Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, January 9, 2012

Happy New Year!

*exhale*

Long break. Very long. And it's good to be back.

Before I get into anything substantial, over the holiday I saw four movies and read a book that I'd like to give my opinions on.

The first was Sleuth starring Michale Cain and Jude Law.  This was a remake of the 1972 Film starring Sir Laurence Olivier and (ironically) Michael Caine. I've not seen the original, but after seeing the performances or Cain and Law, I'd really like to. I highly re-commend this based mainly on the witty verbal banter that goes on between the two leads as each tries to put the other in his place. It's dry British humor and polite insults at their best. Really great stuff. And it's also interesting as it takes place entirely within a single setting (a single SET, even) and possibly with the smallest cast ever filmed, outside of a stand-up comedy routine. Very interesting and if you (still) have Netflix, if well worth a spot in your queue.

The Second was The Invention of Lying starring Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe and Jonah Hill. (Side note: DW went to grade school with Jennifer Garner. For real!)  An interesting high concept film, that imagines a world in which humans (except for ONE MAN) are incapable of lying, and people's words are always taken at face value.  What it lacked in production value and dynamic performances (despite a very talented cast, which also included Louis C.K., Tina Fey, Jefferey Tambor and Christopher Guest) it made up for in what I consider to be a fairly profound philosophical exploration of what we consider knowledge, how dogma forms, and the nature of humanity well beyond the fairly trivial deceits that we use to simply get through the day without killing each other. One thing I found particularly apt and amusing is that before the main character learned how to lie, there was NO RELIGION. And after he "invented" lying, he almost immediately (albeit inadvertently) started Religion and the belief in God and heaven. (And almost immediately the irreverent humans started asking questions and picking it apart. In any case, it was an amusing and had some pretty profound statements about humanity and religion (and it REALLY does a job on MARKETING!) and for that reason believe that it's well worth giving a chance. (Again, one for the Netflix queue.)

Third was The Muppets, starring Jason Segal, Amy Adams and (of course) Kermit the Frog and Company.  OK, so I saw with my kids, but I also saw it as a 38 year old kid who to this day still counts Jim Henson amongst his heroes.  I haven't seen ALL of the Muppet Movies over the years, but I've seem most and aside from the the original Muppet Movie (and apparently the Muppet Christmas Carol, which I haven't seen but I've been told is one of the best renditions ever done) most have been crap.  This one? Well, this one took me back a bit.  I'm only slightly ashamed to say that I shed more than a single tear hearing Brian Henson (sorry, it was Steve Whitmore!) singing "Rainbow Connection" through his Father's old avatar.  Also going for it was Fox's collective freak-out over the fact that it "secretly" (secretly!) tries to "turn your kids into liberals." (I mean... Jim Henson was a hippie? Who knew?!)  But yeah, this one really captured the spirit of what the Muppets had back when Jim was still running the show - arguably the first time Brian Henson (steve Whitmore) has REALLY gotten it right. If you loved them as a kid, you SHOULD see this.  There are just a few things I do have to point out... First off? Nowhere near the level of celebrity cameo's as in teh past. You could making a drinking game out of that in the first movie. This movie? I counted maybe... like three.  The musical numbers... *gag*. Too many,m and they were almost all sung by humans. Somehow...? It just goes down easier when it the Muppets doing the singing. And finally? It's very... dark. And fairly depression. It doesn't even END well, unless you include the throwaway ending during the credits. It had a really dark and depressing and somber tone throughout so many scenes. It's not a bad thing, necessarily, but it's a far cry for the sunshine and rainbows of the first movie.  (Of course this country, and world, is a far cry from the one Jim Henson lived in and made better by his presence, so maybe that's appropriate.)

Finally, we saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara and Christopher Plummer. Holy shit, what a fucking trip! AWESOME movie, MUST SE. In fact, it was so good that I plan to see the original Swedish version.  Mara gives a performance the likes of which you will likely never see again, immersing herself in the character on a level that I would not have imagined was possible. She deserves an Oscar, but (as usual) the Academy will likely fuck her over in favor of a  more bankable starlet.  But seriously: SEE IT. It's brutal, raw, in-your-face and AMAZING.  Shoot... I may even go back and read the book!

Speaking of books...

Over the break I read Killing Lincoln, by (of all people) Bill O'Rielly.  And while it may seem an incredible oddity for me to endorse ANYTHING by that buffoon, I have to admit: It made for one HELL of a read! Yeah, I was aware of a couple of historic inaccuracies, but overall I found it to be very balanced (even objective!) from a political standpoint and, for the most part, present a very conventional, non-revisionist view of the historical events being depicted. (Hey: It was Bill O'Rielly, not Glenn Beck!)  It's reads more like a novel than an historical text, and does an amazing job of really putting you on the ground, in the taverns and saloons, on the battlefields and into the halls of power, where the events of history played out for better and for worse.  I'd never thought I'd say it, but...

Bill O'Rielly did a fantastic job with this, and it is well worth giving it a read.

You will come away with a greater appreciation for the Civil War, and for what Lincoln, Grant, Lee, the Soldiers, the Slaves, the North, the South and Lincoln himself were facing during these times of trial.

Now, having read this, it got me to thinking...

Where the hell does all this HATE all this RAW, VISCERAL, unfiltered and unadulterated HATRED of  President Obama come from? From the Right, I mean. Seriously. What has this man DONE to justify this level of blood-boiling HATE?

While it's been largely lost to myth, one of the things that most people forget is that Abraham Lincoln was HATED, really hated and reviled by many, MANY people in this country during the Civil War, and immediately after and leading up to his assassination.  And really, regardless of how we in our modern and relatively progressive world might look back on the issue of Slavery, if you put yourself in the South at that time, one can see WHY so many felt this way.  Beyond the mere economic upheaval that abolition would bring about, these people's very ways of life were being turned upside down: Blacks as equals. Black VOTING. Blacks marrying white women, even! Holy crap: One day, one might even run for president!  We can laugh now, but when one considers the Country that Lincoln was endeavouring to Govern (and were it not for his untimely death, rebuild) it is easy to understand where those feelings come from.

