Jeff Sessions: " Anglo-American heritage"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Vociferous, Feb 13, 2018.

  1. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    The only alternative to federal power is states rights. Clutch your pearls all you like, but the self-styled word police do not control the terms of the debate.
    “Control language and you control thought; control thought and you control action; control action and you control the world.”
    — Peter Kreeft​
    These are the same people who want to make Republican synonymous with "racist." Only fools fall for it.
    Quit lying.
    You have no evidence of that.
    Your personal subjectively inferred meaning is insignificant, at best.
    No, that's just the leftist attempt to frame the debate and rewrite history. And only leftists fall for it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Dangerous nonsense - the major "alternative" to all government power is individual rights. The States have no more call to encroach on them than any other level of government.
    Is that Fox News's new motto? Or are they still working off of the GOPAC memo, the organization of American news media language around Frank Luntz's research and recommendations?
    The name acquires the attributes of the thing, all on its own. First Law of Marketing. Nobody enforces that. Nobody ever wrote a left, liberal, or Democratic analog of the GOPAC Republican memo, instructing the media heads to refer to Republicans as "racist" whenever possible.

    In fact, that's still not even allowed on the major media - despite the obvious reality involved. Likewise are several other obviously accurate terms. They're forbidden by the language police - the language police are protecting the Republican Party, as they have been for decades now.
    Now simple historical fact is inadmissible? I did post the man's biography for you, the wiki page. The Anglo-American heritage of sheriffs that Jeff Sessions grew up with and practiced law within was enforcing Jim Crow and its aftermath in the counties of rural Alabama.
    Sure I do. You posted some of it - remember? The"trend" you regarded as important?
    Beats anything else posted here. It's fact based.
    That ol' devil "reality" again. It's got this weird leftwing bias.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    States are empowered by their residents, and states rights only serve/protect those residents. Nothing dangerous about that, unless your enamored with centralized power.
    I guess you've never heard of editorial bias. If you promote guests and interviews that say it, you never have to. But they do anyway:
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/republican-racism
    Yep, guilt by association is an inadmissible fallacy. Contemporaneous historical facts do not prove motive, and such guilt by association seems to deny any ability to learn or grow in general, for anyone.
    Again, you're assigning motive where you have no evidence, except the contemporaneous and spurious correlations you seem to like.
    No, it's subjective twaddle.
    No, just leftist media.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So Jim Crow never happened?
    The editorial bias of all major US news media is center/right authoritarian. That's a consequence of who's footing the bills.
    There is no leftist analog of the GOPAC memo, or Fox News, or CNN, or Rush Limbaugh, or Rupert Murdoch, or Roger Ailes, or the radio conglomerates, or the Mercers and Kochs , or the wingnut welfare "think tanks" and book deals.
    Not when the association is the claim.
    Guilt?
    The only thing he is guilty of is invoking the specifically Anglo-American heritage of sheriffs in an address referring to his immigration policy and Federal law enforcement priorities in the southern US. That's a famously and overtly racist heritage, of course, and his entire upbringing proves beyond a reasonable doubt he knew that, but he seems comfortable invoking it. If he's comfortable with it I don't see why you would have a problem.
    I am assigning meaning, not motive, and with overwhelming evidence.
     
  8. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Of course it did. But just like Jim Crow no longer exists, "states rights" is no longer used as dog whistle to those Democrat practices.
    Hahaha! You lump Washington Post, CNN, NBCNews, and Politico in with Fox News and Limbaugh! http://www.sciforums.com/threads/thoughts-and-prayers.160592/page-6#post-3510247
    I guess you're completely oblivious to the heavy gun-control, abortion, Democrat bias of the Washington Post, CNN, NBCNews, and Politico, completely contrary to Fox News and Limbaugh.
    Anyone that doesn't agree with you must be to the right of you, huh? I guess I really don't doubt that.
    No, no claim of his has made your fallacious association. Only you.
    Where did he specify the "southern US"? You seem to be the only one referencing that to justify your fallacious guilt by association. And if all you have left is fallacy, you're obviously out of real arguments.
    Only in your own partisan-biased mind.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Now you are being quite silly.
    Both racial oppressions customarily under the label Jim Crow and the dog whistle of "States Rights" to rally defense of them are ubiquitous and common throughout the US - including, flagrantly, in the Presidential campaign of 2016 (the Jim Crow voter suppressions, the invocation of States Rights in defense of those voter suppressions, for one more or less unavoidably prevalent example).
    He included it, as I said. He's from Alabama, remember, born and raised and employed in the legal system of that State, and was speaking with a southern accent to an audience including many southern sheriffs - the southern US is automatically included in his heritage references unless he explicitly excludes it.
    That I am assigning meaning, not motive, is a plain fact.

