*
Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills

A few question for artists who protest Trump

Posted Thursday, December 22, 2016, at 6:33 PM
Comments
View 95 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • This is legit in the respect that they took the time to create a website, http://haltactiongroup.com/ and that they have an agenda that looks like a group of spoiled children that were NEVER told "NO!" wrote it, http://haltactiongroup.com/?page_id=21.

    All I can say is WOW!

    ...and they want to condemn Trump for hate and fear mongering! SMH!

    -- Posted by Ghost_Rider on Thu, Dec 22, 2016, at 8:07 PM
  • And is this much different from the almost endless list of popular musicians that told Trump to not play any of their music at his rallies or campaign events.

    The Rolling Stones, Steven Tyler (Aerosmith), George Harrison, Neil Young, Adele, Elton John, Bruce Springsteen, R.E.M., Queen, Paul Rodgers(Bad Company)...well, just about every time Trump used any song at his events, the artist would ask his campaign to stop. Some threatened to sue.

    Evidently many, or most artists just don't want their work professionally associated with Trump.

    Trump made many offensive remarks during his campaign.

    Towards women, minorities, disabled people, etc.

    These have consequences.

    And the childish whining now seems to be coming from the Trumpsters. Boo-hoo....nobody likes us. Why won't anybody play at my party?

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Thu, Dec 22, 2016, at 9:56 PM
  • So far the only person to perform is some 16 year old non professional singer.Trump will be the most hated president ever.Professionals value their reputation more than being associated with him.His offensive remarks did not go unheard by the majority of Americans.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Thu, Dec 22, 2016, at 10:14 PM
  • I heard they also got a Elvis impersonator and William Hung from season 3 of American Idol.

    So things are looking up.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Thu, Dec 22, 2016, at 10:26 PM
  • I don't know, Steve. This really just seems like political SOP of the 21st century. Or have you missed the last 8 years? New administrations don't get a honeymoon period any more. We just go straight into the bitter divorce.

    What really brings a smile to my face. After the endless "Repukes" and "Libtards", "Shrillarys" and "Dumps", and "Odumbers" and the endless nonsense... Now these same people are trying to call each other "childish." The truth is, every time someone uses one of those terms, or others of the sort, the only person they reveal anything about is themselves.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 12:13 AM
  • I guess I should have used the quotation marks around the words "childish whining", since I was using that phrase as a shudder quote sarcastically repeating Steve's original use of it in his opening statement.

    Sorry for any confusion.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 1:00 AM
  • Odd how libs think florists, photographers, and bakers should be sued for being selective of their customers, but performers who are selective in their customers are perfectly fine.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 3:10 AM
  • Great point quietmike.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 6:54 AM
  • Very true ghost rider WOW!

    And Hillary'side did not make offensive remarks?

    That is what made someone like Trump necessary in our political process. He is not influenced by people who call names. He is even bringing some of those same people into his administration and THEY ARE ACCEPTING.

    As you said Lazarus, this mud slinging, name calling, etc., must be standard SOP. The only ones taking it seriously is the public.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 7:06 AM
  • "Being selective of their customers", as Mike so innocently put it, can also be known as discrimination.

    And we have laws to protect groups of people from that.

    The "florists, photographers, and bakers" that Mike and Steve refer to are no doubt the ones that have been in the news for refusing service to Gay people.

    Our laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, and disability.

    In Trump's case, he is being refused service because those people think he's an @sshole.

    Unfortunately for Trump, and many like him, there just aren't any laws to protect him from that.

    I saw a guy get thrown out of a bar the other day for that reason alone.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 7:54 AM
  • But they are discriminating against Trump's daughter? Her ancestry.

    And could they be discriminating because her father was NOT a veteran? And that he seems to be a heterosexual, so....

    And Liberals are great for telling us what we are and judging us so how do we know they are not doing it because he is white, or Christian or.....

    Hate and childish behavior often go hand in hand.

    I've sung, played several instruments in the past. Do I need to announce I am not playing at Trump's inauguration?

    Should I ask people I've sold things to stop using them if they disagree with me? No refunds, or exchanges though.

    By the way, isn't George Harrison dead by about 15 years? Thank goodness he's not performing.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 8:59 AM
  • I know, I know,I should not get into the fray, but sometimes I just can't hold back.

    Notice I have not attacked anyone personally? Certainly not George since he can't defend himself but liberals are judging his actions too, from the grave!

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 9:02 AM
  • Please tell me how Trump's daughter was discriminated against.

    Nobody refused her service of any kind.

    An open letter was written to her by some artists asking her to denounce her father's actions, and implore him to put a stop to racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, and homophobia.

    One artist asked her, ASKED her, to "please take my work off your wall, I'm embarrassed to be seen with you."

    So Trump's daughter isn't being forced to do anything, nor has she been refused service, or discriminated.