Fast forward almost exactly one hundred years to Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Act. Again, arguably the most partisan and divided this country had been since the Civil War and through to today. And again, regardless of how you feel about Jim Crow and segregation, it it not difficult to appreciate how profound that legislation was, and the impact it would have on what so many people considered "normal, moral and decent" for so many years.  We may shake our heads now, but in there shoes one can see why Johnson "lost the South for a Generation." (Actually Lyndon, it's been THREE so far, and counting!)

And fine... even when progressives and liberals are on the "winning side" (which is merely to say the RIGHT one, which history has shown us to ALWAYS be on) it's not hard to appreciate where the bitterness comes from when looking at someone like Lincoln, Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson.  What I DON'T understand is how these same people (generationally speaking, the Right / Conservatives) can find the same (or even a greater) level of hatred for a guy who HASN'T DONE ANYTHING.

(And not doing anything, in this case, is a reason for LIBERALS to dislike him, rather than Conservatives!)

Example: We're watching TV and the Kennedy Center Honors are up next.  And my Mother says to my Father, "Well, we don't need to watch that, unless you want to see Obama jigabooing it up on stage."

OK. Now I KNOW that my parents are Conservative Republicans, but really"Jigabooing?" Jigaboo isn't even a VERB!  It a NOUN. And it's second to "Nigger" as arguably the most racist and hateful noun in the dictionary! Look... You can support whichever candidate you want, but I doubt my mother could even articulate WHY she hates Obama so much. I mean... she's not racist. *cough, cough* And, as I and a thousand other bloggers have already pointed out: OBAMA HASN'T DONE ANYTHING!

He hasn't freed the slaves! He hasn't reversed a hundred years of lynching and segregation!

Shit: He hasn't even brought about low-cost health care!

(Or stopped the previous administration's policies of torture, rendition and murdering American Citizens without trial!  Again: A reason for LIBERALS to hate him, but Conservatives are he ones who STARTED that shit! They should LOVE this guy!)

And I've asked this question before: Absent racism, what explanation IS THERE to justify this level of hatred form the Right? What has Obama ACTUALLY DONE that is so offensive to them? Seriously. And they wonder why all we're left is:

1) He's black.
2) He's a Democrat.
3) He's the President.

And that's two out of three things he has in common with Eighteen other presidents, few of which (three or four) were anywhere near as reviled as much as this man.  But to be fair... this country ISN'T going to tar itself apart and fall into civil war over Obama's policies.  So... I just don;'t get it.

THANK YOU , Bill O'Rielly (of all people) for driving home that perspective.

52 comments:

  1. Welcome back, Eddie, and Happy New Year.

    Couldn't agree more about Girl With--. I read the books first and then saw the Swedish movies. They're definitely worth checking out (the first film is the best), and have much more information. Fischer did a fabulous job, however, of paring the story down to its absolute essentials.
    As an actor, I feel obligated to point out the brilliance of Christopher Plummer. He was mesmerizing, and his role consisted of little but exposition. Incredible. And kudos to Daniel Craig for holding his own in those scenes.

    You called it on the racism re. Obama, and I think it's more deep-seated in the culture than we'd like to believe, although not the entire country's culture. I just finished a fascinating book, AMERICAN NATIONS; A History of the Eleven Regional Cultures of North America. http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0670022969
    The author, Colin Woodward, makes a compelling case for the theory that red state/blue state doesns't tell the full story, and that electoral maps will show we are a collection of regional cultures with the two most historically dominant, the Deep South/Tidewater and what he calls "Yankeedom" fighting fiercely, from the Constitutional Convention up to the present, for dominance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you want to understand the way contemporary conservatives react to someone like the Obama, you must take into account the way in which they've been conditioned by their masters; they've been turned into extreme binary "thinkers" who thrive on hatred, paranoia, and outrage, things which are ground into them on a daily basis.

    Why do they hate the Obama? Because they've been told to hate the Obama, and everything they choose to look at is designed to reinforce that conclusion.

    Back during the health care debate, large crowds of righties descended upon congressional town-hall meetings to express their outrage at the President's efforts to institute death panels in order to kill off the elderly and infirm. A lot of people noted that "death panels" was a complete lie, but VERY few (to toot my own horn, I was one) bothered to point out what this whole thing said about those conservative demonstrators. If I told a thoughtful, intelligence, rational human being of ANY political stripe that the President of the United States was trying to institute panels aimed at killing the elderly and infirm, that person would laugh his ass off, and think me a total loon. He wouldn't even need to investigate further to know that what he'd just heard was complete horsesh!t. Tell far too many conservatives the same thing about a "liberal" president, and they accepted it as gospel, to the point that they swarmed those town halls, angrily raving at congressmen like escapees from a lunatic asylum.

    That, Mr. Liberal, is what they "think" of you. That's how they've been taught to see liberals and liberalism. They don't look at you as offering political views with which they disagree. To them, you are an inhuman monster, and they hate you.

    (That's also why their more violent rhetoric--"eliminationist" rhetoric--becomes so problematic. It's going out to an audience they've taught to look at the world in this way.)

    Clinton was more hated than the Obama, though. Clinton was accused of everything from selling graves at Arlington to selling tech to the Chinese for campaign cash to mass rape to mass murder. Race is certainly a factor in the right's attacks on the Obama; he's the first black president, and a major theme of the attacks has been to delegitimize him, to suggest he's not rightly the president, and not even an American.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "You called it on the racism re. Obama, and I think it's more deep-seated in the culture than we'd like to believe, although not the entire country's culture."

    You know how you can tell when a person is a racist? .... When they deny they are one.


    "Race is certainly a factor in the right's attacks on the Obama; he's the first black president, and a major theme of the attacks has been to delegitimize him, to suggest he's not rightly the president, and not even an American."

    Of course 'race' is a factor. Where have you been all these years? Hiding under a rock? No need to answer that one, it is quite obvious you are blind to reality. It was the DEMOCRATS who hired a former KKK leader to run their party, yet you call republicans racist?
    Do you know the biggest difference between Clinton and Obama? .... Obama had to pay people to vote for him. It's not like he could have won on his own accord. It is obvious (by now) that the right was correct in their position that Obama did NOT have the qualifications it takes to be a President. But, the left has to blame something other than the truth ... so racism is what we get.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you liked the Lincoln book, you should give a shout out to the name printed in tiny letters under O'Reilly's name -- the one who did all the work.

