Why the Left’s Preoccupation with the Redskins?

Given how much evil there is in the world; given how many signs of moral, intellectual and economic decline there are here in America; and given the increasing irrelevance of America to world events, it is fair to ask why the American Left is preoccupied with the name Washington “Redskins.”

The Washington Redskins have been in existence for 82 years. For about 80 of those years, virtually no one, including the vast majority of American Indians, was troubled by the name.

Yet, it is now of such importance to the American left that the majority leader of the United States Senate has repeatedly demanded, from the floor of the United States Senate, that the team drop its name; 50 United States senators, all of them Democrats, have signed an open letter demanding the same; Sports Illustrated’s Peter King no longer uses the name; other leading sportswriters have adopted the same practice; and the president of the United States has weighed in on the issue.

The pressure is relentless. There is more concern in the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times — not to mention the rest of the left — with the Redskins than with Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups for investigation, one of its division heads pleading the Fifth Amendment before Congress, and the Agency’s losing all relevant emails and hard drives.

The angry will tell you that the name “Redskins” is profoundly offensive to American Indians and that they — the angry — are simply more sensitive to racial slurs than others.

This explanation is self-serving, but insufficient.

The great majority of American Indians understandably just don’t care. Like heterosexual AIDS and so many other crises, this has been entirely manufactured by the left.

Since 1947, there has been a movie theater, the Redskins Theatre (with the same logo as the football team), in Anadarko, Oklahoma, a city whose population is divided evenly between Indians and whites, and which calls itself the “Indian Capital of the Nation.” Why, in 67 years, have the Indian populations of Anadarko and Oklahoma not changed this theater’s name?

Because the left hadn’t made it an issue. It’s not an Indian issue; it’s a left-wing issue.

And why is the left so preoccupied?

It isn’t because they are more morally sensitive to injustice. That is what the left believes about itself. But there are other reasons for the manufactured hysteria about the Redskins name.

Here are some:

First, there is a rule in life: Those who do not confront the greatest evils will confront much lesser evils or simply manufacture alleged evils that they then confront.

This has been a dominant characteristic of the Left for at least half a century.

The greatest evils since World War II have been Communism and, since the demise of Communism in the Soviet Union and most other Communist countries, violent Islam — or, as it often called, Islamism. Islamism is the belief that Sharia (Islamic law) must be imposed wherever possible on a society, beginning, of course, with Muslim-majority countries. These Islamists are, as the British historian Andrew Roberts has noted, the fourth incarnation of fascism — first there was fascism, then Nazism, then communism, and now Islamism.

For many years, most of the Western left was supportive of communism, and after the 1960s, it was simply hostile to anti-communists. The left was far more concerned with attacking America than with attacking the Soviet Union. So, too, today, the left is far more concerned with attacking America — its alleged racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and economic inequality — than with fighting Islamism.

Second, the corollary to the above is that those who do not fight the greatest evils invariably loathe those who do. The left hated American anti-communists much more than it hated communists. The left today hates traditional America much more than it hates traditional Islamists. The Redskins name is a symbol of that hated America.

Third, the left has huge nostalgia for the sixties. In the left’s eyes, virtually every one of its causes is as morally urgent as the civil rights battles on behalf of blacks (for which it falsely claims exclusive credit). Therefore getting the Redskins to change their name is a contemporary expression of working to give blacks full voting rights.

Fourth, aside from tearing down another American tradition, and showing how awful America was and remains, the motivating issue here is left-wing self-esteem. Remember it was the left that developed the self-esteem movement. And nobody feels as good about themselves as the left does when it finds another American moral flaw, especially when that flaw is another example of “intolerance,” and racism.

Fifth, and finally, the left is totalitarian at heart. Whenever possible, they seek control of others; and they love to throw their considerable weight around. The left-wing president does it so often that the Supreme Court has unanimously shot down his attempts on a dozen occasions. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, under huge pressure from leftists, just dropped conservative Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist George Will. Under pressure from left-wing professors and students, Brandeis and other universities dropped the few conservative speakers they had invited to this year’s commencement exercises. Forcing the Redskins to do their will is just the left’s latest attempt to force its views on the vast majority of its fellow citizens. That’s why it’s worth fighting for the Redskins. Today it’s the Redskins, tomorrow it’s you.

Dennis Prager’s latest book, “Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph,” was published April 24, 2013 by HarperCollins. He is a nationally syndicated radio show host and creator of PragerUniversity.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM

  • Simon Noel

    The Redskin name and logo was never a problem for Edward Bennett Williams when he owned the team, and he was one of the most liberal guys in Washington!

  • Simon Noel

    The

  • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

    It’s their substitute religion. Buying as cheaply and as often as possible the most ostentatious means to make preening display of their moral rectitude is central to the new Puritanism that is ‘liberal’ progressivism.

  • Josh

    Yeah. The social justice warrior progressives in America love tackling these serous issues. “Redskins” is such an offensive term that some people even had to stop blogging about how white people eating Chinese food is cultural appropriation, in order to let the world know how intolerable the term suddenly is.

    Gotta love our SJWs in America. They hit all the real issues. Like, for example, modern feminists fighting tooth and nail and suing and screaming over alleged sexism in video games. Acid in faces and true oppression is just a cultural difference that we’d be racist to interfere with. Not enough azz-kicking female video game characters, however….well, that’s an injustice that must be corrected right away!

