1049: "Bookshelf"

[Karilyn]

But this time around they want to think birthers are racist as a way to heap scorn on them. I think this is misguided. If we act like racists are disgusting people that we can't have a civil conversation with, they will be our bitter enemies. We don't need that.

Shit, my girlfriend's a racist. It's incredibly awkward, but I also realize it's somewhat culturally ingrained into her, and she is extremely intelligent and logical person (Masters in Physics). I know that it's completely pointless for me to heap scorn on her; that won't make her change her worldview. But I keep my hope in the idea that one day she'll come to discard racism as the primitive foolishness that it is. Everybody has an idiotic belief or two in their lives that they don't want to give up; just some tend to be more disgusting than others, and you try not to think about the fact that you're sleeping in bed with someone who would actually think that someone isn't every bit as worthy as them because of their skin color, because dwelling on that would slowly kill you on the inside, just like their racism is slowly killing them on the inside.

We need to listen to racists and notice their real concerns.When we act like they don't deserve to have their opinions we bring the country another step closer to civil war.

Please. For the love of God. Stop talking.

[addams]

No we don't.
There are facts.
Bush II was the son of Bust I.
Bush I was head of the CIA.
Those things are fact.

The connection between that election and 9/11 is not fact.
It is an amazing coincidence. Or; Something else.

I have heard people compare it to the fire in Germany.
These people study that stuff.
The people that work for Bush I study that stuff, too.

There were these big buildings in NYC. They were marvels of engineering.
They were butt ugly. They were money losers for the owners. That is fact.
People did not like working in them very much.

The court yard in the back was nice. People did not use it.

I was in those buildings during the year before they went down.
Something was going on there. I like engineers. I have been taken behind the scenes in many buildings. Engineers like to show what they are doing. They are a proud people.

Of course, they talk to me, before, they show me what they are doing. They don't take everyone inside the guts of a building. I have been in so many that I consider it a privilege.

The day I was in those buildings, there were a great many men dressed in orange and they were busy. I attempted a conversation. They said that they were installing DSL lines. They were not the usual proud bunch. They had their heads down and were task oriented.
I chalked it up to New York unfriendliness. It may have been something else.

I was in that building, because, I was told that, if I wanted to see it, then, I had to go see it now or sooner. (Shrug.) I was told stuff like that, from time to time.

I know that those building are down. The city would have NEVER given permission to take them down. Never.

This Thread is about Rand. She was a spoiled advantaged person that hated to get her hands dirty. She was angry and bitter that she had fallen from having servants to being a servants.

Yes. She could see that her birth rights set her apart from other working people. She was out of her element. The noble workers can be horrible. She grew to be a misanthrope. She may have always been a misanthrope.

I can understand. I have compassion for her. The noble worker is not always nice.

She was a lucky girl. She was able to claw her way back up the socioeconomic ladder. She had an education and skills, before, her fall from Godlike to simple human. With the help of others she put herself back into a Godlike status.

I understand. I have experienced some serous problems with the masses, myself.

Rand is long gone. Like the people at FOX, she honestly believed that the poor and the strange dark people could be as cool as she was, if, only they could understand the world the way she did.

Was her understanding flawless? No. Did it justify the unjustifiable. Yes.
To many of us, her views degraded all of humanity.

Go back to arguing among yourselves.
You and I have Confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I will not. I can not change my view.
It is too much a part of me.
'We are our Brother's Keepers.'

We need to work in teams. Well educated, professional teams.
Our brothers are difficult to say the least.

[The Great Hippo]

This Thread is about Rand. She was a spoiled advantaged person that hated to get her hands dirty. She was angry and bitter that she had fallen from having servants to being a servants.

Yes. She could see that her birth rights set her apart from other working people. She was out of her element. The noble workers can be horrible. She grew to be a misanthrope. She may have always been a misanthrope.

Is that really a fair characterization of her? I don't feel comfortable talking about her motivations, particularly since she's not around to comment.

[Kaylakaze]

Actually, it was proven after the fact via independent recount that Gore did in fact win and had the recount gone through, would have taken the White House.

Ideological lie.

The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.

