Democrats always use the mob method to get their ways. In a tachnological society, they do it with mob media.

Bringing up the Che shirts reminded me of this. While on active duty, upon transferring to a new command, I learned that one of my workers was named Che. My first thought was “egads, how can someone that wants to call himself that be in the military?”. Then I saw that it was his legally given name, and on meeting him discovered that his parents were total hippies, and named him for their hero. Poor guy. Good hard worker though, and not a socialist bone in his body.

Nonfactor on May 9, 2007 at 3:25 PM

P.S. a liberal on this blog, smells like a red herring.

In our view, we should be focusing on something much bigger than Senator Byrd. Namely, the fact that the KKK was created by Democrats to serve as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, with the specific aim of killing Republicans.

We noticed that only one person so far has mentioned that, and we think THAT is the meme that needs to be spread, because in certain ways, less has changed since 1860 than one might think.

This is a useful example of why it’s pointless to engage the left

Allah, this has been my point for ages now. I’m NOT afraid to debate the left. I refuse to debate them. I’d rather take the proverbial sharp stick to either or both eyes.

Which is also why, incidentally, I think Jeff Goldstein’s wide of the mark when he rips on them (as in the post linked above) for not being intentionalist in their textual interpretations. They are intentionalists; they have to be in order to prove the proper level of criminal culpability in their perpetual trial of conservatism. But they allow themselves a fudge in the form of unconscious intent when the facts aren’t there to prove intent otherwise.

Actually, I argue that they are proceeding from an intentionalist argument, but their fudge is that they posit that someone somewhere who is less astute than they might “misinterpret” the use of tar-baby as racial and become offended, which is why Snow should have avoided using it.

All interpretation is intentionalist, is my argument. The question is, whose intention are we privileging when we say we are interpreting, the utterer’s or the receiver’s?

I want to punch the smug little punks every time I see them in their stupid Che shirts – and I’m not prone to violence.

JadeNYU on May 8, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Yet. Give it a year. ;)

By the nutroots’ logic they’d have to denounce anyone who mentions Napoleon. But, heh, you can mention Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Engels, Castro, Chavez, no problem…

Cool, so he’s right up there with Grant, Sherman and Sheridan…

Dammit…..someone beat me to it ; )

Btw you can seperate Bedford Forrest the general from Bedford Forrest the Klansmen, and he was a brilliant general who was known for being difficult to fight. I’m not particularly fond of him because he founded the Klan regardless of his reason for doing so then ‘disbanding it’ he opened the genie bottle and for that, as a jew, i really don’t like him. But this is yet another made up scandal

This is a useful example of why it’s pointless to engage the left. Not only do they act in bad faith, they justify it by attributing bad faith to their target.

I just tried to post something that completely disappeared, so instead of retyping it, I’ll simply say “word.”

This is a useful example of why it’s pointless to engage the left. Not only do they act in bad faith, they justify it by attributing bad faith to their target.

Word.

Incidentally, isn’t it almost comical to see them foaming at the mouth over this when their beloved ACLU was founded by Communists? And where was their outrage when Howard Dean. embraced European Socialists by making shaking hands with Ségolène Royal and making a speech at the PES-Congress of European Socialists Parties convention last December? Oh that’s right. They love that sort of thing. When a GOP congressman uses a quote by a military genius to make a larger point, of course it’s ignored in order to paint the entire GOP as a group of filthy racists. When the head of the DNC openly supports Socialism, and when virtually the entire Democratic party embraces the ACLU even though it was founded by Communists, well, that’s ok, because, like, they mean well.

He didn’t create the KKK, he joined it, and because of his celebrity became one of its leaders as it grew.

But the origional KKK was built around trying to get the Northern Carpetbaggers to stop their Congressionaly mandated theivery of every Southern resource. The Congress put this policy in power because they were afraid that if the South remained strong, that the war could start all over again. There was no forgive and forget, no rebuilding, there was wholesale looting going on.

When the North attempted, UNCONSTITUTIONALY to put Congressionaly mandated laws about voting on the books… somthing that was left to the discretion of the states… some of the KKK got violent… and Forrest attempted to disband the KKK, and condemned its violence…

Sooo..

Nutroots overcome by the vapors after GOP congressman quotes KKK founder

Would be more accurate if it read…

Nutroots overcome by the vapors after GOP Congressman Misquotes the man who Condemned KKK violence.

When will you guys get a preview button?

The Monster on May 8, 2007 at 7:05 PM

I did point them over here. It does the job over at my hole in the wall.

Sen. Robert “Sheets” Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Robert “Sheets” Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Robert “Sheets” Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Robert “Sheets” Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Robert “Sheets” Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Robert “Sheets” Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Robert “Sheets” Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Robert “Sheets” Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Robert “Sheets” Byrd (D-WV)
Sen. Robert “Sheets” Byrd (D-WV)

I must have had a presstitute moment for forgetting Sheets is a Dim bulb.

When will you guys get a preview button?

When slavery was in the slave business there was on stigma on him. He was no different than the local horse trader in the eyes of his contemporaries. Obviously, in today’s eyes he’s a monster but I’ve never liked imposing our modern taboos on historical figures.

Hiragm hit the nail on the head here:

Nathan Bedford Forrest, who, in addition to being a terrorist and a moral monster, was an almost universally recognized military genius.

Cool, so he’s right up there with Grant, Sherman and Sheridan…

Hiraghm on May 8, 2007 at 5:34 PM

To call a military commander a terrorist because he plied his trade (that of a soldier) during wartime is a bit of a stretch. I’m not normally a Confederate Apologist by any stretch and I firmly believe Jeff Davis and his minion were WAY out of line and paid the price for their actions. All that said, I do have to rush to Forrest’s defense here. During his various raids he foraged for sustenance which is perfectly acceptable under the 1860 Articles of War.

Lastly, Forrest slapped together the Klan to defend southern white families against the occupation Union army. They, the Klan, started attacking the newly freed black folks and he shut it down…or at least tried. The Klan as we know it was really reborn in the 20’s I believe.