Who's the bigger offender: Conservatives or Liberals?

We weren't talking about history. We were talking about John Wayne.As I tried to point out to you, it was a different time. White supremacy was a different thing when whites were supreme. Today, when whites are on the brink of losing their privilege, some want to take back supremacy by taking back rights from blacks, etc. That's a different thing from believing that blacks, etc. were not capable of handling rights.

Don't put words in my mouth.My message was that John Wayne was more sympathetic to minorities than many or most people of his time. As for his politics, many or most Americans are rabid right-wingers today.

That's good advice for anybody. It's also a good idea to listen to what people say instead of making it all up in your own head.

He split my paraphrase, of the racist line, up into 2 different quotes, and he commented on 2 parts.A poster, about 5 posts later, said that I was misunderstanding Ringo because the fact that Ringo parsed John Wayne's sentence (Ringo was, again, using my paraphrase reference) therefore was proof enough that I misunderstood what he was saying.I have now provided the exact quote, of Wayne himself, with the entire Playboy question for context.I ask that Ringo performs a reboot, and quotes Wayne's offending sentence.(You can parse away Ringo, but do respond with whatever spirit you can conjure out of your head, or heart)(AzPaul placed an approval disc, on post 526, so he can tell us what he really thinks of the Wayne comment. He can parse, as well, if he so wishes)

I'm not the one who's bitchin so hard about it. I really don't give a fuckThe kiss I gave ringo was just because I like the guy. I don't need any other reason.Why you bitchin so hard? What's your point?

If you have a point here, it is not clear what that point is.The entire Playboy interview can be found HERE. It's a pdf file, and the comment about Angela Davis is on page 7.The views that Wayne expressed there (about politics) were probably similar to the views of many conservatives at that time. Ronald Reagan likely had similar views, though he would have expressed them with more subtlety.

If he's good enough for you, he's good enough for me. To me it looks like LNA rambles on about some asshole (Wayne, Hoover, etc.) in the past and some other incoherent rambling about obscure past events, and whenever someone says bullshit or who the fuck cares, to any part of it, LNA then tries to twist that into support for the asshole (Wayne, Hoover, etc.). That seems to be the only point he ever gets to.

Time is early 1960s.Location is the University of Maryland.A few of us are out taking a survey among the students on campus.Clipboard in hand and a short two questions to ask and answers tallied.Question 1: Should the US send military aid and troops to Vietnam?Question 2: Should we intervene to aid our ally France that is facing an insurrection in French Indochina?It was amazing how often we got a "No" on Question 1 and a "Yes" on Question 2.

jar writes: Kinda sorta similar toQuestion 1: Do you approve of Obamacare?
Question 2. Do you approve of the Affordable Care Act?

Kinda amazing how the only thing the American people care about are U.S. troop deaths, when we occupy another group of civilians in another land. ( And while we kill the crap out of far more of the population in the occupied countries, than we loose among our troops)Then we wonder "What is going wrong, why cant we have an easy time? Why are troops getting shot at? What!?"So:We dont talk to the people of the invaded lands, to see what they want.We dont care about talking - period -, and especially to a diverse section of the invaded countries regions & ethnic groups.We offer the invaded people no ballot (with neither diverse nor simple questions/choices) to inform us.(No non-corrupt ballot, free of loaded questions and choices - essentially puppets for a prospective client state in-waiting, that needs to know its place/placement)We don't know anything about the people, really.We dont raise a diverse military, made of natives - in the occupied lands - who represent a well ironed-out consensus of THEIR PEOPLE.We just worry about "our intetests".So?What is the result when we imposes "U.S. intetests" on a people in a far away land, while we shoot & bomb the crap out of the humans living in the occupation zone (often an entire modern country), and while we send a message that "All we care about are U.S. troop casualties"?We have some examples from "our time".The time we are all responsible for.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Sigh.Apparently I didn't extensively document an offhand pop culture reference.Oh, well.

I dont want to take back anything from anyone. I would advise them to feel likewise. The slate is wiped clean. Reparations are a liberal social cause that will only add fuel to a fire that has been smoldering far too long.

One of the major Christian Rites is the confession where individuals honestly evaluate their behavior and acknowledge their manifold sins and wickedness, sincerely regret those acts, attempt to make amends and to try to not commit the same errors in the future.Reparations are not a liberal cause but rather a Christian Duty.

Yeah, policy decisions should be driven by whether they rile the racists.--Percy

That "offhand" reference was your entire post. If you want to make a point, make it.