The More Things Don’t Change…

Self Defense AB FrostFrom Harper’s Weekly, 1876. Drawing by A.B. Frost.

This entry was posted in History, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to The More Things Don’t Change…

  1. Michael Anderson says:

    That’s nasty, Bob. But yeah, the politics of 2016 are shaping up thusly.

  2. Greg Goodknight says:

    Ugly sentiments from the both of you.

    • Ken Jones says:

      Greg lose the self-righteous indignation. Both Bob and Mike made comments on the state of political affairs. The ugliness is the state of our politics, not comments on the nastiness that abounds. Your comment;
      “Make some real statements that can be backed up by facts. Be specific” applies to you as well.

      • Greg Goodknight says:

        There was nothing self righteous or indignant in my comments. I met hyperbole regarding a claim of scapegoating in current political speech with a request for an example… but there were apparently too many to choose from to actually show, for example, that “immigrants” were being scapegoated.

        My statement was clear; I’ve not witnessed “immigrants” being scapegoated by any substantive politician. At the most, I’ve noticed “illegal immigrants” being a target, and generalizing that as “all immigrants” has been left-of-center sleight of hand for many years.

        I can’t prove by induction that there hasn’t been scapegoating of legal immigrants by some candidate or office holder somewhere, but since Frisch claims to be a witness to many such comments, he can prove to all I had missed something by finding one, in context. Trump came close a time or two.

  3. rl crabb says:

    Just a reflection of the real ugliness that seems to get worse day by day, Greg.

  4. steven frisch says:

    Their sentiments are merely a refection of the state of our national dialogue under the strain of politicians scapegoating immigrants, Muslims, African-Americans and the President.

  5. Greg Goodknight says:

    Innuendo is too easy for the three of you. Make some real statements that can be backed up by facts. Be specific.

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      Covered up by who… Rahm Emanuel and friends? Allegations of witness intimidation. Not sure that’s a big blot on the GOP primary.

      “McDonald, by most accounts, was a troubled kid. At the time of his death, he was a ward of the state, and although he had no adult criminal record, authorities said he had racked up numerous juvenile arrests. Autopsy results obtained by the Tribune show McDonald had PCP in his system at the time of his death… ”

      There will be a criminal trial, the cop is charged with murder. Let’s wait and see what a jury says, after all evidence is in. It’s a shame the young man didn’t choose to stop and drop the knife blocks earlier as the police followed him, as a Tribune account claimed.

      Put the idiot up in Maine in the same class as the idiot in Nola who proclaimed that city would remain “chocolate”.

      • rl crabb says:

        When did I link any of this to the Republican primary? Nowhere.

        • Greg Goodknight says:

          Frisch did.

          • steven frisch says:

            I did not respond to you Greg, I responded to Bob; I did not link it to the Republican primaries you did; I merely responded to Bob’s analogy between today and our nativist (or in this case Jim Crow) past.

            You want to continue the ‘vendetta’ here? I don’t. I am perfectly happy never talking to you in person or virtually.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “Their sentiments are merely a refection of the state of our national dialogue under the strain of politicians scapegoating immigrants, Muslims, African-Americans and the President.”

            Sure looks like it’s a reference to GOP primaries by Steve Frisch; unfortunately, it’s a Democratic caricature of GOP politics. Scapegoating?

            I’m happy to note Gary Johnson is again running for the LIB nomination.

          • steven frisch says:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating

            I think I will stand by the use of the word to describe the current national dialogue, whether from Republicans or Democrats.

          • Chris Peterson says:

            In Greg’s defense; you could describe anyone as being less than sympathetic to people of color or other-than-Christian, and 99% of the world’s population would know exactly which US political party your were referencing. (Obviously, even people of that political persuasion recognize the inference.)
            Not that Greg is, was, or ever would be a member of said party. (Mandatory LOL)

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “Stand behind” being a euphemism for not justifying the statement. Just to pick one apart, I’ve not seen Republicans blaming legal immigrants for any ill, but I do see Democrats demagoguing any Republican’s call for treating illegal immigration as if it was, well, illegal, as hate speech against all immigrants.

            The silly season is upon us, time for political ‘toonists to earn their keep.

