[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by John Riley

This is the type of thinking I was referring to when I said I don't take anyone who thinks Horowitz is worthwhile seriously. I am a Southerner old enough to have grown up during the climatic years of the Civil Rights Movement. Sessions is a Bull Connor-type racist. It's obvious to anyone not blinded by the racist pseudo-intellectualism of what passes for conservatism in the twenty-first century. He is an extremely dangerous man who has participated in the denial of the fundamental freedoms and rights to millions of citizens. He would like nothing more than to find ways to do that again.

Well I'll be willing to agree with you, given some examples of what you mean by Sessions participating "in the denial of the fundamental freedoms and rights to millions of citizens." I read the Wikipedia article on him, as well as several other articles in various places, and found accusations of racism, leavened by many saying those accusations aren't merited - but no concrete examples of him denying rights or freedoms to millions of citizens. Unless you mean his opposition to gay marriage. I'm personally all for gay marriage, as it happens. Wikipedia has this para with respect to his alleged racism:

Hebert, Kowalski and Daniel Bell, deputy chief of the criminal section in the Civil Rights Division, testified that they considered Sessions to have been more welcoming to the work of the Civil Rights Division than many other Southern US Attorneys at the time.[22][25] Sessions has always defended his civil rights record, saying that "when I was [a U.S. Attorney], I signed 10 pleadings attacking segregation or the remnants of segregation, where we as part of the Department of Justice, we sought desegregation remedies".[33] Critics later argued that Sessions had exaggerated his involvement in civil rights cases. Michigan Law professor Samuel Bagenstos, reviewing Sessions's claims, argued that "[a]ll this shows is that Sessions didn't completely refuse to participate in or have his name on pleadings in cases that the civil rights division brought during his tenure ... These four cases are awfully weak evidence of Sessions's supposed commitment to civil rights."[34]

I'll be the first to admit, often Wikipedia is remiss and leaves some things out of their articles, but I've found them to be pretty objective, and considering your certainty on the subject, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suspect that you have information that can enlighten me, in which case, I'll be happy to change my tune and agree that Sessions is dangerous.

Originally Posted by John Riley

But I suppose this is a question open for discussion and debate. Horowitz's rantings are not.

I've read his book, The Politics of Bad Faith front to back, and re-read much of it, and found nothing I would call "ranting", just a reasoned, fact-based account of the failure of communism and the subsequent hysteria of the radical Left in trying to deny that it was (and is) a failure. Not only that, if you strongly disagree with someone's ideas, then all the more reason to debate them. Hand-waving and dismissal is good for nothing.

Originally Posted by James Brancheau

"You cannot collectively punish a people..." Yeah, that's right. Both Andrew's and John's last contributions make this thread worthwhile. I wasn't familiar with Horowitz before this thread. What an ass.

I'd have to watch the interview again to put the remark in context, but taken on the surface, "You cannot collectively punish a people..." sounds like something I might agree with. It all depends on how he meant it.

I'm much more interested in Dave Rubin than Horowitz, anyway. Here's another good interview, again on the subject of the regressive left, with Larry Elder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFrfV-y_VC8&t=214s