You sure are tone deaf. In your world it is okay to accuse another of racism based on disagreement over policies, and in other cases, like today, based on nothing. What is outside acceptable to you?

  162. Hmm? Oh, no, Slippery. See, I’ve been paying attention this whole time.

    Went and read Jeff’s essay, thought about what JHoward was saying. Trusted that the people here argue in good faith.

    It made me realize the inherent dangers of defining any law based on race itself (for or against, dare I say). Better to always define Law based on the nature of equality, you know, the Enlightenment standard. It also got me thinking of the difference between law established from religion versus outside of religion, dare I say, a more Enlightenment view of the nature of law. Something a Progressive view has a very difficult time recognizing.

    Not that I wouldn’t be willing to hear more on the issue, because perhaps there’s even more to consider. Why there could even…

    JEFF SPAMBOT ERROR 4522.

  163. You sure are tone deaf. In your world it is okay to accuse another of racism based on disagreement over policies, and in other cases, like today, based on nothing. What is outside acceptable to you?

    JD, this place exists as a venue for name calling. Why in just this post you’ve called me:

    Molests underage goats
    Lying douchbag
    Asshat
    Dishonest
    Coward
    Bigoted coward

    Is name calling suddenly out of vogue here? Where doth the new era of decorum begin? The transition doesn’t seem evident.

    I mean, if I were to call you a name, it would probably be along the lines of whinny little bitch, or some such thing.

  164. William, what’s the danger of a law that says you can’t discriminate on the basis of race? How would you rephrase it to be based on the nature of equality?

  165. Good Allah, have mercy on your soul. Meaningless insults mocking your juvenile sophistry is the same as asserting a person is a racist?

  166. Dude, give to get. I’m not going to answer your questions because you’ve been arguing in bad faith all day. I’m learning because Jeff and JHoward can’t help themselves when it comes to answering questions.

    But I will tell you this:
    Whinny = What horses do
    Whiny = What Bitches do

  167. Lying douchbag
    Asshat
    Dishonest
    Coward
    Bigoted coward

    Observations based on behavior. The other was pure mockery based on your asshattery.

    Whinny lite bitch cuts me to the quick. How ever will I survive sans your approval?

  168. It sounds like you all are drifting to a strange position where you think banning discrimination on the basis of race isn’t necessary because there’s no such thing as race.

  169. William, I am arguing in good faith. Truly.

  170. Yes, I certainly can’t think of anyone who’s asked you to prove your assertions using a specifically defined resource.

  171. William, I am arguing in good faith. Truly.

    Laugh of the day. Thank you.

  172. William, I am arguing in good faith. Truly.

    Personally you accuse a relative stranger of racism without evidence, refusing to retract the accusation, and collectively you refuse to define either racism, morality, outcome, or State agency?

  173. William, using a question to probe an issue isn’t a terribly rude thing to do. It’s done here all the time.

  174. JHoward, I honestly don’t know what you’re asking.

  175. JHoward, you can find definitions for those things in any dictionary. I doubt I’d take issue with any of the dictionary definitions.

  176. JHoward, I honestly don’t know what you’re asking.

    Nor do you know what you’re saying, slope.

  177. JHoward, you can find definitions for those things in any dictionary. I doubt I’d take issue with any of the dictionary definitions.

    Not good enough. Define how you will parse relative moralities first for private viability and then for collective suitability by agency.

  178. isn’t necessary because there’s no such thing as race.

    And…

  179. I’m saying that it should be illegal to discriminate on the basis of race. And you seem to disagree. Although you won’t clearly say.

  180. Look, slippery. The thread is about voter intimidation/discrimination.

    Commentors have offered up solutions to said problem and commented on the article.

    You’ve thread-jacked this into a “Jeff is a Raaaaacist because I assert it to be true!”

    Offer up some proof or get lost.

  181. So Jeff, how is it then that we has a black secretary of state?

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=45595

    In your own words.

  182. has=had

  183. I’m saying that it should be illegal to discriminate on the basis of race. And you seem to disagree. Although you won’t clearly say.

    And I’m saying that it should be structurally legal to discriminate on the basis of anything even if you find the practice reprehensible. In fact, because you (and I) find the practice reprehensible it should be legal, you and I having the humility and common sense not to institutionalize the bullshit you’ve exposed by your remarks on the subject in this thread!

    And you seem to disagree. Although you won’t clearly say why because you decline to parse relative moralities first for private viability and then for collective suitability by agency. I’m wondering how many times all this needs to be repeated before by your failure to respond “in good faith” you tacitly admit you can’t possibly justify your presumed views.