          • steven frisch says:

            I said “stand by” not “stand behind”; I provided a definition of scapegoating and clearly stated that is could be applied to both Democrats and Republicans; and I could provide numerous instances of legal immigrants or moderate Muslims (or even non Muslims like Sikhs) being scapegoated along with the illegal or radical. Of course I think many ‘progressives’ scapegoat business as well. I know many a Democrat who are “less than sympathetic to people of color or other-than-Christian.” But of course Greg will never recognize that my statement was not partisan because it does not fit your narrative.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “Not that Greg is, was, or ever would be a member of said party. (Mandatory LOL)”

            Par for Peterson’s course. It’s a public record; I’ve been continuously registered to vote in California since 1972 and, while I’ve always declared a party I’ve never registered GOP.

            Were the GOP to move closer to the Libertarians (they do steal their only good ideas from LIBs), I’d consider them but I’m not holding my breath. I’d prefer the Progressives to abandon DEMs and make it palatable to return… a Saunders nomination and crushing loss could do for the DEMs what Goldwater did for the GOP. One can only hope.

          • Chris Peterson says:

            Steve,
            I’m not denying that there are “many” democrats who hold the same views as republicans, but politics is largely a field of perception, and even republicans acknowledge that they are perceived that way by the overwhelming majority. Saying it ain’t so doesn’t change that fact.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “I could provide numerous instances of legal immigrants or moderate Muslims (or even non Muslims like Sikhs) being scapegoated along with the illegal or radical.”

            Then do so; GOP officeholders or competitive candidates (not yahoos on the street), in context.

          • Chris Peterson says:

            Greg,
            Sanders, not Saunders. And I’ll take that race any day. Anyone but Clinton or the clowns out-fearmongering each other on the other side.

            Par for me is not supporting any of the candidates that the MSM has been told to sell us, or pretending I’m anything but a unabashed liberal.

          • steven frisch says:

            I think you are intentionally missing the point Greg.

            I said, “Their (Bob and Michael’s) sentiments are merely a refection of the state of our national dialogue under the strain of politicians scapegoating immigrants, Muslims, African-Americans and the President.”

            I was referencing their sentiments and I was saying that the political dialogue going on in the country was creating the conditions for their sentiments, which you described as ugly, coming to the fore.

            I do not agree with you that their (Bob and Michael’s) sentiments are ‘ugly’. They are actually the sentiments of compassionate people who feel for the poor sod caught up in the ugliness, like the Sikh attacked in his store, the Muslim protester who stand in silence and is vilified as she is ejected from a rally, or the worker warned not to make waves because they are vulnerable to deportation.

            I don’t need to provide ‘examples’ of their (Bob and Michael’s) sentiments they are right there in their comments.

            What you want me to do is provide examples of scapegoating. Do you really want that? We could bury you in scapegoating. It is the Trump news reel. My point was that it is also the Sanders newsreel on some days.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “What you want me to do is provide examples of scapegoating. Do you really want that? We could bury you in scapegoating.”

            Since you again offer it, sure. Three instances of Trump scapegoating legal immigration, in context, should do as a bury. I’m already on the record for not being a past, current or future Trump supporter, so have at it.

            The GOP ticket I could vote in for November would be Kasich/Paul, but I’d be more likely to win the Powerball lotto with a $20 ticket than see that.

          • steven frisch says:

            “…the state of our national dialogue under the strain of politicians scapegoating…”

            Once again you are attributing to my statements a limitation to Trump. I did not mention Trump.

            And once again you miss the point, I said the national dialogue created the conditions for Bob and Michael to hold their respective sentiments.

            I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to see that Bob was making an analogy between our 1870’s Jim Crow ugliness and our current national ugliness.

            Ironically, Kasich is the only Republican currently in the field that I could vote for under the right conditions. 🙂

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “We could bury you in scapegoating. It is the Trump news reel.”
            -Frisch 11:29AM

            “Once again you are attributing to my statements a limitation to Trump. I did not mention Trump. ”
            -Frisch 12:04PM

            I was giving you an easy target by your own standards and yet, still no substantive reply.