Based on the WP article-
Original result: Bush wins
Partial result when USSC stopped recount: Bush wins
Limited review requested by Gore: Bush wins
Recount including all ballots disputed by either side (never requested by either side): Bush wins
Recount including all ballots disputed by Gore, and none disputed by Bush (never requested by either side): Gore wins

Therefore, somehow, CONSPIRACY

(edited to fix Supreme Court abbreviation)

Um, if you'd actually read it all the way, you'd see that a full recount would have shown Gore the winner. Part of the legal issue was the argument that the type of recount Gore was asking for wasn't legal and that to recount, it'd require a full state recount, which, as the article points out, would have been a Gore win.

The electoral college itself is both stupid and corrupt in the first place since even though the electoral votes were close, Gore had millions more votes over all. All the electoral college does is say that if you live in a place that's contentious, your vote counts a lot more. If you live in a state that's primarily for your opposition, your vote doesn't count at all.

[The Great Hippo]

Still, as I understood it, this wasn't a conspiracy--it came down to several staunch Bush supporters (hell, the governor of Florida was related to him) making dubious calls that ended the election, and Gore giving up because it would involve dragging America through a judicial three-ring circus to pick apart the resulting mess.

It seems much more reasonable to file this under 'Conflict of Interests Leads to Unfair Result' rather than 'Conspiracy to Upset the People's Will'.

[Kaylakaze]

Cain's woman problems. Unless you're of the conspiracy theory that that was a) fake b) engineered by democrats and c) somehow racists, it doesn't apply.

If you feel the need to call me a conspiracy theorist for this one, then fine. But yes I do believe it was engineered by Democrats. I've met Cain more than once at IRL events, back when he was working on the Herman Cain Show (It's local to where I live) (Heck his church is practically across the street from the church I was going to at the time). And the idea that he is some sorta BIG SCARY BLACK MAN WHO'S GOING TO RAPE ALL YOUR WOMEN, is complete and utter racist bullshit. I always felt completely safe around him, and have never felt him express any interest in me when I was around him (I'm somewhat misandrist, so for me to be around a male and not want to take a shower and wash the sleeze off of myself afterward is quite an astonishing endorsement), as he obviously loves his wife dearly. Feel free to disregard my opinion because I know him personally though (albiet only as an acquaintance), as I obviously must be biased because I know him.

I don't disregard your opinion. I think he seems like a nice guy. However the record is what the record is and the record was from before he even thought of running for president. As an attractive woman, you should know that even seemingly nice guys get gropey. It's almost as silly as claiming the Obama's faked a birth announcement in a Hawaiian paper back in the 60s in order to allow their non-american son to be president.

[jpers36]

Um, if you'd actually read it all the way, you'd see that a full recount would have shown Gore the winner. Part of the legal issue was the argument that the type of recount Gore was asking for wasn't legal and that to recount, it'd require a full state recount, which, as the article points out, would have been a Gore win.

I did read. And you apparently missed this line:

Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.

Again: your source, not mine, counters your claims.

[HugoSchmidt]

Kaylakaze wrote:
Cain's woman problems. Unless you're of the conspiracy theory that that was a) fake b) engineered by democrats and c) somehow racists, it doesn't apply.

Oh, whoop-de-do. Clinton is a rapist lynch murdering war-criminal, and the Democrats and the "liberals" never cease to shill for the guy. They even had the nerve to say he was "the first black president", and as though that wasn't enough, he was "blacker than Barack" because he'd slept with more black women. The sheer cynicism and callousness with which the American left plays the race card three ways and none never ceases to take my breath away.

[Karilyn]

The electoral college itself is both stupid and corrupt in the first place since even though the electoral votes were close, Gore had millions more votes over all. All the electoral college does is say that if you live in a place that's contentious, your vote counts a lot more. If you live in a state that's primarily for your opposition, your vote doesn't count at all.

It's not corrupt when it is the rules of the game which you agreed to before playing. It could have just as easily been a Republican who had the popular vote, but not the electoral vote, who lost.

Also, in a system done by popular vote, if you live in a small state (or heck, possibly even if you didn't live in a big city), your vote wouldn't count at all. The electoral college mimics the congress in this regard. It's sort of how the Senate allows places with smaller populations to still have their interests spoken for. New York City has a population of 8,391,000. City, not state. This is a larger population than 38 of the 50 states. It doesn't take much imagination to see how smaller state's opinions and needs could be ignored in a popular vote system.

