Saturday, August 06, 2005

Jesse Jackson At It Again

The Reverend Jesse Jackson is at it again. This time he's complaining about voter ID laws and comparing them to Jim Crow laws.

Addressing members of the National Association of Black Journalists, whose
annual meeting continues here through Sunday, Jackson said the growing number of
such laws nationwide are the modern-day equivalent of Jim Crow-era poll taxes
and restrict access to the ballot.

Now Ol' BC fails to see how this is going to restrict access. It may make a person's second or third vote more difficult, but isn't that the whole idea? One's initial vote, which by the way is really one's only legal vote, should be unchanged not at all like poll taxes which did in fact inhibit the exercising of one's right to vote.

This article describes Jackson's speech in Indianapolis and the proposed Indiana law, which by the way has provisions for the poor to obtain ID cards at no charge and the Amish and others who wish not to be photographed to vote. But, that won't satisfy Jesse Jackson. Actually, not much seems to satisfy Jesse Jackson.

Just a thought.


At 11:14 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Jesse Jackson, unfortunately, equates the right of free speech with the duty to speak freely. And he does it a lot. Every time he opens his mouth Democrats and Blacks should hasten for their gags.

I find it ironic that men like Jackson are so interested in keeping a dead subject alive. The more they claim to be unequal, the more I begin to believe them. I think the civil rights "movement" would benefit from a good year or two of complete silence on the subject.

What happens to "movements" is that once their goals are achieved, the leaders of the movements find that they have nothing left to fight for, and so invent things to fight for.

In Jackson's case, this equates to him continually blowing up his own racial punching bag, beating it to death, then blowing it back up again. If only someone would let the hot air out of Mr. Jackson.

At 1:34 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...


Truer words hath ne'er flowed from your keyboard.


At 2:30 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Wouldn't be the first time. Of course, just because you agree with me does not make my writings true. This is just your subjective opinion, no different than when you disagree with me.

At 11:46 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

No, Beef. The fact that it is true is what makes it true.

There are truths and absolutes in the world, you know.


At 8:57 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

I would contend that there are no absolutes or truths in the world, RWR. If you can give me an example of one, I will show you that your truth is purely subjective. I'm sorry, but I don't argue in tautologies. "It is true because it is true," is a sing-song bunch of nonsense.

At 11:52 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

hmm ... Beef ...

It is wrong to murder or steal, for starters, beef.

Can you honestly say those are not absolutes?


At 7:22 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Of course. Murdering is the killing of a fellow human being. Yet we do it every day in the name of war and peace-keeping and self defense. The act is still the same: Taking a human life. It matters very little how you subjectively differentiate the act. The act remains the same regardless of your interpretation of it. The only absolute here is the act itself: killing.

As for stealing. There were once cultures who took great pride in stealing and plundering. To them, this was good. It was their culturally subjective viewpoint, just as it is your subjective opinion that stealing is wrong.

Therefore your examples are hardly absolutes. They only seem so due to your cultural perspective. It is communally agreed that stealing is wrong, but that does not make it "absolute". It only means that that is your cultural preference.

At 9:49 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

No need to comment on that response, Beef.

You have demonstrated your idiocy on the matter quite well.


At 10:24 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Brother. Rather than actually give a clear, thought-out rebuttal, you resort to name calling and silence. I find this humorous. I'm sorry for being such an idiot on this matter. I wish you would enlighten me. Until then, I will just have to go on with my misguided thoughts about "absolute". Or wait... maybe you meant the Vodka, as you seem to have no understanding of what the word actually means.

At 1:39 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Just for your info, Wrong Wing Rocker, here is the definition of "absolute":

ab·so·lute ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bs-lt, bs-lt)
Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.

Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.
Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.

To sum up: Without exception. Any moron can tell that murder is considered to be right in certain exceptions, such as war, capital punishment, self-defense, and others. Therefore it is not an absolute.

At 12:47 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

Look up the definition of murder, Beef.

War, capital punishment, and self-defense do not fit the definition.

Now what was it you were saying about absolutes?


At 2:01 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

When you argue within subsets that are essentially abstractions of the whole of reality, such as "law", then you may be right to say that there are absolutes under the law. This is not what I was referring to.

The dictionary defines murder thusly:

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Take out the word "unlawful" and what do you have? Killing a human being. But guess what, it is still killing a human being. Whether it is lawful or unlawful does not change the inherent and core nature of the act. Once again, you are placing subjective values upon an action.

My point is this: there is no absolute when it comes to murder. Who defines what form of killing is lawful and what is unlawful? It all boils down to a subjective opinion. Let's face it, when we got bombed on 9/11, that was viewed as wrong. When we do the bombing, it is viewed as right. Whether it is lawful or unlawful makes not one goddamn bit of difference. It is still people bombing the shit out of people. How right did the hijackers of 9/11 feel they were when they rammed the planes into the world trade center? My guess was that god was on their side and they were acting according to their own subjective opinion about what was right.

Get it? It's all so much opinion, and makes no difference in the grande scheme of things. The universe laughs at what you think is right and wrong.

At 1:05 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

The universe would be laughing at you, too Beef, if it wouldn only stop puking from being sick.

Taking the word "unlawful" invalidates the definition as murder. In order for killing to be defined as murder, it must be unlawful.

There are other words that fit the definition.

The world is not abstract, Beef. There are absolutes, and you have just proven it.


At 8:11 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

The only thing, apparently, that I have proven is that you don't read what I write. The concepts of what is right and wrong, as defined by law, are far from absolute. They are purely subjective and full of bias. Therefore, what I said still remains true. There are no absolutes. If there be any absolute in the world, dear Rocker, it would be the absolute tyrrany of stupidity over logic, which you have displayed so magnificently here.

And I never said the world was abstract, numb-nuts. Law is an abstract concept. If you can't grasp this simple idea, then there really is nothing left to say to you.

At 11:01 PM, Blogger TripleNeckSteel said...


Gravity is pretty absolute and irrefutable, wouldn't you agree?


Post a Comment

<< Home