    Now Donald, on the other hand, was formally banned from using some artists music.

    But not because Christian or white. (He's actually orange, like a Cheeto)

    And Steve, if you have any singing experience or the least bit of talent whatsoever playing a musical instrument, you definitely need to contact the Trump campaign.

    As hard up as they are finding performers, you could have a very good shot at getting that gig. Good luck.

    And it's true, they can't even get a dead guy (George Harrison) to play.

    But he's not the only one.

    The widow of legendary Italian opera singer Luciano Pavarotti wrote a letter asking the Trump campaign to stop playing, "Nessun Dorma," one of her late husband's most famous songs, at its events.

    When it rains, it pours.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 10:00 AM
  • *

    Well RV, next time you're in a bar, don't act like an @sshole and maybe they'll let you stay. You would be right about the florist and baker, except the PC laws are discriminating against them for their religion. The hags may not be discriminating against Ivanka but they sure are trying to harass her, wanting everyone to fill out their postcard. All in all, this is pretty funny. I predict those people are going to try to hold their breath and have an eight year long hissy fit..

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 10:49 AM
  • share fairy, It wasn't me that got tossed out of the bar. It was a guy wearing a wife-beater and goofy red trucker ball cap that had "make America great again" printed on it. Possibly a friend of yours?

    And if your religion requires you to discriminate against others, you need to find a new religion.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 11:13 AM
  • *

    Steve, everything people on that end of the spectrum rail about being for (tolerance, inclusion, acceptance) and everything they are rabidly against (discrimination, violence) goes out the window for any and all that don't tow their line. And even if someone they don't like isn't a racist, call him one long enough and maybe it will stick. Two of Trump's three wives are immigrants, but somehow he is anti-immigrant and racist? At least when Trump went into the black communities, he had a message of hope and didn't pull a bottle of hot sauce out of his pocket. But despite how much better things will be over the next 8 years, a significant portion of the population will be whining and crying about various make believe butthurts.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 11:16 AM
  • *

    RV, my religion doesn't require me to discriminate against others. It also does not require me to participate in others' perversions (whether legal or illegal). I do know some people with Trump hats. Don't really know that many that hang out at bars.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 11:23 AM
  • Considering what some say about Trump people, the one place one would expect them to be found would be in bars.

    -- Posted by Tyger on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 11:48 AM
  • What is a "wife beater" hat?

    "What some say" is often what starts the problem.

    He has not taken office but those "some" have already criticized as if he did it.

    I will not be surprised if Trump is more a Democrat than people think, but doing what they do to win a election.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 12:06 PM
  • share fairy, If you refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation, that is discrimination.

    And using your religion as an excuse to discriminate doesn't make that act of discrimination any more appropriate.

    And how does treating a gay person the same as you would a heterosexual somehow make you "participating in a perversion"?

    I don't understand.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 12:40 PM
  • *

    Arvy, not surprised you don't understand. But in the spirit of cooperation and learning about others, I am wondering what religion you would suggest the muslims switch to? Since they discriminate against gays, women, Jews, Christians up to and including killing them because their religion tells them to, it sounds like you think they need to get a different one. So which one would you suggest the switch too?

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 12:54 PM
  • I don't agree with anyone using their misinterpretation of a religion to discriminate. Whether it's you, or someone that uses any other religion with the same ignorance.

    Now answer my question.

    How does treating a gay person the same as you would a heterosexual somehow make you "participating in a perversion"?

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 1:13 PM
  • Steve, you may be right. I think I mentioned in an old post that Trump, at one time, was a Democrat.

    -- Posted by Tyger on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 1:38 PM
  • *

    Arvy, first you imply I am ignorant. Then you demand I answer a question? Tell you what. I'm going to be offended by your attitude. Now, while I enjoy a nice cup of hot chocolate, maybe you could rephrase your demand in the form of a polite question. Then maybe I'll answer it.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 6:42 PM
  • Fare; I think your pal Arvy just had a misspelling issue. You purport to speak for nearly 2 billion people's religious beliefs, when you do not even belong to that religion. I think he was trying to say arrogant, not ignorant.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 8:38 PM
  • As much as I hate to break from this scintillating conversation and return to Steve's original question... I don't know for certain what wall you are talking about, but someone referenced a facebook wall. I am not that conversant in facebook, but I do know that the "wall" is not a physical structure, and people do not buy things to put on it. They just copy files. So, it would not surprise me for someone who does not like Ivanka Trump to object to having their work displayed by her.

    As far as Trump and his pirated music goes, I am not an artist or a musician, but I have a lot of copyrighted material out there. And a lot more that is not copyrighted. There must be people who like it (because it sells) and frequently I get requests from people wanting to reprint something. If it is for a commercial purpose, they typically offer some remuneration. If not, they just ask out of courtesy. I almost always say yes... I would assume that the same courtesy would be extended to musicians before using their work as a theme song for a campaign. Apparently the Trump campaign dispensed with this courtesy, and simply stole people's work for their own purposes. Why shouldn't the musicians ask him to stop and desist?

