Skip to comments.Double standards: Walter Williams says GOP held to higher expectation of decency than liberals
Posted on 12/18/2002 1:00:40 AM PST by JohnHuang2
click here to read article
#48 had nothing to do with Lott's voting record or anything else you described.
For the philosophical underpinnings of what motivated the Nazis, I recommend The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff.
I suggest you read it before posting again.
In reference to post #50 I said, "Civil Rights legislation came to the floor between "1850's and 1950's"." Then asked, "Tell us about it?"
In 1866, the Republican party, "which has contained a racist element for some time", passed the first Civil Rights Act over the veto of Jackson. They ratified the 14th Amendment a few years later and in the 1870's secured for blacks the right to vote.
(Okay, he would, in fact, mind about the checkbook.)
As a Republican White Girl I feel excluded, denigrated, and left behind and I want 6 apologies.
And when you're done with those let's take a tour of the inner city public schools where, for want of equal opportunity in education, young people I care about are being left behind. The policies of the party you promote are responsible for excluding the poor and middle-income children of all races from schools such as your former boss attended. I'm a George W. Bush Republican and I want no child left behind.
Well, blow me down! That 'transculturation' word pretty much sums up what the Liberals are trying to do.
Me too. But the Lott incident had nothing to do with being held to higher standards. It had everything to do with Democrats being angered over their losing the recent election cycle. The liberal establishment, saw an opportunity to take advantage of a situation and fanned the flames of racial passions. Immediately afterwards, the entire event snowballed, out of control.
>>>Lott is not fit to lead us.
I called for Lott to step down after the Jeffords fiasco. However, I don't want the liberal estrablishment to dictate the terms of Lott's surrender. That's exactly, what has happened here.
Having said that, Lott's pandering on BET, really pissed me off. It's up to the GOP Senators to decide if Lott should stay, or go. It looks like Lott wants to fight. We shall see.
This is quite true. Lott was the weak link and they went after him. If there were no Lott it would have been someone else. When Lott is gone it WILL be someone else. If Republicans cave on Lott the next one will be easier.
In other words, Democrats get a pass on everything because they are expected to be rogues.
Here is what Freeper driftless wrote at:
which sums this up quite nicely:
"I don't know if too many people on this forum remember the days when civil rights was THE issue. Back in the sixties the activists argued that we must have a color-blind society where people would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King. So then we should all try to be color-blind today right? " "Well no say todays race-hustlers, today we have to judge people by the color of their skin because we don't have "a level playing field". The fact is there never was and never will be a level playing field...for anyone. A poor Black person in Detroit is hardly any more economically disadvantaged than some white hillbilly in Appalachia. "
"But the joker in the deck is that todays activists do not desire a level playing field because how would they be able to rip off the rich and powerful. For the race-hustlers there must always be a class of "victims"... helpless pawns in the hustlers quest for their own wealth and power. They make up the rules of the race game and decide who is a racist and who is not. They should look in the mirror."
Sometimes I think we should get back to some basic truths when we talk about race and civil rights. Instead we talk past each other.-PJ
A lot of liberals harp on the subject of race, and they do it in a way that gives more attention to hatred for racists than love for equality. They can't make or buy enough movies with names like "Ghosts of Mississippi," which illustrate how terrible white people are, were and probably will be again if we don't pass more laws. (White Southerners are and historically have been particularly demonized by liberals.)
The liberals' sin is a mindless race obsession that keeps them from seeing clearly. But conservatives have a sin too. A lot of them become deaf when the subject is race. All their lives they've heard the long 40-year rap about how wicked America is, how hateful, and along the way they just stopped listening. Which left them unable to hear nuance, and slow, if you will, to hear the music of a great movement.
All this is part of the kabuki that happens when you take a great moral movement like civil rights and turn it, as it is inevitably turned, into a political movement. Sides get hardened and sides get stupid. It's a little like the debate the past few years about obscene art. In that particular kabuki liberals get off on their faux courage, making believe it takes guts to create a painting of the Madonna smeared with feces. In the world we live in that takes no courage, and they know it. If they had guts they'd do a beautiful painting of the Madonna and accept the price: marginalization and dismissal by the art establishment. At the same time, conservatives in these battles get off on faux outrage. They stand up, shake their fists and say they're outraged that someone would desecrate the Madonna. And some are. But some in their hearts know it's all nonsense that means nothing, and what they really feel is delight that the left has once again done something ugly and stupid, and in public.
