No you’re assuming it.
You’ve attributed motives with no basis other than assertion.
There impossible to prove because they’re nothing more than your opinions.
They’re vapor.
Lib:
That’s the second time when you’ve just shown up with a snide little comment attempting to bait me. Othern than posting bitchy little attempts to incite because you’re still pissed about the Atkins thread, you’re not contributing anything.
It’s cowardly and immature.
Well, lets take a little stroll over by good ol’ Google, shall we? Feed in “Southern strategy” and you’ll get news reports on the SoStrat, analysis on the SoStrat, commentary on the SoStrat, more analysis on the effectiveness of the SoStrat…
Seeing the pattern yet, scooter? The “Southern strategy” is an historical fact whereas your fantasy about Bill Clinton and the Rainbow coalition is something you pulled out of your…pocket.
And, jeez, guy, you’re just plain touchy! At least Lib didnt call you Lucy. Type A behavior, Scylla, not all the jogging in the world will protect against that. Put your feet up, have a nice cup chamomile tea. Live easy, live longer. Wise advice from a respected elder.
Couldn’t agree more, except for the adjectives.
You’ll understand when you’re older.
Do you have the slightest idea what “assuming the concusion” means? A/K/A “circular reasoning” and “begging the question”? Since it’s pretty obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about, I suggest you read this page, which helpfully explains that you’re off your rocker to complain that I “assume the conclusion” merely by stating what my conclusion is.
Me: X is true.
Scylla: You’re assuming your conclusion!
Me: :rolleyes:
Indeed. I pulled it out of my ass. It fits your pattern though.
It fits because it’s not a pattern. it’s a set of assumptions with which to interpret events.
BTW. Stress on the word “historical” in your above post. 1964.
Hello Lucy? This is Ricky
The 60s are over.
Time to interpret things according to the present world.
Minty:
Yes. You’re assuming your’re conclusion.
Minty: Republicans are bigoted.
Scylla: Why do say that?
Minty: Because Republicans are bigoted.
Scylla: Like who?
Minty: Bigoted Republicans
Scylla: Which ones?
Minty: Bigoted ones
Scylla: You’re assuming your conclusion.
Minty: Hah! Shows what you know. Assuming the conclusion is circular logic.
:rolleyes:
Scylla: Have a nice day.
I have made no such claim. Rather, I have claimed that some Republicans are bigoted (indeed, so are some Democrats), and that the Republican Party (at its highest levels, not every Joe and Jane Blow primary voter) has formulated a strategy of pandering to bigots as a means to achieving national majorities. You may therefore take your little skit and place it back where it came from.
Pithy. Succinct. Pointless.
“1964”? Hell of a year, remember it well. Is that the year the SoStrat was born? OK, fine. When did it die? Not in 2000, still kicking. This whole Trent Lott thing might very well mean it has well and truly croaked. I believe that it does, and have said so right in this very thread. I kinda think 2000 to now is roughly the “present world”. You disagree? Hokee doke, but so what?
“The 60’s are over” Yeppers, got a calender. Your point?
And if you’re gonna play Ricky to my Lucy, you gotta run around pounding a conga and screaming "BOB-A-Looooooooo!"
Give it a shot, might be good for you, get yer ya-yas out.
OP: Some Democrats claim [strawman]. But they can’t ever prove it! To demonstrate that [strawman] is true, they must meet [evidentiary criteria]. Oh yeah, Republicans rule, Democrats drool!
Others: No, we don’t claim [strawman]. We claim X, Y, and Z, which are superficially similar to [strawman], but are certainly not what you say we are claiming.
OP: Give me [evidentiary criteria]!
Others: Your [evidentiary criteria] are obviously designed to prevent anyone from ever drawing any conclusion about anything remotely resembling X, Y, and Z. Perfect proof does not and likely cannot exist, for we cannot read the hearts and minds of the Republican leadership. Nevertheless, we believe X, Y, and Z are true because several Republican leaders have stated that the party’s political strategy is a, and because there is a fairly consistent pattern of statements, actions, and policies consistent with X, Y, and Z.