    Or the warriors who are still attacking SNL for their “Black Jeopardy” skit. Genocide and mass gang killings and drug dealing? Nah, not as important as supposedly perpetuating a negative stereotype through comedy.

    And let’s not forget wanting to ban words like “bossy.” Has there ever been a more important issue?

    And the list unfortunately keeps going. Facepalm fodder, the lot.

    I respect liberal and progressive individuals who are fair across the board with their incessant whining about things we need to ban. They’re just picking up where the other side left off via banning books and blasphemy and such back in the day. Both sides are totalitarian, FFS. It’s just one side does it for mysticism. But the mega hypocrites who truly pretend to be for social justice and fairness and the like, yet fear tackling real problems, have the respect of fewer people every day.

    • Steve Fair

      False analogies, red herrings and strawmen. Rightwing specialties. Now white people are attacked for eating Chinese food and nobody is concerned about drug dealing and gang killings? Even though the US industrial prison complex is bursting at the seams with drug dealers and gangsters. You righties occupy a parallel universe.

      • Josh

        Pretty much nonsensical words when they’re just thrown out there from someone who appears to have not actually read the comment more than perhaps a quick gloss to ensure the reply wasn’t on an island. It’s particularly nonsense when you accuse someone of strawmen before delivering one yourself — with the original content literally two inches above your face.

        (I’m not taking the stance that nobody cares about gang killings; I’m stating that the SJWs I’m speaking about* care much more about pettier issues. FFS…if only political bickerers cared about the FAIL.)

        I’m not even “rightwing” — something you woulda gathered had you actually paid attention to my comment, which insulted the right, if anything. But I get it; I’m replying to Prager on Goldberg’s blog, and I didn’t start out by insulting the right and praising the left, so assuming what the comment must say is the smarter play than actually paying attention.

        I understand political thinking enough not to take it personally. If a person speaks against an aspect of the left, they must be a Fox-News-watching, Koch-supporting, Bible-thumping, Tea-Party-throwing, gun-loving righty! And vice versa.

        ……..

        *I’m not sure if you’re aware of the Tumblr feminist crowd, the Anita Sarkeesians and Rebecca Watsons and Suey Parks of the world, and the young SJWs out there whose crusades never involve anything that goes deeper than a first-world nuisance. You’re not up on the “cultural appropriation” train that’s gaining steam around universities and the blogosphere?

        These are the combined voices that bend the ears of policymakers and lobbyists and professors and businesses, etc.

        Note that my comment veers in a different direction than Prager’s post. I’m not putting it at the feet of the entire side. I’m speaking about those beautiful whiny SJWs.

        These are groups of people I’m aware of due to my dealings with the skeptic community. These progressive SJWs, influence policy and have a real effect on my life and even make livings by dealing with first-world annoyances while outright ignoring real problems.

        • Steve Fair

          You say that the SJW’s care much more about “pettier issues” than crime. That’s ridiculous. This nation is obsessed with crime and murder, especially it’s racial components. Even though violent crime and homicide rates are at 40 year lows. Why is everything binary with conservatives. People can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can be offended by racist sports mascots and still be concerned about crime, taxes, war or anything else. BTW what would you like the SJWs to do about gang killings that we don’t pay police and politicians to do?

          • Josh

            But the “nation” isn’t SJWs, is it? The “nation” elected Barack Obama. That’s technically accurate. But you and I both know–and you have even stated–that’s not really the case.

            And again with “conservative”? You’re either trying to insult me (which is laughable and immensely petty) or you outright refuse to actually read the content of anyone’s post beyond eye-catching lines for the purpose of responding contrarily.

            But I’d much rather type here than get back to work, so I’ll play along.

            If the SJWs care, as in the same way they care about petty grievances and first-world spilled-milk nonsense, where do they make this known? When some make their livings and earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations for, say, the patriarchy’s hold on the video game industry, where is the follow-up content to suggest they also fight for women’s rights outside of that petty realm? When a group of SJWs go on a rampage about cultural appropriation, where is their campaign about actual racism or discrimination?

            Where do they show they also care about these things to the same level? Where are the sites? The movements? The campaigns? What are the slogans? Where are the petitions? Where is the coverage? Where are the social groups? Where are the lectures? Where are the gatherings? I don’t see it. And I’m a member of the skeptic community, where these types of things would be front-page news if they were out there.

            Yes. A person can walk and chew gum at the same time. But something being possible doesn’t make it necessarily true. If you want to argue that the people about whom I’m speaking are chewing their gum while walking, I’m going to need to see the combo.

            Per your request: What I would like these folks to do, at the bare minimum, is put as much effort into real problems as they do in trying to ban words, trying to force the video game industry to change course, trying to ban free speech at public conferences and at universities, etc. Devote time to real issues that have real-world consequences and not some imagined touchy-feely nonsense. Start Kickstarters for that. Create hashtags about that. Complain on national media about that. Build social movements about that.

            If you’re implying that they can’t effect change in that area, so why bother, that is not a valid reason for these people to ignore real problems that cost lives. And it’s also not something I’m buying. These issues aren’t on the radar. And not just gang killings; you don’t have to stick with something that drastic. You can extend it to real discrimination and real oppression, and these schmoes are dead silent on the issues. But the push to insert gender-neutral pronouns because the white-male-dominated patriarchy insults some LGBT members by saying “he” or “she”? Well, that’s the type of battle they love to fight.

