POWIP Piece of Work In Progress

1. 

   timb
   October 21st, 2009 - 07:19

   Dan, you continue to worry me with your linking to that slimeball.

   AJ Strata examined the evidence and wrote a nice essay on RSM’s troubling views. Meanwhile, Usenet postings reveal the sort of person McCain is AND link to the original.

   http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/10/meet-robert-stacy-mccain-neo.html

   Seriously, Dan, by now you are willfully ignoring his views. There is no doubt in my mind that the dude is racist pig (there never was a doubt after I listened to the audio of McCain on Alan Colmes’s show).

   It’s not too late to save your reputation AND you can still disagree with me AND still hate Charles Johnson AND still love the ol’ PW crowd, etc. The last thing we need is this country is a conservative movement which is a Trojan Horse for men who hate interracial marriage and defend slavery.

   Oh, and Jennifer Connolly IS one beautiful woman.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     Bob Reed
     October 21st, 2009 - 09:19

     Didn’t CJ instruct you to prioritize the anti-Fox meme this week?

     And this country needs neither a conservative movement that is a Trojan horse for men who hate interracial marriage and defend slavery, nor a progressive movement that professes a dogma of identity politics, minority exceptionalism, and is a thin veneer for a concerted effort to transform our nation from the bottom up representative democracy into a top down, statist, socialist, benevolent tyrrany…

     It’s no surprise that Chavez and Obama are both vilifying and trying to diminish their political opponents as well as the media outlets that give them voice. While I, like many other conservatives, used to fume over Boooooosh! not defending himself from the legacy media propagandistic onslaught, in retrospect it dimished far less of the gravitas and the dignitas of the Presidency than the Community-organizer-in-chief’s mau-mauing is doing…

     Like or Dislike: 0  0

     ( REPLY )
2. 

   Dan Collins
   October 21st, 2009 - 07:36

   Tim, can you provide the evidence that this Freeper monicker is Stacy’s?

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
3. 

   Enoch_Root
   October 21st, 2009 - 07:41

   Yes. Jennifer Connelly is exceedingly easy to look at.

   TimB – do you really think Dan is someone who would “willfully ignore his views”?

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     timb
     October 21st, 2009 - 09:39

     I’ll try to actually format this right, since I can’t seem to do in my other comment!

     Of course, I don’t that. If I thought Dan was that sort of person, then I wouldn’t bother discussing it with him

     Like or Dislike: 0  0

     ( REPLY )
4. 

   Dan Collins
   October 21st, 2009 - 08:10

   Okay, I found it. Well, this is certainly something that I’m going to have to take up with my blog coterie. Let’s be clear, though: Charles’ problems began long before he tangled with Stacy.

   Let’s set Stacy aside for a moment, but just for a moment. Recently, I linked to the David Thompson piece where he described the views of a woman who believes that racism is a white concept. That’s called essentialism, and I don’t find the screamers and race-baiters complaining about it. Eric Holder’s Justice Department finds that it’s good for whites to cross over in voting, but bad for blacks to do so in Kinston, NC, because only by being aware of party affiliation may they vote in their interests. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has what Rahm Emanuel would call a “perspective,” has no choice but to designate the New Black Panthers a racist organization, yet despite their being captured on video intimidating voters, there’s somehow not enough evidence to hold them accountable. All of this enshrines and advocates racism. I won’t even go into how Jews are treated at the UN and in academia.

   Now, back to Stacy. If he believes that it’s “natural” to feel revulsion at miscegenation, he’s completely wrong. If he believes in the very construct of race, he, like the liberals who view everything through that lens, is wrong so to do. Jeff’s written at length and convincingly that it is an artificial and specious construct. But without discounting the sad implications for Stacy if this is what he truly believes, it seems to me that it might be more important to focus on what’s being done by people in positions of power to promulgate racism in the name of anti-racism. Their jobs, their positions, their livelihoods, their authority, derives from this inanity. And they have power.

   I mean, look how whackthwackadoodle this stuff is. Fucking swiner.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     timb
     October 21st, 2009 - 09:37

     Prejudice exists in all people and it is a disgusting fact of being human.

     Nonetheless, Stacy’s past actions and words reveal a man who was not trying to make himself better. If, after you talk to him and read his past writings, you think he’s changed and you want to continue the professional relationship, then I think you’ve done all you’re supposed to do.