OP: Ha! That’s not [evidentiary criteria]! You haven’t proven [strawman].
Others: We do not seek to prove [strawman]. We seek to prove X, Y, and Z. We have given you our evidence, and we are sorry you refuse to accept that it leads to our conclusions.
OP: Gimme gimme gimme [evidentiary critera].
Others: [Evidentiary criteria] do not exist. We reach our conclusion based on the pattern of evidence.
OP: Robert Byrd! Nyah nyah.
Others: Yep, he’s a big ol’ bigot. Nevertheless, we reach our conclusion about the Republican Party based on the pattern of eivdence.’
OP: M&M’s!
Others: Sufficient dots can form a picture. Here are some more of the dots in which we see see a picture forming of X, Y, and Z.
OP: [Lies]
Others: Stop lying.
OP: [Lies] were merely hyperbole.
Others: Really? Okay then. Just don’t do it again.
OP: [Strawman]! [Evidentiary criteria]!
Others: Look, we’ve given you our evidence, and we’ve told you why we believe it leads us to the conclsuion that X, Y, and Z are true. In fact, here’s more evidence. If you don’t want to accept it, that’s hardly our fault. We believe we have sufficient evidence to conclude X, Y, and Z.
OP: [Strawman]!
Others: No. X, Y, and Z.
OP: Assuming your conclusion!
Others: :rolleyes:
Me: You’re assuming your conclusion
Minty: You have great big man tits, and your evidentiary standards are more stringent than simple assertion!
Me: You need to demonstrate a pattern
Minty: I got this guy
Me: That’s not a pattern
Minty: I got this other guy.
Me: That’s not a pattern
Minty: They did this thing 36 years ago. Therefore they must be doing something worse today. There was no announcement in the Liberal news that it it ended.
Me: You guys were doing it 36 years ago.
Minty: We’re not doing it now
Me: Neither are we
Minty: Prove it
Me: I don’t have to. You do.
Minty: You killed my father
Me: No Minty. I am your father
Minty: That’s not fair. Your evidentiary standard prevents the proving of fraudulent and false assertions
Me: Yes.
Minty: You’re so smart and sexy and handsome. You know I love you. We’re just busting on Republicans because we’re jealous, mean and small-minded.
Me: As a Christ figure I am to forgive you your trespasses
Minty: But we’re not worthy.
Me: I know
I wish it noted for the record that those are not my words. In fact, I have it on good authority that Scylla is butt-ugly, whereas my father is so handsome and charming that no one could possibly begrudge him is propensity to vote Republican.
Rabbit season.
Yes, I apologize to the moderator for accusations of trolling, (protestation of certain facts and rationality of certian rules argument edited).
I had not known that Senator Byrd had made a comment about “white niggers”. I see from my research after learning this that he apologized. It still does not change his record, nor does it show up a pattern of elected Democratic leadership. His record on race handily beats any Republican’s in Washington. Notwithstanding, he should step down from his leadership posts if any. That is a bigger punishment than Lott faced for a career of such statements and a long racist voting record, but the Democrats have a higher standard. But, the conduct of Democrats, or even one Democrat, is not the point of this thread, and Byrd’s perpetuation of an ugly word and stereotype should not be allowed to succeed as a diversion when we have the racist Republican establishment on the run. Republicans have institutionalized crypto-racism, consistently vote that way, and appeal to racism. It is despicable. I would like them to stop it. But even the least racist Republican Senators, like Chafee and Spectre have poor records on race issues.
If the Republican party doesn’t want to be characterized as racist, perhaps it can do something significant to demonstrate that it rejects racism? Asking that private country clubs voluntarily end racial discrimination? Nope. Republicans not only feel that private organizations should be allowed to racially discriminate, but that they don’t have the public leadership position to say something about it. I personally think that private country clubs that want to discriminate on basis of race or other illogical thing have the right to do so. I think that BJU has the right to do so. I think that racist groups have a right to exist. But I’ll be damned if I won’t condemn them for any reason, much less sucking up to their membership.