          • Steve Fair

            I don’t know what you’re getting at here. A majority of the electorate in TWO national elections elected Barack Obama President. Do you dispute that? Answer a couple of questions for me please. Just who are the SJW’s? Are they the folks endlessly seeking scandals in the Obama administration so they can have an excuse for obstructing the workings of the government? Were they the people who claimed for a couple of years that the President was born in Kenya and vociferously demanded to see his birth certificate instead of focusing on more pressing issues like jobs, universal healthcare, immigration reform, etc…? And what kind of anti-crime “social movement” would you like to see? A boycott of gang warfare? And where is this “rampage on cultural appropriation”?

          • Josh

            Are you trolling? You stated in another post: “the Democratic party which elected a black President” … My point in bringing that up in a different context was simple: You and I both know that Republicans didn’t put him office. So, while the “nation” technically voted him in, it’s not as if there wasn’t opposition.

            That plays directly to your point about the “nation” being tough on drugs and crime and filling up prisons. It’s not the “nation” once you get past a technicality of 51>49.

            I know you don’t pay attention to what I write, but do you even pay attention to what you write? You can’t imply that the nation’s prison population means that everyone in the nation feels the same way about things and collectively seeks to stop gang violence and the like. No. There are plenty who don’t care at all, and plenty who don’t think it’s as big of a deal as other issues that are objectively issues of lesser real-world significance (which is where I put these SJWs).

            And, no — no more questions of yours answered. And for good reasons:

            1) You seem to have failed to actually read what I’ve written thus far.

            2) I’ve made it abundantly clear about whom I’m speaking, yet you still insist on lumping me in as a conservative who’s speaking about the same thing Prager is.

            3) I saw the “typing” icon hit the screen less than two minutes after I submitted my post, and in another five minutes you had posted a reply. That’s kinda weak considering I’m actually taking the time to engage with you in thought-out fashion. You’re barely skimming.

            It’s now become a complete waste of time, and you can fit your last words in here. Just, please, call me a conservative one more ‘gain so I can have something to chuckle at when I come back later.

          • Steve Fair

            LMAO!!!!!! These conversations with righties always turn out the same way. When you corner them and actually make them explain their cur card rants, they stomp away in mock outrage. BTW, the majority of the US prison population is not incarcerated for gang warfare but non violent drug offenses. See ya.

          • Walter Peck

            I have a feeling conversations with you always turn out the same way: anyone who read or participated in them is now dumber.

          • Josh

            I don’t run away from anything, particularly moronic Internet trolls. I just seek out other ways to waste time. But I find myself feeding trolls often enough. I’m like Billy Peltzer in Gremlins.

            So you can get another gloat in if it brings you joy. “LMAO!!!!! These righties always come back after I say they always go away! I can’t lose no matter what happens when I set the rules; my logic is flawless. I’m the reason a catch-22 exists!”

            You didn’t get anyone in any type of corner. You outright refused to read what I wrote, yet insisted on asking more and more questions, many of which were already answered for you, if only you had taken time to read.

            What I don’t understand is that all of this is available directly above us on the screen. It’s on record; it’s not disappearing. Yet you misrepresent it here with supreme confidence. Repeatedly. Shamelessly. Regardless of being called on it.

            Why?

            I mean, beyond the obvious trolling, what are you getting out of it? I’ve always been interested in what type of satisfaction trolls get. And what would your ilk do before the Internet? I cringe to think about it. I’d rather rub one out, play GTA or have a Bud Light in my downtime. But to each their own.

            The goal must be to get under someone’s skin because there’s really nothing else you can do on an intellectual level. Lying, refusing to read, forcing someone to a side, ignoring the same person you demand attention from — are you actually a grown man?

          • mcveen

            You guys sure are silly!

          • Steve Fair

            I take it you have nothing to contribute here.

  • Steve Fair

    So I guess the author would have no problem with a team called the “Kansas City Kikes” or the “Houston Hebes”. Or maybe he’s just smugly telling Native Americans, who small in population and politically impotent, to just “get over it”. I pick door number two.

    • Jeff Webb

      Maybe the majority of Americans who don’t share all this phony outrage, including the larger percentage of American Indians, deserve to be heard as much as a handful of shallow busybodies with too much time on their hands.

      • Steve Fair

        Right. It’s always “phony outrage” when it it someone else being offended or caricatured. Let somebody name a team the “Sheboygan Shylocks” with an offensive Jew caricature as the mascot and Goldberg and Prager would be the first ones screaming.

        • Jeff Webb

          >>Right. It’s always “phony outrage” when it it someone else being offended or caricatured.<> Let somebody name a team the “Sheboygan Shylocks” with an offensive Jew
          caricature as the mascot and Goldberg and Prager would be the first
          ones screaming.<<

          They'd no doubt find it offensive, but do you think they'd put together a major effort to pressure the team owner into changing the name?

          • Steve Fair

            So let’s see. You’re implying that the Democratic party which elected a black President, represents people of every color, race, hue, sexual orientation and religion is racist and the GOP which is primarily white and rightwing is tolerant? A little advice. Don’t hit the sherm before you post.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>You’re implying that the Democratic party which elected a black President<>represents people of every color, race, hue, sexual orientation and religion<>the GOP which is primarily white and rightwing<<

            The GOP is NOT primarily right wing, and I'll give you one guess which color makes up the majority of the DP.