    That the evidence is invisible to you is a remarkable denial or state of obliviousness - look at your striking assertion that Jim Crow no longer exists as part of the Anglo-American heritage of Alabama's sheriffs, for example - but nothing can be done about that until you seek help.
    - - -
    No, I don't. Where do you get these idiotic ideas?
    Uh, yes? That was the topic, remember - my claim of association. That's what you were talking about.
    You were trying to deny the historical and biographical circumstances of Sessions's life, apparently because you thought they implied "guilt" of something and somewhere in your education you picked up the idea that associations which imply guilt are "fallacies".
    Whether you have any idea what a fallacy is becomes an open question, but your presumption of the implications of Sessions's upbringing and career is evident.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Which is why so many right wingers deny it.
     
  11. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    While it is true they were democrats back than they migrated to the republican party so refering to them as democratic pratices is dishonest and misleading which you know and and these racists that were welcomed lovingly and knowingly into the republican fold still use it in several forms. one of the more prominant used by the madarin mussolini and his cohort is merit based immigration.
     
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    You would have to show some evidence of states rights being used as an argument for voter ID laws for me to take you seriously.
    The same people argued to be too poor to get an ID also require ID to get welfare/food stamps/disability, cold medicine, cigarettes or alcohol, or rent an apartment. Here's black people telling you that arguments against voter ID are, themselves, racist and ignorant:

    To assume voter ID laws are racially-motivated voter suppression is to presume minorities can't do the simple things everyone else can, and that is racist. Why aren't you equally concerned about disenfranchised poor whites? Do they somehow not have the same barriers to getting IDs that everyone else does?
    Hahaha! That's ridiculous. So because he's from a southern state and speaks in a southern accent to sheriffs including some southern ones, it must be a dog whistle. That is, at best, guilt by association or kettle logic.
    By that same spurious reasoning, Bill Clinton's promise to "end welfare as we know it" was a racist dog whistle, because he was from a southern state.
    No, calling something a dog whistle literally means that it has a source-motivated meaning beyond those of the words alone.
    That you think your spurious guilt by association is evidence is laughable.
    I haven't made any claims about Alabama sheriffs, because I don't have any specific knowledge of them. So that "striking assertion" is only a straw man. Nothing can be done about you tilting at windmills.
    Guilt by association is a fallacy, whether you're intellectually honest enough to admit it or not.
    An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of association fallacies are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
    No one has denied anything about Session's life, but if you really think they have, please, do quote them. Oops, that's another sad straw man.
    You also seem to be projecting your own associations on me now. Is that a straw man of a straw man?
    No, while Jim Crow was practiced, they were Democrats. Learn some history. Very few Jim Crow Democrats became Republicans, while most continued to serve as Democrats their whole lives.

    And Democrats today still don't think minorities can manage to get ID, do without welfare, or not commit crime.
    You know who has merit-based immigration? Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand, and US prior to 1950. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points-based_immigration_system
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    But they do get all those things, and have for their whole lives, and have voted in the past, and now they can still get those things - but they can't vote.
    So there's a problem, right?
    There are hundreds of thousands of people in that situation, in the States with these carefully designed voter ID laws.
    More work for other people, to demonstrate obvious facts that have been headline news since 1964?
    You not taking something seriously is not something anyone needs to take seriously.
    Neither is your occasional and convenient pretending to ignorance:
    Your pretending to ignorance of Jim Crow is not an argument. You used the term.
    It's an observation of a physical fact, not a presumption. And the facts it observes are the effects of racism - observing racism and its effects is not racism. The people who see and describe are not the people who perpetrate.
    Every American knows what Sessions meant, except apparently you.
    I'm concerned about Republican voter suppression and election rigging.
    Whites aren't equally affected. The laws are carefully designed that way.
    To the extent that they are affected, they will of course benefit from the opposition to these laws. So no special concern would be required.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  14. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    So because people have broken laws, we shouldn't make any new laws in that same vein?
    That would actually seem to warrant more enforcement of existing laws than restricting new ones.
    It's called the burden of your own claim. No skin off my nose if you can't support your own argument. Just one less valid argument worth addressing.
    Okay then, where did I claim anything about "Alabama sheriffs?" Oh right, that was a straw man that you're trying to weasel out of.
    Where did I "pretending to ignorance of Jim Crow?" Oops, just another straw man.
    It's a "physical fact" that minorities are incapable of getting IDs? Or a fact that they just don't? There's no accounting for personal choices.
    But yes, assuming the lack of ID has anything to do with race is racist. And that assumption is the ONLY reason you have for claiming voter ID laws are racist. Pot, meet kettle.
    I'm sure every leftist American thinks they do.
    And that doesn't change the fact that you are assigning motive, by the definition of "dog whistle."
    But suppressing white votes isn't racist, even though the same laws that effect minorities are?
    How are they "carefully designed" to avoid suppressing white votes?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You were in error to assume that people cannot live ordinary lives as citizens in good standing without the kind of ID the new laws require for voting. Your claim was false.
    When you used the term "Jim Crow".
    When you claimed ignorance of Alabama Sheriffs and their Anglo-American heritage.
    It's more likely they don't have one, and more likely to be expensive and difficult for them to obtain one, due to racism past and present.
    It's observation, not assumption. Lack of ID and other legitimizing credentials is one of the common consequences of living under racial oppression.
    I'm ignoring motive. I'm assigning meaning.
    Yep. The laws themselves are set up to suppress the black and brown vote, preferentially.
    It's a numbers game. The Republicans lose a few votes, the Democrats lose many more, total turnout is suppressed, Republicans win.
     