And Scylla’s latest comment, comparing the whole sorry national record on race to Bugs and Daffy arguing over which Elmer is going to shoot is despicable. Personally I would love it if the Republicans were to take this issue away from Democrats by ceasing their racist appeals, by condemning the CCC and the KKK in the same breath, by leaving BJU out in the cold, by acknowledging that the Confederate flag was a KKK symbol, and is a Jim Crow symbol and a racist symbol. But racist Republicans get far too much mileage out of the issue, and non-racist Republicans lack the moral courage to call on their party to condemn such pandering. Confederate flags of all varieties belong in museum displays with their regiments, and in displays on racism. They do not belong on Statehouses.
Dafficus:
Dethpicable?
Yet this are the same fallacious excuses you accuse me of using?
True enough. I don’t think we have any grand Wizard’s or Klaven masters.
Yes, pay no attention to the men under the white sheet. Keep your blinders firmly in place and your hypocrisy seatbacks forward.
You must be very proud of yourself for thinking you invented that word, you Neo-McCarthyist, you.
I know. They’re not like us. They have tails. They shouldn’t be allowed to procreate.
**Dethpicable!
[/quote]
Yes. Because you speak in simple declarative sentences clearly you are a man of honor. If only everybody stopped disagreeing with you, the world would be a better place.
So you beleive some kind of grand but empty and wrongheaded gesture is called for as a token offering inlieu of substance?
What you’re really saying is you want us to act like Democrats, right?
Dethpicable.
Ok. So Byrd is not representative of Democrats.
Is Bob Graham?
How about Ernest Hollings?
Jim Hodges?
How about Dick Gephardt, and his “white rights” history?
And earlier claim Byrd holds only a marginalized position, but why is he the former Majority leader, and elected President Pro Tempore of the Senate by his Democratic colleagues shortly after an outburst of racial expletives?
Is Bill Clinton’s ties to racism? His mentor, William Fulbright along with Al Gore Sr. Were two of the leaders of the opposition to the Civil rights act. This didn’t stop Clinton himself from awarding Fulbright the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1993.
Why are these things not representative?
Here’s your parties racist history
http://www.houstonreview.com/summer2002/democrats.html
Makes the Southern Strategy look tame.
Not to mention good old Marion Barry
“Civil rights do not apply to white people.”
Al Sharpton’s “I am in hell. I’m in Israel.”
JJ’s “Hymietown.”
And if actions speak louder than words
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081301.asp
Philly Mayor John Street to an all black audience “The Brothers and Sisters are in charge now!!!”
Cynthia McKinney and her father’s execrable comments.
California Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante with his occasional “slip of the toungue” when he calls black people Niggers.
How about the law suit filed by black secret service agents against Al Gore after this past presidential campaign. Al reportedly told them to stay away from him so they wouldn’t appear with him in photographs. No. That’s not pandering.
http://www.voznuestra.com/PoliticalWires/_2002/_December/22
These things I guess just aren’t representative of Democrats.
It’s fun and easy to search the net and find Democratic examples of racist behavior.
Like I said in the OP, it happens in both parties. This is why I don’t think specific examples prove anything. It’s selection. You can find all you want.
It is just the height of ignorance to blindly search for one parties infractions selectively, post them, and claim that they represent that party.
If you do the same for the other party, you find what you look for.
That’s why I suggested in the OP, that if you wanted to prove that Republicans were racist or had a pattern of pandering you would have to do a search of a reasonable sample and look at both parties.
But pay no attention to the men in the white sheets in your party. Bush spoke at BJU. Clearly that’s bad pandering. Gore not wanting to be photographed with black men who are risking their lives to protect them doesn’t mean anything, does it?
“The Houston Review - A conservative student monthly serving the Houston area.” From thier front page.
You’re kidding, right?
With a straight face, you present this as a cite. And they get thier facts from Newsmax, which I’m sure you know, is just to the left of Kublai Khan. And you’re they guy who laughs out loud when I post something that refers to MediaWhores.
And this is the crapola you offer as a cite? Or is this one of those object lessons, where you offer something obviously bogus as a lesson in how not to conduct respectable debate?
You are debating with people who are at least as intelligent as yourself. This seems to have escaped your notice.