    Any racist who hates Obama will hate a white democrat equally because all democrats treat minorities like people. Racism should be worthless in political analysis.

    Suppose someone is successfully tagged a racist and driven from public life. Another conservative with all the wrong ideas will take their place, and that person won't be driven from public life because they're not "insensitive".

    I want the advocacy of provably-false policies that hurt millions of poor people to be considered far more offensive than any racist comment. It is people who are very wrong about very big things who should inspire revulsion and disgust. Listening to the first sentence from a supply-sider should start the bile rising and the rotten tomato flinging.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It was the DEMOCRATS who hired a former KKK leader to run their party, yet you call republicans racist?"
    Who are you talking about?

    " Obama had to pay people to vote for him. It's not like he could have won on his own accord." What are you talking about? Who got paid, how much, and where are you getting your disinformation?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you all for your comments, but I have to address just one right now; somthing idiotic that Willam said that I've heard so many times it makes me want to throw up:

    "It was the DEMOCRATS who hired a former KKK leader to run their party, yet you call republicans racist?"

    Yeah - key word there being FORMER. As in: RENOUNCED. Which party singed the civil rigths act? Which party signed the voting rigthts act? And which party was it that FOUGHT those thigs? (And tries to roll back those acts to this day?!) And, Dude, Leran your history: Anything that either party did PRIOR to 1960/1964 is irrelevant to modern Politics. Prior ot that? Republicans were called 'progressives' and the Democrats were largely Conservative and stronger in the SOUTH. After 1968? Everything flip-floped: Republicans started winning in the south (something that had NEVER happened, seing as how LINCOLN was the guy that STARTED the party! Not too popular in the south!) and the Democrats started taking places like the Northeast. It started with Kennedy and cemented with Johnson. (And the Civil Rigths Act!) So get with the times: I'll see your Robert Byrd and raise you a DAVID DUKE. And yes: There ARE still racist Democrats. (I've got some in my own family!) There's no denying it. But it remains a far greater issue with Republicans. Like you said:

    "You know how you can tell when a person is a racist? .... When they deny they are one."

    Well you remember back when we talked about the fact that Black are anywhere from 75-95% Democratic? Why do you think that is? (Hint: It becuase ONE PARTY has a lot fewer issues when it comes to RACE.) And those %'s go BACK to Johnson in '64. It AIN'T about Obama - it's about the REPUBLICAN PARTY and THEIR PALTFORM.

    So be careful before you go denying the inherent racism of the Right. (Because it ain't just the Blacks either: They have a problem with Mexiacns, Arabs, Islam in general, etc... And you people wonder why the only votes you get are from the Rich White Man and the Stupid White man.)

    BTW... Which are you?

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Steeve,

    I hear you.

    And in and of itself, you're absolutely right. But like many other issues that are less imporatnt in grand scheme of things (Abortion, Gay Rights, Intelligent Design, Gun Rights) it serves as a pretty good litmus test for the other things. Look at the biggest racists in the media... Other than Thomas Sowell, you notice how many are supply siders? (I may have said that backwards, but I think you get the idea.) Take abortion - you notice how the pro-lifers tend to also hate islam and support unecessary wars? Look at gun-ownership rights people. Other than ME and Classic? Quite a few de-regulation Libertarians in there. There are not many people who are rigth on the Economy and the Environment and on the Constitution who are WRONG on things like Race, Gender and Sexual equality. Some, yes, but take away the Blue Dogs? And they really are the exception.

    (And forget the Congressman of pretty much both parties anyway - Corporate Whores, pretty much ALL. The Dems are just more discreet about it. But that doesn't mean I'd prefer a RACIST Corporate whore: If they were BOTH? There's likely a hell of a lot ELSE they probably have wrong as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gotta call you out on your assumption that William's referring to Senator Byrd, Eddie, since we're always jumping on him when he makes assumptions.

    So, William, who are you talking about? I know why Robert Byrd's name sprang to Eddie's mind, as he had been in the KKK and he held a number of leadership posts in Congress, Majority and Minority Leader, President Pro Tem, as well as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but I can't find anywhere in his obit or bio's that he was head of the DNC, which is the job he would have to have held if he were to have been "hired ...to run the party."

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It was the DEMOCRATS who hired a former KKK leader to run their party"

    Robert Byrd was a KKK leader as recently as 70 years ago, the Senate Democratic leader as recently as 25 years ago (back when such posts were basically seniority positions), and alive as recently as 2 years ago. But he never ran the Democratic party.

    Still, he was a racist as recently as 45 years ago, largely clueless about race throughout his life, and a liar, who, while admitting his association with the Klan was wrong and a mistake, soft-peddled the facts about that association until the day he died.

    Perhaps most relevant to your typically brainless commentary, though, he was one of the VERY few racist southern Democrats who stayed with the party, after all the rest went over to the Republicans, starting about five decades ago.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If a racist supply-sider doesn't watch himself, he'll (sometimes) be out. But if a racist supply-sider does watch himself, he'll stay on TV forever. That's what has to change. Conservative views should be as putrescent to an average viewer as racism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. " I'll see your Robert Byrd and raise you a DAVID DUKE."

    When David Duke is in the leadership position of the republican party you can use him as wagering material. Otherwise, using a $2 chip on a $100 bet is pretty silly.


    "Which party singed the civil rigths act? Which party signed the voting rigthts act? And which party was it that FOUGHT those thigs? "

    About that "history" you seem so enlightened on.... how about you tell me what party Wallace was a member of ... or Al Gore Sr.? How about those other states that just could not fathom integration in public schools? I'm sorry, I seem to have forgotten history ... which party was the leader among those refusing equality for blacks in the US during the mid-60's?

    http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. You've definitely forgotten history, William, or chosen to look at it selectively, just as you chose to ignore the body of Eddie's post, and respond to the David Duke line. All of your questions were actually pre-answered in his post.