    Know yourself, slope, entire ages before you presume to know others.

  184. Slippery, I get the impression that you think we’re all pounding out our responses on the keyboard while downing gallons of cheap beer.

    I’m not accusing you of being rude. I’m saying that because you aren’t willing to say, “You right, Jeff, I was flippantly calling you racist, I apologize,” means that it’d be foolish to try and walk you through the different views of the purpose of law.

    It doesn’t help that JHoward is trying to, and you’re telling him to get a dictionary.

  185. JHoward, that’s just racism dressed up as freedom. And it’s stupid. Imagine the following:

    And I’m saying that it should be structurally legal to steal on the basis of anything even if you find the practice reprehensible. In fact, because you (and I) find the practice reprehensible it should be legal, you and I having the humility and common sense not to institutionalize the bullshit you’ve exposed by your remarks on the subject in this thread!

    That’s how dumb it is. It sounds like now you’re arguing for moral relativism and saying we can’t label anything as absolutely wrong. Which, we can. And discriminating on the basis of race is one of those things.

  186. It was useful for me, Leigh. But yeah, thread-jacked.

  187. William, I just now had the opportunity to point out that Jeff (1) doesn’t believe race exists, and (2) champions the fact that we’ve already had a black Secretary of State.

    So now, without needing to answer my question, Jeff has a contradiction between his own words to reconcile.

  188. I know what you mean, William. We have a lot of smart people on board and clowns like slippery get tedious. They offer nothing and make a lot of demands. It’s kind of like baby-sitting one’s bratty neices or nephews.

    They’re all bluster and ‘J’accuse!’ until you ask for examples. Then they vanish like a thief in the night.

  189. Slippery is not even good at this n

  190. Slippery, to make that point, you only have to point out that his race article is posted on MLK day.

  191. JHoward, that’s just racism dressed up as freedom. And it’s stupid.

    Now we’re getting somewhere. So you list various moralities in order of importance, slope, and then argue why they should be federalized as social equality measures — in your best fantasies — as opposed to criminal offenses, which are material losses not alien to founding charter. And recall, since you asked, that I’d already itemized murder, theft, and fraud as my fundamental offenses, those not unaligned with constitutional principle, as a matter of fact.

    So now you know mine. And yours and in what order and why?

  192. Yeah, I beyond appreciate that Leigh. I think one of the most amusing parts of this thread is me being my usual flippant self but then slowly starting to more seriously think about it.

    So at least I learned something today, is what I’m saying.

  193. In Jeff’s world, there would have never been an MLK day, because blacks were never discriminated against, because there has never been any such thing as blacks.

  194. It is racist to criticize not SOS for abject dishonesty and political hackery.

    Calling actual SOS Rice objectively racist names is okay. Because she is a race traitor.

    This is the world slippery johntaylor matsui alecwalter lives in.

  195. Slippery, you’re a fucking dumbass twatwaffle.

  196. Hypothetically, in Jeff’s world, black people only drink grape juice and eat fried chicken.

    Yay. Now we’re not only putting thoughts in his head, we’re taking his supposed thoughts and making a really racist world out of them.

  197. hey slope can i call susan a “house nigga” or is that reserved for condi?

  198. William, I just now had the opportunity to point out that Jeff (1) doesn’t believe race exists, and (2) champions the fact that we’ve already had a black Secretary of State.

    So now, without needing to answer my question, Jeff has a contradiction between his own words to reconcile.

    Is this for real?

    If Jeff or anyone “champions that we’ve had a black SOS” – that would simply be in response to the Leftwing ranting about Susan Rice. You know, playing the game with the words and (nebulous) rules that the Left employs.

    That’s a separate matter from whether or not “race” is a social construct, or a scientifically demonstrated fact.

    It’s like when I say to my kids “she doesn’t have cooties” – I don’t actually believe in “cooties”, but I can use those terms in order to engage my children on their level.

    This is so boring. I need to go back to the guns and bears thread

  199. In Jeff’s world, there would have never been an MLK day, because blacks were never discriminated against, because there has never been any such thing as blacks.

    So much for your good faith nonsense above. Or did you really read that link, and are so dumb that was your take-away?

  200. [This is why it’s fun to just troll the troll from the start, guys.]

  201. I’ll play. Here’s the origional question:

    Do you favor legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate on purely on the basis of race?

    Most recently restated as:

    I’m saying that it should be illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.

    Are you in favor then, of arresting a prosecuting a black man that will only go to stores with black owners?

  202. JHoward – You and I just want to live in different worlds. In your world, it would be OK to tell black people (who may or may not exist in Jeff’s world) to ride on the back of the bus. You wouldn’t do it yourself, but you wouldn’t have any issue with the bus company running their operation that way.

