Latent racism in the republican party?

We didn't call George Bush "Dubya" because we wanted to exploit the buried/hidden biases that many people who agree with us have against the latter end of the alphabet. In fact, the name Dubya was one he used himself.Emphasizing the "Hussein" part of Barack Obama's name is to make sure people associate the name with Saddam Hussein, or at the very least, with Muslim-sounding names in general to characterize Barack as being "other", "alien", "foreign" at best and "terrorist", "Muslim" (because we all know Muslim's can't be good Americans) at best.It's only a double standard if you look at in the most superficial way and ignore the meaning behind the use. Was Dubya used in a disparaging way to indicate the man isn't very smart? Yes. Is that childish and even unworthy of good debate. Yes. Is it racist at best and a call to arms at worst? Not in the least.

Who handles the taxation? Does it filter through the government? Is there a charge added on to TV purchases or something like a cable bill that goes directly to the Beeb? In America, if we had something like this where the money went anywhere near the government, the government would assume all control.

I agree. However, how many people get their news from NPR and PBS? I know of two families that listen to NPR at times, and next to no one who watches PBS, least of all for their news. There has been a decided push by some in this country to marginalize anything from PBS and NPR as "liberal blather", and it has largely succeeded. I'd be curious to see what steps would be taken by some were PBS and NPR to become nearly as influential in America as the BBC is in England. I speaking more about the case were all funding to funnel through the government. In that case, were PBS/NPR to be overly critical of said government, and were PBS/NPR to remain as low on the radar of most people in the country, how long do you think it would take before said government just pulled the plug? I am definitely not in the camp that says government is bad, that they can't manage projects that promote the general welfare, though I do have a less than rose-colored view of the practicalities in the current governmental system. Most people are disconnected from their government, and while there are a good many people in office who truly try to serve their entire constituency, there are a good many others who try to help those who help them get into power, and after that, try to maintain or increase their power/wealth. Very apt description. They also equate "balance" with giving "both sides" of an issue equal time, as if being on one side over another of any given issue is always of equal merit. (Holocaust deniers and their ilk come to mind.)Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

But this is the crux, right here. If someone's being a racist, they're often (though not always) at the very least, advocating infringing another's freedoms. For instance, the attitude that a "Muslim" shouldn't be able to be President is an implied (and effective) call to infringe on an American Muslim's ability to realistically run for a public office, of which the only limiting factors are clearly laid out in the Constitution...religion not being one of them.So, even you allow that infringing on another's freedoms is a reason to stop certain racist actions. We would just disagree on what constitutes infringement of freedoms and the best way to counter those cases where we do agree.

You're right, but that's one of the issues we had to look at when I was in my philosophy of ethics class in college. One person exercising their rights almost always infringes on another person's rights. For a perhaps reductivist and silly instance, on a public walkway, you and I each have the same right to stand on a particular spot and gaze at the buildings around us. If you get there first, you're now infringing on my right to stand on that spot. How do we solve this dilemma without then infringing on your rights? It's a thorny question, especially when the instance isn't as inconsequential as this example. Well, this depends on the rights in question. In my silly example above, if I start telling people around me that you should be forcibly removed from "my" standing spot, and then act on my convictions, regardless of whether I'm physically strong enough to make you move, where does "clear and present danger" appear? When I actually touch you? When I get another person or two to agree with me? When they touch you? How about when I pull out my gun and point it at your head? I'd say, the intent to try and cause harm was there from the moment I started complaining that you should be moved from your freely chosen spot. Again, it depends on the intent. I watched Patten Oswalt's stand-up special on Comedy Central last night. He emphasized Obama's middle name as a lead up to the punch-line of a joke. I see nothing threatening in this, in fact, I found it wuite funny. A redneck at a rally yelling it out in obvious anger while holding signs implying that Muslims can't be trusted or shouldn't be elected, might or might not be threatening behavior. It would depend on the specific circumstances. If that person advocates violence, then it is threatening and therefore, in my opinion, should be stopped or at least watched very closely. Again, define clear and present danger. Is it when they actually say "Let's kill him!" Is it when he gets 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 people to agree with him? Is it when the gun appears? Is it only after the gun is fired? I agree it is a fine line to walk between protecting someone's rights and protecting the peace. I'm a strong liberal libertarian (as I define it), but I find advocating violence in a racist or bigoted way to be an abrogation of your right, it has as its intended effect, and outcome that leads to violence and infringement of someone's rights.So, I guess that's where I draw the line: when the intent is to infringe on someone's rights, regardless of whether that infringement is carried out at that time. What someone says can easily plant a seed in someone else's mind who may not have the same restraint or rationality.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

I agree with this to a degree. What could lead to a disagreement on my part is trying to suss out what the guy meant or intended with his statement. If it was "merely" a racist attitude, then while I abhor the sentiment, he does have every right to say it. The problem is, someone can encourage, or even outright command violence without using clear, unambiguous statements to that effect.In an extreme case, if we have a conspiracy of people who are looking for an opening to cause someone harm, and have worked out a code to facilitate that goal, the lines become murkier. FOr instance, saying, "The geese are flying south," isn't, on the surface, a violent statement, but if the intention behind it is to send a message saying, "he's not protected, SHOOT!" then it is an inducement to violence. People showing up to healthcare debates with guns implies a willingness to do violence. The debate didn't even touch tangentially on the second amendment, there were more than enough security forces to forestall violence, so what was the purpose of the guns? The people who carried them said they had no violent intentions, but it is easy to see how others would get the wrong impressions and react violently to the sight.The problem is trying to figure out the intention or probable outcome of a particular instance of speech. We should err on the side of freedom, except when to do so would allow undue potential peril to others. Where emotions are high and people begin to act less rationally, the potential for violence goes way up, so the standards of protected speech should tighten up to try and forestall such violence. I don't want to stop people from believing how they wish. I want to stop people from acting in such a way that violence is the probable or intended outcome.My view on most things is "People should be free to do as they wish as long as their actions do not infringe on this right in others." Violence is a strong infringement of others' rights and as such, should be quelled before it happens.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

As far as I know, it wasn't illegal and no one was arrested. It took place in a state (not sure which off the top of my head) where it is legal to carry guns like that.