    And, "just for laughs and giggles," why don't you try answering a question with a statement, rather than another question? It looks like you're trying to prove Irish heritage:

    American: "Is it true that the Irish always answer a question with another question?"

    Irishman: "WHO TOLD YOU THAT?!?"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Will...

    Let me get this strait...

    David Duke is not a legit example, becuase he's no longer relevant to the Republican party.

    But Robert Byrd - who's DEAD - and Al Gore SENIOR (also DEAD) ARE releavant to the Democrats? Nice try, but that's simply idiotic.

    (And BTW... if you weren't talking about Byrd, who WERE you refering to?)

    As for George Wallace? Your bringing HIM up only shows how dangerous having JUST A LITTLE knowledge can be. (And let's face it... Well, never mind.) Wallace was a SOUTHERN (read: CONSERVATIVE) Democrat. He RAN as an Independant alternative to the LIBERAL Democrat, Kennedy, who was making CIVIL RIGHTS a part of the party's platform. And, go figure, Wallace won several states in the South, most of which have gone Republican in almost every election since. Later in his career, much like Byrd, Wallace renounced his former positions, and re-joined the (now) more Liberal Democratic Party.

    Like I said: Anything eithe rparty did before 1964 has no bearing on the politics of today, becuase of teh MASSIVE idelogical shift following the Civil Rights Act. If you don't understand that, you have no business even having an opinon on these matters. The Democrats were once on the wrong side, and abandoned it for the dies of virtue. It's the Republicans who chose to move backwards and embrace the wrong side after the Domcrats left it behind. And they've been there ever since.

    Now I'm not going to hold up Wallace OR Byrd as paragons of virtue whne it comes to race, but you see: ADMITING that you were wrong, and CHANGING IT? That's what makes Liberals INHERENTLY better and wiser than Conservatives. These men recognized their mistakes, and CHANGED. The Racists in the Republican party? (That would be your white-trach voting base as well as most of the MoC's and media Propagandists?) at best can only keep on DENYING it.

    And how did you say was the best way to spot a racist?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "So be careful before you go denying the inherent racism of the Right."

    I don't deny the inherent racism of anyone. But, it seems that you are.



    "Like I said: Anything eithe rparty did before 1964 has no bearing on the politics of today, becuase of teh MASSIVE idelogical shift following the Civil Rights Act. If you don't understand that, you have no business even having an opinon on these matters."

    That's right. Let's narrow our years so they fit your exact statements. You look at what the democrats stood for in the 60's and what they stand for now. Yes, they are different. But, the fact remains the core people in the democrat party, at that time, were against racial equality. If you want to cut off at a certain year so that you can say your party is "different" then you go ahead and do that.


    "David Duke is not a legit example, becuase he's no longer relevant to the Republican party.
    But Robert Byrd - who's DEAD - and Al Gore SENIOR (also DEAD) ARE releavant to the Democrats? Nice try, but that's simply idiotic."

    No, he's not legit because he was never considered the leader of the republican party. Simply being a member isn't good enough.
    You put some kind of importance on "renounced". Let me ask you a question: If Jerry Sandusky renounced his activities and claimed they were evil and bad for all, would you want him to be one of the KEY people in your political party?? If not: would that be because of his previous actions??



    "Which party singed the civil rigths act? Which party signed the voting rigthts act? And which party was it that FOUGHT those thigs? "

    Do you really want to ask those questions?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act



    "You've definitely forgotten history, William, or chosen to look at it selectively"

    I don't think so. I don't see any part that I'm as far off as you think. Otherwise you would have mentioned it, instead of stating how poorly I portray my position (whining). Also, (Conchobhar) denying the supremacy that Byrd held in his later years is, as Eddie put it, "simply idiotic".

    ReplyDelete
  15. *shakes head*

    Yes, William... BEFORE it's pasage there were racist Democrats who opposed it. Like STROM THURMOND (D-SC) who YOU might remember better as Strom Thurmond (R-SC). Prior to Civil Rights... Fuck it. I'm not going to say it again. All those racists? Switched party's. And the Republican's took advatgae of that with there "Southern Strategy."

    Jerry Sandusky? REALLY? Why don't you just ask about Hitler? That example is brain-boggling irrelvant in more way that I can count. Having racist feelings =/= molesting children. Being racist, while despicable, ISN'T a crime. And putting aside making ammends for any CRIMES COMMITED or HARM DONE, learning from your mistakes and improving as a human being is always a virtue. And YES, in politics, one is allowed to renounced their former positions, change parties, shift ideologies, etc... I used to be a Republican. I used to be Conservative. And you know what? So for none of my Liberal friends have held that against me. (You know, seeing as how I've seen the error of my ways, and renounced it.) But it is absurd to accept that admitting that you used to have screwey ideas about race/gender/sexuality/politics/etc... is somehow as unforgivible as saying that you used to molest children. So come on: Don't be a moron.

    Also? I'm less concerned about what the Democrats & Republicnas did in the 1960's, and more concerned about what they're doing NOW. We elected a Black President. You lot want to build a fence around Mexico! We support anti-discrimination laws. You lot want to repeal affirmative action! I never ONCE suggested that Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell, Colin Powell achieved their political prominence due to the color of their skin. You and your ilk say that about Obama ALL. THE. TIME!

    So I will let my writing and ideas and ideology speak for themselves. I have no doubt that someone, somewhere will find something racist about something there, but I have the same confidence that after a conversation with them that either they would come around, or I would.

    Can you say the same?

    And yes, I'd rather support a party that is run by people who used to be racists than one who is run by people who still are. (Of course, that's a hypothetical party, since I have no idea who amongst the modern Democrats you would still count in that category!)

    Also... To the extent that the Democrats have changed since the 1960's? Your right: The Conservtiaves (racist) Democrats (Dixiecrats) all became Republicans. The moderates moved to the Right and the Liberals moved to the Center. If the Party of Pelosi/Ried/Obama has any failings over that of JFK/LBJ/RFK, it's that they've become far to Conservative.

    And BTW... Byrd repeatedly renounced and regretted his KKK membership. So WTF are you talking about?!

