Sunday, September 03, 2017

Is the G.O.P racist?

It ain't a trick question.  It's an irrational but widely held belief by those who oppose the GOP.  There is no real, true, honest (sorry for the redundancy) basis for the belief, but it proliferates.  Purposely.  It's a good lie to tell because it puts center-right people on the defensive and distracts from shortcomings of the left as the center-right wastes time explaining reality and/or distancing themselves from whatever provoked the charge in any given circumstance.

Here's Dan Trabue commenting on the subject in the comments section attached to a recent post of his from August 26, 2017 at 10:11 PM:

"WHEN it already appears that you are a party of racists, WHEN there is a literal history of you all being on the wrong side of racism, WHEN your presidential candidate repeatedly played to/appealed to racists, THEN you damn well better make a showy, outward public protest of the racists in your midst.

And that is why you all are viewed as the party of racists and racist supporters."


The following is an even more egregious example of this blatant falsehood that Dan perpetuates.  It is the lie that provokes this post:

"Not implying anything.

I'm saying:

1. The GOP has a racism problem. They are perceived by many to be harboring racists. This is just a point of fact.

2. The GOP's racism problem didn't arise from nothing. It's based on real world events and words from conservative types.

3. There ARE racists in the GOP/right wing, point of fact. Yes, it's also true that there are racists in the DNC/left wing, but not to the point that it's as big a problem as with the Right. We don't know how large the numbers of racists/nazis/scumbag types there are in the GOP, but it appears to be a significant number. Trump could not have won without the votes of racists/"alt-right"/nazis.

4. We warned you all (indeed, many conservatives warned us all) that Trump was invoking racist language and empowering racist groups back when he was campaigning. It was obvious enough/clear enough that many conservatives noted it.

5. And those warnings went unheeded, and now we have a president who has made nazis/KKK-types/racists feel comfortable and emboldened to crawl out from under their rocks. The nazis/racists will tell you that they have been emboldened by Trump and that "wing" of the conservative movement.

So, while we don't know the number of racists/nazis/white supremacists in the party, they are having their day and their way with the Trump presidency. The GOP/Right Wing is in a crisis because of this maniac and is not doing enough to stop it.

Disagree all you want, the data is there. I just hope enough of the Good Conservatives grow some spines and start taking courageous steps to (non-violently) end this fiasco.

In the meantime, we on the Left will keep fighting racists and nazis, it's kind of what we do. I just hope you all can swallow your pride and join us at some point. Redeem yourselves.

~Dan

August 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM"


Sorry to have posted such a large chunk of his steaming pile, but it needs to be addressed.  But before I do, I have one more from Dan that I feel is relevant.  Speaking of those like himself, and ostensibly the progressive left in general, Dan, presumably with a straight face types:

"We hate lies, we hate racism, we hate gross stupidity/ignorance in places of great authority."This is not at all true, as lies are essential to much of what the left, and Dan, promotes.  As regular readers (such as they may be) know, I've an ongoing series called "Agenda Lies" that speaks to just one issue championed by the left which details all the lies that led to an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling.  The stupidity of the left is also blatant and obvious regarding that issue, and no more so than the stupidity of believing the rest of us are stupid enough to buy into the lies of those who promoted the "agenda that doesn't exist".  That stupidity/ignorance was also on display in every center-left politician who supported that agenda and the achievement of its goals. 

But here we're dealing with a different issue...race...and the supposed hatred of racism by the left is laughable considering the history of the Democratic Party, even until quite recently.  Heck, the support for Affirmative Action requires a level of racism in the belief that a particular race requires government help to achieve.  On that subject alone, the center-right population demonstrates far less racial preference in its position that no race is such that government assistance is necessary for those of that race to succeed in life, any more than for our own selves.   So that's just for starters.  Let us carry on beginning with the first quote from old Danny-boy.

---To whom does it appear that the GOP is a party of racists?  Why, to those who oppose the party, of course.  To those who intend that people perceive them as such.  It doesn't actually have that appearance, since it is a party of racists at all, and honest people do not perceive it that way.  How could they when it's not true.

---In what way does "literal history" portray the GOP as being on the wrong side of racism?  I can think of no such evidence, and Dan has not bothered to provide any.  He's free to do so here, and I'll enjoy a good laugh when he does.

---Now here comes the really funny part:  Dan insists, as do other nutjob lefties, that candidate Trump "repeatedly played to/appealed to racists".   It's the really funny part because as a business man, I can't see that Trump would be concerned about appealing to a portion of the population that is tinier than the LGBT community...and that's really tiny.  The fact is that by running on a platform of immigration reform and enforcement in the manner that he did, the left willfully chose to interpret that as racist or anti-immigrant.  That is, protecting our people and borders is said by the left to be a sign of racism...in much the same way as protecting the lives of people not yet born to be proof of misogyny.  That's called "lying".

---Daniel then goes on to say that the GOP "damn well better make a showy, outward public protest of the racists in your midst."  Well, let's see...we've already rejected David Duke, but he's been a member of five different parties and will likely jump ship again when it best seems beneficial for him to do so.  Aside from him, who else is there?  Most racists in American history have been Democrats, with Robert Byrd being the most notorious of recent times.  Most of the Confederate officers, whose statues the left now wants to tear down, were themselves Dems honored with those statues by Democrats.  But then there's Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton...oh, wait!   They're all black people!  What am I saying?  Black people can't be racist!  At least that's what they tell us, and the white people on the left will never point out the racist speech of any of these people.  (Meanwhile, here on the plantation, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Mia Love, Larry Elder, Tim Scott are all self-loathing house n***ers...according to the left)

Let's look at Trabue's list from his second comment:

1.  The only racism problem the GOP has is lefties and deluded minorities accusing the GOP of racism without any proof to back it up.  It's like insisting Dan's a goat regardless of the reality.   That such buffoons insist on perceiving the GOP in this way cannot be helped.  Liars lie.

2.  It's true.  The GOP's "racism problem" did not arise from nothing.  But Dan lies again.  It arose from willful distortions of what may have been said by certain GOP politicians.  As I said, liars lie.

3.  Dan believes it's a "point of fact" that there are racists in the GOP.  If he's referring to party members, specifically elected officials, he'll need to name them and provide evidence of their racism.  Whether or not there are racist voters who routinely vote for Republicans I would not dispute.  But then again, how can one tell without polling data of some kind, or simply such voters openly proclaiming their racism.  Remember...we cannot, and should not, give credence to the claims of those who oppose the GOP for such statistics as they are given to making every statement "code" for racism as it suits them to do so.

But Dan believes there are "a significant number" of racists in the GOP, though he gives no clue as to how he's support the charge.  Given that there is not a significant number of racists in the nation (that is, klansmen or neo-nazis---the best estimates seem to be no more than a few hundred thousand total), it seems not a little deceitful to suggest there could possibly be a significant number within the GOP.  It's a baseless assertion and a desperate hope to distract from the fact of racism in the Democrat Party.   Indeed, as I've pointed out with my own small list, it's a far bigger problem for Dems.  They just aren't honest enough to admit it.  Dan certainly isn't.

4.  Dan has a very mentally dysfunctional notion of what constitutes conservatism, and more so what constitutes a conservative.  To him, anyone puts an (R) behind his own name just has to be a rock solid conservative.  This is crap, as actual conservatives have long had a problem with the GOP for preferring wishy-washy Republicans over true conservatives.  Just check out the "love" those like Mitch McConnell have for those like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.  He prefers "establishment" Republicans, not Cruz or Lee.

And again, Dan prefers to regard Trump's unpolished references to those like immigrants and refugees as racist, when honest people see Trump's meaning through his inarticulate expression.  Dan wants Trump to be racist.  And for the left in general, there's no way that a white person is not racist.  That's the law.  So it's not that Trump actually intends to use racist language or seeks to inflame racist passion...it's simply that the left asserts such things in their hatred of non-leftist politicians.  (The irony here being that Trump is really less conservative than he is liberal)

5.  It's not Trump who has made racists feel comfortable.  It's the left who has done that.  I have a post in mind to address that in more detail, but in general, Trump's existence in the political arena is the result of leftist policies and politically correct BS with which the left has so horribly bored us.  This nonsense has left many feeling that despite their calls for consideration for the feelings of "protected" groups, it is just fine and dandy to say any nasty thing that comes to mind if the target is white, Christian and or conservative.  Given all the crap about "white privilege", it's hard to believe that among those fed up with this leftist PC attitude that racists wouldn't be among them.  For Trump to act with disregard for such PC considerations, only to have the left pretend said disregard means he's purposely seeking to attract racists to his cause is idiotic and willfully deceitful.  But that's who the left is: idiotic and willfully deceitful.

Dan believes that racism is a problem for the GOP.  He offers no data while claiming data exists to prove his premise.  Yet, lefties like Dan ignore the racist activity of the left and the Democratic Party in American history against which the right and the GOP had always been a foe...and still is.  The left has been accusing the GOP of racism for a long time...projecting it's called.  The "racism problem" of the right is in fact no more than the accusation of racism by the left, and the gullibility of those who've bought into it.  Dan can no more prove the GOP is racist than he can prove the Democratic Party isn't.

169 comments:

Eternity Matters said...

Yeah, the Left always resorts to the race card. I view it as a concession speech.

And of course, their Molech-worshiping love of abortion shows who the real racists are. It isn't an accident that black children are crushed and dismembered at a rate three times that of whites, and they know that will go higher if they ever get their dream of fully taxpayer-funded abortions.

And affirmative action is, by definition, racist, and undermines the legitimate accomplishments of countless blacks.

The Left wants to keep the blacks safely on the plantation. They hate when conservatives like https://twitter.com/RedPillBlack decide to get off.

The Left just uses blacks to maintain political power. It is evil.

Craig said...

It seems to me that the GOP is not in any way officially racist. Are there racists who vote GOP, sure, just like there are who vote DFL. But, the whole thing is a way to distract from what the reality is for many people of color, and to keep everyone who even leans conservative on the defensive.


A few years sgo, I pointed Dan to some statistics and evidence that blacks have been poorly served by the democrats. I was just looking at a couple of new books on the same subject.

The line that confuses me the most, is when the left talks about how much of the racism problem stems from governmental systems that are racist, yet the very racist systems are often run by democrsts. If a system is "racist", then how can you exempt those who control the system from the label?

I just st did a post on threats to the black community, with actual data, and so far there's been no refutation.

It's the "soft bigotry of low expectations".

Of course, it'll be interesting to see if the African immigrants get sucked down into mediocrity, or will rise above it. If they do rise above, it would seem to put the whole systemic racism thing to bed.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I seem to recall a Demokrat President saying, "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years." Gotta keep them on the plantation, ya know.

Oh, but according to Trabue and his ilk, that isn't racist. No matter how many facts, how much proof we have to show the real racist party being the Democrats, Trabue and his ilk will deflect, deny, and re-interpret, etc as they continue to pull the race card on conservatives and/or Republicans. But they never have evidence of the party being racist.

The whole Liberal agenda is based on lies.

Marshal Art said...

Regarding Johnson, I read not too long ago something that puts that comment in a different light, mostly referring to how common it was at the time for certain segments of the nation to use that term...not always necessarily with derogatory intent. I'll have to see if I can find that info to re-read once again, but the statement itself cannot help but suggest a selfish quality. Based on voting patterns since that time, however, it's hard to make the case that he wasn't successful.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Art,
It's not about his use of the word, rather it's about what he said about keeping them voting Demokrat.

Marshal Art said...

Certainly, Glenn, and as I said, he was rather successful given voting results since that time.

Anonymous said...

So, are you saying that you are more intelligent than @95% of black folk?

And what is more likely, that the vast majority of a whole race is more stupid than Marshall, or that they have good reason not to vote GOP?

Your problem is that your argument is racist on the face of it.

With @95% of black folk voting against your party, you factually have a race problem. Denying that is part of your problem.

Dan

Craig said...

And Dan pops out of his hidey hole to spout nonsense.

The problem you have is that "95% of black folks didn't vote for the GOP" is simply not factually accurate.

So, as per your standards, how about you prove your claim or retract it?

Of course it's just literally impossible that a large number of folks of any given demographic could be operating on poor information.

The bigge question is, the majority of black voters have voted DFL since Johnson made his "clearly non racist comment", but if one looks at objective measures of success has it brought about any tangible improvement in the lives of the average person?

Anonymous said...

Are you seriously asking if life is better for our black neighbors today than it was in 1960? 1970?

If that is what you're suggesting, the mere suggestion shows an astounding blindspot that is part of your collective problem.

Also, your question presumes that, to the degree that economic data is bad for many African Americans in some locations, that things would be better under a GOP administration. A goofy guess, at best, and one that sweepingly, black folk don't believe.

The point remains: the GOP has a race problem. (And, of course, the 95% depends on the election. Sometimes it may only be 85% voting Dem... The point remains.)

Dan

Marshal Art said...

