Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
He voted against the desegregation of the Armed Forces and he personally fillibustered the Civil Rights Act of 64. And the guy is still around.

He should be taken out and shot for that, unless he has publicly apologized for taking such wrong-headed positions.


Alternately, you can pull up Hello's posts saying that liberals are really racist, and respond with "Well, if I look at Robert Byrd he's right."

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I am reluctant to respond at all to this, because I've already participated in a few of your past Public Housing Jamborees, but I have to say that your "or watch your share of the electorate continue to shrink" thesis makes no sense.

I disagree.

As one of your people here keeps saying, there are a lot of "moral" people in the R party. Heck, there are a lot of "moral" peope in the D party. This appeals to their "morals" as a notion of fairness.

Then there are a lot of "practical" people in both parties who like the idea of governmental efficiency and effectiveness. This appeals to them because it promises progress on a number of fronts domestically.

So you lose the libertarians who aren't voting for the Republican or libertarian party. So what. You get Urban republicans who look at this and think, about time the G quit picking on my city.

You get a lot of tolerant people in the middle who have had enough of the poverty cycles and associated costs. They aren't all democrats or republicans.

But hey, if you don't like mine, get another.

You are one of maybe 5 people here on *your* side who I'd like to honestly see answer this question (its not a trap): What are the most important problems left to be solved in this country?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Alternately, you can pull up Hello's posts saying that liberals are really racist, and respond with "Well, if I look at Robert Byrd he's right."

When you do, can you show them to me too?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
When you do, can you show them to me too?

Oh, so you were saying that you know me personally and therefore can say that you really were speaking about me as an individual when you said I was living in a white suburb and disagree with your housing idea only because I don't want to rub elbows with poor black people?

Huh. I didn't realize we'd met -- I don't make it to the VA burbs often.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I am not familiar with this Rehnquist claim. However, I really don't see how being an active participant in the Klan and refusing to rent a property to someone is comparable.

They are both things I consider abhorrent now, but raised no eyebrows when they were done. Also, Klan participation in some areas of the South was comparable in some ways to membership in other civic organizations -- full of prominent local businessmen and necessary for political networking. There were plenty of cities where the mayor, the police chief, DA, and all other important political positions were made up of Klan members. I say this not to excuse Byrd, just to say that Klan membership in that era by a politician from West Virginia does not surprise me.

He voted against the desegregation of the Armed Forces and he personally fillibustered the Civil Rights Act of 64. And the guy is still around.

He was probably just being responsive to his electorate -- I thought that's what you want, considering your opinion of "activist" judges. Do you have something more within the last 40 years?

In any event, I'll see your Byrd and raise you Thurmond, Helms, and Lott.

In any event, I would argue that sharing the Presidential debate podium with Al Sharpton is equally as odious.

I don't really see how they could have banned him. W made the choice when he appeared at BJU.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
What are the most important problems left to be solved in this country?

Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and O'Connor.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Then there are a lot of "practical" people in both parties who like the idea of governmental efficiency and effectiveness. This appeals to them because it promises progress on a number of fronts domestically.

Let's see if we can get to intelligent debate. I think I understand your proposal -- section 8 money should go towards putting poor people in neighborhoods throughout the country -- and have some real questions.

Do you really think that this was a viable alternative to bussing? By that, I mean do you think that courts should have ordered this as a remedy to the problem of de facto school segregation?

How do you deal with local zoning laws that do not allow apartments, and do not allow occupancy over very low density? Does the fed government revoke those? Does the fed government exercise its supremacy power and just build fed-owned apartments? Does the fed government do that in places like Palo Alto, where a lot for a small apartment building would cost several million dollars (just the lot, not the building)? You are correct that the fed buys lots of land, but it doesn't buy much in suburban or wealthy urban residential markets, I suspect.

Similarly, how do you deal with HOA strictures? Many of those strictures would impose huge costs on any poor people living in the area. Others would effectively preclude any level of density consistent with low-income housing. Again, do you propose to have the fed buy million dollar homes, in areas where all homes are that price, and give them to poor people? Or just have the fed revoke private HOA contracts (contracts that generally require owners to ensure that any buyer -- including, presumable, the fed govt -- be bound by the HOA agreement).

I doubt that many people would support the idea of government buying houses in Grosse Pointe or where-have-you for poor people. Not because of NIMBYism -- I don't think that's much of a factor if you're just talking about one or two families out of twenty in a neighborhood. But because of cost, and because the idea of putting people who don't work into living situations better than most people who do work can afford..... well, it makes the old "welfare queen" saw pale in comparison.

How do you deal with transportation? Transition to work and responsibility must be key to any welfare strategy -- the failure to make it so was the biggest problem of the Great Society. Most jobs are in cities. Most suburbs, and even many wealthy areas of cities, have lousy public transportation. (Note: While many jobs are in suburbs, that only magnifies the transportation problem, because suburban job centers are notorious for crappy transit and because the more diffuse the job market, geographically, the harder any transit problem is to resolve.) Do you engage in massive infrastructure spending? Or throw in a car with the Grosse Pointe house?

This just scratches the surface of questions. I'm actually interested in your answer and would like to see you answer them -- instead of saying that the reason I ask them is to preserve my fictional white-only suburban lifestyle.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
He was probably just being responsive to his electorate -- I thought that's what you want, considering your opinion of "activist" judges. Do you have something more within the last 40 years?

He repeated discussion of "white niggers" a few years back rings a bell.

In any event, I'll see your Byrd and raise you Thurmond, Helms, and Lott.

Last I checked, Strom is dead and Jesse is playing bingo somewhere.

Lott was seriously remprimanded for his silly comments about Strom. What else?