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 9:08 PM
  • That's OK fair share. I figured you'd back away from your own comment and refuse to answer my question.

    We used call that...letting your mouth overload your @ss.

    Next time think before you type.

    And that was no typo, laz. "Ignorance" was the word I was meaning to use.

    But I can see how your use of "arrogant" would be fitting also.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 9:42 PM
  • 1 Corinthians 5:11

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 23, 2016, at 11:14 PM
  • *

    Well RV, that hot chocolate didn't quite hithe the spot but I'm tired of being offended so here is your answer. Treating gays and straits the same is fine. Until you try to force someone into participating in a gay wedding. If you don't want to make a cake with 2 guys on top, you shouldn't have to.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Dec 24, 2016, at 1:14 AM
  • I think the reason that artist would want to protest against Trump has more to do with money than conviction.

    Trump is too much of a wild card at this point. A performing artist, in particular, cannot afford to have negative publicity as this will affect their career. They must cater to the media, on whom they depend, which at this point is adamantly opposed to Trump and his administration.

    Much like those who opposed him during his campaign are now willing to be part of his administration, artist will change their minds if the political/media winds change favorably.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sat, Dec 24, 2016, at 9:02 AM
  • fair share, you contradict yourself. If you are going to treat gays and straights the same, then a gay wedding should be no different than a straight wedding. And if it's your job to bake wedding cakes, your "participation" should be the same for everyone.

    I was really more interested in hearing your explanation of what "perversion" you were being forced into.

    I noticed you shied away from that one.

    As you said, "In the spirit of cooperation and learning about others", can you explain the "perversion" you are talking about?

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Sat, Dec 24, 2016, at 11:21 AM
  • Artist must cater to the people for their career since the majority of the people voted against Trump.The media is against Trump only when his lies are pointed out.When he used the media for coverage during the campaign it was fine.

    Now he is telling the American people that the children of St Jude will suffer because Eric can't use the influence of the presidency to raise money.The children don't have to suffer Eric can just write them a check of his own money not OPM (other peoples money).That's what they normally do after they take a cut for themselves.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Sat, Dec 24, 2016, at 11:24 AM
  • *

    RV, I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. I doubt you really care or are interested in understanding what I think about anything. I rather suspect you are just interested in getting me to say something that you will then respond to with the same tired old rhetoric you people have been using for years. But I never claimed to know everything and it is possible I could be wrong. After all, it is bound to happen sooner or later. So Merry Christmas RV, this Bud, I mean post, is for you. SCOTUS can (shouldn't, but can) legislate laws from the bench. They can even try to legislate the dictionary. But they can't legislate morality or common sense. If they want to rule 2+2=5, they can. I still would not believe it was true. But you and others like you can knock yourselves out believing it. I don't care. When you try to make me say you are right about that and try to make me play along with your stupidity, then I care. Now, most little kids start off trying to stick their fingers into anything they run across. Part of growing up involves learning that there are some holes you shouldn't be sticking fingers or whatever into. Most kids learn that early on but not everyone is blessed with parents that raise their kids properly. So if someone wants to pretend they are "marrying" someone of the same sex, then I may feel sorry for them, but go for it. That is their right. It is also my right not to have them stick it in my face or shove it down my throat. So, RV, I have explained it to you. I suspect you already understood it, but if not, you are on your own. I can't understand it for you. I have never claimed to be the dumb@ss whisperer. Merry Christmas. Have fun with it.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Dec 24, 2016, at 6:34 PM
  • After 8 years of complete disrespect, division, and hate mongering, of contracts that required obstruction, of racist jokes and manikins of likenesses hanging from trees. After * years of complete disrespect and refusal to put America before it's hate, we now have the same folks calling the left intolerant, and calling for unity...You guys are a hoot.

    Steve I have always looked up to your stance even when you disagreed you stayed above the ugliness. You were one of very few sane voices of the right wing party who spoke their views in a manner that made people listen. Sadly the trump curse has caused you to lose that,The picture you posted in this blog is so beneath who I believed you to be. I knew you were a republican, but you always projected your beliefs in a respectable manner that I found worth considering since they were not presented with the usual hate or prejudiced manner the others here dote on. While the rest of us would loose our cool at times, you did not. You've lost that edge. Instead of monitor you've become one of the pack.

    -- Posted by wonderwhy on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 12:15 AM
  • Wonderwhy, like most libs, is completely full of it.

    The meme in the OP perfectly describes 90% of the democrat modus operandi.

    Before Obama waw elected, dems claimed the only reason not to support him was racism. It couldn't be that people legitimately opposed subsidizing deadbeat breeders and have for decades, it had to be racism.