    In my world, it’s wrong. There’s no reason to pretend, “to each his own”, on this issue.

  203. In Jeff’s world, there would have never been an MLK day, because blacks were never discriminated against, because there has never been any such thing as blacks.

    Spare me. Did you hear that whooshing sound as Jeff’s point flew right over your head?

  204. there would have never been an MLK day

    nothing says honoring quite like giving a bunch of overpaid zombie fed govt workers a day off with pay

  205. Ah, no, I read that response in bad faith. I see what you’re saying. Because Jeff is less interested in establishing race as the rule of law, he doesn’t believe that anyone deserves to be celebrated, especially if they spend most of their life championing explicitly egalitarian values.

    Sorry, I was jumping to flippant jokes again.

  206. I’m starting to long for the days when nishi was around.

    At least nishi was amusing at times. (or has my memory slipped in regards to nishi?)

  207. William, please. Everyone knows black people drink Kool-aid with their fried chicken.

  208. This is what slippery slope’s “type” does. He throws a lot of stupid accusations that he made up the way that fucking liars do, and he expects people to confess to whatever shit comes from his typing figures. Then he makes with aburdist shit that AGAIN he made up and he tries to get people to admit to it. He pitches a fit when someone questions why his accusations are so childishly absurd and divorced from reality.

    You know what? Fuck him. He’s a worthless, amoral, dishonest, lazy dolt.

  209. but you wouldn’t have any issue with the bus company running their operation that way.

    what with the youts do i see that as a public safety measure

  210. Are you in favor then, of arresting and prosecuting an Asian woman that will only vote for an Asian candidate?

  211. At least nishi was amusing at times. (or has my memory slipped in regards to nishi?)

    Your memory sucks

  212. “You and I just want to live in different worlds. In your world, it would be OK to tell black people (who may or may not exist in Jeff’s world) to ride on the back of the bus. You wouldn’t do it yourself, but you wouldn’t have any issue with the bus company running their operation that way.”

    They’d go broke and get sued if they did that you idiot. Piss off your customers and nobody wants to ride your bus. You aren’t defending any rights. You are attacking made up shit that poses no challenge to anyone anywhere. You tell us of your battles against the bogey man and we all know it’s bullshit and so you call us ungrateful and on the bogey man’s side. There is no bogey man. Quit being a silly self important ass with a bad con job that only works on the most ignorant people. .

  213. Did you guys know that after checking the IP addresses we learn that “slipperyslope” has had a surprising number of comments put into moderation and then the trash because he/she/it has been constantly dropping the n-bomb at random?

    Go figure.

  214. JD, crap, I should have known my memory was faulty.

  215. They’d go broke and get sued if they did that you idiot. Piss off your customers and nobody wants to ride your bus. You aren’t defending any rights. You are attacking made up shit that poses no challenge to anyone anywhere.

    I guess you never heard of this place called 1950.

    And today, you don’t think a single person gets denied housing or a job because they’re black?

  216. bh – Huh?

  217. Well, bh. That figures, eh? Not only is slipperyslope a religious bigot, he is a racist.

    All using his own words, too.

  218. JHoward – You and I just want to live in different worlds.

    There’s no reason to pretend, “to each his own”, on this issue.

    If morality is relative, how is morality absolute, slope?

    In your world, it would be OK to tell black people (who may or may not exist in Jeff’s world) to ride on the back of the bus. You wouldn’t do it yourself, but you wouldn’t have any issue with the bus company running their operation that way.

    Indeed it would be OK, slope, for all of the fifteen minutes we’d accept it in a civil, post-civil rights era society, you sophist.

    And in “my world”, where the church doesn’t operate the State, blacks would cease listening to their hucksters and politicians and various victim-creating agencies and media stooges and stop demonizing whites without a law enforcing this normalcy.

    But of course all this has at least been strongly alluded to for you to confess enough foolishness to not grasp it but enough unmitigated arrogance and warped moralism anyway to go around calling strangers racists.

    And today, you don’t think a single person gets denied housing or a job because they’re black?

    I’d say a thousandfold more non-blacks than that get called racist for no good reason whatsoever.

  219. bh – Huh?

    Like you don’t know, you racist fuck.

  220. Yeah? Sigh. Not surprising.

    You know what’s the one part of “The Good Samaritan” Jesus left out? Everyone who walked by and didn’t help thought to themselves, “There aught to be a law!!!” and went away satisfied.

  221. I guess you never heard of this place called 1950.

    The bus lines didn’t want that law. They opposed it.