The GOP doesn't have a race problem. It has a defamation problem, as in: the GOP has been defamed by the left for decades over problems caused and perpetuated by those who defame them. While the suffering of the black community is directly attributable to leftist policies and behaviors, the left has managed to convince their victims that it's been the GOP that has caused it.

And yes, I'm smarter than ANYONE who votes Democrat and thinks they'll be better off for doing so, regardless of the Dem voter's race. Even with a black president, the Dems haven't done the black community any favors. Many agree.

Craig said...

Ok, are you really suggesting that we should simply accept your claims without any actual data to support your claims.

Graduation rates
Employment numbers
Wages
Intact families
Out of wedlock births
Housing stability

Your really telling me that you can prove your claim that those and other indicators are better.

Nice try. If your going to make claims, you should be prepared to prove them.

Craig said...

For the record I'm seriously suggesting that if you can't or won't support your claims, don't make them. If you insist on making claims you won't support, stop whining when we point out your dishonesty.

Feodor said...

"The number of hate groups in the United States rose for a second year in a row in 2016 as the radical right was energized by the candidacy of Donald Trump, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) annual census of hate groups and other extremist organizations, released today."

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/02/15/hate-groups-increase-second-consecutive-year-trump-electrifies-radical-right

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The SLPC "hate group" label is as fallacious as it comes. Anyone accepting this groups lies needs their head examined. THEY are a racist, far LEFT hate group.

Dan Trabue said...

Damn, boys, don't you ever see what your words sound like?

Marshall and the Whites are smarter than 90% of "the Blacks..." says Marshall.

Do you not recognize that this is the very definition of racism?

And Marshall, while I have conducted no IQ test on you, I've read enough to be able to tell you with extreme confidence: No, you are not smarter than "the blacks."

Damn.

And you, too, Craig. While you may strive for a softer sell on the racism, your claim is inherently racist. You're suggesting that "the blacks" are just too damned stupid to see how foolish they are for trusting the Dems and not voting for the GOP. They just can't see that they're being fooled. Fortunately, they have smart white guys like you to set them straight.

Take that to Sunday morning church and see how far it gets you.

Good luck, idiots.

~Dan

Dan Trabue said...

And Craig, when I'm talking about the age of the earth, I don't offer the data for it because it's just common knowledge. Same thing for how the vast majority of black voters vote for Dem and against the GOP.

I don't want to assume that you're too stupid to know that common knowledge. If you don't know this, no matter how clearly it's been reported over the decades, that is a deliberate ignorance, not a simple "whoops, I missed that."

Craig said...

So, that means that as long as you declare something "common knowledge", you don't have to prove it.

Of course, when you change your claims after you make them, I guess that helps also.

Look, you've just claimed that I'm a "racist", you also claimed that "95% of blacks" vote democratic.

Either prove the actual claims you actually make or stop demanding what you won't give.

Of course it's always easier to call people "racist" than to deal with whether or not things are better for blacks, and if the drmocrsts have delivered on their promises.

But it's a nice try.

Craig said...

FYI, the actual numbers for the last 2 elections show 93% of black voters voted for P-BO and 88% voted for Clinton.

So, maybe your "commen knowledge" isn't actually accurate, and your original claim is still false and unproven.

Not that that's surprising.

Anonymous said...

Craig, you're just not this fucking stupid. Don't act like it.

Dan

Craig said...

Oh, a quick look at the data shows that the 95% figure has happened exactly once in a presidential election. P-BO's first election, then the number dropped the second time around.

So, instead of just announcing that something is "common knowledge" and exempting your self from providing proof for your claims, maybe you actually should live up to the standards you demand of others.

Anonymous said...

Craig, there have been thousands of elections in thousands of locations over the last half century since the GOP chased out black voters. Do you think it is rational to suppose, "Dan said 95% in this thread. The only possible answer is that Dan thinks exactly 95% of black voters voted Dem in each of these elections.."?

Or isn't it more likely that my point was that a vast majority of black people have abandoned the GOP?

Which of those options is reasonable and which is the answer of an idiot or a racism apologist?

Dan

Marshal Art said...

Dan,

Here's a helpful hint: When you intend to lie, make sure evidence of your lie is not easily available in the same thread. Here's what I said in response to your question regarding whether or not I think I'm more intelligent than 95% of black folk:

"And yes, I'm smarter than ANYONE who votes Democrat and thinks they'll be better off for doing so, regardless of the Dem voter's race."

To focus on only black democratic voters is less than an accurate assessment of my position, even though you asked specifically about them. So yeah, I'm smarter than blacks who vote Democrat and smarter than whites, asians, latinos and druids who vote Democrat. I offered two links as examples supporting the notion that one must be a complete idiot to vote Democrat, even when the top Dem is also black. Here's another unrelated to race, courtesy of the same idiot Democrat president. The evidence is overwhelming and I could easily fill several blog posts with links galore, each covering a different topic whereby Dems have harmed the nation in general, as well as commentaries from black conservatives (Thomas Sowell not the least among them) who affirm the idiocy of supporting the Democratic Party.

The GOP has its own problems, and no conservative would say otherwise. But even if we consider this another "lesser of two evils" situation, it is far more stark a difference than the last presidential election. The GOP is far and away the lesser, to the extent that it is not even legitimately debatable. Go ahead and try if you think you can. I'll be more than happy to show why you're wrong.

In the meantime, note that I do not drop "F bombs" at your blog. Have the Christian grace of which you claim to be so concerned not to do it here.

moving on...

Marshal Art said...

"Do you not recognize that this is the very definition of racism?"

No, I don't, because it's not... not even close. It does, however, more closely compares with honesty. By way of analogy (and pay attention here, because this is what good analogies look like---take notes), it would be similar to a group of people choosing to blow all their money and then suggesting that I'm NOT smarter than that group were I to reject that practice in favor of budgeting, saving and investing. Clearly I would be smarter than that group who blows their money and believes that's the better decision than mine.

In the same way, blacks, and Dem voters in general, have not benefited by voting Democrat, unless you think handouts and dependency on government represents a good life goal.

"And Marshall, while I have conducted no IQ test on you, I've read enough to be able to tell you with extreme confidence: No, you are not smarter than "the blacks.""

Yet you offer nothing that supports that proposition. Go ahead. I defy you to make the case. Frankly, someone of your limited intelligence is not compelling in the making of such a statement in the first place, but I'm up for facing your mountains of arguments. Bring it.

"You're suggesting that "the blacks" are just too damned stupid to see how foolish they are for trusting the Dems and not voting for the GOP. They just can't see that they're being fooled. Fortunately, they have smart white guys like you to set them straight."

I feel certain the suggestion that "the blacks" who vote Democrat are just too damned stupid to see how foolish they are for trusting the Dems. But they haven't merely smart white guys to set them straight, there are enough smart black guys willing to educate them as well...if they are truly concerned about improving their situations. I've provided one link already. I can provide many, many more. And unlike the mere rhetoric and baseless accusations, my links provide easily researched stats and facts that prove the point.

Feodor said...

GOP also has a science problem.

Craig said...

Hey, you made the claim that "95# of blacks", vote democrat.

Since I've asked you for proof you've changed your claim and tried to say that you didn't mean what you said.

The actual numbers make it clear that your claim is a lie, not "common knowledge" that is somehow exempt from proof.

Further, since the ONLY time the % has been 95 is P-BO's first election, one has to wonder how many were voting democrat as opposed to voting "black".

It also looks like less than 50% of blacks identify as liberal, so there's that also.

I'd also suggest that if you drilled down to the congressional district level that the % would go down even further. I have no proof nor the time to investigate 435 districts, but it's a suspicion.

What we have here is a blatant attempt to pass off "common knowledge" as factually correct knowledge, and an unwillingness to admit that you were wrong.

Well that and editing Art's comment to misrepresent what he said.

Oh, and the inability to do what you demand from others.

But other than that, well done. Can I assume you're not going stick with "Of course things are better for blacks now." because it's "common knowledge" or are you going to prove your right about that claim.

Feodor said...

"Republican Party's racism problem predates Trump"

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/republican-party-s-racism-problem-predates-trump-1039444035858

Craig said...

Speaking of unproven claims, either provide links and quotes to back up your "racism apologist" claim (again you change the claim as if no one will notice the switch), or retract it.

Craig said...

What's really amazing of one looks at the data, is not that the GOP is a smaller %, but the independent voters have been virtually eradicated from the black electorate.

Marshal Art said...

Like most, if not all of the leftist Trump-haters, feo indulges fantasy and demonstrates desperation by appealing to that stalwart champion of fact, Rachel Maddow.

Right off the bat, she attempts to portray Trump as some supporter of white nationalism/supremacy/racism simply because Trump supported the "Unite the Right" rally defending statues of Confederate Officers. She decries his statement that "some of those people" were good guys, though I'm not familiar enough with Trump's alleged statement to know whether or not he was referring to the Confederate Officers or the protesters. Either way, the statement is merely a concession to reality which doesn't in any way stand as a defense of racism. The left needs it to be, but the left are largely liars when it comes to Trump, the GOP and who the true racists really are.

For example, it is said of Robert E. Lee that he was neither a secessionist nor a particularly vocal proponent of either slavery nor abolition. He was a man of a particular sense of chivalry, tradition and honor not uncommon at the time and the context of it. Fools on the left easily, eagerly and dishonestly dispense with context in order to judge on contemporary sensibilities. feo and Maddow are just such fools.

Maddow at least concedes that white racism or nationlism didn't appear because of Trump. No one with any sense would suggest such a thing, and those with none, like feo and Maddow, pretend it's a freakin' newsflash.

Now, I don't spend any time whatsoever, nor do I give the time of day to "white nationalists", but there is one aspect of their position that is indeed based on truth. That would be how, due to the left's identity politics, the white race is often the odd man out. Indeed, the white man is the source of all ills of our nation, as if all white people are always in lockstep agreement with each other on issues of race, ethnicity and culture. This is not only merely untrue...it is abject stupidity, as the Civil War attests. But as the "white nationalists" may indeed be no less than actual racists (irrational hatred and contempt for non-white races), the charge that the white race gets short shrift by the leftist faction of the nation (and white guilt sufferers on the right) is more than a little obvious (I'd say it's a no-brainer, but people with no brain, like feo, don't see it).

But whether or not one agrees with the notion, and I personally don't give it too much consideration except when it is starkly being thrown in our faces, that still doesn't mean that it exists as a freakin' party platform of the GOP or that it constitutes a problem over which non-GOP supporters should concern themselves. The problem is once again a case of the left overstating that which serves them in demonizing their opposition. Nothing more, nothing less. Despite Trump's rhetoric sexually stimulating racists and nationalists, they are still a tiny minority of the overall population and not a demographic that any politician would waste time trying to attract.

more....

Feodor said...

"GOP can’t kick its addiction to racism"

"'True, after Charlottesville a few Republicans criticized President Trump for mainstreaming bigotry. But they decorously ignored their party’s 50-year history of cosseting racism for electoral gain."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/08/28/gop-conjurer-demons-racial-bias-ever-under-their-spell/LX82YXCPeaF2W78x9lOsxM/amp.html


Marshal Art said...

Maddow makes a special effort to pretend she's misspeaking in saying "White racist...uh...white nationalist" as if she's sincerely erring. Real clever, she, mocking this particular organization because some are, what she calls "skinheads", as if bald isn't the current fashion of the day for many men, racist or otherwise (I guess my brother and flaming liberal best friend are racists simply because they shave their heads...idiot). But from what little I know about racists vs. white nationalists, the latter aren't necessarily the former, but mostly concerned that the identity politics of the left is leaving the white race at a disadvantage, and will continue to do so if no one steps up to address it.

Again, I'm not suggesting I hold with this, but it does parallel Trump's more general position of American nationalism or populism. That Americans should come first. This position necessarily looks at considerations for the foreign at the expense of the citizen. The white nationalist agrees. But that agreement, once again, doesn't constitute a concerted effort to appeal specifically to white nationalists or racists. It would be as if one is seeking to attract any group because they also disagree with the notion of barbecuing babies. It's stupid and a cheap and dishonest tactic of the left, known for their cheap and dishonest tactics.

And finally, in typical leftist dishonesty, Maddow seeks to connect the GOP with white nationalists over a piece or two written by a former member of the Heritage Foundation, Jason Richwine. This part of Maddow's vomit is particularly deceitful, and would encourage all to waste 15 minutes of your lives (despite the fact that you can never recover them), and then read this Byron York piece that provides details that Maddow doesn't have the journalistic integrity/honesty to include. It's not like most center-right readers will actually need to do so to validate what is by now well known about the dishonesty of the left, but I recommend it nonetheless. It will also affirm how those like feo are oh so willing to buy into anything merely for the manner in which it denigrates those on the right.

I wouldn't say that feo's being intellectually dishonest by posting the Maddow clip. He's simply not wise enough to be considered an intellectual. He's just a liar. It's what false priests do.

