Race Based Government?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You made an accusation against someone on a public forum. I came to their defense and challenged you to substantiate your rather odious accusation. You confess that you are unable to substantiate that charge yet you don't have the courtesy to withdraw the accusation. That's where it stands.

And calling Michelle Malkin a "racist" on a public forum where she would probably not be available to defend herself is not a low blow? I thought it was, so I spoke up.

I followed that and even accepted Google's drop down selection for the search words you indicated. I scanned through several of the results. The first result was an extreme Marxist site that was attacking her with the same innuendo as you did. I found no quote of anything Michelle Malkin said that even sounded racist (context or not).

No you do not. I agree. You can make any kind of charge against someone that you want and then just leave that charge out there. Anyone who questions you about that charge is probably being unreasonable because we should all just accept whatever accusation you want to hurl without comment. That's why the Internet was made.

I was simply "asking a question." I am free to ask a question aren't I? Just as you're free to slam people with innuendo and charges of racism. All that has happened here was that I stuck up for a girl who wasn't in the room to defend herself.

You felt the need to "defend" Malkin from my "odious" opinion that she's a racist? ...As if she needs you to defend her?
You're sticking up for a girl who wasnt in the room to defend herself?

Wow. Now that's almost funny.
(Adn this is "a girl' you're apparently not that familiar with in the first place, so you have much less information to form an opinion with on this than I do!)

You "challenge" me to "substantiate" my "rather odious" accusation/opinion?
Are you kidding me?

Actually, you're probably not kidding, and that's what's so ridiculous.

I dont know who you think you are, but you really need to take a step back.

I'll say politely... back off, and get off my tail.

Furthermore, this is not a courtroom, so stop trying to play the role of prosecutor. Really, you're taking yourself much too seriously here.

Interestingly you claimed previously that I haven't "convinced" you that she's a racist. But...

1/ My intention was never to "convince you" of any such thing. Do you not get that? Somehow you seem to keep missing that simple fact.
2/ Who are you that I have to convince you of anything anyway? I'm waay more familiar with Malkin's writings and opinions than you are... going back years. But if I consider many of her writings and sentiments to be racist, then I dont have the right to express that on this forum? Or if I do, I have to convince you, or be hassled by you about my opinion? Please. get off it.


Indeed, it's a public forum, where people can state their opinions.

You asked my why I had the opinion I did, and I gave you my answer.
If that's not sufficient for you, well so be it.

If I said David Duke is a racist, would you hassle and "challenge" me about that too? Would that opinion be acceptable, or would that be an "odious accusation" also?

How about Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Could I call him a racist if I felt he is one, or is that also "odious" , and worth a "challenge" from you?

Where do you draw the line? In what cases would it be acceptable to you for someone to be described as racist, (only when you consider the person's reasons convincing enough?), ...and in what cases do you decide to get all in a lather over it?
What about Louis Farrakhan? Is that ok for someone to say they consider him racist? Or would they have to go find stuff to try to substantiate it for you?

Essentially you're giving me a hard time for my opinion because you disagree with it, or you find it "odious". Well, again, I'm entitled to my opinion. I havent slandered anyone, and if the admins feel my post was out out order, they're free to notify me. So far, I have heard nothing from them. Youre the only one trying to make a federal case out of this.

Whatever, brother.

I had a feeling this conversation would go in this direction, that's why I actually had reservations about even letting the conversation get this far with you. I haven't forgotten a previous conversation in May '07 in which you were quite insufferably rude. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt anyway, since some time had passed between then and now.

But now I see I should have just trusted my initial instincts.

With all due respect, brother, this conversation is done.
Have a good night.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

This would almost seem noble of you except that Malkin has been documented to walk like, talk like and endorse racists ducks.

She is trying to change how others view her now, but she has earned her reputation.

Bingo.
Perfectly stated.

That's the key thing. She has earned this reputation.
People didn't wake up one day and decide out of the blue that they wanted to label Michelle Malkin as racist.

And its not just a matter of "Oh, those nasty left wingers like to call people racist". Fact is, there are scores of conservative writers, talk show hosts, etc out there (who are better, and more famous/prominent, than her) who have not developed this reputation the way she has.

Her own words have earned her this reputation, and it's well deserved.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Then there is this:

A Time to Discriminate
“Profile” foreign donors? Of course!

By Michelle Malkin

[…]Both papers uncovered dishwashers, cooks and other suspect Hillary campaign contributors in New York’s Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx, and Brooklyn who were limited-income, limited-English-proficient and smellier than stinky tofu. One Asian donor admitted to the Los Angeles Times “to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.” Another, Hsiao Wen Yang, told the New York Post she was reimbursed for her $1,000 donation.[…]



And this....

Malkin is perhaps best known for her book In Defense of Internment, in which she defends modern day racial profiling and the Japanese American internment by the United States Government during World War II. This book alone is enough to condemn her.

