Hate Speech Makes a Comeback

[Danno 1,228]

Hate Speech Makes a Comeback

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Friday - April 29, 2011

Well, it sure didn't take long for the Tucson Truce to collapse.

After Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot on Jan. 8 by a berserker who killed six others, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl, and wounded 13, the media were aflame with charges the right had created the climate of hate in which such an atrocity was inevitable.

The Washington Post story on the massacre began, "The mass shooting ... raised serious concerns that the nation's political discourse had taken a dangerous turn."

Following Barack Obama's eloquent eulogy and call for all of us to lower our voices, it was agreed across the ideological divide that it was time to cool the rhetoric.

This week, however, hate speech was back in style.

After Donald Trump called on Obama to release his original birth certificate and produce the academic records and test scores that put him on a bullet train from being a "terrible student" at Occidental College to Columbia, Harvard Law and Harvard Law Review editor, charges of "racism" have saturated the airwaves.

To Tavis Smiley of PBS, this was a sure sign the most "racist" campaign in history is upon us. To Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg of "The View," this was pure racism. To Bob Schieffer, CBS anchor, an "ugly strain of racism" is behind the effort to get Obama's records.

Again and again on cable TV, the question is raised, "What, other than racism, can explain Trump's call for these records?"

Well, how about a skeptical attitude toward political myths? How about a legitimate Republican opposition research effort to see just how much substance there is behind the story of the young African-American genius who awed with his brilliance everyone who came into contact with him?

Trump is testing the waters for a Republican campaign. One way to do that is to attract the party's true believers by demonstrating that, if you get nominated, unlike John McCain in 2008, you will peel the hide off Barack Obama. Is there anything wrong with that?

As for the birth certificate, it was The Donald who forced Obama to make it public. Not in two years had anyone else been able to do it. The White House press corps did not even try. The pit bulls of Richard Nixon's time have been largely replaced by purse dogs.

Not since Jack Kennedy has a president had a press corps so protective of the man they cover -- though in Kennedy's case, they covered up a lifestyle that could have ended JFK's presidency.

Trump is drawing crowds because he speaks in plain language and appears unintimidated by the high priests of political correctness.

As Rush Limbaugh notes, it was Trump's demands for the birth certificate that turned the issue from a winner for Obama -- it had been seen as a young president bedeviled by conspiracy theorists and bitter-enders -- into an issue that had begun to cut.

When half of all Iowa Republicans, not a radical group, said they thought Obama was born somewhere else, and a fourth were not sure, the president, who had swept Iowa, was beginning to bleed.

The Donald had gotten under his armor.

As Newsweek's Howard Fineman notes, it was the rising doubts of independents about why Obama still refused to release his original birth certificate that caused him to end two years of stonewalling.

If the president has been hurt, is it not partly his own fault for not releasing the birth certificate and ending the matter after he was elected?

And the demand for Obama's test scores -- is that racism?

Well, was it racist of the New Yorker to reveal in 1999 that George W. Bush got a score of 1206 on his Scholastic Aptitude Test (566 verbal, 640 math) or that Al Gore got a 1355? Was it racist of the Boston Globe to report that John Kerry was a D student as a freshman, who eventually rose up to a C and B student at Yale?

Was it racist of The New York Times' Charlie Savage to report that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor had described herself as an "'affirmative action baby' whose lower test scores were overlooked by the admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic"?

If a White House correspondent stood up at a press conference and said: "Mr. President, Donald Trump is asking for your college and law school test scores. Do you believe you benefited from affirmative action in your academic career?" would that be racist?

Perhaps Obama might begin his answer as he did, two decades before, in a Nov. 16, 1990, letter as president of Harvard Law Review:

"As someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review's affirmative action program when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized.

[웃 910]

[Zero Sum 305]

Grand... Hate speech as part of a racist agenda is fine for some while defendind the social corrective that is Affirmative Action is not. The common denominator is that you would still have racist ideologues after taking these laws away. Better to antagonize these vociferous cowards than placate their irrational hate of the minorities.

[Danno 1,228]

Grand... Hate speech as part of a racist agenda is fine for some while defendind the social corrective that is Affirmative Action is not. The common denominator is that you would still have racist ideologues after taking these laws away. Better to antagonize these vociferous cowards than placate their irrational hate of the minorities.

1.Do you not realize the people being Punished by these laws are not these "Ideologues" you bring up.

2. "Ideologues" are what "crimes of thought"? How do we "equally" punish those of all colors who are guilty?

