|
Majorian posted:Ah. I didn't know that, actually. Disappointing. Still, like the piece says, a man of his time and all that. I think he probably believed in what he was doing with the Civil Rights movement, at least to some extent. But clearly he was at least a little bit racist. I really dislike the phrase "man of his time" when applied in cases like these, especially since LBJ shared his time with people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis. He was a man of his station, but to say "well those were the times" seems unnecessarily broad. Max posted:I remember that election very well, since it was the first presidential election where I was old enough to vote, and yeah, he seems to be forgotten by most but at the time he was a real possibility. At least, he was around my friends at school. Then the scandal happened and whelp. The scandal came out a while after he quit - when he dropped out he was still trying to wrangle attorney general from Obama in exchange for an endorsement.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I really dislike the phrase "man of his time" when applied in cases like these, especially since LBJ shared his time with people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis. He was a man of his station, but to say "well those were the times" seems unnecessarily broad. I agree, and I considered not using it. But it felt appropriate given that the article used the phrase. He was a man of his context, ie: time, station, and the cultural context in which he was raised.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Someone In LBJ's cabinet suggested that he stop saying "negro" in public and use "black." His wife responded with "Do you know how hard it was to get him to 'negro' in the first place?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
People need to remember that the most common form of racism was and currently is not I hate minorities it's that man's burden poo poo we need to protect them and they need to know their place (also applies to women)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Ah. I didn't know that, actually. Disappointing. Still, like the piece says, a man of his time and all that. I think he probably believed in what he was doing with the Civil Rights movement, at least to some extent. But clearly he was at least a little bit racist. I think it's often less productive to look at the absolute level of racism than to look at the change in the level of racism. Nearly everyone has a non-zero amount of racist attitudes. Good people work to reduce those attitudes. Bad people exhibit no change or increase their racism. Johnson pretty clearly passes this test. The Warszawa posted:I really dislike the phrase "man of his time" when applied in cases like these, especially since LBJ shared his time with people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis. He was a man of his station, but to say "well those were the times" seems unnecessarily broad. I think Johnson probably had the minimal amount of racist attitudes to be elected as a southern democrat in 1937.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:People need to remember that the most common form of racism was and currently is not I hate minorities it's that man's burden poo poo we need to protect them and they need to know their place (also applies to women) Ah, yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Yeah one of the great things about the LBJ Library (besides having the archives exhibited with a glass face so library-goers can see the red-and-gold volumes looming over them as they ascend the stairs to the second floor) is that there are a ton of payphones scattered throughout which pipe out Johnson's private conversations on everything from Civil Rights to the Cold War to who was coming over for dinner. The most divine one, though, is on the top floor where a replica of his Oval Office and some personal affects reside. It's a conversation with a Republican who's looking to fund some waterway control project--nothing huge, a state-level concern. LBJ buffaloes the poo poo out of this guy, wringing concessions for future votes and effectively using him to recruit other Republicans to shore up a vote on something-or-other. He listens and listens to this guy go on about the project, and when he runs out of breath, LBJ comes in swinging. It's really impressive/comical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:You can feel highly charitable toward a people while still regarding them as inferior. This is not an uncommon thing for upper-class populists. Yeah, basically this exactly
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Just take the tie off you goober
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree, and I considered not using it. But it felt appropriate given that the article used the phrase. He was a man of his context, ie: time, station, and the cultural context in which he was raised. I also think that calling him a racist can veer towards not fully appreciating how deeply entrenched racism is in American society. Remember it took until the mid 90s for a majority to be supportive of interracial marriage as a concept. There are frontrunner presidential candidates in TYOOL 2015 who think the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, and yet LBJ was the man instrumental in enacting it, even if he was mildly/moderately patronizing towards blacks and probably wouldn't have pushed civil rights as hard if not for the mass movement behind it and the political power and legacy to be gained by doing it LBJ was also a massive trollish rear end in a top hat to everyone around him, so maybe in this case the old "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally  " line actually fits. He was patronizing towards blacks, and also towards everyone else up to and including his own wife
