C. Cope, where did I say the Democrats (DUMB-ocrats! Hilarious!) were different or didn’t support the War on Drugs or a huge military budget? Nowhere, that’s where. Where’s YOUR head? – Les | July 6th, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Well Les, you said like MOST republicans. Not, MOST congresscritters. Not, MOST republicans and democrats. Your silence seemed MOST deafening as in … unlike MOST democrats.

Sooooo … you were asking me where my head was. Easy … on top of my neck and 6′ 3″ above the bottom of my feet standing straight.

So long as libertarians in DC worry about impressing liberals and proving their progressive bona fides, not only will they destroy the small libertarian voice in public life–as they nearly did in their self-congratulatory hate fest against Ron Paul–but they will also not win new adherents. Small government types tend to be productive people sick of having strange, unproductive criminals, foreigners, and drug addicts taking root in their neighborhoods. Real libertarians should support viale localism, states rights, restrictive covenants, and all the other things that were taken for granted in yesteryear. Instead, the DC crowd seems to take pleasure in fighting a two front war, which, needless to say, is not much of a political strategy. Now that Obama won’t even stick to his anti-war pledge, what has this stupidity wrought?

Whites use drugs at the same rate as blacks, but blacks are arrested and imprisoned at higher rates than whites for drug use. That’s a fact. Helms supported the drug laws that have increased crime rates all over the country. That’s a fact. Those are facts that matter, facts the government can do something to change.

Too easy.
The “white hands” was less about ACTUAL effects of affirmative-action and more about racial pandering of sending the message that ” if you elect this black guy, he’s going to give your jobs to black people. Re-elect this ugly white guy and I’ll keep your white jobs with whites.”

In many places, through “good ole boy” networks/policy, unions, and other reasons there has always been affirmative action for WHITES and the understanding that white people will take care of other white people with marginal skills and intelligence. Why are so called conservatives OK when white people take advantage of racial preferences but not other races? It’s very clear to me.

As far as crime rates by race. Ok, so?
For one thing, there are certainly discrepancies in policing of different races. Even if we ignore that and non violent crimes, and come to the conclusion that a certain race is more likely to commit a violent crime , what is the point?

Does that mean we use government force to discriminate against INDIVIDUALS who happen to share some characteristic with a group of people who statistics show are more likely to commit crime?

Is that the conservative position?

The other thing I never understood about conservative racists is that their preferred policies would logically make things WORSE. If you think, for example, that blacks are less educated and more likely to commit crime- how would using state force to deny them educational and occupational opportunities make that any better? It seems to me that if you are a bigot and you target certain groups of people to basically treat like shit, they are going to push back and all hell will break lose. And you will DESERVE it.

uh huh

I am not a conservative Republican. I was in my younger years before naturally evolving into a libertarian. If I were a conservative Republican, I too would have an issue with people who are most known as racial bigots being praised as the public face of my politics. I guess it would be OK if a minority people who agree with my politics just happened to have views I find repugnant. However, it’s interesting that every dead Republican ( except Reagan, imo) in recent memory who is held up as an example of ‘Mr. Conservatism” is a white separatist/racial collectivist.

Obviously conservatism is being equated with racism, and “conservative” Republicans choose to celebrate this. I guess many Republicans WANT to be seen as racists and want conservatism defined that way. I seem to remember some conservatives celebrating guys like Sam Francis as “real conservatives” who were “courageous” because to them real conservatism REQUIRED racism and anyone who did not embrace it was somehow a weak PC liberal.

I’m not a ” PC” anything, but I think racial collectivism is wrong, stupid, and tends to be embraced by idiots who tend to be ugly in multiple ways.

BTW,
Bob barr has praised Helms and further alienated a lot of libertarians.

I’m not sure what to make of linking to FAIR. They are (of course upset by the so-called “white hands ad”, which stated, “You needed that job…but they had to give it to a minority.” But that’s what ‘affirmative action’ does. I can see how that statement would be upsetting to those for racial preferences, but you would think those who claim to oppose racial preferences would welcome the honesty of it.

They were outraged by Helms saying:

“Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced.”

Blacks do commit crimes at much higher rates than other races. Does Balky deny this is a fact, or does he object to facing facts?

FAIR also whines:

“Helms remonstrated ten female members of the House of Representatives to “act like ladies” when they interrupted a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing to demand support of a U.N. treaty against gender discrimination, and subsequently had them removed from the hearing by Capitol police.”

What is the libertarian objection to that? Is it the opposition to the treaty, or Helms demanding good manners?

I loathe the Democratic party for all of the same reasons most folks here do. But they’re the party of BIG government. We EXPECT them to want a more powerful government which interferes in its citizens’ lives.

The Republicans claim to be for smaller government, which makes them hypocritical liars on top of everything else the Democrats are. When someone praises a Republican for wanting smaller government or saying they’re better than those “tax and spend” Democrats, I think it’s important to point out that they want big government, too.

LMAO! Like most republicans? Jeez Les, where have you had your head lately? The dumbocrats finally got congress … and so I have to ask you … HAS ANYTHING CHANGED?!

Look, there is no difference between the dumbocrats and repukocrats other than using different maps to the destination that they are both taking us.

Which of the four in your last sentence do you have your head up Les?

No, no, at Daily Kos, they didn’t like Jesse because he was a Republican. Here, we don’t like him because he was bigot. Also, he was all for big government when it came to the War on Drugs and military spending, like most Republicans.

Just because he made some silly people mad is no reason to admire the man. An asshole who’s an asshole to some assholes is still an asshole.

Have you ever lived in a urban black community and had to put up with their nonsense? White flight is real because at the end of the day people know that Helms was more or less right. True there are many good black people out there. But in the ghetto most are difficult to get along with.

I’m proud to say I voted for Jesse once. He was always a lightning rod for the left and always willing to make outrageous statements in support of conservatism. He was also very willing to play hardball politics at a time when the liberals were always accusing conservatives of wanting to throw the elderly on the street and starve children. He was also willing to go toe-to-toe with race-baiters like Jackson and Sharpton. I certainly never bought into his entire agenda, but he was one of the most consistent and outspoken opponents of the government growth and in favor of states rights. He was nicknamed “Senator No” for a reason.

For all his shortcomings, as a libertarian I would still rather see Jesse Helms in the Senate than 90% of the people who are in there now.

Thanks to their glasses, I guess, I had the pre-senatorial, ViewPoint-dispensing Jesse Helms vaguely confused with that kiddie show host throughout my childhood. I’ve learned over the years that I was by no means the only child of the 60s who failed to distinguish between the two.

Actually, come ’72, that was probably the case with many of the voters.