    Anyone who thinks long standing immigration laws should be enforced is xenophobic according to dems.

    Then, of course, anyone who didn't blindly support the most corrupt, dishonest, inept candidate to ever run, the one who even lied about the source of her first name, then you were misogynistic.

    Sorry libs, there's too many years of written evidence on these blogs for any of you not to own that meme.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 5:05 AM
  • *

    Wanderhigh, I fully understand you being offended by the meme. But don't you understand the reason? You are offended because sometimes the truth really does hurt. 8 years of complete disrespect, division, and hate mongering? Refusal to put America before hate? Sure sounds like you have nailed obumma and the left perfectly. If you think we people just now started calling the left intolerant, you just haven't been paying attention the past few decades. Might be time to cut back on the brownies.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 6:52 AM
  • *

    Wanderinghi, after looking at the meme a little more, it is actually kinda flattering for you guys. That woman sure does have better teeth than most of the libs I have to deal with in real life.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 7:01 AM
  • *

    Wanderhigh, I fully understand you being offended by the meme. But don't you understand the reason? You are offended because sometimes the truth really does hurt. 8 years of complete disrespect, division, and hate mongering? Refusal to put America before hate? Sure sounds like you have nailed obumma and the left perfectly. If you think we people just now started calling the left intolerant, you just haven't been paying attention the past few decades. Might be time to cut back on the brownies.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 7:03 AM
  • Wonderwhy you are correct about me. I try to stay more as a moderator but this is not the first I've failed that goal.

    I'm usually able to do that because I stay away from most mainstream news and social media garbage. I've disconnected several friends who persistently spread this stuff around.

    But this last tantrum got through and caught my attention because of the art angle. The absurdity of publicly writing a letter to someone asking them to stop using something they had bought just kicked me over the edge.

    Yes, I also lean to the Reoublican side but I don't drink their koolaide. I was really conflicted about the Trump candidacy but not the Clinton.

    Now that the election is over (it is isn't it?) I am going to be supportive of our new president and the continued mudslinging, name calling and foolish acts are pushing my limits, so you might see occasional "cracks" in my blog personality.

    If they had approached it in a more professional way such as a private letter asking her to not use their work in advertising or social networking, I could accept that. But to publicly use it to throw a tantrum?

    Were the pictures they used in their website theirs? Do they have the legal use of those for their protest or are they a classic example of the "pot calling the kettle black"? (No racial connotation here, but some may try to twist it)

    I do appreciate your comment wonderwhy and will hopefully maintain my cool in the future but....

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 7:44 AM
  • *

    Steve, off topic for a second, I'm sorry about the double post above. I blame it on posting from my phone.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 8:01 AM
  • https://lh4.ggpht.com/-ll98N6LkwoA/WAKtv_fJZEI/AAAAAAEbXtU/9e5uWGg1CIo/w1000-h80...

    Since I consider myself a liberal. I think it's only fair that I post a meme that I believe better describes liberals than the one that Steve posted.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 8:14 AM
  • Wonderwhy reminded me of something I was doing to keep my peace of mind, especially after an clash I had months ago. I start these discussions and stand back.

    I will try again, and in my effort I may not post a controversial subject at all unless I am asked to by some reader.

    I have much more to attend to in the months ahead like finding income after retirement. Especially when retirement just means not working for a particular company. I do not envision my retiring until I am physically incapacitated.

    Then there is the gardening season to get ready for, although mine TRULY will be reduced back this year. BUT, I will discuss that in a different post.

    From now, this post is for you. I am now a part of its' history.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 10:38 AM
  • RV

    Unfortunately your meme refers to the accomplishments of classical liberals, which are now libertarians, and bear no resemblance to modern liberals.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 11:51 AM
  • Fair share I forgot to acknowledge your blooper. I TOTALLY understand. That "smart" device has made me look pretty bad at times.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 1:19 PM
  • Actually Mike, the meme I posted makes reference more to the Democratic Party in general.

    Liberal Democrats are the ones that made all those things possible.

    The Libertarian party leans more to the right when it comes to social programs. Their platform would abolish food stamps, subsidized housing, minimum wage laws, even gut Social Security.

    So that meme in no way could describe Libertarians.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 1:58 PM
  • *

    The dems may have gotten voting rights for African Americans, after the Republicans freed them. But even with the mighty johnson massaging them, the dems were against civil rights, which only passed because of Republican support.

    Steve, that was very kind of you to change the meme. Hopefully wonderwhy can now get over that massive hurt to her little feelings.

    -- Posted by fair share on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 5:47 PM
  • Rv,

    If you think it refers to democrats, you need to put down the crack pipe.

    No democrats supported the 15th amendment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constit...

    Democrats stymied efforts for women's suffrage for 40 years, and it was only passed after republicans won landslide victories in congress and were able to force it over the objections of remaining democrats.

    https://spectator.org/35608_republicans-and-womens-rights-brief-reality-check/

    Classical liberals split from the democrat party in the late 60s when democrats embraced the hippie movement and its attendant socialism.