But over the last few months, her blog has dialed up the racism even more,


http://bloggasm.com/wow-michelle-malkin-is-racist



And this link shows how she misrepresents facts to paint a picture that may not be true:

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/05/...s_mexicans.php


I don't trust this person's journalism at all.

Good post, Jermyn.

But JD, we have someone on this forum who seems to feel that if you were to assess that type of information and conclude that the woman is a racist, you need to be challenged, hassled, and given a hard time over it, for making an "odious accusation" against "the girl" Michelle Malkin.

And that's almost funny, since this stuff is coming from someone who has limited knowledge of her writings and her career. But after a few minutes of browsing some websites he wants to come here and give people a hard time.

Absolutely ridiculous.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

...
I'll say politely... back off, and get off my tail.


But now I see I should have just trusted my initial instincts.

With all due respect, brother, this conversation is done.
Have a good night.

All I can say TRF is that maybe you should think of setting up your own blog. Then disable comments and provide not contact info. Then you'd be free to say whatever you want without having to answer anyone's questions about it. And BTW - you never did answer my question. JD has come along done that for you and I'm looking at the extreme left wing HuffPo right now.

Where do you draw the line? In what cases would it be acceptable to you for someone to be described as racist, (only when you consider the person's reasons convincing enough?), ...and in what cases do you decide to get all in a lather over it?
What about Louis Farrakhan? Is that ok for someone to say they consider him racist? Or would they have to go find stuff to try to substantiate it for you?

If there was someone like Duke or Farrakhan (or others) that we agreed on then I would never have asked the question.

Nobody's impressed with your martyr's game. You made an assertion. I asked a question and you started having fits. Sleep well.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Then there is this:

A Time to Discriminate
“Profile” foreign donors? Of course!

By Michelle Malkin

[…]Both papers uncovered dishwashers, cooks and other suspect Hillary campaign contributors in New York’s Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx, and Brooklyn who were limited-income, limited-English-proficient and smellier than stinky tofu. One Asian donor admitted to the Los Angeles Times “to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.” Another, Hsiao Wen Yang, told the New York Post she was reimbursed for her $1,000 donation.[…]

Here Malkin has describe the illegal contributions Hillary had collected as being "smellier than stinky tofu..." Perhaps if you were unaware that only US citizens and legal residents are legally allowed to give to Federal campaigns you might have made an incorrect association here.

You do agree that a politician whose campaign solicits, uses and receives illegal contributions is "smelly" don't you?

Just because a far Lefty blogger said she was "racist" doesn't make it so. You have to look into these things yourself.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

And this....

Malkin is perhaps best known for her book In Defense of Internment, in which she defends modern day racial profiling and the Japanese American internment by the United States Government during World War II. This book alone is enough to condemn her.

"Best known for..."? I've heard of her and read her columns off and on over the last few years but I never heard of this book until just now.

Using Wikipedia's page about that book I have just found quotes where Michelle Malkin calls Roosevelt's WW2 policies "racist". She says it was "racist" to put the Japanese Americans into internment camps like Franklin Roosevelt (D) did. Do you disagree with Michelle Malkin about this?

So, she's calling Roosevelt's policies "racist" and you're calling her a "racist" - for what reason?

Malkin's book did have an unnecessarily provocative title (probably named by some publicity hungry editor). The book appears to be a compilation of her columns. Her syndicator probably collected several columns covering a specific theme and rushed out a bunch of galleys to take to the talk show circuit. But despite the title, Malkin doesn't appear to support Roosevelt's "racist" WW2 policies in the book or her columns.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

But over the last few months, her blog has dialed up the racism even more,


http://bloggasm.com/wow-michelle-malkin-is-racist

Funny, after an opening like that I would have expected a link to her blog. Why don't you link to her blog to give me examples of what you're trying to prove? But I follow the link, nevertheless... and here's the damning quote:

Nearly 300 illegal immigrants were convicted on driving-while-impaired charges and placed in North Carolina prisons in 2007.

Hispanics also account for 18 percent of drunken-driving arrests, while making up less than 7 percent of the state’s population, according to a study from the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center aired in WRAL’s documentary “Focal Point: Crossing the Line.”

Your friends appear to be correct in pointing out her Gerrymandering of statistics (my phrase) when she moves from the stat in the first paragraph to the next. But is it inherently racist to cite a statistic?

Let's look for context:

Oh, my bad. You didn't say that - those are the words from the blog you link. You really should use the "QUOTE" box button when you're quoting another person's work. Confusion ensues otherwise.

Anyhow, your friend is wrong. Malkin never said those words. You see, if you had followed your friend's link you would have seen that he was not being straight with you. Malkin apparently found the "QUOTE" box button that I told you about and uses it on her blog.