          • steven frisch says:

            Original point stands. I did not originally mention republicans, Trump or even politics. I also did not address the comment to you. But since you seem obsessed with trying to take any comments of mine either out of context, or find picayune fault with them, I may get back with examples. I could use Trump, or Sanders, or Santorum, or La Paige, or even Cruz…..the list is endless. Which I think was really the point that Bob was making…our national dialogue seems to have descend to the pre-Civil War know-nothing or the post Civil War Jim Crow level and it harms us all. Of course I recognize that for some that is always where the level of their world views were.

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      From the WP article you linked:”Before the rally began, the crowd was told that no protesting of any sort would be allowed, and that protesters needed to stay in a free-speech space outside the venue.”

      • Chris Peterson says:

        Free speech zones- another part of the ignorant Bush legacy. I remember when W would swing through in a campaign year and protesters would be only “allowed” in a fenced-in area a mile from his location.
        As the Constitution says: the right of citizens to peaceably assemble, “within fenced areas of a republican candidate’s choosing.”

        • Greg Goodknight says:

          The event was in a closed stadium, not the National Mall, and by all accounts protests were not welcome. The campaign rented the space, the campaign gets to set the rules.

          What would Hillary do?
          http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/hillary-clinton-1992-rope-reporters/

          • Chris Peterson says:

            “The campaign rented the space, the campaign gets to set the rules.” So, if I rent a venue, I get to decide what goes on outside?

            This gets funnier as it goes along. Where’d you get that, Justice Scalia?

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            You would get a 9-0 SCOTUS vote supporting the Trump campaign’s ability to enforce their rules in a private venue on that one.

        • Greg Goodknight says:

          Regarding the history of “Free Speech Zones”, the wiki reports Atlanda Mayor Andrew Young’s “designated protest zone” to keep the 1988 Democratic Convention from being disrupted as the first such segregation.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#History

          • Chris Peterson says:

            wikipedia?
            Please Greg, show a bit of restraint. Or are you behind the times on their problems with monetary influence in regards to their supposed “unbiased” knowledge.
            Got enough money? Wikipedia will present the facts any way you choose. It’s a business; not a public service.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Par for the progressive course, attack the messenger, not the veracity of the information.

            Roping off areas to keep demonstrators out of public areas where they would be a nuisance is a Democratic innovation.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Closing the loop here, I asked my favorite Wikipedian about this charge of Peterson’s, and Wikipedia and it’s parent, Wikimedia, are non-profits that run on donations. There have been supposed volunteer editors who have been found to be taking money in order to promote points of view and the usual response is to bar the editor from editing and erasing their contributions.

            If that isn’t the case perhaps Chris will be specific.

          • Chris Peterson says:

            Not interested, Greg. You remind me of an old 78rpm record that has run it’s course and continues to jump the inside track until someone removes the needle.

            Didit…bop…didit…bop…

            There’s no sense in listening or responding.
            Addios

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            In the absence of information to the contrary, it appears that the concept of free speech zones does originate in the mind of Democrats at the 1988 Convention and not with Bush II. Myself, I think I’d give an honorable mention to Mayor Daley in ’68 and his police riots hitting anyone they felt like hitting, incuding those revolutionaries Mike Wallace, Dan Rather and Edwin Newman who were roughed up *inside* the convention venue.

            Chris, I accept your forfeit.

  6. fish says:

    Yeah…..those Trumpsters……who do they think they are…..democrats?

    http://www.politico.com/story/2008/06/muslims-barred-from-picture-at-obama-event-011168

    • Chris Peterson says:

      Yeah, because not being chosen for a backdrop of a President’s speech is right up there with a call to distrust all 1.3 billion Muslims and deny them entry into the US based on their religious preference.

      That’s your “gotcha'”?

      • fish says:

        My reply was posted in response to Rls above

        rl crabb says:
        January 9, 2016 at 6:26 pm

        He made the connection….apparently you couldn’t.

        • Chris Peterson says:

          Ghoti,

          “Grass is purple.”
          “No, it’s green.”
          “I wasn’t talking to you.”
          “My bad; you’re right.”

          (Note to self: brush up on blog protocol.)

    • rl crabb says:

      What’s good for the goosed is good for a gander. Dems get no free pass here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.