Politics 2015

[Hixter]

Let businesses in the south get out their "No Blacks Allowed" signs while you're at it. I'm sure they were never out of reach.

The majority of the racists that I know are from "the north." And California.

[twoshedsjackson]

Here's a Repulican lawmaker at work:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/07/08/49759/az-state-senate-earth-6000/

 

and

 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/arizona-lawmaker-who-floated-mandatory-church-attendance-has-history-extremism

[twoshedsjackson]

The majority of the racists that I know are from "the north." And California.

Yes, we all remember the rash of lynchings and cross burnings across New England and California. And the great civil rights marches on Manhattan and Los Angeles...

[Hixter]

Yes, we all remember the rash of lynchings and cross burnings across New England and California. And the great civil rights marches on Manhattan and Los Angeles...

Sorry, but "the south" doesn't have a monopoly on racism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_raid_%28Inglewood%29

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/kkk-recruiting-hamptons-article-1.1915500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Ku_Klux_Klan_in_New_Jersey

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan/active_hate_groups

 

And that's just racist caucasians...

[Hixter]

Here's a Repulican lawmaker at work:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/07/08/49759/az-state-senate-earth-6000/

 

and

 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/arizona-lawmaker-who-floated-mandatory-church-attendance-has-history-extremism

So now do I link to stories about Democrats from conservative websites? I'm sure we'd both get sick of it pretty quickly.

[twoshedsjackson]

Obviously there's racism everywhere, but it's an undeniable fact that it is and always has been more ingrained in the south. The links you supplied have to go back about 100 years, and your list of active KKK chapters by state proves my point far more than yours. The south gave up segregation kicking and screaming in the 60's.

 

My intent wasn't to get into a north/south debate, I mentioned the south only because that was where those signs persisted the longest, and because if they could they'd have them up again real quick.

[twoshedsjackson]

So now do I link to stories about Democrats from conservative websites? I'm sure we'd both get sick of it pretty quickly.

Doesn't matter where the link comes from - she's right there on camera spouting her ignorance. She's not alone in her stupidity either. Plenty of Republican lawmakers and voters share her views. If you can find a democrat talking that kind of dangerous insanity I'll be surprised.

[jff]

Here in Georgia, we had a bill similar to Indiana's, but it got tabled last night after a gay-friendly republican legislator amended it with language stating that no discrimination would be allowed.

[ih8music]

It's not a crime to turn down someone's business at a mom & pop store.

 

. It is if you turn them down because of who they are and not because of what they do.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class -- sexual orientation should be on this list.

 

I wouldn't expect a Jewish bakery to fulfill an order for swastika-shaped bagels, nor would I expect a halal restaurant to serve me a BLT.

.

 

Ridiculous comparisons. It can be argued that a swastika is a form of hate speech and the baker can refuse to participate in it on those grounds, regardless of who asks for it. And there's no law saying that someone is entitled to get something not on the menu.

[IRememberDBoon]

you think Ted Cruz is whack?? don't even think about googling his father Rafael.

He is literally completely insane and yes Hixter he has the right to say the things he does but folks have the right to call him a psychotic assneck.

Its funny I was reading some comments the other day about the UVA kid that got bashed about by the ABC agents here in VA and some old right wing man was saying the people protesting (lying in the street) that and Michael Brown were not just using their first amendment rights but they were bums that should be arrested. He/she commented that it was exactly like yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
They also ALWAYS talk about how some first responder had gotten stopped by folks lying in the street and they are putting lives at risk.

Its funny because they said the same about the Occupy movement a couple of years back. Calling them domestic terrorists and whatnot and I keep thinking about how when that cowfukker Bundy was out there with his folks they actually HAD RIFLES POINTED AT POLICE and all FOX had on that was yahoo pieces over and over every single hour with updates from the ranch where they were just thirsting for something to happen. some blood to get spilled. that was gonna be the spark for the revolution...........BWAK!!!

then when ole Cliven said "blacks" (a word I despise) were probably better off under slavery (he could tell from when he drove thru the hood on the way to Vegas) things kinda dies down after that.

