<<How a University conducts itself privately is a matter of Fed funding? Perhaps if they were segregating by race in the classroom, you MIGHT have a leg to stand on. Were they?>>
sirs, when they tell students there's a rule against inter-racial dating they are imposing their racist values on a student body with power of expulsion. The Federal government does not consider this private any more than the right to keep blacks out completely is private. If they invite a student in, they can't expect him to check his civil rights at the door AND keep their Federal funding.
<<You see, the problem I have here, is that as a conservative, the support of "States' rights", means precisely that, the support of states' rights. It has nothing to do with code words, and everything to do with minimizing how the Fed is to act over that of the states. That's Conservatism 101, and has zilch to do with racism>>
Well that is just pure bullshit. Maybe for a few constitutional law buffs debating the finer points of federalism, states' rights would be a genuine legal and philosophical issue, but the issue was generally considered settled in 1865 by the Union victory over the Confederacy. Since then, the issue was pretty dormant until the civil rights crisis, when it was revived by southern lawyers who realized that "separate but equal" was killed by Brown v. Topeka. At that point, a lot of speeches were made about states' rights to audiences of tobacco-chewin' farmers and general KKK types who don't really show much of a scholarly interest in the finer points of constitutional law. Now if you want to believe that Reagan was eager to display his concern for constitutional law to the scholars of the subject, why you just go ahead and believe that. Personally, I will continue to believe the generally accepted theory (generally accepted outside the lunatic world of the far right, that is) that "states' rights" as preached by Reagan Republicans was in fact a code word for racial segregation.
<<Under desperation in the dictionary is likely examples of the above paragraph [claiming that Trent Lott is a racist becasue he regrets that Strom Thurmond wasn't elected President and because of his association with the Conservative Citizens Councils.]>>
When you want to argue the point, let me know. Calling it desperate is a measure of your own vacuity, rather than any intelligent contradiction of what I said. You probably don't even know what the Concerned Citizens Councils are, so I don't think you're even fit to comment on the subject at this point.
<<How were they [RNC ads] "racist"?>>
As I've stated, they unnaturally darkened the skin of the Afro-American candidate they opposed, showed a blonde bimbo party girl asking him to call her, and played jungle drums behind the image of the guy while much more dignified music played behind the white guy they favoured.
<<You really want to bring up selected soundbites of all the Dems who have made boneheaded racially insensitive remarks?? >>
Not if you go back to before the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. That was the old Democratic Party, the one that held all the racists who migrated to the Republican Party due to the Southern Strategy.
<< And that makes them all racist, right? >>
No, you can't tell that they're racist by what they SAY. That would be wrong. You have to read their minds. See their aura. Hire a psychic.
<< That is the criteria you keep perptuating>>
That's because I'm a crazy liberal. Who else would identify racists by what they say about blacks? Certainly not a conservative. They don't need to listen to what any Republican says about racial issues, they just KNOW that he can't be a racist if he's a Republican.
<<Or 3) demonstrate for all to see that it is nothing more than speculation, which it most certainly was>>
All theories start off as speculation. You can only prove it's speculation by disproving the theory, which you can only do by showing that it fails to explain or account for certain facts. Which you haven't done. You're too lazy. It's easy to SAY "that's just speculation." But because you say it's speculation means nothing. Prove it's wrong.
<<Aside from that stickly little fact that such abuses have consistently been condemned, not just by Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld, but by most of the Conservative right, as well. >>
That's just not true. Cheney just refused to condemn waterboarding this past week. Bush insisted on retaining the right to torture. "Condemned" means short jail terms for low-ranking personnel and no penalties for the commanding officers on whose watch it happened. Most of the conservatives I know, yourself and plane included spend a hell of a lot more time minimizing torture and ridiculing its opponents than you do condemning torture and your leaders actually endorse it by what they do, if not by what they say.
<< Not to mention the fact that those who've committed such abuses keep getting prosecuted. Man how condoning can one get?>>
Heads would really roll if Bush and Cheney were serious about condemning it. They put on a charade for idiots and idiots fall for the charade. Nobody with an ounce of common sense would believe that Bush is agaisnt torture on the basis of what he says. It's still going on.
<<LOL, so now the moron is a genious, who was able to convince the vast majority of the Dems to play along?>>
Well the moron isn't left alone at the top, he has Cheney and Rumsfeld and others who can fix things behind the scenes. I would never say it was Bush personally who engineered the whitewash, but in any event since both parties had a vested interest in the whitewash, it wouldn't have been all that difficult to engineer.
The rest of your post - - juvenile bullshit that I have no interest in responding to. But thanks for the effort.
