Just for Fred Smith

Politics International Politics
1

I thought I’d beat Fred to the punch on this one:

[quote]A lovely politically correct editing slip marred an opera review in the Los Angeles Times recently. The original sentence read that Richard Strauss’ operatic epic, “Die Frau Ohne Schatten,” was “an incomparably glorious and goofy pro-life paean…” Fair enough. But you can’t have the epithet “pro-life” in the Los Angeles Times. So the sentence was changed to “an incomparably glorious and goofy anti-abortion paean…” There is no reference to abortion in the opera. The paper was therefore forced to run not one but two corrections on February 25. The writer rightly insisted that the paper exonerate him personally from the idiocy. It reminds me of the occasion when a newspaper decided to remove all usage of the word “black” from its copy, when referring to African-Americans. it was deemed too offensive a term. Everything was fine until some tired copy-editor lazily edited an economics column. Suddenly, the federal budget moved from red ink “into the African-American.” Hey, but no one was offended.
[/quote]

Those damn lefties eh Fred. Hmm. Until you stop to consider that the drive toward greater respect for all minority groups, and a more open society, has been one of the crowning successes of the past generation. Yes, just like the policy in Iraq, a few have been damaged (though no one has been killed) by the excesses of liberalism, but so many more are able to hold their heads high now and live a free, independent dignified life that was simply not possible a generation ago. How can you argue with this? Where is your morality? Where are your principles?

Dammit. All of you right wingers who continue to disrespect the left what would you put in it’s place? Would you have us go back to, seperate but equal? No women in the workforce?

Liberalism, even PC, has been an astounding success. Yes, excessives have been commited but most of these are being reigned in. Just like foreign policy in Iraq, we could not see the consequences of all our policies. We’re not perfect and we didn’t have the benefit of hindsight. We’ve made mistakes and we’ve learned. A few haven’t but that’s no different from Iraq again is it?

The culture war is over. Get over it. We won!

2

That was the most bizarre post I have ever read Muzhaman:

Where have you ever heard me say that Blacks should not have equal rights. Have you been hanging out with Alien and so now the racist smears are coming out. Remember it is the REPUBLICAN PARTY that gave America Lincoln. WE freed the slaves and it was under EISENHOWER a REPUBLICAN that we enacted Civil Rights legislation so who exactly are YOU referring to? These advancements came from those of us who understand what rights are, know what the constitution means and know what justice and fair play are all about. OH but I am WHITE and MALE therefore I must ergo be racist?

Time for that apology Muzhaman or come up with one post that I have made that would support such a completely ridiculous assertion.

:fume:

3

Oh, please, Mr Smith. An apology? Please show me where I directly call you a racist?

Let me spell it out for yoo simplee:

I merly tuk yur returic aboot the war and aplyed it too a feeld yu like two throw rhetorikal argooments at: namelee PC and liberalism in geneeral.

Just as you like to demand that liberals take a stand on the war and support it for its overall goals, I was demanding you do the same with liberalism (and I’m not conflating the Democrats with liberals. Nor am I simply taking about legislation.)

Nobody likes PC excesses Fred. But do you dislike them because they are excesses or simply because they are liberal? Do you support the overall goals of a fairer society? Or do you just want things your way? Why do you hate things PC? Because it’s no fun? Because it came from left field? Because it’s the secular version of the Christian right’s drive to control how we think and act?

You constantly berate Rascal for reflexively taking sides against the US. For opposing the US simply because it is the US. I like to take you to task for your exact same approach to the left.

Get it now.

4

That you don’t get it when your own shit is thrown back at you doesn’t surprise me. But try to remember that I’ve defended you in the past. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago I praised you for your stance on Iraq.

If you recal, I said your position was always that this war would make the middle east a better place. That I called you a moral cyclops meant, and it was obvious in context, that you were a limited but basically good-hearted person.

