Comments on: Deroy Murdock

By: actus

actus — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:33:25 +0000

“So you DO agree that the NAACP should lose their tax-exempt status. Good on ya! ”

At least for that event.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:28:59 +0000

So you DO agree that the NAACP should lose their tax-exempt status. Good on ya!

By: actus

actus — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:37:05 +0000

“You’re a lawyer, I’m not, go figure out why LBJ created a rule to ban non-profits from getting into “discussions/rants about specific politicians” back in the 50s. ”

Ya, because we want tax free treatment to go for charity use, not lobbying.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:42:14 +0000

You’re a lawyer, I’m not, go figure out why LBJ created a rule to ban non-profits from getting into “discussions/rants about specific politicians” back in the 50s.

Leftists praised him for standing up to the churches and now they’re crying because the same law has come back to bite the NAACP.

By: actus

actus — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:59:01 +0000

“All or none has nothing to do with the 14th and everything to do with a congressional LBJ who couldn’t stand the heat of moralists in his day. ”

Can you please tell me what you’re talking about?

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:00:53 +0000

Good, that means you’ll accept what we decide over the coming years to rollback the excesses of the lefist we.

All or none has nothing to do with the 14th and everything to do with a congressional LBJ who couldn’t stand the heat of moralists in his day.

By: actus

actus — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:01:40 +0000

“Actus, who is “we”. You refuse to acknowledge that we have decided that racial discrimination doesn’t get special status. All or none is our stance. ”

We as in our society. In the constitutional amendments it has passed, and in other laws our democracy has created.

Who says “all or none”? not the 14th amendment.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:58:33 +0000

Actus, who is “we”. You refuse to acknowledge that we have decided that racial discrimination doesn’t get special status. All or none is our stance.

By: actus

actus — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:54:37 +0000

‘The charitable thing to do would have been to let BJU sink or swim in the marketplace of competing doctrine/ideas. Likewise, if a community wants to finance a natvity scene, let ‘em.’

This isn’t about nativity scenes. This is about invidious racial discrimination. It doesn’t ‘cut both ways’ about ‘pet discriminations.’ We have decided that racial discrimination is a particular evil that other discriminations are not.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:01:47 +0000

Darkstar wrote, “Look at the reflexive defense of Clinton. Look at the reflexive defense of G. W. Bush.”

This misses the point that Clinton actually did something wrong (perjury) and Bush hasn’t done anything criminally wrong. If you would like to debate about whether or not Bush lied or not then I would say “no go read the definition of lie until you understand it”. Saying something factually incorrect isn’t a lie if a) Kerry, Clinton and every intelligence agency in the world was saying it b) he believed it just as Kerry, Clinton and every intelligence agency believed it.

You can’t go back monday morning quarterbacking and say that someone lied because they were proven to be factually incorrect. The more you and other liberals do that the more you are shown to be REACTIONISTS and not based on truth.

By: James M. Barber

James M. Barber — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:10:18 +0000

LaShawn,
Abraham Lincoln had only a year’s education. Lincoln spoke to Frederick Douglass in the White House about what to do with freed slaves. Douglass replied something to the effect that we have been taking care of ourselves and white people for hundreds of years. Has any group lived up to Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address? The event took place in March 1865, and Lincoln knew that Grant would win! He was killed in April 1865 and his vice-president Andrew Johnson became the President. Andrew Johnson was a democrat who hated the white plantation owners but did not care for the former slaves. He used phrase “Emancipation” rather then “Abolition” because the Quakers had given him hard times
until he was killed. In 1863, it was for states in rebellion to the union, and later, in 1865 became total. Lincoln considered slavery immoral, but he knew it was not illegal when he took the office. That was Lincoln’s religious feelings, thank God!
JMB

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:19:52 +0000

Actus said:I think you know that we treat racial discrimination differently than sexual.

You miss the point about malice which can cut both ways as payback. Thanks for simplifying it, Joseph Marshall. Do unto BJU as you would have others do to your pet discriminations. The charitable thing to do would have been to let BJU sink or swim in the marketplace of competing doctrine/ideas. Likewise, if a community wants to finance a natvity scene, let ‘em.

By: Joseph Marshall

Joseph Marshall — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:52:37 +0000

Well, if you are going to invoke the actions of the party of Lincoln, as both LaShawn and Deroy do, its very likely that someone will hold you to the standards of Lincoln.

Now if someone asked me whether I had “nothing to fear but fear itself”, I’m pretty confident I could answer yes, particularly about the so-called Social Security “crisis”.

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:15:22 +0000

Joseph,
How many of the people on the left, in word and action, could live up the same standard? Neither ’side’ has a monopoly on virtue, even on the ones they claim as their primary selling points.

By: Joseph Marshall

Joseph Marshall — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:00:53 +0000

Poor babies! So threatened by the Blue People like me!