That being said, I do think that one very simple but positive change to the electoral college would be for a State's electors to be able to be split, where if a state had 10 electors, and one candidate got 60% of the popular vote within the state, then they would be given 6 electors, and their opponent would be given 40%. Though this is a bit more complicated, and would need the details hammered out. This would make sure that as you said, "if you live in a state that's primarily for your opposition," your vote would still count, because it could mean an extra elector for your candidate from your state.

[The Great Hippo]

Oh, whoop-de-do. Clinton is a rapist lynch murdering war-criminal, and the Democrats and the "liberals" never cease to shill for the guy. They even had the nerve to say he was "the first black president", and as though that wasn't enough, he was "blacker than Barack" because he'd slept with more black women. The sheer cynicism and callousness with which the American left plays the race card three ways and none never ceases to take my breath away.

Wow.

You really buy into this whole 'left-vs-right' thing, don't you?

[HugoSchmidt]

Oh, whoop-de-do. Clinton is a rapist lynch murdering war-criminal, and the Democrats and the "liberals" never cease to shill for the guy. They even had the nerve to say he was "the first black president", and as though that wasn't enough, he was "blacker than Barack" because he'd slept with more black women. The sheer cynicism and callousness with which the American left plays the race card three ways and none never ceases to take my breath away.

Wow.

You really buy into this whole 'left-vs-right' thing, don't you?

Not per se. My knowledge of this comes from hard left sources. However, one does need some label to describe the tumescent phenomenon Americans call "liberalism".

[The Great Hippo]

Oh, whoop-de-do. Clinton is a rapist lynch murdering war-criminal, and the Democrats and the "liberals" never cease to shill for the guy. They even had the nerve to say he was "the first black president", and as though that wasn't enough, he was "blacker than Barack" because he'd slept with more black women. The sheer cynicism and callousness with which the American left plays the race card three ways and none never ceases to take my breath away.

Wow.

You really buy into this whole 'left-vs-right' thing, don't you?

Not per se. My knowledge of this comes from hard left sources. However, one does need some label to describe the tumescent phenomenon Americans call "liberalism".

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around Clinton being a 'rapist lynch murdering war criminal', or the idea that Democrats and "liberals" never cease to shill for him.

Like... do you think Bush is a war-criminal, too?

EDIT: What does 'lynch murdering' even mean? Like, Clinton murdered lynches? Aren't lynches bad?

[HugoSchmidt]

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around Clinton being a 'rapist lynch murdering war criminal', or the idea that Democrats and "liberals" never cease to shill for him.

You can find the evidence for all of this in No one left to lie to. Just to take the most salient example of his "Southern strategy", for a bounce in the polls his flew back to Arkansas to supervise the execution of a mentally retarded black inmate who would have received clemency otherwise.

[addams]

This Thread is about Rand. She was a spoiled advantaged person that hated to get her hands dirty. She was angry and bitter that she had fallen from having servants to being a servants.

Yes. She could see that her birth rights set her apart from other working people. She was out of her element. The noble workers can be horrible. She grew to be a misanthrope. She may have always been a misanthrope.

Is that really a fair characterization of her? I don't feel comfortable talking about her motivations, particularly since she's not around to comment.

Yes. I think is is.

The book was off putting. So, I read stuff about her life.

She lived a long time ago. She had strong views.

It may be like a those particles. She was the the matter to Gandis' anti-matter. That kind of thing may be what holds the Universe together. I don't know.

Her ways are not my ways.

[The Great Hippo]

You can find the evidence for all of this in No one left to lie to. Just to take the most salient example of his "Southern strategy", for a bounce in the polls his flew back to Arkansas to supervise the execution of a mentally retarded black inmate who would have received clemency otherwise.

What about the 'lynch murdering' part? I'm really curious, now. How many lynches did he murder?

Also, do you think Bush is a war criminal? Do you think most Presidents probably qualify?

You know, Hitchens also wrote a book breaking down Henry Kissinger...

[HugoSchmidt]

You know, Hitchens also wrote a book breaking down Henry Kissinger...

And Ayn Rand had Kissinger's number and condemned him when it would have made an actual difference. I pointed this out at the start and no one wanted to take me up on't.

Nice to see that you don't give a damn about killing off mentally retarded blacks when it's politically convenient.

I don't know if adams is just massively ignorant of Ayn Rand or a stone cold liar, or quite possibly both, but he's simply spouting utter absolute nonsense. Take this:

She was a spoiled advantaged person that hated to get her hands dirty.