Marshal Art said...

I see feo posted more crap before I posted my last. He presents more leftist lies. There simply is no "50-year history of cosseting racism for electoral gain". But because some leftist hater said so, feo takes it as gospel...ironic considering how he doesn't take the actual Gospel as gospel.

Craig said...

C'mon Art, it "common knowledge", it doesn't have to be true.

Feodor said...

The Southern Strategy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Feodor said...

And Time magazine, 2002:

Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism

"Here's some advice for Republicans eager to attract more African-American supporters: don't stop with Trent Lott. Blacks won't take their commitment to expanding the party seriously until they admit that the GOP's wrongheadedness about race goes way beyond Lott and infects their entire party. The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party's four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. They won't make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies."

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html

Anonymous said...

It's not like any of this is secret information or not obvious to a non-biased observor.

Dan

Craig said...

You're right, it took me literally seconds to find out how wrong you were.

I guess that whole providing evidence for your claims is really a foreign concept to you.

Marshal Art said...

Ah...the old "Southern Strategy" lie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwqhoVIh65k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hPwp9wBhc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xryXpK042pQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjCm2uXXCo8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5DM3XTuOHc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC-QdZVnT54

And just because it needs to be repeated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kry_VfFSh4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkSpcyu9cV0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN8q4rf5Tr0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhPdRoAcUmQ

Feodor said...

"What social science tells us about racism in the Republican party"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/11/what-social-science-tells-us-about-racism-in-the-republican-party/?utm_term=.936af4f004a2

Feodor said...

YouTube as a rational argument?
😂😂😂🤥🤥🤥😂😂😂

Marshal Art said...

Yeah, right. Reagan was a racist. You're such a loser, feo.

Marshal Art said...

YouTube posts no positions of their own as far as I'm aware. I've posted clips from people who have posted their positions on YouTube. You post crap and pretend it's more valid because of the medium in which it appears? Really? Are you that far gone, feo? Why not address what is said in those videos, like a man, instead of writing them off over something as insignificant and irrelevant as where the opinions were posts? Answer: Because as a lying false priest, it's easier doing it your way.

Marshal Art said...

About feo's WaPo piece. What crap! It's the typical leftist spin on reality. It really doesn't matter what Pew poll of a thousand or two people say. I've voted Republican since the 80's and I've yet to meet a Republican voter who opposes interracial dating. It's absurd. But then, feo ignores facts in favor of slanted reporting that assumes intentions behind actions and policies that can be explained in other, truer, ways. Self-loathing white boys like feo feel more noble when they perpetuate the "GOP is racist" myth.

Feodor said...

"Republicans have courted racists for years. Why are they cringing now?"

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article168097357.html

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Leonard Pitts is an extreme LEFTIST hack who rarely has the facts straight. Just the sort of person the false priest would use as a reference.

Feodor said...

Notice, Craig, that neither idiot can engage with facts and rational arguments. All they have is the strategy of goons: put fingers in their ears and say too loudly that they're not going to listen to so-and-so.

And they've kept this up time after time.

Not only biased, are Fartshall and the Hibernian ass, but they also lack a full deck of a mind.

Feodor said...

"In what should come as no surprise to anyone with a functioning brain, a new study entitled, “The Political Legacy of American Slavery,” says that racism has helped the Republican party win elections—especially in the South where slavery used to be a mainstay.

“After all, slavery’s enduring legacy is evident not only in statistics on black poverty and education. The institution continues to influence how white Southerners think and feel about race—and how they vote,” write the authors of the study.

In fact, according to the Washington Post, which published the findings, the counties or areas of the country where slavery was most prevalent vote Republican and continue to have the least progressive views on race...."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/newsone.com/3694584/new-study-shows-effect-of-slavery-on-voting-today/amp/

Marshal Art said...

The bigotry of the left is ongoing, having never truly waned since their overtly KKK past. It's simply more subtle on issues of race, while being less so with regard to things more political and <a href="https://www.crtv.com/video/democrat-bigots-on-parade--capitol-hill-brief>religious</a>.

feo continues to offer opinions of right-hating leftists as evidence of right-wing racism. Not gonna work. We already know that lefties accuse the right of racism. It's the lie this post is about. So rather than deal with the arguments and dissertations of those in the many links I've provided, feo satisfies himself with more personal attacks and childish name-calling. It's what I've come to expect. He'll ever engage like an adult, and never deal in facts with truth and honesty. None of that serves his white-guilt agenda of promoting the false narrative of GOP racism.

Feodor said...

"After Charlottesville, Republicans must grapple with their history on race"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/14/after-charlottesville-republicans-must-grapple-with-their-history-on-race/

Marshal Art said...

So feo attacks my links, while he chooses definitively leftist and pro-Obama sources (newsone). His own offering, however, does not speak to details that might explain the results of the so-called study. It doesn't speak, for example, to how many people in states that were once slave states actually originated from those states. That is, is that where their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents were raised, or did they migrate to those states from northern states. (I'd love to live in Charleston, or Greenville SC. I'm not racist and would never vote Democrat. I'm don't wish to live there because it was a slave state. It's absurd...which is another word for "feodor")

But even among actual racists, what few remain, the fact that certain conservative principles have appeal for them doesn't make center-right politics crafted to appeal to racists. It, too, is feodor. If a principle or policy has legitimate merit, it doesn't have less merit because racists see the merit as well. And because racists see the merit, promoting that principle or policy doesn't indicate any intention of doing so to attract racists. It's just so feodor to pretend it does. (As an aside, one can also say it is Trabue to make such absurd claims)

Anyway, I've got a study, too. It even has a question regarding how one feels about a family member marrying outside the race. Throughout the entire study and in each of the individual questions, we see very little difference in the amount of white Dems vs white Repubs in the response. The take-away is this: racist attitudes are on a downward trend either way amongst whites. But there are two considerations that those like Dan and feo lack the honesty to admit or the intelligence to consider in the first place:

1. Among Dems, how many might answer differently, thereby expressing their racist selves, if not for how they feel they might be viewed by fellow lefties? While this might also be a problem for the right, as a conservative, I maintain that I'm not familiar with any right-wingers who are racist.

2. Among Republicans, how many are racist who vote GOP because they are also enamored with things like smaller gov't, stronger military, lower taxes, etc? Again, sound policy has appeal even for bad people.

Said another way, racists might be more likely to vote GOP not because of any overt or covert racism inherent in the GOP, but because despite their racism, they're smart enough to know center-right philosophy is more beneficial, particularly when compared with the idiocy of the Democratic party and left-wing ideology in general. That doesn't make the GOP racist. It makes racists smarter than leftists, progressives and Democrat supporters. It would be totally feodor/trabue to reject sound policy just because a few racists see the benefit of them.

Marshal Art said...

feo,

Your leftwing opinion pieces are not evidence of right-wing racism. It's easy to "grapple" with GOP history on race. It's easy to embrace it. When there is no racism to speak of in GOP history, there's no fear in doing so. YOU, on the other hand, have a real problem which you refuse to face with regard to your own racism.

Feodor said...

Opinion: Republicans' Reaction to Racism Is a Shell Game

"And this is perhaps why the GOP was so quick to condemn these people, not because of who they are, but because of what they reveal about us as a country. Their sin was not to be racist, but to be visible. Promoting obscure policies that have the effect of oppressing minorities is an acceptable American pastime, one can do so while still pretending to advocate for American principles, like liberty, equality, or fairness.

But the GOP's reaction to white supremacy is nothing but a shell game. They created Trump with decades of vilifying immigrants, attacking the black community through coded language about "welfare queens" and being "tough on crime"."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/amp/opinion-republicans-reaction-racism-shell-game-n792281

Feodor said...

Your only strategy is to lie to your cheap ass conscience with denial and erasure.

Marshal Art said...

The lying is all yours, feo. Pretending the right promotes policies with the intention of oppressing minorities, or that the effect of policies on minorities is actually caused by the policies, is simply a ploy by the left in their never ending quest to demonize the right.

And it wasn't the right who created Trump. It was the left and their own policies. However, I do condemn the GOP for failing to live up to conservative ideals, and for not having the character to properly deal with the damaging policies of the left.

Even the suggestion that the right deals in "coded language", when in reality it is Dem slander...referring to truth as "coded language".

The true racists are the leftists, but they're so far gone that white supremacists find more in common with conservatives. More black people are beginning to see the light as well. Ironic that blacks and white supremacists are turning away from the Democrats.

Craig said...

Notice Feo, that Dan can't even provide proof for two specific claims he made.

Ali's if you read the entire Wikipedia article, you'd find that the article even mentions evidence that counters your assertion.

Marshal Art said...

You don't have to respond to anything feo says, Craig. He's like the village idiot.

Feodor said...

Marshall wants you to take the 5th, Craig. He needs the room for a cover-up.

Guess who, Craig:

'You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”'

Craig said...

Notice Feo, that Art didn't say what you imply he did, Dan can't prove the claims he makes, and your own proof is equivocal.

Feodor said...

That's a really bad guess. And your refusal to reason out the obvious from what people say is part and parcel to your wooden abilities.

Try to address the evidence. Unless you cannot.

Craig said...

Ok, sure. You're right, everyone else is wrong just because you say so.

Perhaps some remedial reading comprehension is in order.

Art didn't say, what you claim he said.
Dan can't be bothered to prove the claims he makes.
Your Wikipedia article isn't the blanket proof you seem to believe it is. Not that Wikipedia is a scholarly unbiased source to begin with.

I'm sorry that those realities cause you distress.

Feodor said...

Guess again. You're way off so far. Unless you can't face facts. Which so readily seems to be.

Craig said...

Sure Feo, whatever you say.

Feodor said...

You gave up; shame. These words, spoken in 1981:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

were said by this man, who "rose to prominence in the South Carolina Republican Party, actively participating in the campaigns of Governor Carroll Campbell and Senator Strom Thurmond. During his years in South Carolina, he became well-known for managing hard-edged campaigns based on emotional wedge issues.... An American political consultant and strategist for the Republican Party. He was an adviser to US Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee."

And yet you don't think the Republican Party has a specially deep problem with racism.

Actually, you just don't think.

Feodor said...

He also openly talked about Nixon's Southern Strategy.

And, after he became head of the RNC, he spearheaded this:

"After the election, ----- was named chairman of the Republican National Committee. Shortly after [he] took over the RNC, Jim Wright, a Democrat, was forced to resign as Speaker of the House and was succeeded by Tom Foley.

On the day that Foley officially became speaker, the RNC began circulating a memo to Republican congresspeople and state party chairpeople called "Tom Foley: Out of the Liberal Closet". The memo compared Foley's voting record with that of openly gay Congressman Barney Frank, with a subtle implication that Foley was himself gay. It had been crafted by RNC communications director Mark Goodin and by House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich."

Craig said...

Sure Feo, whatever you say.

Feodor said...

Turning your cold heart to the proof you asked for.

Craig said...

Sure Feo, whatever you say.

Feodor said...

A gutless sulker. Kept asking Dan to prove racism with evidence when you have no intention of acknowledging it.

Zero character.

Feodor said...

Well, Marshall, the job is done. A leading Republican himself reveals how thoroughly permeated the Republican Party is with racism. Oh, sure, the Dems are, too, somewhat. After all, we all live in the legacy of slaughtering two whole kinds of people to make a nation and build its citadels and capital.

But Lee Atwater moved your Party from the Southern Strategy which even he confesses into an increasingly coded bigotry that seems to salve the conscience of those with one and bedazzle new ignorances on the part of simpletons like yourself.

Doesn't take much to demonstrate the truth. One Google search and a Wiki bio. But then you guys aren't much either.

In 1990 Mr Atwater was diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor and seemed to turn humbly and repentantly to sacramental faith.

I hope that you get that chance, a chance to discover a heart and a love of brotherhood. You, gutless Craig, and the Hibernian ass.

Marshal Art said...

You haven't provided proof, feo. You've provided opinion. Your doing the typical leftist nonsense of imposing upon your "evidence" that which actually isn't there. And like a typical lying lefty, you're enamored with that Lee Atwater bit. But it's total crap. It's purposely and typically (for a lefty) taken out of context. Here's some insight you don't have the courage, integrity and honesty to consider. Because you're a false priest for whom truth is like a flaming ball of manure.

Craig said...

Sure Feo, whatever you say. But if things like accuracy and facts mean anything to you, I must point out that I've only asked Dan to prove specific claims he's made. I've only asked Dan to live up to the standard he demands of others. But if it helps your self esteem to make things up and try to provoke, don't let me stop you.

I've been clear in acknowledging that racism exists in politics. To harp on the "racist" history on only one party seems a bit too partisan for me. But again, you go right ahead.

Marshal Art said...

Craig,

It's not that racism exists in politics. The question is whether or not there's a legitimate racism problem in the GOP, and to some extent if there ever really was. Doubtless there must have been some Republican-leaning examples, but to what extent? Anything that justifies pretending it's the party of racism? Abso-freakin'-lutely not. It's absurd. All that charge is is an attempt to deflect attention for the past and present racism of the left.