  222. And today, you don’t think a single person gets denied housing or a job because they’re black?

    they just happen to be black and carry a laundry list of uncivil accomplishments

  223. I guess you never heard of this place called 1950.

    You ever heard of a place called Compton?

  224. Bh – it is so cute when they try to play innocent, isn’t it.? Johntaylor alecwalter matsui pill etal is a bigot and a racist. SHOCKA!

  225. If morality is relative, how is morality absolute, slope?

    When did I say it was relative?

    Indeed it would be OK, slope, for all of the fifteen minutes we’d accept it as a civil, post-civil rights era society, your sophist.

    Employment, housing, it happens every day.

  226. I guess you never heard of this place called 1950.

    That was only 63 years ago. That is just like yesterday. Nothing has changed. Nothing b

  227. Making it illegal will stop it, sez the troll.

  228. Eh, slippery also ignores the fact that higher education has long had a policy of racial preference, which means a less qualified person of color will get a slot ahead of a more qualified white person.

    But hey, in slippery’s world, it’s not racist if whites are being discriminated against.

  229. I’d say a thousandfold more non-blacks than that get called racist for no good reason whatsoever.

    They probably get called racist because when legislation came up to ban discrimination on the basis of race they went out of their way to argue against it passing.

  230. If morality is relative, how is morality absolute, slope?

    When did I say it was relative?

    You don’t know where? Sophist?

    But if you’re saying morality is absolute, kindly deliver your list of offenses, in order, followed by how to effectively and constitutionally criminalize each. How many times have I asked for that list now, slope?

    Indeed [discrimination] would be OK, slope, for all of the fifteen minutes we’d accept it as a civil, post-civil rights era society, your sophist.

    Employment, housing, it happens every day.

    Same question. Sophist.

  231. I love how johntaylor alecwalter matsui sophist just makes shit up. Is anyone arguing here that nobody is ever discriminated against?

  232. They probably get called racist because when legislation came up to ban discrimination on the basis of race they went out of their way to argue against it passing.

    Wrong. Sophist.

  233. Eh, slippery also ignores the fact that higher education has long had a policy of racial preference, which means a less qualified person of color will get a slot ahead of a more qualified white person.
    But hey, in slippery’s world, it’s not racist if whites are being discriminated against.

    I already said I’m against affirmative action.

    Making it illegal will stop it, sez the troll.

    And JD’s against the law too – but instead of wrapping his disapproval in freedom, he wraps it in effectiveness.

  234. They probably get called racist because when legislation came up to ban discrimination on the basis of race they went out of their way to argue against it passing.

    slippy demonrats are never racist

  235. That’s why he needs a LAW bh. Otherwise he can’t control himself.

  236. They probably get called racist because when legislation came up to ban discrimination on the basis of race they went out of their way to argue against it passing.

    Those, we call Democrats.

  237. Meh. Slope is a sophist and liar. Nite all. Eight or ten times is enough times to ask a simple question and get nonsense, false dogma, and diversion.

    That’s why he needs a LAW bh. Otherwise he can’t control himself.

    Exactly. And for the showy appearances, they being Progg milk and honey.

    I’d say you called this one, JD.

  238. JHo – it is a gift.

  239. They probably get called racist because when legislation came up to ban discrimination on the basis of race they went out of their way to argue against it passing.

    No, those people are the ones calling people racists. Democrats.

  240. Out of time for today, but happy to pick this up tomorrow. Here’s a final thought. If I posted in many other places, “Should it be illegal to discriminate on the basis of race?” The answer would overwhelmingly be, “Yes. Of course. Duh.”

    It’s not even a hard question. Most people would answer without even hesitating.

    But here, you get a ton of hemming and hawing.

    Again, the answer your looking for should be, “Of course!”

    That’s why you’re always fighting the charge of racism. And you always will. Which, from where I sit, is a good thing.

  241. wait – slippery dude is against Affirmative action? whut? and he’s trying to drop n-words all over this thread?
    and yet he’s arguing that Jeff is a racist?

    confused.

  242. It’s funny when multi-alias trolls constantly changing IP addresses pretend they have something else to do.

  243. That’s why you’re always fighting the charge of racism.

    good nite and a hearty fuck you asshole

  244. The bus lines didn’t want that law. They opposed it.

    “That law” being the back-of-the-bus law. The people driving the buses opposed a law requiring their customers to be divided by race. It was big government types — Democrats — that overruled them by passing the law.

  245. It should be illegal therefore for GOVERNMENTS to discriminate on the basis of race, governments being empowered to force individuals and businesses to do stupid things.