3. Have you ever lost out on a job, a promotion a contract award simply because you happened to be the wrong color?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Grand... Hate speech as part of a racist agenda is fine for some while defendind the social corrective that is Affirmative Action is not. The common denominator is that you would still have racist ideologues after taking these laws away. Better to antagonize these vociferous cowards than placate their irrational hate of the minorities.

Social corrective ? So two wrongs make a right in your book ?

Edited April 29, 2011 by Why_Me

[Zero Sum 305]

1.Do you not realize the people being Punished by these laws are not these "Ideologues" you bring up.

2. "Ideologues" are what "crimes of thought"? How do we "equally" punish those of all colors who are guilty?

3. Have you ever lost out on a job, a promotion a contract award simply because you happened to be the wrong color?

Do you not realize that we've had centuries of American racism (that continues to this day) victimize an entire population based on the color of the victims' skin?

Additionally- if there are victims that are a systematic result of Affirmative Action, then there are anti-discriminatory laws they can seek shelter in and sue, sue, sue. And if that is the case, then these laws need to be tweaked to reflect an improved racial dynamic in the nation. Due to the pushback by racists and insinuated racists such as yourself against these laws, its a bit hard to separate the racism from the intended goal of a post-racial America.

Social corrective ? So two wrongs make a right in your book ?

Affirmative Action = Inclusion

Racism = Exclusion

That is the point.

If it really was about pruning these laws to reflect a more tolerant society, the opposition to said laws would likely materialize from more sectors of society than mostly just from people with blatant ties to racism.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Do you not realize that we've had centuries of American racism (that continues to this day) victimize an entire population based on the color of the victims' skin?

Additionally- if there are victims that are a systematic result of Affirmative Action, then there are anti-discriminatory laws they can seek shelter in and sue, sue, sue. And if that is the case, then these laws need to be tweaked to reflect an improved racial dynamic in the nation. Due to the pushback by racists and insinuated racists such as yourself against these laws, its a bit hard to separate the racism from the intended goal of a post-racial America.

Affirmative Action = Inclusion

Racism = Exclusion

That is the point.

If it really was about pruning these laws to reflect a more tolerant society, the opposition to said laws would likely materialize from more sectors of society than mostly just from people with blatant ties to racism.

Yes there are many victims of Affirmative Action, and no they do not get compensated for getting screwed in the ####### because of that racist law.

A racist pig is a racist pig no matter what color they are. You don't have to be white to be a racist pig, and you don't have to be black to like that racist pig law called Affirmative Action.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Do you not realize that we've had centuries of American racism (that continues to this day) victimize an entire population based on the color of the victims' skin?

Additionally- if there are victims that are a systematic result of Affirmative Action, then there are anti-discriminatory laws they can seek shelter in and sue, sue, sue. And if that is the case, then these laws need to be tweaked to reflect an improved racial dynamic in the nation. Due to the pushback by racists and insinuated racists such as yourself against these laws, its a bit hard to separate the racism from the intended goal of a post-racial America.

Affirmative Action = Inclusion

Racism = Exclusion

That is the point.

If it really was about pruning these laws to reflect a more tolerant society, the opposition to said laws would likely materialize from more sectors of society than mostly just from people with blatant ties to racism.

"Seek shelter" ha ha...####### are you on? Come back to reality ok. Shelter my #######. Once a guy gets screwed because of that racist pig law they are screwed...end of story. Again you are showing to be a racist. Even blacks I know say that law is racist for the fact it is racist. You can give that law all the pretty bs names you want, but there is no grey area to that law. It is what it is, and it's a law for racist pigs that like to promote racism in this country.

[Zero Sum 305]

Yes there are many victims of Affirmative Action, and no they do not get compensated for getting screwed in the ####### because of that racist law.

A racist pig is a racist pig no matter what color they are. You don't have to be white to be a racist pig, and you don't have to be black to like that racist pig law called Affirmative Action.

You're getting all mixed up. I think it might have to do with your preconceived notions about what Affirmative Action was designed to do.

Granted I already expressed the notion that if there is a popular sentiment about its unfairness, then they can be tailored to reflect post 1960s America. Assuming everyone is on equal footing, however, is disingenuous at best.

I am not claiming there aren't 'victims' (as you put it) of Affirmative Action. And that is unfortunate- as the ongoing racial conditions that continue to favor whites in this country for X Y and Z positions, economies, and academic spots. Its no surprise you do not wish to notice that.