    A short time later the libertarian party was formed.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 7:05 PM
  • Always trying to rewrite history, aren't you.

    And if you're trying to compare the Republicans of 1870 when the 15th amendment was passed, to the Republicans of today, you're the one that needs to put down the crack pipe and pick up a history.

    Blacks didn't really get the chance to vote until Lyndon Johnson passed The Voting Rights Act in 1965.

    And the Libertarian Party didn't form until the early 1970's.

    Nice try.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 7:53 PM
  • I guess I have to break out the crayons for you again.

    You are the one who said dems gave blacks the right to vote via your silly meme. Even a cursory look at history shows that to be false. Blacks had the right to vote via the 15th. That southern democrats tried opressing that right is another discussion.

    I guess calendars, or even simple counting is over your head as well.

    Look back at my previous post. I said classical liberals left the democrat party in the late 60s,and the libertarian party was formed shortly after.

    I'll give you a little hint. The early 70s came shortly after the late 60s.

    Of course most liberals are ignorant of history as trust in government is inversely proprtional to knowledge of history,and we know how liberals feel about government nom nom nom.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 26, 2016, at 9:06 PM
  • I'm sorry, I didn't realize that almost a decade was considered "a short time".

    And if you know anything at all about the Libertarian Party, you'd know they have about as much in common with Republicans as Democrats.

    Since you have your crayons out, you might want to study up on the southern Dixiecrats who kept blacks from voting, who are now Republicans.

    And Lyndon Johnson passing The Voting Rights Act, to finally get blacks the right to vote.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 5:11 AM
  • I've noticed that you keep focusing on the 1870 passing of the 15th amendment and not any of the other things on that meme that Democrats got done. Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Medicare, Social Security, Clean Air and Water.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 5:28 AM
  • *

    Johnson had to have the help of the Republicans to pass civil rights since his fellow dems didn't want to help him. But they did help him get some of the blacks and a lot of the whites on the new plantation what with the free money from the guvment.

    BTW RV, I guess I was wrong about you. Looks like maybe you weren't trying to get me to say something so you could jump all over it. It's nice to learn something new, even if only every once in a while!

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 5:51 AM
  • RV,

    Santa must have given you stupid for Christmas.

    Being that I am a Libertarian I know all about them. They're socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That means you should be free to do what you want, as long as you don't injure or defraud another, but shouldn't be able to use government force to make others support you if you make bad choices. This was the belief of classical liberals as well.

    https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/t...

    As for your other nonsense (you are on a roll) of southern dixiecrats switching to republican, you just again demonstrated your propensity to swallow whatever you've heard (from liberal sources, of course)without doing any research on your own.

    Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills Godwin were the only three dixiecrats to switch to the republican party.

    The rest, including, Orval Fabus.Benjamin Travis Laney,John Stennis,James Eastland,Allen Ellender,Russell Long,John Sparkman,John McClellan,Richard Russell,Herman Talmadge,George Wallace,Lester Maddox,John Rarick,Robert Byrd,Al Gore Sr., and Bull Connor remained democrats until their death. In fact, Robert Byrd led the 12 hour long democrat filibuster of the civil rights act of 1964.

    As to civil rights and the voting rights, once again, if you'd bother to do even the tiniest bit of research, you'd see republicans supported them at a higher percentage than democrats. (Remember the 12 hour democrat filibuster and democrat George Wallace saying "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever"?)

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/25/michael-steele/st...

    Social security and Medicare are just government redistribution programs, so yes, I give full credit to democrats for those.

    As for the clean air and water act, you'll need to be a bit more specific as to which one, as they were bipartisan efforts in most cases, but Nixon created the EPA.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/06/02/support-for-the-clean-...

    I did notice you haven't touched the issue of women's right to vote. I guess that is as close to a concession as we can expect from you.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 7:40 AM
  • I guess you can explain then, why after the Civil Rights Act passed that Democrats have been getting about 90% of the black vote.

    Do you know something they don't?

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 8:16 AM
  • Moving the goalposts again?

    What happened to you over the last couple of weeks?

    You used to be a rather good debater.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM
  • Anytime you don't have an answer for something, somebody "moved the goalposts". That excuse is getting old brother

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 8:33 AM
  • I can't help it that you're failing miserably at backing up your assertions.

    Your original questions were which party passed various laws and regulations.

    Now that it's been shown, with multiple sources, that your position is untenable, you change the question as to why blacks vote for democrats.

    If hearing about moving the goalposts is getting old, my suggestion is you stop doing it.

    Either concede your position on the original argument, or offer counter evidence to support it, then we can move on to the next question.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 8:47 AM
  • Mikey, there is a very good reason I asked you the simple and pertinent question, "Why, since 1964, have Democrats received around 90% of the black vote?"