    ---------------------------------------
    [url=http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com]IMHO[/url]
    [url=http://utopiaabsolutepower.blogspot.com]UTOPIA[/url]

    ReplyDelete
  16. From William "Also, (Conchobhar) denying the supremacy that Byrd held in his later years is, as Eddie put it, "simply idiotic".

    To William: If you'd understood what I wrote, you'd have been loathe to post anything so silly. As I posted, Byrd held Democratic leadership positions in the Senate. He was also, by the time he died, the elder statesman and institutional memory of that body.
    And I hope you're sitting down, because this is going to come as a shock. None of those positions are positions of "supremacy." The entire structure of our government was designed to make the "supremacy" of one individual impossible. Nor did Byrd ever hold a position, such as Party Chairman, in which he "ran the party," as you said. You really need to think more deeply about the words you use. (It is not "whining," for example, to point out fallacies and flaws in your arguments. Nor is it "whining," to object to the odd ad hominem. It is, more accurately, "adhering to standards civilized of discourse.") (I'm not actually quoting anyone there, but I can't italicize on this site.)

    Now I can see why you want to go back to the time of the Dixiecrats to castigate the Dems, especially given the rampant racism displayed by Republicans in South Carolina the other night, but it simply won't play. It's not good enough for you that a man, or party, sees the error in his/it's ways, and takes a better path? Then, logically, you would have to reject the later life and writings of St. Paul, because he had participated in the stoning of St. Stephen. I'm tempted to assume that you don't, but I won't do that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Don't know I did something wrong, or if there's a glitch on the site, Eddie, but the comment I removed was a duplicate of the one above.

    Check your email.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ed, I take it you don't like the comparison to Sandusky? Go figure. I didn't think you'd have anything to say on that analogy. You can forgive racists (since they don't harm people) but you can't forgive molesters (because they do)? BTW, Ed, being a racist is not against the law, you are correct. However, being a pedophile is not against the law either (in the context you used as a comparison to racism: "Having racist feelings =/= molesting children"). HAVING 'pedophile feelings' does no harm to anyone, acting on those "feelings" does. So I am NOT comparing "racist feelings" to "molesting children". But, in all honesty, you know that. That's why you had to change it around a bit in order to get out of your prideful acceptance of racists.



    "And yes, I'd rather support a party that is run by people who used to be racists than one who is run by people who still are."

    Who, in the republican party, are racists? Which one of those people are creating/signing into law their ideals? You claim the republican party is full of racists, who are they? What proof do you have?


    Respond to your question!! You asked me to answer these: "Which party singed the civil rigths act? Which party signed the voting rigthts act? And which party was it that FOUGHT those thigs?".

    I provided the following links that DID answer those questions. However, they didn't answer them the way you thought they would, did they? Is it common for you to use lies and misinformation as a tool to promote your ideals? Don't worry, though, I fully understand why you completely ignored my answer to those questions. Because YOU ARE WRONG.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act



    "you would have to reject the later life and writings of St. Paul, because he had participated in the stoning of St. Stephen."

    Where did Paul "participate"? Do you have proof of this participation? Please, only verifiable sources for your proof. And, please don't tell me you're going to use some book that is full of fairy tales.

    ReplyDelete
  20. William,

    I'm really starting to think you're pretty thick. The Civil Rights Act was introduced to the National Agenda by President Kennedy, and pushed legislatively by President Johnson. (Both Democrats, in case you're counting.) When voted on, the acts recived supermajority (>60%) suppor from BOTH parties. The main OPPOSITION came, yes, from a section of the Democratic Party - the SOUTHENERS, led by STROM THURMAND. (Who you might remember better as a REPUBLICAN.) Republican opposition at the time was neglibgile specifically because the opposition came for the SOUTH - and most Southern Politicans at the time were Demcorats. (Dixiecrats.) Of course, almost every Southern Republican opposed it as well, there just weren'tthat many of them... until AFTER the Bill passed, and was signed into law by President Johnson. At which point the South was lost to the Democrats, and the bulk of the Dixiecrat contingent switched parties and became Republicans. And to this day, up unitl Obama took a couple, from 1968 onwards the only Democrats to win any Southern States (Carter, Clinton) were Southerners themselves. Otherwise? It's been Republican sweeps of the region - that same region once domination by the very DEMOCRATS who OPPOSED the Civil Rights Act, and who BECAME REPUBLICANS!

    Simply looking at the voting line, without an understanding of the regionalinfluence, or the ideological shift going on at the time - and continuing to this day - is idiotic.

    A Republican may have freed the slaves, but it took a Democrat to give their decendant equality. And the Republican party TODAY is strongest in the very regions that opposed both Lincoln (R) AND Kennedy/Johnson (D): The Southern (Slave) States.

    BTW... Where are you FROM, exactly? Becasue I've lived in, and went to School in, VA. My in-laws are from WV, I've done business in TN, MS, TX and I have close friends and co-workers from LA. And if you're telling me that those regions don't have significanlty more probelms with racism than the rest of the country? You're a damned fool.

    AND THEY ALL VOTE REPUBLICAN.

    Now, recall: I never said, "all Republicans are recists" nor did I say that "all racists are Republicans." But looking at the demographics of their voting base; the regions they're strongest in; their legislative philosphy; the bills they support and oppose; and my own personal experience...?

    There sure seems to be a strong, positive correlation between the two.

    And BTW... That bit at the end about Paul and Stephen... Is your question to Conchobhar born of sarcasm or stupidty?

    ReplyDelete
  21. BTW... If you account for the REGION?

    Here's the voting line, by region, from your link:

    The original House version:
    Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
    Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
    Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
    Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

    The Senate version:
    Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
    Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
    Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
    Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

    So: Southern Democrats STILL supported the Bills more than Souther Republicans, 7%/5% to 0%/0%. AND... Northern Democrats supprted the Bills more than Northern Republicans, 94%/98% to 85%/84%

    It is only by ignoring the Regional influences, and the Demographic layouts AT THE TIME (which did a 180-degree flip-flop after the bill was signed) that you can make the absurd claim that the Civil Rights act was somehow Republican Legislation. (And that ANY of the Modern Day Republicans can make any claim to it.)