  16. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Again, because a lot of people break the law to allow those "ordinary lives", we should forgo any new laws that require ID? That doesn't follow.
    Jim Crow only happened in Alabama?
    Again, where did that happen? You seem to have a vivid imagination.
    That differs from non-minority poor? How?
    There's no accounting for personal choices.
    Only if certain races are somehow less capable than other ones, which is racist.
    That directly contradicts your own claim about it being a dog whistle.
    Again, "how are they "carefully designed" to avoid suppressing white votes", or even preferentially suppress non-white votes?
    You don't really think through any of your claims, do you?
     
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    everytime you post you sound even dumber. how the fuck do you manage to put your pants on? i know history its you who is piss ignorant. i'm well aware that jim crow was started by democrats but it was the republicans after nixons southern strategy that kept its legacy alive. please learn how to fucking read. and when we talk of racist democrats becoming republicans were not talking of politicians were talking of voters the electorate
    republican nutjon conspiracies are not fact. this is not at all true.
    if you honestly believe that was merit based your not very well aware of history. your truly are the chest thumping ape you use as your avatar immigration in the early 1900's up until the end ware period was extremely racist in nature. merit based means white people who are christians
     
  18. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Jim Crow ended in 1965. Look it up. The racist southern Democrats couldn't enforce those laws after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 (both supported by higher percentages of Republicans than Democrats).
    The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it's also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196/
    Learn some history already. Or continue to be foul-mouthed and insulting, which telegraphs your ignorance to everyone.
    That's their major arguments for opposing voter ID laws, welfare reform, and stronger law enforcement (like the Obama anti-school-to-prison-pipeline policy that led to the parkland shooter being able to legally buy guns). Otherwise, minorities wouldn't need any special considerations in any of these.
    Can you cite anything to support that claim?
     
  19. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    actually while gross totals republicans favored it more when broken up by region democrats were more supportive. the republican numbers only happen in gross because of higher numbers in the higher supporting region
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
    it was also a democrat you proposed the bill and democrats that helped push it.
    so dont tell me to learn history when you don't know it. you started insulting me first and swearing is actually a sign of intelligence.
    also the republican part has members calling for the repeal of the voting rights act so your argument is kinda you know flawed.

    no its because we know people like you and yours have a racist component behind them

    considering you view the validity of things based on it supporting your bigoted views nothing you'd accept.
     
  20. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    And? One party had a long history supporting civil rights, and overall continued to do so.
    Where did I insult you first?
    Keep telling yourself about how swearing means you're intelligent. Who knows, the self-affirmations might help.
    No, that was a Supreme Court decision.
    So you do think minorities are just as capable of getting ID, working, and obeying the law?
    Try me.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    We should avoid all new laws that unduly burden voters and voting.

    Meanwhile: "They" haven't been breaking the law.
    They just never needed the ID required by the new voting laws - which is a good thing for them, because obtaining such ID would have been (and still is) quite troublesome and time consuming for many such people.

    They don't have the required ID, getting the required ID would take them a lot of time and trouble and money, and so they can't vote any more (like they used to) without expending a lot of time and trouble and money. That's what the ID laws are designed to do - force Democratic voters to spend a lot of time, trouble, and money, to vote.

    It's like making Democratic voters stand in long lines, fill out provisional ballots, and vote on unreliable machines.
    Jim Crow happened in Alabama. Everybody who uses the term "Jim Crow" with meaning knows that.
    In fifty different ways, having to do with racism past and present. You didn't know that?
    Observing the consequences of racism is not racist.
    Neither is observing the behaviors and implementations of racism, as when observing Jeff Sessions and his allies in government.
    It contradicts no claim of mine.
     
  22. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    You haven't shown that they do, unless you think minorities are especially incapable.
    And which of these forms of ID are especially hard to get? https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state
    And? How is mentioning Jim Crow a specific comment on "Alabama sheriffs?"
    Your evasion is running in circles.
    Again, how? You can keep arm-waving about racism all you want, but until you can show specifics, it's just a bugaboo.
    You have not show it to be the consequences of racism, you've only assumed it to be. Apparently only based on race, since the same issue for whites isn't racism but you can't detail how things are "carefully designed" to do so.
    Just more arm-waving about your bugaboo, while all the actual justifications you can mange to detail seem to be racist.
    Inferring meaning other than the words themselves is either assuming them to be a dog whistle or a guilt by association fallacy.

    And for the third time, "how are they "carefully designed" to avoid suppressing white votes", or even preferentially suppress non-white votes?
     
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    is this the star bucks time share sales office ?
     

Share This Page