But feo will press on with lefty opinion pieces, which are never trustworthy, and Atwater's own misrepresentation of the so-called "Southern Strategy", which my many links to videos explain in great detail. Indeed, Pat Buchanan, who coined the term, recalls Nixon's own words about appealing to the south with conservative principles leaving the Dems to "to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice."

In short, feo's a bald-faced liar. Always will be I fear. Pray for him. Or laugh at him...one of the two. He's the village idiot.

Marshal Art said...

You know what's funny? feo often deletes his own comments after correcting typos, as if correct spelling makes his stupidity seem less stupid.

Feodor said...

You guys are just like Rush Limbaugh: "the Weather Channel is liberal conspiracy!" As he packs his bags. 😂😂😂😂

Oh the depths of hypocritical idiocy.

Craig said...

Oh, you must mean Dan.

Marshal Art said...

I listened to the clip of what Limbaugh said. He didn't say the Weather Channel is liberal conspiracy. So there's another lie from the lying false priest.

But then he doubles down on his stupidity and joins in all those who think it's meaningful after Rush speculates on leftist exploitation of a natural disaster that he'd evacuate the area where a major hurricane is heading. Somehow, to these desperate and pathetic lefties, one cannot dispute the suggestion that mankind is responsible for catastrophic climate change yet take proper action when faced with major storms. Somehow that's supposed to be a sign of hypocrisy or something! And of course none of this has anything to do with the topic, but it's what feo does when all his attempts to force lies down our throats fail on an epic level.

And as to the topic at hand, I find it remarkable that this feo, who wants us to believe he married into a black family, actually ignores the horrible racist past of the party he supports in favor of trying to portray the GOP as the actual villains...all the while still supporting the party that doesn't believe black people can achieve without gov't help and lowering standards. Talk about racism!!!

Craig said...

Both Feo and Dan have a tenuous grip on the truth. In Limbaugh's case, from what I heard it was more about how the media uses things like hurricanes to drive an agenda. It's the "They tell us that they can predict the temperature 100 years from now within 1/2 a degree, but need a 1000 mile margin of error for a hurricane four days from now.".

The problem is that they want to hang the past around the neck of the 2017 GOP, while claiming that the past of the DFL doesn't count.

Feodor said...

Neither of you have a grasp on hate. Nor on the significance of the word, nigger.

You both still avoid, because you cannot face the facts, these words by the most successful Republican Party manager of the last 50 years:

"'You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”'

Craig said...

It seems strange that someone would be so bold as to suggest that people of whom he has such little knowledge "have a grasp on hate". I've got to wonder if this is simply prejudice or hubris.

Feodor said...

Not to mention Marshall's psychotic lie about the "lie of the Soutern Strategy." And using psychotic selfies on YouTube...😂😂😂

Craig said...

Of course that conveniently ignores the Johnson "The niggers will vote for us..." comment, and the fact that the civil rights legislation of the 60's wouldn't have passed without the support of the GOP.

But, please turn a blind eye toward racism on your side of the political aisle, it does such a good job of improving your credibility.

Feodor said...

No. It really doesn't. And that you don't get that is testament to your intractible will to ignorant bias.

Craig said...

Ok sure, whatever you say. You're absolutely correct that no democrat ever has been racist and that every single person who's ever even contemplated voting for a GOP candidate is a racist of the most horrible sort.

Feodor said...

And STILL! cannot deal with central evidence that the most successful Republican campaign manager of the last 50 years proves the perversly racist basis of Republican means to try to win elections.

Feodor said...

Ever gutless.

Craig said...

Yes we get it. All republicans ever in the history of the world are racist and no democrat has ever been.

Hell the fact that I've spent the last 20+ years of my life employing black men, and building affordable housing for hundreds of black families (many are even immigrants, horror of horrors), must make me an especially heinous racist. Of course the small role I've played in helping bring advanced medical care to Haitians just makes the racism even worse.

But you just keep on with the broad sweeping generalizations, they make you sound so intellectually superior to everyone else and just make us all want to hang on every wise word you deign to share.

So, yes Feo, whatever you say.

Feodor said...

And STILL! cannot deal with THE SPECIFIC central evidence that the most successful Republican campaign manager of the last 50 years proves the perversly racist basis of Republican means to try to win elections.

Anonymous said...

Craig, you're embarrassing yourself. Stop.

Let me help: Feodor NEVER SAID that no Democrats are or ever have been racist. Indeed, back in the day when the Democrats represented the more conservative wing of politics, they were often VERY racist. And there is still a problem today in all parties. Feodor never said otherwise.

You know how I know this amazing thing about this man I know nothing about? By the way HE NEVER SAID what you are saying.

Stop embarrassing yourself. Argue like a rational man or stop.

Jiminy Cricket.

~Dan

Craig said...

Ah Dan, it's a shame you can't recognize things like hyperbole and sarcasm. Which is strange, given how often you use hyperbole as an excuse for your misstatements and to avoid providing proof of the claims you make.

Feodor said...

It's extraordinary, on this anniversary in my city, to appreciate how among the terrorists victories that day would be to shred what existed of decency in the Republican Party. How what they wrought brought an American President to lie to his people with manufactured evidence to throw us into a second unnecessary war. How the GOP would then desperately awaken the rigid rage of white peoples by nominating an incompetent as VP, and then not long after, nominate for white majority approval a brutalizing incompetent for President.

3000 dead. Another 5000 soldiers in Iraq, thrown in without armor. 33,000 wounded.

Pell Mel greed unregulated by Bush. And now, as a stand in, a guy whose only governing principal is getting applause. And he'll manufacture numbers to lie about that.

The terrorists best long term success: bigotry, misogyny, decapitated decency, a US without leadership at the top... your broken GOP.

Craig said...

I will grant you that the terrorists and their religion/philosophy/worldview are prime culprits in the spears of bigotry, misogyny, and all sorts of other problems.

I'll even grant you that (if you mean Trump) the leadership of the GOP is less than ideal. But that's what happens when an amoral, liberal, latecomer to the GOP, rides a populist wave to the presidency.

It'll be interesting to see how y'all react if he keeps rolling over for the DFL in order to get things done and to what extent the DFL leadership is willing to work with him.

Marshal Art said...

By now, Craig, it should be obvious why I feel terms like "village idiot", "false priest", etc. are appropriate appellations for the troll who calls himself "feodor". He seems eager for every chance to use the word "nigger" as he continually posts an out of context quote from Lee Atwater, never taking any time to peruse the link I provided that explains why feo's take on that quote is no more than leftist demonizing. Indeed, he hasn't looked at any of the links I've provided that explain things like the Southern Strategy and why it wasn't the appeal to racists liars like feo so desperately need to believe it was. It doesn't matter that the man who coined the term explains the entire matter, and how it was intended to leave the racist stuff to the racist...that is, the Democrats...while promoting conservative principles that non-racist southerners found worthy of supporting.

Now, these fools (I include Dan now) want to pretend that because conservative principles might have appeal for racists as well, then by golly that shows that the GOP is intentionally reaching out to racists, as if their incredibly tiny number would have any impact whatsoever in winning or losing elections. It's fascinating to see how insane these two are...and the entire leftist segment of the population if this is far more common than those like these two, Maxine Waters, Joe Biden and other buffoons would have us believe.

Among the videos to which I linked are those hosted by black people explaining what fake-intellectuals like feo and Dan refuse to accept. Other videos have black people explaining why they can no longer support the lying Democrat Party and/or why they support Trump.

So there is no amount of evidence one might offer to force acceptance of the reality that the GOP is not, nor has ever been, the party of racism...but there is overwhelming evidence, both of the past and the present, to show the Dems are the real racists. That won't change. While the GOP has always sought to defend Americans, the Dems rely upon identity politics to pit some Americans against others, while they feed off the hate and anger they themselves have cooked up. So Dan and feo will satisfy themselves with baseless allegations and then pretend it's obvious.

And to Dan, while feo hasn't said specifically that Dems aren't guilty of racism, like you, he goes to great lengths to ignore it or to downplay it in favor of pretending there is a problem within the GOP. It's simply a lie and so typical of him specifically and the left generally.

If there was anything wrong with any of the links I've provided to support my position, honest people of character and integrity would address directly the claims made therein. Instead, I get you two clowns...liars of the highest order.

Feodor said...

Marshall thinks negros are magical (never wrong if they agree with him [oh, the poverty of reason]), that I used the word, nigger, and not Mr Atwater, and that Mr Atwater doesn't know what he's saying and so needs a YouTuber to straighten out his "context," and wouldn't it be great to find a chocolate man to do the job!

Here's your magic Negro, Marshall, a true denying idiot just like you and your other finds.

https://youtu.be/d3ntlXbMlJE

Craig said...

Ok. I'll stop playing with the trolls.

Feodor said...

Craig knows how to quit the field without honor.

Marshal Art said...

Craig,

Sorry you had to find out the hard way. I find it's more fun to respond to the troll with fact and truth, and then watch him routinely pretend I've not done so, instead of proving I haven't. He's completely devoid of honor or honesty, and his last comment provides more proof. I didn't link to a "YouTuber" to explain the context of the Atwater quote feo needs to believe is damning. It was an article...not a video.

But that doesn't matter. feo never addresses the truth claim (because he's incapable given that it's true), preferring instead to attack either the person making the claim or the manner in which he presents it. All the while, he'll continue to repeat the lies he prefers, even after the links he refuses to either peruse or address have exposed the lies he loves.

Then of course, he demonstrates his incredible hypocrisy by daring to accuse you of "quitting the field without honor". The child has no honor, nor does he know the meaning of the word.

Craig said...

Sure, whatever you say Feo. You being an expert on honor and all.

Feodor said...

Here are more of your kind of YouTube facts, Marxhall. Bone up on your denial desires. They're weak.

https://youtu.be/8W3y3Qh8R1s

Craig said...

You offer one Wikipedia article as if it is holy writ, but criticize Art for offering YouTube?

Marshal Art said...

It's even worse than that, Craig. feo refuses to deal with the claims in any of the videos or articles to which I've linked, believing that by re-posting his own Atwater excerpts, or this latest vid about 9/11, that somehow that is a legitimate and adult response. He's hilarious in his desperate attempts to deflect and avoid, all the while trying to maintain his facade of intellectual superiority. This boy is one sad and pathetic case. He's the Black Knight with all his limbs chopped off insisting he's "winning". At least his keepers let him play on the computer now and then, or we'd never get to enjoy his antics.

Craig said...

Of course, he and Dan are all about avoiding dealing with the flaws in their positions. For exhibit B see Dan's recent comments at my blog.

Feodor said...

This is what you're both evading. This is clearly indicative that the Republican Party is pervasively racist - straight from the mouth of the most successful Republican strategist of the last 50 years, working in South Carolina and then in three successful Presidential campaigns.

And Craig, in his idiocy, thinks the quotation marks indicate a Wiki article.

And Marshall, Craig's model in killing one's conscious, runs away from it as fast as he can with fingers in his ears to the privacy of his YouTube theatre.

You both can listen if you want. It's in Atwater's own voice. Rather, for those of living in reality it is. For you two it is a garbled sonic disturbance without meaning sent to tempt God's children away from the truth that The Flintstones really is a documentary.

One trigger warning, though, Marshall: you will hear the word, nigger. And more than once. But I'm sure you can evade it at will. Evasion is the sum of all you ever do.

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

Craig said...

You're the one who offered the Wikipedia link, not either of us.

Feodor said...

Evasion. Deal with the racist proof Atwater himself provides.

Craig said...

Atwater is dead.

Marshal Art said...

From the link to the Powerline piece I provided above, in response to the misrepresented Atwater quote presented by the liar, feo:

Liberals like Martin Bashir cite this interview for the proposition that Republicans skillfully conceal appeals to racism in seemingly innocuous policy discussions. Obviously, Atwater said nothing of the sort. And he declined to agree with Professor Lamis’s suggestion that Reagan’s talk about cutting programs like legal services and food stamps “gets to” the racist side of the George Wallace voter, albeit unconsciously. “I’m not saying it.” What Atwater did say, repeatedly and unambiguously, is that racial prejudice no longer plays a significant role in Southern elections, and that Reagan won the South in 1980 on the same issues with which he swept the rest of the country: the economy and national defense. It requires a great deal of dishonesty to twist Atwater’s words into the exact opposite of what he actually said.