            Was it a Rep or Dem who found it especially noteworthy that a black man could be articulate & clean? Who talked about Obama's light skin & lack of a negro dialect? Who called NY "Hymietown"? Who said of Obama "A few years ago, he would have been getting us coffee." Who party had a former Kleagle in the Senate?

            How many more examples of Democrat bigotry would you like, just so I can make sure the site has the capacity?

          • Steve Fair

            Okay I see you’re kinda slow. Obama is a black man, his wife is a black woman and he has two black daughters. Second, it was Cains’ fellow Republicans who imploded his campaign with leaks about his extramarital affair. Lastly, it was 3 white Republican POTUS candidates (Romney, Santorum, Gingrich) who stated that blacks wanted government “gifts and other people’s money” It was Republicans who stated that Obama was not born in this country, was a Muslim and did not deserve his Harvard Law Degree. BTW how many elected black Republicans are there? Wasn’t Trent Lott a member of the cleaned up version of the White Citizen’s Council as late as 1998 while he was GOP Senate Majority Leader? So stop the bullsquat.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Okay I see you’re kinda slow. Obama is a black man<> it was Cains’ fellow Republicans who imploded his campaign with leaks about his extramarital affair.<>Lastly, it was 3 white Republican POTUS candidates (Romney, Santorum,
            Gingrich) who stated that blacks wanted government “gifts and other
            people’s money<> It was Republicans who stated that Obama was not born in this country, was a Muslim<>and did not deserve his Harvard Law Degree.<>BTW how many elected black Republicans are there?<>Wasn’t Trent Lott a member of the cleaned up version of the White
            Citizen’s Council as late as 1998 while he was GOP Senate Majority
            Leader? <<

            No. He also didn't spend 20 years attending a loud bigot's sermons.

            Does anything you've posted undo the racist statements Democrats made?

          • Steve Fair
          • Jeff Webb

            My computer failed the link every time I tried it, but I used its wording and came up with different statements from different candidates.

            Gingrich’s and Santorum’s statements have essentially the same basis, that the best way for the less-fortunate to get out of poverty is having jobs. Everyone knows public benefits are necessary for Americans in dire straits, but they don’t hold a candle to jobs if the goal is to get people out of that situation. Is that not true?
            Do Democrats not say liberal economic policies are better for blacks than conservative ones? How has the workplace participation rate for black people been under Obama? What percentage of black Americans are on programs like welfare and EBT under him? What percentage of whites? How about Asians? Latinos? Are the numbers better or worse under him?

            These are legitimate points, whether it’s Rick Santorum or Thomas Sowell making them. Is it racist to point out that kids without dads is an especially serious problem in the black community, whether it’s Bernie pointing it out or someone like Bill Cosby?

            RE: gifts:
            http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/19/defending-romneys-gift-remarks

          • Steve Fair

            What don’t you answer your own questions? The fact is that you don’t know. You just blindly repeat rightwing talking points. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of black Americans are employed and working to middle class. It was downright racist of Gingrich and Santorum to stigmatize blacks exclusively with welfare. But that’s what rightwingers do. And then they plaintively ask why blacks don’t vote Republican. It’s so obvious to me.

          • Jeff Webb

            Know what left-wingers do? They falsely accuse others of racism. Then when they get challenged, they fail to back up their claims like the intellectually dishonest cowards they are.

            You did it, you know it, deal with it.

          • Steve Fair

            I don’t falsely accuse anyone of anything. The rightwing is INFUSED with racism. It’s what motivates and animates them. I’ll prove it right now. Are you denying that the overwhelming majority of African-Americans are law abiding and gainfully employed? If so, please produce any reputable data to prove your assertion.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I don’t falsely accuse anyone of anything. The rightwing is INFUSED with racism. It’s what motivates and animates them.<> I’ll prove it right now.<<

            First there's something we need to clear up, once and for all:
            People like me were outraged over Cochran's victory because his supporters, facing probable defeat, resorted to firing up Democrats to vote for him with lies about his opponent. You accused us of racism, claiming we were outraged because the Democrats in question were black.

            Now, BACK UP YOUR ACCUSATION.

          • Steve Fair

            NO, NO, NO. Answer my question first. You obviously will keep diverting because an honest answer will reveal you to be the racist that you are.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Answer my question first.<>You obviously will keep diverting because an honest answer will reveal you to be the racist that you are.<<

            lol You're the one diverting and you know it.
            Baseless accusations make you look bad enough, Steve, but this little projection game you've resorted to playing is just pathetic. Don't worry, you won't be forced to man up, but do us all a favor and stop humiliating yourself.

          • Steve Fair

            LMAO!!!!! Okay Jeff, claim victory and continue to wallow in your silly delusions. I peeped your hole card from day one. People of color being offended about their heritage being caricatured are the “phony outraged”. Obama is white, a black hispanic is not really black, conservatives promoted the Civil Rights act and Obama destroyed the economy for blacks. You’re not just a racist but a blithering idiot.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>People of color being offended about their heritage being caricatured are the “phony outraged”.<>Obama is white<>a black hispanic is not really black<>conservatives promoted the Civil Rights act<>Obama destroyed the economy for blacks.<>You’re not just a racist<>but a blithering idiot.<<

            Maybe your therapist can help you with your projection problem. Please mention your inability to answer hard questions while you're there.