Yeah, escaping from a totalitarian tyranny, arriving with only $10 in her pocket, working her way up in a new country - plenty advantages there.

Then there's this disgusting insinuation:

the strange dark people

Here are Ayn Rand's own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHq2F_QA6cc

We need to work in teams.

Any team with you in it will be neither educated nor professional, and I don't want into it.

[The Great Hippo]

Nice to see that you don't give a damn about killing off mentally retarded blacks when it's politically convenient.

What on earth are you talking about? You don't even know what my politics are, or how I feel about this. I haven't told you.

I don't know if adams is just massively ignorant of Ayn Rand or a stone cold liar, or quite possibly both, but he's simply spouting utter absolute nonsense.

'He?'

[HugoSchmidt]

What on earth are you talking about?

I point out that Clinton supervised the state-sanctioned killing of a mentally incompetent black prisoner who meets all the requirements for clemency and you power right past it. Don't even notice.

[Netreker0]

When they stop having bumper stickers that say "Don't Re-Nig in 2012", using phrases like "Barack the Magic Negro", sending email pictures of the White House with watermelons growing all over, carrying posters with Obama as an African witch doctor, claiming he's not an American, candidates talking about Obama being a "government nig-", or singling out black people who get welfare as if they are the majority of welfare recipients (they are not) ... or at the very least the majority of their group openly and loudly condemning those who do things like this, THEN we'll stop calling them racists.

I've never seen any of the above. You should probably stop visiting 4chan.

Fun fact though: Every single one of those things was also said about Herman Cain... By Democrats in America.

Don't Re-Nig: http://www.empowernetwork.com/redtobefr ... g-in-2012/ Source: not 4chan.
Watermelon E-mail: http://wonkette.com/406562/406562 (Source: not 4chan)
Witch Doctor: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... howing.php Source: I actually had that forwarded to me through a Federalist Society listserve (in the context of "Maybe we should distance ourselves from those so-called Tea Party libertarians). I mean, not 4chan.
Santorum's Government Nig-slip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHPQYqazXfM I'm sincerely trying to figure out what innocent nig* word he was trying to say, but it doesn't help that Santorum has declined to comment. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/30/s ... he-n-word/
Barack the Magical Negro: http://newsone.com/90591/fox-attacks-bl ... gic-negro/ Source: Fox News, which is not 4chan.

As for your assertion that every one of these comments was said about Herman Cain by Democrats:
Don't Re-Nig: http://newsone.com/1948765/yeah-right-c ... ot-racist/ Here's an article where the creator states that the bumper sticker was targetted at Obama, and moreover justifies it as not being racist because she meant the non-racial dictionary definition of "nigger." I have not seen a similar bumper sticker targetted at Herman Cain by Democrats, but of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Still, since you are the moving party that asserted such things exist, the burden of proof is on you to affirmative seek out examples.
"Herman the Magical Negro": Google search yields two results. In http://cowboybyte.com/1712/the-newt-and-herman-show/ A commentor uses that term, and he's clearly anti Cain so he's arguably a Democrat. In http://www.athenstalks.com/node/318155, the poster asks whether Herman the Magical Negro can make Obama dissappear. He could be a disgruntled Democrat, but considering that Herman Cain is an avowed conservative, and Obama is certainly to the left, it would be incredibly disingenuos for you to argue he's not likely to be a conservative. I
Watermelons in (Herman Cain's house): No examples come to mind. I'm not saying they don't exist, but since you're the one who first asserted they do, it's up to you to provide examples, otherwise your statement is presumptively false.
Herman Cain the Witch Doctor: None, but Obama is advocating The Affordable Care Act, which is medical, so it makes more sense. Still, you made the assertion, burden of proof, etc. Still, let's assume you meant Herman Cain was the victim of similar racist caricatures from the left.
Racist Caricatures of Herman Cain: I still found nothing. The closest thing I got was a couple of conservative blogs that said that when the Daily Show lampooned Michael Steele for his similarity to the muppet who always get stuck with Grover (the blue monster, not Cleveland) as his waiter, it was actually a racist caricature.
[Insert Democrat Here]'s Herman Cain is a Nig-slip: Couldn't find anything.

