Yes. And, at the time you seemed to accept my explanation that I was being facetious, that is posting an obvious lie.
I also technically lied in a truck thread when I say the cab was so high I rappelled out of it.
If you have changed your mind about accepting my explanation, than so be it, if you haven’t it seems rather unfair to characterize my comment as a lie.
Nah. You were lying about the truck too. Difference there is that it was bloody well obvious you were being facetious, while the lies I called you on here could easily have been taken as true by persons who were unfamiliar with the facts.
My accusations of racism are amply supported by the evidence in this thread both intentional and unintentional. Whether this whole thread was a stupid troll or in all seriousness or both, the only reasonable context in which it can be read is as one long race bait. It deserves to be called on that for what it is. And there is little difference between racism and bigotry, so little (and yes, I have looked at the dictionary definitions) that for the purposes of this thread there is no practical difference.
And pantom, it is one thing to have a civil discussion about the evidence of racism, it is another thing to go on for 400 posts ignoring that evidence as though one (not you) has his fingers in his ears singing jingle bells and calling everyone liars and bigots. It requires denunciation in strong terms.
Its quotes like these which make me think Scylla isin’t a racist. Because the mere idea that Bob Jones could be accepting of homosexuals is so funny. The only openly gay person I know went to Bob Jones(and by openly I mean after I overheard he was gay they then told me not to tell anyone because he would get kicked out, which he did eventually). The place I work at only recently removed their ban on hiring gay people and it is pretty liberal. Where Scylla lives someone being racist would be a serious accusation instead of a statement of the obvious.
I think that cultish rigity would be too weak a word for it.
There is nothing Bush could say to redeem himself. Because his actions are only indicative of what it takes to win the Republican nomination. Neither Bush nor McCaine had any illusions that they could win South Carolina while condemning racism.
Sterra, its scores of comments like that in this thread excusing racism, and then accusing the critics of racism of bigotry that lead me to believe that it is a bunch of insincere and hyper aggressive crypto racism.
Here is another fascinating link on a racist Republican lawmaker who has his very own lawn jockey and managed to have “segregationist” feelings about colleague Cynthia McKinney:
http://newsobserver.com/news/nc/story/2051082p-1974934c.html
He apparently decided that after calling McKinney a “bitch” during his apology for segregationist feelings about her that his lawn jockey, which was black, needed to be repainted white. Apparently a simple removal of this tasteless symbol of racism and classism never occurred to the poor dumb racist bastard. But at least his “plantation” is now completely segregated.
Actually I linked to that on page 3.
I understand what you are saying Sparticus. I just know that when I get angry I tend to throw logic and reason out the window in my debating style and I will defend almost anything.
Racists from what I have noticed tend to try to justify their racism and call it something else without ever actually condemning racism. For example this is one explanation I heard elsewhere of why black people don’t vote for Republicans.
Moderator’s Note: All right everybody, calm the hell down.
Scylla, saying “you’re a good example of a bigoted liar” is, shall we say, not a terribly productive debating tactic.
On the other hand, I am Sparticus, accusations of “trolling” should NOT be made in public.
And once again, everyone, leave the moderating to the moderators. If you feel the need to publicly discuss the moderating of the board, Great Debates is not the place to do it.
I just went out around BJU’s website, and couldn’t find anything to piss me off or that suggests they’re haters.
They seem like pretty strict old fashioned Christians, but I saw no reference to the dating, or homosexual policy. I don’t doubt it’s there. I just didn’t see it.
They have the right to think what they want, and believe what their religion tells them to, and I support that. I don’t support treating them differently because you disagree with their religious policies.
Your opinion may vary.
Bush spoke there, and he apologized for not having spoken out against their racial policies.
I don’t see that as the behavior of a racist.
I think the accusations of Ashcroft are similarly without merit.
It seems to me that what is actually being meant is that these things are racially insensitive.
That’s a different thing than being a racist.
Sparticus construes these things as proof of racism, yet somehow when Byrd goes on about “white Ni**ers” this is a repudiation of racism.
Somehow Carter giving back citizenship to the Confederates is not wrong, racist, or insensitive.
Somehow present Southern elected officials who are either racists, or panderers is not representative, but Republicans who are racist are.
The double standard is hypocritical, and personally I’m disgusted by the way such serious accusations as racism are thrown casually about and used selectively to mischaracterize an entire party.
I see no other reason for it than political expedience.
I’ll say this for Scylla. He sure can take a punch.
(Go down, man! You’re getting killed out there!)
Pfft. Your idea of someone being killed is a partisan pile-on? Great.
A most stirring rejoinder, grendel72 (I can almost hear the strains of “We Shall Overcome” in the background). You and like-minded folks can continue fulminating about Strom, the Confederate flag, lawn jockeys and other juicy items that have no impact on people’s daily lives. Meanwhile, the avoidance of focus on real issues will help ensure another four years of GWB and his cohort of do-nothing Republicans.
By the way, Spartacus, re “Jackmanjii, I would tend to agree that substantive issues like economics and jobs, etc. need to be focused on by Democrats…”:
I am not a Robin Williams movie. 
That is the whole point. You don’t see it because they don’t even feel the need to state it as a policy. They accept people whose disagreements on homosexuality are whether or not AIDS is gods punishment for gay people. They don’t accept people who would think that gay people are ok. This link doesen’t direct you to their rules. It directs you to one of the presidents quarterly sermons on right and wrong.
