In response to:

To Punch a Liberal

Tacitus X Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 7:02 AM
I wouldn't give government too much credit for morality because of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Act. Slavery and Jim Crow were GOVERNMENT institutions. It's like hailing an embezzler for giving back part of the money he stole. It's also a loser's game to go on defense and act hurt whey you're called a racist. Just return the charge.
RW6 Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 1:31 PM
And when was the last time you saw David Duke doing TV interviews, or working the college lecture circuit?
AZYaateeh Wrote: Apr 30, 2013 4:28 AM
Uh...the solution is not to stop hating racists, it is to hate MORE racists, namely anti-white racists.
RW6 Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 10:59 AM
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an astonishing government overreach. In one swoop, it banned government-supported segregation (good) and then overshot to ban private discrimination (bad). Any conservative who's POed about current governmental intrusions into our lives, while applauding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is a hypocrite.
AZYaateeh Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 10:21 AM
Slavery was no more a government institution than private ownership is. Yes, slavery was an assumption informing the government's property laws, just as private ownership is an assumption of the property laws. But property pre-exists the state, and you will find slavery in societies that aren't even chiefdoms, let alone states (although all states, in the anthropological sense, have slavery as their CHIEF economic arrangement, while other organization-levels don't; the only states that don't repose on slavery are those in the Common Law tradition of Western Christianity...which arose during a period when the state had devolved into a bunch of complex chiefdoms, i.e. "feudalism").
OHPerry Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 7:18 AM
Please read again. You seemed to have missed several salient points. Very little credit for moral authority was given and wanting to punch someone in the nose is title of the article.
Tacitus X Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 9:42 AM
I'm happy to help you out. Mitchell states "This is not to deny the role of government as a change agent. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and their continued enforcement have given us a better America." Thus, my first two sentences. Next he writes "Suffering makes us sorry. Hardship makes us sad... we are human beings and we wish well to other human beings, whatever their race, creed, religion, national origin, or choices in the pursuit of happiness" - in other words "boo hoo, please don't hate us. We don't mean to be racist." Thus my second two sentences. A little more punching and a lot less whining, thanks.
OHPerry Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 10:48 AM
Based on what you just wrote, huh? Let's just say that I don't think you've made your case.
Tacitus X Wrote: Apr 29, 2013 12:14 PM
Your appraisal is of little value since you don't seem to understand how one makes a case. An obvious difference in our posts is that I support my conclusions with quotations taken directly from the column in question. You merely present your subjective impressions. BTW, the titles are typically dubbed by the editors, not the columnists. While the title slapped on the column reads "To Punch a Liberal" the actual line in the column says "[it] made me want to go punch a liberal…or to be more precise, to punch liberal moral bullies." Wanting to punch someone is not the same thing as actually landing a punch, literally or figuratively. My point is that conservatives & libertarians need to stay on offense rather than try to play defense.