    And there's a very good reason that you refuse to answer it by using your old cry-baby excuse of "somebody moved the goalposts".

    The reasons are, to acknowledge that fact would mean that you would also have to acknowledge that there was an ideological shift in the two political parties.

    The racist, southern, conservative democrats eventually fled the party to align with the segregationist Republicans.

    It was Kennedy that sent the National Guard into Alabama with an executive order and ran George Wallace off that college campus.

    And Republicans to this day have talked about repealing The Voting Rights Act.

    The very thing you're trying to give them credit for.

    That Republican votes were necessary for the passage of President Johnson's Civil Rights Act, doesn't change the fact that the conservative movement was wholeheartedly opposed to it.

    Now we can argue all day about when exactly the liberal republican party of Lincoln, and the racist conservative southern democrats switched parties.

    But there is one glaring fact that shows that yes...it did happen.

    And that is this fact that you will continue to avoid and never explain.

    Since 1964 Democrats have received 90% of the black vote.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 4:14 PM
  • RV,

    The votes are a matter of public record, nevermind I've already posted links to them.

    That you're too lazy to look them up, or even click on a link is a personal issue.

    Everytime you've gotten cornered on your assertions of late, instead of admitting you haven't done your homework, you try an oblique attack to try and disguise your failure.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 5:17 PM
  • And again, you dodge the most simple question.

    Your assertion is that the Republican Party is actually the party of civil rights. The Party of Lincoln never changed.

    Republicans are to be credited for President Johnson's Civil Rights and Voting Acts.

    But if that's the case, then why have 90% of blacks voted Democratic ever since then.

    It's because it just isn't true.

    And the voters prove it.

    Give up Man.

    You're starting to embarrass yourself

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 5:58 PM
  • I can't help that you're too stupid and lazy to look up the voting records that are freely available.

    Dems filibustered the civil rights act for 12 hours. Most dixiecrats did not switch parties.

    Repubs supported the civil rights act at a higher percentage than dems.

    The very telling fact of this debate is that one of us has posted souces to back their claims, while the other just gives their opinion.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 6:40 PM
  • And when all else fails, you resort to name calling.

    So predictable.

    The "freely available" voting record for The Civil Rights Act actually shows that more Democrats voted for it than Republicans.

    It passed in the House with 153 Democrats Voting yes, along with 136 Republicans.

    In the Senate, 46 Democrats voted to pass it, along with the 27 Republicans.

    And I'll give you one more chance to explain this to everyone.

    If it's like you say, and Republicans are to be credited for pushing thru the Civil Rights and Voting Acts.

    Why have Democrats received 90% of the black vote since the passage of those laws?

    Please explain.

    I'll be waiting, but I certainly won't hold my breath.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 8:07 PM
  • I can answer that RV.

    Blacks vote Democrat because of incentives for being black through LBJs "War on Poverty".

    How is that working out after 52yrs.?

    http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2012/11/14/lbj-curse-black-vote

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 9:38 PM
  • Steve....I see the anonymous commenters have once again disrespected your theme by high jacking your blog to advance their own agenda. Most comments never remotely address your theme.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Tue, Dec 27, 2016, at 9:51 PM
  • *

    Thanks for pointing that out to all of us Carl. I didn't realize that until you pointed it out.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 2:31 AM
  • RV,

    Once again you put your ignorance on display.

    My statement was that repubs voted for the civil rights act at a higher percentage than dems.

    You do understand the concept of percentages, don't you?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 3:00 AM
  • Carl

    How does your comment align with the original topic of the thread?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 3:01 AM
  • *

    The rules don't apply to Carl. He is special.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 3:19 AM
  • Yeah mikey. I understand that 99% of your responses are B.S.

    And you still dodged my question.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 5:36 AM
  • Rv,

    I'll repeat myself.

    First either concede or bolster your original argument, then I'll glady answer your questions about black voters.

    If it's this hard for you to keep up, the phone number for a cab is 684-7712.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 7:21 AM
  • "Either concede your position on the original argument, or offer counter evidence to support it, then we can move on to the next question."

    No you can't. Or at least you won't. You never move on. Nor do you either one come up with anything new or original on these worn out arguments.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 9:26 AM
  • *

    Anything new or original from you, Laz?

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 10:06 AM
  • Quitemike....my comment was 2 sentences long. I mentioned Steve's theme twice in my brief comment. How is this not about the theme of this blog?

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 10:58 AM
  • Laz,

    So now your superpowers inculde omniscience?

    Wow, i thought being a big government socialist libertarian was impressive enough.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 11:50 AM
  • Laz,

    Also easily researched truth does not need anything new or original, it just is.

    Gee science teacher, everytime i ask you why fire is hot, you give me the same answer, why not come up with something new?