So the context in which Atwater made the statement that so arouses feo due to it's use of the "n" word (because feo's a racist) was one in which he is saying the opposite of what liars like feo and other race-baiting lefties want and need Atwater's words to mean. And it is an example of just what the GOP's "race problem" actually looks like. The problem is that the left is so desperate to portray the GOP as racist, they will do all they can to put forth the notion that every burp and belch from a center-right individual is racist, either overtly or covertly. feo is totally down with this strategy, likely due to his own inherent racism that nags at what remains of his conscience. The lefty pretends to see racism everywhere a Republican is, because the lefty is so completely devoid of actual ideas that work. In order to keep minorities on board, they must drive a wedge between them and the rest of society. Division works for the lefty, so divide they must. As my links show, blacks are beginning to see the truth of what the Democratic Party is and always has been.

Craig said...

Is it possible that you are suggesting that Atwater's comments have been taken out of context and misrepresented? I am just shocked that you would even think such a horrible thing.

Marshal Art said...

feo said,

The audio is 42 minutes long. Atwater establishes his own context entirely. All any reasonable person need do is listen and the racism is clear.

But you two deny reason as easily as you deny racism, climate change, the Holocaust, virtually anything that's taught in higher ed.


I deleted his name-calling. feo has no standing to call people names that are far more suitable for himself than any he arrogantly and without basis supposes is an intellectual inferior...itself a most comedic claim.

In any case, asserting what "reasonable" people might conclude after listening to the Atwater interview requires a bit more than just the asserting. Like Dan, he fails to actually defend his assertions and also regards as "reasonable" those that agree with his assertions.

But let's assume for a moment that Atwater is every bit the Robert Byrd feo needs him to be. I'd say feo needs a few more Atwaters in the GOP before he or Dan can actually support the charge of GOP racism. No one on this side of the divide has ever suggested that there exists no racists within the GOP's history. The point is which party is more representative of the racist segment of society today, seeing as how even the recent past proves the Dems have always been the party of racism. The answer is STILL the Democrats and the left in general.

feo and Dan need more than one out of context quote from Lee Atwater to make the case.

Craig said...

But Art, it makes total sense to use one quote from one interview, of a guy who wasn't elected to anything, and who died in 1991 as the basis o make broad sweeping generalizations about millions of people.

Feodor said...

What idiot believes the decades enduring leadership of the Party - and the person centrally charged with getting votes - doesn't reflect the nature, quality, and message of the Party?

Craig. At the very least, that idiot.

Craig said...

Not at all, just think it's a bit much to extrapolate one quote from one dead guy out to "the entire GOP is racist". Especially 30 odd years later. But if it salves your conscience to falsely categorize those who disagree with you l, then I'm happy to help maintain your self esteem.

I must admit, your ability to categorize and label people based on such superficial and cursory exposure to them is most impressive. Have you considered a career as a carnival fortune teller?

Anonymous said...

“I don’t want to see a president of the United State saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle down racism and trickle down bigotry and trickle down misogyny — all of these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America.”

~Mitt Romney

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Romney was apparently talking about Obama.

Anonymous said...

The blind leading the blind... To rip out their eyes and stuff rocks in their gouged out eye sockets, then put on sunglasses and denounce those who can't see as well as they do...

Of course, he was talking about Trump. If reality means anything to you.

Why was this conservative worried about appeals to racism in the GOP? Hmmm...

Dan

Marshal Art said...

"Why was this conservative worried about appeals to racism in the GOP?"

Once again you prove you have no idea of what "conservatism" looks like. Hint: It doesn't look like Mitt Romney. Sure, he was far more "conservative" than Barry O, but then, who wouldn't have been who ran against him for president in the general election? In fact, if not for his fiscal policies (setting aside his tax increases as governor), I'm not so sure he's more right-wing than simply a moderate...which isn't conservative at all.

Anyway, many center-right individuals opposed Trump, including many who voted for him over Hillary. Many wrongly accused him of all sorts of things, mainly to dissuade voters from supporting him when others were still running for the party's nomination. Just like the lying left, they pounced on his unpolished manner of speech to rationalize calling him racist and such. These were people who didn't see the threat to the nation of a Hillary or Bernie victory. But you go ahead and pretend their leftist-like accusations have any great merit...as if you would ever give them the time of day were they not to hate Trump like you do.

What's more relevant here is how you and feo concern yourself with drumming up this notion of a GOP race problem, when the race problem of your own side of the divide is far more proven and still standard operating procedure. Identity politics of every form is a hallmark strategy and you do it by playing the race card whenever possible.

Whatever manner you can divide, you'll do. Now, we're suffering the blatant unconstitutional religious test of a judicial nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, by Catholic haters of the Democratic party. Indeed, it's the party of "no God", so any strong Christian is demonized and marginalized as the party has done to the black race since its founding.

The case is clear, and you and feo continue to manifest the truth...you WANT the GOP to be racist..you NEED the GOP to be racist...and you'll continue to pretend the GOP is racist because it serves you to do so...not because it is true or because you can prove it to be true. It's just another lie you like to tell.

Feodor said...

Oops.

"A new poll in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, finds that while Americans widely say they oppose racism and white nationalism, many still appear to hold far-right, white supremacist views."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reuters-poll-white-supremacist-views_us_59bc155fe4b02da0e141b3c8

Feodor said...

And, please, no more irrational evasions. Huffingron Post didn't do this. To try and undermine the numbers and findings you guys will just have to attack. Ipsos, Thomson Reuters and the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

Or, for the millionth time, show the rest of us, rational people how none of you choose to have the moral guts to recognize what racism consists of.

Marshal Art said...

There's no need to evade anything you put forth as if true, feo. Indeed, I respond in quite a direct fashion. You never support a freakin' thing. This poll is an example of a sham response that doesn't prove anything you think it does. Let's look at the actual poll:

First, let me just say that this is a rare poll with regard to the number of respondents. They interviewed sample of roughly 5,360 adults. Most polls rarely reach two thousand. But still, in a country of about 350 million... The sample included 2,255 Democrats, 1,915 Republicans and 689 Independents, which is fairly even as far as Dems and Repubs go, but I don't understand why they can't simply ask for party affiliation first, and then move on if they've gotten a desired amount of each. But that's really neither here nor there right now.

Now let's look at the first question, which concerns whether or not Confederate statues should or shouldn't be removed, and the second related question on when one came to believe as one does. Q1 is incomplete without also asking "why?", and Q2 is totally worthless. What does it matter how long one has felt a particular way. What matters is why they do. Q2 answers are mere curiosities, but do show a particular problem with those who came to their beliefs after the actions of the governments of S. Carolina, New Orleans and Charlottesville prompted the belief. Sounds like a very feo reason for coming to believe anything.

Q3 lists 9 categories that I'll reference by letter (a-i) from top to bottom.

(a) is a fact. How many agree or disagree is irrelevant compared to whether or not they can defend or counter the claim. Political correctness intends to impose the standards of one group upon the free speech rights and abilities of everyone else.

(b) is incomplete. Protect European White heritage against what? Preserve it from what? If it means to protect it against the whining about "white privilege" and "it's all whitey's fault", then the even response from the 5360 interviewed is alarming and reprehensible. It should be 100% agree. But then, all should be protected in the same way and to the same extent. The left divides by group and then whines when groups negatively affected get pissed.

Marshal Art said...


(c, d, e, & g) demonstrate what those like Craig and myself have been saying, which is that racism isn't as prevalent and thus not the problem race-baiters like feo, Dan, Al Sharpton, et al would have us believe. It also affirms what those like Craig and I do, that despite the fact that racism isn't a problem, it still exists. No polling was necessary to affirm what is obvious.

Q4 is especially interesting. While I see nothing that informs me as to the percentages of respondents by political affiliation, I will make the claim even without such info that the numbers of those who support Antifa and BLM would be higher if not for the racist Democrats. Note how opposition numbers to the allegedly conservative/right-wing AltRight, White Nationalism and Neo-Nazism is significantly higher. Based on the premise we're supposed to swallow, one would expect to see percentages of opposition/support similar to the Antifa & BLM groups. As such, at this point the poll does not support the premise that the GOP has a race problem.

And further evidence that this poll totally makes feo to be the buffoon he's long ago proven himself to be is in Q5, where no group is supported by any of the respondents or anyone they know.

So now feo must show how I've "undermined" these results as opposed to drawing logical and rational conclusions about the poll, the premise of the HuffPo author and the buffoonish nature of feo.

Racism consists of feo and those like him who need to believe racism is rampant, and will promote the notion against all data that demonstrates it is not the case. It also consists of feo and those like him who refuse to acknowledge that they are among the more racist half of the nation, despite all evidence that demonstrates that to be true.

And feo will continue to prove that no one is more deserving of the title "Village Idiot" than is he.

Feodor said...

Marshall denies that there's such research at all.

Went right to the bottom of lunatic evasion.

Marshal Art said...

I deny nothing that's true. For example, I deny that you have an actual clue about anything you've posted here to support your baseless lies about the GOP. As I actually waste my time reading your links, it is crystal clear just how stupid you are. Why not borrow a pair of testicles and actually rebut my comments instead of employing the typical leftist "Nyuh uh" tactic? Answer: because you know no one with testicles to lend you in order to overcome your cowardice.

Feodor said...

"... no need to evade anything you put forth as if true, feo." Well, I though I "put forth" news of a survey that does, in fact, exist. But you say "as if" denying that there is, indeed, an existing survey.

"I deny nothing that's true." So, if I did "put forth" a survey that exists, you're promising not to deny it.

So which is it? I did put not forth something that exists or I put forth something that you cannot deny?

Marshal Art said...

I did not, in any way, shape or form, suggest a survey that I addressed in great detail doesn't exist. I deny, as well as demonstrate, that it fails to accomplish what ou and the HuffPo writer claims it does.

Really, feo. I need no more convincing of your idiocy. I'm totally convinced and have been for some time. Suggesting that "exists" equates to "true" is just more evidence. The funny part, and what confirms your idiocy, is actually reprinting something I actually said, but then arguing about something I did not. You're a special Olympian, feo. You really are.

Feodor said...

It is true, I have a lot of fun, Olympian fun playing with the existence of your idiocy. Wait! There's something that exists AND is true: your idiocy! Wrong again.

And you did write that anything I "put forth" cannot be true but that I put them forth "as if" true. I didn't make an argument, simply put forth news of survey results. This news is not "as if" true. It is true. There is a survey. So, wrong again.

And then you write a clearly ridiculous thing: "I deny nothing that's true." What absurdity. We all get things wrong, Marshall. Usually unintentionally. By denying what is true, thought we don't think of it as true. And you get so, so much wrong. But I really think that you get a lot wrong by intention, subconscious intention driven by the need to protect yourself from being aware of your brutalizing motivations. And out of this swirl of lunacy, the result is that you think of yourself as a god: "I deny nothing that's true"! What a stupendous pompous lie for anyone to say.

How so very, very, wrong. You're a lunatic, Marshall. But not a very special one. Just a garden variety one. It's just that we seem to have been growing lunacy like a weed among the poorly educated that Trump likes.

The poorly educated choose such bad sources, fake even, for their models of how to think. The poorly educated choose helicopter engineers to write their theology for the. The poor educated reject experts of all kinds. The poorly educated deny climate change disaster. The poorly educated deny the Newtown massacre. The poorly educated think Obama is a Muslim. The poorly educated think gays have an agenda toward straights. The poorly educated think the Holocaust wasn't all that or even anything. The poorly educated use YouTube as an almighty source of knowledge because they can always find what legitimates their horribly poor thinking.

The poorly educated that Trump likes, the poorly educated like you, Marshall, think they can match wits with people who have studied science all their life. The poorly educated like you, Marshall, think they can joust with actual, trained, thousands-of-hours-in-libraries doused students of history. The poorly educated like you, Marshall, think you can actually think through policy for a society of hundreds of millions without ever having done anything remotely for more than fifty... AND THEN go on to think you have any credence to know one wit about the effectual or failed policies of any other country.

It's the poorly educated people like you, Marshall, that has decapitated decency and left us without a leader. And so it's the poorly educated white people like you that have given the 9/11 terrorists their created long term victories.
Well, you and white brutalizing leaders that the poorly educated like you support, like the McConnell's, the Ryan's, the Cruz's, and all the brutalizing ones that came before.

Feodor said...

And the way you just wrote about the survey tells us all that all this is true... and exists in the center of you. You're a what?, truck driver? And what did you before that? Work in a survey research firm on Madison Avenue or London for twenty years?

No. But you, you sorry educated, empty conscience, stone hearted idiotic think you know better how surgery questions should be asked than a 32 year research firm working in 80 countries, with 6,000 clients? You know exactly shit about it.

"Political correctness intends to impose the standards of one group upon the free speech rights and abilities of everyone else."

WTF? Who could possibly find this believable except a dedicated denier fraud? Criticizing (the act of what you would call "political correctness") the ways in which a majority sets customs that infringe on the rights of others to exist and practice legal life as they choose is PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID. Jesus, god, Marshall. The very reason we have a two party system is so the party not in power can be the loyal opposition: to criticize how the one in power may be behaving politically incorrect by abusing it's authority and set it back on a Constitutional path, in your example particularly with the Bill of Rights and amendments since.