          • Steve Fair

            Jeff, the overwhelming majority of Americans in 1964 saw no need for a Civil Rights Act. Did that make them right? Please explain how Obama is white, regardless of the syllables. Democrats did promote the Civil Rights Act. LBJ, Humphrey in the Senate, Cellar and Powell in the House. Obama presided over a recovery in an economy that was on the brink of depression. Hundred of thousands of jobs added monthly. And please let’s not discuss avoiding questions. You asked me to prove you were a racist. Ridiculous. Do I have a picture of you at a crossburning? No. But I do have your remarks and avoidance of direct questions that will reveal unequivocally your racism. Proof enough for me.

          • Steve Fair

            Oh yeah. Who just went ballistic because black Mississipians bailed out Thad Cochran’s reelection campaign?

          • Jeff Webb

            Please prove exactly how it was the race of his saviors, and nothing else, that fueled the outrage over Cochran’s reelection. Then take a guess whether conservatives would find it acceptable if Cochran had won using a similar tactic with white Democrats.

          • Steve Fair

            Very few white Democrats in Mississippi. I’ll let you guess why.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Very few white Democrats in Mississippi. I’ll let you guess why.<<

            Aww, so cute when you avoid a contrary point.

          • Steve Fair

            Oh okay. Of course McDaniel and the rest of Tea Party racists are claiming “voter fraud”. WHY? Because of BLACK VOTERS.

          • Jeff Webb

            >> WHY? Because of BLACK VOTERS.<<

            I asked you to prove the people were outraged specifically because the voters happened to be black, not to repeat the claim. You're reminding me of all the times liberals claimed conservatives opposed the president's policies because of his race; every time I asked if they thought we'd approve of the ACA if John Edwards were the president who signed it into law, they couldn't answer.

            It'll be difficult to prove your allegation, so take your time.

            BTW, in case you need a little catch-up on the topic:
            http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/30/Democrat-Pastor-Accuses-Thad-Cochran-Campaign-Of-Vote-For-Pay-Scheme

          • Steve Fair

            Uhhhh because they immediately started screaming “VOTER FRAUD” after the runoff with no evidence except the influx of black voters for Cochran. Same way George Bush can run up the deficit more than all of his predecessors combined yet we don’t hear a peep from the Tea Party until Barack Obama gets elected. Don’t I have a picture of a cross burning at a Chris McDaniel campaign gathering? No. But I do have common sense.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Uhhhh because they immediately started screaming “VOTER FRAUD” after the
            runoff with no evidence except the influx of black voters for Cochran.<<

            Okay, it's starting to look like you're avoiding the point on purpose. Whatever the reason, QUIT IT.

            Again, if it had been white Democrats instead of black ones to whom Cochran reached out & manipulated, do you think that wouldn't have sparked such outrage? Is there anything, ANYTHING at all that suggests the McDaniel camp would have let this sleazy tactic slide if the Democrats were white?

          • Sue Mee

            Just 2. Which party gutted the Voting Rights Act and promptly revived the Jim Crow era with voter suppression laws? And which party received 5% of the black vote in the 2012 election? What does that tell you? That 95% of blacks are racist? Keep up the good work and you will get 0% next time.

          • Jeff Webb
          • Sue Mee

            So then it’s the liberals who are the racists? And the right wing who loves black people? Who can argue with that? But obviously the feeling is not mutual. So now go argue with the 95% of black people that hate your guts that they are the racists and not you.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>So then it’s the liberals who are the racists?<> And the right wing who loves black people? Who can argue with that?<>So now go argue with the 95% of black people that hate your guts that they are the racists and not you.<<

            I'm not surprised you need to invent others' statements.

          • Sue Mee

            >>I take it you didn’t read my response to Steve from yesterday.<<
            That Obama is white? Does he look white to you?

            <<Who can argue with a statement that wasn't made?<<
            You are not saying much of anything are you.

            <<I'm not surprised you need to invent others' statements.<<
            95% of blacks voted Democratic in the 2012 election. You could look it up as they say. That is a pretty clear statement don't you think?

          • Sue Mee

            “I take it you didn’t read my response to Steve from yesterday.”
            That Obama is white? Does he look white to you?

            “Who can argue with a statement that wasn’t made?”
            You are not saying much of anything are you.

            “I’m not surprised you need to invent others’ statements.”
            95% of blacks voted Democratic in the 2012 election. You could look it up as they say. That is a pretty clear statement don’t you think?

          • Jeff Webb

            >>That Obama is white?<>Does he look white to you?<<

            Almost all of the time, someone's appearance obviously indicates their race, but it isn't what dictates it. Former Boston Pitcher Pedro Martinez looks black, but he isn't.

          • Steve

            If Martinez is not black, what is he?

          • Jeff Webb

            Hispanic.

          • Steve

            Hispanic is not a race. You have white, brown and black hispanics. Martinez is the same complexion as I and his ancestors came to the Dominican Republic on a slave ship from Africa.

          • Jeff Webb

            Semantics.

            Ethnicity is listed along with races for the purposes of the Census Bureau. Simply put, African Americans and Black Hispanics bear a resemblance, but are not the same.

            Not that it mattered to the troll who was under the impression Obama is black.

          • Steve Fair

            Are you really this ignorant? You really don’t know that the aboriginal people of Central and South America were brown skinned Indians and that the blacks of Haiti, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and Cuba are descendants of the captives of slave ships from Africa. Just like American blacks. The only difference is they speak Spanish and have the Spanish surnames of the former slaveowners.