Your version of history is more entertaining. Next you'll tell us Jesus was born in India 500 years before Buddha who died in Calgary, Alberta. Or maybe you'll inform us that it was actually the North that had slaves but thanks to Abraham Lincoln's right hand man Cletus Carville the story was actually spun to make it look the other way around.
No, I know, I know...Adolph Hitler started the VRWC and had his agents infiltrate the NRA so it could be spread in America!
What turnip wagon did you just fall off of?
Oh my. Definitely an un-PC conclusion. And my favorite lines in the whole piece. I'm with the good Doctor on this: if Conservatives are willing to allow themselves to be held to the higher standard and demand much less of Democrats, Liberals, AND blacks, they are guilty of the same conclusion, that we are better than they are. Well, we are not better, and ought not be held to a higher standard of conduct. In our persons we are created equal; in our ideas we are superior. To continue the lie of the Left by allowing them to skate on the race issue is to perpetuate the bias.
The Conservative position on affirmative action puts forth the proposition that blacks, whites, reds, browns and yellows are equally capable, equally culpable, and ought to be judged by the content of their character, NOT the color of their skin. The Liberal position, on the other hand, would keep us forever separated by race, by gender, and by a thousand other qualifiers. I'm mad as hell about such segregation.
I had always learned that fascism means that the State allows you to keep your property. They just tell you what you can do with it.
My comment still stands regarding Peikoff's book. I think you could learn much from it.
In the early days of the Third Reich German armed forces were trained in the Soviet Union. The first big break between Stalin and Hitler came in the Spanish Civil War.
This break was later repaired in the non-agression pact of 1939 that carved up Poland and the Baltic states.
In coming to power the big difference between the NAZI party and the Communists was that the NAZI party asserted the Germaness of its people and the nation as opposed to the internationalist system espoused by the Communists. Yes I accept that the NAZIS did allow a large portion of their capitalists to retain their wealth but they as a party fed off the Jewish population's wealth confiscating that to support their abomination of a political system.
Now as to which is able to last longer, clearly the Soviet system endured for many more years as horrible and murderous as it was than the Third Reich. The Soviet system killed more and some remanents of this structure still hang on to this day.
If you wish to bring Mussolini into the discussion will you also bring up the fact that he was head of the Italian Socialist Party.
You have cited one small difference of degree in stating that the Communists and Nazis were very different. The Communists in the Soviet Union did not completely eliminate the Capitalists from their system nor did the Chinese or any other Communist/Socialist regime. Occidental Petroleum was coducting business in the Soviet Union under Lenin, Stalin, Krushchev and to this day. There were numerous other such operations both foreign and domestic in the CCCP.
Do not just look at what others have stated about the Third Reich look at the actual policies. Do not just consider the crackdown on the German Communist Party as definitive it has long been documented that the Soviet Union provided the names of many members of that party to the Nazis.
Also study the actual policies of the time. Study the news coveraqge from nations where there was a free press. study Mussolini's rise to power along with that of the NAZI's. The rhetoric was different between the National Socialists and the International Socialists but the fundamental operations of the two was very similar in its effects.
However party appartchiks are a distinct "higher" class within any Communist state. Therefor such a state does not abolish social classes it merely cjanges the basis for entry into the middle and upper classes. Birth right of the children of party members is also presumed in Communist states so that instead of tracing its nobility to roots of fuedalism it traces its nobility to loyal party service and often to service in the civil war resulting in the Communist state. Is this so different than nobility being confered by prior service to a king in a civil war to establish his legitamacy or prior familial wealth? Further, there was probably more "class mobility" for the average peasent, factory worker or shopkeeper's child under the Nazi Party than ever existed in the Soviet Union without party membership. A German child in the 1930's did not have to become a member of the Nazi party to advance to say a professional position but the same can not be said of the Soviet Union.
Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.
First, within all Communist states there has never been any representation by any group other than the Communist party and its appartchiks. Second, since supposedly all capitalists are abolished within the Communist state how can they be represented. In short this internally inconsistent lie can not be even considered.
5 Although Mussolinis and Hitlers governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization.
The support of the wealthy of both Italy and Germany is not a given per se. One could make the same claim abnout the October Revolution of Russia. Clearly that revolution was supported by the Kaiser of Germany and many of the Bolsheviks were actually quite well off expatriates who had returned during the Menshevik government.
On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities.
As opposed to the Soviet system which preserved leisure time primarily for the Party members and their families
In short ERF you really need to improve your personal analytical skills and study more than Germany in isolation. As to primary sources they are available in more than just German and actually from the period of the 1930's and early 1940's many of the best are not originally written in German due to the nature of the regime in power.