"Seek shelter" ha ha...####### are you on? Come back to reality ok. Shelter my #######. Once a guy gets screwed because of that racist pig law they are screwed...end of story. Again you are showing to be a racist. Even blacks I know say that law is racist for the fact it is racist. You can give that law all the pretty bs names you want, but there is no grey area to that law. It is what it is, and it's a law for racist pigs that like to promote racism in this country.

Getting angry, I see. That says a lot about you.

Go ahead and ignore reality.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

You're getting all mixed up. I think it might have to do with your preconceived notions about what Affirmative Action was designed to do.

Granted I already expressed the notion that if there is a popular sentiment about its unfairness, then they can be tailored to reflect post 1960s America. Assuming everyone is on equal footing, however, is disingenuous at best.

I am not claiming there aren't 'victims' (as you put it) of Affirmative Action. And that is unfortunate- as the ongoing racial conditions that continue to favor whites in this country for X Y and Z positions, economies, and academic spots. Its no surprise you do not wish to notice that.

Getting angry, I see. That says a lot about you.

Go ahead and ignore reality.

I know this is only an internet forums, but it's your kind that literally make me want to vomit all over my keyboard.

[Zero Sum 305]

I know this is only an internet forums, but it's your kind that literally make me want to vomit all over my keyboard.

Many here could consider that a compliment.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Many here could consider that a compliment.

It wasn't meant to be one, so don't get the wrong idea.

I'l tell you some real story's seeing how you like to live in some kind of fantasy land.

Try having your ####### over 200' on a high rise welding on a column only to have your apprentice tell you he wasn't going to come out with more welding rod and lead for the fact he didn't like heights. So the welder (being me) had to do a complete 180 degree turn around on the iron yet no place to tie off seeing how I had to go around said column.

Why was that guy an apprentice in the iron workers union where working up high is the job ? Affirmative Action. It's a great law for putting peoples life in danger. You get ####### people who couldn't make the grade the legitimate way ...like passing the test with a decent score, yet you screw the person who did everything right out of a job. In the meantime it's the journeyman who get screwed also.

Firefighters...it happens all the time. That job is as risky as iron work yet the gov. being racist pigs could care less on who's life they endanger.

Police...same thing.

[Zero Sum 305]

It wasn't meant to be one, so don't get the wrong idea.

I'l tell you some real story's seeing how you like to live in some kind of fantasy land.

Try having your ####### over 200' on a high rise welding on a column only to have your apprentice tell you he wasn't going to come out with more welding rod and lead for the fact he didn't like heights. So the welder (being me) had to do a complete 180 degree turn around on the iron yet no place to tie off seeing how I had to go around said column.

Why was that guy an apprentice in the iron workers union where working up high is the job ? Affirmative Action. It's a great law for putting peoples life in danger. You get ####### people who couldn't make the grade the legitimate way ...like passing the test with a decent score, yet you screw the person who did everything right out of a job. In the meantime it's the journeyman who get screwed also.

Firefighters...it happens all the time. That job is as risky as iron work yet the gov. being racist pigs could care less on who's life they endanger.

Police...same thing.

See me crying in sympathy for you. Maybe you should have expressed your in-satisfaction with having an unqualified apprentice backing you up.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

See me crying in sympathy for you. Maybe you should have expressed your in-satisfaction with having an unqualified apprentice backing you up.

He was given that position because of Affirmative Action and saying something to get rid of him wouldn't have helped the cause much other than they would have passed him off to another journeyman who would have gotten screwed also.

I don't know if you have ever been affected by that law, and I have no idea what kind of work you do. Being 200+' over the pavement isn't any kind of cake walk, and more iron workers die on the job than any other trade. So unless you have been put in that position you can shut it.

btw what is your line of work...as in what is your job ?

[Zero Sum 305]

He was given that position because of Affirmative Action and saying something to get rid of him wouldn't have helped the cause much other than they would have passed him off to another journeyman who would have gotten screwed also.

I don't know if you have ever been affected by that law, and I have no idea what kind of work you do. Being 200+' over the pavement isn't any kind of cake walk, and more iron workers die on the job than any other trade. So unless you have been put in that position you can shut it.

btw what is your line of work...as in what is your job ?

I am in consulting working > 200' above the pavement as well.

Like I said- if you notice an apprentice that can't function up to the task, then its your responsibility to ensure he doesn't endanger you, your colleagues, or even himself. Make sure he takes the appropriate training and document said inability and refusal to complete the necessary job duties as in the job description. It seems that there's an issue to take up with the Union foreman as well. No need to be race-angry over and over and over if you don't have racist sentiments.