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I think it's often less productive to look at the absolute level of racism than to look at the change in the level of racism. Nearly everyone has a non-zero amount of racist attitudes. Good people work to reduce those attitudes. Bad people exhibit no change or increase their racism. Johnson pretty clearly passes this test. Yeah, this is a good attitude to have IMO. icantfindaname posted:LBJ was also a massive trollish rear end in a top hat to everyone around him, so maybe in this case the old "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally Yeah, I also see him as someone who probably was good at using shocking, offensive rhetoric to prove a point. I've had Caro's biography of him for years now and I really do need to crack it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Yeah, basically this exactly Except Johnson wasn't upper class in any way shape or form for a long portion of his life. He grew up incredibly poor. Instead of all the effort to fit him into a box that is either "racist guy" or "saint", or assuming that he couldn't possibly have been helping black people for the 'right' reason if he was also saying racist things, you can acknowledge that he simultaneously believed in equality and rights for African Americans, helping poor people become not poor, and also said/did some racist poo poo at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:27
|
|
visceril posted:Up his own rear end mods, please change my username to A Baroque Turd
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Someone In LBJ's cabinet suggested that he stop saying "negro" in public and use "black." His wife responded with "Do you know how hard it was to get him to 'negro' in the first place?"  They must've been so much fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:LBJ was also a massive trollish rear end in a top hat to everyone around him, so maybe in this case the old "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally As a Canadian I think I should share the following anecdote, which I think is pretty well-known here but maybe not south of the border: wikipedia posted:While in office, [Canadian Prime Minister] Pearson declined U.S. requests to send Canadian combat troops into the Vietnam War. Pearson spoke at Temple University in Philadelphia on 2 April 1965, while visiting the United States and voiced his support for a pause in the American bombing of North Vietnam, so that a diplomatic solution to the crisis may unfold. To President Lyndon B. Johnson, this criticism of American foreign policy on American soil was an intolerable sin. Before Pearson had finished his speech, he was summoned to Camp David, Maryland, to meet with Johnson the next day. Johnson, who was notorious for his personal touch in politics, reportedly grabbed Pearson by the lapels and shouted, "Don't you come into my living room and piss on my rug."
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Cotulla Texas will do that to ya.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Just take the tie off you goober He spent all morning on that knot!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Maple syrup is hard to get out of rugs, I can understand his frustration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
That time Bernie Sanders played “Rabbi Manny Shevitz” in the 1999 movie My X-Girlfriend’s Wedding Reception.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:That time Bernie Sanders played “Rabbi Manny Shevitz” in the 1999 movie My X-Girlfriend’s Wedding Reception. If that's not presidential material, I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:That time Bernie Sanders played “Rabbi Manny Shevitz” in the 1999 movie My X-Girlfriend’s Wedding Reception. Only decent candidate, huzzah. Shame Rand had to drink the hawk kool aide. Think I may actually donate when he officially announces.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Only decent candidate, huzzah. Shame Rand had to drink the hawk kool aide. I remain perplexed at your continued equating positive characteristics toward both Sanders and Paul. What is it that you find so appealing that, presumably, you think both candidates possess, is your voting based exclusively on restricting/ending overseas military adventurism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
With Rand coming out in favor of drones and the police, and meeting with Jewish (Zionist!) leaders, who do the InfoWars crowd support now? Is Sanders going to get stuck with the loons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I remain perplexed at your continued equating positive characteristics toward both Sanders and Paul. What is it that you find so appealing that, presumably, you think both candidates possess, is your voting based exclusively on restricting/ending overseas military adventurism? He's repeatedly said that he single-issue-votes on a candidate's willingness to blow people up. Nevermind that gutting all american social-services and foreign aid - pillars of the Paulite platform - would kill far more people than any American bombing campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I remain perplexed at your continued equating positive characteristics toward both Sanders and Paul. What is it that you find so appealing that, presumably, you think both candidates possess, is your voting based exclusively on restricting/ending overseas military adventurism? I have spent a lot of time living and traveling overseas. I don't presume we know what is best for the world. It's clear we have hosed up a lot of places for a long time. I have only ever donated to Ron Paul before and if Sanders does announce (which it looks like he will) I will donate to him as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:He's repeatedly said that he single-issue-votes on a candidate's willingness to blow people up overseas. FTFY. When he was confronted over the interview where Randy said he's A-OK with drone-striking domestic shoplifters, he ignored it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:He's repeatedly said that he single-issue-votes on a candidate's willingness to blow people up. To be fair, that is a much better single issue, in my opinion, than the majority of others that people vote on. (cough GUNS GUNS GUNS cough)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:When he was confronted over the interview where Randy said he's A-OK with drone-striking domestic shoplifters, he ignored it. Isn't Rand also pro-drone now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:When he was confronted over the interview where Randy said he's A-OK with drone-striking domestic shoplifters, he ignored it. I must of missed it but if that is true that is crazy  I was on vacation the last few weeks so I was only able to read on my phone. I also missed some direct questions pages ago but it's hard to go back and find them. sorry