    Wikipedia doesn't have the Voting Right act votes broken down by region (and I don't feel like doing the homework) but given the regions most affected, all Southern States, are you seriously going to still challenge me on this point?

    ReplyDelete
  22. William;
    I don't have to believe in the historical accuracy of that book in order to call you out on it, since you do, judging from previous posts. You've also called yourself a Christian. Well, it's part of Christian tradition that Paul held the cloaks of some of those who actually stoned Stephen. He then, according to Christian tradition and his own writings, went from being a persecuter of Christians to being the "Apostle of the Gentiles." All of this, of course, you know and believe, do you not? But the lesson of his conversion, 'redemption' and later life is one you seem determined to ignore in your dogged insistence that Byrd's renunciation of his Klan past is irrelevant. You're also ignoring history and reality in tarring the Democratic Party of today with the racism of the Southern Democrats of the pre-Civil Rights era. Now, I lived through those times, and was student in D.C. from 1957-1965, and I can tell you from personal experience, that you're full of shit.

    'You claim the republican party is full of racists, who are they? What proof do you have?'

    Your timing is incredible. Are you trying to make yourself look like an idiot? Check out Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina REPUBLICAN debate three nights ago. Note the audience reaction. Then check out the Southern woman the next day, who thanked Gingrich for putting Juan Williams, "in his place." Note Gingrich's reaction. If you don't see racism there, then you are living proof of the old maxim, "There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Conchobhar, Ok, call me on it then. Where is it shown Paul "participated" in the stoning of Stephen? You said Paul "participated". Show me the "part of Christian tradition" that Paul participated in the stoning of Stephen.


    Eddie, the bits of data you did bring is sufficient for you to prove what I was saying. The democrats favored segregation and racism more than the republicans. Even the southern ones. Now, if you actually pay attention to your stats you'll see that virtually all from the south wanted to remain racist. And, yes there were more democrats (voting against racial equality) in the south because southerners believed in what the democrats held as true; that races should be separated and isolated. I can't help it is southerners wanted to remain racist so they voted for the people that would help them accomplish that. And that was the democrats.
    The democrats were the main racist ones back then. And they hired a former KKK leader during that time. Then that former KKK leader continued on and became a leader of the democrats. Almost all looked up to this ex-KKK leader for inspiration and advise. I really liked it when this ex-KKK leader would sing the song "Dixie" in senate chambers for all to enjoy. Have you ever read the words to Dixie? How did Byrd vote on the Civil Right Act (of 64)? Didn't he also vote against the Voting Rights Act? He must have had MORE changes in his personality a year or two later when he finally voted FOR the Civil Rights Act in '68. He then went on to say that voting against the CRA-64 was regretful. Boy, he sure changes his spots often. Did he regret being an ex-KKK leader before 64 or after 64? Perhaps when he saw he may lose an election he changed. That would sure be a good reason to change.


    BTW, Eddie ... I am from Kalamazoo and lived in Richmond Va for several years after my Army days. Yes I know what southerners are like.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Participated" was a poor choice of words, and if you'd read my subsequent post you'd see that I clarified. If you didn't read it, go back and do so. If, after reading it, you still hold on to "participated", the way you did with "much" and your own wildly inaccurate "fully support" on other threads, do it privately, and don't waste my time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. " do it privately, and don't waste my time."

    That's the best you can do when you say something that is wrong and are afraid to accept responsibility for what you say. I know what the Bible says. Apparently, you do not. I don't think you are in a position to tell me what significance any particular Bible verse means to anyone, let alone what it's supposed to mean to me.
    You didn't clarify at all. You are without any references or evidence of what you say is true. But, since you want your privacy, I'll let you leave it there. I wasn't expecting any rational answer from you and I got what I expected. So, if you want me to stop wasting your time, you should consider NOT answering when I post. In fact, to completely stop wasting your time, you should stop reading what I post.


    "Then check out the Southern woman the next day, who thanked Gingrich for putting Juan Williams, "in his place." "

    So, a racist woman asks a question, and you take the "reaction" of someone as equating to racism. Wow, you're quite the mindreader. Can I apply that criteria to any democrat who I think is a racist? Because if I do apply the criteria you use for determining racism, then Byrd never renounced his racism. I notice you had no comment on the FACT that Byrd continued proudly singing the famous non-racist song "Dixie" well into the years all liberals claim he renounced his racism. How do you explain that? If a simple "reaction" is evidence of racism, surely proudly singing racist songs would be considered racism?


    "Now I'm not going to hold up Wallace OR Byrd as paragons of virtue whne it comes to race, but you see: ADMITING that you were wrong, and CHANGING IT? That's what makes Liberals INHERENTLY better and wiser than Conservatives."

    Eddie, you should prove that by answering my question about whether you would accept Jerry Sandusky as a representative of your party if he "renounced" his previous lifestyle. My feeling is that you liberals are NO better or wiser because of your hypocritical stances on subjects JUST LIKE THIS. But as long as you are happy, that is all that matters, right?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Judge from your responses, you don't seem capable of understanding much that Eddie and I write. So I'm not really confident that you understand the Bible, especially since you seem to be denying that Saul was an accessory to the killing of Stephen and then had a spectacular conversion. 'Road to Damascus' is secular idiom for a sudden change in attitude or point of view, for crying out loud, and you know it. But, if you really need a source, check out Acts, Book 6. Really, William, you're making yourself look like a jerk, demanding sourcing on something you know, or should know, is true.

    "So, a racist woman asks a question, and you take the "reaction" of someone as equating to racism."
    I note, without surprise, that you chose to ignore the previous sentence, the one to which 'then' referred. And, yes, the fact that Gingrich acquiesced and didn't object to that formulation, indicates consent to that racism, and the intention to profit by it. He has a long history, as does the Republican Party, of doing so. It's called the 'Southern Strategy', and the Republican Party has never stopped using it since Nixon initiated it. So you carry water for the party which welcomed the racist dregs of the Democratic Party, and has pursued an electoral strategy of implied, and sometimes outright, racism throughout the ensuing decades. Not only that, but you scream and whine about the 'racism' of the party and party members who actually moved past it, fought it, and paid a heavy price for doing so. And you have the nerve to call ANYONE ELSE a hypocrite? Look in a mirror.