Now, I'm going to do a bit of your work for you--after doing the research, I did find some shameful examples of Herman Cain being called the GOP's "house Negro," which is certainly shameful and reflects poorly on both the commentors and the left in general. However, these comments are distinguished by 2 factors: they come from annonymous douchebags on internet forums, not highly placed officials in a political movement seeking to assert it's legitimacy, not frontrunners in a presidential primary, not popular and respected news figures, and more importantly, you don't see prominent figures from the liberal establishment (and for the sake of argument, let's include "every mainstream news source that isn't Murdoch's," all Democrats, Independents, Green Party members, and any Republican elected from the left coast) clamoring to defend these douchebags as "not racist."

I actually agree with your conclusions--Democrats find it more expedient to quickly and unamimously condemn racism (given their more racially diverse base and lack of other major unifying religious or economic platform) to fire up the base, but racists are a small fringe in every group and the Democrats aren't necessarily less racist than Republicans. However, Kaylakaze's point isn't invalid, and the arguments you make to reach your conclusion aren't really supported by evidence or truth. Much as my gut tells me that your conclusion is close to the truth, it doesn't changed the fact that it's justified only through intellectual dishonesty, which ultimately detracts from the discussion and demeans anyone who supports your position. Including me. Which kind of bugs me.

[The Great Hippo]

I point out that Clinton supervised the state-sanctioned killing of a mentally incompetent black prisoner who meets all the requirements for clemency and you power right past it. Don't even notice.

Was... I supposed to act shocked? Horrified? Gasp with terror at the sudden realization that a President of the United States might have supervised state-sanctioned murder for political expediency?

Dude--you are a dude, right? You've implied as much--Dude, the evil, vile shit that politicians do in the name of political expediency stopped shocking me when I was 14. I don't even know if what you're saying is true; I've never read the book in question, and I'm not familiar with the situation. I mean, wouldn't surprise me if it was true, but please save the whole "HOW DARE YOU NOT EXPRESS THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF HORROR" bullshit for the playground.

Yes, I give a damn, no, I'm not going to type out "Gee Willikers!" every time someone on the internet tells me of yet another injustice. I mean, fuck--at least let me put on my pants and confirm what you're saying before I join you in your little moral indignation party.

[markfiend]

What on earth are you talking about?

I point out that Clinton supervised the state-sanctioned killing of a mentally incompetent black prisoner who meets all the requirements for clemency and you power right past it. Don't even notice.

I don't think that anyone claims Clinton was perfect. Personally I think he was pretty bad, largely for the reason you state here. The thing is, bad is still a hell of a lot better than worse. And IMO the Republicans are a whole lot worse.

[jpers36]

That being said, I do think that one very simple but positive change to the electoral college would be for a State's electors to be able to be split, where if a state had 10 electors, and one candidate got 60% of the popular vote within the state, then they would be given 6 electors, and their opponent would be given 40%. Though this is a bit more complicated, and would need the details hammered out. This would make sure that as you said, "if you live in a state that's primarily for your opposition," your vote would still count, because it could mean an extra elector for your candidate from your state.

Maine and Nebraska already do this, or close.

[Karilyn]

That being said, I do think that one very simple but positive change to the electoral college would be for a State's electors to be able to be split, where if a state had 10 electors, and one candidate got 60% of the popular vote within the state, then they would be given 6 electors, and their opponent would be given 40%. Though this is a bit more complicated, and would need the details hammered out. This would make sure that as you said, "if you live in a state that's primarily for your opposition," your vote would still count, because it could mean an extra elector for your candidate from your state.

Maine and Nebraska already do this, or close.

I know. I'd like to see it enforced on a federal level.

[The Great Hippo]

I don't think that anyone claims Clinton was perfect. Personally I think he was downright evil, largely for the reason you state here. The thing is, bad is still a hell of a lot better than worse. And IMO the Republicans are a whole lot worse.

It depends on what Republican you're talking about. I mean, I'm not a Republican-ologist, I don't study Republicans indepth--but I'm sure there are Republicans who are more morally righteous than Clinton (and I'm sure there are Democrats who are more morally righteous than Bush).

Frankly, though, if Clinton's a sincerely evil dude, he shouldn't have been in office--he should be in jail. But we live in an imperfect society, and are therefore faced with imperfect choices. I suspect that most presidential elections leave us with a choice between two people who should be in prison.

EDIT: That might be a little cynical of me, I admit--I'm sure that not all politicians running for the Presidency have made morally monstrous decisions. But I suspect that a significant number of them have.

