When asked to cite a source for that assertion, what you produced is... Which, if we’re honest about this, fails as a source for that assertion
I wasn't sure if you were talking about my first statement about Republicans being responsible for mass shootings, that advocating for small government makes you a racist, or both, so I started off with the first sentence and moved on to the second sentence.
As close a source as you could find:
Each of my sources are loaded with words that libertarians and small-government advocates use consistently: the article is a subtle attack on them while being an overt attack on Republicans. The language the author chose is language common in the libertarian lexicon and not so common in the Republican one: governmental overreach, theft, illegitimate oppression, anti-government, these aren't talking points of most Republicans.
Which we can only consider a source if we abandon logic to support your hysterical outburst. Okay, let’s try that then. Let’s assume that by ‘advocating for small government’ you meant to say ‘being a Republican.’ Making your assertion ‘Being a Republican makes you a racist.’ Even that’s absurd, and to my knowledge found nowhere in these links. That tortured assertion is yours, and you can keep it.
See my first point.
As for your claim that Lee Atwater’s explanation of the Southern strategy is about racism no longer being an issue in the South, I’m afraid you’ve either entirely missed the point of what he was saying, or, and I say this with no disrespect for your opinion, you’re just deluding yourself. Read it again and just see if you can’t work out how he may’ve been talking about how racism could be made to work in the future.
Taken out of context in that way, of course he may've been talking about that, but he wasn't.
The South in 1964 was considered reactionary, Neanderthalic, and so forth because we weren’t mainstream on not only on the race...
When asked to cite a source for that assertion, what you produced is... Which, if we’re honest about this, fails as a source for that assertion
I wasn't sure if you were talking about my first statement about Republicans being responsible for mass shootings, that advocating for small government makes you a racist, or both, so I started off with the first sentence and moved on to the second sentence.
As close a source as you could find:
Each of my sources are loaded with words that libertarians and small-government advocates use consistently: the article is a subtle attack on them while being an overt attack on Republicans. The language the author chose is language common in the libertarian lexicon and not so common in the Republican one: governmental overreach, theft, illegitimate oppression, anti-government, these aren't talking points of most Republicans.
Which we can only consider a source if we abandon logic to support your hysterical outburst. Okay, let’s try that then. Let’s assume that by ‘advocating for small government’ you meant to say ‘being a Republican.’ Making your assertion ‘Being a Republican makes you a racist.’ Even that’s absurd, and to my knowledge found nowhere in these links. That tortured assertion is yours, and you can keep it.
See my first point.
As for your claim that Lee Atwater’s explanation of the Southern strategy is about racism no longer being an issue in the South, I’m afraid you’ve either entirely missed the point of what he was saying, or, and I say this with no disrespect for your opinion, you’re just deluding yourself. Read it again and just see if you can’t work out how he may’ve been talking about how racism could be made to work in the future.
Taken out of context in that way, of course he may've been talking about that, but he wasn't.
The South in 1964 was considered reactionary, Neanderthalic, and so forth because we weren’t mainstream on not only on the race thing but on economic issues and national defense and all. We were considered, you know, ultraconservative and everything.
What happens is a guy like Reagan who campaigns in 1980 on a 1964 Goldwater platform, minus the boo-boos and obviously the Voting Rights Act and [Tennessee Valley Authority] and all that bullshit. But, if you look at the economics and the national defense, what happened is the South went from being behind the times to being mainstream.
The Reagans did not have to do a Southern strategy for two reasons: number one, race was not a dominant issue, and, number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been quote “southern issues” since way back in the ‘60s. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I'll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.
Each of my sources are loaded with words that libertarians and small-government advocates use consistently: the article is a subtle attack on them while being an overt attack on Republicans
If I understand you correctly, you’re being openly attacked, and loaded code words are subtly being used against you. That must be terrible for you.