          • Jeff Webb

            So, if Mr. Martinez were to tell you he’s Hispanic, you would tell him he’s incorrect, that he’s actually African-American? lol

          • Steve Fair

            No you pathetic clown. I would tell him that he is a black man from the Dominican Republic.

          • Jeff Webb

            >> I would tell him that he is a black man from the Dominican Republic.<<

            My point to "Sue Mee" was that Martinez wasn't actually an African-American (a term I'm not really fond of). I already told you the metric I used, and you have my deepest apologies it wasn't the one you prefer.

          • Steve Fair

            Is Martinez black or not? Is Pope Francis white or not? Answer the questions.

          • Lance Cockstrong

            This bloviating ignoramus Webb is beyond all help. And for good reason. Like the rest of this Foreign Legion of no-talent hack misfits he is not qualified for anything except to take Koch Bros blood money to push the buttons of these feeble minded cult followers to ignite their inbred hatred, Liberals like us are bad for business so he must create a hostile environment. The GOP got 5% of the black vote in 2012 and vowed to stop being the Stupid Party. But when stupidity is inbred in you, you can only get stupider, and hence their solution. If blacks won’t vote for us they won’t vote at all. He thinks we are the racists and not him? Perhaps when they get 0% of the black vote the light will come on in his empty head.

          • Sue Mee

            “Was it a Rep or Dem who found it especially noteworthy that a black man could be articulate & clean?”
            You just got done saying he is a white man. Your wife must find it confusing as hell living with you.

            “Show me my ‘clear statement’ about 95% of blacks”?
            A clear statement? From you? Oh come now. Obviously (to everyone but you) what I was referring to was the clear statement made by the black community in 2012 with their votes.

            “Almost all of the time …”
            If you think he is white then you need to pull your head … oh what’s the use … you lovable incorrigible analrightwinger you! Happy 4th. Send my regards to Legal Eagle.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>You just got done saying he is a white man.<>A clear statement? From you? Oh come now. Obviously (to everyone but you) what I was referring to was the clear statement made by the black community in 2012 with their votes.<>If you think he is white then you need to pull your head…<<

            If you think his appearance is the how his race is determined, you are ignorant. Go ahead and tell me what his race is, and use something more scientific than "Does he look white to you?" to explain how you came up with it.

          • Sue Mee

            Lord have mercy you are tiresome. You are accusing Democrats of bigotry. In a ludicrous attempt to deny that Democrats elected a black president, you declared Obama to be white. So you come up with the scientific proof. No one identifies Obama as white but you. And since you think Democrats are bigots and 95% of the black community voted Democratic then it follows that you think 95% of blacks are bigots. Is that scientific enough for you?

            “When the facts are against you just keep arguing”

          • Jeff Webb

            Aww darn. Just as it was getting fun toying with “Sue Mee” he gets the axe.

          • Sue Mee

            XxxxxYou are the Webb-Master aren’t you? Tell them to put it back. You are a very impotent man around here. Bring it on. If you have the cojones.

          • Jeff Webb

            Happy to oblige, kiddo. First you’ll have to admit what I said about racism in the Democrat Party didn’t mean ALL Democrats, and your interpretation of it was wrong.

          • Sue Mee

            Ok I’ll play along. Didn’t mean ALL Democrats? Which party then were you referring to as the “actual party of racism (hint it ain’t the GOP)”. And when you bloviated that you could provide any number of examples of Democrat bigotry limited only by the capacity of the site? How many was that exactly? Let’s start there.

          • mcveen

            Your shrill hyperbole and ridiculous exaggeration indicate that you cannot be taken seriously. Your infantile rant is not worthy of further reply. Please go back to HuffPost.

          • Sue Mee

            I’m a 5th grader. And I’m smarter than you.

          • Steve Fair

            It was the Democrats who promoted and passed both the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act to which LBJ replied “The Democrats just lost the South for a generation”. Tell me, why should black people support the GOP when they don’t even ask for our vote and portray us as criminals and welfare beggars. You want to see a racist, look in the mirror.

          • Jeff Webb

            Would the CRA passed without Republicans’ votes? In fact, which party had a higher percentage of votes in favor? Was it a Rep or a Dem who used the N-word referring to black people?

          • Steve

            The Republicans who voted for Civil Rights and Voting Rights were liberals and moderates. The Dems who opposed them were rightwing segregationists. Today the GOP is the rightwing party and home to ex-segregationists.

          • Jeff Webb

            You really don’t know what you think you know, Steve.

            The basic definition of liberal is favoring individual liberties; while the current, colloquial use of “liberal” generally refers to today’s Democrats, in reality they are far from it.

            However you slice it, belief in separate treatment for a different race has never been mainstream in the GOP, always mainstream in the Democrat Party. Margaret Sanger, proponent of eugenics, is widely respected by Democrats. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., proponent of color-blindness, is widely respected by Republicans

          • Steve Fair

            Here we go again. Name the CONSERVATIVE who supported Civil Rights.

          • Jeff Webb

            Name the Republicans back then who were pro-abortion, pro-welfare state, pro-amnesty, etc. Then name the current conservatives who found it noteworthy that a black man could be articulate & clean, who talked about Obama’s light skin & lack of a negro dialect, who called NY “Hymietown,” and who said of Obama “a few years ago, he would have been getting us coffee.”

            In other words, your contention is simplistic and misses the point.

