Comments on: The Other “Other McCain”

By: Mainstreaming White Supremacy :: racismreview.com

Mainstreaming White Supremacy :: racismreview.com — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:59:44 +0000

[...] the Washington Times is mainstream news outlet, and the re-hiring of McCain – a man with clear ties to overt white supremacist groups – is a noteworthy step toward mainstreaming white supremacy [...]

By: Links, 9/27/09

Links, 9/27/09 — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:45:56 +0000

[...] that opposes the Democratic party. The right-wing blogosphere has been fatally compromised: see Kejda Gjermani’s excellent critique of one blogger & the accompanying comments to understand how insane things have [...]

By: Tokin42

Tokin42 — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:04:26 +0000

Zach,

Lets see, the feds use the commerce clause to force the states to adopt seat belt laws, drug laws, to subvert property rights, and force gun laws amongst many others abuses but it’s the 10th Amm. we should be worried about? Walter Williams has been railing about these issues for decades, he must be a closet racist. Those pesky federalist people must be high up on that racism chart Johnson and Kedja seem to be putting together too.

Am I missing any other racist groups I should shy away from? It’s getting to be such a big list maybe we should all just stay in our homes and not interact with anyone lest we get tainted with the rampant racism in american society.

By: peterb

peterb — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:18:02 +0000

What a typically liberal, moral relativist answer.

Just because you’re too much of a moral coward to accurately point out racism when you see it doesn’t mean that such descriptions are a matter of opinion.

By: Zach

Zach — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:47:52 +0000

Not knowing what’s distasteful about “states’ rights” rhetoric in a 20th century context is, at least, evidence of ignoring decades of abject racism.

And, regarding the constitution, you’re actually worried more about the general welfare clause than the commerce clause, and that beef between Hamilton and Madison was settled, for better or worse, 200 years ago, and the constitutional precedent was clarified 80 years ago. Every sitting supreme court justice and likely 99% of appellate judges see this interpretation as utterly uncontroversial. Scalia takes the Hamiltonian position. Indeed, dissenters in the New-Deal-era decisions didn’t question whether the government had the constitutional authority to levy taxes to pay for national welfare programs; they questioned whether the government could dictate how states could act in their role in these programs.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:35:24 +0000

Asking “What isn’t racist these days?” is another sure sign of a racist. I hope you are proud of yourself. I’m sure your parents are.

By: flenser

flenser — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:10:21 +0000

>>”Are you actually disagreeing that anyone who says interracial images cause an “altogether natural revulsion” is a racist pigfucker, or are you just trying to change the subject?”
I’m pointing out that the definition of racism is not what you think. Look the word up in the dictonary. The definition is not the one you are giving. You are telling me your own feelngs, not some objective truth.

By: Tokin42

Tokin42 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:00:20 +0000

Kejda,

So those of us who believe the federal government has abused the commerce clause to inject itself into state issues, when they have zero constitutional authority to do so, are racists too? I think your brush might be a little broad (as in “wide” so I’m not accused of being a misogynist).

Charles has already let us know that the use of the word “monkey”, regardless of connotation or context, is racist. Are you letting us know that being concerned with the feds taking over where the states should have final say is also racist? I have a couple of black libertarian friends who are going to be surprised to hear they’re racist.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:59:23 +0000

…and now “Mark/beekiller” on kejda.net.

yays!
Mark´s last blog ..Threadless Tshirt Giveaway at jaypeeonline.net

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:56:56 +0000

I am(was) beekiller from Hot Air, you moron.

By: Zach

Zach — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:34:56 +0000

http://books.google.com/books?id=bh2cP5rfdBgC&lpg=PA1&ots=JUS87UpjIb&dq=%22said%20on%20several%20occasions%20in%20attempting%20to%20dismiss%20the%20significance%20of%20that%20speec%22&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

By: Kejda

Kejda — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:33:38 +0000

My bad, I misunderstood you. I thought you were quoting with approval. Can you please provide me a source? I read your comment on the site you linked to, but there was no source to the original.

Thanks

By: Zach

Zach — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:22:29 +0000

Is that a question for RSM or myself? That shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of RSM’s disgusting remarks or Wallace’s. RSM’s inability to see why “states’ rights” is distasteful in reference to events in the 20th century as well as the 19th might explain why he just can’t get why people are saying he pals around with racists.

By: Kejda

Kejda — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:40:03 +0000

Then why are you bringing up “states rights” in a thread concerned with a neo-confederate racist?

By: Zach

Zach — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:32:45 +0000

RSM: My own enthusiasm for the 10th amendment is notorious, if widely misunderstood. For some reason, the phrase “states’ rights” has an unusual effect upon some listeners, when the phrase is delivered with a Southern accent. I do not dwell in the past, but find that liberals frequently demand that I discuss 19th-century American history . . . on their terms, of course.

http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/09/general-welfare/

For some reason… “As [Wallace] said on several occasions in attempting to dismiss the significance of that speech, he should have said, “States’ rights now! States’ rights tomorrow! States’ rights forever!” He was never against black people; his oratory had nothing to do with race.”