    You liberals are entertaining thats for sure.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 11:54 AM
  • "Anything new or original from you, Laz?"

    Nope. We already had this "discussion" before. I will leave the insults and repetition to those who do it best.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 1:32 PM
  • *

    Come on, Laz, don't sell yourself short. You are just as good at this as anyone.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 2:05 PM
  • *

    Oh My!

    If I went to all the trouble to buy a record, cd, dvd, song sheet or a painting, picture or print, I am afraid the owner would have no legal right to prevent me from enjoying it, playing it anywhere I like or displaying it anywhere I like as long as I don't change the words, music or authorship.

    Therefore any owner who infringes on my right to use something I paid for would be committing FRAUD and injuring my unalienable right to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus federal prosecution.

    I had to laugh to myself as I read most of these posts. You are all consumed with Civil Rights and not Unalienable Rights.

    Civil Rights were created for the black race to give them some kind of benefits and privileges for becoming a U.S. citizen. A U.S citizen is under federal law.

    The United States Federal Government and even the State Governments can treat you as black Lives Matter immigrants with only civil privileges if you don't know your Unalienable Rights and the Supreme Law of the Land.

    Under the equal protection of the law in the 14th amendment - Whites are recognized as having the same benefits and privileges as the blacks (if they don't know their Unalienable Rights), yet everyone complains about how they are treated and don't have any rights! Go FIGURE!

    All of you cling to the Government issued Civil privileges rather than learning your Unalienable rights given to you by God and protected by the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions.

    Women were born with Unalienable rights, but it took them years before they fought for them. They hired lawyers to claim their rights (civil rights). They still haven't learned that they have equal Unalienable Rights that God gave them. Until Women learn them, they will have to settle for the same Civil Rights that the majority of the men claim.

    The 19th amendment recognizes women's right's to Vote, but no where in the U.S. Constitution does it say women have been given any other rights like equal pay, the right to shut down men only clubs. These benefits and privileges are in the Civil Rights Act which are for immigrants and blacks. The Civil Rights Act was just another enactment to rule over the blacks and any white person who didn't object.

    Blacks are under government control (Civil Rights) per the 14th amendment. Democrats are Racist and use it against the Republicans every chance they get, so the blacks will vote democrat.

    Funny how everyone can find answers to questions about anything on these blogs, but they can't find anything that would help them learn their Unalienable Rights!

    That is why there is White Privilege! Some people take the time to investigate and find out the truth.

    For example, give me one law that says an average American has to pay federal income tax or even file a return. If there is no law, why would you do it? Oh yeah, that's right, you have all been brain washed to believe LIES!

    Did you know that the 5th amendment protects your right NOT to testify against yourself? You do not have to give any information that might incriminate you or be used against you in a court of law. Do you not know what the 1040 form is? A voluntary testimony against yourself and your earnings in violation of your 5th Amendment right.

    Oh yeah, that's right, most of you only want civil rights because you can get a lawyer to represent you. The 5th amendment is not a right for persons claiming they have civil rights.

    To further show the stupidity of people, the owners of said products would be rewarded highly after Trump becomes the best President every. Their product would have sold thousands or millions had they just kept their mouths shut.

    Happy New Year!

    -- Posted by sui on Wed, Dec 28, 2016, at 4:04 PM
  • *

    Carl, I've thought about your posts a little bit and it seems to me your posts made reference to Steve's original post, but in no way were pertinent to the stated topic. I have noticed that you seem to be most happy (or at least least unhappy) when ******** and moaning about we peon posters that, for whatever reason, don't have a blog of our own. Since you have your own blog it would be common courtesy to Steve and the rest of us if you put your irrelevant clutter posts there. But I know you want people to see them, so I guess you do have to post them here.

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Dec 29, 2016, at 2:33 PM
  • Carl,

    I missed your reply earlier.

    Your statement mentioned theme twice.

    Steve's original post is about artists protesting who displays their art.

    Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. It's just yet another rant about you feeling superior because you went to the trouble to tell the T-G your name.

    I'll let you in on a secret.

    Someone's argument stands or falls on its own, regardless of what name is attached to it.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 30, 2016, at 11:07 AM
  • *

    Great! Now this post has become all about Carl! Reminds me of the middle girl on the Brady Bunch. Carl, Carl, Carl. I wouldn't blame Steve one bit if he pulled it.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Dec 30, 2016, at 3:27 PM
  • Trump and his ship of fools are sinking one tweet at a time.No celebrity wants to be associated with him,it would be suicide for their career.

    There is no way to spin his tweets concerning Russia but one way,treason.How can any american think it is okay for him to praise a murderous dictator over american intelligence.He does not have time for briefings on this till next week but he has time for visits with Don King(another murderer).Trump tweets Putin is smart,all Putin sees is an idiot. If Trump tries to remove sanctions against Russia,he should be impeached.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Sat, Dec 31, 2016, at 12:02 AM
  • No celebrities?