[Rotherian]

What does 'lynch murdering' even mean? Like, Clinton murdered lynches? Aren't lynches bad?

Maybe he meant Lycans. So BC possibly murdered werewolves.

Or perhaps he meant lichen. Maybe BC was caught pruning his apple trees.

If neither of those, then I'm not sure what HS meant by "lynch murdering".

Edit: Fixed the quote thing so it would display correctly.

[whateveries]

...

I don't know if adams is just massively ignorant of Ayn Rand or a stone cold liar, or quite possibly both, but he's simply spouting utter absolute nonsense. Take this:

She was a spoiled advantaged person that hated to get her hands dirty.

Yeah, escaping from a totalitarian tyranny, arriving with only $10 in her pocket, working her way up in a new country - plenty advantages there.

hey Cranky Pants, I think Addams (two d's) was contracting the story to a fairly compact statement, and it stands, it seems back in her home country of Russia (pre-Bolshies) Rand was the eldest daughter of a Pharmacist, a memeber of the 'Bourgeoisie' hence the advantaged. Admittedly I havent read that much about Rand so I can't back up the 'spoiled' bit, or the hating to get her hands dirty, but, you know, she did kind of manifest a philosophy where the most important thing in life is, was, well, her. Sure she dressed it up, but that's the crux. (Narcissism)

[Роберт]

I suspect that most presidential elections leave us with a choice between two people who should be in prison.

Wow. I like that quote.

All the more reason for voting reform, so you can hopefully choose between 3-5 people who should be in prison, I guess.

[The Great Hippo]

Wow. I like that quote.

All the more reason for voting reform, so you can hopefully choose between 3-5 people who should be in prison, I guess.

For the record, Carter remains one of my favorite Presidents because he was such a sweetheart.

[RoberII]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

Look, he's hardly Lennie from Of Mice And Men. He wasn't mentally disabled when he committed the murders, and the fact that he WAS mentally disabled was largely his own doing. While I am opposed to the death penalty, I think it's a bit harsh to call Clinton evil - I certainly wouldn't call most supporters of the death penalty evil.

[Netreker0]

Oh, whoop-de-do. Clinton is a rapist lynch murdering war-criminal, and the Democrats and the "liberals" never cease to shill for the guy. They even had the nerve to say he was "the first black president", and as though that wasn't enough, he was "blacker than Barack" because he'd slept with more black women. The sheer cynicism and callousness with which the American left plays the race card three ways and none never ceases to take my breath away.

Wow.

You really buy into this whole 'left-vs-right' thing, don't you?

Not per se. My knowledge of this comes from hard left sources. However, one does need some label to describe the tumescent phenomenon Americans call "liberalism".

If you read the rest of Hugo's posts carefully, he seems to broadly construct the term "liberalism" to largely apply to anyone who doesn't strictly adhere to a limited constitutional government that serves primarily to provide for the common defense and to enforce specifically delineated individual rights. Although some individuals who support policies that are arguably further towards the socialist-big government end of the can raise a defense against being condemned as a liberal in his eyes by voting Republican. Also, if you have good things to say about a non-Judeo-Christian (or just non-Christian) religion, or want to point out that not all Muslims are terrorists, you're also a liberal, even if you otherwise support an Ayn Rand approved libertarian government.

[The Great Hippo]

If you read the rest of Hugo's posts carefully, he seems to broadly construct the term "liberalism" to largely apply to anyone who doesn't strictly adhere to a limited constitutional government that serves primarily to provide for the common defense and to enforce specifically delineated individual rights. Although some individuals who support policies that are arguably further towards the socialist-big government end of the can raise a defense against being condemned as a liberal in his eyes by voting Republican. Also, if you have good things to say about a non-Judeo-Christian (or just non-Christian) religion, or want to point out that not all Muslims are terrorists, you're also a liberal, even if you otherwise support an Ayn Rand approved libertarian government.

I'm not catching that, and I've read most of Hugo's posts here. What I've seen is a lot of generalization, a lot of dismissals, and a lot of manipulative rhetoric ("Obviously, you're not talking about X, so you must not care about X, so you're a terrible person, YAWN"), but not a lot of meat-and-potatoes discussion concerning what constitutes liberalism. I don't think Hugo's even mentioned Islam, or religion for that matter. Am I missing some posts?