  246. It was big government types — Democrats — that overruled them by passing the law.

    Kind of like Woodrow Wilson decided to segregate the troops back in the day.

  247. It should be illegal therefore for GOVERNMENTS to discriminate on the basis of race, governments being empowered to force individuals and businesses to do stupid things.

    this is the crux of the whole matter, but progressives will have their laws. damn you.

  248. But here, you get a ton of hemming and hawing.

    Where’s that? I’m not seeing it.

  249. Who is more racist? African Americans voting for Obama at 90%+, or whites voting for Romney @ 60%?

  250. Where’s that? I’m not seeing it.

    Pablo, johntaylor alecwalter sillysophist is not tethered to facts. It is the type that gets to make them up as it goes along.

  251. of course, the big Rs want their pet laws too. between the R and D parties we could ban:

    abortion, racism, hate, salt, fat, big sodas, energy, marriage, drugs of all kinds, prostitution, rednecks, business profits, banks, corporations, offensive speech, evolution, independent science, pickup trucks, plastic bags, farm animals, guns, pointy knives, religion, and birth control.

  252. Who wants to ban birth control? Abortion? Evolution? Independent science?

  253. That’s why you’re always fighting the charge of racism.

    that’s why you’re always playing that idiot card.

  254. Calling someone a racist is so yesterday.

  255. Hm. One might think someone was feeling a wee bit… threatened by this topic judging from all the posts he’s expended here.

    Or this is the only one I’ve reached so far that has 200+ comments. Quick Slippy: Fling more obfuscation and hope no one notices.

  256. Pablo, johntaylor alecwalter sillysophist is not tethered to facts.

    Neither is yarn, but it will still entertain a cat for hours.

  257. It’s not even a hard question. Most people would answer without even hesitating.

    But here, you get a ton of hemming and hawing.

    That wasn’t hemming and hawing, that was suspicion of an open-ended and loaded question from a intellectual lightweight.

    That feels he made some sort of point.

    Say I tell my daughter she won’t be in the will if she marries a Persian (purely as a hypothetical). Should I go to jail?

  258. Who wants to ban birth control? Abortion? Evolution? Independent science?

    just all my Republican religious friends. Not that i’m not sympathetic to their wanting to outlaw abortion etc, it’s just that it’s tiring listening to people rant about all the stuff they want to control.

    now granted, excluding abortion, the social cons I know are more interested in banning those things in their *own* lives, rather than controlling what other people think or do, but it often wanders into “evolution should be taken out of public education/birth control should not be available to anyone under 18″ territory. stupid stuff like that.

  259. Say I tell my daughter she won’t be in the will if she marries a Persian (purely as a hypothetical). Should I go to jail?

    “Yes. Of course. Duh.”

    /Welcome To Utopia

  260. That’s why you are always fighting the charge of racism.

    Because there is always a leftist sophist willing to level said charge based on nothing?

  261. Slippy blathered:

    Lame. You could put this issue to bed with a “yea” or “nay”, but you won’t, because you know you’ve been trapped. Not trapped by the question, but trapped by your belief.

    Actually, you made an assertion that Jeff was racist and were called on it. Now you’re flinging poorly-reasoned gotcha questions as a distraction and whingeing when your target refuses to play your game.

    That is lame, little one.

  262. Am I missing something? Why would decreasing early voting days suppress minority or Democrat voting? I vote early because I have a job and trying to vote on election day is a challenge. I believe it’s well established that people without jobs tend to vote Democrat. So it would seem logical that reducing early voting would tend to have a disproportionately negative effect on Republican votes.

    Or does the reduced opportunity to cast fraudulent early votes for Democrats outweigh the negative effect on working conservatives?

  263. Why would decreasing early voting days suppress minority or Democrat voting?

    Because they have trouble showing up someplace on time apparently. slope can surely elaborate.

  264. What happened to slippery? Did the library close?

  265. His mom unplugged the extension cord leading to his treehouse.

  266. Hm. One might think someone was feeling a wee bit… threatened by this topic judging from all the posts he’s expended here.

    Probably he was sent out because of this.

  267. @leigh: He had to reconnect to the Collective to receive a talking points download.

  268. Slipshod announced his departure further up the thread, but promised to return anon.

    I’m sure we all await his return anxiously.

  269. I’m wondering if he’ll pull some standard troll tactics and leave “devastating” ripostes after this blog posting scrolls off the front page.

  270. No doubt, Patrick. He’ll sneak back in around 3 am and really let us have it.

  271. Probably he was sent out because of this.

    stopping “acting white” problem solved. does “acting black” mean you are stupid?