They have the right to think what they want. They don’t have the right to be treated as if their religious beliefs are somehow ok based on the fact that they are religious beliefs. The fact that something is a religious belief does not justify racism.
It is a behavior of a non racist politician who knew that he could not win the Republican nomination by condemning racism.
Or rather, that the way to win the votes of South Carolina’s Republican primary voters was to suck up to the bigots.
Sterra:
Certainly that link contains what I consider homophobic material. But now I’m confused. Is there or is there not an overt ban on homosexuals?
Similarly is there or is there not an overt ban on interracial dating?
I strongly disagree. Their religious beliefs are their own business. As long as they are not breaking the law, they can do and act as they see fit.
Their religious beliefs are ok, because it’s not up to me or you to judge. These are consenting adults going to the school of their choice to learn the tenets of their religion as they see fit.
No matter how repulsive, wrongheaded, or ignorant you and I may find them, they should not be persecuted.
That’s an opinion not a fact.
Since when is this a loyalty oath sort of thing where people have to go around condemning this or that?
It seems to me that the criteria should be pretty basic and simple. If you don’t do or say anything overtly racist, than people have no business calling you one.
Not condemning racism is not evidence of racism.
You have not condemned Sparticus. You’ve had the opportunity to do so. Should I then conclude that you endorse his viewpoints in totality?
Do you endorse his blanket sentiments?
Or, should I conclude that you are on the same side of this discussion as Sparticus, because you and he agree only on specific items or to a certain degree?
The way I handle it (and I think it’s the right way,) is that I judge you by your positive words and actions.
I don’t lump you in with Sparticus because you haven’t condemened him.
Should I?
Should I hold your association with him in this thread against you?
I don’t think so. You only have a degree of common ground. You’re not repsonsible for his words and actions and they don’t reflect on you whether or not you have associations with him.
Similarly, I don’t know what Dubya’s intentions were when he spoke at BJU.
It is unwise to assume them.
You’re assuming your conclusion.
Sterra:
I don’t recall Al, Hillary, Bill, et al, Condemning Sharpton’s anti-semitic statements when they met with him publically in 2000.
Should I assume that they were sucking up to anti-semites?
Were they pandering to the anti-semitic vote?
Should they have condemned anti-Semitism at that time?
Can we assume that they’re anti-semites, because they didn’t condemn anti-semitism when they met with Sharpton?
If not, why do you apply the standard differently in this case?
Because the visit to BJU is offered as an example of a consistent strategic pattern: the attempt to infer and imply some sympathy with racism without any overt statement thereof. It was finely tuned in that regard, because very few people other than the target audience even knew BJU existed. Hence, persons of BJU’s “stripe” are pleased, even pandered to in a limited degree, with little if any alienation of the non-racist majority, most of whom have never even heard of it. All gravy, no downside. It is objectionable mostly because it lends (potential) Presidential dignity to an institution that deserves none, rather as if a candidate were to speak at Harvard, Yale, or Baylor.
Over the years, the value of the Southern strategy has decreased, as racism in the South dies of an advanced case of demographics. Now, it would appear that it has outlived its usefullness, and that is all to the good. But recent Republican declarations of piety have the flavor of the town drunk taking the Pledge after the liquor store burned down, one suspects circumstance more than reformed character.
(I takes great patience to argue with Scylla. Luckily, I have the patience of a saint. I would have taken his money as well, but he had none. Being a saint, and all.)
Lucy wrote:
Truer words were ne’er spake.
No, I’m stating my conclusion. I have many other conclusions, too. Would you like to invent transparently impossible evidentiary standards for them too sometime?
elucidator:
This implies privileged knowledge that you don’t have. You see what to you looks like a likely motivation, one you would like to believe, and so yo assume it’s true.
Let me give you another example in that pattern you think you see.
Bill Clinton speaks at the Rainbow coalition’s meeting. Like George Bush, he would like to pander to the racists, but he has the added problem of protecting the black vote. How to do both?
He schemes up this plan. He finds the words of a former Sholar winner and Cornell honor student, a young black girl with the stage name of Sistah Soljah. Deliberately, with forethought, and with malice he takes her words completely out of context and does a Pearl Harbor job at the meeting. He asassinates the character of this woman by implying she is a racist hater, and admonishes the crowd about her sentiments. Not only has he lied and slandered, he fucked over this girl, stabbed Jesse in the back, and made out this meeting to be some kind of gathering of militant, and uppity blacks, who require his guidance.
To the bigots, he’s now seperated himself from the blacks, and thumbed his nose at them. They give him some respect for bearding the dragon in it’s lair and pulling one over on Jesse Jackson. They like to see black people put in their place and Bill sure did that. Liberals on the other hand can claim that he was appealing to peace and reason.
It’s all very subtle of course and part of a long and ongoing pattern of Democratic pandering to racists. It’s even more subtle than the Republican’s pandering (and hence more evil) because the must also at the same time pander to black people.
Let me guess, you don’t buy it. Why not? It fits your little “ongoing pattern.” Why else would Bill Clinton perform such a character asassination if not to distance himself?
It fits your “pattern” and in fact any action fits your “pattern.”
The reason it fits is because it’s not a pattern at all.
It’s a set of assumptions, that’s self-fulfilling, because you can interpret whatever the fuck you want in terms of your set of assumptions and believe you’re proving a pattern.
You’re not. You’re just showing your assumptions.
This from the guy who took fourteen pages to finally concede the Harken thing?