[Netreker0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

Look, he's hardly Lennie from Of Mice And Men. He wasn't mentally disabled when he committed the murders, and the fact that he WAS mentally disabled was largely his own doing. While I am opposed to the death penalty, I think it's a bit harsh to call Clinton evil - I certainly wouldn't call most supporters of the death penalty evil.

The real question is, why does Hugo, or anyone, object so strenuously to his execution after a trial by a jury of Arkansas citizens and the affirmation of his conviction by largely conservative state courts? I'm pretty staunchly pro-death penalty, no matter what party the governor who ultimately approves the execution belongs to (although most of the time, it's a Texas Republican). I only really have a problem when there is a serious question of guilt or a due process issue during trial, which is also why I think it's questionable to execute anyone who was mentally incompetant at the time of the crime and at the trial, but looking through his case on westlaw, I saw no evidence of the former. Since his mental handicap didn't occur early enough to prejudice him, it makes for an interesting and rather rare situation.

I can understand why people feel intrinsic unease, but I wonder whether Hugo and other moral objectors against the death penalty feel even greater outrage against the "lynchings" of mentally handicapped inmates who were arguably incompetant at the time of trial and also by reason of mental handicap theoretically incapable of forming necessary state of mind for first degree murder. If so, I have a few friends in the Innocence Project and the ACLU who could use your support.

[The Great Hippo]

The real question is, why does Hugo, or anyone, object so strenuously to his execution after a trial by a jury of Arkansas citizens and the affirmation of his conviction by largely conservative state courts?

Because... some people... object to the death penalty?

I can understand why people feel intrinsic unease, but I wonder whether Hugo and other moral objectors against the death penalty feel even greater outrage against the "lynchings" of mentally handicapped inmates who were arguably incompetant at the time of trial and also by reason of mental handicap theoretically incapable of forming necessary state of mind for first degree murder. If so, I have a few friends in the Innocence Project and the ACLU who could use your support.

Is this the 'But People Are Starving In Africa!' game?

[IcedT]

The real question is, why does Hugo, or anyone, object so strenuously to his execution after a trial by a jury of Arkansas citizens and the affirmation of his conviction by largely conservative state courts?

Because... some people... object to the death penalty?

I think the point was that it doesn't make much sense to cast Clinton as the kind of guy who gleefully murders slow black men, when he just allowed an execution to be carried out in a state where executions are popular. Especially to try and make it about how terrible "liberals" are, when the American left tends to be much less supportive of capital punishment than the American right. Arkansas isn't exactly what comes to mind when I think "blue state."

[The Great Hippo]

I think the point was that it doesn't make much sense to cast Clinton as the kind of guy who gleefully murders slow black men, when he just allowed an execution to be carried out in a state where executions are popular. Especially to try and make it about how terrible "liberals" are, when the American left tends to be much less supportive of capital punishment than the American right. Arkansas isn't exactly what comes to mind when I think "blue state."

Oh, if that's the case, pardon. The phrasing made me think they were asking why anyone would object to a court finding someone guilty and sentencing them to death.

I mean, depending on the details of Clinton's actions, we might describe them as deplorable, even evil--but on the surface, if all he did was let things run as they usually run, it's harder to paint him as making a monstrous decision (I mean, is every politician who's pro-death penalty a monster? I guess it would depend on your moral metric).

[J L]

I did not read this thread. I was too shocked how long it got in just a few days.

But I wanted to ask: Is it save to say that Ayn Rand and the emotions she sparks are a very ... American thing?

Cause I never heard of her over here (Germany) until a few years ago. Then I noticed she was referenced again and again: I think my first encounter with her was in Matt Ruff's Sewer, Gas & Electric (which, in my opinion, was seriously flawed by his ostentatious hatred for a writer I hadn't even heard about). Next time I met her was in a Twilight parody, then in Stephen Chbosky's Perks of Being a Wallflower, in which she is the only author (along with William Burroughs, sort of) that doesn't receive open praise in the book. Next time, Bert Cooper in Mad Men tries to convince people they should read her work. All in all, she seems to possess a remarkably polarizing effect on people: for some she seems to be an all-American (immigrant) saint, and others seem to feel an irresistible need to make fun of her. And at the same time, from a European perspective, it's very hard to understand why so much attention is being paid to her at all.

[HugoSchmidt]

Wow. I like that quote.