Have you NO humility? You are sold on stupid and call it a flower. What a moron.

I wont waste my time with your other points. It would be like arguing with you when you thought you could take Einstein down. Or a climatologist. Or a trained theologian. Or an historian of slavery. Or an historian of the Holocaust (you're just gonna have to admit that you're in bed with such). Or a black man on what it's like to be black. You know shit about any of this. But you actually, actually, in a take-just-a-sensible-person's-breath-away hysteria... think you do know better.

And the survey you think you are criticizing? What a load.

Ipsos is the 3rd largest global market research company in the world.

And you? A zero. A destructor. A Judaizer. A hater. A denier. You put burdens on people to keep them from salvation.

That's all you are. At least, all you are on top of being a truck driver. Which I am sure you do very well, don't get me wrong.

Marshal Art said...

Wow! More falsehood to unpack. LOTS more, so this will be done in segments. Don't bother responding until I've completed doing so, because I'll simply delete your comments to maintain continuity. You'll get your chance to lie again when I'm done. OR, you can be a man and actually respond to whatever claims I make about the topic at hand. Let's begin (I'll be dissecting this severely):

"Wait! There's something that exists AND is true: your idiocy! Wrong again"

Not sure of this one. You begin by making the false charge that I'm an idiot and then admit that you're wrong again. Oh well. Onward.

"And you did write that anything I "put forth" cannot be true but that I put them forth "as if" true. I didn't make an argument, simply put forth news of survey results."

You're putting forth the premise that the GOP and those who vote for GOP candidates are racist. This is not true and none of the "facts" you've put forth support the claim, making them false as well in terms of being supporting facts. This survey also fails to support the premise as I've explained in great detail that apparently is too far over your pointy head.

"And then you write a clearly ridiculous thing: "I deny nothing that's true.""

What's clear, or at least is to honest people with average comprehension skills is that this fact claim refers to charges you've made directly about me. You insist that I deny facts that I simply do not deny. More often, you're putting forth that which you assert is factual without proving it is so, and then asserting I deny those assertions you put forth as fact. But that which is actually true...particularly with regards to debates on these here blogs? No. I deny nothing that is true. That's YOUR thing.

Marshal Art said...


"And you get so, so much wrong"

This is a routine charge you never have proven, and your attempts to do so with your various links haven't helped your cause. It only validates my low opinion of your imagined superior intellect that you think they have.

""I deny nothing that's true"! What a stupendous pompous lie for anyone to say."

It would be if you said it. But unlike you, truth is important to me. Prove I'm wrong and I will embrace the truth you've proven. Go ahead. Try it for once and see. I'll even thank you for enlightening me.

"The poorly educated choose such bad sources, fake even, for their models of how to think"

This statement might actually have value if it was ever supported with evidence. Mere assertions don't get it done.

"The poorly educated choose helicopter engineers to write their theology for the."

THERE IT IS AGAIN!! The old standby from long ago. This will always be a favorite of mine as it is from among one of my first posts, your first visits and the first example of you attacking the messenger and not the message...your cowardly M.O. To this day you've done absolutely nothing to address any of the solid, logic and fact based arguments that "helicopter engineer" put forth to affirm the fact that the moral prohibitions of Leviticus are still in effect for anyone who dares call himself a true follower of Christ. More fascinating is your implication that one who's career is that of a helicopter engineer can't also be well versed in theology. Too bad you aren't worthy of cleaning his toilet, much less worthy of suggesting you've a better, truer understanding of Scripture.

The greater point here, of course, is not where I get my info or from whom, but whether or not the info is true. You focus only on the source, not the info, because you have no argument to counter the truth of the info...or you would have done so at least once. Still waiting.

"The poorly educated deny climate change disaster."

Don't know about poorly educated people in general, but few people deny climate change "disaster" when a change in climate results in disaster. But it takes no genius to understand how there is no consensus as to the impact of human activity on any change in climate. This issue is off topic and thus irrelevant, which is another cowardly ploy to avoid having failed to prove your premise.

Marshal Art said...

"The poorly educated deny the Newtown massacre"

No one has come to this blog to suggest that except you. Also irrelevant...but then, so are you.

"The poorly educated think Obama is a Muslim."

You mean that guy with the muslim father, who went to a muslim school, who thinks the muslim morning call to prayer is one of the most beautiful sounds in the world, who defends islam and never Christianity in foreign affairs and immigration policy? That guy? He certainly hasn't demonstrated that he's a Christian. Nor have you.

"The poorly educated think gays have an agenda toward straights."

Homosexuals have an agenda which includes demonizing normal people who recognize the immorality, abnormality and harm of homosexuality. Dishonest people (like you) pretend otherwise.

"The poorly educated think the Holocaust wasn't all that or even anything."

No. Those are just liars...people with whom you have a great affinity.

"The poorly educated use YouTube as an almighty source of knowledge because they can always find what legitimates their horribly poor thinking."

Once again you attack the source of the info and not the info itself. Coward. What a cheap and lazy tactic! Perfect for you!

"The poorly educated that Trump likes, the poorly educated like you, Marshall, think they can match wits with people who have studied science all their life."

You have yet to prove that Trump favors the poorly educated, and you haven't proven I'm so poorly educated that I can't support my positions, and you haven't proven you possess any wits...or even one wit. I don't argue with people who study science, but I do argue with those who pervert data to support that which the data doesn't support. People like you.

"The poorly educated like you, Marshall, think they can joust with actual, trained, thousands-of-hours-in-libraries doused students of history."

Oh, it hasn't come close to rising to the level of an actual joust yet. You just make assertions, I prove them unfounded and you spew crap about the sources of the facts that do the proving. You engage in the same "nyuh uh" style of debate as Dan.

Marshal Art said...

"The poorly educated like you, Marshall, think you can actually think through policy for a society of hundreds of millions without ever having done anything remotely for more than fifty... AND THEN go on to think you have any credence to know one wit about the effectual or failed policies of any other country."

Do you have a specific example in mind, or are you just crappin' your pants? That which I support and oppose is starkly obvious for the beneficial and detrimental consequences respectively.

"It's the poorly educated people like you, Marshall, that has decapitated decency and left us without a leader."

Actually, you lefties bear far more responsibility for the rise of Trump than anyone who voted for him. Without your anti-American, immoral policies and behaviors, Trump wouldn't have been given the time of day. And then you go and put up Hillary and Bernie to double down on all that has failed so many times. And you dare speak of decency. What hubris! What hypocrisy!

"And so it's the poorly educated white people like you that have given the 9/11 terrorists their created long term victories.
Well, you and white brutalizing leaders that the poorly educated like you support, like the McConnell's, the Ryan's, the Cruz's, and all the brutalizing ones that came before."


And there's the white guilt again. What a steaming pile! Someday you'll have to borrow a pair of testicles and actually try to make the connection between these white people you hate and those imagined crimes for which you claim they are responsible. It should make for some good comedy...you racist.

Marshal Art said...

Now your second comment, filled with noting but hateful attacks on my character...again without any evidence to support the assertions...is petulant ranting without fact one as a basis. You think my job guarantees a low threshold of understanding of that which I argue. How so you couldn't begin to explain.

Then you go on about how surveys are conducted, as if I need to be in the business to spot obvious flaws, particularly with regard to how the results are used to support a false premise...which was what my response to the survey was. So yeah, I know how survey questions should be asked if I'm looking to discover how most people think or believe on a given issue. It ain't rocket science. If I wanted to see how many Americans are racist, for example, I'd ask something like, "Do you hate black people?" Can you see how that might be a better gauge of one's view of race? Asking questions like how one feels about their brother marrying a black chick doesn't necessarily get it done without some follow up that might speak to the respondent's concern about the trials and tribulations such a couple are likely to experience. But you don't think of such things, do you, as you look to assign racism to every move a white man makes.

Nothing in the survey gives any info with regard to what it is meant to discover. Why are they asking the questions they are, and what does the outfit who hired the polling company hope to prove? That the HuffPo writer, and you, decide it means something with regard to GOP racism, or conservatism is not supported by any of the questions of the survey. And you haven't the balls to make the case. You simply assert and leave it at that and then act like I'm missing something. Well, I am. I'm missing where it supports your premise that the GOP has a race problem unrelated to the leftist lie that the GOP is racist.

Marshal Art said...

Your understanding of "political correctness" is especially goofy and as flawed as Trump's seems to think talking trash is politically incorrect, when it is just obnoxious. Those with actual intelligence know that political correctness, as the term is commonly understood, seeks to force the opposition to speak in a term that is favorable to one's goals. By dictating how one speaks about issues, one gets the upper hand in affecting public sentiment and ultimately public policy. It puts the focus on words and terms used, instead of the point being made when using them, much like you do in attacking sources instead of the message presented by the source. It's lying and false and it's cowardice. And it's perfect for the left as they have no real arguments that support their flawed and failed policies.

"I wont waste my time with your other points."

Of course you won't, because you never do, because you can't. You're not capable. You lack the intelligence and are devoid of wisdom. As I said earlier, you haven't a single wit. You're witless and you know I'd embarrass you, when you should avail yourself of the opportunity to learn. You're a coward and you've painted yourself in a corner with all the years you've postured yourself as intellectually superior, and when the opportunity to prove it arises, you run and pretend you'd be wasting your time.

Yet here I remain, ready and willing to engage, hoping against your history that you can actually enlighten me. Doesn't your alleged Christian faith encourage you to help those in need? Are you not suggesting...no...blatantly proclaiming that I'm in need of correction? Well I'm here willing to be corrected, false priest. Borrow a spine and a pair of testicles and bring it. Pick one single item and prove it...just once. Just don't be yourself and select a spelling or grammatical error and pretend you've met the challenge, and don't be yourself in terms of your obnoxious and "legend in your own mind" arrogance. Do as an actual Christian would do it.

I'm kidding. I'm well aware you aren't up for such a basic challenge.

Anonymous said...

You mean that guy with the muslim father,..

Wait. Are you seriously suggesting that Obama is a Muslim?

Or are you merely serving as an apologist for those who spread stupid lies?

That would be a new level of silly, even from you, Marshall. Either way, actually.

Carry on.

~Dan

Marshal Art said...

I'm suggesting he doesn't believe in God in any way, but poses for votes. What I've said in this thread does not suggest he's forsaken his muslim upbringing, and he does nothing to convince he gives a flying rat's ass about Christianity. There's certainly no precedent for taking him at his word either way. So it really doesn't matter, does it? So if you can prove that he's not a muslim, or that he is a Christian, go ahead and bring that evidence. I frankly don't care what he is, except no longer our president.

Feodor said...

Useless for your moral corruption, but just for the sake of writing the truth: it is for the spirit of political correctness that suffrage won via new laws; it is for the spirit of political correctness that the civil rights struggle won the vote for people of color via new laws; it is the for the spirit of political correctness that the right to vote was protected by several new laws because so many white people are brutal; it is for the spirit of political correctness that people with disabilities' right to to access to all things pertaining to securing a living via work, etc. was protected by new laws; it is for the spirit of political correctness that new laws won new rights protecting people of any race, creed, gender, religious belief, and sexual orientation to get jobs they can do.

But it's people like you who want to choke this spirit of political correctness and so we''ll keep having to pass laws to protect good people for the likes of you.

Feodor said...

Oops!!! New, independent reliable poll!!!!

(You get so much wrong because you're an anti-Christ christianist).

"White People Lack Empathy Across the Socioeconomic Spectrum, New Study Reveals
We can't keep attributing Trump's rise to economic anxiety."

"NEWS & POLITICS
White People Lack Empathy Across the Socioeconomic Spectrum, New Study Reveals
We can't keep attributing Trump's rise to economic anxiety.
By Sophia Tesfaye / Salon September 19, 2017, 7:19 AM GMT
2.7K98
Print
279 COMMENTS

Photo Credit: Shutterstock / Kelly Bell

Since the election of Donald Trump, the hunt to figure out what’s the matter with White America has pitted racism against economic anxiety as if those things existed in separate and competing silos, forcing a narrow debate about the future of identity politics that seemingly goes nowhere. Instead of a post-racial America, two terms of America’s first black president left many voters -- and a large majority of political pundits -- ill-equipped to discuss what it means to be white in America at precisely the time when whites have reasserted their collective identity in this nation.

So while Trump’s rise is often explained as the blowback for a society more focused on Black Lives Matter or trans bathroom bans instead of jobs for coal miners and a growing opioid epidemic, the curious case of a growing racial empathy gap in this country has been unfairly shouldered by Trump’s white voters. An eye-opening new survey, however, reveals that white Americans across the socioeconomic spectrum, including Democrats, are considerably less concerned about both economic and racial inequality -- it just all depends on where on the socioeconomic spectrum they stand.

While working-class white folks made up Trump’s signature demographic, it was a surge of whites with college degrees that helped him flip notably blue states like Pennsylvania. These college-educated white people, a new survey from the nonpartisan PRRI found, lack empathy on issues of poverty that place them in stark contrast with the blue-collar voters who have been identified as Trump’s base.