I’m your only liberal ally on the war Fred. I’m the only on who tries to explain (when you ask, and you do all the time) why the other side thinks or acts or feels as it does. But everytime I offer an explantion you tear into me with your lists and rhetoric as if these were opinions I believed in. I’ve come to the conclusion that you really aren’t looking for explanations, or debate, but pieces to sound off against.

The only sensible thing to do with a person like that (like you) is have fun with them. However, I did not realize the extent of your humorlessness. Now that I do well…

Hoopla! I’ve struck gold! :lovestruck:

5

Remember it is the REPUBLICAN PARTY that gave America Lincoln. WE freed the slaves and it was under EISENHOWER a REPUBLICAN that we enacted Civil Rights legislation so who exactly are YOU referring to?

Let’s get something clear here Fred:

  1. The Republican of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Rockefeller is a lot different from the current party, dominated by a bunch of bible hugging, flag waiving, fetus worshiping freaks who are out of touch with what’s going in on in their own country and the world.

  2. The Civil Rights Bill of 1957 did little to change the status of African Americans. That bill was pushed through the Senate by a very able and wily Lyndon Johnson, democratic majority leader in the Senate. Eisenhower pretty much ignored the issue and signed a pretty watered down version of the bill. It’s was his predecessor Truman who desegregated the armed forces and LBJ, as president, who did much more than any Republicans ever did for African Americans.

I hope this is enlightening for you Fred.

6

Let’s get something clear here:

[quote]What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?

Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.

Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.

In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.

The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation’s military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.

Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.

[color=red]As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.[/color]

yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/un … .04.x.html.

JFK - The Reluctant Civil Rights President

JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.

His lukewarm support for the Act included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.

[JFK’s] record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957 Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.

After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.

When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.

When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.

Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of the Act were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.

Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill’s final success.

[color=red]Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[/color]

In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.

Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.

He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, the Act would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.

Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.

Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.

Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill’s seven sections.

The Republican “swing” votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.

On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by [the Republican] Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.

The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.

Credit may be given to Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota for being the loudest voice in support for legislation in the late '50s and early '60s. Credit may be given to LBJ for pushing legislation.

However, without the leadership and help of Republicans, who had voted for bills to help minorities for decades before 1964, any Democratic Party legislative effort would have been watered down or failed because of obstinate Democrats - i.e., the Dixiecrats.

newsmax.com/archives/article … 4350.shtml[/quote]

Hope you find that enlightening… :wink:

7

Let’s get one thing straight:

The US does not own the trademark on the words liberal and conservative. When I speak of them I am influenced strongly by the Canadian tradition where there is a clear connection between legislation to improve civil rights and the Liberal party. There is also a very clear connection between fundamentalist Christians and the right. Of course this exists in the US too in the Republican party, but not to the same extent as in Canada.

But of course you knew this Fred, didn’t you?

8

[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”]Let’s get one thing straight:

The US does not own the trademark on the words liberal and conservative. When I speak of them I am influenced strongly by the Canadian tradition where there is a clear connection between legislation to improve civil rights and the Liberal party. There is also a very clear connection between fundamentalist Christians and the right. Of course this exists in the US too in the Republican party, but not to the same extent as in Canada.

But of course you knew this Fred, didn’t you?[/quote]
Let’s get another thing straight. While the US does not own the trademark on the English language, usage of the words “liberal” and “conservative” in Canada’s political context is anything but universal. The fact is, US and British politics affect a great number of people beyond their shores. Because of this, American and British usage of political terminology is the most familiar among educated English speakers throughout the world. Canada’s politics affect, well, just Canada. Sorry that we aren’t all tripping over ourselves to get to the library to read up on Canadian politics.

9

[quote=“Jive Turkey”][quote=“Mucha (Muzha) (Muzha) Man”]Let’s get one thing straight:

The US does not own the trademark on the words liberal and conservative. When I speak of them I am influenced strongly by the Canadian tradition where there is a clear connection between legislation to improve civil rights and the Liberal party. There is also a very clear connection between fundamentalist Christians and the right. Of course this exists in the US too in the Republican party, but not to the same extent as in Canada.

