Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (358742)	11/15/2007 5:01:20 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1587312

CJ, > The problem is, they took more than 10 minutes to look at the evidence. Of course they did. Occam's Razor didn't fit their agenda, so they had to expand their search and find more "evidence" of a "master conspiracy." Personally, I didn't have to look any further than the way Brooks' argument is being portrayed. Brooks isn't feigning ignorance, as Herbert's defenders claim. Rather, Brooks tells the story of Reagan's 1980 campaign, which included Reagan's active courting of the black vote, and the context behind Reagan's visit to Philadelphia, Mississippi. He even provides the support context behind the "OMG states rights" phrase: > Programs like education and others should be turned back to the states and local communities with the tax sources to fund them. I believe in states’ rights. I believe in people doing as much as they can at the community level and the private level. Brooks also gives the following observation: > The use of the phrase “states’ rights” didn’t spark any reaction in the crowd, but it led the coverage in The Times and The Post the next day. So how does Herbert respond? By pounding the table, bringing up more "evidence" of a conspiracy, and using guilt by association. No one on the right denies that race had a lot to do with the GOP's rise to the White House in 1980 (and 1988 as well), but this characterization by Herbert is extreme to say the least. Tenchusatsu

To: combjelly who wrote (358742)	11/15/2007 5:46:24 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587312

Jimmuh Cahteh and "Black Intrusion" Peace Not Apartheid Following up on our discussion this week of the attacks on Ronald Reagan by Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman, reader Bruce Bartlett--who takes credit for starting the whole thing--writes to remind us of another 1970s racial misstep, one for which Herbert and Krugman do not seem eager to vilify the misstepper. It was described in the April 19, 1976, issue of Time: The furor began when [Jimmy] Carter was asked in Indianapolis to explain his recent statement that there was "nothing wrong with ethnic purity being maintained" in neighborhoods.* Carter replied that he wholeheartedly supports open-housing laws that make it a crime to refuse to sell or rent a house or apartment on the grounds of race, color or creed. But he opposes Government programs "to inject black families into a white neighborhood just to create some sort of integration." Said he: "I have nothing against a community that is made up of people who are Polish, or who are Czechoslovakians, or who are French Canadians or who are blacks trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods. This is a natural inclination." . . . As the reporters persisted with their questions, Carter's face reddened with anger, and he began to sweat. Instead of softening his language, he spoke of housing policies in terms of "black intrusion," of "alien groups" and of "a diametrically opposite kind of family." Some blacks began to suspect that Carter was showing signs of being a closet racist, even though his record in private and public life has demonstrated that he is not. Other critics suggested that he was using the offending words to try to win the support of white ethnics. . . . Despite the pleas of his staff, Carter refused to retreat at first--thus giving a rare public demonstration of his obstinancy under pressure. Asked why he, a man who is generally precise and subtle in his use of language, persisted in using words that offended so many people, Carter became snappish. "You know what 'alien' means," he said, "and it doesn't have the negative connotation you are trying to put on it." Reported Time Correspondent Stanley Cloud, who has observed Carter closely for several months: "When he is angry, he can be very, very stubborn--very much the south Georgia turtle." Finally, Carter backed down and apologized--and contrary to the fable, the rabbit beat the turtle! Message 24059132