Your “assertion” is the predicate which you ask us to believe and that unproven predicate is then used to shape the discussion. It is not “crazy” to intuit the obvious meaning, logic, and pattern of your thoughts.

If you do not require that we accept your “assertion” — then what are we arguing about? I note, for the record, that you don’t preface your comments with something like “in my opinion”, or “based upon what I know” etc. etc. Instead, you make bold declarations and use innuendo to suggest that persons with different understandings are somehow suspect.

Again — for example: It is entirely reasonable for someone to ask questions such as:

1. WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL POWER?
2. WHAT DOES OUR CONSTITUTION PERMIT AND FORBID?
3. HOW DOES #1 and #2 IMPACT PROPOSED CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION?

Then, after those questions are answered, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that a particular public policy proposal VIOLATES the principles and values inherent in our Constitution — EVEN IF the proposal is otherwise a commendable good-faith effort to focus our attention on some problem which everyone agrees needs to be addressed.

However, it is NOT reasonable or fair-minded to state (as you have done) that certain public policy ideas or philosophical positions regarding federal-state relations should be considered illegitimate simply because they call for a recognition of limits to federal power.

Put another way: in a free society, we explicitly recognize that there are always legitimate, honorable, competing, alternative ideas for addressing our public policy controversies. We do not subscribe to authoritarian or totalitarian mindsets which declare that there is always ONLY ONE correct interpretation of whatever problem we confront and always ONLY ONE correct policy option to choose. Furthermore, we do not subscribe to the idea that critics and opponents are, by definition, dishonorable or motivated by malice — simply because they have a different understanding of our Constitution, our laws, or our history.

You may think this not a “rational” distinction to make. So be it.

re: #92 Obdicut

No, I don’t. I asserted it. I’m not insisting that you accept it. That’s where you start sliding into being a crazy person, when you say I’m ‘insisting’ that ‘we accept your notion’, because I’m saying that it’s true.

I’m sorry, you have a lot of interesting information and you’ve done a lot of interesting research, but I can’t even pretend to respect the level of nuttiness you’re at. To scream that I’m ‘insisting’ that you accept something because I assert it is beyond the pale of reason.

You accuse me of ‘extreme animus’ towards the JBL based on my saying that they are racist in a way that’s consistent with the mainstream during that time period.

You do not behave in a rational manner, and I have no further desire to talk to you.

I suggest you reread the excellent dissertation of Mr. Brenner, paying particular attention to the way that he highlights the JBS using racial animus and racial tension to promote their agenda.