     I, on the other hand, read those passages and then listened,/b> to him, within the year, pass on a chance to denounce those views and claim he has changed. Instead, in his interview with Colmes he tried to make excuses and refused to denounce it. That convinced me he has not changed.

     I trust that, whereas you and I disagree on a lot of issues, you do NOT hold those views and that you find them repugnant too.

     As for the Kinston example I heard Limbaugh and his misunderstanding of it yesterday and I’m not surprised it was picked up by CNS and Fox, etc.

     The facts are, as always when one listens to Rush or CNS, much more complex and different than “democrats bad” interpretation from the the Right. First, Holder had nothing to do with that decision; it is a decision made by career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ with authority granted to them by Article 5 of the VRA. The letter from the Asst AG is here 9http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/ltr/l_081709.php) and shows that, contrary to Rush’s interpretation, the only way blacks elected black candidates in past elections was because of a small group of WHITE Democrats always voted for Democrats because of party affiliation. Eliminating party affiliation would eliminate that cadre and mean the elections of white folks. The VRA exists to ensure that result does not happen (it’s called disparate impact). It’s not pretty and it represents a realist point that offends my idealist nature, but it is the law.

     BTW, I wouldn’t be surprised if the same people who tried to strike down Section 2 last year (at the Supreme Court) would try to eliminate Section 5 with this case.

     Nonetheless, thanks, as always, for giving me a chance to make my point.

     Like or Dislike: 0  0

     ( REPLY )
     • 

       Bob Reed
       October 21st, 2009 - 10:04

       1) Chief Justice Roberts has chosen not to hear a case that could afford an opportunity to strike down section 5 of the VRA, a decision that probably owes as much to the court’s load as to his own ideals of judicial minimalism…

       2) In a town where the majority of the voters are black, it is absurd to apply a rule, that uses 35 year old data as a basis for decision, designed to eliminate “institutional racism”. It is a usurpation of the rights of these people to set their own local election laws, and a useless artifice of a civil climate long gone.

       Like or Dislike: 0  0

       ( REPLY )
5. 

   Bob Reed
   October 21st, 2009 - 09:33

   Jennifer Connelly is one of my all time fave’s. Ever since I saw “The Rocketeer” in the 80′s I was hooked…

   As just an aside, and not pertainng to anyone in particular, isn’t it okay for someone to hold an opinion, regardless of how far out of the mainstream or repulsive to others it is? While it may diminish or otherwise effect someone’s credibility, is the act of hold that belief necessarily wrong? And isn’t it intolerant to demand they change their POV?

   I’m not being a sophist, just examining where the right to the private property that is one’s ideals end…

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
   • 

     timb
     October 21st, 2009 - 09:44

     Sure, Bob. I’m not, despite my disdain for McCain, advocating he be jailed or sent to a re-education camp. What I’m suggesting is that, as moral actors, we have a duty to shun or ignore people with disgusting views.

     Like or Dislike: 0  0

     ( REPLY )
     • 

       Bob Reed
       October 21st, 2009 - 09:55

       Wright? Farrakhan? Ayers? Sharpton? Jackson? These people weren’t shunned too much; in fact I can think of one particular politician who didn’t reject, but instead embraced, them until it became impossible to do so anymore…

       Like or Dislike: 0  0

       ( REPLY )
6. 

   Dan Collins
   October 21st, 2009 - 11:02

   Timb, I’m not getting my information on this issue from any of those outlets. I spoke yesterday with DoJ spokesman Alejandro Miyar, and I have a pdf copy of the original letter, dated August 17 and signed by Loretta King. I know what it says. It says, in effect, that because of low black voter turnout, it’s essential that white voters cross over and that black voters not.

   It’s racist.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
7. 

   Dan Collins
   October 21st, 2009 - 11:05

   If I can figure out how to post a pdf, I’ll post it here, but meanwhile, you can view it here:

   http://tinyurl.com/yke68rc

   So, please allow me to make what I consider to be important this site’s agenda.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
8. 

   Christopher Taylor
   October 21st, 2009 - 13:35

   She was prettier before the nose job, when she was chubbier, but she’s still quite lovely.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )

Leave a comment Cancel reply