          • Steve Fair

            Does this obvious deflection and bloviation work in your real life? You are pathetic. You do realize that the same Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Act also voted for the Great Society, don’t you? Clinton and Biden may have made stupid and racist comments but they have supported progressive policies and the Obama Administration which is all I’m concerned about. Will you PLEASE answer a question for once in your life? NAME THE CONSERVATIVE WHO SUPPORTED CIVIL RIGHTS.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>NAME THE CONSERVATIVE WHO SUPPORTED CIVIL RIGHTS.<<

            It's actually an easy request, and for the sake of real discussion I will give you a straight response. First, I have one condition: you back up your accusation re: Cochran, or admit you had no factual basis to make it.

          • Steve Fair

            Okay I will submit that it is my opinion that the yahoos in Mississippi that are squealing “voter fraud” are racists and I cannot prove it with DNA evidence. Now please answer my question.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            If you had their DNA could you prove it?

          • Steve Fair

            It was a joke. Geez.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Ah. Sorry. I always miss the hilarity in race-baiting.

          • Steve Fair

            And of course any recognition of white racism by blacks is “race baiting”, right? LMAO!!!!!

          • Jeff Webb

            Depends. If you had acknowledged the libdems’ statements I posted earlier were racist, that actually would be recognition of white racism. When you call people racists without knowing them or having any facts, that’s race-baiting.

          • Steve Fair

            I’ve produced facts. You go “nuh-uh”. You are a typical rightwinger in the sense that you obviously think black people are too stupid to realize what their best interests are or who their real friends are. It defies belief. I’m supposed to get upset because Harry Reid said Obama doesn’t have a “Negro dialect” (I’ve heard other blacks make pretty much the same statement) but I am not supposed to be upset when Romney, Gingrich and Santorum say that blacks don’t produce and want other people’s money?

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I’ve produced facts.<>you obviously think black people are too stupid to realize what their best interests are or who their real friends are.<<

            You obviously think very little before passing judgments on others.

            As for the rest: whether or not it'd upset you is beside the point. You've simply had no difficulty calling the other side racist based on nothing but your personal assumptions/feelings, while not even acknowledging unquestionable racism by your side.

            I'm not speaking to the merits of the statements made by those three guys or your take on them, but I have this hunch that it wouldn't matter to you if any black men held the same position.

          • Steve Fair

            If any black men held what position? That blacks don’t produce and want other people’s money? Is that or is that not a racist position? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

          • Jeff Webb

            NO, AND DON’T ASK THE QUESTION.
            I already told you I won’t speak to the merits of the statements made by those three guys or your take on them, and besides that you already took the wind out of your own argument.
            If all it takes to justify, mitigate, or disprove racism is merely hear it come from a person of a different color, then your entire claim will have no basis from the outset.

          • Jeff Webb

            Good man.

            On your question: I really don’t know which politicians, if any, in favor of the CR legislation were conservative.
            It was absolutely liberal to support the legislation in the 1960′s, and it is my assumption that the ones against it, at the very least the majority of them, were conservative.

            CRA signature or not, LBJ was still a bigot, and a key figure who opposed the law, Barry Goldwater, did not do so out of bigotry as liberals claim. It was on Constitutional grounds. Despicable as separate lunch counters & drinking fountains were, BG’s position was absolutely sound, as the designated way to address the issue was amending the Constitution. (Doesn’t mean I would’ve done the same thing if I’d been in his position.) In other words, tolerance wasn’t that cut & dried.

            As far as the current state of affairs:
            When libdems call us racists, they only have their presumptions & prejudice to go by; they don’t prove it and barely argue it. When you finally gave a direct response to a challenge, you were one of the rare ones to show that much decency.
            Speaking for myself, when I call libdems racist, I offer examples that at best are clear-cut, at worst far easier to argue than anything libdems cite.

            It took me very little effort to cite examples of real racism by high-profile Dems, like the “Negro dialect” quote by the top guy in the U.S. Senate, certainly no more than telling a comparative nobody that failing to show he isn’t a racist is proof he is one.

          • Steve Fair

            LBJ was a man of his time and region who changed and atoned. The fact remains that LBJ got the most important and moral piece of American legislation in the 20th Century passed. Appointed the first black cabinet member and the first black Supreme Court Justice. Goldwater may not personally have been a bigot but he was on the wrong side of the most important legislation of the century. He actually placed the right to discriminate over the black man’s humanity. Any way you cut it, that sucks. As far as your denial of the racism of the right, I will pose several examples. Conservatives blatantly accuse blacks of lack personal responsibility. RACIST. Conservatives claim blacks want special handouts and government largesse. RACIST. Conservatives do not solicit black political support, RACIST. Conservatives claim that blacks are inherently more criminal than whites RACIST. I can go on and on. It’s obvious.

          • Jeff Webb

            With the exception of the one about political support, which would only be your opinion regardless of hard numbers, care to show a link or two with these RACIST examples?

          • IDontWant2WorkIJustWant2BangOn
          • Jeff Webb

            Regarding the first link:
            http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rothman-the-lefts-laughable-effort-to-label-paul-ryan-racist-crumbles/

            Regarding the second: grab a dictionary and look up the word “racist.” If any listed definition goes something like “sharing accurate statistics about a race of people,” get back to me.

            Swing and a miss, Todd.

          • IDontWant2WorkIJustWant2BangOn

            Whatever. No doubt the black community will find your argument as persuasive as you do. Let’s see how that works out for you in the next election.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Whatever.<>No doubt the black community will find your argument as persuasive as
            you do. Let’s see how that works out for you in the next election.<<

            Gee, it's almost as if you care less about improving people's plight than you do staying in power.