[Doug C]

Good point. Let businesses in the south get out their "No Blacks Allowed" signs while you're at it. I'm sure they were never out of reach.

In my opinion, Hixter avoided directly responding to this. Therefore, I directly ask him if he believes that it should be legal for businesses to display "No Blacks Allowed" signs and to refuse to serve blacks?

[uncool2pillow]

There should be absolutely no religion involved in any part of law or government. History and human nature prove that they do not mix well. Believe what you like, but keep it to yourself.

 

There may be "degrees of extremism", but isn't any extremism bad? Remember, most if not all of the "laws" that ISIS is enforcing are identical to the ones in the bible, but Islam is hundreds of years behind Christianity, and has never had its enlightenment. Nor will it, as any attempt is quickly stomped out. They're still going through their witch burning phase, and any interference, especially by western countries, to change that only galvanizes them.

 

What's unsettling about guys like Cruz is that the people he represents DO want a religious state. They've said as much. They just want it to be THEIR religion. They and ISIS both hate and fear exactly the same things and, given the increasingly insane level of zealotry in this country, it's definitely not outside the realm of possibility that they'd behave in a similar way (not as physically barbaric one would hope, but sometimes I wonder) if our law allowed.

I agree much of what you say here. I have made the same point you make about Islam over and over to many. I don't understand why some automatically assume that because I think pointing out degrees of extremism is important means I am somehow justifying the Indiana law. It's a shitty law. I would say most forms of extremism are bad. I can't think of any good kinds, but I don't like to deal in absolutes. One could argue that your view ("absolutely no religion") is extremist. 

 

My main point is that comparing the Indiana law to Taliban or ISIS or Eric Rudolph (I was not intending to single out Islam) very much diminishes the evil of those who kill versus those who discriminate. 

[tinnitus photography]

There should be absolutely no religion involved in any part of law or government. History and human nature prove that they do not mix well. Believe what you like, but keep it to yourself.

 

There may be "degrees of extremism", but isn't any extremism bad? Remember, most if not all of the "laws" that ISIS is enforcing are identical to the ones in the bible, but Islam is hundreds of years behind Christianity, and has never had its enlightenment. Nor will it, as any attempt is quickly stomped out. They're still going through their witch burning phase, and any interference, especially by western countries, to change that only galvanizes them.

 

What's unsettling about guys like Cruz is that the people he represents DO want a religious state. They've said as much. They just want it to be THEIR religion. They and ISIS both hate and fear exactly the same things and, given the increasingly insane level of zealotry in this country, it's definitely not outside the realm of possibility that they'd behave in a similar way (not as physically barbaric one would hope, but sometimes I wonder) if our law allowed.

agree 100%.

 

it's a fairly recent (ie, last half century or so) development:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840.html

[tinnitus photography]

I agree much of what you say here. I have made the same point you make about Islam over and over to many. I don't understand why some automatically assume that because I think pointing out degrees of extremism is important means I am somehow justifying the Indiana law. It's a shitty law. I would say most forms of extremism are bad. I can't think of any good kinds, but I don't like to deal in absolutes. One could argue that your view ("absolutely no religion") is extremist. 

 

My main point is that comparing the Indiana law to Taliban or ISIS or Eric Rudolph (I was not intending to single out Islam) very much diminishes the evil of those who kill versus those who discriminate. 

obviously my comparison was meant as hyperbole, but every journey begins with a step. do you recall when the Taliban first appeared on the world's radar screen? or at least mine? it wasn't by a public be-heading or stoning. it was when they toppled and destroyed some ancient artifacts that didn't fit their outlook.

[Atticus]

wowzers

[lost highway]

wowzers

Classy website. Good story.

 

But really, I suppose some good old boys will use this silliness as a "so this is what it's come to" example when discussing issues of race in our country. Quite diverting.

[twoshedsjackson]

One could argue that your view ("absolutely no religion") is extremist.

Just to clarify, I was referring only to religion influencing or even being considered when it comes to writing laws or policies. There's simply no place for it due to its divisiveness (not to mention the whole detachment from reality thing).

It leads to science and history illiterate people sitting on science & environmental boards and passing dangerous laws or rewriting school text books (looking at you, Texas).