Oh, why wasn't Chris Dodd similarly remprimanded when he called Byrd "the conscious of the Senate"?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Oh, why wasn't Chris Dodd similarly remprimanded when he called Byrd "the conscious of the Senate"?

everyone else was asleep, apparently.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
They are both hate spewing trash.

One, however, is a media darling and poster boy of the Ivory Tower.

Uh, dude, we're talking about Bob Fucking Jones here. The guy wrote a letter to Bush on his BJU Website last week stating that America did not "deserve" to have Bush as President and that Bush had better make good on his noxious promises to fundamentalist lunatics.

You're emart enough to know you'll lose the argument about which party has dirtier smear tactics every time. Chomsky may be hateful, but I doubt you'll find him sending out pamphlets in racist districts of southern states sneering at John McCain for having adopted black children, which the GOP did (and admitted doing) in SC in 2000. You won't find the Dems lying about WMD to people they know are too stupid to know better. You won't find them cynically going along with the lie that Saddam and AQ were in bed together. The Dems are simply not mean and corrupt enough to get that low. And thats why they continue to lose. Their lowest tricks are scaring people about a potential draft and getting the welfare crowd to come out and vote for them by promising benefits. Its loathesome, but its not in the same category as baldly appealing to racists.

And as to the gay marriage referendums, that was brilliant political work by the GOP, but truly repugnant from an ethical standpoint. The GOP hurt a lot of decent people pretty deeply. I don't see then Dems doing things that cynical and mean-spirited.

I give your party props for winning, but don't ask me to cede you the moral high ground. You just can't make that case. You had to get in the toilet to win and I'm not about to help you clean off the shit. You can't have it all.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Let's see if we can get to intelligent debate. I think I understand your proposal -- section 8 money should go towards putting poor people in neighborhoods throughout the country -- and have some real questions.

Do you really think that this was a viable alternative to bussing? By that, I mean do you think that courts should have ordered this as a remedy to the problem of de facto school segregation?

OK, if we can agree to keep it to this level, I'll meet you. No, I don't even know if the courts ever had this issue in front of them, though I wouldn't mind seeing a history of court treatment of federal housing programs.

Bottom line, I don't know that the "concentration" issue was ever in front of courts (though I can't imagine why somebody didn't bring it in). But if we want a societal fix on federal programs and spending, this is something that really should be done by congress anyway.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Bottom line, I don't know that the "concentration" issue was ever in front of courts (though I can't imagine why somebody didn't bring it in).

I doubt it got anywhere, if it was brought. What's the claim? Sue every private landlord who won't take vouchers? I doubt highly that the legislation of section 8 allows for that. And none of this touches the issue of areas that don't allow renting.

And, in any event, bussing wasn't something the courts reached out to do. It was a remedy to a very difficult situation. I don't think anyone proposed your remedy as an alternative, or any better remedy, and it looks like even you would not have proposed your remedy as an alternative at the time.

OK, if we can agree to keep it to this level, I'll meet you.

I'm happy to keep it on this level. Can you answer the other questions?


Keep your comments about where you think I live to yourself.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Uh, dude, we're talking about Bob Fucking Jones here. The guy wrote a letter to Bush on his BJU Website last week stating that America did not "deserve" to have Bush as President and that Bush had better make good on his noxious promises to fundamentalist lunatics.

You're emart enough to know you'll lose the argument about which party has dirtier smear tactics every time. Chomsky may be hateful, but I doubt you'll find him sending out pamphlets in racist districts of southern states sneering at John McCain for having adopted black children, which the GOP did (and admitted doing) in SC in 2000. You won't find the Dems lying about WMD to people they know are too stupid to know better. You won't find them cynically going along with the lie that Saddam and AQ were in bed together. The Dems are simply not mean and corrupt enough to get that low. And thats why they continue to lose. Their lowest tricks are scaring people about a potential draft and getting the welfare crowd to come out and vote for them by promising benefits. Its loathesome, but its not in the same category as baldly appealing to racists.

How soon we forget:

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
How soon we forget:

Well, if I look at Ann Coulter, I can agree that Osama should have targetted Republicans.


That means I don't agree with him, right?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I doubt it got anywhere, if it was brought. What's the claim? Sue every private landlord who won't take vouchers? I doubt highly that the legislation of section 8 allows for that. And none of this touches the issue of areas that don't allow renting.

...

I'm happy to keep it on this level. Can you answer the other questions?

Nah, start with the government and HUD on behalf of poor tenants being racially concentrated or communities on the receiving end. Not saying it works, but that's where I would think you'd start.


For the other questions, I'm confident in the carrot-and-stick market approach. If you tell America that every community needs to have 1 home available for every 100 family units (with some level of flexibility), and you set the minimum standards for apartments and homes, I'd bet that Grosse Pointe finds someone to sell a 5000 square foot lot to a developer so that the developer can build a cute 1800 square foot cottage for sale to the G for $400K. If not..., well does a community really want the federal government designing their new housing? Nah.

As for landlords, I've covered the topic already. Basically, no right to refuse based only on source of income. And no ability to concentrate. The way section 8 works now is that once a building accepts one voucher, the landlord is subject to (or maybe is able to invite) voucher-holders for the whole building.

In Chicago, when a neighborhood is gentrifying, the section 8 buildings get out of their section 8 agreements with the federal government by going condo conversion (my understanding is that buildings/landlords are subject to section 8 eligibility and whatever else for something like 20 years at a time, but can get out early if the building is condemned or converted). Hey, its the rational market.

Honestly, on the flip-side, I think the market works efficiently more-or-less when given full information. I think this market works fine as long as there aren't any loopholes to allow communities an escape.