    I didn't comment on the 'FACT' that Byrd kept singing 'Dixie', because I wasn't aware of it. Source?

    You're kidding with that first sentence of yours, right? You not only don't admit it when you're shown to be wrong (it happens often), you don't even seem capable of recognizing it.
    Eddie has eaten your lunch on this thread, and you keep beating the same drum. (Bringing Sandusky into this just indicates that you're foaming at the mouth, BTW. There's no logical connection, and no one but a "dittohead" could think the analogy makes sense. However, I will say this: given his occupation, I'd be willing to bet a good deal that Sandusky's a registered Republican.)

    ReplyDelete
  27. You said he "participated" in the stoning of Stephen. I see no participation. Simply making things up to fit your argument doesn't work.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "You said he "participated" in the stoning of Stephen. I see no participation. Simply making things up to fit your argument doesn't work."

    I see you are choosing to ignore the inconvenient, '"Participated" was a poor choice of words, and if you'd read my subsequent post you'd see that I clarified.' Well, there's precedent for that.

    I think better of a poorly chosen word, and adjust, or take one back when it's pointed out to me that it's wrong ("much"), and you either completely ignore the honorable way in which I argue, or accuse me of doing it for show. And then you continue to obsess about those words. That is picayune and dishonest, and completely in character: the conservative modus operandi in the age of Ailes. And you, who have never shown the slightest impulse or ability to 'take responsibility' for your wild inaccuracies (to use an euphemism), have the nerve to criticize me? Obscene.

    Oh yes, to be fair, you did apologize for one of your milder jabs. Were you softened up because you'd been drinking? Well, whatever the trigger, the attack of conscience was a little late. The apology you owed me was for the snide comments you'd previously made about my son.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So what are you trying to say? That since Paul renounced his previous behavior and that Byrd renounced his previous behavior, that I am being a hypocrite by not believing Byrd did? I think it all boils down to a judgement of character. I have believable evidence that Paul changed, the evidence that I have Byrd changed isn't as believable. Are you now going to demand that I believe all evidence that you believe simply because you and people like you believe it? I just don't think that's going to happen.


    "The apology you owed me was for the snide comments you'd previously made about my son."

    I owe you no apology for my opinion. If you're so thin-skinned that you can't handle comments on subjects YOU bring into a conversation on an international blog site ... well, sorry for you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You choose not to believe the evidence that Byrd changed. Fine. Looking at the trajectory of his career, and looking at your denial of 50 years of Republican racism, from Nixon to Gingrich, yeah, I call that hypocrisy.

    "I owe you no apology for my opinion. If you're so thin-skinned that you can't handle comments on subjects YOU bring into a conversation on an international blog site ... well, sorry for you."

    The question isn't my "thin skin." You injected your pornographic fantasies into a serious discussion, and made lewd references to both me (not a problem, I'm a big boy) and my son (contemptible.) If that's the level of decency you ,have, sorry for you. You, and the 'Christian Right' personify a piece of wisdom I heard long ago: "If Jesus comes easily to your lips, it's because he's not at home in your heart."

    ReplyDelete
  31. "You choose not to believe the evidence that Byrd changed. Fine. Looking at the trajectory of his career, and looking at your denial of 50 years of Republican racism, from Nixon to Gingrich, yeah, I call that hypocrisy."

    WHERE have I DENIED racism on the part of republicans?!? Never mind, you're the mind-reader who can tell everything about everyone. You're the one who can take a visual reaction and fully determine what racial hatred is in someones heart. You must be the envy of all other liberals.


    "If Jesus comes easily to your lips, it's because he's not at home in your heart."

    Obviously, you know nothing of salvation. But you do have the cutest little sound-bites. Keep em coming,

    ReplyDelete
  32. "The question isn't my "thin skin". "

    Yes, it is. You bring your son into the conversation, then whine when someone else does too.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You 'know' nothing about salvation either. You just believe that you do.

    That's not a 'whine'. It's an expression of contempt. I opened a door that a decent person would not have gone through.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "I opened a door that a decent person would not have gone through."

    You're the self-proclaimed mind-reader, you should have known that. You can tell what's in a mans heart simply by watching TV. Why can't you make that distinction on blog sites, too? Are your mind-reading abilities limited?

    ReplyDelete
  35. That's funny, a liberal calling someone else "turpitude".

    How's the mind-reading business going? Watch any more TV to determine if anyone else is racist by watching their reaction to comments? Maybe you could explain how you're able to determine what is in a man's heart by watching TV.


    Maybe you can bring evidence of the statement you made: "your denial of 50 years of Republican racism". Why have you ignored the request for proof?


    Can you do that before you run off and hide again? Perhaps I'm asking too much of you. I shouldn't ask a liberal to actually bring proof of claims they make, huh? I should just blindly believe whatever you say, right?

    ReplyDelete
  36. "That's funny, a liberal calling someone else "turpitude"
    It would be funny, and uncharacteristic for a liberal, if it had happened. We're more careful with our language, and not as addicted to name calling as right wingers.

    "You're the self-proclaimed mind-reader,"
    Show me where I proclaimed an ability to read minds, and I'll give you proof of your denials.

    " Obama had to pay people to vote for him. It's not like he could have won on his own accord." 'What are you talking about? Who got paid, how much, and where are you getting your disinformation?'

    That's from a few days ago, in this thread. If I were to waste the time going back over exchanges in previous threads, I estimate I could find in the neighborhood of 20 requests for proof or logical backup that you've run away from. Go check, then come back and tell me, true to form, that I'm a liar because there are only 19.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "What are you talking about? Who got paid, how much, and where are you getting your disinformation?"

    Are you kidding me?!? Obama promised to give all working/taxpaying Americans money if elected, as part of a "stimulus" idea he had during the campaign. He won and the money got paid out. You are a liar if you say you didn't know of this.

    http://www.2009stimuluscheck.info/


    "Show me where I proclaimed an ability to read minds,"

    " Then check out the Southern woman the next day, who thanked Gingrich for putting Juan Williams, "in his place." Note Gingrich's reaction. If you don't see racism there,"

    So, by a simple "reaction" you saw on TV, you are able to determine racism within the heart of Gingrich?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I've often commented on your lousy reading abilities, and they're on full display here. This if from the page you linked to:

    "October 15, 2008 was the last day of filing in order to receive a 2009 stimulus check. The forms necessary to do this can be obtained from the IRS website."

