“No president has ever had that happen. Ever."

[oberstgreup]

Oh. Really?

It seems that, once again, there's a lot of selective, collective amnesia going around today.

"But... b-b-but... That's different!" (Always the last refuge of those with no argument.)

Right. Cause, you know, it's not like it ever got ugly or personal like this back then

Comments

[oberstgreup]

No one yelled insults at Obama.

Is "that's a lie!" worse than boos, hisses, and shouts of "No! No!"? I suspect few people's answer is objective. The tone and the gist of the offense are comparable, anyway.

What's amusing is reading reactions of Democrats and their supporters around the country: before the Dems' reactions to Bush were brought up, outrage that the President had been shouted at and hyperventilating exclamations that that has NEVER happened, that no one shouts at the PRESIDENT when he's speaking. *After* the Dems' behavior was brought up, this feeble attempt to distinguish them.

Anyway, you're only confirming everything I said. Your objections to the Republicans are political ones that you conflate with morality. If someone in Congress had thrown his shoes or even excrement at Bush during the State of the Union Address, I have no doubt you'd have found it easy to excuse him on the grounds that Bush deserved it.

You have zero credibility on this issue. You and a few million other people spent eight years deliberately poisoning the political discourse and destroying every notion of civility and every shred of respect for our head of state. Now you're shocked, SHOCKED, to see that people on the other side are acting the same way. The absolute height of hypocrisy has been the canned outrage over comparisons of Obama to Hitler - often by people who are still hoarse from screaming "Hitler! Hitler!" at Bush just last year.

And again, you justify it all on the basis of political differences that you claim to be moral ones. JUST like the other side does. But you refuse to see the one inch in front of your nose it would require to understand that.

[kat1031]

Racism is a moral offense.

Read about your guy.

[ajohnymous]

It's amusing how you use the term 'racist' as a medieval inquisitor might use the word 'heretic' -- as if such a charge, even if totally true, would somehow invalidate any criticism such a person might offer.

[kat1031]

It's disgusting that people are defending a member of a white supremacist organization.

[oberstgreup]

"Racism" is also a cheap way to score political points - like, say, the frequent accusation that opposition to Obama for any reason is racist. (An accusation that is, I think, becoming tiresome to most of the public.)

Nothing I've read about Wilson indicates racism.

You certainly aren't going to win any points with me claiming that membership in the SCV is an act of racism.

[kat1031]

He's Strom Thurmond's protegee. The bastard criticized Thurmond's daughter for coming forward because her existence was embarrassing to the Senator.

He also voted to fly the Confederate flag over the South Carolina Statehouse (one of only 7 - surprise, surprise all Republicans.) and is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which is a very, very thinly veiled white supremacist group.

Sorry, the guy is a jackass.

[oberstgreup]

Yes, he is. That doesn't make him racist. And he criticized Thurmond's daughter for telling that he had an illegitimate child, not because he had a black child. Insensitivity to someone who happens to be black
is not racism. (Unless we're also counting political opposition to a President who happens to be black as racism.) Likewise with the Confederate flag.

And I'd venture to say I know a LOT more SCV members than you do, and the biggest jackass here is you. It's about as white supremacist a group as the Congressional Black Caucus is a militant revolutionary one. It's a bunch of history buffs, for crying out loud! And I think you should read up on or better yet meet an upstanding gentleman like J.E.B. Stuart IV before declaring him to be a "thinly veiled white supremacist".

Finally, I let it go by the first time, but he's not "my guy" to begin with. You've reduced a discussion of civility and how it broke into the sort of petty mud-fight you're used to getting up to the waist in every day. I'm confident that that's why you see everything this way. If you'd climb up out of the muck and slime once in a while you might be surprised to find that not everyone else does - even though the machine you're a part of tries its damnedest to make sure they do.

[kat1031]

Really? Have you read the actual quote? He manages to work in a reference to Jefferson and uses the word 'smearing'.

You might want to actually do some reading about the overlap between the SCV's leadership and groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens.

U Texas thinks there's an issue too

So does some of its own members

Here's what the SPLC has to say, including a very long discussion with a former member who tried to boot the racists and wound up being thrown out.

[oberstgreup]

I'm not going to get dragged into the Confederate Wars with you. Take it somewhere else.

[kat1031]

Or, oh, crap, I didn't realize that kind of stuff was going on, but don't want to admit that I might possibly be wrong, so let's end the discussion.

[oberstgreup]

Fuck off, Kat.

[kat1031]

Did you even read any of the source material?

[oberstgreup]

Yes, except the UT one which was a broken link. None of it was news to me.

Now, seriously, drop it or take it somewhere else. I'm not going to discuss this here with you. And frankly, if you're going to insist that membership in or affiliation with the SCV indicates white supremacist beliefs, I'm not inclined to discuss anything further with you, anywhere.

[kat1031]

So Wilson having a history of making inappropriate statements with racist connotations as well as belonging to an organization who's leadership roster has a gross amount of crossover with an organization that overtly preaches white supremacy (which is exactly what the CCC does) means that I should somehow not entertain the notion that Wilson is, in fact, a racist and that his views on race might possibly have had something to do with his comment?

I'm sorry, B., but I don't think you'd be willing to give a pass to someone who was a member of a left-leaning group which had strong ties to another group which was on the record and unashamed about a vile belief. I'm not going to give a pass to any organization that does it, left or right.

It seems that infiltration by racist thugs is a problem for the SCV. It's very, very likely that most of the membership is unaware of that fact. The ones who do become aware of that fact and have the courage to do something about it find themselves unwelcome. That's pretty disturbing, no? What's supposed to be the Southern American version of the Sons of Italy or the Ancient Order of Hibernians (well I suppose, those crossed with the SCA what with the whole reenactment thing) has been hijacked and turned in to a political organization with some unsavory political views.

I think that people are responsible for the leadership and advocacy of the organizations to which they belong. In cases like this silence strongly implies consent. Are the people who have no idea, and are just interested in keeping up historic monuments, doing some genealogy and dressing in period clothes and shooting at each other awful, bad people? No. But if they become aware of the problem and keep giving time and money to the organization, yeah, they're supporting it and should knock it the hell off because it's really long past time that our culture stopped letting racists off the hook.

What should one think about the other members of the chapters from which people who've spoken out been kicked out of? Obviously they knew the men who'd been removed at least by sight and name since most of the time in these types of organizations, the individual groups aren't overwhelmingly large, and they probably know why it happened. If they disagree, it's something that's serious enough that they should stand up and say so. One because what CCC stands for is wrong and two because it makes the organization and the history behind it look really, really unsavory.