Those words are not Malkin's but are quoted from a WRAL television news documentary. She never said that, whether it's racist or not is irrelevant. So, your buddy lied to you and you mistakenly called Malkin a "racist" as a result.

Here's the link so you can see for yourself, she's quoting the TV news documentary: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/19/hard-numbers-illegal-alien-drunk-drivers-in-north-carolina/

You see, you have to try and build trust with your readers. You can't misrepresent the facts. And when you do (we all make mistakes) you correct yourself.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

And this link shows how she misrepresents facts to paint a picture that may not be true:

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/05/...s_mexicans.php

D'oh!

Dude! Mecha is a racist organization!!! That's what they call themselves! One arm of the org is called "THE RACE" or La Raza. Malkin did not "misrepresent Mecha." They do want to create their own state called Atzalan for only "bronze" colored people. And they support illegal immigration as a means of furthering that goal. That's what they say of themselves.

Here's their report from their conference at Cal State on Cal State's website:

http://www.calstatela.edu/orgs/mecha/planphilmecha.htm

So, no one has a quote of Michelle Malkin exhibiting racism? Nobody? What am I left to conclude?

[Praxeas]

Gotta love the liberal media and their other incarnations like blogs and various websites

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Bingo.
Perfectly stated.

That's the key thing. She has earned this reputation.
People didn't wake up one day and decide out of the blue that they wanted to label Michelle Malkin as racist.

And its not just a matter of "Oh, those nasty left wingers like to call people racist". Fact is, there are scores of conservative writers, talk show hosts, etc out there (who are better, and more famous/prominent, than her) who have not developed this reputation the way she has.

Her own words have earned her this reputation, and it's well deserved.

Good post, Jermyn.

But JD, we have someone on this forum who seems to feel that if you were to assess that type of information and conclude that the woman is a racist, you need to be challenged, hassled, and given a hard time over it, for making an "odious accusation" against "the girl" Michelle Malkin.

And that's almost funny, since this stuff is coming from someone who has limited knowledge of her writings and her career. But after a few minutes of browsing some websites he wants to come here and give people a hard time.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Don't you feel a little silly by now? C'mon! Give me a quote of Michelle Malkin herself exhibiting racism and I'll take it up with her and you can watch and gloat.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Gotta love the liberal media and their other incarnations like blogs and various websites

Sad thing is, TRF will probably never bother to click the links and follow up on this for himself. And JD appears to be so young! I hope he follows the links he gave to me and reads them.

These guys just got served. I hope they take it with the right spirit and stop the name calling. I know they're offline now, but I hope that tomorrow will come and we'll all be friends and TRF will say, "You know I was wrong..." and JD will say, "As an American soldier it is my duty to defend the United States from racist, secessionist and terrorist organizations like Mecha and it's a good thing we have people like Michelle Malkin helping to point out the dangers these groups represent."

[pelathais]

More on Mecha: Here's there agenda from that link at Cal State.

1) We are Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán reclaiming the land of our birth (Chicana/Chicano Nation);

2) Aztlán belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture;

3) We are a union of free pueblos forming a bronze (Chicana/Chicano) Nation;

4) Chicano nationalism, as the key to mobilization and organization, is the common denominator to bring consensus to the Chicana/Chicano Movement;

5) Cultural values strengthen our identity as La Familia de La Raza; and

6) EPA, as a basic plan of Chicana/Chicano liberation, sought the formation of an independent national political party that would represent the sentiments of the Chicana/Chicano community.

The land in question consists of the Southwest United States of America and the northern tier of states of the United States of Mexico.

Essentially, they want to set up a nation where only "bronze" colored people are welcome; i.e. a racist nation. To accomplish this they are trying to set up a racist political party within the USA.

They call themselves "Family of the Race." To be part of the family (and the nation they propose) you have to be a member of the race.

Was Michelle Malkin incorrect to identify this organization as racist?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Sad thing is, TRF will probably never bother to click the links and follow up on this for himself. And JD appears to be so young! I hope he follows the links he gave to me and reads them.

These guys just got served. I hope they take it with the right spirit and stop the name calling. I know they're offline now, but I hope that tomorrow will come and we'll all be friends and TRF will say, "You know I was wrong..." and JD will say, "As an American soldier it is my duty to defend the United States from racist, secessionist and terrorist organizations like Mecha and it's a good thing we have people like Michelle Malkin helping to point out the dangers these groups represent."

It is good for Michelle Malkin to have the freedom to express her opinions, even though her opinions I believe are tainted with racial prejudice.

I do not trust her writings.

BTW, Malkin is NOT my friend.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Articles written by Malkin for VDARE.com:


http://www.vdare.com/malkin/index.htm


VDARE is a hate organization.

Pat Buchanan's articles are published here, time to time. However, he does not have the "racist" label attached to him. Why, because he isn't.

However, Malkin can not lose that label because of the tone of her writings.


It is unwise to defend her.