White college-educated Americans are far less likely to say poverty is a critical issue — only 37 percent, compared to 47 percent of white non-college-educated Americans and a majority of Hispanic and black Americans (at 52 and 69 percent, respectively). According to PRRI, white college-educated Americans are also less likely than non-college whites to say that children living in poverty is a critical issue to them (49 percent compared to 60 percent). Only 36 percent of college-educated whites say lack of well-paying jobs is a major problem facing communities.

The empathy gap of college-educated whites only widens in regions where Trump excelled electorally, like the Southwest and the Southeast. White college-educated residents of those regions are far less concerned than those without a college degree about the lack of equal opportunity in education. Nearly half of white college-educated respondents (46 percent) told PRRI that it is not a major problem if not everyone has an equal chance in life — a view shared by only 36 percent of those without a college education.

And it’s not just on matters of economic opportunity that white college-educated respondents exhibit a deep lack of compassion for the plight of others. Only 33 percent of white college-educated respondents said that domestic violence was a critically important issue, compared to 47 percent of whites with no college degree, and 63 percent of black respondents."

Feodor said...

https://www.prri.org/research/poll-child-welfare-poverty-race-relations-government-trust-policy/

Attitudes on Child and Family Wellbeing: National and Southeast/Southwest Perspectives
Daniel Cox, Ph.D., Robert P. Jones, Ph.D., 09.18.2017

PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to conducting independent research at the intersection of religion, culture, and public policy.
PRRI’s research explores and illuminates America’s changing cultural, religious, and political landscape. PRRI’s mission is to help journalists, scholars, pundits, thought leaders, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues, and the important cultural and religious dynamics shaping American society and politics.

RESEARCH APPROACH

As a nonpartisan, independent research organization, PRRI does not take positions on, nor do we advocate for, particular policies. Research supported by our funders reflects PRRI’s commitment to independent inquiry and academic rigor. Research findings and conclusions are never altered to accommodate other interests, including those of funders, other organizations, or government bodies and officials.

Marshal Art said...

"But it's people like you who want to choke this spirit of political correctness..."

You clearly don't know what "politically correct" means. Probably because you're so well educated.

Marshal Art said...

Deleted feo's last comment because he doesn't have the status to dare disparage other visitors. One who claims to be a Christian, a seminarian, morally and/or intellectually superior must actually demonstrate it in all behavior.

More later.

Feodor said...

Couldn't stand the truth about how you psychotically lie to yourself - "I'm never wrong!" - is why you erased it. Using the cover of others... gutless coward

Feodor said...

"More later" as in, "I gotta spend some time thinking through how I can twist and divert from the bare facts to escape implication"

Marshal Art said...

"Couldn't stand the truth about how you psychotically lie to yourself - "I'm never wrong!" - is why you erased it."

Wow! This would be incredibly insightful if I ever claimed I'm never wrong! But since I've never claimed that, except perhaps in addressing specific points or positions, it isn't.

""More later" as in, "I gotta spend some time thinking through how I can twist and divert from the bare facts to escape implication""

You clearly need to believe this, so you go right ahead. You tell yourself all sorts of things to stroke your fragile ego...why not this, too?

Marshal Art said...

The actual study from PRRI is quite long and detailed, and seems to be an interesting read should I find the time to do so. Indeed, I've bookmarked it for that purpose. But a cursory look presents a point that feo lacks the intelligence, wisdom or integrity to acknowledge...what any believes is not as important as whether or not what is believed is true.

But worse, the title of the "AltNet" article (a dubious source, to be sure, but typical of the sort feo regards as akin to gospel) does not reflect the true intent of the study itself, so far as my brief overview of the study can show...it is but a subjective opinion of what the results show, not necessarily the truth of it. Sure, it's enough for feo to use as "evidence" for that which he so desperately needs to believe, but whether or not there is a true lack of empathy of the type suggested by the article, by the people the article intends to indict is dependent upon more detailed inquiry lacking in the study itself. To be fair, the study might answer this question somewhere in it's lengthy findings, but as I said, I haven't the time at present to give it the attention required to find that answer. It's enough for now to note that feo is easily convinced...and that's assuming he's both taken the time to pour over the study and has the intellect necessary to objectively access what he reads therein. I'm not holding my breath on that.

In the meantime, while feo whines about my own ability to access such things, or that I dare question the results idiots like him infer from polls of this kind, I put forth others have expressed doubts about the ability of the PRRI to accurately provide data we can trust:

https://cis.org/Renshon/Public-Religion-Research-Institute-Strikes-Again-Unaccompanied-Children-Poll-Pt-2 (actually two articles, as it provides a link to Part 1)

https://catholicvote.org/public-religion-research-institute-misleads-on-catholic-attitudes/

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/tag/public-religion-research-institute/

http://24ahead.com/another-misleading-public-religion-research-institute-immigr

The point here, is of course, that citing polls is tricky business, and feo hasn't the brain cells required to analyze and apply the info properly. Indeed, he does it in the laziest manner possible, adding to his quiver of false arrows whatever appears to support his false narrative regardless of how superficially it might. Truth has no value to a false priest like feo. It only gets in the way.

Feodor said...

Your credibility on the accuracy of polling polls at -3000. Because you know less than zero about it.

Marched on Washington today and found these wise words from an intellectually brilliant but moral punk. You, an intellectual and moral punk, should take heed.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Marshal Art said...

That's funny...YOU condescending to me on the subject of credibility. Even if...and it's a BIG "if"...I'm wrong with regards to my critiques of the polls that arouse you, credibility on your part would require a reasoned an respectful response. But you don't reason and "respectful" is beyond your low-level character. False Christians simply don't have respect for anyone, as you so routinely demonstrate. Your responses are nothing more than childish personal attacks, which proves you're intellectually empty.

As to your low regard for Jefferson, I'm not surprised that you think yourself superior. You're a legend in your own mind in a far more different and unjustified way than you are in mine. As such, you aren't capable of knowing when or how laws or institutions should be changed. All you've ever offered here is unjustified hatred...never light, reason or Christian charity. You're a sad and pathetic and masturbatory boy.

Any time you feel inclined to act like something better, I will celebrate it openly. Pardon me for not holding my breath. I don't expect that day will ever come. If only your father didn't.

Feodor said...

Low regard? You're the one who has life-long vociferously denied the wisdom he exhibits in the above.

You really can't get out of the cat litter of self confusion can you?

Go ahead, praise Jefferson then deny what we writes. Par for the self-deluding course.

Feodor said...

BTW (although adding to what I just wrote will surely distract your infinitesimally small attention span and let constantly avoid your twisted self-contradictions) let me add... Marshall?... Marshall? Sorry, went way past your word limit.

Anyway, I'll add that I also visited the FDR and MLK monuments and the Museum of the American Indian. How great is it to be a real American with such moral and cultural history!

Marshal Art said...

"Low regard? You're the one who has life-long vociferously denied the wisdom he exhibits in the above."

Way to re-write history, false priest. My respect for Jefferson, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't demand absolute fealty to every notion, word or action put forth. You're free to hump the legs of FDR and MLK if you so choose, but that only proves your lack of true knowledge and understanding. FDR, an example of "moral history"?? He was anti-Semetic and racist. This is but one of many links I could have offered that provides example of policies that weren't just bad, but were downright evil. Some evidence suggests he not only knew in advance that the Japanese would attack, but that he provoked them and was more than a little interested in going to war, despite public pronouncements to the contrary. Also, many believed he had mistresses. SOOO very Trump-like, I'd say. And of course, MLK's affairs are a matter of FBI recordings.

And then there's the "peaceful" indigenous peoples of pre-Columbus America. Morality abounds!!

There is no more a confused piece of cat-shit here is you, feo, and I'm still waiting for anything that one might consider an evidenced based argument for any of my rebuttals to anything you've ever said...in this thread or any other. Not likely to happen, since you aren't capable.

Now excuse me while I go and apologize to my cat's shit for denigrating it so badly by comparing you to it.

Feodor said...

Attacking the person and denying the righteousness of the words is just a punk ass defense typical of you. You can't deal with moral vision -- being congenitally made blind by the bacteria in your cat's ass you kiss every day -- so you avoid, divert, use smoke an mirrors. I said Jefferson was a punk because of slavery. You piss on that and then drink it when it's from you own mouth. So you wont listen to experts. You wont listen to people whose lives are dedicated to moral and enlightened study on the subject of racism and hate. You wont, of course, listen to the people who experience it. You're indicted by by all of those. That's why you like made up experts, self claiming people like your helicopter engineers trying to act like bible scholars. OK, aero-theologian. Here's some white guys who are not experts, haven't spent their lives dedicated to make our society smarter. You should like them. You're nothing but a game player. Here's some winners at games talking to you.

Greg Popovich: "Obviously, race is the elephant in the room, and we all understand that. Unless it is talked about constantly, it's not going to get better. ... 'Oh, that again. They pulled the race card again. Why do we have to talk about that?' Well, because it's uncomfortable. There has to be an uncomfortable element in the discourse for anything to change, whether it's the LGBT community or women's suffrage, race, it doesn't matter. People have to be made to feel uncomfortable, and especially white people, because we're comfortable. We still have no clue of what being born white means. And if you read some of the recent literature, you realize there really is no such thing as whiteness. We kind of made it up. That's not my original thought, but it's true.

"It's hard to sit down and decide that, yes, it's like you're at the 50-meter mark in a 100-meter dash. You've got that kind of a lead, yes, because you were born white. You have advantages that are systemically, culturally, psychologically there. And they have been built up and cemented for hundreds of years. But many people can't look at it, it's too difficult. It can't be something that is on their plate on a daily basis. People want to hold their position, people want the status quo, people don't want to give that up. Until it's given up, it's not going to be fixed."

Feodor said...



Stan van Gundy: "There are serious issues of inequality and injustice in this country. People of conscience are compelled to oppose racism, sexism and intolerance of people of different sexual identities and orientation wherever they see it. I stand with those opposing such bigotry. I as an individual and the Detroit Pistons as an organization support diversity, inclusion and equality. I was proud of the statement that our owner Tom Gores released this morning.

"I applaud the professional athletes using their platform to voice their opinions. I encourage our players to be engaged, involved citizens. Peaceful protest is a hallmark of our democracy and has been an impetus for social change throughout our history. While people can differ on the issues, no one should seek to discourage freedom of speech. The athletes involved in these protests should be respected for exercising their right of free speech in an appropriate and non-violent manner."
....
"It's embarrassing. I have been ashamed of a lot of things that have happened in this country, but I can't say I've ever been ashamed of our country until today. Until today. We all have to find our way to move forward, but that was - and I'm not even trying to make a political statement. To me, that's beyond politics. You don't get to come out and talk about people like that, and then lead our country and have millions of Americans embrace you. I'm having a hard time being with people. I'm going to walk into this arena tonight and realize that -- especially in this state -- most of these people voted for the guy. Like, (expletive), I don't have any respect for that. I don't."

Steve Kerr: "“How about the irony of, ‘Free speech is fine if you’re a neo-Nazi chanting hate slogans, but free speech is not allowed to kneel in protest?'” Kerr said. “No matter how many times a football player says, ‘I honor our military, but I’m protesting police brutality and racial inequality,’ it doesn’t matter,” he continued. “Nationalists are saying, ‘You’re disrespecting our flag.’ Well, you know what else is disrespectful to our flag? Racism. And one’s way worse than the other.”

Feodor said...

You're exactly like Trump. You use the worst in people to kill the best in people. Or you make it up. The only two things you ever do. Go ahead, do it again.

Marshal Art said...

I've made up nothing and you have yet to prove that I have, never posting any fact that isn't soon exposed as not being a fact at all. Not much time at present, but I will address a few of your many falsehoods from your recent blatherings:

"Attacking the person and denying the righteousness of the words is just a punk ass defense typical of you."

The blatantly shameful hypocrisy of this remark is astounding, though in no way unsurprising given how falsehood is the hallmark of all you do and say here. It's been your M.O. since you first denigrated a post of mine due to the person being cited...simply because his main career is not that of a theologian. Yet now, you post quotes from jocks and I'm supposed to regard their opinions (no facts are put forth by any of them) as if they are social science experts who spend any time at all researching the subject of race relations. Incredible.

"You can't deal with moral vision -- being congenitally made blind by the bacteria in your cat's ass you kiss every day -- so you avoid, divert, use smoke an mirrors."

Not that you've ever been able to demonstrate. You can assert this crap all day and it still won't be true. What is true is that you have no moral vision, basing morality on what pleases you rather than on the Word of God. You're a fraud, being a false priest and a purveyor of immorality. Bring some fact, some evidence...like a man...and then we can see what's what. Until then, you're merely bloviating and spewing fantasy.

"I said Jefferson was a punk because of slavery."