          • Steve Fair

            One more point. Conservative icon Ronald Reagan said he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 64 because he felt it was “unfair to the South”. He certainly wasn’t considering the black people of the South. It was obvious that Reagan felt that whites were superior and had the right to oppress blacks. You can’t argue with this.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>One more point. Conservative icon Ronald Reagan said he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 64 because he felt it was “unfair to the South”. He certainly wasn’t considering the black people of the South.<> It was obvious that Reagan felt that whites were superior and had the right to oppress blacks. You can’t argue with this.<<

            I won't argue that it is obvious TO YOU, the guy who draws quick conclusions about others based entirely on his own prejudice.

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/18/taube-the-real-reagan-record-on-civil-rights/

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ronald_Reagan#Minorities

          • Steve Fair

            You righties hide behind the Constitution as if it is this infallible document. It is a living and flawed document in need of constant revision and amending. Reagan and Goldwater were WRONG on Civil Rights and whether intentionally or not supportive of racial oppression. Here is more evidence of Reagan’s racist positions.

          • Steve Fair
          • Jeff Webb

            >>You righties hide behind the Constitution as if it is this infallible document.<>It is a living and flawed document in need of constant revision and amending.<>Reagan and Goldwater were WRONG on Civil Rights and whether intentionally or not supportive of racial oppression.<<

            The pro-voters in 1964 were wrong on Constitutional rights (for ALL businesspeople, not just the tolerant ones), and whether intentionally or not supportive of government oppression. AND, they violated their oath to boot.

          • Steve Fair

            So you do believe there is a fundamental Constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of race or sexual orientation? Please answer.

          • Jeff Webb

            If there is one question I’m glad you asked, this is it.

            The fundamental purpose of the U.S.C., is to prevent federal politicians from accumulating insurmountable or excessive power over the citizenry. It tells the pols that take office (after taking an oath to uphold it) what their duties are, and that the rights of citizens and sovereignty of individual states are off-limits.
            That’s not my belief, that’s plain & simple fact.

            In short, you asked the wrong question, of me anyway, and you need to know why.

            Recognizing Congressional overreach (disregarding the amendment process), no matter how noble the cause, is not support of wrongdoing. If some bigot were to mistreat any minority friend of mine, it’d give me a migraine to resist putting him in the hospital, but feeling that strongly about the subject doesn’t mean I should justify ignoring our country’s foundation.

            But you just go ahead and keep calling me racist if it’s more comfy for you. Fortunately, your right to say evil things like that cannot be infringed.

          • Sue Mee

            Easy bro! I’m on your side.

          • Steve

            My bad. I read too fast.

          • mcveen

            Racism in America – according to SPLC

            I’d like to add an interesting statistical breakdown on racism in America recently released from the Southern Poverty Law Center, an extreme left wing advocacy group located in Montgomery, Alabama.

            Racists attitudes and beliefs exhibited by black, white, Asian, and Hispanic cultural groups according to geographical dispersion are:
            Northeast: 28.6%
            Southeast: 16.8%
            Midwest 20.7%
            Northwest 11,4%
            Southwest 22.5%

            If we can believe SPLC data, the largest concentration of American racists live in the northeast. Isn’t this area also where liberals and labor unions (i.e., Democrats) are concentrated?

          • Sue Mee

            The only statistic that matters is the 95% of blacks who voted against you in 2012. So take your statistics and argue with them that they are the racists and not you. Or better yet just try to prevent them from voting.

          • Steve Fair

            Where did you get this garbage from? Let’s see a link.

          • Sue Mee
  • tdivison

    Here is something to think about: the vast majority of young people who join our military are from conservative backgrounds and hold conservative views. Why are consevatives more patriotic than those from the left?

    • Steve Fair

      You couldn’t prove this if your life depended on it. And I’m a veteran.

      • tdivison

        Gallup May 25, 2009, Time Nov 5, 2012, now prove you are a veteran.

        • Steve Fair

          What the hell does this mean?

          • Jeff Webb

            It means you were just given two sources backing up his assertion.

          • Steve Fair

            Sorry. I googled it and came up with $hit. How about a link? Or mind your business and STFU.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Sorry. I googled it and came up with $hit.<>Or mind your business and STFU.<<

            It's an open forum, Steve.

          • Steve Fair

            Where’s the link?

          • Jeff Webb

            Wasn’t that hard to find them. At best they only marginally back up tdivision’s assertion, in that the vast majority simply isn’t Democrat. There’s nothing about how conservative or liberal anyone is, and if you take out the independants, it’s hardly a “vast” majority of GOP. Also, vets are part of the poll, not just young/active.

            It’s common knowledge that a vote cast by a member of the military is more likely to be for a conservative candidate or proposition than the opposite, but that doesn’t automatically mean the voter is an across the board conservative.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/military-veterans-ages-tend-republican.aspx

            http://nation.time.com/2012/11/05/the-military-vote/

          • Steve Fair

            Hmmm. The Time article suggests mainly that the senior officer ranks particularly tend to be Republican which is understandable. As far as the enlisted ranks, that is very disputable. First off, as a veteran, I know that young people enlist in the military nowadays for economic reasons as opposed to some desire for combat or national defense. Second if you look at our nation’s elected officials, particularly Congress, more seem to be Democrats than Republicans. http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

  • Benmaxcon

    Amen.