  272. Notice that the one thing which decides (for this time) whether one is racist or not is whether you support a law banning discrimination, in anything, on the [solely? then purely? then these were left out of his definition] basis of race.

    The entity which caused harm due to discriminating on the sole basis of race was government. Government treating individual citizens differently under the law solely on the basis of race was the problem and still is the problem. This governmental based racism has been the specialty of the Democratic Party for over two centuries.

    How about let’s stop the racism in Government first. Government should lead the way into a future where the idea of race as some dividing marker which has anything relevant to say about an individual is considered ludicrous.

    As with censorship, racism is a problem when it is done by governments. As also with censorship the Left thinks that it is a problem when done by individuals and that the solution is for government to to step in and solve by doing the very thing decried in the individual.

    They do this not to stop racism, it doesn’t, but to, as always, increase the power of government over citizens. That is what they, the Left, want. What means they use is simply what is handy. Better stay handy, because once you’re not, they will run you over as they troll for the next handy-people.

  273. @leigh: Actually, the tactic I described would mean he’d post such ripostes sometime this Saturday or so… LONG after many people have stopped reading the comments for this post.

    It was amusing to see some trolls do that over at the Breitbart sites.

  274. They do this not to stop racism

    outside of sports or entertainment what are exactly , as shown by the msm, are the black folks advancement of the american nation? rap, oprah, toni morrison, jazz? black folks are the cannon fodder for the proggtards “reality based” war on amerikkka.

  275. [JD question]Who wants to ban birth control? Abortion? Evolution? Independent science?

    [missfixit response]just all my Republican religious friends. Not that i’m not sympathetic to their wanting to outlaw abortion etc, it’s just that it’s tiring listening to people rant about all the stuff they want to control.

    I have a middling to large-ish number of religious, conservative friends and none of them want to ban birth control, evolution (who could even do this?), or independent science. Not a one has made even a murmuring mention.

    Think they’d maybe ban abortion if they had their druthers but this is like a game of one of these things is not like the others.

    Your religious friends are different than my religious friends.

  276. What bh said. I have never heard anyone want to ban these things. Maybe restrict, in certain circumstances. Some may personally oppose, or disagree with, but ban?

  277. Americans get religion and politics confuzzled whether it’s eco mysticism or your more base interpretations of Christian theology

    They’re a deeply stupid people, which helps explain why they live in a bankrupt chinese-owned whorestate

  278. Your religious friends are different than my religious friends.

    strawmen are like dat

  279. or your more base interpretations of Christian theology

    good allan you need a train ride. allan knows what you need.

  280. I’m waiting to see if the skyline is open tomorrow I hope so cause I want to hike tomorrow in shenandoah even though the rain brought stupid coldness with it

    I bought some gear for the cold at the walmart but after tomorrow I probably won’t hike til I come back south to investigate this “west virginia” concept

  281. Happy is talking about Americans being stupid, not Christians, nr.

    He’s right. Look who just won a second term.

  282. WV has lots of super poor people, but very cheerful and nice.

  283. It’s kinda what happens when schools turn out children who can’t read. For a couple of decades or so. People get dumb. It’s almost like it was a plan.

  284. The little god-king’s efforts through ObamaCare to require churches to fund contraception and abortion and the like are clearly an attempt to impose a single rigid puritanical standard on everyone regardless of their own conscience. It is the fact, not the content of that rigid standard that matters.

  285. come back south to investigate this “west virginia” concept

    oh my white christian folks beware!

  286. now granted, excluding abortion, the social cons I know are more interested in banning those things in their *own* lives, rather than controlling what other people think or do, but it often wanders into “evolution should be taken out of public education/birth control should not be available to anyone under 18? territory. stupid stuff like that.

    Um, maybe if you listen a bit more precisely (or even get them to clarify) you’ll find there is a bright line between saying “X” is kind of a bad practice with nasty consequences and maybe one or us should avoid it and GET OUT THE LAW PENS WE IS GONNA LEGISLATE THE F**K OUT OF THIS!

    Secondly, the “stupid” stuff you’re talking about concerns MINORS, who are ostensibly still the responsibility of parents.

    Please explain to me why it’s just not done to have parents informed if their 14 year old is wanting an abortion, but it’s just fine if her 22 year old boyfriend or her 45 year old teacher gets to take her to Planned Parenthood for the Pill or to be scraped?

  287. the federal government of failmerica should be deeply and committedly agnostic about minors having recreational abortions and such cause of that’s a thing for states to decide about

    Plus they have way way more pressing shit to think about

  288. should it not be called : “planned death penalty”? death luvs some baracky ax the dead ambassador of libya ?