You're a punk because you regard yourself as righteous by judging men of the past by standards of the present. You haven't the class and intelligence of a Jefferson and would certainly have been among the most vile of slave holders had you lived in that era. You're a finger in the wind fraud. Criticizing such historic figures is cheap and lazy and despite your desperate hopes, does not elevate you by comparison. Punk, thy name is feodor.

"So you wont listen to experts."

Bring one that actually uses facts and that aren't refuted and rebutted by other experts and you'll have actually done something debaters with integrity do. It'll be a first for you. I listen to experts all the time and demonstrate that by providing examples that actually deal in facts and evidence. This at a least explains why you default to demonizing and name-calling. It's all you've got and all you've ever had.

"You wont listen to people whose lives are dedicated to moral and enlightened study on the subject of racism and hate."

Race-baiters are not examples of such people. Indeed, the people you cite perpetuate racism and hate. I listen to people who do not pander to those who look for excuses for their situations rather than face the consequences of their own actions.

Out of time. More later. I'm sure you'll response with your usual hateful attacks devoid of truth.

Feodor said...

You prefer helicopter engineers to trained theologians for theology so I thought you may prefer coaches to moral philosophers for you notions on racism. And who are you kidding? You won't listen to social science experts. I wrote this before but we all know you don't read too well.

Jefferson has peers who wouldn't touch the slave trade. Your ignorance of history corrupts you moral permissiveness of slavery.

You say Jefferson has class and intelligence but you deny these words engraved at his monument and which reveal the poverty of your whirlybird theology that only represents a dead faith: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Marshal Art said...

When heicopter engineers provide a sound explanation regarding the issues on the table, to the extent that cowardly intellectual lightweights like you can do no better than to attack them instead of addressing their explanations, there's no reason for honest people (that leaves YOU out) to write them off. Indeed, your retreat from responding indicates your complete surrender to their superior perspective.

As to listening to what you regard as experts, I find them wanting without benefit of opposing experts. Having opposing experts in such great supply only validates my low opinion of your poor experts. Indeed, unlike you, I let the facts dictate my position, such as the facts regarding what Scripture teaches us, whereas you determine what fact and truth is by how they align with your immoral positions.

I'm not done yet, so keep it in your diaper...

Feodor said...

You've been done for years. The only thing you still fly are dung beetles.

Feodor said...

You don't listen to experts. Mine or anybody's. You don't read. You don't listen. Denial, diversion, corrupt myths, twisted reason, lies, and paranoid canards: your only material.

Marshal Art said...

As to facts and your distaste for them, an article today brought to mind a recent attempt of yours to make stats support your false claim that Obama made us safer. The FBI reports in a review of 2016 that violent crime is up again. You sought to give Obama credit for a donward trend that began well before he first took office, but your own link showed a reversal in his finsl years and you never blamed him fir it, as if only good things can be attributed to him, and never anything negative. This illustrates the point I made above about your aversion to truth.

As to Jefferson, an actual wise person would acknowledge that the founding punks provided a means by which changes to oue laws could be made. The problem is with your presumption that your poorly functioning brain cell can perceive when, why and how any of our laws ahould be changed. You don't understand them as they are now in the first place.

As to those sports figures, unlike you, I have no problem with any of them voicing their opinions (though when and where and how they do so maaters). I concern myself with the truth and/or merit of those expressed opinions. There is little of either in the statements they made, and I'm allowing that their intentions were sincere. Un fortunately, sincerity and feelings are not superior to fact and reality. But you wouldn't know anything about that. You're not capable.

Feodor said...

You disingenuous son of a bitch (love using your party's Presidential language), you know very well that crime is still not at the level under Bush. "One point of caution: Crime is still below what it was several years ago. Even at 5.3 per 100,000 people, the murder rate, for example, is still below what it was in 2008... The increases also don’t mean that crime and murder have gone up across the board, even in urban areas. New York City, for example, has seen crime drop or hold steady for years."

And the other thing you know very well is that Trump has ginned up violence for two years now.

TRUMP PROMISED TO END THE “AMERICAN CARNAGE.” GUN DEATHS ARE UP 12 PERCENT

"Gun deaths are up over 12 percent year-over-year. Firearm injuries are up nearly 8 percent. The number of children under the age of 12 shot by a gun has increased by 16 percent, while instances of defensive gun use are up nearly 30 percent.

Citing "the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential," President Donald Trump promised in his inaugural address that "this American carnage stops right here and stops right now." But the numbers above from the Gun Violence Archive, a non-profit that tracks shootings via media reports and law enforcement records, show that in the first 200 days of 2017 the carnage has only gotten worse."
_________

UNDER TRUMP, ANTI-MUSLIM HATE CRIMES HAVE INCREASED AT AN ALARMING RATE

"There were more than 940 reports of potential bias incidents involving the targeting of Muslims between April and June, according to a report released by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Monday. Of those, the organization determined 451 stemmed from anti-Muslim bias, which contributed to a 91 percent increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes during the first half of the year as compared to the same time period in 2016."

Feodor said...

Swallow those facts.

And what Jefferson is suggesting is that civilization continually progresses in understanding all aspects of human life. He mentions laws but he's also aware that this theory applies to all intellectual endeavors... the mind becomes "more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change"... like theology, human rights, general moral understanding. So, makes sense that as our minds become "more developed" and "more enlightened" we'd come to see the error of our ways in oppressing the poor, the oppressed, the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, etc. Thus Jefferson's class and intelligence would find you stuck in a slavery of the mind.

Feodor said...

As I've long, long said, social science has had you nailed since the 40s. More evidence:

"Conscientiousness is correlated with measures of racism, sexism, homophobia, prejudice, authoritarianism, social dominance, and system justification. I suspect that this personality factor has more to do with a need for order or desire for rule-following, which can easily take an authoritarian turn, than other aspects of conscientiousness that we might associate with, say, honesty or integrity."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/opinion/trump-republicans-authoritarian.html

Marshal Art said...

Remember this link of yours, you false priest who pretends to be a Christian? You should, you posted it to back your idiotic belief that Obama made us safer. All the charts from that link clearly illustrate that the crime rate was already dropping when Obama took office. Yet, because you're stupid and a chump for Obama (because he's half black---just like you're a half wit), you pretend he had something to do with it, despite repeatedly ignoring requests that you explain just how he might have. As all the graphs in your link show, crime of all sorts was in decline WELL before Obama was elected for being black. In fact, those graphs show crime was on the decline since Bush 41. Indeed, looking at the first graph for murder rates of 25 of the 30 largest cities, we see that the murder rate popped up in 2000 when Bush 43 took office, then dropped a year later, up again (though lower than 2001) from 2005-6 and then down again all the way through all the way through Obama's initial years until 2011 when it bumped up a bit only to drop nicely until 2013 when it pretty much leveled off for a year, after which it took a sharp upward turn from 2015 until, according to the FBI and your Gun Violence Archive, now. So, again, Bush did more, by your logic to lower the murder rate in those cities but Obama was only responsible for it going down, but not up at the end of his term. And you dare refer to ME as a disingenuous SOB (because you like to call people names, not because you want to emulate Trump---you liar). Then, with more hatred and absence of reason, expect that Trump can reverse that trend in less than a year.

And as if that isn't enough, you rely upon an unindicted co-conspirator for stats about alleged "anti-muslim" hate crimes being on the rise. Apparently, if Idi Amin said Trump was a bad president, that would be enough for the likes of you. I guess you'll swallow anything. Don't expect me to do the same.

Marshal Art said...

As to Jefferson, you're injecting into his words meanings you like, as you do with Scripture, because the truth is inconvenient for you. Nothing in his words suggest that laws should change to reflect anything but discoveries of truths not yet realized or known. That's a far cry from pretending the lies of the sexually immoral...like you and those you enable...count as "truths" to any honest person and thus are legitimate reasons to change anything. He's be outraged and insulted that the likes of you would so pervert his words and meaning just to push your socialist, anti-Christian agenda.

But from your final attempt to validate and rationalize your hatred, you clearly missed this (if you read the freakin' piece at all):

"Matt Motyl, a political psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, argued in an email that in the general election, the

typical Trump voter is not a raging, screaming white nationalist; the typical Trump voter is not much different from the typical Romney, McCain, or Bush voter. They are just ordinary Republicans.

There is, however, a subset of Trump supporters “who are extraordinarily vocal in their intolerance and white nationalism,” according to Motyl. These activists have become “the template of the stereotype of Trump voters,” he wrote. “As is the case for many stereotypes,” he added, “there is a grain of truth, but the grain of truth is just that — a grain.”


(emphasis mine)

The irony is that your brain is no bigger than a grain, but the main point is that within your own article it states there is disagreement in the assessments. More importantly however, is the fallacious connection your highlight quote takes as a given. There is plenty of tolerance for other points of view. But unlike fakes like yourself and the left in general, there isn't much tolerance of bad behaviors, nor should there be by people who claim to be Christian. There's far less tolerance for false Christians like yourself, which is a good thing indeed.

Your leftist NYT piece is just another example of why you lost the election: a severe disconnect with reality.

Feodor said...

"...you posted it to back your idiotic belief that Obama made us safer."

Hint: when the numbers go down, we are safer.

"... then down again all the way through all the way through Obama's initial years until 2011 when it bumped up a bit only to drop nicely until 2013 when it pretty much leveled off for a year..."

"after which it took a sharp upward turn from 2015 until..."

Hint: "Business mogul Donald Trump announces his candidacy for the U.S. presidency at Trump Tower on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, in New York"

Marshal Art said...

Hint: You still haven't shown any connection to the trend and the president in office. Your premise is a desperate attempt to give credit to Obama as if he actually did something to affect the direction of the trend...i.e., make us safer. Keep in mind, this only speaks to safety domestically, and doesn't address anything internationally.

Feodor said...

If the crime numbers had gone up following 2008 you'd have pinned it on Obama. If the numbers had leveled you'd say that he stopped progress. The numbers go down and, by your logic...

the black man did NOTHING!

What's wrong with the wiring in your head?

Marshal Art said...

And yet, false priest, I made no such reference of any kind anywhere in the post criticizing the sychophant foolishness that Obama made us safer. I did not even suggest he was responsible for the reversal of the trend, but only that it must mean that he was if idiots like you are going to use the ALREADY falling trend to "prove" he made us safer. You can't have it both ways, but the faulty wiring in your brainless head is incapable of understanding it. So you don't comprehend logic well enough to follow mine, much less criticize it. Keep in mind, you're only pretending to be bright. You're actually incredibly dim.

Feodor said...

When the numbers go lower, we're safer. Under Obama, the numbers went even lower. Thank you, Mr President. That's all you have to say.

And you would have. Unless he weren't white and a Republican.

The Republican Party - made up of undereducated white men like you (the only demographic in this country whose mortality rate is rising) - is racist.

Marshal Art said...

No one, least of all you, has provided any proof or evidence that the GOP is racist. Constant accusations alone won't ever get it done.

In the meantime,just how much education is required to give thanks to someone for something he had no part in achieving.

Finally, to pretend race plays any role in my accurate assessment of Obama's impotence as a president...that he did nothing to make us safer...is just another example of your own inability to deal in fact and reality.

Feodor said...

You're a Grade A liar without self awareness. Denial, diversion, lies and corrupt myths are the dependable strategies of white supremacists like yourself.

"Crime: Despite more than a score of mass shootings, crime declined substantially overall during the Obama years.

The FBI’s crime statistics show the number of violent crimes in 2016 was 10.5 percent lower than the number in 2008, and the number of property crimes dropped 19 percent.

Meanwhile the population increased by more than 6 percent, so the rate of crime dropped even more. The number of violent crimes per 100,000 population was nearly 16 percent lower in 2016 than in 2008, and the property crime rate dropped nearly 24 percent.

Among violent crimes the biggest drop was a nearly 30 percent reduction in robberies. But the murder rate dropped hardly at all — declining from 5.4 per 100,000 in 2008 to 5.3 in 2016.
Earlier, in 2014, the murder rate had dropped to the lowest level on record — 4.4 per 100,000 — but it rose in Obama’s final two years in office."

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/

Marshal Art said...

Someday you'll have to point out a lie you think I've told and provide proof that it is one.

In the meantime, all I'm denying here is YOUR myth that the crime rate that had already been falling since Bush 41 and continuing in that direction through all but the final years of the Obama administration was in any way affected by anything Obama did at all. Even your "FactCheck.org" link does not attribute that downward trend to anything Obama did.

And while comparing the crime rate of 2016 with that of 2008, it makes a point not to mention that it was higher than 2013,14 & 15. Only a lying false priest like you would pretend he was responsible for the crime rate dropping, but then not also hold him responsible for the rate rising.

So, like your lie about me and the GOP being racist, you also fail in epic fashion to prove Obama made us safer. Good gosh...Obama's covert financing of Iran's nuclear program blows that idiotic suggestion out of the water. But being an idiot, those are the only kind of suggestions you're capable of making.