Belief should be a private affair. I don't think that's in any way an extremist view.

[IRememberDBoon]

religion should only be taken into account when writing textbooks for young children. they must know about adam and eve and the ark or how and the hell will they be able to critically think for themselves!

[uncool2pillow]

I don't think that's in any way an extremist view.

I would be that most who hold extremist views don't think they're extremist. All the points you made are absolutely true. Religion can be divisive and ignorant. But if we had "absolutely no religion" in public life, I guaranteed that the abolition on slavery would have taken much longer. While slaveholders used the Bible to justify their evil practice, the abolitionists were even more inspired by religion to do away with the practice.

[twoshedsjackson]

I would be that most who hold extremist views don't think they're extremist. All the points you made are absolutely true. Religion can be divisive and ignorant. But if we had "absolutely no religion" in public life, I guaranteed that the abolition on slavery would have taken much longer. While slaveholders used the Bible to justify their evil practice, the abolitionists were even more inspired by religion to do away with the practice.

But doesn't the fact that both sides of the the slavery issue were able to use the same religious texts to justify their position prove my point? And I think it's worth pointing out that said texts absolutely supported the slave owners position.

Religion is not required to be moral. Morality preceded it. If you read the bible or any "holy" books there's very little morality at all. Just the opposite - slavery genocide, incest, etc. are not just suggested but positively endorsed.

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to start a big religious debate or offend anyone. I'm only justifying my opposition to religion in politics.

[uncool2pillow]

I think you and I are closer than we may think, I just avoid absolutes. There are always exceptions. For example, I worship at an ELCA (Evangelical Church in America) church. Our local synod organizes an annual Lutheran Day on Capitol Hill (Des Moines, not Washington) to lobby on issues related mostly to hunger and poverty. These people are motivated by their religious beliefs and I fully support their endeavors. Now, others are going to lobby on more divisive issues (abortion and gay rights), and I hope they lose. But I don't want to reject them their right to have a seat at the table because of their religious beliefs. I just hope they are either outnumbered at the polls, or when their demands are a true infringement of others' rights, that the courts step in to protect First Amendment rights.

[Hixter]

In my opinion, Hixter avoided directly responding to this. Therefore, I directly ask him if he believes that it should be legal for businesses to display "No Blacks Allowed" signs and to refuse to serve blacks?

Sorry, but calling people out on the Internet is bad form. I will respond to what I'd like, when I'd like. As far as I'm concerned, there's not much use in engaging in a discussion where someone paints tens of millions of people as racists because of their geographic location. 

[twoshedsjackson]

Sorry, but calling people out on the Internet is bad form. I will respond to what I'd like, when I'd like. As far as I'm concerned, there's not much use in engaging in a discussion where someone paints tens of millions of people as racists because of their geographic location.

That's adorable.

[Doug C]

Sorry, but calling people out on the Internet is bad form. I will respond to what I'd like, when I'd like. As far as I'm concerned, there's not much use in engaging in a discussion where someone paints tens of millions of people as racists because of their geographic location.

 

Ha ha! Bad form! If we were having a conversation face-to-face, and the same exchange between you and Twoshedjackson occurred, I would respond in the exact same way and directly ask you to reply to him. That's called having a conversation.

 

I find it odd that you are unwilling to state your opinion regarding the legality of a business posting signage that states their refusal to provide goods and services to blacks.

[Hixter]

Ha ha! Bad form! If we were having a conversation face-to-face, and the same exchange between you and Twoshedjackson occurred, I would respond in the exact same way and directly ask you to reply to him. That's called having a conversation.

 

I find it odd that you are unwilling to state your opinion regarding the legality of a business posting signage that states their refusal to provide goods and services to blacks.

Yes, it's bad form. Poor manners, in other words. Someone made a ridiculous statement about a rather large portion of the country and for some reason it's imperative that I respond, and my polite refusal to jump when commanded is met with thinly veiled accusations of racism? Sorry, but that's not how I hold conversations, face-to-face or otherwise.

 

I'm not a racist, I've never been a racist and I have no room for racists in my life. With that out of the way, I guess it's time for you to ask me if I've stopped beating my wife.