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:With Rand coming out in favor of drones and the police, and meeting with Jewish (Zionist!) leaders, who do the InfoWars crowd support now? Is Sanders going to get stuck with the loons? Depends on if he starts taking donations in bitcoin. Also, Paul on the record about being more concerned with the federal government reading your mail than blowing you up without due process if you run out of a liquor store holding money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Isn't Rand also pro-drone now? He is anti-drone unless they are used in Warfare, surveillance or domestic policing, you see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I remain perplexed at your continued equating positive characteristics toward both Sanders and Paul. What is it that you find so appealing that, presumably, you think both candidates possess, is your voting based exclusively on restricting/ending overseas military adventurism? He appears to be a pre-World War II Republican who thinks that isolationism is still a viable foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:He appears to be a pre-World War II Republican who thinks that isolationism is still a viable foreign policy. That's an extreme. I would of supported going into Yugoslavia most likely. I've even been to Belgrade and it was eerie still seeing bombed out buildings but the poo poo going on there was bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:I must of missed it but if that is true that is crazy Direct quote: quote:I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and they want to watch your activities. That one's a good two years old, from his big anti-drone fillabuster. He didn't 'go hawk'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Direct quote: To be fair that is line of reasoning in a decent society isn't that bad  I mean if lethal force is necessary who cares if it comes from a cop or a drone.The problem is the US has been disconnecting itself so much from the evil poo poo it does (bombing weddings with drones) that it really disassociates people from what is happening so if US Cops got drones with guns I can see how people would just get cut down indiscriminately. Then again, maybe if cops felt safer they wouldn't be so quick to draw their guns out. I mean imagine if the Danes had cop-drones. I'm sure they wouldn't be cutting down people like crazy. I don't think that quote is that bad and I don't even support Rand Paul anymore. I mean, in the end of the day do you care what type of weapon a cop uses to kill a robber or if the government is spying on you with drones? I would care more about the latter..? That's my answer, sorry for dodging it earlier; thread moves fast. e: Either way, I find drones scary just because it makes it too easy to do things with very little repercussions. No one gives a poo poo if a drone gets shot down but if a pilot goes down people start freaking out and the next question is, what was he doing there? Think that important question should be asked more often. I don't agree with Rand completely but in the end I guess I do, I am more worried about surveillance then cop drones. But both are scary. Cops are going to have to get drones eventually, no need to have an expensive chopper flying around over a stolen Cadillac down the I-5, just get a drone to do it. Enigma89 fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:To be fair that is line of reasoning in a decent society isn't that bad I think the barrier for cops to shoot someone dead is already low enough before turning the victim into a tiny figure on a computer screen. In an ideal world with perfect judgment on the part of the shooter that would be reasonable, but with drones you're clouding that decision process with remote control and a video feed and then relying on perfect judgment and a sense of personal culpability on the part of the drone controller in order to keep from gunning down innocent people for carrying a toy gun because someone freaked out about the black guy in their field of view. More and more things rely on the judgment of complete fuckups like that shitter in Tulsa, gently caress cop drones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I think the barrier for cops to shoot someone dead is already low enough before turning the victim into a tiny figure on a computer screen. In an ideal world with perfect judgment on the part of the shooter that would be reasonable, but with drones you're clouding that decision process with remote control and a video feed and then relying on perfect judgment and a sense of personal culpability on the part of the drone controller in order to keep from gunning down innocent people for carrying a toy gun because someone freaked out about the black guy in their field of view. That's fair. Looking at the Rand Paul quote it seems like he is focusing more on surveillance and just threw in the cop/drone example just to say he isn't afraid of technology. Maybe a bit tasteless but in the end I generally agree with him, just because technology is getting better doesn't necessarily mean that it should be easier to spy on everyone (NSA Dragnet/Drones/Whatever).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:To be fair that is line of reasoning in a decent society isn't that bad Personally, I'd be more troubled with the offhanded way he acts like armed robbery should rate an automatic death sentence, regardless of the means. You know, among the many other horrible positions Paul has held and continues to hold that make him, outside of a from-a-distance-in-bad-lighting-kinda-sorta(not really) anti-imperialism, almost entirely unlike that white-haired Vermonter with an unfortunate accent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
Also, if it's a drone and not an actual cop, no police officer's life is in danger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:38
|
|