All the more reason for voting reform, so you can hopefully choose between 3-5 people who should be in prison, I guess.

For the record, Carter remains one of my favorite Presidents because he was such a sweetheart.

You mean the Carter who greenlighted the Iran-Iraq war causing, what, 1.5 million deaths?

If you read the rest of Hugo's posts carefully, he seems to broadly construct the term "liberalism"

I'm a classical liberal. I find the weird, pseudo-philosophy Americans have chose to give this honourable title to both bizarre and repellent.

Yes, I do think that the death penalty is a disgusting thing. While I agree in theory that there are those that have committed crimes so hideous they deserve to die, there isn't a government on earth that I trust with this power.

Now as regards the unfortunate Rector, following his self-lobotomizing, he couldn't understand the charges against him, he left his pecan pie "for later" and even helped the warders find a vein in his arm because he thought they were doctors trying to help him. The guy was basically a child. As the prison chaplain said "We're not supposed to kill children". And I defy anyone to read the Hitch's book on Clinton - nothing in which was ever challenged, by the by - and not see that Clinton was doing this in a bid for the Klan vote. Over here in the Old World, I've had my share of fights with the far right, the real far right, the blood and race right, and believe you me, I recognise the stink.

Also, if you have good things to say about a non-Judeo-Christian (or just non-Christian) religion, or want to point out that not all Muslims are terrorists,

It's funny you should mention that last thing, because it brings home a point I was making about the American "left" or "pseudo-left". Despite the fact that, quite wrongly in my view, Bush bent over backwards to 'make nice' to Islam, even visiting a Mosque while the WTC was still smoking and calling it a religion of peace, the American left accused him of whipping up anti-Islamic sentiment. Yet in the most base and hypocritical way, when that whole Dubai ports thing was on the table, they all stampeded to shout, "Don't you realise that this man is selling us out to the Ay-rabs?" If you think that that debacle has been forgotten, you're wrong.

And as to the first part of that sentence, the only religion I have any respect for whatsoever is Sikhism.

[HugoSchmidt]

Just so you know, there is a very large swathe of the American right I have utter disgust for. I know the sort of thing that the WND crowd peddle. But my point in raising this stuff is that I have little patience with people like kaylakaze who say it's only ever the other side that does the bad stuff.

[The Great Hippo]

You mean the Carter who greenlighted the Iran-Iraq war causing, what, 1.5 million deaths?

Do you know of any president in recent memory who hasn't been a clear and unquestionable link in an extraordinary number of deaths?

[J Thomas]

The real question is, why does Hugo, or anyone, object so strenuously to his execution after a trial by a jury of Arkansas citizens and the affirmation of his conviction by largely conservative state courts?

Because... some people... object to the death penalty?

Perhaps you should ask HugoSchmidt whether he objects to the death penalty. When many of his claims are GOP talking points it's natural to suppose he would not. But when he self-identifies as libertarian, it's natural to suppose that he would object to the government killing citizens, and would feel that the government should impose no penalty on US citizens who kill suspected criminals. So it could easily go either way.

I considered looking at his collected posts to try to find some consistent pattern, but I have limited time for xkcd and that looked like a bad use for it. Maybe he's worth somebody else's time.

I can understand why people feel intrinsic unease, but I wonder whether Hugo and other moral objectors against the death penalty feel even greater outrage against the "lynchings" of mentally handicapped inmates who were arguably incompetant at the time of trial and also by reason of mental handicap theoretically incapable of forming necessary state of mind for first degree murder. If so, I have a few friends in the Innocence Project and the ACLU who could use your support.

Is this the 'But People Are Starving In Africa!' game?

Yes. Played well, too.

When an opponent says "Somebody on your side has done this horrible thing and we must all be horrified at him and at your whole horrible side because of the horror", then you say "Here are a bunch of things that are just like the one you said but even more horrible. Will you help to stop them?"

See, the natural first impulse is for your opponent to say "No, those don't matter because your side didn't do them and they don't make your side look bad". Revealing himself to be an utter and complete hypocrite.

A better response for him is to say "Here's $5 to help your cause, now go away while I talk about how horrible your side is for not casting out the horrible person who did the horrible thing". That's a win for you because you got him to contribute $5 toward your cause that he has no sympathy for.

Unfortunately, what he will probably do is to promise to send $50 or more and then not do it. When it's in person you should try your hardest to get the money on the spot.