    Note the date: three weeks BEFORE Obama was elected. You might also have checked the date on the article. It's dated 1/12/09, a week before his inauguration, and the first paragraph talks about a SECOND stimulus check:

    "A lot of people are asking “Are we going to get a stimulus check for 2009?”. Well I’ve been doing a bit of research and have found that the White House indeed appear to have agreed to the 2nd Economic stimulus check."

    So, if there was any vote-buying going on, it would seem that it was a failed attempt by the Bush White House to buy the election for McCain.


    Still not seeing where I "self-proclaimed" an ability to read minds. Hint: I never did; so why did you say I did?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Still not seeing where I "self-proclaimed" an ability to read minds. Hint: I never did; so why did you say I did?"

    Of course you don't. Liberals generally deny facts when faced with them. Glad you continue the typical liberal philosophy. You are the one who claimed to "see racism there" as related to the reaction of Gingrich. Where do you see that racism? In his heart? You can see that? Or in his mind? You can see that? Or are you just generally commenting on racism that only YOU see and no one else does without you bringing it to there attention. But, keep denying that you say you see racism in a man's heart by watching TV. That is so typical of people like you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Note the date: three weeks BEFORE Obama was elected."

    Yes, I know. It was a campaign promise of his. As I said: "He won and the money got paid out. You are a liar if you say you didn't know of this."

    ReplyDelete
  41. William, you need to get your blood pressure checked, or some rabies shots. It may be too late for the latter, as you seem to be foaming from the mouth today, both on this thread and the new one.

    You said that I "self-proclaimed" an ability to read minds, and when challenged to provide the evidence that I'd done so, you went on an emotional rant, having more to do with your prejudices than anything that I've posted. If you're going to keep obsessing about words I use, even after I've corrected those found to be overstatements or inappropriate , you really ought to be more careful with your own language.

    "Of course you don't. Liberals generally deny facts when faced with them."

    FACT: You said that I "self-proclaimed" an ability to read minds.

    FACT: I never did.
    You chose to misinterpret one sentence as implying that ability, and to
    mendaciously state my concurrence.

    FACT: Your saying something doesn't make it so, no matter how often you repeat it. I know that's hard for a wingnut to accept, but it happens to be a FACT.

    I notice that, not only did you not respond to the pasting I gave you over that link which did NOT show Obama buying votes, but you spewed out your silly statement again, on the new thread. I'll be interested to see how Eddie handles your ravings.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Or are you just generally commenting on racism that only YOU see and no one else does without you bringing it to there attention.'

    Do you EVER stop and reconsider what you're about to post, or are you TRYING to look stupid? I'm hardly the only one who sees it, as your argument with Eddie on this thread, before I got involved, shows. Nor are we the only ones:

    'It was not so long ago that the chairman of the Republican National Committee apologized for his party’s history of “trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” and told the NAACP, “I am here today as the Republican Chairman to tell you we were wrong.” Such leadership cannot be found now.'

    http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/the-gops-racial-politics/

    ReplyDelete
  43. This one, for some reason, didn't show up earlier.

    'Yes, I know. It was a campaign promise of his. As I said: "He won and the money got paid out. You are a liar if you say you didn't know of this."

    Congress had appropriated the money as a way to get the economy moving, Obama agreed with this, argued for it, and followed the law, and I'm a liar for not calling this 'buying votes?' In the time of Citizens United? Absolute, flaming idiocy.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Well, let's try this ... watch TV (tonight) and tell me which people you watch, then tell me which ones are racist. Can you do that? Wha ??? You mean you can't watch TV and determine which people are or are not racist? Well, you sure claimed to be able to concerning the racism of Gingrich. Maybe you have 'selective mind-reading' and you're only able to determine racism for some and not all. You're not much of a mind-reader if you can only determine racism of a few by watching TV.


    Still waiting for your proof of my "denial of 50 years of Republican racism". Bring it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. You see, William, 'self-proclaimed' means, by definition, that I actively asserted an ability on my part to read minds. As I told you above, when you show me MY claim to have that ability AND NOT YOUR PROJECTION OF THAT CLAIM ONTO ME, I will deal with you and Republican racism. If you can't show me where I did that, then you are a liar who keeps doubling down on his lies, and all bets are off.

    ReplyDelete
  46. And "assertion" means "to demonstrate the existence of". Which you did. There is no "actively" in either definition. But, when you said it, you were "actively" demonstrating a racist attitude from something you saw on TV (you were actively reading his mind, asserting racism).

    Do you need a real dictionary? That's twice you've taken definitions wrong and used the wrong interpretation to support your incorrect stance. No wonder you want 'all bets off', since you know you are in the wrong and there is no way you could succeed in HONESTLY defending your statements.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Nice piece of pettifoggery.
    Actually, I've been to the online dictionary, Webster's, and the OED on this. The Webster's, is the only one that gives you any backup, and it's in it's third definition of 'proclaim', which uses the model sentence, "Her every act proclaimed her to be a snob." That strikes me as the way you're using the word. Well, in that case, it would be my acts which could be interpreted (and are by you), as proclaiming me to be a mind reader. I've not done it myself, so 'self-proclaimed' is still wrong. I've made no public announcement that I can read minds. What I have done, as you've ignored, is reference Gingrich's actions and reactions, and drawn conclusions. That's a process of deduction, as in, "The demagoguery Gingrich has employed throughout his entire
    career proclaims him to be a racist." No mind reading necessary.

    Keep thrashing. I'm enjoying it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Interesting excuse for admitting you were wrong. But, apology accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Cute: you imagined an apology where none existed, just as you imagined a "self-proclamation" that never happened.

    ReplyDelete
  50. You deny what you say after you say it. Is that a "liberal" thing or just your own behavior?

    ReplyDelete
  51. You are clearly not able to read for content and understanding. Typical reich whinger.

    ReplyDelete