And how, precisely, does any of that change the fact that remarkably bigoted words spewed forth from Heston’s mouth? I’m not defending Moore here, but you folks sure aren’t defending Heston worth a damn. If your jaw didn’t drop when those words came out of his mouth, you’re too far gone for my assistance.
Debaser, I see my post of yesterday afternoon was rejected by the hamster. Suffice it to say that you have several times given the impression that the NAACP’s stand on gun control and/or other, undefined issues will alienate–wholesale, without exception–everyone who isn’t black. E.g., these fine examples:
Please quote with a cite the remarkably bigoted words that spewed from Heston’s mouth. At this point, I’m no longer sure what you are even talking about because you are so vague. Spell it out for us.
What words?
We are all too far gone for your assistance. :rolleyes:
Yes, we are all a bunch of savages because we don’t agree with minty green’s view of the world.
If the hampsters are eating your posts, that’s not my problem. Repost your thoughts. It doesn’t excuse you ignoring my repeated requests for you to back up your claims.
You interpretation that my position is the NAACP’s stand on issues will alienate wholesale, without exception - everyone who isn’t black is rediculous.
None of the three examples you posted there can be read that way unless you take them out of context and deliberately mis-interpret them.
Lets examine my statements.
They will earn the ire of everyday folks.
…they will need some support from the other 87% of people.
…after a while of this, they will piss off…
I am not making wholesale, without exception statements about all people. I am talking about trends and speaking in general.
You quote me out of context, after I have already clarified my position to you, per your request.
You simply don’t respond at all to my repeated requests for an explination of how my comment is similar to Heston’s. I am now asking you again, for I think the fourth time.
Oh spare me. Decades of dedicated to service to civil rights is outweighed by one line blurted out in a hostile interview, a line that arguably isn’t even racist to begin with? Give me a break.
Heston, after being pressed three times for an answer to the question of why the US has more violence than other countries, replied that it might be because we “have a more mixed ethnicity.” That isn’t a statement on the percieved superiority or inferiority of any particular race. It’s an observation that racial tensions probably contribute to the relatively high level of violence in the US. Which is not an outrageous statement: many countries commonly pointed to as having very low crime rates, such as Japan, have racially homogenous populations. Is it really such a stretch to suggest that the absence of interracial tensions, and the “us versus them” mentality that goes along with them, might contribute to the culture of violence in the US?
It is absurd to suggest that a guy who spent a good chunk of his life speaking out in favor of racial equality (and not just in the 1960’s; Heston was a featured speaker at CORE’s 2001 awards dinner) is a racist based on that one comment.
Having said all that, I take no position on minty and Debaser’s spat on whether or not the NAACP’s gun lawsuit alienates any particular segment of the population.
And, of course, I’m still waiting to continue chatting about dram shop laws.
Love to, but I don’t have a transcript. You’re welcome to Google it up (good luck getting anything more than pro-gun complaints about he misuse of Heston’s NRA speeches in the film) or go rent the DVD, if you like. From memory, Moore asks Heston why there’s so much violence in America, and Heston answers that it’s because there are so many ethinic groups in this country. Heston persists in that reasoning despite a couple counter-examples from Moore. It’s ugly stuff.
Good god, are you really that transparent? You said, and I quote but with larger letters “everyday folks like me WHO ARE NOT BLACK.”
And they WILL GET “some support from the other 87% of the people” who are not not black BECAUSE PLENTY OF NON-BLACK PEOPLE AGREE WITH THE NAACP’S POSITION ON THIS AND OTHER ISSUES.
Again, you omit your crucial, unqualified words: “THE 87% OF THE COUNTRY THAT ISN’T BLACK.” Even though plenty of non-black people AGREE WITH THE NAACP’S POSITION ON THIS AND MANY OTHER ISSUES.
Sheesh. If you spout the racial rhetoric, you deal with the consequences.
Oh, I get it. Anyone who makes any comments on race that minty green doesn’t agree with get tossed into the racist category and don’t need further clarification. :rolleyes:
Of course not. When accusing someone of racism why would you want to actually go out of your way to look up some facts.
Well, after your ignoring my request for a cite repeatedly I did go and google it.
Your memory is faulty. Heston doesn’t offer that as an immediate response. He is asked many times and gives several answers before making that comment. Then, he does not “persist”. He ends the interview.
Debaser, I’ve clarified your statements to the point of complete transparency. Your continued whining is no longer necessary. Going forward, cut out the appeals to racial group-think and you won’t have to deal with it again.
Outweighed? No. Sullied? You betcha.
But that’s the only explanation he offered, and he stuck with it even though Moore offered counter-examples. It was disturbing as all get-out in context, and no amount of sidesteppting changes that. (BF calls it an “ambush.” It wasn’t. Heston asked Moore to come back the next day for the requested interview, and Moore complied.)
Okay. Kansas and D.C. both applied their laws to extraterratorial occurrences. North Dakota did too. DC applied its law to an accident in Marlyand; Kansas applied its law to alcohol sales that took place in Missouri; and North Dakota applied Montana law to an accident that took place in North Dakota. The simple fact is the whenever a cause of action involves stuff that happens in multiple states, you’re going to have to make a judgment about which state’s law applies. Sometimes it’ll be one state, sometimes it’ll be the other. But there is most definitely no rule that says actions taken in one state, but directed towards another, can only be judged by the legal standards of the first state.
I think Heston is getting a little too much credit. He was involved in two civil rights photo-ops (March on Washington with Brando-not fashionable my ass) and since? From CNN.com
Debaser-"I never said it was. ", sure you did. You said that NAACP fighting for gun control to curb street violence was as ridiculous as fighting for hydro-cell cars. I’m not going to get in a big quoting match though, people can read page one and decide for themselves.