  289. Darleen, I’m pretty sure missfixit has gone to bed. You’re putting words in her mouth.

  290. the federal government of failmerica should be deeply and committedly agnostic about minors having recreational abortions and such cause of that’s a thing for states to decide about

    i too think roe v wade should be overturned. because of the stupid proggtard

  291. leigh

    I quoted her and then asked for a response. That’s not putting words in her mouth.

    If she does not believe restrictions on minors are “stupid stuff” then I will be happy to hear it.

  292. roe v wade can’t be overturned cause team rape baby keeps getting its ass kicked in these presidential election thingers

    it’s a very real phenomenon

  293. We’re more or less on to the next day, but special thanks (at least from me) for JHoward for this thread. I know we’re not always on the same page about where to go from here, but I admire your restraint, diligence, and, above all, intelligence, in arguing your points.

    If you had a talk show, I’d probably subscribe.

  294. Roe v Wade can’t be overturned because a shocking number of people can’t figure out that whole condom over the banana thing from high school. Maybe the banana part threw them off but it seemed pretty on-the-nose to me. (And, shit, I just learned it from after school specials when I was about five.)

    It’s harder than figuring out where your hands are supposed to be on the keyboard but way easier than parallel parking.

  295. the “thinsensity” ones break a lot

    it’s probably a metaphor

  296. Birth Control used to be about family planning. Now it’s about safe no-consequence sex.

    There’s your metaphor.

  297. that’s not a very sex positive metaphor really

  298. It’s not about sex –positive or negative– It’s about moral hazard.

  299. Some parts of WV you will still basically be in America, some parts trend more third world. Most are safe it you mind your manners. The third worldy bits are very big on manners.

  300. Hmmm I will read up before I go of course anything in my scoot scoot they really feel they need they’re welcome to it just ask it’s too cold out there to be breaking winders though

    looks like the northernest part of skyline is closed but maybe by the time I get there it’ll open up

  301. yeah sorry i went to bed :)
    whoa – never once did i say i thought it was okay for a 14 year old to be taken for a medical procedure like an abortion behind her parents’ back. I said “birth control” – that’s not the same thing as abortion. In my world. And yes, they may not say “I want to legislate the SHIT out of this!” in the middle of church, but they get on facebook after services and moralize and screech about social issues. As if banning things like gay marriage will somehow make this country more interested in God’s ways.
    Not everybody acts like that of course.

  302. It appears that I missed out on a great deal of strenuous acrobatics performed by slipperyslope in lieu of actually substantiating his claim. His sole proferred evidence in the form of a link to Jeff’s post about the fickleness of the racist accusation was especially tasty, if unintentionally so.

    If done with sufficient skill and an impressive enough soundtrack, people would ordinarily shell out big for such a performance.

    But Jeff is a racist for declining to play some idiot gotcha game with an idiot. If that’s all it takes to qualify, I’m going to have to cop to being a racist, too. But it’s a word whose meaning has been removed from decades of abuse, so I don’t care. Even the armadillo won’t play that game, and he would get up and dance for a Chubby’s chorizo and egg breakfast burrito with green chili topping.

  303. Remember back when team rape baby would smugly smirk about how invincible their theological position on the gay marriagings was at all of the polls everywhere in our grossly indebted failshit whore of a country?

    yup memreeeees

    light the corners of my mind

  304. and fire is the devil’s only friend

  305. misfixit

    Moralizing is something that is, last I looked, not the same as demanding laws.

    Secondly, do you or do you not think a parent should know if their 14 y/r old daughter is being fed The Pill?

    and “banning gay marriage” is kind of backwards. Is it in society’s interest to promote a radical redefinition of marriage? You cannot ban something that has never existed in recorded history.

    Even non-religious people can be against same-sex marriage having nothing to do with being icky god-bothering homophobes.

  306. Banning gay marriage is homophobic except when black people want to do it. At that point, gay marriage is racist.

  307. the mostest famousest black guy on the whole planet just kicked team rape baby in the teef on the way to being reelected on a platform what included a hearty endorsement of gay marriagings

  308. That’s the same black guy who deliberately did not deliver on gay marriage in his first term, right?

  309. yup that’s the one which is good cause it should be decided at the state level really

    mostly he just won some cover for his policy of ignoring doma

  310. “the mostest famousest black guy on the whole planet just kicked team rape baby in the teef on the way to being reelected on a platform what included a hearty endorsement of gay marriagings”

    OBAMAPHOOONNE!!