But of course you knew this Fred, didn’t you?[/quote]
Let’s get another thing straight. While the US does not own the trademark on the English language, usage of the words “liberal” and “conservative” in Canada’s political context is anything but universal. The fact is, US and British politics affect a great number of people beyond their shores. Because of this, American and British usage of political terminology is the most familiar among educated English speaker throughout the world. Canada’s politics affect, well, just Canada. Sorry that we aren’t all tripping over ourselves to get to the library to read up on Canadian politics.[/quote]
Let’s get yet another thing straight: when you make reference to the Los Angeles Times and the American war in Iraq, people expect you to use such words in the context of American politics, not to confuse the issue by pretending you’re talking about Canada when nobody else is.

What was Canada’s policy in Iraq? “Hey Saddam, you have been a bad boy, now go to your torture room without your dinner.”

10

I suspect MM objects to being labelled a “liberal” in the usually negative American sense. Plenty of others object to it, too - here and elsewhere. Nor is there much equivalence between terminology in the British and American political lexicons. The Liberals in Britain (Liberal Democrat Party) are quite distinct.

As a side note, Rick Mercer’s humorous take on American citizen’s ignorance of all things Canadian, not just political is an eye-opener.

radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismornin … 10330.html

11

Mapo you are really confused about the topic of this thread. It was not about the war in Iraq, or about America, but about Fred’s use of the word liberal as a smear, and his hysterical rhetoric toward the left.

Don’t be an ignoramus. Even in your own country the word liberal means different things to different people.

“He’s a liberal.”

How do you interpret that? I suppose it depends on your background and what part of the country you live in whether you perceive that as a slur or compliment.

Before Mr Smith blasted me for calling him and Republican’s racists he should have at least tried to understand how I was using the word liberal (especially how, as I mention, I have praised his liberal stance on Iraq). This is just common sense. Certain terms are loaded.

As I said, I am influence by the Canadian politics but I certainly am aware of how the word is used in (some) contexts in the States. Fred should know, as I’ve said it before, that I do not conflate liberalism with the Democratic Party.

I believe I am using the words liberal and conservative in their broadest sense, the sense that all educated people would understand. That is, liberalism as an ideology in suport of equality, freedom, human rights and progress. I believe it was Fred who was using the words in the narrow contemporary US context to refer to the Democratic and Republican Parties. I would object to one party holding the rights to one or the other word too.

Closet Queen was absolutely right.

And Mapo, why the attack on Canada? Have I ever defended my country’s actions regarding the war in Iraq? Oh, yes, once, I response to the assertion that the US could do whatever it wanted to protect its self-interest. Fine, I said, if it is simply about self-interest then Canada is right to avoid going to war, since we’ll reap the benefits of the war no matter what we do. Reap the maximum benefit from least amount of investment. What conservative can disagree with that? :wink:

12

Muzhaman:

Here is your original post. I will let the other posters on this thread determine if I was wrong to assume that this was some kind of insinuation that Republicans and by extension myself are racist. I believe that it certainly sounded that way. If I was mistaken in that assumption, then I certainly will apologize, but I believe that most of the posters on this forum will come to the same conclusion that I did. Please reread below and judge for yourselves…:

MM: "Those damn lefties eh Fred. Hmm. Until you stop to consider that the drive toward greater respect for all minority groups, and a more open would you put in it’s place? Would you have us go back to, separate but equal? No women in the workforce?

Liberalism, even PC, has been an astounding success. Yes, excessives have been commited but most of these are being reigned in. Just like foreign policy in Iraq, we could not see the consequences of all our policies. We’re not perfect and we didn’t have the benefit of hindsight. society, has been one of the crowning successes of the past generation. Yes, just like the policy in Iraq, a few have been damaged (though no one has been killed) by the excesses of liberalism, but so many more are able to hold their heads high now and live a free, independent dignified life that was simply not possible a generation ago. How can you argue with this? Where is your morality? Where are your principles?