Wow. You even wrote half of it in all caps. It must be true. :rolleyes:
The phrases that I italized in those three quotes were simply to counter your claim that I was making wholesale, without exception statements about everyone. This was clearly not the case. I pointed out that I was making general statements which are in fact true. I stand by them.
I am not saying that my taking positions on issues unrelated to race will alienate all of any particular group. I have never said this in this thread. Only your twisting of my words out of context can lead to this conclusion, and even then it’s clearly not what I mean.
When I make a statement like this one:
“They will also earn the ire of everyday folks like me who are not black.”
It is not logical to conclude that the meaning is all folks. No one speaks or writes like this. The obvious meaning is some folks. Because I have clarified numerous times now, It’s clear that you are dileberately twising my words to mean something that they do not.
My next statement in question:
“Look, black people are what? 13% of the population of the US, IIRC. So, if they want to advance their agenda then they will need some support from the other 87% of people.”
Was specifically responding to your post that sacastically asked why the NAACP should care about what white conservatives think. I was pointing out that they should care what everyone thinks.
I even quoted you:
So there could be no confusion as to what I was talking about.
If the NAACP wants to get thier agenda passed they should avoid pissing off other groups because they will need the support of the 87% of the country that isn’t black. This is a legitimate statment that any reasonable person would agree with. I can’t see why you have twisted it to mean whatever you think it does.
I googled it yesterday. Back during the second time I asked for you to give a cite and you vaguely mentioned documentaries. That was enough for me to at least find what you were talking about.
You of all people know that is not the way GD works. You brought it up. You made the claims about his comments. I asked for a cite at least 4 times and you flatly refused. Now you request one from me? Nope. GD’s 101: You make the claim, you show he proof.
Yes, it IS reasonable to conclude that’s what you’re saying, particularly when you kept saying esentially the same damn without any kind of qualifications on the ridiculous black-not black dichotomy. Your sentences, you deal with the fallout.
Re: the transcript. YOU make the affirmative claim to have found the damn thing, not me. I merely watched the movie. I suppose I could put more money in Moore’s pocket by purchasing the DVD and transcribing Heston’s comments. Or you could just post the bloody link instead of playing crybaby. Your choice.
I still don’t think it’s that terrible. I think a fair viewing of this country’s history would have to note that violence between clannish ethnic enclaves has been a common feature of the landscape. It is not farfetched to suggest that the close proximity of different ethnicities in this country, while on balance one of our great strengths, also carries a negative in that it increases the likilhood of violence. “Us versus them” mentalities are hard to erase, after all. It is hardly bigoted or racist to suggest that as a primary difference betwen the US and other countries when explaining the higher level of violence in the US.
And, if nothing else, Heston’s years of dedicated service to the cause of racial equality ought to garner him the benefit of the doubt on his statements about race relations. But I guess that sort of goodwill is just impossible to give to a someone who disagrees with you on a completely unrelated issue, huh? **
Perhaps I misunderstood your Kansas case squib. You said Kansas barred a suit brought against a Missouri dram shop. I took this to mean that the Kansas court declined to allow a remedy available under Kansas law against a Kansas dram shop to be used against an out-of-state vendor.
The D.C. case is distinguishable on the grounds I outlined earlier.**
Not in the case I linked to – the North Dakota Supreme Court specifically held that North Dakota’s dram shop laws were only applicable against North Dakota vendors. **
These latter two appear to be some fairly convenient doublespeak. I’ll wait for clarification on the Kansas case and only comment on North Dakota.
In the North Dakota case, the North Dakota court declined to extend its laws to a vendor in Montana. Somehow, according to you, this refusal to give extraterritorial effect to North Dakota law is magically transformed into the application of Montana law. Which is, in a word, goofy. By that line of reasoning, every time a court hears a matter with a choice of law question, it is acting “extraterritorially” no matter what it chooses to do: if it elects to extend its own law across the border, it is acting extraterritorially, and if it declines, it is extraterritorially importing the law of the defendant’s state. All of which is correct, I suppose, but it sort of renders the phrase “extraterritorial application of law” more or less meaningless, don’t you think? **
Hey, I’ll happily cede that there is no hard and fast rule on this stuff, and that even with regard to dram shop laws there is a split of authority on the degree to which the state of injury can impose its liability rules on a vendor in the state of sale. The more pressing question: which line of authority is better?
For the expectations reasons I laid out earlier, I think the narrower view taken by the North Dakota courts is more appropriate. I gather that you disagree. Why?
Nevertheless, Heston was involved in the civil rights movement at a time when doing so carried a real possibility of hurting his box office appeal.
He’s been more involved with other issues since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. BFD. Hell, it’s to Heston’s credit that he didn’t sign on to things like the nation’s absurd experiment with busing in the 1970s.
I’m a crybaby because I want you to back up claims in GD with a cite?
I had no clue what you were talking about.
I asked you to explain.
I get this vague post from you mentioning “documentary” and “racist comments”.
I make a guess that you may be talking about Moore because he did make a documentary involving guns recently, but I am not sure.
I ask for clarification from you again. You ignore me.
I decide to go looking on my own and I read up on the incident where Moore badgers Heston at his home. I still don’t even know if this is what you are talking about because you refuse to clarify.
I didn’t post links at that time because I didn’t even know if I was reading about the same incident you were referring to.
Why the big secret? If you just responded to my repeated attempts to find out WTF you were talking about we could have avoided all this.
Also, none of this changes the rules. In GD, you make a claim, you get to prove it if challenged.
And while they’re about it, i really wish they would stop taking positions on other inflammatory subjects like race relations and racial discrimination.
I mean, who do they think they are, the Communist Party or something?