  311. Ring, Ring, Ring, Ring, Ring, Ring, Ring!
    Obamaphone!
    Ding-dong, ding-dong, ding-dong ding!
    Obamaphone!

  312. Out of time for today, but happy to pick this up tomorrow.

    Slippery,

    I hope you’ve found time to look up the instances of Jeff’s racism, and stand ready to post links to those examples so that the rest of us can see how awesome you are, and how rock-solid your arguments have been the whole time. Because if you should fail to produce the examples for your accusations, after being asked for such evidence a number of times by a number of different people, I fear that many around here might conclude you were an intellectual lightweight arguing in bad faith, only able to throw distractions, non-sequiturs, and unfounded accusations. And that would be unfair.

    So, let me politely reiterate my requests from yesterday: please show us your evidence in support of your claims of Jeff’s racism, so that we may properly credit you and denounce Jeff. (I’ve been looking for a reason to denounce that know-it-all grip-wrestling Joo for 10 years now. Help me, slipperyslope! You’re my only hope!)

  313. Sorry, had to leave for wrestling practice and then went to dinner after with the family. First time checking back here. Have to see what racist charges I missed.

  314. the mostest famousest black guy on the whole planet just kicked team rape baby in the teef on the way to being reelected on a platform what included a hearty endorsement of gay marriagings

    Also a hearty endorsement of trillion dollar deficits and wealth redistribution.

    Guess Team rape baby outta climb aboard those causes too, least they keep getting their asses kicked.

    Ya fucking asshole.

  315. Jeff – it fled to the AGW thread where it reASSerted everything and then started in on us being deniers.

  316. That’s why you’re always fighting the charge of racism. And you always will. Which, from where I sit, is a good thing.

    Really? And here I thought I was toying with someone who thinks the charge of racism is something I need to defend against — while having done nothing to substantiate the charge, only having leveled it to try to put me on the defensive.

    It didn’t.

    What it did do, however, was point out how easy it is to level the charge, then spend hours avoiding repeated requests to provide even a rationale for the charge, evidence being well beyond you capabilities to produce.

    The one rationale that I can glean from your stance is this: I don’t like Jeff, so Jeff, as a wingnut, is a racist. Prove otherwise, racist!

    And yet you act distraught that I won’t play your games?

    Fuck you. I don’t play games with pedophiles. And that’s what you are. Because I assert it. Simple question: do you like children?

  317. William, I just now had the opportunity to point out that Jeff (1) doesn’t believe race exists, and (2) champions the fact that we’ve already had a black Secretary of State.

    So now, without needing to answer my question, Jeff has a contradiction between his own words to reconcile.

    Is this meant as a serious response to what I wrote? Just because race as it has been used as a category historically is built on a false premise doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that the false premise has been used to describe race — and that from that, all sort of public policy has been installed around the bad idea.

    In fact, those who are declaring Susan Rice off-limits because she is black and female are the very same people who, when it was convenient to them, were able to dismiss people as inferior thanks to their having “one drop” of “black blood.” The difference being that now they have a different use for those they keep on the plantation. Human shields, almost.

    Wow. I thought you were just a poor sophist. Turns out you’re really just not terribly smart.

  318. So Jeff, how is it then that we has a black secretary of state?

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=45595

    In your own words.

    Because we continue to cling to notions of race for any number of reasons, as I note in the concluding paragraphs of the piece on race? Did you even read it? Or did you just try a lazy gotcha based on the title?

    Here, let me see if I can quote it directly:

    THE POINT of all this being that to think of race as somehow socially constructed is to think of race, ultimately, as something essentially essential. Because what makes your memories yours, what makes your heritage yours, and what makes your culture yours is your insistence, ultimately, that it is yours by right, yours by birth, yours by essence. And so race, as it turns out, is either an essence or an illusion. Those who believe race to be an essence (say, the KKK, who base their ideas on bad science) have no need for a project of qualifying race as a social construct; and those who believe race to be non-essential have no grounds, theoretically, for promoting racial identity other than that same bad science (which, it turns out, underlies the constructivist argument), or else their social concern that we somehow need to continue the project of racial identity, for whatever the political reasons.

    AND PERHAPS they are right. But maybe it’s time to seize on the lessons learned in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks; that is, maybe it’s time we put aside our differences in order to construct a singular American identity. After all, we are each individuals, which is what makes us, ultimately, a nation.

    I’ve bolded the useful bits for you.

    Too, at that link I also included some discussions I’ve had with race scientists and academic race theorists.

    Read up, slippy. Then come back with something substantial next time.

  319. STFU. Because … Racist.

  320. Jeff, this is all a tempest in a teapot. Let’s just posit to slip slop that we are all racists and god- bothering deniers of whatever it is they have up their backsides. And then say, “So what?”

Leave a Reply