Dammit. All of you right wingers who continue to disrespect the left what We’ve made mistakes and we’ve learned. A few haven’t but that’s no different from Iraq again is it?

The culture war is over. Get over it. We won!"

BACK TO ME: Then if we want we can argue about the effects of welfare on the Black family. We can argue about the leniency on crime in Black neighborhoods which disproportionately affects Black families and drives down the value of Black owned homes in Black neighborhoods and drives out businesses from Black neighborhoods. So sorry, the Left has NOT learned from its excesses. This is why 70 percent of Black families support vouchers a REPUBLICAN idea. Those who oppose are indeed Democrats as in teacher’s and federal worker’s unions but what is the end result for Blacks and Black families? Who is TRULY helping Blacks? The Democrats or the Republicans? I would argue that the Democrats give obvious “charity” but they are doing nothing in fact to “empower” Blacks. Republicans have. Despite all the Liberal hoopla about ending welfare, it resulted in a lower Black poverty rate. Thanks for giving us the credit on that. 40 years of failed Democratic welfare policy overturned in only 7 years of Republican welfare reform.

13

Straight from the Fred Smith School of Thought:
SEVENTEEN TECHNIQUES FOR TRUTH SUPPRESSION

By David Martin (“D.C. Dave”)
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

  1. Dummy up. If it’s not reported, if it’s not news, it didn’t happen.

  2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you?” gambit.

  3. Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to believe the “rumors” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)

  4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

  5. Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “skeptics” to shoot down.

  6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

  7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

  8. Dismiss the charges as “old news.”

  9. Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

  10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

  11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster “suicide” note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven’t reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

  12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

  13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

  14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.

  15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

  16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges “expose” scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

  17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

14

European:

Given that the press is 80 percent liberal, this sounds more like the Clinton approach to things.

Thanks for reminding me about why I voted for George W. At least, we do not have to watch the painful embarrassment of defining what is IS. :laughing:

15

No, just the painful embarrassment of watching a Yale educated man use “is” as the third person plural. :laughing:

16

Amen Muzhaman:

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

17

Fred,

If you’re a reverend then I’m a monkey’s ankle. My daddy says you’re definitely a reverend though and I better stop treating you like a rhetorical pin-cushion or I’m going to end up in Hell.

I asked him how he was sure you were a rev and not just some smooth-talking pitchman and he told me because the only reason God would create a face like that is to scare the demons back into Hell.

I told him that’s not your real face. You’re even uglier. That stumped him because he said he’s never seen anyone uglier than in your picture and he was going to have to think about that one a while to get a good fix on what God’s plan could be for a situation like that.

My mom is a Christian woman from way back. She put my dad on the straight and narrow long ago. She says you’re a real rev too. She swears she’s heard you preach a time or two down at the Church of the Holy Whopper – And Then Some.

Grandmom says she’s sure you’re a preacher down at the Wake Up And Git Saved pentecostal church.

All three of them are getting on my nerves though because every time we start talking about you all they end up doing is getting into a long, pitched argument about who has the straighter pipeline to the Holy Spirt and why everyone else should just shut up and listen to them.

All I know is a little voice in the back of my head keeps telling me that it’s not you but the whore of Babylon who’s going to come out on top in the end. She’s got her hairy, pustuled legs wrapped around you already and I can see you losing your grip and afraid to look into her face anymore because you know her fiery crazed eyes are telling you she’s the real master of your destiny now and not you hers.

All I can say is good luck and you better be a real rev because only God is going to be able to pull you out of the fix you’ve smooth-talked yourself and your congregation into.

Amen and over and out,

Brother spook,
None of the Above