Seriously, not everyone would take criticism of the racist legacy of the modern Republican Party as personally as you have. It’s a shame that you can’t hold two contradictory ideas at one time; that there is a openly-embraced racist constituency in the Republican Party; and that you, personally, aren’t necessarily being attacked when that’s publically discussed.
You’ve made it clear than you can distinguish between libertarians and Republicans, so why couldn’t you make an even easier distinction? Or are we going to pretend that there are no racists in the Republican Party and that they’re for some reason only found among statists?
As for Atwater’s admission, you can batter fry that in Reagan sauce and serve it with greens if you want, the thing speaks for itself. I don’t know why anyone would need so badly to swaddle the Southern racist strategy up in surrounding context to deny it continues to this day.
If I understand you correctly, you’re being openly attacked, and loaded code words are subtly being used against you. That must be terrible for you.
Don't act as if words don't have power and that people don't form associations between ideas when they are presented together, exactly as this article does. It's terrible for everyone because it kills discussion.
Seriously, not everyone would take criticism of the racist legacy of the modern Republican Party as personally as you have. It’s a shame that you can’t hold two contradictory ideas at one time; that there is a openly-embraced racist constituency in the Republican Party; and that you, personally, aren’t necessarily being attacked when that’s publically discussed.
First of all, I never said anything about the racist legacy of the Republican Party. Secondly, I don't take it personally because I am not a Republican.
You’ve made it clear than you can distinguish between libertarians and Republicans, so why couldn’t you make an even easier distinction? Or are we going to pretend that there are no racists in the Republican Party and that they’re for some reason only found among statists?
Lots of grand assumptions and stuffing words in my mouth. I'd appreciate if you didn't do either. I'd also appreciate if you would stop attacking me, it isn't adding to the discussion.
I don’t know why anyone would need so badly to swaddle the Southern racist strategy up in surrounding context to deny it continues to this day.
Where exactly did I do or claim any of that? All I said was that Atwater's quote is being taken out of context of the entire interview. Context is important.
I wasn't sure if you were talking about my first statement about Republicans being responsible for mass shootings, that advocating for small government makes you a racist, or both, so I started off with the first sentence and moved on to the second sentence.
Each of my sources are loaded with words that libertarians and small-government advocates use consistently: the article is a subtle attack on them while being an overt attack on Republicans. The language the author chose is language common in the libertarian lexicon and not so common in the Republican one: governmental overreach, theft, illegitimate oppression, anti-government, these aren't talking points of most Republicans.
See my first point.
Taken out of context in that way, of course he may've been talking about that, but he wasn't.
Read FullIf I understand you correctly, you’re being openly attacked, and loaded code words are subtly being used against you. That must be terrible for you.
Seriously, not everyone would take criticism of the racist legacy of the modern Republican Party as personally as you have. It’s a shame that you can’t hold two contradictory ideas at one time; that there is a openly-embraced racist constituency in the Republican Party; and that you, personally, aren’t necessarily being attacked when that’s publically discussed.
You’ve made it clear than you can distinguish between libertarians and Republicans, so why couldn’t you make an even easier distinction? Or are we going to pretend that there are no racists in the Republican Party and that they’re for some reason only found among statists?
As for Atwater’s admission, you can batter fry that in Reagan sauce and serve it with greens if you want, the thing speaks for itself. I don’t know why anyone would need so badly to swaddle the Southern racist strategy up in surrounding context to deny it continues to this day.
Don't act as if words don't have power and that people don't form associations between ideas when they are presented together, exactly as this article does. It's terrible for everyone because it kills discussion.
First of all, I never said anything about the racist legacy of the Republican Party. Secondly, I don't take it personally because I am not a Republican.
Lots of grand assumptions and stuffing words in my mouth. I'd appreciate if you didn't do either. I'd also appreciate if you would stop attacking me, it isn't adding to the discussion.
Where exactly did I do or claim any of that? All I said was that Atwater's quote is being taken out of context of the entire interview. Context is important.
Yes, let’s think about what being attacked means. You know, in this context.