    You might want to peek out if that safe space.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endor...

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Dec 31, 2016, at 6:22 AM
  • As for the treason bit, it's totally unsurprising that a liberal is misinformed about treason, since its definition can be found in the constitution.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    Since we aren't at war with Russia, they aren't our enemies, so treason wouldn't apply.

    It is laughable that obama derided claims of Russia being a foreign policy issue just 4 years ago saying the 1980s want their foreign policy back. Now his sycophants are all aflutter over Russia.

    Any port in a storm, I guess.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Dec 31, 2016, at 6:42 AM
  • *

    We need to give some credit where credit is due. Looks like b o finally found a red line in the sand whose crossing he won't let go unpunished. How dare those pesky Russians (or whoever it was) try to interfere in our election by letting the voters know the truth!! Way to finally grow a pair b o. Or did you just borrow Michelle's for your last few weeks in office? Either way, sure looks like you put Putin in his place. He is so ashamed and embarrassed by what you did to him that he can't even come up with a response. (Except I'm sure he got a good chuckle out of it.)

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Dec 31, 2016, at 12:05 PM
  • You Republicans sure love your commies these days.

    Seems to be a marriage made in heaven.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Sat, Dec 31, 2016, at 7:46 PM
  • Cuba

    Iran

    Nuff said.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Jan 1, 2017, at 12:06 AM
  • Iran is not communist. But then, neither is Russia. Iran is a theocracy, and Russia is effectively a dictatorship, with imperial ambitions. The future of Cuba is open to debate, as they are quasi-communist, with an aging dictator (and no apparent heir).

    Putin has to feel good about his future. Having sown discord among the easily swayed in the West, his greatest roadblock to territorial expansion is about to be led by a reality TV show host, who has a 140 character focus, and can be manipulated with praise, like a 6 year old child.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Jan 1, 2017, at 7:56 AM
  • Republicans are watching the Trump/Putin bromance likes it's Lady Diana and Prince Charles's royal wedding.

    Quietly cooing and celebrating as Putin makes Trump his political *****.

    The definition of treason doesn't say that a country has to be "at war" with the U.S. to be considered an enemy.

    Russia is a repressive and murderous regime.

    They conducted cyber attacks against the United States to influence our elections for their own political interests.

    Even the top Republicans have agreed. After the hacking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "The Russians are not our friends" and, "they do not wish us well."

    House Speaker Paul Ryan said, "Under President Putin, Russia has been an aggressor that consistently undermines American interests."

    Republican senator Lindsey Graham said his email account was also hacked by the Russians. He stated that Russia was "trying to destabilize democracy all over the world."

    It's pretty safe to say that someone "adhering" or "giving aid and comfort" to Russia could be considered treasonous.

    And then we have Trump on video tape inviting Russia to engage in cyber warfare against American interests.

    Mikey mentioned Iran and Cuba. Let's say that Iran had conducted cyberattacks to influence the election for Hillary Clinton. Maybe they leaked Trump's tax returns.

    Trumpsters would have their pitchforks and torches waving, demanding investigations and delegitimizing the election.

    But in this case since their guy won....hey, it's all cool.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Sun, Jan 1, 2017, at 10:20 AM
  • Trump states he has information on the hacking even the CIA does not know.His information must have come straight from his pal Putty or it is just another big lie.He wont tell till next week and by then his ship of fools will tell us that is not what he said and he will not remember he said it.Americans need to ask themselves 2 questions,Why does Trump refuse to believe Russia did the hacking and why is he so loyal to a dictator?What does Putty have on him?

    -- Posted by lets be real on Sun, Jan 1, 2017, at 1:44 PM
  • RV,

    As usual you speak without doing your homework.

    Treason cases are extremely rare because the law is narrowly defined.

    There's been less than 50 cases in the nation's history with less than 10 convictions.

    There have been no convictions of treason for giving aid and comfort to anyone where an act of war was not declared.

    Even the Rosenbergs, who gave nuclear secrets to Russia were not charged with treason.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Jan 1, 2017, at 5:22 PM
  • Former Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, recently called Russia's cyber attacks and interference in our elections an "act of war".

    That along with Russian air strikes on anti-rebel forces that the U.S. had armed and trained to fight ISIS in Syria could constitute that we are pretty much at war with Russia.

    Even thou a formal declaration hasn't been put forth.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Jan 6, 2017, at 11:28 AM
  • Pretty much doesn't cut it under the law.

    There is still scant evidence Russia was behind any hacking, and no evidence they changed any votes.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence-2017010...

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Jan 6, 2017, at 12:04 PM
  • According to an opinion piece from a newspaper.

    Ok

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Jan 6, 2017, at 1:45 PM
  • Still beats any source you've posted (none) in the last couple of weeks.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Jan 6, 2017, at 5:27 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: