I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: paul.karen on September 16, 2009, 08:24:19 AM
-
i am so TIRED of people on the left in and out of politics crying RACIST if you dont follow suit with whatever Pres. Obama says.
It is true im not happy with the way the president is running things.
I am SICK of Acorn and there corruption.
I am sick of the way the president is running international issues.
We had ONE and only ONE hand to play against Iran. The only way we could truly hurt them was to hold back on supplying them GAS.
(for those who dont follow politics to closely, Iran has TONS of oil. But they are to busy making nukes to make a refinery to make gasoline). So we had this to bargain with. Now Obamas good buddy Chavez has made a deal to supply Gas to Iran 10,000 barrels a day beginning in OCT. So we truly have nothing to barter with with Iran? Thus now they are ready to bargain LOL but talks about nukes are out of bounds. They have the upper hand. LUCKILY Israel will do what they must to protect themselves.
North Korea's. Yup obamas shake hands and lets talk nice approach is working fine here as well. NK is gearing up for its THRID nuclear test this to be the most explosive to date. We use to be able to threaten sanctions against NK. Now they can sell nukes to get what they need. Look at Syria (remember there nuke plant set up by NK). But again Israel took care of that problem.
Im not happy with all the corporate bailouts.
Im not happy with having 30+ Czars that have no accountability and many have very shaky pasts to say the least
I wasnt overjoyed about the cash for clunkers. My money going to everyone else?
We need reform in healthcare but Obama has his own plans to help his cause.
Not the cause of Americans but his cause.
I am tired of the Obama administration of misplacing blame. it isnt republicans holding up HIS Obamacare it is his own party, and has been since day one? So many have short memories.
But most of all im tired of being LABELD>
And im truly tired of being labeled a RACIST for not agreeing 100% with A PRESIDENT>
Im not fake, im not astro turf, im not being paid to disagree i am an AMERICAN with my own viewpoint. GASP HOW DARE I.
Im sick that we are spending STILL millions of dollars on Janet jacksons T*T popping out. And on baseball players who may or may not have used steroids. When we have such REAL issues to deal with.
:rant; :rant;
I am no racist. I am also no puppet who agrees 100% with whatever the president says.
-
Don't know why you would be labeled a racist just for disagreeing with the president. I don't agree with everything he believes, and I voted for him! I also agree that the media spends far too much time on "celebrity" issues. Look how much time they spent on a black man who desperately wanted to be a white woman and who molested boys!
-
The fact is you are correct, they are labeling anyone who does not agree with all of the bull-hit that the president is dealing out as a racist... I am sick of it all myself. The man loves to hear his on voice and loves his TV time.... sorry but had to add that to all the other complaints listed.. just can't agree on policies with that man. :rant; :rant; :rant;
-
Yes, that is their tactic, to blame opposition of Obama as being a racist motivation. So true in 2009 and still in use today. Only thing is, it is wearing thing and folks don't buy that garbage rhetoric any longer.
-
It's funny you bring this subject up. I am totally not a racist, however I did not vote for Obama and I knew we were in trouble if he was to be voted in. I also said he would more than likely win. I strongly believe some folks voted him in to office to prove they were NOT racist. A little different look at things, maybe but I am glad we finally had a President from a different race get voted in. That's done now so when will we get a female President? Just thinking we should get that out of the way as well. ::) Maybe we need to find someone who really has this Country in their best interest and move forward...I don't care what gender or what color, I just want someone who really knows what they are doing.
-
Sluff, after trying to interact and explain my views and support of what the Tea Party is trying to accomplish on the GOP thread with day after day of racist allegations against people that believe like me, I truly think that it will bring about a backlash of anger against these false allegations that will bring an end to this president who hides behind class warfare and political anarchy with those in the Occupy movement out to create chaos. Anarchy shall not prevail. False accusations shall not prevail.
I was never very inclined to be politically active until this president and all that he stirs up with his community organizer background. We cannot afford 4 more years of his reign. God helps us if he is reelected.
-
"Maybe we need to find someone who really has this Country in their best interest and move forward...I don't care what gender or what color, I just want someone who really knows what they are doing."
This implies that our current president doesn't have this country in his best interest, and I resent that. You can disagree all you want with any policy decision he has made, but to imply that he doesn't care about the United States is wrong. How do you come to this conclusion? With respect, have you ever had a personal conversation with him that would make you think that he has given three years of his and his family's lives to guide this nation through difficult times just for a laugh? I'm sorry, but that is incredibly disrespectful to make such an odious charge.
And you, Hemodoc, you seem to think that you and people you deem to be "like you" are the only ones who value work, personal responsibility and freedom. My husband works two jobs, and my neighbors scrap for every construction job going. I want to know, right here and now, exactly which "freedoms" you think someone is going to take away from you? You keep banging on and on about "freedom and liberty", yet you are not terribly specific about what it is you think you have lost or stand to lose. So how about sharing that with us? And how about also telling us how you think one American president is going to single handedly ruin this country.
The tea party doesn't have a monopoly on patriotism, my friend, nor are they the only people who value those things that you value, and I think you should stop implying that you are the only American who has worked hard and who wants to support his family. You have interacted and have explained your views very well, but in doing so, you have tried to devalue anyone who might see the world a bit differently and who might have a different but still noble set of values and opinions.
You didn't read that article, did you. I know you didn't, I can tell, and that says a lot. It says that you will not even TRY to view the world from a different vantage point, not even TRY to imagine a different set of life experiences.
Your world view is stuck in a morass of victimhood, and that cannot make you happy, it just cannot. You have decried our inability to engage in civil discourse, yet you persist in this victimized mindset, so certain that you are degraded for being a man of faith and a man who applauds personal responsibility. Anyone who might have a different view is so very wrong, so very misguided, so deluded, so devalued in your eyes. The Lord your Savior gave you eyes so that you can see, but you will not. You will not entertain the mere notion that you might possibly be wrong.
You know, I don't usually take things personally. I like to think that I have enough respect for people that I want to hear their views...the hows and the whys. But I don't think you have heard one single thing I have tried to say to you. I don't think you have given me enough respect to listen. You've not reacted to a single one of my posts except to chastise me for some unseen and unintentional slight that you've perceived that I have wreaked upon you. I do not care if you or if anyone else agrees or disagrees with a single word that I post, but I'm a bit tired of being ignored at best or dismissed at worst.
If the GOP truly cared about this nation, and I do believe that many do, they would have put up a much better field than Newt Gingrich, who is a vile and arrogant man. He is mentally ill, I'm convinced of it. He has some sort of narcissistic personality disorder, and this nation will erupt if that man is elected. Mitt Romney is a corporate shill who doesn't know what to believe nor what to work for. He has no goals and if he did, he has no idea how to meet them, and if he thinks that being a "businessman" gives him the experience to be the President of the United States of America, then we can all go to meet our Maker right now because there is not a single person on this forum who is good for the blessed "bottom line". We are costing the American taxpayers money in keeping us alive, so what makes you think that Mr Romney is going to keep us around? We're not profitable. We need federal assistance to stay alive, people...is a "businessman" going to spend money on unprofitable people like us? That's just bloody brilliant. The GOP in its present form cares nothing about investing in our nation because if they did, they'd have put up more viable and psychologically balanced candidates for us to choose from. And they would also prohibit Mr. Romney from talking about "class warfare."
I'm sorry you don't like it that some people in the Tea Party movement are perceived as racist, but you're going to have to live with it.
You are right...false accusations shall not prevail. Those who believe that this President is igniting class warfare and that the Occupy message of preservation of the middle class is nothing more than anarchy WILL see a backlash against this constant and pervasive lie. And that backlash will happen in the voting booth. Americans believe in their DNA that this should be a nation of fair play, built upon the hard labor of the middle class of ALL colors, that the United States of America belong to ALL of us, from the mighty to the weakened, to ALL of us who have made our lives here, who have raised our families here, who work two or three jobs here, yet who are told that we are not worth the investment.
Good night, and good luck.
-
Look, conservatives can whine and complain about the current administration as much as they like. The last sentence is NOT aimed at any one person. The fact is that the GOP does not have a viable candidate. Their own debates has proved this. So it is looking like 4 more years is a reality whether you like it or not. Romney wins the nod for the GOP and goes down in flames against Obama.
-
"Maybe we need to find someone who really has this Country in their best interest and move forward...I don't care what gender or what color, I just want someone who really knows what they are doing."
This implies that our current president doesn't have this country in his best interest, and I resent that. You can disagree all you want with any policy decision he has made, but to imply that he doesn't care about the United States is wrong. How do you come to this conclusion? With respect, have you ever had a personal conversation with him that would make you think that he has given three years of his and his family's lives to guide this nation through difficult times just for a laugh? I'm sorry, but that is incredibly disrespectful to make such an odious charge.
And you, Hemodoc, you seem to think that you and people you deem to be "like you" are the only ones who value work, personal responsibility and freedom. My husband works two jobs, and my neighbors scrap for every construction job going. I want to know, right here and now, exactly which "freedoms" you think someone is going to take away from you? You keep banging on and on about "freedom and liberty", yet you are not terribly specific about what it is you think you have lost or stand to lose. So how about sharing that with us? And how about also telling us how you think one American president is going to single handedly ruin this country.
The tea party doesn't have a monopoly on patriotism, my friend, nor are they the only people who value those things that you value, and I think you should stop implying that you are the only American who has worked hard and who wants to support his family. You have interacted and have explained your views very well, but in doing so, you have tried to devalue anyone who might see the world a bit differently and who might have a different but still noble set of values and opinions.
You didn't read that article, did you. I know you didn't, I can tell, and that says a lot. It says that you will not even TRY to view the world from a different vantage point, not even TRY to imagine a different set of life experiences.
Your world view is stuck in a morass of victimhood, and that cannot make you happy, it just cannot. You have decried our inability to engage in civil discourse, yet you persist in this victimized mindset, so certain that you are degraded for being a man of faith and a man who applauds personal responsibility. Anyone who might have a different view is so very wrong, so very misguided, so deluded, so devalued in your eyes. The Lord your Savior gave you eyes so that you can see, but you will not. You will not entertain the mere notion that you might possibly be wrong.
You know, I don't usually take things personally. I like to think that I have enough respect for people that I want to hear their views...the hows and the whys. But I don't think you have heard one single thing I have tried to say to you. I don't think you have given me enough respect to listen. You've not reacted to a single one of my posts except to chastise me for some unseen and unintentional slight that you've perceived that I have wreaked upon you. I do not care if you or if anyone else agrees or disagrees with a single word that I post, but I'm a bit tired of being ignored at best or dismissed at worst.
If the GOP truly cared about this nation, and I do believe that many do, they would have put up a much better field than Newt Gingrich, who is a vile and arrogant man. He is mentally ill, I'm convinced of it. He has some sort of narcissistic personality disorder, and this nation will erupt if that man is elected. Mitt Romney is a corporate shill who doesn't know what to believe nor what to work for. He has no goals and if he did, he has no idea how to meet them, and if he thinks that being a "businessman" gives him the experience to be the President of the United States of America, then we can all go to meet our Maker right now because there is not a single person on this forum who is good for the blessed "bottom line". We are costing the American taxpayers money in keeping us alive, so what makes you think that Mr Romney is going to keep us around? We're not profitable. We need federal assistance to stay alive, people...is a "businessman" going to spend money on unprofitable people like us? That's just bloody brilliant. The GOP in its present form cares nothing about investing in our nation because if they did, they'd have put up more viable and psychologically balanced candidates for us to choose from. And they would also prohibit Mr. Romney from talking about "class warfare."
I'm sorry you don't like it that some people in the Tea Party movement are perceived as racist, but you're going to have to live with it.
You are right...false accusations shall not prevail. Those who believe that this President is igniting class warfare and that the Occupy message of preservation of the middle class is nothing more than anarchy WILL see a backlash against this constant and pervasive lie. And that backlash will happen in the voting booth. Americans believe in their DNA that this should be a nation of fair play, built upon the hard labor of the middle class of ALL colors, that the United States of America belong to ALL of us, from the mighty to the weakened, to ALL of us who have made our lives here, who have raised our families here, who work two or three jobs here, yet who are told that we are not worth the investment.
Good night, and good luck.
Dear Moosemom, I subjected myself to all sorts of false accusations simply to answer your many questions about what motivated a conservative and then I further explained the Tea Party motivations. I do not in the least feel like a victim, far from it. God has blessed me with many things and how could I feel like a victim at all. I am indeed aggravated by false allegations of racism, lack of compassion, and other accusations, but that does not in any way evoke helpless or victimized feelings at all. I believe you have misjudged that.
As far as freedoms, let's list a few: economic. Obama is the worst performing economic president since they have been keeping those records. How about the NDAA he just signed into law that gives him dictatorial powers and the "right" to suspend individual constitutional rights and throw a person in jail with no trial. He openly opposes gun rights but to date, we have avoided much of that. A second term would be where he attacks those rights most likely.
Here are a few links to different issues for your perusal.
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/even-democrats-are-alarmed-at-loss-of-freedom-as-obamacare-details-emerge/
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226132/obamas-redistributive-change-and-death-freedom/andrew-c-mccarthy
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AswPQUliMg
As far as continued accusations of Tea Party people like me being racist is simply laughable and as you see by some of the comments like Sluff, it will only lead to a backlash against this class warfare. I will list the Tea Party group of white folks listening to a black man talking about how to improve this nation. Anyone that opposes Obama is called a racist which is simply not true. I oppose his political philosophy and it is as simple as that. I would suggest you go back and read the responses to my posts and how many times people imposed comments of racism, lack of compassion and other such comments. At the same time, I did not nor have I resorted to such outright false allegations nor will I in the future.
I will continue to argue point by point the merits of conservatism.
As far as the article you linked, yes, I read every word of it and responded to you. Please don't imply false accusations once again.
As far as how do I feel Obama feels about this nation, I do not feel he has the best interest at heart to defend and protect America from outside influences. Starting with his grand apology tour, his complete insulting demeanor to our closest allies, his overt gestures to the muslim world including bowing to the Saudi king while at the same time disrespecting the Queen of England and treating the Prime minister to great disrespect before the entire world. Imagine canceling a scheduled meeting with the Prime minister of England leaving him hanging to go and meet with a group of boy scouts.
His economic policies place America at great risk. His foreign affairs such as dismantling a nuclear missile defense system in Europe unilaterally without any negotiations with the Russians to grant concessions is pure lunacy showing great weakness not strength. If he wanted to get rid of the system, he should have won concessions from Russia at the same time. What a wasted moment. Now he wishes to unilaterally disarm our military forces that even his defense secretary has spoken against.
No, I do not believe that this man has the best interests of this nation at heart for these and other reasons. Why do you take that personally. I am certainly not the first person to so state publicly. At the same time, the invective accusations against the GOP candidates flows unimpeded, yet you and others seem surprised if we have had enough and respond to these outrageous allegations.
The class warfare that Obama is fomenting is dangerous to say the least and will very likely lead to bloodshed in our streets this summer as the election nears. He continues to follow the outline of civil unrest outlined by Saul Alinsky.
http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134
I have not in the least devalued anyone in the Democratic camp since in so doing I would have insulted and devalued my own mother, father and in fact my entire family who are all, well except for my older brother and independent, all are very strong democratic supporters. No I have not done that nor shall I.
In fact, I have not touched on my own history as a Democratic supported. I have voted in the past for Ted Kennedy, Mike Dukakis and even Gerry Studds, a disgraced congressman from MA who was censured for a homosexual affair with a page. I have in my past life argued against creationism and Christian fundamentalists and in fact on more than one occasion actually persecuted them for their religion. You say I don't understand but in fact, you are completely unaware that I was Boston, Democratic liberal up until my conversion to Christianity at the age of 34. So once again, this time out of anger you are making false accusations against me. No big deal, I certainly forgive you for that, but we will simply have to agree to disagree on the political issues.
As far as patriotism, I do not believe that Obama is patriotic in the least. He sat in a church where anti-American sermons where the rule, not the exception. He claims he never heard any of these things in 20 years. Seriously, he must have a profound sleeping disorder or something to that effect. His political career in Illinois started in the house of a man suspected of bombing and murder, although never brought to trial. He identifies with radicals and his history is consistent with that.
I am sorry you take these issues personally, but quite frankly, despite the lack of choice among the GOP candidates, if Obama loses, then that will speak of the underlying anger against this man's policies. Obama is NOT an untouchable perfect candidate for you folks which you are not addressing at all. He has done great damage to this nation and if he has another 4 years could reek lasting damage difficult to undo.
I understand the patriotism of many democrats and I am not calling that into question. I could name quite a few including many in my own family who have served this nation with honor. I have not in any sense made that accusation. Instead, I have had to respond to false accusation after false accusation. After nearly four years of these false accusations by the media and even in private conversations, I have no doubt that whoever the nominee as flawed or imperfect as they shall be, the pent up anger of false accusations shall reap a backlash that many will be caught unaware.
I would actually recommend that the false accusations against us continue, it will only strengthen our resolve.
-
Dear Hemodoc, can you not see that you are engaging in the very same behavior that you denounce in others? I can see why you'd grow weary of what you feel are false accustions of Tea Party racism, but don't you also see why others would be irritated by the same tired allegations that the President is a radical or a socialist or an apologist or yada yada yada?
1. I am aware of your early political history.
2. The President didn't want to sign the NDAA in it's presented form, but the Republicans stuck it onto other legislation like they usually do, so it was an all or nothing deal, unfortunately. I would have preferred him to sign nothing, but I believe it was a tax cut for middle class Americans that the NDAA was attached to.
3. I read the links you provided, and what struck me about the Fortune article about the freedoms we stand to lose under the President's Affordable Health Care Act was that I don't have these freedoms now and haven't had them since I've returned to the US seven years ago. Since I have a pre-existing condition, I was forced onto an HMO, and so I don't have those freedoms outlined in the article, anyway. I won't miss what I don't have.
4. As for the other links, well, they would say that, wouldn't they. We could spend the next month sending links to each other that support our particular views, and I know you are not the only person who thinks the way you do, and neither am I particularly unique in my own views.
5. Did you really read the link I posted because your response, if it was a response to that link as you claim, shows absolutely no evidence of it. I trust you are not lying to me, but instead I am forced to come to the conclusion, again, that you won't investigate another perspective, at least for the intellectual exercise it provides.
6. I don't believe Mr. Obama went on an "Apology Tour", and no matter how often you define it as such, that's not what it was. As someone who lived in Europe for 20 years and travelled extensively around the continent, I understand the impact of Mr. Obama's visit. There are no words to adequately describe the sheer hatred engendered in Europe by the Bush Administration. I was no great fan of Mr. Bush, but neither was I a "hater", but even I was astonished by the sheer vitriol spewed in his direction. The EU is an important partner to the US, and I believe his trip there was appreciated.
7. Again, as someone who read the British rags for 2 decades, any kerfuffel "reported" by a Tory paper such as the Telegraph or created as fiction by the tabloids is just that...fiction. No, there was no disrespect shown to the Queen. And if Gordon Brown felt disrespected, well, I'm not surprised as he has the world's biggest chip on his shoulder. He was a very good Chancellor of the Exchequer but he was a terrible Prime Minister. Actually, he certainly showed great disloyalty to his own Prime Minister. So, if Gordon Brown felt "disrespected" by President Obama, then well done, Mr. President!
8. Again, in an effort to try to see the world through the eyes of someone with a very different life experience, I can't say that I would blame Rev. Wright if he expressed disappointment in America. How would YOU feel if YOUR people had to ride in the back of the bus, eh? How would YOU feel if the color of your skin meant that you didn't have the same rights as white folks, that you couldn't eat in the same restaurants or drink from the same fountains or have your children educated in the same schools? I'm sorry, but I am ashamed of that part of American history, and if I had had to live that way, I am not sure I could end up with love for this country. So you know what? I'm gonna give Rev. Wright a pass on this one. Judge not lest ye be judged. As you are falling asleep tonight, imagine what life must have been like for a black man when Rev. Wright was in his formative years. Then come and tell me how much you have always loved America.
9. Saul Alinksy? Really?Really? Oh please.
10. I don't take these issues personally, Hemodoc. What I DO take a teeny tiny bit personally is that not once have you said anything along the lines of, "OK, I think you are wrong, but I guess I can understand why you may think that way." I don't mind at all if you think I am wrong, but like anyone else, I at least would like to think I've been heard.
11. I am glad that you don't label as unpatriotic those who have different opinions from yours. That's gracious of you.
Well, there's no tennis tonight, so I'm going to get to sleep. Again, thanks for the conversation! Take care and sleep well!
-
You two must have terribly sore fingers. I applaud your typing, but I wish you would stop fighting and blaming each other the way you do. Probably if you met face to face, you would enjoy each others company. I am also not a racist in any form, but I will applaud the day that Barack Obama is out of office in our great nation.
-
You two must have terribly sore fingers. I applaud your typing, but I wish you would stop fighting and blaming each other the way you do. Probably if you met face to face, you would enjoy each others company. I am also not a racist in any form, but I will applaud the day that Barack Obama is out of office in our great nation.
Dear Jean, I have only defended myself from false accusations, not sure why you think I am fighting. Strong defense, yes. Fighting no.
-
Well, let's see.
Saul Alinski/Obama connection. Listen to what Alinski's son wrote.
Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/
-
NDAA,
Obama has the power to veto and not likely to have gotten an override. Instead, he will go down in history as the President who did sign this document.
-
Are we going to fight the civil rights battle over again. They won if you don't recall. BTW, how has the first black president improved things for his own people? Have you seen the black unemployment rates. Seems quite a few black leaders are unhappy with their commander in chief:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/24/african-american-leaders-and-intellectuals-express-dissatisfaction-with-president-obama/
-
Obama Apology tour:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044156269345357.html
-
Obama insults to England:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100088961/barack-obama-top-ten-insults-against-britain-2011-edition/
-
Obama Apology tour:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044156269345357.html
Speaking in Marshalltown on Friday, Santorum repeated the conservative canard that Obama had gone around the world apologizing for America. Here’s his quote: “When he went out around the world in his first trip and apologized for America, it was because he thinks that America needed to apologized for,” Santorum declared.
That charge is a favorite trope of conservative polemicists, but it simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The Washington Post has examined the record in detail, comparing what Obama has said on his foreign trips with what other presidents have said. The Post’s conclusion: “The claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts …. Republicans may certainly disagree with Obama’s handling of foreign policy or particular policies he has pursued, but they should not invent a storyline that does not appear to exist.” It rated the apology claim a whopper.
The Associated Press has also examined the “apologized for America” charge. The news organization concluded: “Obama has not apologized for America. What he has done, in travels early in his presidency and since, is to make clear his belief that the US is not beyond reproach… But there has been no formal – or informal – apology. No saying ‘sorry’ on behalf of America.”
Politifact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning truth-squad website, has also called the accusation false, saying that it was “incorrect … to portray these early speeches as part of a global apology tour,” and adding that, using the conservative standard, “you could argue that any change in foreign policy that’s undertaken after a presidential transition an announced to the world would constitute an ‘apology’ for the previous policy.”
So after the event, I noted to Santorum that fact-checkers had examined the charge exhaustively and labeled it untrue and asked why, that being the case, he was repeating it.
“Because he did,” Santorum replied, matter-of-factly.
-
Obama Apology tour:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044156269345357.html
Also to prove that WSJ is not a News Paper to report the News but a right-wing Propaganda machine to set the agenda for the benefit of the Rich, Big Corporations and Big Military consider the FACT that 99.9% of the Articles that WSJ wrote about Iraq War were in support of Iraq war.
-
"Maybe we need to find someone who really has this Country in their best interest and move forward...I don't care what gender or what color, I just want someone who really knows what they are doing."
This implies that our current president doesn't have this country in his best interest, and I resent that. You can disagree all you want with any policy decision he has made, but to imply that he doesn't care about the United States is wrong. How do you come to this conclusion? With respect, have you ever had a personal conversation with him that would make you think that he has given three years of his and his family's lives to guide this nation through difficult times just for a laugh? I'm sorry, but that is incredibly disrespectful to make such an odious charge.
And you, Hemodoc, you seem to think that you and people you deem to be "like you" are the only ones who value work, personal responsibility and freedom. My husband works two jobs, and my neighbors scrap for every construction job going. I want to know, right here and now, exactly which "freedoms" you think someone is going to take away from you? You keep banging on and on about "freedom and liberty", yet you are not terribly specific about what it is you think you have lost or stand to lose. So how about sharing that with us? And how about also telling us how you think one American president is going to single handedly ruin this country.
The tea party doesn't have a monopoly on patriotism, my friend, nor are they the only people who value those things that you value, and I think you should stop implying that you are the only American who has worked hard and who wants to support his family. You have interacted and have explained your views very well, but in doing so, you have tried to devalue anyone who might see the world a bit differently and who might have a different but still noble set of values and opinions.
You didn't read that article, did you. I know you didn't, I can tell, and that says a lot. It says that you will not even TRY to view the world from a different vantage point, not even TRY to imagine a different set of life experiences.
Your world view is stuck in a morass of victimhood, and that cannot make you happy, it just cannot. You have decried our inability to engage in civil discourse, yet you persist in this victimized mindset, so certain that you are degraded for being a man of faith and a man who applauds personal responsibility. Anyone who might have a different view is so very wrong, so very misguided, so deluded, so devalued in your eyes. The Lord your Savior gave you eyes so that you can see, but you will not. You will not entertain the mere notion that you might possibly be wrong.
You know, I don't usually take things personally. I like to think that I have enough respect for people that I want to hear their views...the hows and the whys. But I don't think you have heard one single thing I have tried to say to you. I don't think you have given me enough respect to listen. You've not reacted to a single one of my posts except to chastise me for some unseen and unintentional slight that you've perceived that I have wreaked upon you. I do not care if you or if anyone else agrees or disagrees with a single word that I post, but I'm a bit tired of being ignored at best or dismissed at worst.
If the GOP truly cared about this nation, and I do believe that many do, they would have put up a much better field than Newt Gingrich, who is a vile and arrogant man. He is mentally ill, I'm convinced of it. He has some sort of narcissistic personality disorder, and this nation will erupt if that man is elected. Mitt Romney is a corporate shill who doesn't know what to believe nor what to work for. He has no goals and if he did, he has no idea how to meet them, and if he thinks that being a "businessman" gives him the experience to be the President of the United States of America, then we can all go to meet our Maker right now because there is not a single person on this forum who is good for the blessed "bottom line". We are costing the American taxpayers money in keeping us alive, so what makes you think that Mr Romney is going to keep us around? We're not profitable. We need federal assistance to stay alive, people...is a "businessman" going to spend money on unprofitable people like us? That's just bloody brilliant. The GOP in its present form cares nothing about investing in our nation because if they did, they'd have put up more viable and psychologically balanced candidates for us to choose from. And they would also prohibit Mr. Romney from talking about "class warfare."
I'm sorry you don't like it that some people in the Tea Party movement are perceived as racist, but you're going to have to live with it.
You are right...false accusations shall not prevail. Those who believe that this President is igniting class warfare and that the Occupy message of preservation of the middle class is nothing more than anarchy WILL see a backlash against this constant and pervasive lie. And that backlash will happen in the voting booth. Americans believe in their DNA that this should be a nation of fair play, built upon the hard labor of the middle class of ALL colors, that the United States of America belong to ALL of us, from the mighty to the weakened, to ALL of us who have made our lives here, who have raised our families here, who work two or three jobs here, yet who are told that we are not worth the investment.
Good night, and good luck.
:clap;
-
Also to prove that WSJ is not a News Paper to report the News but a right-wing Propaganda machine to set the agenda for the benefit of the Rich, Big Corporations and Big Military consider the FACT that 99.9% of the Articles that WSJ wrote about Iraq War were in support of Iraq war.
Scary! And telling!
Murdoch's company owns the Wall Street Journal. This is a man with so little shame that his journalists interfered with a murdered girl's mobile phone, giving false hope to her parents that she was still alive. Vile cannot even begin to describe Murdoch's operations - all in pursuit of more, more, more, MORE billions of dollars.
-
Sorry Moosemom but I will stand in front or behind my statements.
-
Just adding my 2 Cents..... Do you all really believe that the President (Any President) really has the power to change things?
You know he's just a puppet for the real government underground power
-
Gettin back to the topic of racism accusations, listen to the rhetoric of a vocal black congressman and what he has to say to Obama. Can't call that statement racially motivated, but somehow someone will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8YDnd1Yoyk&feature=player_embedded
I suspect that Obama is underestimating the anger that his disrespect of this nation has caused. False accusations of racism only add fuel to that underlying anger at Obama. We will see election day with or without a strong GOP candidate. That is not the issue in the end. The issue will be whether people believe that Obama is taking America in the right direction. At the end of the day, that is all that will matter.
-
Jean, I have mad typing skills! LOL! And I have no doubt that should I ever get to meet Hemodoc, we'd have a smashing great time. I think I will add "Meet Hemodoc" on my bucket list. And I don't see this as fighting, so please don't worry.
Hemodoc,
1. The Daily Telegraph is Britain's conservative mouthpiece and always has been. I personally read The Independent as I try to get a more balanced view of things from the UK, but I do read the Telegraph on a more or less regular basis and have done on and off for almost 30 years now. Toby Harden is their DC based reporter, and he regularly writes this kind of anti-American tripe as does much of the Telegraph's US staff. The Brits have been banging on for decades about what they perceive to be American devaluation of the "Special Relationship". I could bang on myself, but my years of living over there probably wouldn't serve to convince you of anything.
I am not sure I understand why Americans would care so much about Mr. Obama removing a statue of Churchill (who fervently wanted the US to enter WWII, and the fact that we did not until after Pearl Harbor STILL rankles with the English...OMG, did I hear about THAT a lot!) and replacing it with a true American hero, Abraham Lincoln. If any other president had done the same, Americans would have lauded the move, celebrating the fact that our President wanted to celebrate our greatest US President. But because it was Mr. OBAMA that did this, oh, well, Churchill is suddenly so important to us. Hmmmm......
Please don't use the Telegraph to illustrate your arguments. I'd have to repeat "They would say that, wouldn't they?"
Same goes for the WSJ, aka Fox News in Print. Murdoch is a monster and his staff is unscrupulous, yet these are the organizations you use to support your arguments? Perhaps you should think about a change.
Again, we could all find links to articles that support whatever viewpoint we want to put forward. Just because they are in print doesn't mean they are fact. When you read your Telegraph article, it is an essay of opinion, not journalistic reporting. Look closely at the language used. It's one man's opinion.
By the way, you referenced the Queen earlier. Well, I have actually met the Queen, and she NEVER feels "disrespected". How could she? She's the Queen!! THE QUEEN!"
2. I am very, very interested in your comment re the civil rights movement. You said, "THEY won." And then you asked how Mr. Obama is doing for "his own people." Oh, I am rather shocked as this pretty much sums it all up, doesn't it. Who is "they"? We ALL won when ALL Americans were granted their freedoms and the right to exercise their rights in peace. And we ALL of us are Mr. Obama's people because we are ALL AMERICANS. You have just demonstrated this idea that the President is "other", which is what is REALLY dividing this nation. You may not see this as racist, but I do.
3. I also notice that you never call President Obama "president" or "Mr." Just "Obama". Disrespectful. When you are upset about the uncivil discourse in this country, perhaps it would be nice if you could show a bit more respect for the President that was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Sluff, be my guest to stand anywhere you like, but that doesn't make it true that the President doesn't care about this country. That's one of those flippant comments that are constantly thrown around about which you have no proof. You are welcome to disagree vehemently with any policy for any reason based in fact, but "he doesn't care about the country' is NOT based in fact. You've just parroted some Fox News talking point. Take this opportunity to shout if you want, too, but again, it doesn't make you right. Who issued the order to assassinate OBL? We have ourselves a bad-ass president! Oh, but he doesn't care...
Riverwhispering, no, any one president can't make wholesale changes without the consent of Congress, and Congress has been bought by the lobbyists. We are no longer a democracy although we like to think we are. We are now an oligarchy, and it is Congress that has delivered us to the buyers of power.
-
Gettin back to the topic of racism accusations, listen to the rhetoric of a vocal black congressman and what he has to say to Obama. Can't call that statement racially motivated, but somehow someone will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8YDnd1Yoyk&feature=player_embedded
I suspect that Obama is underestimating the anger that his disrespect of this nation has caused. False accusations of racism only add fuel to that underlying anger at Obama. We will see election day with or without a strong GOP candidate. That is not the issue in the end. The issue will be whether people believe that Obama is taking America in the right direction. At the end of the day, that is all that will matter.
I don't see anything racist about Mr. West's speech. It was the usual partisan stuff you'd hear from either party in an election year. Just because he is a black man doesn't mean that what he has to say is racist. I don't agree with him, but then again I don't really respond to hyper-rhetoric about "destroying" America, no matter the color of the person yelling.
I agree that America is angry, but Americans approve of Mr. Obama more than they approve of Congress, so let's just see how that pans out. Most Americans are angry that Congress seems to be completely inert. So, yes, Americans will have to decide who will more likely take this nation in the "right direction", President Obama, Manslut Newt Gingrich (yes, disrespectful, and he deserves it) or Corporate Shill Mitt Romney?
-
Jean, I have mad typing skills! LOL! And I have no doubt that should I ever get to meet Hemodoc, we'd have a smashing great time. I think I will add "Meet Hemodoc" on my bucket list. And I don't see this as fighting, so please don't worry.
Hemodoc,
1. The Daily Telegraph is Britain's conservative mouthpiece and always has been. I personally read The Independent as I try to get a more balanced view of things from the UK, but I do read the Telegraph on a more or less regular basis and have done on and off for almost 30 years now. Toby Harden is their DC based reporter, and he regularly writes this kind of anti-American tripe as does much of the Telegraph's US staff. The Brits have been banging on for decades about what they perceive to be American devaluation of the "Special Relationship". I could bang on myself, but my years of living over there probably wouldn't serve to convince you of anything.
I am not sure I understand why Americans would care so much about Mr. Obama removing a statue of Churchill (who fervently wanted the US to enter WWII, and the fact that we did not until after Pearl Harbor STILL rankles with the English...OMG, did I hear about THAT a lot!) and replacing it with a true American hero, Abraham Lincoln. If any other president had done the same, Americans would have lauded the move, celebrating the fact that our President wanted to celebrate our greatest US President. But because it was Mr. OBAMA that did this, oh, well, Churchill is suddenly so important to us. Hmmmm......
Please don't use the Telegraph to illustrate your arguments. I'd have to repeat "They would say that, wouldn't they?"
Same goes for the WSJ, aka Fox News in Print. Murdoch is a monster and his staff is unscrupulous, yet these are the organizations you use to support your arguments? Perhaps you should think about a change.
Again, we could all find links to articles that support whatever viewpoint we want to put forward. Just because they are in print doesn't mean they are fact. When you read your Telegraph article, it is an essay of opinion, not journalistic reporting. Look closely at the language used. It's one man's opinion.
By the way, you referenced the Queen earlier. Well, I have actually met the Queen, and she NEVER feels "disrespected". How could she? She's the Queen!! THE QUEEN!"
2. I am very, very interested in your comment re the civil rights movement. You said, "THEY won." And then you asked how Mr. Obama is doing for "his own people." Oh, I am rather shocked as this pretty much sums it all up, doesn't it. Who is "they"? We ALL won when ALL Americans were granted their freedoms and the right to exercise their rights in peace. And we ALL of us are Mr. Obama's people because we are ALL AMERICANS. You have just demonstrated this idea that the President is "other", which is what is REALLY dividing this nation. You may not see this as racist, but I do.
3. I also notice that you never call President Obama "president" or "Mr." Just "Obama". Disrespectful. When you are upset about the uncivil discourse in this country, perhaps it would be nice if you could show a bit more respect for the President that was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Sluff, be my guest to stand anywhere you like, but that doesn't make it true that the President doesn't care about this country. That's one of those flippant comments that are constantly thrown around about which you have no proof. You are welcome to disagree vehemently with any policy for any reason based in fact, but "he doesn't care about the country' is NOT based in fact. You've just parroted some Fox News talking point. Take this opportunity to shout if you want, too, but again, it doesn't make you right. Who issued the order to assassinate OBL? We have ourselves a bad-ass president! Oh, but he doesn't care...
Riverwhispering, no, any one president can't make wholesale changes without the consent of Congress, and Congress has been bought by the lobbyists. We are no longer a democracy although we like to think we are. We are now an oligarchy, and it is Congress that has delivered us to the buyers of power.
Dear Moosemom, once again, on this thread decrying the false accusations of racism for disagreeing with Obama, you raise a veiled accusation one more time. I spend more time with people of black hair and brown skin than any of my whitey friends by far. I am not the least concerned of continued false accusations or racism. I just got a note from one of my best friends about a week ago and you reminded me right now I haven't called him back yet. Yup, my best friend is a black man and I need to call him today. Thank you for reminding me of that.
In any case, I won't bother answering your veiled allegation, I will let Bill Cosby do that.
Thank you for one more time opening up the reason for this thread:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5345290/ns/us_news-life/t/cosby-berates-blacks-abuse-failure-parents/#.TybfzRzU_qI
-
HemoDoc:
You are writing from the Tea Party talking points. You get your news from FOX News. Rather than answer questions, you expand the subject matter. You even deny eye-witness accounts. Hey, I watched the Tea Party attempts to deny people their right to free speech at tose healthcare town hall meetings. I saw racist signs and I heard the words.
In debate I have heard the Tea Party claim that they aren’t responsible for individual misbehavior. When asked, “Who is in charge?” No one is in charge. In a legal sense the people I saw are agents of the Tea Party and you may not deny that kind of association.
Proof that the Tea Party does not know what they want or understand the effects of their actions, one only needs to view the congressional record for 2011.
As for racism and other misbehaviors, see the below:
In March 2011 Ronald Schiller, a National Public Radio fundraising executive was secretly recorded during a lunch meeting with two men posing as potential donors. Schiller said some highly-placed Republicans believed the Republican Party had been hijacked by this radical group, and characterized them as "Islamophobic" and "seriously racist, racist people".
The New York Times reported on August 8, 2009 that organizations opposed to the health insurance reform legislation were urging opponents to be disruptive. It noted that the Tea Party Patriots web site circulated a memo instructing them to "Pack the hall. Yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early. Get him off his prepared script and agenda. Stand up and shout and sit right back down." The memo continued, "The Rep [representative] should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington."
Some Tea party organizers have stated that they look to leftist radical Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals for inspiration.
On March 16, 2010, at a Tea Party protest in front of the offices of Representative Mary Jo Kilroy, a counter-protester with Parkinson's disease was berated by Chris Reichert of Victorian Village, Ohio and had dollar bills thrown at him with additional protesters also mocking the individual. Reichert initially denied the incident, but later apologized for his "shameful" actions.
On March 20, 2010, before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on in Washington D.C., it was reported that protesters against the bill used racial and anti-gay slurs. Several African-American lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "the N-word" at them.
Representative André Carson said that as he walked from the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis, amid chants of "Kill the bill" he heard the "n-word" coming from several places in the crowd. One man "just rattled it off several times," adding "You know, this reminds me of a different time," referring to the 1960s.
Gay Congressman Barney Frank, was also present during the rally and was called a "faggot".
A fourth Democrat, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who is white, backed up his colleagues, telling the Hendersonville (N.C.) Times-News that he too heard the slurs. And Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO who was also present during the protest, corroborated Lewis', Carson's, Cleaver's and Shuler's version of events during a later debate with Breitbart by saying, "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word." Politicians from both parties, black conservative activists, and columnists have argued that allegations of racism do not reflect the movement as a whole.
-
:yahoo; :cheer: :bandance; :clap; Here! Here! Moosemom! I heartily agree with your comments. Very eloquently said, I might add.
-
Sorry, Gerald, I write from my own perspective on what I believe. I have had these views for nearly 20 years which precedes the Tea Party by a few.
If you think that people like me oppose Obama because we are racist, you are dead wrong. In fact, I do need to call my friend who is a black man and get his perspective on this whole racist opposition to Obama thing. He by the way can't stand Obama. Is he a racist as well. LOL.
But keep reminding us why we can't be apathetic this year even if we are not entirely happy with our choices. Yup, you are right, they aren't the candidates we hoped for, but I would take anyone of them way before Obama again.
In any case, I really get kick out of people trying to call me a racist. My friend will have a good laugh over that later today. Thank you for reminding me I need to call him.
Have a good day.
-
Gettin back to the topic of racism accusations, listen to the rhetoric of a vocal black congressman and what he has to say to Obama. Can't call that statement racially motivated, but somehow someone will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8YDnd1Yoyk&feature=player_embedded
I suspect that Obama is underestimating the anger that his disrespect of this nation has caused. False accusations of racism only add fuel to that underlying anger at Obama. We will see election day with or without a strong GOP candidate. That is not the issue in the end. The issue will be whether people believe that Obama is taking America in the right direction. At the end of the day, that is all that will matter.
I don't see anything racist about Mr. West's speech. It was the usual partisan stuff you'd hear from either party in an election year. Just because he is a black man doesn't mean that what he has to say is racist. I don't agree with him, but then again I don't really respond to hyper-rhetoric about "destroying" America, no matter the color of the person yelling.
I agree that America is angry, but Americans approve of Mr. Obama more than they approve of Congress, so let's just see how that pans out. Most Americans are angry that Congress seems to be completely inert. So, yes, Americans will have to decide who will more likely take this nation in the "right direction", President Obama, Manslut Newt Gingrich (yes, disrespectful, and he deserves it) or Corporate Shill Mitt Romney?
Nice language Moosemom. You don't win arguments on respectability by showing lack of respect. But that is the heart of the issue.
I will gladly line up with these folks anyday. You folks can keep your occupy folks, good luck. Who is going to take out the trash?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WO40DMZWHQ&feature=related
-
HemoDoc:
You are writing from the Tea Party talking points. You get your news from FOX News. Rather than answer questions, you expand the subject matter. You even deny eye-witness accounts. Hey, I watched the Tea Party attempts to deny people their right to free speech at tose healthcare town hall meetings. I saw racist signs and I heard the words.
In debate I have heard the Tea Party claim that they aren’t responsible for individual misbehavior. When asked, “Who is in charge?” No one is in charge. In a legal sense the people I saw are agents of the Tea Party and you may not deny that kind of association.
Proof that the Tea Party does not know what they want or understand the effects of their actions, one only needs to view the congressional record for 2011.
As for racism and other misbehaviors, see the below:
In March 2011 Ronald Schiller, a National Public Radio fundraising executive was secretly recorded during a lunch meeting with two men posing as potential donors. Schiller said some highly-placed Republicans believed the Republican Party had been hijacked by this radical group, and characterized them as "Islamophobic" and "seriously racist, racist people".
The New York Times reported on August 8, 2009 that organizations opposed to the health insurance reform legislation were urging opponents to be disruptive. It noted that the Tea Party Patriots web site circulated a memo instructing them to "Pack the hall. Yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early. Get him off his prepared script and agenda. Stand up and shout and sit right back down." The memo continued, "The Rep [representative] should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington."
Some Tea party organizers have stated that they look to leftist radical Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals for inspiration.
On March 16, 2010, at a Tea Party protest in front of the offices of Representative Mary Jo Kilroy, a counter-protester with Parkinson's disease was berated by Chris Reichert of Victorian Village, Ohio and had dollar bills thrown at him with additional protesters also mocking the individual. Reichert initially denied the incident, but later apologized for his "shameful" actions.
On March 20, 2010, before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on in Washington D.C., it was reported that protesters against the bill used racial and anti-gay slurs. Several African-American lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "the N-word" at them.
Representative André Carson said that as he walked from the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis, amid chants of "Kill the bill" he heard the "n-word" coming from several places in the crowd. One man "just rattled it off several times," adding "You know, this reminds me of a different time," referring to the 1960s.
Gay Congressman Barney Frank, was also present during the rally and was called a "faggot".
A fourth Democrat, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who is white, backed up his colleagues, telling the Hendersonville (N.C.) Times-News that he too heard the slurs. And Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO who was also present during the protest, corroborated Lewis', Carson's, Cleaver's and Shuler's version of events during a later debate with Breitbart by saying, "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word." Politicians from both parties, black conservative activists, and columnists have argued that allegations of racism do not reflect the movement as a whole.
Take a look at what the rank and file has to say about your false accusations of racism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1CLPhz0DHM&feature=fvwrel
-
I am not calling you a racist even though you fantasize that everyone is calling you one. In your victimology, you deny what we all know to be true, the Tea Party is no better in their public behavior than any other group. It is obvious to all that you dislike the Occupy Movement because they have an agenda you do not favor.
You are an ideologue. You are inflexible. You see it “your way or the hiway”.
George W. Bush stuck with the ideology of “trickle down” economics. Trickle-down economics has never ever worked anywhere. And it didn’t work in the US. On September 19, 2008, we saw the consequences of inflexibility. (DJI lost 777) Then GWB handed to problem to Obama and the GOP blames Obama for our economic problems. And the Tea Party in Congress did not help.
Now we have the Tea Party membership in the House of Representatives. They failed to perform, they couldn’t perform and they brought this government to a near halt. It was that notion of , “My way or the hiway”.
How can you hang your hat on the Tea Party ideology when every indicator available says it is doomed to failure?
And where is that compassion. Yep, Tea Party guy Ryan wanted to abolish Medicare and Social Security.
gl
-
Sorry, Gerald, I write from my own perspective on what I believe. I have had these views for nearly 20 years which precedes the Tea Party by a few.
Then you're not going to believe this, but JUST THIS WEEK Fox news pundits have suddenly started wittering on about Saul Alinsky. That is so amazing that you and Fox News have independently zeroed in on a rather obscure historical figure whose most famous work was written in the mid-70s and whom most of us outside of the world of community organizing had never heard of until recently. Wow, I'd worry that my house was bugged after such a spectacular coincidence.
-
I am not calling you a racist even though you fantasize that everyone is calling you one. In your victimology, you deny what we all know to be true, the Tea Party is no better in their public behavior than any other group. It is obvious to all that you dislike the Occupy Movement because they have an agenda you do not favor.
You are an ideologue. You are inflexible. You see it “your way or the hiway”.
George W. Bush stuck with the ideology of “trickle down” economics. Trickle-down economics has never ever worked anywhere. And it didn’t work in the US. On September 19, 2008, we saw the consequences of inflexibility. (DJI lost 777) Then GWB handed to problem to Obama and the GOP blames Obama for our economic problems. And the Tea Party in Congress did not help.
Now we have the Tea Party membership in the House of Representatives. They failed to perform, they couldn’t perform and they brought this government to a near halt. It was that notion of , “My way or the hiway”.
How can you hang your hat on the Tea Party ideology when every indicator available says it is doomed to failure?
And where is that compassion. Yep, Tea Party guy Ryan wanted to abolish Medicare and Social Security.
gl
Gerald, you really crack me up. In fact, I am much more of a pragmatist which I why I have been accepted and worked in the dialysis advocacy circles well despite our complete 180 degree politial ideology differences. Oh my, it is entertaining to read your assessment of me. Let me state categorically, if you are accusing the Tea Party of being racist, then that is me since I am part of the "movement."
Instead, I have tried to show you what is the motivation behind the many people I also know in the Tea Party movement and it is NOT racism.
In any case, the racism false accusations will be useful to motivate people that would otherwise just stay on the sidelines. Please, don't stop, these false allegations will fuel the fire needed to remove your man from office.
Truly amazing how well you know a person you have never met. Geez louise. LOL. Let me go get my dark skinned wife. She is swinging in the trees to get back to her roots for a while. LOL.
-
In any case, I really get kick out of people trying to call me a racist.
You seem quite bothered by it, actually. So much so that you are seeing accusations of racism everywhere. But I guess if you enjoy convincing yourself that people believe you are a racist, that explains a whole lot.
-
Sorry, Gerald, I write from my own perspective on what I believe. I have had these views for nearly 20 years which precedes the Tea Party by a few.
Then you're not going to believe this, but JUST THIS WEEK Fox news pundits have suddenly started wittering on about Saul Alinsky. That is so amazing that you and Fox News have independently zeroed in on a rather obscure historical figure whose most famous work was written in the mid-70s and whom most of us outside of the world of community organizing had never heard of until recently. Wow, I'd worry that my house was bugged after such a spectacular coincidence.
Cariad, you are truly amazing. Please send me the link because I honestly missed that. I don't have TV here so I haven't watched Fox since early December. But please keep the laughs rolling. LOL I actually have discussions with my liberal friends about Saul Alinski. Geez Louise, you folks are digging deep. My oh my. LOL. Please keep it up, I haven't laughed this hard in a while.
-
In any case, I really get kick out of people trying to call me a racist.
You seem quite bothered by it, actually. So much so that you are seeing accusations of racism everywhere. But I guess if you enjoy convincing yourself that people believe you are a racist, that explains a whole lot.
You don't get it do you. I am laughing not at the serious allegations of racism, but instead in how untrue that is in my life but your politics is so devoid of any substance that you are left with no other things to discuss. Heck, I better go get some watermelon and fried chicken for my wife for lunch. You know how those brown folks like fied chicken. LOL
-
Just adding my 2 Cents..... Do you all really believe that the President (Any President) really has the power to change things?
You know he's just a puppet for the real government underground power
100% right. Same goes for any President. My beef with Obama is that I don't think his agenda has our Nation in his best interests. I think he came to Washington with his own agenda. I'm sure many Presidents can be accused of this but Obama's have been much more profound. Just my opinion. I served this country so that gives all of us the right to our opinion.
No personal attacks on the forum please. Debates can be very constructive or destructive. Please be careful in your wording.
Sluff/Admin
-
Just adding my 2 Cents..... Do you all really believe that the President (Any President) really has the power to change things?
You know he's just a puppet for the real government underground power
100% right. Same goes for any President. My beef with Obama is that I don't think his agenda has our Nation in his best interests. I think he came to Washington with his own agenda. I'm sure many Presidents can be accused of this but Obama's have been much more profound. Just my opinion. I served this country so that gives all of us the right to our opinion.
No personal attacks on the forum please. Debates can be very constructive or destructive. Please be careful in your wording.
Sluff/Admin
Dear Sluff,
Thank you for your service. I spent nine years in uniform and in many ways they were the most interesting of my life. I am proud to have been able to take care of thousands of active duty folks who voluntarily place their lives in harms way so that folks at home can call protest against them. Go figure. Having served these folks and seen their hopes and their fears, it is an honor that I was able to have that as a part of my life.
God bless,
Peter
-
Cariad, you are truly amazing.
Oh, that’s really sweet of you, Hemodoc. Thanks!
-
Heck, I better go get some watermelon and fried chicken for my wife for lunch. You know how those brown folks like fied chicken. LOL
I'm glad you mentioned this because it should remind us that "racist" is a serious charge, and "racist" can be defined differently by different people.
Do y'all remember when Tiger Woods won his first Masters? I believe it was his friend, Mark O'Meara, (I may be wrong, but I can't be bothered to look it up right now) who made a comment about how Tiger would be ordering fried chicken and watermelon for the customary awards dinner. Now, I was living in the UK at the time, and I thought to myself how I would kill for good southern fried chicken and then some juicy watermelon. I was brought up with this sort of food, and all that seemed to be missing was the black-eyed peas. So, imagine my confusion when I read that many in the US were upset about this comment. I had to have it explained to me by the British press that these foods were considered "black foods". Boy, did I laugh! That had never occurred to me!
And remember the picture that was photoshopped of the lawn of the White House being turned into a watermelon patch? When I first saw that, I thought that it was supposed to be some sort of advertisement for the First Lady's push to eat healthier and to perhaps grow some of your own food. I thought "What a clever photo! Wouldn't that be cool, to turn a bit of the White House lawn into a garden with a watermelon patch!" I grow my own herbs and berries, you see, so that's why I though it was be rather fun. It didn't occur to me that the photo was supposed to be a racist jab, but it seems like that was indeed the intention.
Anyway, I just thought I'd inject a bit of humor...
And I promise that if Newt Gingrich is fairly elected as President of the United States, I will cease calling him "manslut." However, it does seem that the female population of Florida agree with this assessment. LOL!
God, I wish I had some watermelon. Isn't it high in K?
-
I guess I'm confused.
Were you called a racist because you don't like Obama's politics or because he is half black and you commented on his color skin?
I don't understand what the issue is. What did you say about him that made someone even think you might be a racist? Color skin and politics is like comparing apples and oranges.
-
Just adding my 2 Cents..... Do you all really believe that the President (Any President) really has the power to change things?
You know he's just a puppet for the real government underground power
100% right. Same goes for any President. My beef with Obama is that I don't think his agenda has our Nation in his best interests. I think he came to Washington with his own agenda. I'm sure many Presidents can be accused of this but Obama's have been much more profound. Just my opinion. I served this country so that gives all of us the right to our opinion.
No personal attacks on the forum please. Debates can be very constructive or destructive. Please be careful in your wording.
Sluff/Admin
Dear Sluff,
Thank you for your service. I spent nine years in uniform and in many ways they were the most interesting of my life. I am proud to have been able to take care of thousands of active duty folks who voluntarily place their lives in harms way so that folks at home can call protest against them. Go figure. Having served these folks and seen their hopes and their fears, it is an honor that I was able to have that as a part of my life.
God bless,
Peter
And a big Thank you to you for your service both in the field and off Peter.
Sluff
-
Wow...I wonder if I can get a word in edgewise here! :boxing;
I'll say up front that I didn't vote for President Obama and will not vote for him in Nov regardless of who the Republicans put up against him. A lot of rhetoric against the president is based on personal political leanings and preferences and thus he could never satisfy most of his opposition even if he wanted to.
So I'll concern myself with some more recent actions in which President Obama has seemed to just thumb his nose at the Constitution. I'll briefly mention three as bullet points or this post could grow way too long.
1. Operation Fast & Furious. Weapons were sold to Mexican cartels through intermediaries hoping to track the weapons and use that to break up the cartels. It didn't work (surprise, surprise). But legitimate officials in Mexico might have every reason to consider that to be an act of war.
2. Speaking of war...the President authorized military action in Libya without following any of the provisions of the War Powers Act. Now it is possible to argue that the WPA is actually unconstitutional itself but the President never tried to make that case. Rather, when called on it he just said he didn't think the WPA applied. To send our military forces into war with no legislative approval or oversight of any kind certainly seems unconstitutional to me.
3. Recently President Obama made three "recess" appointments to the NLRB. These are positions subject to Senatorial "Advice and Consent" and for whatever reason approval for the individuals nominated was not forthcoming. So the President unilaterally made these appointments using the established and normally accepted procedure of "recess appointments." Recess appointments are used to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess and thus unable to vote on a nominee. Those appointed in this way may serve until the next election cycle. Unfortunately though, in this case the Senate WAS NOT in recess which is a very official and specific act.
So it seems to me that President Obama either doesn't care at all about the Constitution or at best will do whatever he can to find a loophole (even if it's his own idea of a loophole) to get done what he can't get done in traditional fashion. A President of the United States does not "rule" or "reign" over us and is subject to sharing power with the other two branches of our government...even if he doesn't like it. Barack Obama is our President--not our King.
A final comment. I know, I know...other Presidents have done things that were unconstitutional. But none of them are still in office. President Obama is the President now and must be held responsible for the actions of his administration.
-
I guess I'm confused.
Were you called a racist because you don't like Obama's politics or because he is half black and you commented on his color skin?
I don't understand what the issue is. What did you say about him that made someone even think you might be a racist? Color skin and politics is like comparing apples and oranges.
Not hard to understand why. I joined another thread after becoming irritated over the accusations of Tea Party and the birther movement being racially motivated. Since I have grave unanswered questions about Obama's past including the alleged birth certificate which has problems folks, and since I support the concepts of the Tea Party, I joined in to give logical reasons why people like support conservatism, the Tea Party and wonder why we have no access to Obama's records that all other presidents have opened to review. Legitimate questions.
in any case, despite the fact they continually deny calling me a racist while at the same time using veiled references to racism in their answers. Some of the jibes have been rather open and not veiled. Makes me laugh and really makes my wife laugh at those suggestions as well when she asked me why I was laughing earlier today
So, there is absolutely no reason to call me a racist nor is that the motivation of people like me in the Tea Party who oppose Obama.
It is interesting to understand that I have been the object of racism on more than one occasion. My first wife of Vietnamese origin, born in Saigon, and I were essentially ready to elope because her family didn't want her to marry a white boy. They finally acquiesced and agreed to the marriage but were anything but happy about a white boy in their family. The first time I met my future sister in law a couple of days before the wedding, in Vietnamese, she told my bride to be I looked like a monkey. I found out later why she had caused the commotion she caused when she entered the house. I don't speak anything but one or two words of Vietnamese. That is how the marriage started, it never got better the short time we were married. That was how I was treated by my in-laws. To say the least, I got a bunch of lessons the hard way in that family for sure. I am sure my ex-sister in law still thinks I look like a monkey, but my current wife disagrees and that is all that matters.
The second time I was subjected to racism was when I brought my second wife, Filipino in descent, with our three black haired, brown eyed children to Cape Cod. We stopped at a restaurant where we waited to be seated for over an hour. I became a bit exasperated and went back to see what was going on. There were several open tables at that point. When the hostess noticed I had seen the empty tables, she said, oh, your table is ready hoping that we would have just got tired and left. After traveling 3000 miles, we weren't in our Sunday's best. I wanted to firebomb the restaurant but my wife preferred a bunch of cock roaches. Instead, we stayed, ordered a full meal with terrible service and smiled the whole time not letting them know how angry that they had made us. Yes, racism sucks but it ain't just whitey that is doing it folks. Nevertheless, wherever it exists, it is plain and simply wrong and I have not minced my words to go against it when I have encountered it.
Prejudice is not just a white vs black issue folks, so you all really need to calm down about this whole racism issue. It will not do your campaign a bit of good to keep making this false accusation over and over again. Take a look, the opening post on this issue was in 2009 and you folks are still at it. You have provoked me and I am quite tempted to get truly politically active for the first time in my life. So, yes, just keep the false accusations coming my way and the Tea Party's way. One by one, your false accusations will fuel the fire needed to rid us of your president.
-
1. Operation Fast & Furious. Weapons were sold to Mexican cartels through intermediaries hoping to track the weapons and use that to break up the cartels. It didn't work (surprise, surprise). But legitimate officials in Mexico might have every reason to consider that to be an act of war.
I agree that this action was very ill advised and poorly executed. I understand the thinking behind it and the hoped for results, and I'm sure that had it worked, our opinion would be different. But yes, I agree with you here.
2. Speaking of war...the President authorized military action in Libya without following any of the provisions of the War Powers Act. Now it is possible to argue that the WPA is actually unconstitutional itself but the President never tried to make that case. Rather, when called on it he just said he didn't think the WPA applied. To send our military forces into war with no legislative approval or oversight of any kind certainly seems unconstitutional to me.
I don't think the President can win here. There are those who criticize him for "leading from behind" after they had previously argued that Europe should do more in the realm of policing the world, so I get confused as to what the criticism actually is. I have no doubt that Mr. Obama had the benefit of much legal counsel on this matter. I feel that the debate is underpinned by the definition of "war"; as there was no formal declaration of war, is sending in air power under circumstances such as those in Libya at the time really "war"? I don't know the answer to that, but Mr. Obama made a judgment call. I don't envy his position.
3. Recently President Obama made three "recess" appointments to the NLRB. These are positions subject to Senatorial "Advice and Consent" and for whatever reason approval for the individuals nominated was not forthcoming. So the President unilaterally made these appointments using the established and normally accepted procedure of "recess appointments." Recess appointments are used to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess and thus unable to vote on a nominee. Those appointed in this way may serve until the next election cycle. Unfortunately though, in this case the Senate WAS NOT in recess which is a very official and specific act.
Did you know that one of the recess appointments is a Republican? I can see your concern on this issue, but Congress has stalled the appointments of so many people, and I suspect that since the NLRB cannot legally function without a quorum, House Republicans recognized that fact and sought to keep the NLRB from being able to rule on cases in their purview. It is very possible that the courts may overturn these appointments, and if they do, so be it, but I personally applaud the President in doing what he can to break the partisan deadlock and get things going. This is the type of obstructionism that Americans are fed up with.
One last thing as a general comment. I am grateful to anyone who serves in our military, but I can't help but get this odd vibe that resonates with an implied message that if you have served in uniform, your opinion is somehow more valuable and your service trumps everything. I am also grateful to everyone who works to improve the lives of their neighbors and of there communities in ways that go unrecognized and don't usually come with medal ceremonies. I am grateful to, say, cariad who risked her life and bullied her way into a clinical study so that future transplant recipients might not have to be subjected to harsh post-tx drugs. I am grateful to rsudock who, using her experiences with lifelong kidney disease, works in a hospital and counsels young renal patients. I am grateful to Okarol who is such a staunch advocate for people with renal disease. I myself would like to think that I've helped people in my community from the time that I was 17 and lied about my age so that I could donate blood (I was a regular donor until I was 34), or when I was in my early 20s and volunteered as a translator at the Texas Heart Institute, or when I was in my 30s and volunteers as a support network for parents whose children had just been diagnosed with autism, or just a few years ago when I began volunteering at our local hospital. So, please don't fall into this mindset where only military service is the most ultimate and worthy way in which to serve our nation and our communities. This is not mean to be an attack of any kind, rather, it is meant to expand the definition of "honorable service."
Thanks for listening.
Hemodoc, those must have been painful experiences for you. I am so sorry that your first wife's family did not give you a chance. I sorta know what that feels like (not a race issue, though), and it's not fun. I don't think you look like a monkey, but I do wish you'd learn to pick up your socks! LOL!
-
Wow...I wonder if I can get a word in edgewise here! :boxing;
I'll say up front that I didn't vote for President Obama and will not vote for him in Nov regardless of who the Republicans put up against him. A lot of rhetoric against the president is based on personal political leanings and preferences and thus he could never satisfy most of his opposition even if he wanted to.
So I'll concern myself with some more recent actions in which President Obama has seemed to just thumb his nose at the Constitution. I'll briefly mention three as bullet points or this post could grow way too long.
1. Operation Fast & Furious. Weapons were sold to Mexican cartels through intermediaries hoping to track the weapons and use that to break up the cartels. It didn't work (surprise, surprise). But legitimate officials in Mexico might have every reason to consider that to be an act of war.
2. Speaking of war...the President authorized military action in Libya without following any of the provisions of the War Powers Act. Now it is possible to argue that the WPA is actually unconstitutional itself but the President never tried to make that case. Rather, when called on it he just said he didn't think the WPA applied. To send our military forces into war with no legislative approval or oversight of any kind certainly seems unconstitutional to me.
3. Recently President Obama made three "recess" appointments to the NLRB. These are positions subject to Senatorial "Advice and Consent" and for whatever reason approval for the individuals nominated was not forthcoming. So the President unilaterally made these appointments using the established and normally accepted procedure of "recess appointments." Recess appointments are used to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess and thus unable to vote on a nominee. Those appointed in this way may serve until the next election cycle. Unfortunately though, in this case the Senate WAS NOT in recess which is a very official and specific act.
So it seems to me that President Obama either doesn't care at all about the Constitution or at best will do whatever he can to find a loophole (even if it's his own idea of a loophole) to get done what he can't get done in traditional fashion. A President of the United States does not "rule" or "reign" over us and is subject to sharing power with the other two branches of our government...even if he doesn't like it. Barack Obama is our President--not our King.
A final comment. I know, I know...other Presidents have done things that were unconstitutional. But none of them are still in office. President Obama is the President now and must be held responsible for the actions of his administration.
Wow, where have the conservatives been hiding you, Willis? This is actually a reasonable reply focusing on serious issues. I have this confusing feeling that I am tempted to call "genuine interest in what you have to say".
Just one question, if I may. You say that "President Obama is the President now and must be held responsible for the actions of his administration" do you also believe that he should receive credit for the great things that have happened during his presidency, like taking out Somali pirates and Osama bin Laden? (If you answer in a certain way, I might just faint, so please be careful!)
(About the recess appointments, do you think that it would appear that calling a session for all of 30 seconds in order to say that they were not in recess was a deliberate and rather underhanded move to attempt to thwart the President?)
-
Heck, I better go get some watermelon and fried chicken for my wife for lunch. You know how those brown folks like fied chicken. LOL
I'm glad you mentioned this because it should remind us that "racist" is a serious charge, and "racist" can be defined differently by different people.
Do y'all remember when Tiger Woods won his first Masters? I believe it was his friend, Mark O'Meara, (I may be wrong, but I can't be bothered to look it up right now) who made a comment about how Tiger would be ordering fried chicken and watermelon for the customary awards dinner. Now, I was living in the UK at the time, and I thought to myself how I would kill for good southern fried chicken and then some juicy watermelon. I was brought up with this sort of food, and all that seemed to be missing was the black-eyed peas. So, imagine my confusion when I read that many in the US were upset about this comment. I had to have it explained to me by the British press that these foods were considered "black foods". Boy, did I laugh! That had never occurred to me!
And remember the picture that was photoshopped of the lawn of the White House being turned into a watermelon patch? When I first saw that, I thought that it was supposed to be some sort of advertisement for the First Lady's push to eat healthier and to perhaps grow some of your own food. I thought "What a clever photo! Wouldn't that be cool, to turn a bit of the White House lawn into a garden with a watermelon patch!" I grow my own herbs and berries, you see, so that's why I though it was be rather fun. It didn't occur to me that the photo was supposed to be a racist jab, but it seems like that was indeed the intention.
Anyway, I just thought I'd inject a bit of humor...
And I promise that if Newt Gingrich is fairly elected as President of the United States, I will cease calling him "manslut." However, it does seem that the female population of Florida agree with this assessment. LOL!
God, I wish I had some watermelon. Isn't it high in K?
I don't know where you get the idea that watermelon is a black food. My grandmother had a 1 acre patch of watermelon that she pretty much devoured most of it herself. She simply waited for the kids to go to bed and went out and got a fresh one right out of her garden near Fontana CA. That points out how WRONG false perceptions of other people are starting first of all with Tea Party people who I know a couple hundred at least. None of them that I know are motivated by racism. So yes, good point Moosemom, you must be careful about false impressions.
Using those derogatory terms speaks more of the people that use the terms than the people it is applied to. We have lost decorum in this nation, something that doesn't come to mind very often. My maternal grandmother lived next door to the same neighbor for 80 years and always addressed her as "Mrs. *******. Never by her first name yet they were actually rather good friends. Yes, in two short generations we have lost civility in all aspects of our society. Since man is made in the image of God, the insults we place on other men is actually a reflection of the image of God. We should remember that the next time we are tempted to speak ill of someone. We all do it, but it is not right.
James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
-
Take a look, the opening post on this issue was in 2009 and you folks are still at it.
Respectfully, I believe it was you who dragged this topic back to the four. It had been inactive since 2009. Why did you add a post of your own?
You have provoked me and I am quite tempted to get truly politically active for the first time in my life. So, yes, just keep the false accusations coming my way and the Tea Party's way. One by one, your false accusations will fuel the fire needed to rid us of your president.
You SHOULD be politically active! That's great! But may I call your attention to the "...rid US of YOUR president" sentiment? I'm afraid that it is this us vs them mindset that is so unfortunate. He is your President, too, just like George W Bush was my president.
Oh, and I never got the impression that watermelon was "black food"...that's my point! But other people (maybe those not raised in the south?) seemed to think so. Maybe someone else could enlighten me.
-
Newt Gingrich is a reflection of the image of God? You may be right, but...are you sure? LOL!
So, does this mean that President Obama, too, is a reflection of the image of God?
-
1. Operation Fast & Furious. Weapons were sold to Mexican cartels through intermediaries hoping to track the weapons and use that to break up the cartels. It didn't work (surprise, surprise). But legitimate officials in Mexico might have every reason to consider that to be an act of war.
I agree that this action was very ill advised and poorly executed. I understand the thinking behind it and the hoped for results, and I'm sure that had it worked, our opinion would be different. But yes, I agree with you here.
2. Speaking of war...the President authorized military action in Libya without following any of the provisions of the War Powers Act. Now it is possible to argue that the WPA is actually unconstitutional itself but the President never tried to make that case. Rather, when called on it he just said he didn't think the WPA applied. To send our military forces into war with no legislative approval or oversight of any kind certainly seems unconstitutional to me.
I don't think the President can win here. There are those who criticize him for "leading from behind" after they had previously argued that Europe should do more in the realm of policing the world, so I get confused as to what the criticism actually is. I have no doubt that Mr. Obama had the benefit of much legal counsel on this matter. I feel that the debate is underpinned by the definition of "war"; as there was no formal declaration of war, is sending in air power under circumstances such as those in Libya at the time really "war"? I don't know the answer to that, but Mr. Obama made a judgment call. I don't envy his position.
3. Recently President Obama made three "recess" appointments to the NLRB. These are positions subject to Senatorial "Advice and Consent" and for whatever reason approval for the individuals nominated was not forthcoming. So the President unilaterally made these appointments using the established and normally accepted procedure of "recess appointments." Recess appointments are used to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess and thus unable to vote on a nominee. Those appointed in this way may serve until the next election cycle. Unfortunately though, in this case the Senate WAS NOT in recess which is a very official and specific act.
Did you know that one of the recess appointments is a Republican? I can see your concern on this issue, but Congress has stalled the appointments of so many people, and I suspect that since the NLRB cannot legally function without a quorum, House Republicans recognized that fact and sought to keep the NLRB from being able to rule on cases in their purview. It is very possible that the courts may overturn these appointments, and if they do, so be it, but I personally applaud the President in doing what he can to break the partisan deadlock and get things going. This is the type of obstructionism that Americans are fed up with.
One last thing as a general comment. I am grateful to anyone who serves in our military, but I can't help but get this odd vibe that resonates with an implied message that if you have served in uniform, your opinion is somehow more valuable and your service trumps everything. I am also grateful to everyone who works to improve the lives of their neighbors and of there communities in ways that go unrecognized and don't usually come with medal ceremonies. I am grateful to, say, cariad who risked her life and bullied her way into a clinical study so that future transplant recipients might not have to be subjected to harsh post-tx drugs. I am grateful to rsudock who, using her experiences with lifelong kidney disease, works in a hospital and counsels young renal patients. I am grateful to Okarol who is such a staunch advocate for people with renal disease. I myself would like to think that I've helped people in my community from the time that I was 17 and lied about my age so that I could donate blood (I was a regular donor until I was 34), or when I was in my early 20s and volunteered as a translator at the Texas Heart Institute, or when I was in my 30s and volunteers as a support network for parents whose children had just been diagnosed with autism, or just a few years ago when I began volunteering at our local hospital. So, please don't fall into this mindset where only military service is the most ultimate and worthy way in which to serve our nation and our communities. This is not mean to be an attack of any kind, rather, it is meant to expand the definition of "honorable service."
Thanks for listening.
Hemodoc, those must have been painful experiences for you. I am so sorry that your first wife's family did not give you a chance. I sorta know what that feels like (not a race issue, though), and it's not fun. I don't think you look like a monkey, but I do wish you'd learn to pick up your socks! LOL!
Actually, they were planning on using it as a means of imposing gun control with the false accusation that Americans were supplying guns to the Mexican cartels. Actually, it was our government and this plot against the second amendment has come back to bite them as it should. And people wonder why we don't trust this man.
http://americanvisionnews.com/675/atf-planned-fast-and-furious-false-flag-attack-on-2nd-amendment
Psalms 9:15 The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made: in the net which they hid is their own foot taken.
16 The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah.
Psalms 35:7 For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, which without cause they have digged for my soul.
8 Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.
-
Newt Gingrich is a reflection of the image of God? You may be right, but...are you sure? LOL!
So, does this mean that President Obama, too, is a reflection of the image of God?
Of course. Makes you step back and think a bit on something that we are all guilty. But I would advise understanding how God looks upon these issues.
-
Newt Gingrich is a reflection of the image of God? You may be right, but...are you sure? LOL!
So, does this mean that President Obama, too, is a reflection of the image of God?
Of course. Makes you step back and think a bit on something that we are all guilty. But I would advise understanding how God looks upon these issues.
I agree.
-
One thing needs to be addressed. Different races can be racist against others. Just because someone has darker skin does not exempt them from being racist against others with darker skin. If I were to marry someone of Asian decent or maybe Filipino decent or Latin American decent I still could be racist against other races. My marriage would not be an argument that I am not racist just as my party affiliation would not be an argument that I am a racist. Saying that certain movements have underlying racism does not mean that I am calling everyone that affiliates with that movement a racist.
I worked in downtown Oakland, California. I was the only Caucasian in my office. One day the conversation turned to racism. The other people in my office were telling me that people within their same race there could be some of the worst offenders. That lighter skin people within the same race could be some of the worst offenders at times. Bill Cosby had an episode that directly dealt with this issue. In it they had the paper bag test. Some characters in that episode compared their skin color to a lunch bag. Being lighter than the bag was good and being darker was bad.
I always taught my children that someones' outer appearances does not define them. I put my arm next to theirs and showed them that our skin was not the same color. I then asked them if I have darker skin than theirs does that in any way make me smarter, nicer, meaner, slower, stronger...?
If A=B it does not mean that B=C.
-
I agree with you YLguy. I have seen it from all different races.
Here is a short story,
I was traveling through Texas one evening and all my lights went out on the upper half of my trailer. (I drive a semi for those of you who don't know that)
So I pulled into a truckstop that had a shop but it was closed and didn't open until 8 am the next day. There was a lot of trucks there with there dome lights on with other drivers stopping for the night and one other truck parked on a odd angle to the rest. That driver asked me if I would give him a jump start because his batteries were low. I got my cables out and jumped his truck and with in minutes it started. I then explained my problem and he came over to my truck and temporarily fixed my problem until I could find a shop open the day. We both helped each other according to an old fashion truckers code shook hands before we parted. This driver was Mexican and spoke very broken English and we worked through it and I learned a trick that I will use again someday, but sadly because of his being Mexican the other drivers would not help him.
Here was a good family man in a different country than his, broke down for several hours and these other self righteous individuals wouldn't lend a hand for 10 minutes when they were just going to bed anyway. Yes racism is still alive and well folks. I came out good though and made my delivery on time.
-
I am sure that I will be attacked for adding my 2￠but I can't believe how hateful everyone is on this thread! All of you claim to be just expressing your opinions but you attack each other if you don't agree. Then you have the nerve to call each other disrespectful. my grandmother used to say that was the pot calling the kettle black. Moosemom, Hemodoc can't you just agree to disagree without being so hateful? I used to enjoy a lively debate but nowadays one risks being arrested for voicing a different opinion. No, I'm not going to say where I stand on this issue because I come to IHD to feel encouraged not to be attacked. Please, try to be a bit nicer to each other.
-
Wow, where have the conservatives been hiding you, Willis? This is actually a reasonable reply focusing on serious issues. I have this confusing feeling that I am tempted to call "genuine interest in what you have to say".
Just one question, if I may. You say that "President Obama is the President now and must be held responsible for the actions of his administration" do you also believe that he should receive credit for the great things that have happened during his presidency, like taking out Somali pirates and Osama bin Laden? (If you answer in a certain way, I might just faint, so please be careful!)
(About the recess appointments, do you think that it would appear that calling a session for all of 30 seconds in order to say that they were not in recess was a deliberate and rather underhanded move to attempt to thwart the President?)
Concerning your first question, I'd like to stipulate first that I think there are a lot of things that Presidents actually have an influence on and many other things (perhaps most) that are just out of any President's direct control. So, in the case of my three examples...
1. Fast & Furious seems to have been dreamed up and led by people in the Justice Dept. I assume (and it's only an assumption) that President Obama at least gave his imprimatur to the operation. However, it wouldn't surprise me at all if (1) he was not given the full details and made a poor decision based on bad information, or (2) the operation was conducted without his knowledge. So it might not be "fair" to pin the whole thing on him in principle. However, once the disastrous results of Fast & Furious became known, and nothing significant was done, then the President took ownership by failing to act. Since he's ultimately responsible for those acting under him, he should have immediately fired the Attorney General and/or the imbeciles who thought it was a good idea. He would have taken himself off the hook by such action. Like so many political scandals, it's the cover-up that becomes worse than the original bad deed.
2. Now concerning Libya...that is squarely on the President's head. He did not follow the protocols of the War Powers Act and even when a sub-committee in Congress officially reminded him of his duty to consult Congress within (I believe) a 60-day window... he refused to report and insisted it wasn't necessary. Now concerning the War Powers Act and the ability of a President to deploy troops: this could be a big bag of unconstitutional worms! Rightly, no military action should EVER be taken without a Declaration of War. However, we've seen in modern times that this is not always practical and that's why the WPA was enacted. In other words, a small "amendment" to the Constitution was made legislatively to allow a President to act quickly when necessary and without consulting Congress. All parties did a "wink wink" at the legality of the act and as long as everyone goes along there is no problem and everyone's ass is covered. We have many other extra-Constitutional traditions so this is not a unique situation. But when President Obama decided to cross swords with Congress on this particular issue he must be held responsible for setting what may prove to a bad precedent for future Presidents to follow.
3. Finally, concerning the recess appointments, that was just juvenile behavior (IMO) by the President because he couldn't get his way. Even though the Senate was playing games with the nominations (which both Democrat and Republican-controlled Senates have been doing for decades) and clearly use procedural means to thwart the President as you say, for the President to do what he did was simply out of bounds. A President is never without options and by resorting to these recess appointments he was basically telling Congress that he could do whatever he wanted to do. Nah, nah, nah. That may be true in the short run, but this could come back to bite him on the behind. I'm sure many Senators have said to themselves, "Don't get mad, get even." That unfortunately will likely not be good for US.
My point is that at least for the last two items the President's hand was all over these actions. Whoever came up with the ideas originally or handled the logistics, it was President Obama in the Situation Room telling the Cabinet, "Do it."
Now to come back to your original question, I do think President Obama deserves credit in the same way for the Somali pirate and OBL situations. Everyone at the table was looking at him to say "Do it" and he did. At least the OBL assassination was not without incredible risk politically which is the primary motivation of any politician. Once the military had convinced him they could do it, he had to weigh the costs of possible failure inside a foreign country with which we are not at war (Pakistan). That decision was a right and good one in my opinion, but like President Carter's 1979 Desert One fiasco in Iran, a million things could have gone horribly wrong and such a failure would have been his cross to bear too. So kudos to the President--OBL is dead and that's good for him.
I do wonder though at times how we've come to a point that Presidents (at least the last 3 for sure) have assumed the power to kill anyone considered an enemy--especially as in a recent case a man who was an American citizen living in Yemen. Yes, these are bad men and I think they deserve their 72 virgins or whatever but still...this seems like a slippery slope to me. The power to call for the execution of anyone without a trial is a power akin to that of kings and tyrants. President Obama may be doing what has to be done, but I don't remember anything in his campaign for Hope and Change that implied he would out-Bush President Bush.
-
Moosemom, Hemodoc can't you just agree to disagree without being so hateful? I used to enjoy a lively debate but nowadays one risks being arrested for voicing a different opinion. Please, try to be a bit nicer to each other.
I'm sorry, but I cannot ignore this. Please tell me EXACTLY what I have said that is "hateful" toward Hemodoc. As a matter of fact, I have come to his defense, reminding people here on IHD that he has done so much for the renal community through his blog postings. I often post supportive things on his blog, and I am an avid reader of his writings on various sites on the web. He knows this. I've reread all of my posts on this thread and the other GOP nominees thread, and nowhere do I see any evidence of me being hateful toward Dr. Laird. Adamant, perhaps, but "hateful", no. And if you, Hemodoc, feel that I have EVER behaved "hatefully" toward you, then I stand right here, right now and apologize most profusely.
Willis, your post is thoughtful and insightful. I can understand your reasoning and don't entirely disagree. Being President is a job that I would not want to have, and as much as I may disagree with a particular president's policies, I do perhaps naively trust that they make their decisions with the best of intentions.
Edited to add...I don't feel like Hemodoc has treated me "hatefully". Never occurred to me, not once. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I am not sure he is going to appreciate one more false accusation levelled against him.
-
Moosemom, Hemodoc can't you just agree to disagree without being so hateful? I used to enjoy a lively debate but nowadays one risks being arrested for voicing a different opinion. Please, try to be a bit nicer to each other.
I'm sorry, but I cannot ignore this. Please tell me EXACTLY what I have said that is "hateful" toward Hemodoc. As a matter of fact, I have come to his defense, reminding people here on IHD that he has done so much for the renal community through his blog postings. I often post supportive things on his blog, and I am an avid reader of his writings on various sites on the web. He knows this. I've reread all of my posts on this thread and the other GOP nominees thread, and nowhere do I see any evidence of me being hateful toward Dr. Laird. Adamant, perhaps, but "hateful", no. And if you, Hemodoc, feel that I have EVER behaved "hatefully" toward you, then I stand right here, right now and apologize most profusely.
Willis, your post is thoughtful and insightful. I can understand your reasoning and don't entirely disagree. Being President is a job that I would not want to have, and as much as I may disagree with a particular president's policies, I do perhaps naively trust that they make their decisions with the best of intentions.
Edited to add...I don't feel like Hemodoc has treated me "hatefully". Never occurred to me, not once. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I am not sure he is going to appreciate one more false accusation levelled against him.
Hateful, no. Did you get under my skin a few times, well yeah, but it looks like we might actually be making a bit of progress after getting past all of the cliches that are so rampant. As I said a couple of days back, we truly have much more in common than that which divides.
I believe that the media manipulates the positions to a point where people simply cannot communicate with each other any longer until we can put aside all of these "talking points." The lessons learned from the book 1984 should be at the forefront of discussions with the barrage of media dominated and media controlled manipulations of the political discourse.
Folks, they are the enemy, not you and me.
I appreciate you as always.
God bless,
Peter
-
And remember the picture that was photoshopped of the lawn of the White House being turned into a watermelon patch? When I first saw that, I thought that it was supposed to be some sort of advertisement for the First Lady's push to eat healthier and to perhaps grow some of your own food. I thought "What a clever photo! Wouldn't that be cool, to turn a bit of the White House lawn into a garden with a watermelon patch!" I grow my own herbs and berries, you see, so that's why I though it was be rather fun. It didn't occur to me that the photo was supposed to be a racist jab, but it seems like that was indeed the intention.
If you really want to know why that depiction of watermelons on the White House lawn is heinously racist, then you have only to read the history, history that most blacks and a fair few people of other races are painfully aware of in this country. This rather reminds me of the resurgence of the word 'colored' as of late. A good friend of mine, a prof at the uni, and I are the same age. We both were floored to hear people in the younger generation using the word 'colored' to describe blacks in classes this past semester. As she said to me "do they not realise the history they are invoking?" I noticed that black students were taken aback but did not seem to want to start an ugly argument. Younger whites were utterly clueless and did not seem able to feel the tension that they had created.
Did you read Invisible Man, MM? Remember I yam what I am? People identify and are identified with food. That's why I find Hemodoc's remarks that you quoted confusing, as a woman from the Philippines would not be associated with fried chicken, watermelon and other southern food. Those types of insults are reserved for African Americans and it is a blatant and despicable reference to past abuses of black individuals.
Here is a link with a clear and engaging essay that explains this. There are some disgustingly racist images, though, so brace yourselves.
www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/may08 (http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/may08)
-
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Goering quotes
Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
Benito Mussolini
I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.
Jim Garrison
The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism.
Henry A. Wallace
You begin to realize that hypocrisy is not a terrible thing when you see what overt fascism is compared to sort of covert, you know, communal politics which the Congress has never been shy of indulging in.
Arundhati Roy
-
My final word on this subject: "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." - Plato :clap;
-
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Goering quotes
Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
Benito Mussolini
I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.
Jim Garrison
The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism.
Henry A. Wallace
You begin to realize that hypocrisy is not a terrible thing when you see what overt fascism is compared to sort of covert, you know, communal politics which the Congress has never been shy of indulging in.
Arundhati Roy
Not sure how that post relates to the prior posts, but let me take a swat at the ball. I would consider myself fairly patriot, not to the extent of some of m friends, but nevertheless, I served honorably in the military and I appreciate the freedoms we have here in America. Yet, I opposed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, well at least the extended stay there once we had cleared out Osama Bin Ladin's folks camping out there. I don't recall anyone speaking against pacifists on this thread or the others. We stick our nose into too many people's business around the world, plain and simple.
I am not at all what you would call a pacifist since I believe in a strong military for deterrence. After placing my hand in an oath to solemnly protect and defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic which I am technically still obliged since I was an officer, the role of the military and freedom are intertwined when combined with a moral people. I don't believe in nation building ventures. Not any of our business in most cases and not a very good track record in the second case.
On the other hand, fascism does not always involve military oppression to occur. The Patriot Act, the NDAA points to an apathetic populace blinded by polemic disputations who willingly give up their own freedoms for the failed promises of security. Once again, the enemies are not the DEMS or GOP's, it is the folks manipulating the rancorous dialogue between folks that in the end analysis have much more in common and much more at risk and little to benefit from these manipulations.
Obama has done nothing whatsoever to restore any of the freedoms lost under the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, or Johnson years let alone back to Woodrow Wilson and the path to serfdom that he placed us on, I don't expect anyone after them to do so either. The NDAA is only the latest example in our march to outright fascism right here in America where American's are blinded by a false sense of freedom in the ongoing up and down battle between the DEMS and GOP. While we are all focussed on these raging political battles,the creeps in Washington over and over again pass things in congress completely outside of our view.
That my friend is where the enemy and the battle is where the DEMS and GOP hang out together and are best friends at the end of the day, but appear as fierce enemies during the day. Who is fooling whom?
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
-
I just noticed that Peter asked for links to Fox news mentioning Saul Alinsky. I am quite sure you could do this yourself, Hemodoc, but I went to foxnews.com (I now have to steam clean my computer to get the icky anti-Obama residue off it, thanks very much) and typed in the name and the first thing that popped up was this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/25/gingrich-attacks-on-obama-resurrect-saul-alinsky/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/25/gingrich-attacks-on-obama-resurrect-saul-alinsky/) I have only skimmed it, but the title says it all. This is someone who has not been in the public consciousness for quite some time. Notice the phrase "mantra-like repetition" to describe Gingrich's tactics.
Hemodoc, whether you watch Fox or not and whether you discussed Alinsky with your friends or even your black best friend (whom I sincerely hope you've called by now with all the promises to do so), you would never have connected the President to Saul Alinsky if Gingrich had not put that 'talking point' as you call it in your head. I watch MSNBC (infrequently since I cut my cable about 6 months ago) and they were showing clips from Fox about this very issue, also pointing out that Gingrich is actually a fan of Alinsky's methods, as are most Republicans, because they work. You are as wrapped up in repeating so-called propaganda as anyone else.
I am not sure where the fixation with calling your best friend and getting politically active comes from. I mean, great, do those things, but you write them as if they are some sort of threat. Are we supposed to be terrified that you are going to connect with your friends and become more involved in politics?
-
I just noticed that Peter asked for links to Fox news mentioning Saul Alinsky. I am quite sure you could do this yourself, Hemodoc, but I went to foxnews.com (I now have to steam clean my computer to get the icky anti-Obama residue off it, thanks very much) and typed in the name and the first thing that popped up was this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/25/gingrich-attacks-on-obama-resurrect-saul-alinsky/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/25/gingrich-attacks-on-obama-resurrect-saul-alinsky/) I have only skimmed it, but the title says it all. This is someone who has not been in the public consciousness for quite some time. Notice the phrase "mantra-like repetition" to describe Gingrich's tactics.
Hemodoc, whether you watch Fox or not and whether you discussed Alinsky with your friends or even your black best friend (whom I sincerely hope you've called by now with all the promises to do so), you would never have connected the President to Saul Alinsky if Gingrich had not put that 'talking point' as you call it in your head. I watch MSNBC (infrequently since I cut my cable about 6 months ago) and they were showing clips from Fox about this very issue, also pointing out that Gingrich is actually a fan of Alinsky's methods, as are most Republicans, because they work. You are as wrapped up in repeating so-called propaganda as anyone else.
I am not sure where the fixation with calling your best friend and getting politically active comes from. I mean, great, do those things, but you write them as if they are some sort of threat. Are we supposed to be terrified that you are going to connect with your friends and become more involved in politics?
Oh come on Cariad. I became aware of Saul Alinski during the last election cycle. I have been tempted to actually read some of his books instead of only excerpts here and there, but really I couldn't care less about his rantings on how to bring about societal upheaval outside of the manner in which Obama has used his protocols as Alinski's own son testified in a NYT opinion.
I don't impose terror against anyone at 5'6' inches in height. I am only telling you over and over again that false accusations of racism and other polemic attacks will backfire in a backlash of anger against these tactics. Didn't you get enough of that with the 2010 congressional elections?
But if you folks want to keep thinking these false things about the Tea Party and and other such things, my irritation at being called a racist has ebbed into outright raucous laughter. Sorry, but if you folks want to believe these things, that is actually helpful to the GOP which I promise will result in higher voter turnout. Anyone unjustly accused of any wrong or misdeed always activates them to action.
I would hope you would give me a little bit of credit to think on my own. Just because Fox is talking about Alinski in no manner has anything to do with me talking about it. Like I said, I don't have TV here in CA and I haven't watched Fox since early December. You can believe that or not, but really I wouldn't waste more time trying to prove something so inconsequential.
Have a good day Cariad and think about why Alinski and his ideas are dangerous to America. Have a good night.
-
Thanks for the link Cariad, first time I have seen this. In addition, I don't follow what Newt says very often either. I spend most of my time reading about dialysis issues and have only in the last week spent any time at all on all of this political nonsense since I first responded on the GOP thread. I believe both parties have sold us out long ago. So much for me being a fascist anti-semitic GOP supporter as Gerald is trying to tell the world. LOL.
My wife has been wondering the last few days why I just start to laugh for no reason at all. She looks over at me typing away on my computer and asks me if I am OK. I showed her a couple of the comments against me and she just laughed hysterically as well. I am actually a fairly apolitical person tired of broken promises and fat cat politicians messing with my freedoms and my money. Perhaps it is time to get a bit more involved actually with the way things are in this nation.
In any case, give it a rest Cariad, I have known about Alinski for at least four years already.
-
HD said; "So much for me being a fascist anti-semitic GOP supporter as Gerald is trying to tell the world."
And you complained about the suggestion of racism. Apology please!
gerald
-
HD said; "So much for me being a fascist anti-semitic GOP supporter as Gerald is trying to tell the world."
And you complained about the suggestion of racism. Apology please!
gerald
Dear Gerald, you specifically said I was just like Father Coughlin who is an anti-semitic fascist. I have voiced support of the GOP. So are you telling me that you have repudiated your accusation of me being like father Coughlin?
HD;
There are many issues in contemporary America that ought to be addressed. The rise of the Tea Party is very much like any fringe movement that has risen during difficult times. (see the Great Depression) Yes, you and Glenn Beck sound much like Father Coughlin.
After the 1936 election, Coughlin increasingly expressed sympathy for the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini as an antidote to Bolshevism. His weekly broadcasts became suffused with antisemitic themes. He blamed the Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers", and also claimed that Jewish bankers were behind the Russian Revolution. On November 27, 1938, he said "There can be no doubt that the Russian Revolution ... was launched and fomented by distinctively Jewish influence." [25]
Social Justice on sale in a New York City street, 1939
He began publication of a weekly rotogravure magazine, Social Justice, during this period. Coughlin claimed that Marxist atheism in Europe was a Jewish plot against America. During the last half of 1938, the fraudulent, anti-semitic text The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published in Social Justice. From July to November, weekly installments of the Protocols were printed in the magazine.[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
I would state that you are the one to owe me an apology my friend. I am not a fascist, nor am I anti-semitic as is documented for Father Coughlin which you have stated that I allegedly sound just like him. I don't think so, but have a good night. By the way, I have not made cast any aspersions your way once. If I have, for that you do have my deepest apologies. But to the best of my failing memory, I have only retorted your continuous imaginary false accusations. In any way, this dialogue is becoming quite unproductive. Believe what you may about me, a person you have never met, never known yet you seem to be my one expert on all of my inner thoughts and secrets. That is quite a talent my friend. In any case, this is growing tiresome. Believe what you want.
Thank you.
Peter
-
I've been thinking all day about watermelon being an age old symbol of racism and why, and I was also struck by cariad's comment about how younger students were using the word "colored", not realizing the tension they were creating. I realized that I had no idea that "colored" was a bad word choice. It wouldn't occur to me to use that word as it seems outdated, but who am I to judge which labels are offensive these days and which are not. And who DOES decide these things. That these young students didn't know this word was 'bad"...is that a good thing or a bad thing? One would hope that the younger generations that follow us wouldn't have this racist history of vocabulary to draw on, you know?
When I was a young girl, I was visiting my cousins in NYC. One of them told me a joke that had the word "wop" in it. I had no idea what it meant, and I told this joke to one of her friends because "wop" made a funny sound. I was puzzled when this friend didn't look best pleased. When she realized I didn't know what I had said, she told me, and I was mortified. Was I being racist or just ignorant? Who gets to decide?
When I was in college, one year I had a suitemate who I liked a lot. Four of us shared a suite; three of us had lived together before, but this one suitemate was new to our group. She was in the habit of staying up very late, and one night when I was still awake, she nervously told me that she had something to tell me. I had no idea what it could be, but she was not confident it would be something I'd be OK with. She preceeded to tell me that she was....Jewish. I kept waiting for the really awful news, but, well, I guess that was supposed to be it. I wasn't sure what she was expecting, and to this day, I'm not sure what past experience in her life had made her think that being Jewish was some sort of personal failing. Again, I felt really ignorant because obviously this was supposed to mean something, just like "wop" was supposed to mean something, but it meant nothing to me.
When I moved to the UK, it was a unique experience, and it was interesting to discover for myself that racism is a learned behaviour. When I moved there, I didn't really know about the frictions between the various countries that make up the United Kingdom. I didn't know that Glasgow had a Catholic football team and a Protestant football team. I hadn't yet been "taught" that the English were bastards and the Irish were drunkards and the Welsh were unintelligible and the Scots were, well, Scots. LOL! And we won't even touch upon the failings of the Germans and the French! But by the time I left, boy, had I had an education. I wish I had never learned these things.
Anyway, this is all appropo of nothing, but it's been rattling around in my head all day and I have to get rid of it, so this seemed as good a place as any. If I were to say something that I didn't intend to be racist (being generally ignorant again), but someone took it as being racist, then did I say something racist? Again, who gets to decide?
-
I've been thinking all day about watermelon being an age old symbol of racism and why, and I was also struck by cariad's comment about how younger students were using the word "colored", not realizing the tension they were creating. I realized that I had no idea that "colored" was a bad word choice. It wouldn't occur to me to use that word as it seems outdated, but who am I to judge which labels are offensive these days and which are not. And who DOES decide these things. That these young students didn't know this word was 'bad"...is that a good thing or a bad thing? One would hope that the younger generations that follow us wouldn't have this racist history of vocabulary to draw on, you know?
When I was a young girl, I was visiting my cousins in NYC. One of them told me a joke that had the word "wop" in it. I had no idea what it meant, and I told this joke to one of her friends because "wop" made a funny sound. I was puzzled when this friend didn't look best pleased. When she realized I didn't know what I had said, she told me, and I was mortified. Was I being racist or just ignorant? Who gets to decide?
When I was in college, one year I had a suitemate who I liked a lot. Four of us shared a suite; three of us had lived together before, but this one suitemate was new to our group. She was in the habit of staying up very late, and one night when I was still awake, she nervously told me that she had something to tell me. I had no idea what it could be, but she was not confident it would be something I'd be OK with. She preceeded to tell me that she was....Jewish. I kept waiting for the really awful news, but, well, I guess that was supposed to be it. I wasn't sure what she was expecting, and to this day, I'm not sure what past experience in her life had made her think that being Jewish was some sort of personal failing. Again, I felt really ignorant because obviously this was supposed to mean something, just like "wop" was supposed to mean something, but it meant nothing to me.
When I moved to the UK, it was a unique experience, and it was interesting to discover for myself that racism is a learned behaviour. When I moved there, I didn't really know about the frictions between the various countries that make up the United Kingdom. I didn't know that Glasgow had a Catholic football team and a Protestant football team. I hadn't yet been "taught" that the English were bastards and the Irish were drunkards and the Welsh were unintelligible and the Scots were, well, Scots. LOL! And we won't even touch upon the failings of the Germans and the French! But by the time I left, boy, had I had an education. I wish I had never learned these things.
Anyway, this is all appropo of nothing, but it's been rattling around in my head all day and I have to get rid of it, so this seemed as good a place as any. If I were to say something that I didn't intend to be racist (being generally ignorant again), but someone took it as being racist, then did I say something racist? Again, who gets to decide?
MM, your post puts me in mind of the song from South Pacific: You Have to be Careful Taught.
No better place to voice these thoughts than here.
Aleta
-
I just noticed that Peter asked for links to Fox news mentioning Saul Alinsky. I am quite sure you could do this yourself, Hemodoc, but I went to foxnews.com (I now have to steam clean my computer to get the icky anti-Obama residue off it, thanks very much) and typed in the name and the first thing that popped up was this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/25/gingrich-attacks-on-obama-resurrect-saul-alinsky/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/25/gingrich-attacks-on-obama-resurrect-saul-alinsky/) I have only skimmed it, but the title says it all. This is someone who has not been in the public consciousness for quite some time. Notice the phrase "mantra-like repetition" to describe Gingrich's tactics.
Hemodoc, whether you watch Fox or not and whether you discussed Alinsky with your friends or even your black best friend (whom I sincerely hope you've called by now with all the promises to do so), you would never have connected the President to Saul Alinsky if Gingrich had not put that 'talking point' as you call it in your head. I watch MSNBC (infrequently since I cut my cable about 6 months ago) and they were showing clips from Fox about this very issue, also pointing out that Gingrich is actually a fan of Alinsky's methods, as are most Republicans, because they work. You are as wrapped up in repeating so-called propaganda as anyone else.
I am not sure where the fixation with calling your best friend and getting politically active comes from. I mean, great, do those things, but you write them as if they are some sort of threat. Are we supposed to be terrified that you are going to connect with your friends and become more involved in politics?
Oh come on Cariad. I became aware of Saul Alinski during the last election cycle. I have been tempted to actually read some of his books instead of only excerpts here and there, but really I couldn't care less about his rantings on how to bring about societal upheaval outside of the manner in which Obama has used his protocols as Alinski's own son testified in a NYT opinion.
I don't impose terror against anyone at 5'6' inches in height. I am only telling you over and over again that false accusations of racism and other polemic attacks will backfire in a backlash of anger against these tactics. Didn't you get enough of that with the 2010 congressional elections?
But if you folks want to keep thinking these false things about the Tea Party and and other such things, my irritation at being called a racist has ebbed into outright raucous laughter. Sorry, but if you folks want to believe these things, that is actually helpful to the GOP which I promise will result in higher voter turnout. Anyone unjustly accused of any wrong or misdeed always activates them to action.
I would hope you would give me a little bit of credit to think on my own. Just because Fox is talking about Alinski in no manner has anything to do with me talking about it. Like I said, I don't have TV here in CA and I haven't watched Fox since early December. You can believe that or not, but really I wouldn't waste more time trying to prove something so inconsequential.
Have a good day Cariad and think about why Alinski and his ideas are dangerous to America. Have a good night.
I never said you imposed "terror" against anyone. You seem to be bringing your own colorful reading to everything that anyone who disagrees with you says. You stated you personally would become politically active if we did not drop our opinions of the tea party and the birthers and stop talking about it. That comes off as a threat, and sadly, a pretty lame one, truth be told. Everything you said about engaging more Tea Partiers in politics can also be said about progressives. I have no fear of the other side, I welcome it because they 99 out of 100 times are their own worst enemies. People have had enough with corporate interests hijacking this country, and with zillionaires whining that, among other things, teachers are greedy for making $50k a year and having health benefits that don't make you shudder at the thought of needing a doctor's assistance. So what else have you got? Because I am not looking to you for permission on what I can and cannot talk about, and whether or not I should continue with conversations like the one that MM is continuing below. These are important discussions that I enjoy having and remain baffled why you insist on taking it so personally.
Saul Alinsky (which is actually spelled with a y so I am not sure why someone who is so familiar with him cannot even get that straight) is the latest monster to be reanimated by the Republicans. If you were so concerned about him, why have you not mentioned it until Gingrich did? You can claim all you want that you have not seen specific articles or programs, I don't doubt that for a moment, but I do sincerely doubt that you were warning the masses about Alinsky's influence on President Obama before Newt's campaign came along. Whether you've known about him for years, you chose an interesting time to suddenly be preoccupied with his teachings. And I wish I had time to read his book. It sounds like a groundbreaking piece which has many people thinking about how to get people engaged with the world. I think his Rules for Radicals could be used by the kidney community to fire up more patients to demand better dialysis. Actually, I probably should make time to read it as I am about to embark upon a project that involves healthcare systems, and from my political experience with fighting for the life of public schools, I can say that the toughest part of organizing is getting people to care enough to overcome their cynicism.
I am glad you are finding this so amusing as I do have a dry sense of humor that is often missed in print. I'm having a brilliant time as well. It's pointless to keep talking if we're not enjoying this, and able to inject humor here and there. See, the thing about steam cleaning my computer, that was a joke. Everyone knows anti-Obama residue requires an organic solvent to remove. Steam would just cloud up the monitor.
-
I've been thinking all day about watermelon being an age old symbol of racism and why, and I was also struck by cariad's comment about how younger students were using the word "colored", not realizing the tension they were creating. I realized that I had no idea that "colored" was a bad word choice. It wouldn't occur to me to use that word as it seems outdated, but who am I to judge which labels are offensive these days and which are not. And who DOES decide these things. That these young students didn't know this word was 'bad"...is that a good thing or a bad thing? One would hope that the younger generations that follow us wouldn't have this racist history of vocabulary to draw on, you know?
Neither good nor bad, intellectually, just interesting. However, bad in that the young black students most certainly DID understand, at least from what I could tell. Terrible, in fact, that white students are not made aware of these issues and feel entitled to just ignore it. Ignoring racism does not make it go away, it feeds it. Ignorance of racism leads to claims that people are being oversensitive when they are only reacting to very serious (and as Sluff pointed out, still very much present) problems. It is not for the white students to decide that it's time to start using colored again. I posited to my friend that this was a reaction to the inherent clunkiness of terms like 'people of color' or African American. It sounds stupid, but having to write or say 'People of Color' over and over makes a person question whether there isn't an easier way. At least that is what I am hoping and that it is not some concerted effort to exercise a 'right' to label others as we choose.
Colored means different things in different places - in South Africa colored is anyone who can not be classified as black or white. It is not a stigmatized word. Gwyn used the word colored in his early years in America, which my friends found shocking (not because he put his foot in it in front of them, but because I told them he used that word. I was convinced this was a cultural difference or misunderstanding.)
When I was a young girl, I was visiting my cousins in NYC. One of them told me a joke that had the word "wop" in it. I had no idea what it meant, and I told this joke to one of her friends because "wop" made a funny sound. I was puzzled when this friend didn't look best pleased. When she realized I didn't know what I had said, she told me, and I was mortified. Was I being racist or just ignorant? Who gets to decide?
Just ignorant. Of course! First, you were a young girl. Second, even if you weren't, if you didn't know and someone informs you that this is a slight against Italians and you take that seriously, how could it be considered racist? I would have been mortified if one of my kids said that because I would have be concerned that people would have thought I was using that kind of language in front of them. I have a story about something much more trivial that Liot said, but I'll have to save that.
When I was in college, one year I had a suitemate who I liked a lot. Four of us shared a suite; three of us had lived together before, but this one suitemate was new to our group. She was in the habit of staying up very late, and one night when I was still awake, she nervously told me that she had something to tell me. I had no idea what it could be, but she was not confident it would be something I'd be OK with. She preceeded to tell me that she was....Jewish. I kept waiting for the really awful news, but, well, I guess that was supposed to be it. I wasn't sure what she was expecting, and to this day, I'm not sure what past experience in her life had made her think that being Jewish was some sort of personal failing. Again, I felt really ignorant because obviously this was supposed to mean something, just like "wop" was supposed to mean something, but it meant nothing to me.
OK, I might be able to enlighten here. Maybe not. My family's jewish but my dad hates all religions equally, so I was raised atheist. People take their religions so seriously. (I know. Understatement?) Your suitemate was worried you wouldn't like her anymore, not that you would suddenly start a pogrom against her, but just that this would fundamentally change your view of her. Until I came on this forum I was never so vocal about being an atheist because there are many, many people in this country who back away from you like you are toxic waste if you say you are atheist. (I have a story about that that will also have to keep! So many stories!) I don't see foaming-at-the-mouth attacks on atheism as prejudicial (though there is that) I see it as anti-intellectualism mixed with sheer terror that I might somehow convince someone that I am right and their entire religion is a waste of time. And I have a similar story about telling Gwyn that I had had a kidney transplant and reasons aside, apparently I built so much tension up before mentioning my history that he actually responded "God, I thought you were going to tell me you used to be a man or something." (I really don't remember making that big a deal of it, but Gwyn and I often remember things differently.)
When I moved to the UK, it was a unique experience, and it was interesting to discover for myself that racism is a learned behaviour. When I moved there, I didn't really know about the frictions between the various countries that make up the United Kingdom. I didn't know that Glasgow had a Catholic football team and a Protestant football team. I hadn't yet been "taught" that the English were bastards and the Irish were drunkards and the Welsh were unintelligible and the Scots were, well, Scots. LOL! And we won't even touch upon the failings of the Germans and the French! But by the time I left, boy, had I had an education. I wish I had never learned these things.
Anyway, this is all appropo of nothing, but it's been rattling around in my head all day and I have to get rid of it, so this seemed as good a place as any. If I were to say something that I didn't intend to be racist (being generally ignorant again), but someone took it as being racist, then did I say something racist? Again, who gets to decide?
You said something racist but that does not mean you are a racist. It depends on whether you dig in and arrogantly defend your statement, or just say, oh, oops, thanks for letting me know, I don't want to come off as an uneducated boor. I really don't see any decision that needs to be made. The problem is not people who genuinely don't know, the problem is people who, upon learning, don't care.
I had this discussion with Aidan, based on reading more through that Jim Crow Museum website that I linked. There is a page about racist memorabilia and it mentions a pokemon card named Jynx. Pokemon is all the flipping rage with children these days, so I buy these card for my kids and we parents try to convince ourselves that it has some educational value, but I had no idea that they slipped one in that looks like something out of a minstrel show. This is happening right now, and the corporations are bypassing parents (because show me the parent that doesn't shriek in abject terror at the idea of having to understand pokemon) and indoctrinating children to accept racist imagery. Now, Aidan was of course adorable about this. He so wanted to learn, he so wanted to know how to be a good person and a good friend. (His black friends are as obsessed with pokemon as he is as far as he reports.) I asked him to find me the card but he said he did not think he had that one, that he probably traded it because "it's not a very good card". I asked him how he would feel if he were L. (a black friend) and he saw this depiction of people with his skin color, and he instantly got it. I told him if he did come across that card that I wanted it. I am attending a university - I could get this in the right hands and demand to know what we can do about it. There is a television program called Dragon Ball Z Kai and there is a black character on there that Aidan said he thought was just supposed to be 'an alien'. This character was so grotesque that I originally showed it to Aidan thinking it had come out of a cartoon of the 30s, so it was he who informed me that no, that is actually a present day character. The website described him as a "faithful servant". Aidan reports that "he's really the only guy on that show who looks like that" (as in, has dark skin). Is it OK for a television program to use these images with children? I certainly don't think so, and I get to decide when it's my kids and their intellectual growth. They need to know in an age-appropriate way what is going on here. I explained the term 'Uncle Tom' to Aidan with reference to the Dragon Ball Z program. I've been thinking about the Pokemon card. Jynx? As in, let's evoke images of voodoo priestesses putting curses on people? Abhorrent. See for yourself:
http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/newforms/ (http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/newforms/)
(Not that I think anyone is actually following these links, but I happen to think that this is a truly well-done website that discusses racism in a calm and intelligent manner and manages to not put anyone on the defensive.)
-
Wow, where have the conservatives been hiding you, Willis? This is actually a reasonable reply focusing on serious issues. I have this confusing feeling that I am tempted to call "genuine interest in what you have to say".
Just one question, if I may. You say that "President Obama is the President now and must be held responsible for the actions of his administration" do you also believe that he should receive credit for the great things that have happened during his presidency, like taking out Somali pirates and Osama bin Laden? (If you answer in a certain way, I might just faint, so please be careful!)
(About the recess appointments, do you think that it would appear that calling a session for all of 30 seconds in order to say that they were not in recess was a deliberate and rather underhanded move to attempt to thwart the President?)
Concerning your first question, I'd like to stipulate first that I think there are a lot of things that Presidents actually have an influence on and many other things (perhaps most) that are just out of any President's direct control. So, in the case of my three examples...
1. Fast & Furious seems to have been dreamed up and led by people in the Justice Dept. I assume (and it's only an assumption) that President Obama at least gave his imprimatur to the operation. However, it wouldn't surprise me at all if (1) he was not given the full details and made a poor decision based on bad information, or (2) the operation was conducted without his knowledge. So it might not be "fair" to pin the whole thing on him in principle. However, once the disastrous results of Fast & Furious became known, and nothing significant was done, then the President took ownership by failing to act. Since he's ultimately responsible for those acting under him, he should have immediately fired the Attorney General and/or the imbeciles who thought it was a good idea. He would have taken himself off the hook by such action. Like so many political scandals, it's the cover-up that becomes worse than the original bad deed.
2. Now concerning Libya...that is squarely on the President's head. He did not follow the protocols of the War Powers Act and even when a sub-committee in Congress officially reminded him of his duty to consult Congress within (I believe) a 60-day window... he refused to report and insisted it wasn't necessary. Now concerning the War Powers Act and the ability of a President to deploy troops: this could be a big bag of unconstitutional worms! Rightly, no military action should EVER be taken without a Declaration of War. However, we've seen in modern times that this is not always practical and that's why the WPA was enacted. In other words, a small "amendment" to the Constitution was made legislatively to allow a President to act quickly when necessary and without consulting Congress. All parties did a "wink wink" at the legality of the act and as long as everyone goes along there is no problem and everyone's ass is covered. We have many other extra-Constitutional traditions so this is not a unique situation. But when President Obama decided to cross swords with Congress on this particular issue he must be held responsible for setting what may prove to a bad precedent for future Presidents to follow.
3. Finally, concerning the recess appointments, that was just juvenile behavior (IMO) by the President because he couldn't get his way. Even though the Senate was playing games with the nominations (which both Democrat and Republican-controlled Senates have been doing for decades) and clearly use procedural means to thwart the President as you say, for the President to do what he did was simply out of bounds. A President is never without options and by resorting to these recess appointments he was basically telling Congress that he could do whatever he wanted to do. Nah, nah, nah. That may be true in the short run, but this could come back to bite him on the behind. I'm sure many Senators have said to themselves, "Don't get mad, get even." That unfortunately will likely not be good for US.
My point is that at least for the last two items the President's hand was all over these actions. Whoever came up with the ideas originally or handled the logistics, it was President Obama in the Situation Room telling the Cabinet, "Do it."
Now to come back to your original question, I do think President Obama deserves credit in the same way for the Somali pirate and OBL situations. Everyone at the table was looking at him to say "Do it" and he did. At least the OBL assassination was not without incredible risk politically which is the primary motivation of any politician. Once the military had convinced him they could do it, he had to weigh the costs of possible failure inside a foreign country with which we are not at war (Pakistan). That decision was a right and good one in my opinion, but like President Carter's 1979 Desert One fiasco in Iran, a million things could have gone horribly wrong and such a failure would have been his cross to bear too. So kudos to the President--OBL is dead and that's good for him.
I do wonder though at times how we've come to a point that Presidents (at least the last 3 for sure) have assumed the power to kill anyone considered an enemy--especially as in a recent case a man who was an American citizen living in Yemen. Yes, these are bad men and I think they deserve their 72 virgins or whatever but still...this seems like a slippery slope to me. The power to call for the execution of anyone without a trial is a power akin to that of kings and tyrants. President Obama may be doing what has to be done, but I don't remember anything in his campaign for Hope and Change that implied he would out-Bush President Bush.
Room spinning..... feeling dizzy.....
Kidding. This is so unbelievably refreshing to read. I don't know enough about the Mexican gun situation to comment right now, and I think I might agree with you on many other points, which as I've said, is so confusing I need time to sort my thoughts out. Thank you for this reply.
-
I've taken the time to read all of the above, though quickly, and I don't have much time for a considered reply (there's nothing really to reply to...I don't disagree with anything), but as we are telling stories, I have just one more...
As you all know, my son has high functioning autism, and he spent most of his school years in a terrific school in the UK for children with "normal" intelligence but also with language or speech difficulties. This school was located in another education authority, and as such, he was entitled to free transportation to and from school. This took the form of private taxi (those great London cabs!), and he had the same driver(s) each day for years. He shared the taxi with three other students. So, over the years, I got to know the cab drivers (a husband and wife team) quite well; my son was always the last to be dropped off, so the cab driver would often have time for a quick chat.
One day, the driver told me in a hushed voice that my son had said that another of his cab mates had black skin. The inference was that my son may have some racist thoughts and I needed to be aware of that. You know how kids are..they will say all kinds of things they don't really understand. Well, I know my son isn't perfect, but I also knew that a fair few of his schoolmates were from all kinds of different cultures, and maybe there was some racial problem there that I didn't know about. I had never "taught" my son about racism; it was just not a conversational topic that ever came up.
Of course I was mortified, so I gently quizzed him about what he had said. Now remember that my son's verbal skills were not well developed, but in a way that was a good thing because he would get right to the heart of the matter without being too wordy (unlike his mum!). I asked him what he said, and he replied that he has said that X had black skin. Well, that happens to be true. I couldn't detect any judgment or underlying feeling in his reply, rather, it was a statement of fact. So, I asked him, "Well, what color is YOUR skin?" "PINK!" He didn't say he was white, rather, he said he was pink. And that was a statement of fact, too, because he is not made of china. This still makes me laugh to this day.
Cariad, regarding the students using the word "colored", did anyone speak to them about how this word was perceived? Were they given the opportunity to learn that it causes harm? Language is such a fluid thing at the best of times.
Did you know that in cockney rhyming slang, Americans are called "septics"...septic tanks = Yanks. Is that racist? It sure is funny! :rofl;
-
I've just returned from my daily walk; this is when I do most of my thinking. :P I was thinking more about my long-ago Jewish suitemate. Yes, I understood that she thought that my view of her would change or that I wouldn't like her anymore, but what I didn't understand was WHY she would think that. To be fair, though, she didn't really know me very well, so she had no way of knowing how I would react. I guess I was just surprised that she thought I WOULD react in any way.
Then I started thinking about how we learn these divisive attitudes. Was it a good thing or a bad thing that I had no idea that being Jewish was something to be secretive about (at least SHE thought so)? I did read the link, cariad, regarding racist artifacts, and there was information there that caught me completely unawares. Again, is my ignorance a good thing or a bad thing? What do we do with our history? Does ignoring it foster more tolerance, and does knowledge provide ammunition?
Hypothetically, let's say you take Person A and Person B who have no knowledge of the history of racism in this country. Let's say that up to now, they had lived under rocks. You sit them down and explain immigration patterns in US history and how slavery introduced Africans into the country, and how to this day, this population remains disadvantaged in many ways (including worse pre-dialysis care, by the way). I can see how it is possible that Person A might think, "Oh, that is terrible! What injustice! I must be careful not to be offensive. I'm glad I have this information." I can also see how Person B might think, "Hmmm...well, I don't like being around people who are not like me, so these people are offensive, and now I know how I can degrade them. The blueprint is right there in front of me." How do we change people so fundamentally?
When is the power of knowledge better than the bliss of ignorance? I really don't know.
-
I've just returned from my daily walk; this is when I do most of my thinking. :P I was thinking more about my long-ago Jewish suitemate. Yes, I understood that she thought that my view of her would change or that I wouldn't like her anymore, but what I didn't understand was WHY she would think that. To be fair, though, she didn't really know me very well, so she had no way of knowing how I would react. I guess I was just surprised that she thought I WOULD react in any way.
Then I started thinking about how we learn these divisive attitudes. Was it a good thing or a bad thing that I had no idea that being Jewish was something to be secretive about (at least SHE thought so)? I did read the link, cariad, regarding racist artifacts, and there was information there that caught me completely unawares. Again, is my ignorance a good thing or a bad thing? What do we do with our history? Does ignoring it foster more tolerance, and does knowledge provide ammunition?
Hypothetically, let's say you take Person A and Person B who have no knowledge of the history of racism in this country. Let's say that up to now, they had lived under rocks. You sit them down and explain immigration patterns in US history and how slavery introduced Africans into the country, and how to this day, this population remains disadvantaged in many ways (including worse pre-dialysis care, by the way). I can see how it is possible that Person A might think, "Oh, that is terrible! What injustice! I must be careful not to be offensive. I'm glad I have this information." I can also see how Person B might think, "Hmmm...well, I don't like being around people who are not like me, so these people are offensive, and now I know how I can degrade them. The blueprint is right there in front of me." How do we change people so fundamentally?
When is the power of knowledge better than the bliss of ignorance? I really don't know.
I would answer your question about whether it is better to confront or ignore racism by asking if you would want discrimination against your son for having autism ignored or confronted. I see nothing to be gained in ignoring racism. If the person who is the victim of racism wants to ignore it, then I suppose that is their right. I believe the vast majority of people in this country and in the UK find racism so despicable that your person B would not get very far. Social feedback is a powerful tool, and if B decides to use this blueprint (and I don't really agree that it is a terribly effective blueprint) then B will face the consequences of that action when people recoil in horror from him or her.
Going back quite a few years in my anthro experience, we had a guy from the Peace Corps in a class and he said that in Tanzania rape is not seen as something shameful to have had happen to you, the women just accept it as part of life and it is not talked about. He stated this like he had found the answer to all of American women's problems. I was stunned. If he is to be believed, they are ignoring rape there and he sees it as so positive because women are now able to say without shame "hey, yeah, I went to the market yesterday, talked to a neighbour, picked up some eggs, was raped, found a beautiful head of lettuce, and then walked home. All in all, a pretty ordinary day." I mean, holy merde.
Even with controlling for income, education, and health status blacks in the US still have markedly poorer outcomes. The answer is believed to be racism and I agree with that assessment entirely. I remember the stress I used to feel as a fat kid that I was going to be menaced whenever I was out in public. Stress is a killer, and it may sound like some nebulous factor, but the stress response is very real and perfectly quantifiable. The pre-dialysis disparity you mention is just institutionalized racism, so do we ignore it or confront it?
No one spoke to the student that I mentioned earlier about why he used that word. The prof asked him for clarification when he referred to the 'colored baby' in a video we had just watched. The prof was black and this was early in the course so no one knew what to expect. She could have crushed him but she didn't, and the black student just made a curious noise but said nothing. This was not an anthro class. Anthropologists know better and if that sounds biased, so be it. My friend reported hearing it several times in her English courses with similar results, though my friend is not black. Someone in my class did eventually ask what the preferred word for blacks in this country is, and the prof gave a very detailed response that was basically common sense: there are problems with all of the words. Liot used to call his teacher 'my brown teacher' which surprised me until I thought 'well, he's 3 and her skin is brown, it is most certainly not black'. I was a bit concerned that he would call her that to her face and she would think we were calling her that, but then I realised I just wasn't giving her enough credit. I never corrected him, I just finally told him that we should call her by her name and he never said it again.
I acknowledge that it can be tricky in the margins determining what should and should not be labeled racism, but I have no doubt that when something is clearly racist like the images shown on the site I linked, we should call it out every last time. To ignore something so hideous is to become complicit.
-
Oh no no no...I certainly do not advocate ignoring racism or any -ism of any sort. I guess my question is more nuanced, and perhaps I am not stating it clearly. I have to go back to my own experience in the UK. Like I said, before I moved there, I was unaware of the many stereotypes held dear by different groups. By the time I left, I was pretty well versed in these sentiments, and I can't say that this knowledge has enriched my life. So it's not a matter of ignoring racism, rather, its a matter or questioning when you want to introduce these vile concepts to yet another generation. I dunno...I'm just thinking out loud. After the "his skin is black and mine is pink" episode, I dreaded the possibility that I might ever have to explain to my sweet, innocent boy that throughout history, people of one color enslaved those of another and that we are all still living with the consequences of that. It's like having to explain murder or rape for the first time to your child. I just that that is a body of information that I don't want to have to hand to one more generation, you know?
-
Oh no no no...I certainly do not advocate ignoring racism or any -ism of any sort. I guess my question is more nuanced, and perhaps I am not stating it clearly. I have to go back to my own experience in the UK. Like I said, before I moved there, I was unaware of the many stereotypes held dear by different groups. By the time I left, I was pretty well versed in these sentiments, and I can't say that this knowledge has enriched my life. So it's not a matter of ignoring racism, rather, its a matter or questioning when you want to introduce these vile concepts to yet another generation. I dunno...I'm just thinking out loud. After the "his skin is black and mine is pink" episode, I dreaded the possibility that I might ever have to explain to my sweet, innocent boy that throughout history, people of one color enslaved those of another and that we are all still living with the consequences of that. It's like having to explain murder or rape for the first time to your child. I just that that is a body of information that I don't want to have to hand to one more generation, you know?
Well, I hope this doesn't sound like I'm being short with you, but it's a luxury of white people to 'dread the possibility' of having to explain racism. If you're black in this country, other races in other countries and cultures, you do not describe it as a possibility but an inevitability. So you explain it to them preemptively to try to help them cope with it when, not if, the time comes that they must face it for themselves.
-
Oh come on Cariad. I became aware of Saul Alinski during the last election cycle. I have been tempted to actually read some of his books instead of only excerpts here and there, but really I couldn't care less about his rantings on how to bring about societal upheaval outside of the manner in which Obama has used his protocols as Alinski's own son testified in a NYT opinion.
Oh, come on, Hemodoc. I decided to purchase Rules for Radicals and am already over one quarter of the way through it. It is absolute poetry. The man has a way with words and has reignited a bit of hope in the world that maybe there are people like him left. Plus, it will help me with my upcoming project, so all around, $12 well spent. I've even stopped midway through The Cleanest Race to give this my full attention.
Have a good day Cariad and think about why Alinski and his ideas are dangerous to America. Have a good night.
Had a good day and night so far, thanks. Why don't you explain to me how his ideas are so 'dangerous to America'? Excerpts can be taken out of context. I've gone to the source and can tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Show me with quotes and honest interpretation of his teachings, or failing that, why don't you give it a rest?
-
Oh come on Cariad. I became aware of Saul Alinski during the last election cycle. I have been tempted to actually read some of his books instead of only excerpts here and there, but really I couldn't care less about his rantings on how to bring about societal upheaval outside of the manner in which Obama has used his protocols as Alinski's own son testified in a NYT opinion.
Oh, come on, Hemodoc. I decided to purchase Rules for Radicals and am already over one quarter of the way through it. It is absolute poetry. The man has a way with words and has reignited a bit of hope in the world that maybe there are people like him left. Plus, it will help me with my upcoming project, so all around, $12 well spent. I've even stopped midway through The Cleanest Race to give this my full attention.
Have a good day Cariad and think about why Alinski and his ideas are dangerous to America. Have a good night.
Had a good day and night so far, thanks. Why don't you explain to me how his ideas are so 'dangerous to America'? Excerpts can be taken out of context. I've gone to the source and can tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Show me with quotes and honest interpretation of his teachings, or failing that, why don't you give it a rest?
I see no reason to go back to the type of books I read in my own radical days of college like Fear and Lothing on the campaign trail, Jerry Rubin's Steal this book teaching people how to defecate in the street to get attention and surprise. I hope you enjoy the book, but no thanks, I have other more important issues to occupy me at the present time. But do enjoy.
-
Oh come on Cariad. I became aware of Saul Alinski during the last election cycle. I have been tempted to actually read some of his books instead of only excerpts here and there, but really I couldn't care less about his rantings on how to bring about societal upheaval outside of the manner in which Obama has used his protocols as Alinski's own son testified in a NYT opinion.
Oh, come on, Hemodoc. I decided to purchase Rules for Radicals and am already over one quarter of the way through it. It is absolute poetry. The man has a way with words and has reignited a bit of hope in the world that maybe there are people like him left. Plus, it will help me with my upcoming project, so all around, $12 well spent. I've even stopped midway through The Cleanest Race to give this my full attention.
Have a good day Cariad and think about why Alinski and his ideas are dangerous to America. Have a good night.
Had a good day and night so far, thanks. Why don't you explain to me how his ideas are so 'dangerous to America'? Excerpts can be taken out of context. I've gone to the source and can tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Show me with quotes and honest interpretation of his teachings, or failing that, why don't you give it a rest?
I see no reason to go back to the type of books I read in my own radical days of college like Fear and Lothing on the campaign trail, Jerry Rubin's Steal this book teaching people how to defecate in the street to get attention and surprise. I hope you enjoy the book, but no thanks, I have other more important issues to occupy me at the present time. But do enjoy.
I am enjoying. Your answer is a cop out. You told me to think about how his ideas are dangerous to America and I can not see a single reason so I am asking you to enlighten me and you say you have better things to do all of a sudden. You don't know what you are talking about. By the way, Steal This Book was also wonderfully well written. By Abbie Hoffman. It was trying to make a point which clearly eluded you.
-
Oh my Goodness! I have read this entire thread and find myself agreeing with Hemodoc! Shock, Huh? I didnt know that my views were racist cause I agree or disagree with Osama.
Ive never been to a physiciatris, maybe I should go see one! Care to join me Hemodoc, Sluff or any other who do not like Osama. I know he is OUR PRESIDENT and so was all the others! But I guess we need a pysciatris (?). Oh my God, I can't spell either, now I know I need a shrink!
Seriously, I do believe Osama is devoted to his family which is a Good thing!
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
Oh come on Cariad. I became aware of Saul Alinski during the last election cycle. I have been tempted to actually read some of his books instead of only excerpts here and there, but really I couldn't care less about his rantings on how to bring about societal upheaval outside of the manner in which Obama has used his protocols as Alinski's own son testified in a NYT opinion.
Oh, come on, Hemodoc. I decided to purchase Rules for Radicals and am already over one quarter of the way through it. It is absolute poetry. The man has a way with words and has reignited a bit of hope in the world that maybe there are people like him left. Plus, it will help me with my upcoming project, so all around, $12 well spent. I've even stopped midway through The Cleanest Race to give this my full attention.
Have a good day Cariad and think about why Alinski and his ideas are dangerous to America. Have a good night.
Had a good day and night so far, thanks. Why don't you explain to me how his ideas are so 'dangerous to America'? Excerpts can be taken out of context. I've gone to the source and can tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Show me with quotes and honest interpretation of his teachings, or failing that, why don't you give it a rest?
I see no reason to go back to the type of books I read in my own radical days of college like Fear and Lothing on the campaign trail, Jerry Rubin's Steal this book teaching people how to defecate in the street to get attention and surprise. I hope you enjoy the book, but no thanks, I have other more important issues to occupy me at the present time. But do enjoy.
I am enjoying. Your answer is a cop out. You told me to think about how his ideas are dangerous to America and I can not see a single reason so I am asking you to enlighten me and you say you have better things to do all of a sudden. You don't know what you are talking about. By the way, Steal This Book was also wonderfully well written. By Abbie Hoffman. It was trying to make a point which clearly eluded you.
Oh, that weirdo. Sorry, I read a couple by Rubin as well. I quit reading when I got the defecating in a bank scenario or something like that. If you want to lift up that sort of low life radical, that is your business. That was over thirty years ago during my Boston liberal phase. Glad I got over that and learned to read a much better book. It is called the BIBLE. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. I will pass on all of the other stuff. No thanks. No cop out, just exercising my constitutional rights.
Thank you,
Peter
-
Oh no no no...I certainly do not advocate ignoring racism or any -ism of any sort. I guess my question is more nuanced, and perhaps I am not stating it clearly. I have to go back to my own experience in the UK. Like I said, before I moved there, I was unaware of the many stereotypes held dear by different groups. By the time I left, I was pretty well versed in these sentiments, and I can't say that this knowledge has enriched my life. So it's not a matter of ignoring racism, rather, its a matter or questioning when you want to introduce these vile concepts to yet another generation. I dunno...I'm just thinking out loud. After the "his skin is black and mine is pink" episode, I dreaded the possibility that I might ever have to explain to my sweet, innocent boy that throughout history, people of one color enslaved those of another and that we are all still living with the consequences of that. It's like having to explain murder or rape for the first time to your child. I just that that is a body of information that I don't want to have to hand to one more generation, you know?
Well, I hope this doesn't sound like I'm being short with you, but it's a luxury of white people to 'dread the possibility' of having to explain racism. If you're black in this country, other races in other countries and cultures, you do not describe it as a possibility but an inevitability. So you explain it to them preemptively to try to help them cope with it when, not if, the time comes that they must face it for themselves.
Well, try preemptively explaining it to an autistic child... "Luxury" is not a word I'd use in such circumstances.
-
Oh my Goodness! I have read this entire thread and find myself agreeing with Hemodoc! Shock, Huh? I didnt know that my views were racist cause I agree or disagree with Osama.
Ive never been to a physiciatris, maybe I should go see one! Care to join me Hemodoc, Sluff or any other who do not like Osama. I know he is OUR PRESIDENT and so was all the others! But I guess we need a pysciatris (?). Oh my God, I can't spell either, now I know I need a shrink!
Seriously, I do believe Osama is devoted to his family which is a Good thing!
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
You know I love ya, but what would a psychiatrist say about you accidentally calling President Obama "Osama"? :rofl; :cuddle;
-
Oh my Goodness! I have read this entire thread and find myself agreeing with Hemodoc! Shock, Huh? I didnt know that my views were racist cause I agree or disagree with Osama.
Ive never been to a physiciatris, maybe I should go see one! Care to join me Hemodoc, Sluff or any other who do not like Osama. I know he is OUR PRESIDENT and so was all the others! But I guess we need a pysciatris (?). Oh my God, I can't spell either, now I know I need a shrink!
Seriously, I do believe Osama is devoted to his family which is a Good thing!
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
You know I love ya, but what would a psychiatrist say about you accidentally calling President Obama "Osama"? :rofl; :cuddle;
Oh my! I did, didnt I? :waiting; :embarassed: Better schedule me sooner rather than later! :sos; You know I love you too, Moosey. Always have and always will! :guitar:
lmunchkin
:kickstart;
-
Oh, please. Your constitutional rights? To what? Accuse everyone else of spouting propaganda, then repeat propaganda and run away from it when challenged? Yeah, OK, I suppose the Constitution gives you that right.
You told me to think about something and I am saying, OK, what is it exactly that you are referring to? I am not asking you to read Abbie Hoffman’s book, nor even Saul Alinsky’s. They come from two incredibly different philosophies by the way, and if you think they have anything in common then once again you really and truly do not know what you are talking about. I am calling your bluff, Peter. If you know so much about Saul Alinsky and are not just repeating what the far right has been saying in an effort to demonize Obama, then tell me how Alinsky is so dangerous to America and how Obama should be reviled for following his teachings?
-
Oh no no no...I certainly do not advocate ignoring racism or any -ism of any sort. I guess my question is more nuanced, and perhaps I am not stating it clearly. I have to go back to my own experience in the UK. Like I said, before I moved there, I was unaware of the many stereotypes held dear by different groups. By the time I left, I was pretty well versed in these sentiments, and I can't say that this knowledge has enriched my life. So it's not a matter of ignoring racism, rather, its a matter or questioning when you want to introduce these vile concepts to yet another generation. I dunno...I'm just thinking out loud. After the "his skin is black and mine is pink" episode, I dreaded the possibility that I might ever have to explain to my sweet, innocent boy that throughout history, people of one color enslaved those of another and that we are all still living with the consequences of that. It's like having to explain murder or rape for the first time to your child. I just that that is a body of information that I don't want to have to hand to one more generation, you know?
Well, I hope this doesn't sound like I'm being short with you, but it's a luxury of white people to 'dread the possibility' of having to explain racism. If you're black in this country, other races in other countries and cultures, you do not describe it as a possibility but an inevitability. So you explain it to them preemptively to try to help them cope with it when, not if, the time comes that they must face it for themselves.
Well, try preemptively explaining it to an autistic child... "Luxury" is not a word I'd use in such circumstances.
But that's my point, that the black parents of a black, autistic child would not get a choice, they would have to devise a strategy to prepare their child. Explaining racism to any child is not exactly something one looks forward to, and I understand that it would be harder with an autistic child, but you have the 'luxury', such as it is, of deciding that your child really doesn't need to concern himself with this at the moment. I am not using the word luxury in an effort to be dismissive of your challenges with an autistic child, I promise.
I am curious if you have addressed any of this with your son, or if he has had questions about racism? As always, if you don't feel like answering, please don't give it a second thought.
-
I didn’t realize that a private citizen who writes his thoughts in a book should be condemned. Does this Alinsky guy have rights? And I did not know that defecating in the street was a political statement. Who I vote for will never be determined by citizen efforts to relieve constipation.
Some one here has a twisted outlook on life.
-
I am curious if you have addressed any of this with your son, or if he has had questions about racism? As always, if you don't feel like answering, please don't give it a second thought.
Actually, no, I have not had to address this just yet. Disability knows no boundaries, so he went to school with children of all colors and cultures. His headmistress was black as were many of the teachers. His best friend happens to be black. He has never mentioned any episode where he has witnessed racism. I have found that it is best for me to take my cues from him. He just doesn't see social nuance (I could say here that he "doesn't see race" a la Stephen Colbert, but I don't want to make light of this issue), so I am really not sure that he would recognize racism if he saw it. If he sees or hears something that he doesn't understand, he's on the phone to me in a heartbeat. Since he has not mentioned this issue, I am probably right in assuming that he hasn't yet come across it. When he does, I'm sure I'll hear about it.
Interestingly, though, he has said a few things in the past that I consider homophobic, saying quite matter of factly that homosexuality "is not good." He's not ever said anything derogatory about gay people per se, only that he thinks homosexuality is "not good." Since he does not live with me, I'm not sure where he got this opinion, but I am pretty sure that it is an opinion presented by his mates, and he is going through a period where he want to "look mainstream", so I think it's a matter of him wanting to fit in. Then again, it is an opinion that is shared by many people, and while I don't like it, he is entitled to his opinion. However, I got all over him for that! I told him that my two oldest friends from high school are gay, and he was very surprised and interested. He asked a lot of questions, and I just told him that these two friends are ordinary people who live ordinary lives. I also told him that frankly, his opinion on the matter was unimportant to anyone who is gay. I also think his grandfather might have influenced him, and I am not best pleased about that. I'd like to think that I taught him to treat all people with respect and to keep his opinions to himself. He has the right to his opinions but doesn't have the right to be offensive. Again, not easy to get this across to an autistic young man, but I don't think his emotional landscape is as impaired as I long ago suspected. He is definitely a work in progress! Life is not easy for him.
-
Oh, please. Your constitutional rights? To what? Accuse everyone else of spouting propaganda, then repeat propaganda and run away from it when challenged? Yeah, OK, I suppose the Constitution gives you that right.
You told me to think about something and I am saying, OK, what is it exactly that you are referring to? I am not asking you to read Abbie Hoffman’s book, nor even Saul Alinsky’s. They come from two incredibly different philosophies by the way, and if you think they have anything in common then once again you really and truly do not know what you are talking about. I am calling your bluff, Peter. If you know so much about Saul Alinsky and are not just repeating what the far right has been saying in an effort to demonize Obama, then tell me how Alinsky is so dangerous to America and how Obama should be reviled for following his teachings?
Oh my Cariad. Bluff. You believe what you wish. I hope you enjoy reading this stuff. Sorry, not interested. Have a good night folks. I have said my say. Believe as you wish.
Take care.
-
I didn’t realize that a private citizen who writes his thoughts in a book should be condemned. Does this Alinsky guy have rights? And I did not know that defecating in the street was a political statement. Who I vote for will never be determined by citizen efforts to relieve constipation.
Some one here has a twisted outlook on life.
I think that sucker is dead my friend and he has learned of the real power in this world. I hope he spent a bit of time getting to know the Lord Jesus personally, since we shall all stand before Him. I would not want to present to Jesus my entire life work on how to destabilize and manipulate populations to achieve your ends. I don't think that will play well with God at all. But, we do have free will to do what you wish here on earth if that is what you are possessed to do. Go for it. I am not your judge, nor am I your enemy. If folks choose to live a different life that I choose, my only duty is to inform, that is all. I think I have done that. Folks can make up their own mind what they want to do with that information. File it or use it. Your choice as well my friend.
What ever radical book it was I was reading didn't seem like anything but anarchy back in my college days. Sorry, I haven't spent my life learning how to destroy things. So, because I honor right and justice and righteousness you say I have a twisted outlook on life? Hmmmm, yeah that makes a lot of sense my friend. In any case, I am glad I threw that other book in the trash, it was garbage then, it is garbage now.
Have a good night.
-
Oh well, here chew on this for a bit. Gerald appears to know and understand these rules for radicals quite well. Talk about a twisted view on life:
"Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. ... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." p.126
Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):
1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
-
Here is the Godly antidote to those that wish to follow an admitted radical and stir up feelings of insecurity,mock that which is right and good, make it personal to invoke anger, and the polemic arguments that make up the entire political discourse any longer. I actually feel quite sorry for folks so deluded into that type of philosophy. What a way to live life. I choose the better way:
PSALM 1
BLESSED is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
Blessed are they that put their trust in Him. I feel sorry for folks that get all bent out of shape on these earthly political philosophies that shall dry up and blow away into the dust bin of history. There is only one that will stand in the end. Better to honor Him now, than later. You folks have your books, I enjoy mine much more. Your choice is yours to make and to live with, choose your sides, I know mine already. If scorn is all you can offer in argument, that is vacuous and void. Nothing at all to be worried about even if you folks win the election. So be it. Have your moment in history. Either way, I know where I stand with the Lord and whatever the circumstance, whoever is in charge of this nation, it really doesn't matter. Perhaps some day, the love of God will replace your indignation and scorn. That is my hope.
Good night.
Definition of SCORN
1
: open dislike and disrespect or derision often mixed with indignation
2
: an expression of contempt or derision
3
: an object of extreme disdain, contempt, or derision : something contemptible
-
Oh, please. Your constitutional rights? To what? Accuse everyone else of spouting propaganda, then repeat propaganda and run away from it when challenged? Yeah, OK, I suppose the Constitution gives you that right.
You told me to think about something and I am saying, OK, what is it exactly that you are referring to? I am not asking you to read Abbie Hoffman’s book, nor even Saul Alinsky’s. They come from two incredibly different philosophies by the way, and if you think they have anything in common then once again you really and truly do not know what you are talking about. I am calling your bluff, Peter. If you know so much about Saul Alinsky and are not just repeating what the far right has been saying in an effort to demonize Obama, then tell me how Alinsky is so dangerous to America and how Obama should be reviled for following his teachings?
Oh my Cariad. Bluff. You believe what you wish. I hope you enjoy reading this stuff. Sorry, not interested. Have a good night folks. I have said my say. Believe as you wish.
Take care.
Oh my, indeed, Hemodoc. Yes, I said bluff and I meant it. If I may channel Saul Alinsky for a moment and adapt his teachings to this thread: don't start a conversation that you are ill-prepared to engage in and see through. Don't condemn the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces and expect no one to investigate your claims.
You have had your say, huh? This is not the first time that you've made a statement such as this only to immediately follow on with further posts and much more to say. Great, because my fervent hope is that there are people aside from me who were unfamiliar with Saul Alinsky's writings before Newt brought it up and would like to hear more about this mystery man. I am happy to provide that service as time allows, and it is in large part thanks to you for opening the subject up.
-
Oh well, here chew on this for a bit. Gerald appears to know and understand these rules for radicals quite well. Talk about a twisted view on life:
"Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. ... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." p.126
Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):
1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
Well, this proves one thing for certain - you know how to cut and paste. I suppose it will have to do as a start.
I could not get your link to work, so perhaps something went awry there. I notice the word communism in the link. So that's what this is about! Saul Alinsky was not a communist. That is plain ignorance. Chris Matthews argued on MSNBC that Gingrich chose to pick on Saul Alinsky because it sounds like 'trotsky' and I thought "Oh, that couldn't be. That's too anti-intellectual even for the current state of this country." How wrong I was. Alinsky does address the reasons why revolutionary activity is mistaken for communism in Rules for Radicals. Essentially because in his day the only handbooks available for people who wanted to learn about how to organize for change were about communism. Alinsky was not a communist, nor is Barack Obama. To imply or assert this is to deliberately spread misinformation (which, Saul Alinsky might argue, would be acceptable and rational under certain circumstances. I don't think we are in those circumstances, the stakes are far too low).
I will come back to this when I reach that section of the book, I am now only close to halfway through. Keep in mind, most of the book comes before this section quoted, and in the book he carefully outlines his philosophy, his definitions, and the historical examples that he sees as relevant. So, it is not really fair to look at these rules out of context, but even out of their context, I am missing the terrifying danger that I was supposed to find in them.
For anyone with interest, a recent Christian Science Monitor article about Saul Alinsky, complete with lavish praise from people coming from every corner of American politics. The man is quite admired to this day, and rightfully so.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0128/Who-is-Saul-Alinsky-and-why-is-Newt-Gingrich-so-obsessed-with-him (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0128/Who-is-Saul-Alinsky-and-why-is-Newt-Gingrich-so-obsessed-with-him)
-
Oh, please. Your constitutional rights? To what? Accuse everyone else of spouting propaganda, then repeat propaganda and run away from it when challenged? Yeah, OK, I suppose the Constitution gives you that right.
You told me to think about something and I am saying, OK, what is it exactly that you are referring to? I am not asking you to read Abbie Hoffman’s book, nor even Saul Alinsky’s. They come from two incredibly different philosophies by the way, and if you think they have anything in common then once again you really and truly do not know what you are talking about. I am calling your bluff, Peter. If you know so much about Saul Alinsky and are not just repeating what the far right has been saying in an effort to demonize Obama, then tell me how Alinsky is so dangerous to America and how Obama should be reviled for following his teachings?
Oh my Cariad. Bluff. You believe what you wish. I hope you enjoy reading this stuff. Sorry, not interested. Have a good night folks. I have said my say. Believe as you wish.
Take care.
Oh my, indeed, Hemodoc. Yes, I said bluff and I meant it. If I may channel Saul Alinsky for a moment and adapt his teachings to this thread: don't start a conversation that you are ill-prepared to engage in and see through. Don't condemn the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces and expect no one to investigate your claims.
You have had your say, huh? This is not the first time that you've made a statement such as this only to immediately follow on with further posts and much more to say. Great, because my fervent hope is that there are people aside from me who were unfamiliar with Saul Alinsky's writings before Newt brought it up and would like to hear more about this mystery man. I am happy to provide that service as time allows, and it is in large part thanks to you for opening the subject up.
Dear Cariad, I think you are beginning to bordrer on delusional and insane. I learned most about Saul Alinski during the 2008 election cycle. Please, don't think your little tyrade is anything but a delusion.
Here is your favorite Fox commentator, Glenn Beck Talking about this creep in 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBQtSr85RuM
Believe what you want my friend.
Have a good day.
Peter
-
I think that sucker is dead my friend and he has learned of the real power in this world. I hope he spent a bit of time getting to know the Lord Jesus personally, since we shall all stand before Him. I would not want to present to Jesus my entire life work on how to destabilize and manipulate populations to achieve your ends. I don't think that will play well with God at all. But, we do have free will to do what you wish here on earth if that is what you are possessed to do. Go for it. I am not your judge, nor am I your enemy. If folks choose to live a different life that I choose, my only duty is to inform, that is all. I think I have done that. Folks can make up their own mind what they want to do with that information. File it or use it. Your choice as well my friend.
I think stating 'that sucker is dead' is a smug and truly off-putting way to drive home that you are not in agreement with Mr. Alinsky. It appears that you are gloating about his death, which makes little sense, especially on a forum where death resides close to many of us.
That aside, since you mentioned Alinksy and religion, he does invoke Judeo-Christian teachings in Rules for Radicals. He did say the following in a Playboy article, the excerpt coming from Wikipedia:
ALINSKY: ... if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.
PLAYBOY: Why?
ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.
PLAYBOY: Why them?
ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.
So, no need to worry about his salvation. Sounds like the optimism that he wrote about in Rules for Radicals will prevail whatever the circumstance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky)
-
Dear Cariad, I think you are beginning to bordrer on delusional and insane. I learned most about Saul Alinski during the 2008 election cycle. Please, don't think your little tyrade is anything but a delusion.
Devolving into personal attacks again? How hypocritical. I am engaging in discussion that you started, and I find your comments on my mental state offensive and unbecoming of anyone, especially a physician.
-
Machiavelli wrote similar book.
HemoDoc, you ducked the question. Alinsky wrote a book and you wish to condemn it because it has ideas on how to manipulate people. We have behavioral scientists, organizational development people, psychiatrists, Karl Rove, salesmen, and thousands of other occupations that are all in the business of manipulating people.
I do believe your cheese has slipped off the cracker.
gerald
-
Machiavelli wrote similar book.
HemoDoc, you ducked the question. Alinsky wrote a book and you wish to condemn it because it has ideas on how to manipulate people. We have behavioral scientists, organizational development people, psychiatrists, Karl Rove, salesmen, and thousands of other occupations that are all in the business of manipulating people.
I do believe your cheese has slipped off the cracker.
gerald
:rofl;
I think that I just fell in love......
-
Machiavelli wrote similar book.
HemoDoc, you ducked the question. Alinsky wrote a book and you wish to condemn it because it has ideas on how to manipulate people. We have behavioral scientists, organizational development people, psychiatrists, Karl Rove, salesmen, and thousands of other occupations that are all in the business of manipulating people.
I do believe your cheese has slipped off the cracker.
gerald
Thanks Gerald, you are my best friend.
-
Dear Cariad, I think you are beginning to bordrer on delusional and insane. I learned most about Saul Alinski during the 2008 election cycle. Please, don't think your little tyrade is anything but a delusion.
Devolving into personal attacks again? How hypocritical. I am engaging in discussion that you started, and I find your comments on my mental state offensive and unbecoming of anyone, especially a physician.
Cariad, I learned about Alinski in 2008. End of story. Anything other than that is a delusion. Choose what you will.
Have a great day.
-
Machiavelli wrote similar book.
HemoDoc, you ducked the question. Alinsky wrote a book and you wish to condemn it because it has ideas on how to manipulate people. We have behavioral scientists, organizational development people, psychiatrists, Karl Rove, salesmen, and thousands of other occupations that are all in the business of manipulating people.
I do believe your cheese has slipped off the cracker.
gerald
Yup, I have read Machiavelli in my younger days and I throw his garbage in the same heap as Alinski, Rubin all the other retards in the radical world. In fact, with all of my 1% wealth, I might just get a bonfire going in front of my house with all of this garbage and clean it off of the streets for a while.
-
Book burning, huh! What sort of society does that?
-
Book burning, huh! What sort of society does that?
Oh shucks, don't you know that is what all of us right wing, knuckle draggers teach our kids. Maybe we should just go and drag out half of the books in the library and get rid of this garbage. Geez, that stuff will really polute your mind you know Gerald. You should be careful with that or you might end up arguing insane arguments with no utility behind them and becoming a mind reader on top of that.
-
Book burning, huh! What sort of society does that?
Curses, I was going to say that!
Oh, well, I'll settle for this:
Yup, I have read Machiavelli in my younger days and I throw his garbage in the same heap as Alinski, Rubin all the other retards in the radical world. In fact, with all of my 1% wealth, I might just get a bonfire going in front of my house with all of this garbage and clean it off of the streets for a while.
'retards', huh! What sort of doctor turns a tragic genetic defect into an insult?
(By the way, none other than William F. Buckley called Alinsky "very close to an organizational genius" as quoted in the CSM article I linked. His intelligence was renowned.)
-
Oh shucks, don't you know that is what all of us right wing, knuckle draggers teach our kids. Maybe we should just go and drag out half of the books in the library and get rid of this garbage. Geez, that stuff will really polute your mind you know Gerald. You should be careful with that or you might end up arguing insane arguments with no utility behind them and becoming a mind reader on top of that.
??? :waiting;
Yeah, uh, careful there, Gerald.
-
Book burning, anti-public demonstrations, support for political organizations that also support racism, anti-government sponsored healthcare, support for upper-class tax breaks, larger defense budget, anti FDA – HemoDoc, you are painting a very ugly picture.
Shall I put a name to your kind of thinking?
gerald
-
Book burning, anti-public demonstrations, support for political organizations that also support racism, anti-government sponsored healthcare, support for upper-class tax breaks, larger defense budget, anti FDA – HemoDoc, you are painting a very ugly picture.
Shall I put a name to your kind of thinking?
gerald
Go ahead my friend, this is the best entertainment I have had for a while. Since you chosen the path of irrational responses to any logical answers, there is nothing left but to provoke your biases and see how you roar.LOL
-
Egads, Hemodoc has slipped into a split personality and using Alinski's rules for radicals. We have brainwashed him.
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
Yes, it is fun to provoke isn't it Gerald? Give me your best shot, you are really hurting me man. LOL
-
It is truly amazing how you duck a direct question. It is equally amazing how you refuse to see what is placed in front of you.
gerald
-
It is truly amazing how you duck a direct question. It is equally amazing how you refuse to see what is placed in front of you.
gerald
Sorry Gerald what question was that? I lost your train of thought in your book burning conspiracies.
-
Hey, I'm just an old curmudgeon who is barely able to walk. What do I know? Say, will you send me one of those little arm bands with the ziggy-zaggy emblems on it?
gl
-
Hey, I'm just an old curmudgeon who is barely able to walk. What do I know? Say, will you send me one of those little arm bands with the ziggy-zaggy emblems on it?
gl
Sorry, the nazis kicked me out of their party when I married a brown skin woman and stomped their boots in my face. Did you have serious question or do you want to continue an asinine conversation. Your choice my friend.
-
I find it weird that you keep referring to your wife as a browned skinned woman. It seems like a better way to describe her would be of African-American decent, of Latin American decent, of Asian decent or whatever she is. Brown skinned just sounds awful to me.
-
I find it weird that you keep referring to your wife as a browned skinned woman. It seems like a better way to describe her would be of African-American decent, of Latin American decent, of Asian decent or whatever she is. Brown skinned just sounds awful to me.
Hmm, I just asked my wife if it bothered her. Her answer, no, why would it bother me, its the truth. She laughs at all of us whities out on the beach trying to look like what God gave her. Go figure. No, my wife is very beautiful including her beautiful brown skin. Hand in hand, yup, it is white and brown and we enjoy our love for each other. She is quite comfortable in her olive brown, lovely skin. Why would she take issue with being called brown. That is a white racist view of beautiful brown skinned women.
Go figure, how much time have you spent in the tanning salon anyway. Why so many of those in this country that Obamacare has to regulate tanning salons. Geez isn't that a racist tax because only white people need a tan? Who do you think goes to tanning solons to get that beautiful brown skin but little old whity. Shucks, are all those white folks really that ashamed of their moby the whale pale faced color?
-
"Moby the Whale Pale"...sounds like a new Martha Stewart crockery color. LOL!
-
"Moby the Whale Pale"...sounds like a new Martha Stewart crockery color. LOL!
Moosemom, do you have any questions? You are the only one that takes a reasonable approach to discussion for which I am grateful even though there are elements we have simply agreed to disagree on. Have a great day Moosemom and don't get burnt at the tanning solon. Red skin is really a pain,
God bless,
Peter
-
"Moby the Whale Pale"...sounds like a new Martha Stewart crockery color. LOL!
Moosemom, do you have any questions? You are the only one that takes a reasonable approach to discussion for which I am grateful even though there are elements we have simply agreed to disagree on. Have a great day Moosemom and don't get burnt at the tanning solon. Red skin is really a pain,
God bless,
Peter
No, I don't have any questions...for now! haha!
Unfortunately, while I was growing up in the inferno that is Texas, no one had really ever heard of sunscreen. And we'd spend all summer in the pool. I recall only once ever getting sunburned, but once was quite enough, thank you very much. I am hoping that my many years in England where the sun never shines and my current vigilant use of suncreen with an SPF of about a million will keep me from getting skin cancer.
I would NEVER go to a tanning salon. EVER! If that means I'm Moby Whale Pale, so be it.
Hope you are feeling better now that you have some iron in you! Glad to see you back on the board; it shows you are well enough to get mad. LOL! That's a GOOD thing!
-
"Moby the Whale Pale"...sounds like a new Martha Stewart crockery color. LOL!
Moosemom, do you have any questions? You are the only one that takes a reasonable approach to discussion for which I am grateful even though there are elements we have simply agreed to disagree on. Have a great day Moosemom and don't get burnt at the tanning solon. Red skin is really a pain,
God bless,
Peter
No, I don't have any questions...for now! haha!
Unfortunately, while I was growing up in the inferno that is Texas, no one had really ever heard of sunscreen. And we'd spend all summer in the pool. I recall only once ever getting sunburned, but once was quite enough, thank you very much. I am hoping that my many years in England where the sun never shines and my current vigilant use of suncreen with an SPF of about a million will keep me from getting skin cancer.
I would NEVER go to a tanning salon. EVER! If that means I'm Moby Whale Pale, so be it.
Hope you are feeling better now that you have some iron in you! Glad to see you back on the board; it shows you are well enough to get mad. LOL! That's a GOOD thing!
Ah you bloody white pale face. How dare you reject brown skin by avoiding the tanning salon. That is racist propaganda!! LOL
Yes, I was quite low on my iron, but didn't have a lot of fun with all the endotoxin exposure with standard dialysis. Horrible not using ultra-pure dialysate. Headache, queezy butterfly feeling in my belly, out of sorts. Not fun. I will write on that later and the endotoxins that need to be addressed in dialysis here in America.
Have a good day Moosemom, thanks for the laughs,
God bless,
Peter
-
Hemodoc, wait a minute....did you have to have dialysis in a clinic while you were getting your iron infusion? Yes, please...do write more about endotoxin exposure. We could all use one more thing to worry about.
BTW, your blog post re higher reimbursement to nephrologists...that was brilliant. Oh, SNAP! I'd have commented on your blog, but I was afraid of sounding snarky. I don't mind sounding snarky on IHD. lol!
-
You have not answering a question down to an art.
-
"When I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling and at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income or young people with student loans or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone," Obama said.
"But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus' teaching that, for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," he said.
http://my.news.yahoo.com/obama-links-economic-policies-christian-faith-160414907.html
His royal highness King Obama needs to take a bit of lessons from the Bible that he is stating he understands and worships when in fact his actions speak otherwise. (What was that Jesus said about wolves in sheep's clothing?)
Matthew 7:15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Now, some real Bible teaching on national finance Gerald.
Deuteronomy 15:5 Only if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day.
6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.
Deuteronomy 28:12 The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.
13 And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:
President Obama continues to show his contempt for Christianity when he falsely attributes his views to that of God. He is a hypocrite to do so claiming his economic policies stem from the Bible. Sorry, he is blatantly confused.
Instead, I believe he is simply applying one of Saul Alinski's rules for radicals:
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
I truly hope that Obama directly challenges God. It is always interesting to see God respond to that type of provocation. Remember what they said about the Titanic? I have seen absolutely no fruits of the Bible in Obama's policies. He would be wise not to provoke the Lord.
PSALM 2
WHY do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
-
You have not answering a question down to an art.
If you ever learn to DISCUSS like Moosemom, politely I would be more than happy to engage in civil conversation. To date on this thread, she is the only one that has the grace and courage to do so.
And in fact, my wife literally answered the question. Don't want to believe her. So be it. She is proud of her beautiful brown skin and laughs at all of us prejudiced whities going to the tanning salon. You didn't answer my question, how many times to you go get a sun tan or go to the tanning salon?
-
CarIad & Moosemom: I gave to tell you a sweet story. My husband & I are both me Irish descent. Two of our very best friends are of African descent. One day I was visiting when their daughter came home from kindergarten. She looked at me and then at her Mom very intently. Finally she asked me if I knew that I was white! (Her parents had never taught their kids that there was a difference.) I said yes, I know. She said I'm black. I said yes, you are. She was quiet for a minute then said cool, and went off to play. I have always thought how great it was that their kids never learned about our differences at home. Just a side note, the Dad is very light skinned and during the summer, I am way darker than he is! The Mom has always thought that was hilarious!
-
CarIad & Moosemom: I gave to tell you a sweet story. My husband & I are both me Irish descent. Two of our very best friends are of African descent. One day I was visiting when their daughter came home from kindergarten. She looked at me and then at her Mom very intently. Finally she asked me if I knew that I was white! (Her parents had never taught their kids that there was a difference.) I said yes, I know. She said I'm black. I said yes, you are. She was quiet for a minute then said cool, and went off to play. I have always thought how great it was that their kids never learned about our differences at home. Just a side note, the Dad is very light skinned and during the summer, I am way darker than he is! The Mom has always thought that was hilarious!
I spent so much time outdoors as a kid getting the pearly white body to tan that I got a melanoma 5 years ago. Quite silly when you think about it. My wife has a natural olive colored skin that is the envy of all those folks tanning religiously in tanning booths all winter long. She never gets a sunburn and she has very clear skin without any of my sun damaged appendages growing from it. Stay out of the sun folks and embrace the beauty that God has given us all in the various ways He did. Celebrate that which God intended.
Great story Cebushan, thank you.
Peter
-
You have not answering a question down to an art.
If you ever learn to DISCUSS like Moosemom, politely I would be more than happy to engage in civil conversation. To date on this thread, she is the only one that has the grace and courage to do so.
And in fact, my wife literally answered the question. Don't want to believe her. So be it. She is proud of her beautiful brown skin and laughs at all of us prejudiced whities going to the tanning salon. You didn't answer my question, how many times to you go get a sun tan or go to the tanning salon?
I will give you one of your answers:
¶
Genesis
1 And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
Judges 5:31
May they who love you be like the sun when it rises in its strength.
Ecclesiastes Chapter 11
7 Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun:
I do not use tanning salons.
-
If you ever learn to DISCUSS like Moosemom, politely I would be more than happy to engage in civil conversation.
You never answered my question about Saul Alinsky and the danger to America that his texts present, either. Cutting and pasting with no analysis is pointless. I do not read your Bible quotes. I like expert theological analysis from authorities like Jack Miles, not proselytizing.
Your posts rather smack of desperation.
You are in no position to lecture about civil conversation. After admonishing MM for her language in calling Newt Gingrich a 'manslut' (which is hilarious) and pontificating that he is made in the image of God, you go on to call Abbie Hoffman a 'weirdo' and political activists as a group 'retards' (wow, that is despicable for several reasons), and members such as myself 'insane' and 'delusional'.
I could not care less about when you heard about Saul Alinsky, 'hearing about' someone is not synonymous with knowing what you are talking about, which in this case, you don't. I never mentioned Glenn Beck, you are confusing me with someone else. I have to say, I do miss seeing that man skewered on The Colbert Report, though. Anyone remember the 'crazy eyes' episode with the war bunker? You must find time to view this. It is a satirical masterwork.
-
If you ever learn to DISCUSS like Moosemom, politely I would be more than happy to engage in civil conversation.
You never answered my question about Saul Alinsky and the danger to America that his texts present, either. Cutting and pasting with no analysis is pointless. I do not read your Bible quotes. I like expert theological analysis from authorities like Jack Miles, not proselytizing.
Your posts rather smack of desperation.
You are in no position to lecture about civil conversation. After admonishing MM for her language in calling Newt Gingrich a 'manslut' (which is hilarious) and pontificating that he is made in the image of God, you go on to call Abbie Hoffman a 'weirdo' and political activists as a group 'retards' (wow, that is despicable for several reasons), and members such as myself 'insane' and 'delusional'.
I could not care less about when you heard about Saul Alinsky, 'hearing about' someone is not synonymous with knowing what you are talking about, which in this case, you don't. I never mentioned Glenn Beck, you are confusing me with someone else. I have to say, I do miss seeing that man skewered on The Colbert Report, though. Anyone remember the 'crazy eyes' episode with the war bunker? You must find time to view this. It is a satirical masterwork.
Dear Cariad, is this really necessary? Are you trying to convince me by power of reason to like Alinski? Sorry, he is completely antithetical to my beliefs and I really have no interest in becoming one of his students. The little I have read of his works is enough. Thank you nevertheless.
As far as calling Abbie Hoffman a weirdo, that is what ultra-liberal Walter Cronkite called him years ago and I tend to agree, he is a weirdo and even has a weirdo hairdo to boot. And yes, I believe that his books and Rubins are quite stupid and retarded. That is what I thought of them when I was an ultra-liberal. Really stupid and socially unacceptable in all ways, but if that is the book you wish to uphold, so be it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=d7vRwnwuZFEC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=abbie+hoffman+is+a+weirdo&source=bl&ots=pKkU4PJqzF&sig=M0Vg1eRD7FnVall1n6AQ9JNuISU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kTUrT6qUAqfYiQLb5smbCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=abbie%20hoffman%20is%20a%20weirdo&f=false
As far as Colbert, he is just the media propaganda master applying Alinski rule number 5:
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
You can turn on the late night comedians every single night and listen to an exposition of rule number 5 on just about every single channel after the 11 oclock news.
Thank you,
Peter
-
CarIad & Moosemom: I gave to tell you a sweet story. My husband & I are both me Irish descent. Two of our very best friends are of African descent. One day I was visiting when their daughter came home from kindergarten. She looked at me and then at her Mom very intently. Finally she asked me if I knew that I was white! (Her parents had never taught their kids that there was a difference.) I said yes, I know. She said I'm black. I said yes, you are. She was quiet for a minute then said cool, and went off to play. I have always thought how great it was that their kids never learned about our differences at home. Just a side note, the Dad is very light skinned and during the summer, I am way darker than he is! The Mom has always thought that was hilarious!
That is a sweet story, CebuShan. Thanks for sharing it. I adore stories about children learning, it always gives me a new perspective on things as each one seems to approach the world in their own way.
Now, I hate to follow up with this, but La Directoria (the principal) at my sons' school wrote a brilliant essay on how kids in fact do not need to be taught racism, they will pick up the value system of the culture in which they are immersed. She was a teacher for a long, long while before she helped found this school that takes as its mission statement a commitment to an anti-racist, anti-biased curriculum. She had many examples of little kids (5 and 6) using skin color as a weapon. It was a fascinating piece as I know that parents can influence this a lot, but kids are perceptive and are learning more from the world at large than we might think.
MM, I would struggle if one of my boys suggested to me that they do not like homosexuality, but I would say it's too early to be concerned with your son. Tonight the boys and I were discussing social networks and I mentioned my fear that they would be bullied at some point. (A fear I will have to get over eventually). I mentioned gay children killing themselves, so Liot of course asked, and I gave my quick, age-appropriate explanation and he said "that's weird". Well, he's five. We talked about it a touch more and I told him that I found it weird at first, too. I was much older than he when I found it a bit scary, not too much younger than your son. I think you're right in that your son's response has peer-influence written all over it. :)
-
Dear Cariad, is this really necessary? Are you trying to convince me by power of reason to like Alinski? Sorry, he is completely antithetical to my beliefs and I really have no interest in becoming one of his students. The little I have read of his works is enough. Thank you nevertheless.
As far as calling Abbie Hoffman a weirdo, that is what ultra-liberal Walter Cronkite called him years ago and I tend to agree, he is a weirdo and even has a weirdo hairdo to boot. And yes, I believe that his books and Rubins are quite stupid and retarded. That is what I thought of them when I was an ultra-liberal. Really stupid and socially unacceptable in all ways, but if that is the book you wish to uphold, so be it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=d7vRwnwuZFEC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=abbie+hoffman+is+a+weirdo&source=bl&ots=pKkU4PJqzF&sig=M0Vg1eRD7FnVall1n6AQ9JNuISU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kTUrT6qUAqfYiQLb5smbCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=abbie%20hoffman%20is%20a%20weirdo&f=false
Thank you,
Peter
I don't care if you like Saul Alinsky or not. You made an anti-Obama statement that you cannot support with evidence. Try and make it about anything else you like, but you know perfectly well I am asking you to explain how you find Saul Alinsky dangerous to America.
(I don't hold up Steal This Book, whatever that means. I think it was well-written. Also so very 60s. It's a great artifact, but unlike Alinsky's work, has no real relevance to today's world.)
-
The exchange of ideas requires listening and it also requires useful information. A default in either should end the discussion
-
CebuShan, what a brilliant story. That has sweetness written all over it.
Cariad, this comment from my son re homosexuality happened a year or two ago, and I meant to ask him more about it, but I forgot. He calls me most days, so if I talk to him tomorrow, I intend to ask him more about his thoughts on the subject. When he said that homosexuality was "not good", it sounded sort of robotic, like he really had not thought about what he was saying and that he was parrotting someone else's sentiments. It is not always easy to sound him out on his opinions about such grand topics, one, because I'm not sure he has the language for it and two, if it isn't something he is terribly interested in to begin with, he probably doesn't have a real opinion of his own to share.
Hemodoc, I spend a lot of time outdoors in the spring and summer, what with my gardening and my love for swimming. I have bottles, sprays and gels of sunscreen stationed all over the house and even in my car. Waterproof, chemical free, all kinds of sunscreen in every form known to man. And I STILL tan. I just don't know what more I can do. I also have a wide array of hats. I'd love to stay the color that God made me, but I'd have to remain in a crypt for that to happen. As you have experience with skin cancer, do you have any suggestions of anything more I should be doing to prevent me from tanning? (Off topic, I know, but if anyone else has any suggestions, fire away!)
-
As far as Colbert, he is just the media propaganda master applying Alinski rule number 5:
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
You can turn on the late night comedians every single night and listen to an exposition of rule number 5 on just about every single channel after the 11 oclock news.
Thank you,
Peter
Ah, missed this part that was added after I replied.
You're absolutely right, Stephen Colbert is a true satirical genius, and Alinsky is right that ridicule (in the form of scathing satire) is an extremely powerful weapon. Political satirists are invaluable to society. Wit makes us think, and points up such failings as hypocrisy and arrogance, which makes us all into more skilled political analysts, the better to hold our leaders accountable. Colbert and Jon Stewart are making a mockery of Citizens United just by utilizing it as politicians do and following its rules to the letter. Saul Alinsky is a dyed-in-the-wool realist like me. He articulates what we already know to be true, whether we want to face it or not. Conservatives speak very favorably of his writings, even Newt himself is known to use his tactics, so if its so dangerous to America, I guess we're pretty well hosed. Both Obama and the Republicans have put his writings to use and will continue to do so.
Glenn Beck preyed on vulnerable people by relentlessly exploiting their fears and their ignorance. As Bill Mahr (another excellent satirist) said, and I paraphrase, even Karl Rove was terrified at how mentally unbalanced Beck is, and eventually he was taken off Fox because Rove saw him as heralding "the rise of the apes". He was once described as "the Jimmy Swaggert" of political talk show hosts for his habit of randomly bursting into tears and delivering every new warning about the end of civilization in a desperate, pleading tone.
The Doom Bunker clips. This has got to be among Colbert's best work:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220649/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---glenn-beck-s--war-room- (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220649/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---glenn-beck-s--war-room-)
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220650/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---jack-jacobs-and-stephen-moore (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220650/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---jack-jacobs-and-stephen-moore)
-
CebuShan, what a brilliant story. That has sweetness written all over it.
Cariad, this comment from my son re homosexuality happened a year or two ago, and I meant to ask him more about it, but I forgot. He calls me most days, so if I talk to him tomorrow, I intend to ask him more about his thoughts on the subject. When he said that homosexuality was "not good", it sounded sort of robotic, like he really had not thought about what he was saying and that he was parrotting someone else's sentiments. It is not always easy to sound him out on his opinions about such grand topics, one, because I'm not sure he has the language for it and two, if it isn't something he is terribly interested in to begin with, he probably doesn't have a real opinion of his own to share.
Hemodoc, I spend a lot of time outdoors in the spring and summer, what with my gardening and my love for swimming. I have bottles, sprays and gels of sunscreen stationed all over the house and even in my car. Waterproof, chemical free, all kinds of sunscreen in every form known to man. And I STILL tan. I just don't know what more I can do. I also have a wide array of hats. I'd love to stay the color that God made me, but I'd have to remain in a crypt for that to happen. As you have experience with skin cancer, do you have any suggestions of anything more I should be doing to prevent me from tanning? (Off topic, I know, but if anyone else has any suggestions, fire away!)
I don't spend a lot of time in the sun without long sleeves. It is easier to accomplish that up in Idaho where it is cooler most of the year than in CA but it can get pretty warm up there as well. I always wear a hat outdoors, or just about always. I never go outside without a shirt on any more. Wouldn't want to scare anyone anyway. My shirtless days on Cape Cod are long since gone.
You need to be careful with sunscreens and get one that has UV A and B coverage. Some articles suggested that sunscreen use several years back may have been associated with increased risk of melanoma by people spending more time in the sun. Long sleeves and broad rimmed hats are fashionable in the garden are they not. There are some loose fitting long sleeve blouses that are not that hot in the summer. Stay covered, stay out of the mid day sun and after you have taken all the precautions getting exercise in the garden probably is healthier in preventing heart attacks than the sun exposure gives you in skin cancer risk.
-
Dear Cariad, is this really necessary? Are you trying to convince me by power of reason to like Alinski? Sorry, he is completely antithetical to my beliefs and I really have no interest in becoming one of his students. The little I have read of his works is enough. Thank you nevertheless.
As far as calling Abbie Hoffman a weirdo, that is what ultra-liberal Walter Cronkite called him years ago and I tend to agree, he is a weirdo and even has a weirdo hairdo to boot. And yes, I believe that his books and Rubins are quite stupid and retarded. That is what I thought of them when I was an ultra-liberal. Really stupid and socially unacceptable in all ways, but if that is the book you wish to uphold, so be it.
Thank you,
Peter
I don't care if you like Saul Alinsky or not. You made an anti-Obama statement that you cannot support with evidence. Try and make it about anything else you like, but you know perfectly well I am asking you to explain how you find Saul Alinsky dangerous to America.
(I don't hold up Steal This Book, whatever that means. I think it was well-written. Also so very 60s. It's a great artifact, but unlike Alinsky's work, has no real relevance to today's world.)
Dear Cariad, Alinski is all about revolution. What exactly is it that we need to revolt against?
Secondly, his tactics are polarizing by design resulting in people that simply shout at each other resulting in a nation that has so many factions today that it is truly difficult to define any longer what it means to be an American. If he is looking for a revolution instead of working with in our constitutional system itself, then that makes him and those that follow his views enemies of the constitution.
So what is this great revolution you folks want? It seems that a lot of folks really like this man in a cult like following of your democratic leaders. Here, nice little summary of Alinski and his followers including Barack who taught Allnski as a community organizer.
http://www.rense.com/general80/fon.htm
-
*sigh*
I ahve just read through variations of much of this kind of stuff on the "GDP" thread.
PLEASE!!!! everyone quit it with the personal comments etc. If you can't discuss these topics in a way without dragging down someone else (ironically a related "evil" to Racism ie: discrimination and/or victimisation) then pleasse try and restrain yourselves. While I do not speak for the Admin team of IHD here, as a moderator I certainly do not want to quash free exchange of opinion or discourse on any topic, even ones as seemingly off-topic to the discussions of kidney disease ) I do despair at some of the comments I am reading here. Some of these topics can be very sensitive to some readers and contentious views can lead to anything. Let's try to not upset anyone and make them leave this forum for having differing opinions. We're all different, but we also all share a common bond of kidney disease, let's try and keep that in perspective please? Or perhaps reviw before finally hitting "post".....
Thank You
-
As far as Colbert, he is just the media propaganda master applying Alinski rule number 5:
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
You can turn on the late night comedians every single night and listen to an exposition of rule number 5 on just about every single channel after the 11 oclock news.
Thank you,
Peter
Ah, missed this part that was added after I replied.
You're absolutely right, Stephen Colbert is a true satirical genius, and Alinsky is right that ridicule (in the form of scathing satire) is an extremely powerful weapon. Political satirists are invaluable to society. Wit makes us think, and points up such failings as hypocrisy and arrogance, which makes us all into more skilled political analysts, the better to hold our leaders accountable. Colbert and Jon Stewart are making a mockery of Citizens United just by utilizing it as politicians do and following its rules to the letter. Saul Alinsky is a dyed-in-the-wool realist like me. He articulates what we already know to be true, whether we want to face it or not. Conservatives speak very favorably of his writings, even Newt himself is known to use his tactics, so if its so dangerous to America, I guess we're pretty well hosed. Both Obama and the Republicans have put his writings to use and will continue to do so.
Glenn Beck preyed on vulnerable people by relentlessly exploiting their fears and their ignorance. As Bill Mahr (another excellent satirist) said, and I paraphrase, even Karl Rove was terrified at how mentally unbalanced Beck is, and eventually he was taken off Fox because Rove saw him as heralding "the rise of the apes". He was once described as "the Jimmy Swaggert" of political talk show hosts for his habit of randomly bursting into tears and delivering every new warning about the end of civilization in a desperate, pleading tone.
The Doom Bunker clips. This has got to be among Colbert's best work:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220649/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---glenn-beck-s--war-room- (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220649/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---glenn-beck-s--war-room-)
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220650/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---jack-jacobs-and-stephen-moore (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220650/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---jack-jacobs-and-stephen-moore)
hit the wrong button.
-
Then why take it personally when someone uses these same rules of radicals to counter your arguments. Isn't that what you are advocating, yet sarcasm and ridicule appears to be unacceptable when it is applied to you. If we are going to apply the rules of radicals, they just might come back at you. Do you really want political discourse and our society ruled by rules for radicals?
Because I never used any 'rules' on you and do not expect you to use rules that you say you condemn to attack me, and then hide behind them as justification for poor behaviour. You have not read this book. I am currently reading it. Why, if you've been enjoying yourself so much as you've claimed, would you suddenly decide it is time to start insulting people? I had been enjoying participating on this thread, but to be called 'insane' and 'delusional' for asking questions and making my argument is a bit too juvenile for my taste. Firstly, Alinsky does not believe in personal attacks unless you simply have no other option. If you have no other option than to call me 'delusional' and 'insane', then that speaks volumes about the strength of your argument and your own belief in it.
Secondly, Alinsky worked within systems, and here on IHD, they have Rules for Members which includes no personal attacks. He only deals with the reality of the world in which he is trying to organize, not, as he states repeatedly, the way he wishes the world were. The reality is that on IHD, personal attacks on other members are not tolerated. I personally adore this rule. I think it is a fantastic precept for IHD, and I cannot think of the last time I engaged in a personal attack offline. It is really not part of my world. Strong critique, absolutely. Really don't care for calling anyone a 'retard'. That just grosses me out. But I feel those types of terms say much more about the speaker than the object of ridicule.
-
Then why take it personally when someone uses these same rules of radicals to counter your arguments. Isn't that what you are advocating, yet sarcasm and ridicule appears to be unacceptable when it is applied to you. If we are going to apply the rules of radicals, they just might come back at you. Do you really want political discourse and our society ruled by rules for radicals?
Because I never used any 'rules' on you and do not expect you to use rules that you say you condemn to attack me, and then hide behind them as justification for poor behaviour. You have not read this book. I am currently reading it. Why, if you've been enjoying yourself so much as you've claimed, would you suddenly decide it is time to start insulting people? I had been enjoying participating on this thread, but to be called 'insane' and 'delusional' for asking questions and making my argument is a bit too juvenile for my taste. Firstly, Alinsky does not believe in personal attacks unless you simply have no other option. If you have no other option than to call me 'delusional' and 'insane', then that speaks volumes about the strength of your argument and your own belief in it.
Secondly, Alinsky worked within systems, and here on IHD, they have Rules for Members which includes no personal attacks. He only deals with the reality of the world in which he is trying to organize, not, as he states repeatedly, the way he wishes the world were. The reality is that on IHD, personal attacks on other members are not tolerated. I personally adore this rule. I think it is a fantastic precept for IHD, and I cannot think of the last time I engaged in a personal attack offline. It is really not part of my world. Strong critique, absolutely. Really don't care for calling anyone a 'retard'. That just grosses me out. But I feel those types of terms say much more about the speaker than the object of ridicule.
Really, did you ever speak out against the personal attacks against me in the last two weeks not just on the political threads but on others as well? Really.
I used delusional and insane as ridicule and sarcasm, something that you have stated more than once is acceptable and they are part of the rules for radicals. Once again, ridicule and sarcasm appear to be just fine when applied to conservatives but not if applied to you personally. If you don't agree with sarcasm and ridicule then just repudiate Alinski rule #5 and #13.
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
So, if you wish to speak out against ridicule and sarcasm in personal attacks against people, what about these rules for radicals? How does that fit into your personal virtues?
-
Dear Cariad, I read the entire book online tonight and several conservative critiques of his book. Poetic? Really?
What is the end of this revolution that they want to have to oust the HAVES with the HAVE-NOTS?
Nothing new about this philosophy. Just a bunch of rehashed Marxist diatribes ending in their goal to simply have power by any means since the end justifies the means.
This country is in trouble and folks are blindly walking along with the Obama trying to buy another election with a job for every veteran, I will pay for your house, you won't have to pay any debt. The sad fact is folks don't recognize how rich the poor folks are in this country compared to 90% of the world. If you have a car, you are richer than 90% of the world. And they want a revolution HERE.
Really great book you are promoting Cariad.
-
Really, did you ever speak out against the personal attacks against me in the last two weeks not just on the political threads but on others as well? Really.
I did not see any personal attacks against you and had no idea you were looking to me to defend you. Can't you defend yourself?
I used delusional and insane as ridicule and sarcasm, something that you have stated more than once is acceptable and they are part of the rules for radicals. Once again, ridicule and sarcasm appear to be just fine when applied to conservatives but not if applied to you personally. If you don't agree with sarcasm and ridicule then just repudiate Alinski rule #5 and #13.
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
So, if you wish to speak out against ridicule and sarcasm in personal attacks against people, what about these rules for radicals? How does that fit into your personal virtues?
I never stated that ridicule and sarcasm were acceptable. That is pure fiction. I especially can assure you that I am not so arrogant as to believe that I can say what is and is not acceptable on this forum. If you feel that you've been attacked, take it up with a moderator.
I did state that ridicule in the form of highly intelligent satire is an extremely powerful weapon. I have no need to use political weapons of any sort on a support forum. I also spent a great deal of time in theatre and think that satire in the wrong form - satire that is not funny or muddles the message - is the opposite of a effective weapon, it only makes a person look foolish. Stephen Colbert is a skilled satirist.
I never promoted the ideas in this book, least of all for use against members on this forum. Show me where I did that or leave me alone. You stated that you reject these ideas but then use them against me (incorrectly at that). I do not compromise my principles so easily. It is a book - it cannot make me do anything that I do not choose to do. I do not choose to engage in vicious personal attacks. Saul Alinsky was speaking about ridiculing ideas not people, and only in appropriate settings. Perhaps he did not make that clear enough to you.
-
Dear Cariad, I read the entire book online tonight and several conservative critiques of his book. Poetic? Really?
What is the end of this revolution that they want to have to oust the HAVES with the HAVE-NOTS?
Nothing new about this philosophy. Just a bunch of rehashed Marxist diatribes ending in their goal to simply have power by any means since the end justifies the means.
This country is in trouble and folks are blindly walking along with the Obama trying to buy another election with a job for every veteran, I will pay for your house, you won't have to pay any debt. The sad fact is folks don't recognize how rich the poor folks are in this country compared to 90% of the world. If you have a car, you are richer than 90% of the world. And they want a revolution HERE.
Really great book you are promoting Cariad.
And this is where we are coming very close to my line in the sand. You stayed up half the night just to read a book you have said you have zero interest in in order to 'win' an online discussion? This is starting to get unnerving. You seem way too invested in my opinion of this book and in ordering me to change it. Telling me that I must repudiate ideas that I have not even read yet, positions that I have not taken? This is making me really uncomfortable. My opinion should not be this important to you. This is starting to give me flashbacks to some truly scary times in my life where people have taken an unhealthy and relentless interest in my feelings.
Hemodoc, you do not get to choose what I read, choose what I talk about, tell me how to feel about a book, nor dictate my political opinions to me. I will continue to read and analyze Rules for Radicals with or without your permission.
-
Last warning or I will shut down all political threads. I do not want to do this because I believe as did Epoman that it would be an injustice to good debates.
Please no personal attacks on other members. Opinions are valued by many on both sides of the debate but attacking someones view is different than disagreeing with them. The lines get blurred when we start to take things personal and other members of IHD may enjoy just reading the debate. However we get complaints all the time and have to weigh the difference of what is a personal attack and what isn't.
Epoman was a strong minded individual and loved debates. Lets keep the debates going but others don't want to get involved if they think they will be attacked.
Thank you
Sluff/Admin
-
Let's get back to the OP on racism. Here is a shocking video of a black DJ insulting a black congresswoman including racist allegations against the Tea Party in this edited version.
A shocking YouTube video (uploaded by someone not friendly to the Tea Party) shows Memphis talk radio host Thaddeus Matthews insulting and humiliating Republican congressional candidate Charlotte Bergmann on air.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/bob-parks/2012/02/01/memphis-talk-radio-host-humiliates-black-gop-candidate#ixzz1lM6VtH8E
Is this the politics of America today?
-
Outrage subdued after DJ goes on racially charged rant on GOP congressional candidate
In a profanity-laced tirade, a Memphis DJ last week used an on-air interview to berate a local Republican congressional candidate -- calling her a "token negro" who is doing the bidding of "white folk."
DJ Thaddeus Matthews called Charlotte Bergmann, who is black, "stupid." He referred to her as a "curly-haired nigga." When she walked out of the interview, he refused to shake her hand, saying he didn't want to get her "whiteness" on him.
The outrage? The fury? In Memphis, you can hear the crickets.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/03/outrage-subdued-after-dj-gop-congressional-candidate/#ixzz1lM93ij2F
-
I'm really glad you posted this link because it goes to the heart of what I've been trying to say all along, and that is sometimes the message can be valid yet lost if delivered with invective and bile.
I listened to the entire interview, and for what it is worth, here are my thoughts...
1. Mr. Matthews was clearly enraged and didn't hesitate to show it. He acted with extreme disrespect, and it was painful to both watch and listen to.
2. It is understandable that Mr. Matthews is more interested in the black center of the 9th district and would therefore focus his questions there.
3. Mr. Matthews asked very direct, simple questions.
4. Ms. Bergman reacted with an astonishing amount of grace.
5. However, Mr. Bergman didn't answer any of the questions put to her, save two:
Mr. Matthews: "Do you support President Obama?"
Ms. Bergman: "I think he is a very nice man, but I do not support his policies."
Mr. Matthews: "Would you support Newt Gingrich?"
Ms. Bergman: "No."
6. Mr. Matthews asked specifically if Ms. Bergman had visited the black sections of the 9th district. He also asked her specifically what she had done for that community. She waffled like most politicians do, and she spoke about the areas that she HAD visited, which happened to be the white areas of her district. Draw from that what you will.
7. Mr. Matthews showed her a document that outlined who had donated to her campaign, and it was revealed that none of the donors were black. Again, draw from that what you will.
I do not have the life experience to be able to comment on the nuanced debate about "Uncle Toms" or "Oreos", but Mr. Matthews obviously and stridently felt that Ms. Bergman had betrayed her race and that certain elements within the GOP were trying to use her to manipulate the black population of the 9th district. I couldn't possibly say whether or not he is right in this assessment, but then again, my opinion is irrelevant. What matters is how the black population in the 9th district perceives this.
If that population deems her to be a "token negro", yes, I think that probably qualifies as being "racist", but what does Ms. Bergman do with that? Like any politician, she will have to find ways to appeal to all of her constituents. It sounds like this district is racially divided, so I don't know what the answer is.
While I do deplore Mr. Matthew's abominable behaviour, the fact remains that Ms. Bergman really didn't have any answers to his questions. She should have known that this interview would go down this predictable route, and she should have prepared herself better with some good answers.
The "subtitles" that accompanied that video were disgraceful. What saddens me is that there are people who really do feel this way. That any part of our population feels so disenfranchised is a moral stain.
-
Dear Moosemom,
I am sorry, I have to wonder if you and I saw the same video. It appears that you are siding with Mr. Matthews against the congresswoman.
She ATTEMPTED to answer every question but was shouted down and bullied. Did you not see that?
She was polite, he was a heathen to her.
Yet, for all this, you support "his message."
Moosemom, his message was a racist rant. Are you sure you support his message?
In any case, did you know that MLK Jr. was a Republican?
Take a look:
http://images.nbra.info/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/NBRA%20Civil%20Rights%20Newsletter%202Feb11.pdf
Sorry, but where is YOUR outrage over the DJ's racist diatribe. Instead you support the absolutely outrageous statement that this woman is racist because she works with white people? My goodness, my head is spinning.
-
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
-
Dear Moosemom,
I am sorry, I have to wonder if you and I saw the same video. It appears that you are siding with Mr. Matthews against the congresswoman.
She ATTEMPTED to answer every question but was shouted down and bullied. Did you not see that?
She was polite, he was a heathen to her.
Yet, for all this, you support "his message."
Moosemom, his message was a racist rant. Are you sure you support his message?
In any case, did you know that MLK Jr. was a Republican?
Take a look:
http://images.nbra.info/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/NBRA%20Civil%20Rights%20Newsletter%202Feb11.pdf
Sorry, but where is YOUR outrage over the DJ's racist diatribe. Instead you support the absolutely outrageous statement that this woman is racist because she works with white people? My goodness, my head is spinning.
ARgh....I lost my reply...sorry, gotta start over.
I don't really have the energy to "do" outrage. You'd have to be content with loud tut-tutting. LOL!
OK, let's look at the "message".
If the "message" is that it is OK to call someone racist and to be belligerant as Mr. Matthews was, then no, I don't support that message.
But let's look at what was really happening here.
Mr. Matthews, despite all of his rudeness, asked a specific question that the congresswoman simply did not answer.
Yes, she attempted to answer, but like all politicians of whichever party or ethnicity, when she realized she didn't have a good answer, she waffled. She waffled graciously and politely, but she did waffle.
Here is the central question...What did the congresswoman do in the 9th district to address the concerns of the black population that lives there?
Now, you are free to define that as a racist question, and perhaps that's how she should have answered it. But she had no answer at all. For a politician, that's very weak.
We have just been treated to months of debate (with more to come) where all candidates have made sidestepping a question a fine art. That's exactly what this woman did, and there is nothing really wrong with that. Politicians do it every day. She wasn't doing anything new. But Mr. Matthews called her on it. Yes, absolutely, he did so in a dispicable manner, but he was right to do so.
I reiterate: I do not approve of Mr. Matthews' manner one bit. I personally would call his diatribe "racist', but being an old white lady, I don't think that the black population of the 9th district really cares what i call it. :P
-
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
Now, THIS is very interesting, and I'll tell you why.
The important point is NOT that Eisenhower was a Republican. The salient point is what he was NOT, and what he was NOT was a Deep Southerner.
Eisenhower's family immigrated from Germany and did not have historic affiliation with the American Deep South. Dwight Eisenhower was indeed born in Texas and later lived in Kansas, but these were not areas of the country that were deemed to be part of the Deep South.
That those people who showed violence toward blacks during the Civil Rights era were Democrats is again not the salient point. What governed their behaviour was not their political party but, rather, their geo-political affiliation, which was with the Deep South and its very long history with and history dependence upon slavery of African blacks that was the foundation of their very way of life.
I'm sure you know that President Johnson "handed the South" to the Republican Party for generations to come. He himself was a Texan, as you know, but again, he was from the Hill Country near the Pedernales River (one of my favorite parts of the US!) which was outside the Deep Southern part of the state. But this is why the Dixie Bloc votes Republican.
Yes, I know MLK was a Republican, but I wonder if he would still be so were he alive.
-
Dear Moosemom,
I am sorry, I have to wonder if you and I saw the same video. It appears that you are siding with Mr. Matthews against the congresswoman.
She ATTEMPTED to answer every question but was shouted down and bullied. Did you not see that?
She was polite, he was a heathen to her.
Yet, for all this, you support "his message."
Moosemom, his message was a racist rant. Are you sure you support his message?
In any case, did you know that MLK Jr. was a Republican?
Take a look:
http://images.nbra.info/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/NBRA%20Civil%20Rights%20Newsletter%202Feb11.pdf
Sorry, but where is YOUR outrage over the DJ's racist diatribe. Instead you support the absolutely outrageous statement that this woman is racist because she works with white people? My goodness, my head is spinning.
ARgh....I lost my reply...sorry, gotta start over.
I don't really have the energy to "do" outrage. You'd have to be content with loud tut-tutting. LOL!
OK, let's look at the "message".
If the "message" is that it is OK to call someone racist and to be belligerant as Mr. Matthews was, then no, I don't support that message.
But let's look at what was really happening here.
Mr. Matthews, despite all of his rudeness, asked a specific question that the congresswoman simply did not answer.
Yes, she attempted to answer, but like all politicians of whichever party or ethnicity, when she realized she didn't have a good answer, she waffled. She waffled graciously and politely, but she did waffle.
Here is the central question...What did the congresswoman do in the 9th district to address the concerns of the black population that lives there?
Now, you are free to define that as a racist question, and perhaps that's how she should have answered it. But she had no answer at all. For a politician, that's very weak.
We have just been treated to months of debate (with more to come) where all candidates have made sidestepping a question a fine art. That's exactly what this woman did, and there is nothing really wrong with that. Politicians do it every day. She wasn't doing anything new. But Mr. Matthews called her on it. Yes, absolutely, he did so in a dispicable manner, but he was right to do so.
I reiterate: I do not approve of Mr. Matthews' manner one bit. I personally would call his diatribe "racist', but being an old white lady, I don't think that the black population of the 9th district really cares what i call it. :P
Moosemom, that was an abusive man. Yes, politicians answer with their no answer answers. So what. Why are you overlooking threatening language and verbal abuse of a woman, a congresswoman and a racial tyrade? I don't get it. If I did that to you, you would not be so silent.
-
The DJ in this video followed the congresswoman to her facebook site and he and a group of his friends are taunting her on Facebook, but she is not backing down. It is time to put an end to this madness with the media simply looking the other way. Anyone remember Imus and all the outrage against him for a completely innocuous although ignorant comment.
Where is the outrage?
https://www.facebook.com/people/Charlotte-Bergmann/100000399176639
-
I agree that this man was incredibly abusive. I am not "overlooking" his abusive language and treatment of Ms. Bergman. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
You don't know me terribly well, so what I am about to tell you may sound improbable, even false. But you raised the hypothetical question of what I would do if you talked to me like that, and here is my answer...
If you asked me a question and then proceeded to treat me in such a manner, the first thing I would do would be to ask myself if you might be right. I would wonder if I had done something or had failed to do something that I should have done. I would have asked myself if there was truth in your criticism. I'd like to think that if I did indeed suspect that you had a valid point, I'd tell you and would promise to do better.
If I had an answer to your question (like this congresswoman should have had had she been doing her job), I would have said,
"Hemodoc, thank you for your question, and here is my answer." I would have then meticulously laid out my answer, no waffling allowed.
If, however, you had obviously only been interested in humiliating me and not in any of my answers, I would have sat there quietly and let you hang yourself. I fervently believe that crazy people can't stay hidden for long, and I would have let you show yourself for the crazy-ass person that you were. Sometimes silence can be devastating. And I would know that someone would put you on YouTube and let you show your crazy-ass self to the whole world. I wouldn't have to do a thing save sit back and let others watch the show.
That's how I roll. LOL!
(And yes, I remember Imus. What struck me about his comments were not so much that they were racist but, rather, they were uninformed and dismissive. The ladies' basketball team handled it in just the right way, introducing themselves one by one and showing everyone that they were real people, real individuals. Again, Imus showed the world how ignorant he was. He hung himself.)
-
Dear Moosemom,
I know you don't condone this sort of behavior at all. I was taken back that you initially appeared to accept his accusations of racism against her. I guess this is her first run for congress. She has been involved in some different aspects of politics, but she is not a seasoned veteran by any means. This is really a baptism by fire.
You may want to follow this on her facebook where Thadeous Matthews is now threatening not only her but others that are speaking out against him. Take a look. This is political thuggery on a grand scale. Look at the long comment list at the top of the page.
https://www.facebook.com/people/Charlotte-Bergmann/100000399176639
-
I'm not on Facebook, and I'm certainly not going to join just to watch Mr. Matthews bully anybody. But I can imagine what's going on on her FB page.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if support for Mr. Matthews takes a nosedive. I do happen to think he had a valid question, but his bullying tactics are what people are going to see. His question will be lost in the fire, and any negative comments or actions headed his way are richly deserved.
As for Ms. Bergman, yes, it was most definitely baptism by fire, but you have to start somewhere, I suppose. I would suggest she visit that part of her district, meet some of the people and see what she might be able to do to make them feel well-represented. I suspect that she will hear the same question, and maybe she will be better prepared. She does have the advantage of knowing how to show grace under fire, and that's a very good lesson to already have under her belt.
Good night...I'm off to watch "Fringe" OnDemand. Don't forget to pick up your socks or else your lovely wife might verbally abuse you, and I'd back her up! LOL!
-
I'm not on Facebook, and I'm certainly not going to join just to watch Mr. Matthews bully anybody. But I can imagine what's going on on her FB page.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if support for Mr. Matthews takes a nosedive. I do happen to think he had a valid question, but his bullying tactics are what people are going to see. His question will be lost in the fire, and any negative comments or actions headed his way are richly deserved.
As for Ms. Bergman, yes, it was most definitely baptism by fire, but you have to start somewhere, I suppose. I would suggest she visit that part of her district, meet some of the people and see what she might be able to do to make them feel well-represented. I suspect that she will hear the same question, and maybe she will be better prepared. She does have the advantage of knowing how to show grace under fire, and that's a very good lesson to already have under her belt.
Good night...I'm off to watch "Fringe" OnDemand. Don't forget to pick up your socks or else your lovely wife might verbally abuse you, and I'd back her up! LOL!
Its even worse than that, I have to clean up the table in the den from any of my papers. Whew, I think she has a bit of troll in her!!
-
Gerald, where is your outrage against the black DJ above who peppered the black woman running for congress with racial slurs?
-
I believe I have found ground zero of the Tea Party is racist false allegations. Of course, who else but Chris Matthews would be involved and the NYT. This was back in 2010.
http://www.breitbart.tv/dana-loesch-intellectually-dishonest-to-equate-anti-big-government-stance-with-racism/
This is an Alinsky trifecta: (Well, actually much more than just 3 Alinksy rules)
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
In any case, if folks want a true discussion, let's pick up where the panel in this video started.
-
I believe I have found ground zero of the Tea Party is racist false allegations. Of course, who else but Chris Matthews would be involved and the NYT. This was back in 2010.
http://www.breitbart.tv/dana-loesch-intellectually-dishonest-to-equate-anti-big-government-stance-with-racism/
This is an Alinsky trifecta: (Well, actually much more than just 3 Alinksy rules)
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
In any case, if folks want a true discussion, let's pick up where the panel in this video started.
Like anyone with a shred of self-respect would try to have a 'true discussion' starting with that slandering liar Breitbart. Sheesh, do you think we're that stupid?
Oh, that's right, people like me are 'retards'.... http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=15757.100 (http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=15757.100)
-
I believe I have found ground zero of the Tea Party is racist false allegations. Of course, who else but Chris Matthews would be involved and the NYT. This was back in 2010.
http://www.breitbart.tv/dana-loesch-intellectually-dishonest-to-equate-anti-big-government-stance-with-racism/
This is an Alinsky trifecta: (Well, actually much more than just 3 Alinksy rules)
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
In any case, if folks want a true discussion, let's pick up where the panel in this video started.
Like anyone with a shred of self-respect would try to have a 'true discussion' starting with that slandering liar Breitbart. Sheesh, do you think we're that stupid?
Oh, that's right, people like me are 'retards'.... http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=15757.100 (http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=15757.100)
No you are wrong Cariad, I called Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman retards for recommendation such as defacating in public to make a political statement. I have not nor shall I ever call you a retard no matter how much I disagree with your political stands.
Actually, it is not Breitbart, it is an unedited video of Chris Matthews discussing the accusation of racism at ground zero of this tactic in 2010. Don't you have an open mind to look at issues from the right? I look at leftist leaning news reports all the time.
-
Hello,
Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."
Peace! Dudes!!
-
I believe I have found ground zero of the Tea Party is racist false allegations. Of course, who else but Chris Matthews would be involved and the NYT. This was back in 2010.
http://www.breitbart.tv/dana-loesch-intellectually-dishonest-to-equate-anti-big-government-stance-with-racism/
This is an Alinsky trifecta: (Well, actually much more than just 3 Alinksy rules)
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
In any case, if folks want a true discussion, let's pick up where the panel in this video started.
Like anyone with a shred of self-respect would try to have a 'true discussion' starting with that slandering liar Breitbart. Sheesh, do you think we're that stupid?
Oh, that's right, people like me are 'retards'.... http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=15757.100 (http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=15757.100)
No you are wrong Cariad, I called Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman retards for recommendation such as defacating in public to make a political statement. I have not nor shall I ever call you a retard no matter how much I disagree with your political stands.
Actually, it is not Breitbart, it is an unedited video of Chris Matthews discussing the accusation of racism at ground zero of this tactic in 2010. Don't you have an open mind to look at issues from the right? I look at leftist leaning news reports all the time.
If it has that vile man's name in the link, keep it far away from me.
Tell you what, have Willis ask me to view it and I'll consider it. I am enjoying reading what he has to say.
You called ALL the people in the 'radical world' retards. By your own calculus, PEOPLE LIKE ME!!!! Therefore, you called me a retard.
Also, I find the use of that word as a 'pejorative' totally disgusting. These children have a tough enough time as it is without their condition being used as an insult. Mean-spirited and Just. Plain. Wrong.
-
RichardMEL:4:22 - And he doth opined on the forum, "Bugger the politics and bow before the almighty boob for it controls (most) men's attention* and desires and overrides all political viewpoints...."
(* quite a few gay men too, apparently!!! :) )
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
-
You're in form, Richard. Getting ready for another lousy footy season?
-
I know you all are simply crying for your daily dose of Saul Alinsky, and I have been meaning to get round to this ever since I read it.
Saul Alinsky fantasized about taking aim and destroying the watermelon stereotype applied to African Americans. Here he described his method of peacefully operating within existing systems (as opposed to Abbie Hoffman, for example, who favoured subverting them one stolen book at a time):
This is one of Alinsky's illustrations of rule 11, although it is not like he pushes this somewhat arbitrary list of rules throughout the book, the list is more of a summary and codification of what has already been written. Anyhow, rule 11 (and I doubt he ever referred to it this way in life) is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
From page 121 of my electronic copy of the book:
Let us take one of the negative stereotypes that so many whites have of blacks: that blacks like to sit around eating watermelon. Suppose that 3,000 blacks suddenly descended into downtown sections of any city, each armed with and munching a huge piece of watermelon. This spectacle would be so far outside the experience of whites that they would be unnerved and disorganized. In alarm over what the blacks were up to, the establishment would probably react to the advantage of the blacks. Furthermore, the whites would recognize at last the absurdity of their stereotype of black habits. Whites would squirm in embarrassment, knowing that they were being ridiculed. That would be the end of the black watermelon stereotype. I think that this tactic would bring the administration to contact black leadership and ask what their demands were even if no demands had been made.
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
Now, I would pay to see this. Today, it might have more the feel of being flash mobbed than anything sinister, but I just love the idea of organizing any large group of people to do any mundane thing in the interest of social justice.
-
Dear Cariad,
I would counter that the Alinsky approach only fosters more hatred and strife instead of bringing people together. It is the lack of love for the fellow man that is at the heart of discord whether by geography, color of the skin, creed, religion or simple greed. I believe God has already given us a much better way in the Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 5:38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
When Paul the apostle went to the executioner, tradition records that several of his guards that kept him locked with chains willingly declared Jesus their savior as well and went to their deaths beside him. That is the love of God that men are willing to live and love their enemies as is Paul's testimony. Alinsky truly teaches the opposite.
-
HemoDoc;
As I have said before, I am offended by your religious references in what was supposed to be an adult discussion. Is there a reason you will not stop? Are you intentionally trying to offend? Should I quote from the Koran?
gerald
-
HemoDoc;
As I have said before, I am offended by your religious references in what was supposed to be an adult discussion. Is there a reason you will not stop? Are you intentionally trying to offend? Should I quote from the Koran?
gerald
Dear Gerald,
Please feel free to write whatever you wish that is your constitutional right. I already own a copy of the Koran. It sits next to the Book of Mormon and the Roman Catholic Catechism on my book shelf for reference as well as several Seventh Day Adventist writings.
God bless,
Peter
-
"Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error:
Whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworth hand-hold, that never breaks.
And Allah hears and knows all things." The Holy Qur'an(2:256)
سلام ومحبة
-
"Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error:
Whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworth hand-hold, that never breaks.
And Allah hears and knows all things." The Holy Qur'an(2:256)
سلام ومحبة
This is beautiful, galvo. You've nailed it again, mate!
Did you know that written Arabic does not include short vowels beyond writing meant for children? 'Tis true. There is one exception - The Holy Qur'an. All vowels with diacritical marks are included in that text to cut down on ambiguity in both meaning and pronunciation.
-
Dear Cariad,
I would counter that the Alinsky approach only fosters more hatred and strife instead of bringing people together. It is the lack of love for the fellow man that is at the heart of discord whether by geography, color of the skin, creed, religion or simple greed. I believe God has already given us a much better way in the Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 5:38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
When Paul the apostle went to the executioner, tradition records that several of his guards that kept him locked with chains willingly declared Jesus their savior as well and went to their deaths beside him. That is the love of God that men are willing to live and love their enemies as is Paul's testimony. Alinsky truly teaches the opposite.
Hemodoc, I have no idea why you seem to want to talk to me about religion as I have run out of ways to explain that I am an atheist/humanist/rationalist. However, since you brought up the Sermon on the Mount, I will look to others that I trust to express my feelings to you. First, Bill Maher. Same warnings about strong language and spoofing conservatives. This clip details how Jesus would fare as a Republican presidential candidate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7KgYI8T1yg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7KgYI8T1yg)
Second, and much more intellectually, let's let Kurt Vonnegut with his military experience and degrees in chemistry and anthropology have his say:
How do Humanists feel about Jesus? I say of Jesus, as all Humanists do, "If what he said is good, and so much of it is absolutely beautiful, what does it matter if he was God or not?"
But if Christ hadn't delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn't want to be a human being.
I'd just as soon be a rattlesnake.
-K. Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country, pp. 80-81
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. A lot of people think Jesus said that, because it is so much the sort of thing Jesus liked to say. But it was actually said by Confucious, a Chinese philosopher, five hundred years before there was that greatest and most humane of human beings, named Jesus Christ.
The Chinese also gave us, via Marco Polo, pasta and the formula for gunpowder. The Chinese were so dumb they only used gunpowder for fireworks. And everybody was so dumb back then that nobody in either hemisphere even knew that there was another one.
We've sure come a long way since then. Sometimes I wish we hadn't. I hate H-bombs and the Jerry Springer Show.
But back to people like Confucious and Jesus and my son the doctor, Mark, each of whom have said in their own way how we can behave more humanely and maybe make the world a less painful place. One of my favorite humans is Eugene Debs, from Terre Haute in my native state of Indiana.
Get a load of this. Eugene Debs, who died back in 1926, when I was not yet 4, ran five times as the Socialist Party candidate for president, winning 900,000 votes, almost 6 percent of the popular vote, in 1912, if you can imagine such a ballot. He had this to say while campaigning:
As long as there is a lower class, I am in it.
As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it.
As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools, or health insurance for all?
When you get out of bed each morning, with the roosters crowing, wouldn't you like to say "As long as there is a lower class, I am in it. As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it. As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
How about Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes?
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
And so on.
Not exactly planks in a Republican platform. Not exactly George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld stuff.
For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course, that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.
"Blessed are the merciful" in a courtroom? "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon? Give me a break!
-Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country, pp. 95-98
Satire. Sarcasm. And without doubt as lyrical and as peaceful a writing as anything I've ever read or could hope to read.
If you want to discuss religion with me further, place your bait in a more appropriate place. I come here to discuss racism in all its forms in this country.
-
I'll try to make this my last Bill Maher clip for quite some time. One of the evils of YouTube is that for every clip you find, they suggest dozens more like it and before you know it, it's 3AM....
This one is short and the video quality is terrible, but I have been trying to get this point across here and there, and seem to be failing. So I'll let Bill Maher take a crack at it. It begins by alluding to the n*****head rock found on Rick Perry's hunting camp, with the offensive word painted over, but still legible.
As always, swearing and taking the mickey out of Republicans are the twin pillars upon which Bill Maher builds his case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZed_FpQxwI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZed_FpQxwI)
-
Amazing how a treatise to love your enemies by Jesus brings out so much hatred in you folks. But after all, the is the Alinsky method in action.
Choose your sides, I have chosen mine.
-
Ones religion is very personal. If you keep shoving it in our faces, someone will eventually respond and there is no where to go but down into chaos. This is not "hate" as you characterize, these are personal beliefs. I have only asked that you refrain from posting relious dogma unless you can offer emperical evidence that God or Jesus ever existed. So, please stop, now.
gerald
-
Ones religion is very personal. If you keep shoving it in our faces, someone will eventually respond and there is no where to go but down into chaos. This is not "hate" as you characterize, these are personal beliefs. I have only asked that you refrain from posting relious dogma unless you can offer emperical evidence that God or Jesus ever existed. So, please stop, now.
gerald
Israel
-
Amazing how a treatise to love your enemies by Jesus brings out so much hatred in you folks. But after all, the is the Alinsky method in action.
Choose your sides, I have chosen mine.
I have not seen very much hatred in the posts. I have seen a long-standing lack of respectful mode of communication. As I counsel my students, when one is asked civilly to cease and desist a practice and continues to do that very thing, it displays a lack of respect.
That speaks more to the character of those displaying lack of respect than those toward whom that lack is directed. It might cause observers of the parley to doubt one's adherence to a doctrine of loving one's enemies.
Aleta
-
Dear Cariad,
I would counter that the Alinsky approach only fosters more hatred and strife instead of bringing people together. It is the lack of love for the fellow man that is at the heart of discord whether by geography, color of the skin, creed, religion or simple greed. I believe God has already given us a much better way in the Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 5:38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
When Paul the apostle went to the executioner, tradition records that several of his guards that kept him locked with chains willingly declared Jesus their savior as well and went to their deaths beside him. That is the love of God that men are willing to live and love their enemies as is Paul's testimony. Alinsky truly teaches the opposite.
Hemodoc, I have no idea why you seem to want to talk to me about religion as I have run out of ways to explain that I am an atheist/humanist/rationalist. However, since you brought up the Sermon on the Mount, I will look to others that I trust to express my feelings to you. First, Bill Maher. Same warnings about strong language and spoofing conservatives. This clip details how Jesus would fare as a Republican presidential candidate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7KgYI8T1yg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7KgYI8T1yg)
Second, and much more intellectually, let's let Kurt Vonnegut with his military experience and degrees in chemistry and anthropology have his say:
How do Humanists feel about Jesus? I say of Jesus, as all Humanists do, "If what he said is good, and so much of it is absolutely beautiful, what does it matter if he was God or not?"
But if Christ hadn't delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn't want to be a human being.
I'd just as soon be a rattlesnake.
-K. Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country, pp. 80-81
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. A lot of people think Jesus said that, because it is so much the sort of thing Jesus liked to say. But it was actually said by Confucious, a Chinese philosopher, five hundred years before there was that greatest and most humane of human beings, named Jesus Christ.
The Chinese also gave us, via Marco Polo, pasta and the formula for gunpowder. The Chinese were so dumb they only used gunpowder for fireworks. And everybody was so dumb back then that nobody in either hemisphere even knew that there was another one.
We've sure come a long way since then. Sometimes I wish we hadn't. I hate H-bombs and the Jerry Springer Show.
But back to people like Confucious and Jesus and my son the doctor, Mark, each of whom have said in their own way how we can behave more humanely and maybe make the world a less painful place. One of my favorite humans is Eugene Debs, from Terre Haute in my native state of Indiana.
Get a load of this. Eugene Debs, who died back in 1926, when I was not yet 4, ran five times as the Socialist Party candidate for president, winning 900,000 votes, almost 6 percent of the popular vote, in 1912, if you can imagine such a ballot. He had this to say while campaigning:
As long as there is a lower class, I am in it.
As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it.
As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools, or health insurance for all?
When you get out of bed each morning, with the roosters crowing, wouldn't you like to say "As long as there is a lower class, I am in it. As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it. As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
How about Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes?
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
And so on.
Not exactly planks in a Republican platform. Not exactly George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld stuff.
For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course, that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.
"Blessed are the merciful" in a courtroom? "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon? Give me a break!
-Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country, pp. 95-98
Satire. Sarcasm. And without doubt as lyrical and as peaceful a writing as anything I've ever read or could hope to read.
If you want to discuss religion with me further, place your bait in a more appropriate place. I come here to discuss racism in all its forms in this country.
Dear Cariad, yes you are right, it is time for me to move on and take care of other issues. I joined this "discussion" a little over two weeks ago because of false allegations that Tea Party motivations are racist. I reopened a thread started in 2009 complaining about the same thing after that intial discussion. That is the OP of this thread. Today, I have been accused of, well, read it just because I disagreed with Alinsky rule #11 and instead believed a better philosophy was that of the Sermon of the Mount to love your enemy instead which I readily confess is difficult to practice in the face of insults and false accusations. But nevertheless, it is what we are commanded.
You state you are here to discuss racism and for me to take my religion elsewhere which I am sure you will all be glad to hear I will with this last post. I would point out that the 1964 civil rights act considers religious Discrimination part of the "racism" it covers. You folks have openly castigated and ridiculed me and my religion while at the same time adhering to a so called racial harmony.
[Workplace discrimination on the basis of religious belief is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"There is a general increase in the secularization of society, and a correspondingly broadening acceptance of the misguided concept that religion is something that should be kept behind closed doors. Many believe that one's religious beliefs should not affect the workplace at all," said Theriot in an interview with The Christian Post.
Theriot also noted that oftentimes employers do not accommodate individuals who believe their faith should influence the whole of their lives, including work.
"We receive many calls from evangelicals and devout Catholics whose employers either require them not to mention their faith at work at all, or insist that they perform work tasks that conflict with their faith such as affirm homosexual behavior or participate in abortions," said Theriot.
I have learned much in the last two weeks and America is much further down a frightful path than I understood. Thank you Carrie for all of the videos and other material which I must frankly admit I never watch by choice. I seriously doubt that there is any virtue that is not ridiculed in todays world. I have learned more about Alinsky than I frankly wanted to as well. I would leave you with the message that religious discrimination is part and parcel of the racism that you wish to discuss.
In any case, I will bid all a fond goodbye from this thread and you can freely go back to castigating the Tea Party and people of faith like me as you were doing prior to my first post countering the false allegations.
I have no doubt that soon you will silence the religious right here in America. It is much further along than I had imagined. I readily understand that is going to soon be the will of the majority of people here in America. I also understand that we have been expecting this day to come for the last 2000 years from the teachings of the Bible. It is sad to see the day upon us already, but ultimately that is the will of God to turn this world over to people in the fullest exercise of free will. Be careful what you choose my friends.
-
From page 121 of my electronic copy of the book:
Let us take one of the negative stereotypes that so many whites have of blacks: that blacks like to sit around eating watermelon. Suppose that 3,000 blacks suddenly descended into downtown sections of any city, each armed with and munching a huge piece of watermelon. This spectacle would be so far outside the experience of whites that they would be unnerved and disorganized. In alarm over what the blacks were up to, the establishment would probably react to the advantage of the blacks. Furthermore, the whites would recognize at last the absurdity of their stereotype of black habits. Whites would squirm in embarrassment, knowing that they were being ridiculed. That would be the end of the black watermelon stereotype. I think that this tactic would bring the administration to contact black leadership and ask what their demands were even if no demands had been made.
Cariad,
I really don't want to get into the Alinsky controversy, but this particular scenario which I assume was written in the late 60s was just fantasy. I suspect if this watermelon eating "mob" marched in the streets of 2012 it would gather a lot of white support and maybe even make the point Alinsky assumed the action would make. It would just be humorous to most--white and non-white alike.
However, I personally spent time in southern Mississippi in 1970 working with John Perkins (a contemporary of MLK) at a school he had founded in a small town named Mendenhall, Mississippi. John Perkins was once beat up so bad that he was hospitalized for months and almost died. He returned to the school but ultimately his efforts among the poor blacks of Mendenhall failed and he moved to the capital (Jackson) for the safety of his family. Because Jackson was a major city it was easier to do his civil rights work without the constant threat of death. Even so, he eventually moved to Southern California when his health and courage finally gave out. http://www.lionshare.org/FathersoftheFaith/TheFathers/JohnPerkins.aspx
While I was in Mendenhall it was just a given that crossing the tracks into the white part of town was a very dangerous thing to do. It was especially dangerous for people like me who the locals considered to be agitators. Over many years up until the 1990s, the local authorities murdered several dozen blacks INSIDE THE JAIL and covered the murders up as suicides. These murders were eventually ended only when the FBI finally got involved (after 20 years of foot-dragging). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n7_v58/ai_15533722/pg_3/ Or just google his name--there have been books written about him.
I bring these experiences up because I believe, based on personal experience, that if a group of blacks in Mendenhall or likely anywhere else in Mississippi or Alabama during the 60s and 70s had tried Alinsky's suggested watermelon "gag" the results would have been catastrophic. It's likely that much blood would have been shed immediately, but if not (due to the size of the opposition) the seething hatred by many whites in those times would have found a way to retaliate against other innocent blacks. It didn't take much to instigate a lynching and white law enforcement turned its back. And, as evidenced by the article above, when public lynchings became impossible, grotesque murders disguised as something else took their place. Mendenhall just happened to be one of the most heinous examples, but this was happening all over the American South as recently as the 1990s.
In those years even many white people were against Jim Crow and segregation but to speak out only invited social chastisement at least or more likely serious physical harm. My own family lived in Arkansas in the 1950s and to her credit my mother forced my father to move our family to California because she didn't want us exposed to the Jim Crow culture. I think the tide has finally turned even in the deepest parts of the Deep South and at least the bigotry is now mostly social. Perhaps in another generation such bigotry will be a thing of the past.
-
Finally something on this thread that was interesting, although I've had a fair amount of amusement 'browsing, not reading' the mounting rants, but on another level, somwhat alarming, particularly as I envisage the spittle-covered computer as the author of the post gets ever more frenzied.
-
Aleta - your comments about respect are spot on I think.
I try to not comment on religious issues. Much like Cariad(I think anyway) I have no real religious views - I personally object to most organised religions for the very nature that they tend to push *their* version of things, or their beliefs, onto others and proclaim every other view is "wrong" because it doesn't fit with theirs - yet amusingly just about every religion seems to have its own version of "love thy neighbour" yet somehow don't manage to practice what they preach - at least fundamentalist members/believers rather than more moderates which most people of faith, in my view, seem to be. That's just my view/opinion. If God/Buddha/Allah/whoever appears and provides proof of existance then sure, I'll go with that flow.. until then I want to keep an open mind. Again, that's just an opinion and isn't any more right or wrong than anyone else's - whatever they may be.
I think most people object in some way or other to being beaten about the head with any extreme message, or having it shoved in their faces without request endlessly - whatever that view be - a racial one, political, religious or even sexual. For me I see it like my view of smokers/smoking. I don't like smoking, and I think it is a pretty foul habit, and I avoid smokers wherever I can - BUT I don't have an issue with those that do smoke (their choice) or look down on them somehow. However if someone wants to take me to task for not smoking for some reason, then I would object. I'm not telling smokers to not smoke (though were I to consider dating one, I perhaps would make my preference known, and also concerns for health related issues from smoking-because I care- but I wouldn't tell her to NOT smoke or tell her OFF for smoking-her choice... just as my choice would probably end up being to not really want to date someone who stunk of cigarette smoke all day-but that's MY choice). Anyway if someone was to give me grief over that choice/opinion I would object - just like the smoker would have every right to be annoyed if I was to berate them for smoking. So, that example can be then extended to cover other things - like religious or political views.
In the context of this, and other, threads on IHD(or anywhere) I personally feel that if someone wants to share their religious/political/cultural viewpoint that's fine. I do, however, draw the line at such views being used as part of an argument - eg: "You're wrong because you support/believe in ...." or whatever. These things can be appropriately linked in other ways, for example "My opinion on this issue is such-and-such because of my beliefs in ...."
All of our opinions are just that - opinions. Not really right or wrong - because again any "definition" of what is right or wrong is, yep, an opinion and very subjective.
Oh and Galvo yep, gearing up for the footy but I can't discuss that here lest I be accused of being racist towards Collingwood!!!! :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
-
Cariad,
I really don't want to get into the Alinsky controversy, but this particular scenario which I assume was written in the late 60s was just fantasy.
Definitely just fantasy. Also, it was published in 1971, no idea how long it took him to write, but it's a short book.
I suspect if this watermelon eating "mob" marched in the streets of 2012 it would gather a lot of white support and maybe even make the point Alinsky assumed the action would make. It would just be humorous to most--white and non-white alike.
However, I personally spent time in southern Mississippi in 1970 working with John Perkins (a contemporary of MLK) at a school he had founded in a small town named Mendenhall, Mississippi. John Perkins was once beat up so bad that he was hospitalized for months and almost died. He returned to the school but ultimately his efforts among the poor blacks of Mendenhall failed and he moved to the capital (Jackson) for the safety of his family. Because Jackson was a major city it was easier to do his civil rights work without the constant threat of death. Even so, he eventually moved to Southern California when his health and courage finally gave out. http://www.lionshare.org/FathersoftheFaith/TheFathers/JohnPerkins.aspx
While I was in Mendenhall it was just a given that crossing the tracks into the white part of town was a very dangerous thing to do. It was especially dangerous for people like me who the locals considered to be agitators. Over many years up until the 1990s, the local authorities murdered several dozen blacks INSIDE THE JAIL and covered the murders up as suicides. These murders were eventually ended only when the FBI finally got involved (after 20 years of foot-dragging). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n7_v58/ai_15533722/pg_3/ Or just google his name--there have been books written about him.
I bring these experiences up because I believe, based on personal experience, that if a group of blacks in Mendenhall or likely anywhere else in Mississippi or Alabama during the 60s and 70s had tried Alinsky's suggested watermelon "gag" the results would have been catastrophic. It's likely that much blood would have been shed immediately, but if not (due to the size of the opposition) the seething hatred by many whites in those times would have found a way to retaliate against other innocent blacks. It didn't take much to instigate a lynching and white law enforcement turned its back. And, as evidenced by the article above, when public lynchings became impossible, grotesque murders disguised as something else took their place. Mendenhall just happened to be one of the most heinous examples, but this was happening all over the American South as recently as the 1990s.
In those years even many white people were against Jim Crow and segregation but to speak out only invited social chastisement at least or more likely serious physical harm. My own family lived in Arkansas in the 1950s and to her credit my mother forced my father to move our family to California because she didn't want us exposed to the Jim Crow culture. I think the tide has finally turned even in the deepest parts of the Deep South and at least the bigotry is now mostly social. Perhaps in another generation such bigotry will be a thing of the past.
Interesting, thanks for the insight, Willis. Perhaps it would have been catastrophic, although I have to say that if you read this book he gives many examples of his work as an organizer and he had tremendous intuition. He was giving broad examples of how things do or could unfold. Alinsky spent time in prison for his actions and he was trained by the organizer of the great GM sit-in of the 1930s. Unfortunately he died before he could expand his work to helping the middle class.
Alinsky proudly wore the label agitator and would have encouraged you to do the same, although I don't remember if he received death threats or not. He had his own bigotry with which to contend - he mentions anti-semitism being so prevalent in Chicago that he stopped noticing it. Perhaps not on the same level of danger as Southern racism towards blacks, but then his was the generation that saw what wide-scale anti-semitism could bring. I know it pales in comparison to what blacks in the south endured, but my own father was punched in the stomach by a music teacher when he was 7 for refusing to sing a Christmas carol. This happened in front of the entire class at an expensive private school, so you can well imagine what the working class Jewish kids were facing.
I don't blame you for not wanting to involve yourself in this controversy, though I think it is a tragedy that there is a controversy. We should not fear different ideas. I do find it offensive, and perhaps you could give me your perspective on this, but to me the suggestion to any oppressed group should not be 'turn the other cheek, martyr yourself' it should be 'stand up for yourself, work together and demand your rights.' That is what I got out of the Sermon on the Mount speech. As a female living in sexist America, I have no desire to be a martyr. I will stand up for women's rights or I would feel that I had become part of the problem. The time to martyr yourself is when that is your only option - and that is Saul Alinsky's method right there. Use whatever you have available to safely and non-violently win what you know is right.
Anyhow, I do so appreciate you sharing your views, Willis. You make such good points, and so calmly, that I should probably consider you as dangerous as some consider Alinsky. What if I wake up tomorrow to discover I've turned conservative? You'll be hearing from me if that happens, my friend. :)
-
Cariad, I must admit that my knowledge of Arabic vowels is about as strong as my knowledge of the mating habits of the giant aardvark. I am, however, in your debt for introducing me to Bill Maher.
Richard, ho! ho! ho! (rest assured my American friends, I am not encouraging the lad to indulge in depravity, any more than he does now).
Hemodoc, Mongolia!
بركة, مقدس
-
Cariad, I must admit that my knowledge of Arabic vowels is about as strong as my knowledge of the mating habits of the giant aardvark. I am, however, in your debt for introducing me to Bill Maher.
Aw, so glad you enjoyed, galvo. Least I could offer to a citizen of the land that gave us Tim Minchin.
A little ditty of his called Prejudice (with a language caution):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw&feature=related)
-
In any case, I will bid all a fond goodbye from this thread and you can freely go back to castigating the Tea Party and people of faith like me as you were doing prior to my first post countering the false allegations.
I have no doubt that soon you will silence the religious right here in America.
As far as the Tea Party, you can understand, can't you, why there would be some question about the tea party's motives when everything they say they are against was going on during the Bush administration? We aquired record debt during the Bush administration, yet the tea party didn't exist until Barack Obama was elected.
As for Christianity, and speaking as a Christian myself, the problem isn't anyone trying to silence Christians, it's that so many Christians are marginalizing themselves by insisting upon a staunch literalism, turning religion into history, the sacred into secular, and God--a transcendent concept--into an old man who lives in the clouds; religion reduced to history isn't religion. God reduced to a literal old man is tantamount to our creating God in *our* image instead of the other way around. As we continue to advance our scientific understanding of the universe, Christianity will die out if it can't finally accept the science of the day. The earth is more than six thousand years old. There was not a literal Garden of Eden. As someone who finds spiritual value in Christianity, which has undoubtedly shaped the modern Western world, I would consider its death a sad thing.
But as Joseph Campbell once said, there is no conflict whatsoever between science and religion; the conflict is between the science of 2000 AD and the science of 2000 BC.The problem with Christianity, why we're unable to recognize the signs and symbols for what they are--metaphors for that which transcends all words and ability for human beings to think about--is that we've inherited a tradition which was cultivated halfway around the world from another culture in another time. The symbols don't click with us in our culture because we don't recognize them as symbols. It's like Christ's parables; if you take them literally, you miss the point of them entirely.
It's helped me to read the sacred texts of other religions, which use the same symbols again and again, but interpreted in very different ways. In Greek myth, you have the story of Persephone and Demeter. Demeter is harvesting grain while her daughter Persephone goes off to play around in the grass. She spies a serpent. Just then, out of a hole in the ground, Hades rides his chariot, charges at Persephone, snatches her up, and returns to the underworld. Demeter goes to Zeus and begs him to make Hades return her daughter. Zeus tells her if she has eated the pomegranite, he can do nothing. She will be trapped. In the end, Persephone is allowed to return part of the year, which accounts for the change in seasons: the summer is Demeter's time of happiness being reunited with her daughter; the winter is her sorrow as she pines for her lost child. In other words, the field of time has been initiated, whereas before all was bliss.
Some scholars suspect that the serpent's appearance just before Hades emerges from a hole in the ground may be a clue that in an earlier version of the story, it was actually a giant serpent who came out of the ground and snatched the goddess away. If that's the case, the story can be summed up as follows: the goddess, at the behest of the serpent, eats a forbidden fruit which initiates all life in the field of time.
It's the same story as Genesis.
The problem is we've forgotten how to read the symbols. Throughout the world in myths from all cultures, the serpent has represented the same power as that of the goddess--the eternal taking form in the field of time. The goddess's power is the same as that of all women, to create and and sustain new life. She is also a destoyer of life and forms, however. That's the dual nature of the field of time: forms are created and forms are destroyed. The serpent also represents the power of the moon of being able to throw off death and be reborn, as the serpent throws off its old skin (and the moon throws off its shadow; many early Christian images show a crescent moon hanging above Christ on the cross).
So the idea of the Genesis story is that the eternal has broken forth into forms within the field of time. And God tells Adam that this means he'll have to till the ground, that he will die and have to have children, all the things that come with being a form in the field of time.
Now when forms break into the field of time, they break into pairs of opposites. Light, dark, male, female, good, evil. Indeed the tree from which man was instructed not to eat was called the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." Adam was split into pairs of opposites, male and female. Breaking forth into the field of time means, just as God said in the story, death. But whereas in the Greek story the only promise for the future is for alternating periods of delight and sorrow (which is what life is, after all), there is in the Christian tradition a way past the pairs of opposites back to the eternal bliss from which we've exiled ourselves.
Remember there was another tree in the garden, the tree of immortal life. In the Christian tradition, that tree is the cross, and Christ is the fruit of that tree. And so when you partake of the Holy Communion, you're eating of the fruit of that tree. And if you meditate on what you're doing, that you are participating in the ritual to identify not with your ego and with your form which is limited to a certain short lifepan, but with that which is truly eternal, then for you there is eternal life.
Most world religions are religions of identity, which see all forms as manifestations of the divine, God in all things. Christianity, by most people who call themselves Christians, is a religion of relationship, where God is something seperate from his creation. The world is not God, the world is corrupt, and the focus is on history and ethics--particularly ethics, in which one must place himself on one side or the other of an ethical dividing line. Most religions aren't like that. However, since the same symbols are used in Christianity that are used in every other religion in the world, Christianity can be read the other way as well, can be experienced as a religion of identity. Unfortunately, most people cut themselves off from that experience.
I would, again, as a Christian, be saddened by its demise. But I fear unless modern Christians give up a history and cosmology that's been outdated for centuries and focus on the actual religion, which doesn't depend on having a pig-headed belief in a six-thousand year old earth, Christianity is going to go the way of the Flat-Earth Society.
Sorry, folks, didn't mean to go off a tangent for so long. :)
-
Symbolism is a part of ideology which is the basis for religion. It is far easier to have someone tell you what is what than to thinking it through for yourself. In the place of a specific prophet, lecturer or philosopher, we have ideology. In time, the static thinking of the ideological will takes a toll; which is the price taken for standing against the progress of time.
Joseph Campbell may be correct but I stand against all dogma, I challenge all authority, and I rail against rules; for they are the burden of the anti-intellectual.
Today, in the America where I live, we see the result of ideology. Please consider the top half of the front page of the news:
1. Politics continue to be more important than the fate of the American people. This guy lied and that guy broke all of his promises, and millions are out of work, waiting for so mething to happen. Perhaps that “happening” will be bread-lines.
2. It looks like J.P. Morgan misinformed Congress about its latest losses by about $4 billion. What’s a buck or two here and there?
3. There is t alk about “food inflation” due to the super hot summer. Soon we will all be eating Top Ramen.
4. The Occupy movement and the LA police are at it again. Thump the protesters and ignore the message. Say, is anyone listening?
5. And state governments are arguing same-sex marriages. Is that important?
6. A glacier in Alaska let go, causing a historic landslide five miles long. Experts say it is due to warming weather in recent years. Does anyone care what caused this landslide?
7. Hey, Jennifer Lopez quit American Idol. Headlines!
8. China’s economic growth has slowed, perhaps they can’t continue to buy up oil interests in the middle east and Venezuala. Or are they just joining the rest of the World in their economic troubles.
9. Syria has produced another of their daily massacres and the peace-keepers are busy with politics.
10. China and the Philippines are farting around about who owns what stretch of water in the ocean.
11. Hillary says we can invest in Burma now. I wonder if the sell derivatives?
12. Penn State reminds me of a shotgun blast into a tree that was, moments ago, filled with birds. What ever happened to the Golden Rule?
13. Some people are trying to keep other people from voting, or, do we really need a national ID?
14. And Scientology is not a cult, according to Scientology.
15. And nobody gets my password because it is safe with Yahoo.
If ideology was a substrata of daily life, held as a personal belief, perhaps none of these news items would esist.
gerald the curdmugeon
-
Symbolism is a part of ideology which is the basis for religion. It is far easier to have someone tell you what is what than to thinking it through for yourself. In the place of a specific prophet, lecturer or philosopher, we have ideology. In time, the static thinking of the ideological will takes a toll; which is the price taken for standing against the progress of time.
Joseph Campbell may be correct but I stand against all dogma, I challenge all authority, and I rail against rules; for they are the burden of the anti-intellectual.
Symbolism has nothing to do with ideology or dogma. It's the basis for all human thought and language. Mythology is a symbolic language, just as is mathematics, without which there is no science. The problem in our time isn't religion, the problem is that most people today mistake their religion for history. Religion as history or science isn't religion, and if one's spiritual life is dependent on believing one's scripture is history, one has no real spiritual life. Religious ideology then is when one fails to recognize the symbolic language of their local myth.
All myths are true in the sense that they refer to that which transcends thought, that which cannot be expressed in words. It's when we put myths into words and say they are literally true that we have not myth, but ideology. When we point to the Bible and say that there is nothing beyond those words, God is literally what it says -- what you see it what you get -- then we have, in essence, created God in our own image instead of the other way around and we're worshiping an idol.
We've forgotten how to read myths and experience religion. As I said, in order for a religion to be working and meaningful in our modern world is that it absolutely must accept today's science.
If ideology was a substrata of daily life, held as a personal belief, perhaps none of these news items would esist.
gerald the curdmugeon
But that's just the thing. Myth isn't supposed to be ideology. I put to you just the opposite: our lack of myth/religion is the reason for much of the world's turmoil. Those who think they're religious really aren't. A culture with a properly functioning myth is a culture without any such problems.
-
Dogma, simply put, is religious ideology. Ideology is for those who are lazy thinkers.
-
Dogma, simply put, is religious ideology. Ideology is for those who are lazy thinkers.
I agree. Howver, a living religion requires neither dogma nor ideology.
Or let's put it this way: the purpose of organized religion is keep people from having a religious experience.
-
Racism persists in subtle forms - and there are even socially accepted forms of racism that presently exist.
A black person who says he is voting for Obama because he is black, and will therefore be assumed to best represent the interests of a black voter is not looked upon with scorn, disrespect, or even considered racist - but woe to the white person who says they are voting for the white candidate simply because of his race.
Anything that judges an action of someone of one race by a different standard than an individual of another race is, simply put, racist.
-
A black person who says he is voting for Obama because he is black, and will therefore be assumed to best represent the interests of a black voter is not looked upon with scorn, disrespect, or even considered racist - but woe to the white person who says they are voting for the white candidate simply because of his race.
This argument sounds logical upon first glance, but black people who voted for Mr. Obama solely because he is black did so for symbolic reasons based in history that simply can't be so easily dismissed. Anyone who has an ounce of understanding of the issues of slavery, Jim Crow laws and segregation and how those disgraceful episodes in American history have undermined the whole of our society instinctively appreciate that a black person voting for Obama solely because of his race is NOT the same thing as a white person voting for a white candidate solely because of HIS race. Pretending otherwise shows purposeful blindness.
-
If "racism" is simply judging someone based on race rather than any other factors (content of character and all that), then the previous post argues that the disgraceful history of the US in the area of racial laws creates a license for racist behavior by a subset of the population.
This brings to mind another question - if I vote for Romney not because he is white, but because he is less likely to give out "Romney Phones" and other transfer payments to those who cannot afford them, does the fact that this disparately impacts certain socioeconomic segments of the population make me a racist? I think not, but others may disagree.
-
I don't think that any definition of "racism" is simple, and I don't think that the mechanisms by which each of us judge people are simple, either. Perhaps we should just refrain from judging anyone in the first place.
Creating a "license for racist behavior" doesn't mean that anyone should give in to that particular temptation.
There is a difference between "racist" and "racial".
If you were to vote for Romney because he is less likely to give out "Romney Phones" to those who cannot afford them, and if that fact negatively impacts certain socioeconomic segments of the population, that does not make you a racist unless you are using the term "certain socioeconomic segments of the population" as code for "non-white." That would mean that you are not in fact talking about socioeconomics at all but that you were actually talking about race. It would also indicate that you have a very good idea of who else is speaking in the same "code".
-
The fun'll come out tomorrow
Bet your last tax dollar that tomorrow there'll be fun
Just thinkin' about tomorrow
Clears away the congress and the sorrow till there's none
When I'm stuck with a day of mud slinging, I just stick out my chin and grin and say
The fun'll come out tomorrow
So you got to hang on till tomorrow, came what may!
Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love you, tomorrow You're always a day away
I just stick out my chin and grin and say
The fun'll come out tomorrow
So you got to hang on till tomorrow, came what may!
Don't forget to vote! ;D
-
cute jbeany - and just for the record, yes, I sang it lout loud! :guitar:
-
I love it, jbeany!
-
If "racism" is simply judging someone based on race rather than any other factors (content of character and all that), then the previous post argues that the disgraceful history of the US in the area of racial laws creates a license for racist behavior by a subset of the population.
This brings to mind another question - if I vote for Romney not because he is white, but because he is less likely to give out "Romney Phones" and other transfer payments to those who cannot afford them, does the fact that this disparately impacts certain socioeconomic segments of the population make me a racist? I think not, but others may disagree.
I had to look up Romney Phones, then figured this must be the opposite of something stupid called Obama Phones and found an article, in Forbes no less (not exactly known for their liberal bent) saying the whole rumor is totally false. When did Americans become so gullible? http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/)
I think I understand what MM is saying and not surprisingly, I agree with her. I think it is analogous to the women's contraception circus in Congress. They treated women like mentally incompetent children, having a panel of only men testifying. You know what? If you have never had any of these health issues and never faced sexism from health care providers, you are not in a great place to speak about what is really needed for women. Similarly, if you have never been a victim of racism yourself, you are not going to be as effective tackling these difficult problems that continue to plague our country. I find it hard to believe that many black individuals are picking their politicians based solely on race, but maybe looking at over 200 years of history, one could come to the conclusion that white males are, on balance, rather hopeless at bringing equality to the US. When I had to pick between Hillary and Barack Obama, her experiences as a mother of a daughter were a factor in my choice because I trusted that she would make equality (not superiority) of women a high priority, and that it was about damn time someone did. It turns out Barack Obama has done a great job in going to the mat for women, but lacking the time to learn everything about every politician, the fact that Hillary was female (and that I was familiar with her stance on many issues) was a consideration, but certainly not why I was supporting her. Once Barack Obama got the nomination, I did not do anything ridiculous like cast a symbolic write-in vote for her, and her speech at the convention saying "it's never been about me" was one of the most gracious I've ever heard. In the end, the Dems got both Hillary and Barack Obama, so I see it as the best possible outcome.
White people who cast a vote for a white man because of his race cannot say that they hope this will lead to improvements in equality. They fear equality, which makes them racist.
When John Sununu said that Colin Powell was endorsing Obama because they were both the same race, that was insulting and led republican Lawrence Wilkerson to state "my party is full of racists". No, that doesn't mean that all republicans are racist, though when a criticism like that comes from a high member of one's own party, it should give Republicans pause. Maybe it's time to condemn the racists even at the risk of losing some political support.
And a bit of levity to close. Chris Rock's Special Message for White People: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NgXj9SM9VA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NgXj9SM9VA) (there is an advert that can be skipped after 5 seconds).
-
Similarly, if you have never been a victim of racism yourself, you are not going to be as effective tackling these difficult problems that continue to plague our country.
My only direct experience with racism is a phone call from a fortune 500 company VP who I knew from a previous job who called to say "I got your resume, but I will not waste your time or mine since I could never get a white male hire approved. I just wanted to make sure you understood it was not a reflection on your skills when you see some of your co-workers (from a company that just folded) receive job offers from my department.
White people who cast a vote for a white man because of his race cannot say that they hope this will lead to improvements in equality. They fear equality, which makes them racist.
I never cast a vote for a white because of his race but, in the only presidential race where the was a racial divide, the candidate that happened to more closely represent my views happened to be white. I support rather than fear equality.
-
Similarly, if you have never been a victim of racism yourself, you are not going to be as effective tackling these difficult problems that continue to plague our country.
My only direct experience with racism is a phone call from a fortune 500 company VP who I knew from a previous job who called to say "I got your resume, but I will not waste your time or mine since I could never get a white male hire approved. I just wanted to make sure you understood it was not a reflection on your skills when you see some of your co-workers (from a company that just folded) receive job offers from my department.
Sorry, this does not really qualify in my book as experiencing racism. One little anecdote over a lifetime, aggravating as it sounds, is not the life experience i was talking about. I was talking about living with the effects of a country's bigotry every day as women and minorities often do. Also, not to pick apart your story, but if the job were really important to me I would have asked that this person feel free to waste my time and then I could see for myself. He sounds disgruntled and like he's making excuses for not putting you forward. Both my husband and I have been on both sides of the trying to get jobs through friends/acquaintances issue and it is awkward and frequently leads to people trying to spare feelings.
White people who cast a vote for a white man because of his race cannot say that they hope this will lead to improvements in equality. They fear equality, which makes them racist.
I never cast a vote for a white because of his race but, in the only presidential race where the was a racial divide, the candidate that happened to more closely represent my views happened to be white. I support rather than fear equality.
OK. So you're not a racist. Yay!
-
Ultimately, the reason people think to point to race as the motivation behind hatred of Obama is because the ostensible reasons are suspect. Under George W. Bush, we were saddled with the highest debt in U.S. history, and the majority of our debt is still from prior to Obama's presidency, but there wasn't a peep from anyone about it until the day Obama took office, when it suddenly became the most important issue of our time. The Obama stimulus was "socialism," but the GWB stimulus efforts were not. It's this discepency between the views of two nearly identical presidents that makes one try to find the "real" reason, and racism makes for an easy explanation. If Obama critics showed more consistency in their critiques, the charge of racism wouldn't work as well. But since many of the complaints against Obama are things that happened -- in some ways, like with the debt, to an even greater degree -- under Bush, it makes it difficult to accept these complaints at face value.
-
He sounds disgruntled and like he's making excuses for not putting you forward.
I had learned long before even thinking of applying to this particular company that "affirmative action points" were a big hiring factor (from people who had worked there for 20+ years, and whom I knew and heard the stories when not in the job market). I was in a company with several dozen people with a similar set at the time it went belly up, and the only two that were interviewed and hired by this company were those who would contribute to diversity.
This is not the same as generations of subtle racism; being profiled for driving while black; etc. - but there are cases where opportunity to select graduate or professional programs, or access to scholarships is indeed race based.
Selection by race is, by definition, racism. What is subject to legitimate debate is "what particular flavors of racism are acceptable?".
-
He sounds disgruntled and like he's making excuses for not putting you forward.
I had learned long before even thinking of applying to this particular company that "affirmative action points" were a big hiring factor (from people who had worked there for 20+ years, and whom I knew and heard the stories when not in the job market). I was in a company with several dozen people with a similar set at the time it went belly up, and the only two that were interviewed and hired by this company were those who would contribute to diversity.
This is not the same as generations of subtle racism; being profiled for driving while black; etc. - but there are cases where opportunity to select graduate or professional programs, or access to scholarships is indeed race based.
Selection by race is, by definition, racism. What is subject to legitimate debate is "what particular flavors of racism are acceptable?".
Is it possible that the best candidates for the various positions just happened to be non-white or female? Why is that when a company has all white males in the top positions, with maybe a female here and a non-white person there, no one finds that odd, but it's so hard to believe that perhaps the most promising applicants were not white male? My husband worked for two Fortune 500 companies and I worked for one. Both the companies that my husband worked for practiced blatant nepotism with top employees sharing the name of the company and no one objected (not saying that they should have, just that no one went around saying don't bother applying unless you're a family member). At one, the HR director was black - I think he was the top ranking minority - but the executives were all ghostly pale. The other company he worked for I had to follow the executives around on a tour (this is how I met my husband, incidentally) and there was not a single minority nor female among them.
I can tell by your tone that you sincerely feel that you were wronged based on your race and that you are able to put the episode in perspective and not dwell, my problem lies more with the person speaking for the company. A white male VP saying white males cannot get hired at that company does not exactly make a compelling argument. Fascinating that he would perceive his situation that way. I'd say the two who were interviewed from your newly-defunct employer were not told to give up before trying, so they may have been the only two options.
Also, I would not describe much of the racism in this country (nor the sexism) as subtle. Subtle racism is more difficult to call out and does loads of damage in its own right, but there is still plenty of the old-fashioned racism that will get a person killed.
-
Ultimately, the reason people think to point to race as the motivation behind hatred of Obama is because the ostensible reasons are suspect. Under George W. Bush, we were saddled with the highest debt in U.S. history, and the majority of our debt is still from prior to Obama's presidency, but there wasn't a peep from anyone about it until the day Obama took office, when it suddenly became the most important issue of our time. The Obama stimulus was "socialism," but the GWB stimulus efforts were not. It's this discepency between the views of two nearly identical presidents that makes one try to find the "real" reason, and racism makes for an easy explanation. If Obama critics showed more consistency in their critiques, the charge of racism wouldn't work as well. But since many of the complaints against Obama are things that happened -- in some ways, like with the debt, to an even greater degree -- under Bush, it makes it difficult to accept these complaints at face value.
People don't dislike Obama because he is a half black, half white man. They/we dislike him because of his policies. Even my brown wife and my half white, half brown children dislike Obama. Once again, not because of the color of his skin which is just about the same as my wife's, but because of what he wants to do to America. You seem to forget how many white folks voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It is not race my friend, but political opinions that makes us differ.
-
Ultimately, the reason people think to point to race as the motivation behind hatred of Obama is because the ostensible reasons are suspect. Under George W. Bush, we were saddled with the highest debt in U.S. history, and the majority of our debt is still from prior to Obama's presidency, but there wasn't a peep from anyone about it until the day Obama took office, when it suddenly became the most important issue of our time. The Obama stimulus was "socialism," but the GWB stimulus efforts were not. It's this discepency between the views of two nearly identical presidents that makes one try to find the "real" reason, and racism makes for an easy explanation. If Obama critics showed more consistency in their critiques, the charge of racism wouldn't work as well. But since many of the complaints against Obama are things that happened -- in some ways, like with the debt, to an even greater degree -- under Bush, it makes it difficult to accept these complaints at face value.
I think this is well stated. As you've pointed out, HM, when policies are so similar, you are essentially controlling for all other factors but the one glaring difference. I think your theory works best with the hard core libertarians - the ones who are fixated on the economy and are fairly unconcerned with how people live their lives privately (Ron Paul I think mostly fits into this category). Social conservatives will find a lot of difference between Bush and Obama.
-
Ultimately, the reason people think to point to race as the motivation behind hatred of Obama is because the ostensible reasons are suspect. Under George W. Bush, we were saddled with the highest debt in U.S. history, and the majority of our debt is still from prior to Obama's presidency, but there wasn't a peep from anyone about it until the day Obama took office, when it suddenly became the most important issue of our time. The Obama stimulus was "socialism," but the GWB stimulus efforts were not. It's this discepency between the views of two nearly identical presidents that makes one try to find the "real" reason, and racism makes for an easy explanation. If Obama critics showed more consistency in their critiques, the charge of racism wouldn't work as well. But since many of the complaints against Obama are things that happened -- in some ways, like with the debt, to an even greater degree -- under Bush, it makes it difficult to accept these complaints at face value.
People don't dislike Obama because he is a half black, half white man. They/we dislike him because of his policies. Even my brown wife and my half white, half brown children dislike Obama. Once again, not because of the color of his skin which is just about the same as my wife's, but because of what he wants to do to America. You seem to forget how many white folks voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It is not race my friend, but political opinions that makes us differ.
Hemadoc, you got to be real, not all, but I would say the majority that does dislike Obama is because of his race. I bet if Romney had the same views as Obama, it would not be so much hatred. You may not dislike him because of his race, however, the majority of the hatred is because he is not all white. At hampdney College this weekend, Romney supporters trashed the area at the school that the most blacks reside on campus. It was a racially motivated hate crime. It is one thing to not like a person views, but not like them because of their race is stupid. Racism is real, I live in a rural area and it is so obvious here. The local newspaper supports all the rep views and they don't hide how they feel. Sad in the 21 century and people can't get along.
-
Ultimately, the reason people think to point to race as the motivation behind hatred of Obama is because the ostensible reasons are suspect. Under George W. Bush, we were saddled with the highest debt in U.S. history, and the majority of our debt is still from prior to Obama's presidency, but there wasn't a peep from anyone about it until the day Obama took office, when it suddenly became the most important issue of our time. The Obama stimulus was "socialism," but the GWB stimulus efforts were not. It's this discepency between the views of two nearly identical presidents that makes one try to find the "real" reason, and racism makes for an easy explanation. If Obama critics showed more consistency in their critiques, the charge of racism wouldn't work as well. But since many of the complaints against Obama are things that happened -- in some ways, like with the debt, to an even greater degree -- under Bush, it makes it difficult to accept these complaints at face value.
People don't dislike Obama because he is a half black, half white man. They/we dislike him because of his policies. Even my brown wife and my half white, half brown children dislike Obama. Once again, not because of the color of his skin which is just about the same as my wife's, but because of what he wants to do to America. You seem to forget how many white folks voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It is not race my friend, but political opinions that makes us differ.
Hemadoc, you got to be real, not all, but I would say the majority that does dislike Obama is because of his race. I bet if Romney had the same views as Obama, it would not be so much hatred. You may not dislike him because of his race, however, the majority of the hatred is because he is not all white. At hampdney College this weekend, Romney supporters trashed the area at the school that the most blacks reside on campus. It was a racially motivated hate crime. It is one thing to not like a person views, but not like them because of their race is stupid. Racism is real, I live in a rural area and it is so obvious here. The local newspaper supports all the rep views and they don't hide how they feel. Sad in the 21 century and people can't get along.
You are plain and simply wrong but no sense trying to avert attention to this lie perpetrated at the highest levels of the Democratic party against the GOP. If the Tea Party folks are such racists, then why is Allen West and Hermain Cain so popular. In any case, believe what you wish, but you are plainly and simply wrong. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
-
Ultimately, the reason people think to point to race as the motivation behind hatred of Obama is because the ostensible reasons are suspect. Under George W. Bush, we were saddled with the highest debt in U.S. history, and the majority of our debt is still from prior to Obama's presidency, but there wasn't a peep from anyone about it until the day Obama took office, when it suddenly became the most important issue of our time. The Obama stimulus was "socialism," but the GWB stimulus efforts were not. It's this discepency between the views of two nearly identical presidents that makes one try to find the "real" reason, and racism makes for an easy explanation. If Obama critics showed more consistency in their critiques, the charge of racism wouldn't work as well. But since many of the complaints against Obama are things that happened -- in some ways, like with the debt, to an even greater degree -- under Bush, it makes it difficult to accept these complaints at face value.
People don't dislike Obama because he is a half black, half white man. They/we dislike him because of his policies. Even my brown wife and my half white, half brown children dislike Obama. Once again, not because of the color of his skin which is just about the same as my wife's, but because of what he wants to do to America. You seem to forget how many white folks voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It is not race my friend, but political opinions that makes us differ.
Hemadoc, you got to be real, not all, but I would say the majority that does dislike Obama is because of his race. I bet if Romney had the same views as Obama, it would not be so much hatred. You may not dislike him because of his race, however, the majority of the hatred is because he is not all white. At hampdney College this weekend, Romney supporters trashed the area at the school that the most blacks reside on campus. It was a racially motivated hate crime. It is one thing to not like a person views, but not like them because of their race is stupid. Racism is real, I live in a rural area and it is so obvious here. The local newspaper supports all the rep views and they don't hide how they feel. Sad in the 21 century and people can't get along.
You are plain and simply wrong but no sense trying to avert attention to this lie perpetrated at the highest levels of the Democratic party against the GOP. If the Tea Party folks are such racists, then why is Allen West and Hermain Cain so popular. In any case, believe what you wish, but you are plainly and simply wrong. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
Actually, I have to agree with Hemodoc on this one. (Try not to faint from shock here, Hemodoc!) While I'm well aware there are a (still too large for this century!) number of people who are against him purely for his color, there are many, many more people who just don't agree with the Democratic Party's view on government. Unfortunately, it's easy to jump to racial issues when the smaller contingent of racist idiots are so vocal and tend to get more press than the moderate Republicans who would have been happy to vote for Colin Powell or Herman Cain. I think it would be amazing if the Republicans could field an African American candidate for the next election. That would A. Tick off the racists so much they wouldn't vote at all. B. Let us focus on the political issues alone.
-
I agree with jbeany. But you can't deny that the pictures of Mr. Obama as a monkey or the White House front lawn as a watermelon patch show just a touch of racism. I'd bet that the people who created these images didn't vote for Obama solely on "the issues".
(Actually, at first I thought the watermelon patch photos were supposed to be positive images! I thought it was supposed to show a fantasy based on the First Lady's desire to have a White House garden, and I thought, "Oh, that's be so cool to have a kitchen garden and include watermelons! Gosh, I wish I could eat watermelon, but ugh, too much potassium. I love watermelon.." Someone had to point out to me that the intent of the photos was racist. LOL!)
-
Racism is alive and well in America. Minorities voted for Obama, so did women, only white males supported Romney. It wasn’t just the southern states where many angry white males reside, it was endemic throughout the so-called swing states. Much of the GOP campaign used terms like lazy, not intelligent, the black agenda and plans to reduce white Americans to a minority status. We saw the images of countless displays where empty chairs with a hangman’s noose hanging from trees.
The Romney campaign was the old Nixon strategy where certain buzz words were meant to indicate racial preference. Even today, a prominent citizen wants Texas to secede from the US because a black man is running America.
How many hundreds of photos were taken in those early Tea Party demonstrations? And didn’t the GOP embrace the Tea Party? Does anyone remember that the US Supreme Court is now considering amending the Voters Rights Act of ’65 due to a petition from a consortium of southern states? And what was the name of the Texas Governor’s hunting lodge?
gl
-
Gerald you said it better than me. @hemodoc, Herman Cain or Colin Powell would not have been supported by many minorities not because the color of their skin but because of their views. I know I wouldn't vote for either of them. Racism is alive and kicking.
-
Ultimately, the reason people think to point to race as the motivation behind hatred of Obama is because the ostensible reasons are suspect. Under George W. Bush, we were saddled with the highest debt in U.S. history, and the majority of our debt is still from prior to Obama's presidency, but there wasn't a peep from anyone about it until the day Obama took office, when it suddenly became the most important issue of our time. The Obama stimulus was "socialism," but the GWB stimulus efforts were not. It's this discepency between the views of two nearly identical presidents that makes one try to find the "real" reason, and racism makes for an easy explanation. If Obama critics showed more consistency in their critiques, the charge of racism wouldn't work as well. But since many of the complaints against Obama are things that happened -- in some ways, like with the debt, to an even greater degree -- under Bush, it makes it difficult to accept these complaints at face value.
People don't dislike Obama because he is a half black, half white man. They/we dislike him because of his policies. Even my brown wife and my half white, half brown children dislike Obama. Once again, not because of the color of his skin which is just about the same as my wife's, but because of what he wants to do to America. You seem to forget how many white folks voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It is not race my friend, but political opinions that makes us differ.
Hemadoc, you got to be real, not all, but I would say the majority that does dislike Obama is because of his race. I bet if Romney had the same views as Obama, it would not be so much hatred. You may not dislike him because of his race, however, the majority of the hatred is because he is not all white. At hampdney College this weekend, Romney supporters trashed the area at the school that the most blacks reside on campus. It was a racially motivated hate crime. It is one thing to not like a person views, but not like them because of their race is stupid. Racism is real, I live in a rural area and it is so obvious here. The local newspaper supports all the rep views and they don't hide how they feel. Sad in the 21 century and people can't get along.
You are plain and simply wrong but no sense trying to avert attention to this lie perpetrated at the highest levels of the Democratic party against the GOP. If the Tea Party folks are such racists, then why is Allen West and Hermain Cain so popular. In any case, believe what you wish, but you are plainly and simply wrong. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
Actually, I have to agree with Hemodoc on this one. (Try not to faint from shock here, Hemodoc!) While I'm well aware there are a (still too large for this century!) number of people who are against him purely for his color, there are many, many more people who just don't agree with the Democratic Party's view on government. Unfortunately, it's easy to jump to racial issues when the smaller contingent of racist idiots are so vocal and tend to get more press than the moderate Republicans who would have been happy to vote for Colin Powell or Herman Cain. I think it would be amazing if the Republicans could field an African American candidate for the next election. That would A. Tick off the racists so much they wouldn't vote at all. B. Let us focus on the political issues alone.
Hemodoc I beat my wife every day and night, that is why we have been married for over 30 long years and counting.
-
Ultimately, the reason people think to point to race as the motivation behind hatred of Obama is because the ostensible reasons are suspect. Under George W. Bush, we were saddled with the highest debt in U.S. history, and the majority of our debt is still from prior to Obama's presidency, but there wasn't a peep from anyone about it until the day Obama took office, when it suddenly became the most important issue of our time. The Obama stimulus was "socialism," but the GWB stimulus efforts were not. It's this discepency between the views of two nearly identical presidents that makes one try to find the "real" reason, and racism makes for an easy explanation. If Obama critics showed more consistency in their critiques, the charge of racism wouldn't work as well. But since many of the complaints against Obama are things that happened -- in some ways, like with the debt, to an even greater degree -- under Bush, it makes it difficult to accept these complaints at face value.
People don't dislike Obama because he is a half black, half white man. They/we dislike him because of his policies. Even my brown wife and my half white, half brown children dislike Obama. Once again, not because of the color of his skin which is just about the same as my wife's, but because of what he wants to do to America. You seem to forget how many white folks voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It is not race my friend, but political opinions that makes us differ.
Hemadoc, you got to be real, not all, but I would say the majority that does dislike Obama is because of his race. I bet if Romney had the same views as Obama, it would not be so much hatred. You may not dislike him because of his race, however, the majority of the hatred is because he is not all white. At hampdney College this weekend, Romney supporters trashed the area at the school that the most blacks reside on campus. It was a racially motivated hate crime. It is one thing to not like a person views, but not like them because of their race is stupid. Racism is real, I live in a rural area and it is so obvious here. The local newspaper supports all the rep views and they don't hide how they feel. Sad in the 21 century and people can't get along.
You are plain and simply wrong but no sense trying to avert attention to this lie perpetrated at the highest levels of the Democratic party against the GOP. If the Tea Party folks are such racists, then why is Allen West and Hermain Cain so popular. In any case, believe what you wish, but you are plainly and simply wrong. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
Actually, I have to agree with Hemodoc on this one. (Try not to faint from shock here, Hemodoc!) While I'm well aware there are a (still too large for this century!) number of people who are against him purely for his color, there are many, many more people who just don't agree with the Democratic Party's view on government. Unfortunately, it's easy to jump to racial issues when the smaller contingent of racist idiots are so vocal and tend to get more press than the moderate Republicans who would have been happy to vote for Colin Powell or Herman Cain. I think it would be amazing if the Republicans could field an African American candidate for the next election. That would A. Tick off the racists so much they wouldn't vote at all. B. Let us focus on the political issues alone.
Hemodoc I beat my wife every day and night, that is why we have been married for over 30 long years and counting.
Then that must make me a racist as well.
The point, it is very easy to make false accusations, it is very hard to counter or deny them. Have a great day.
-
Ultimately, the reason people think to point to race as the motivation behind hatred of Obama is because the ostensible reasons are suspect. Under George W. Bush, we were saddled with the highest debt in U.S. history, and the majority of our debt is still from prior to Obama's presidency, but there wasn't a peep from anyone about it until the day Obama took office, when it suddenly became the most important issue of our time. The Obama stimulus was "socialism," but the GWB stimulus efforts were not. It's this discepency between the views of two nearly identical presidents that makes one try to find the "real" reason, and racism makes for an easy explanation. If Obama critics showed more consistency in their critiques, the charge of racism wouldn't work as well. But since many of the complaints against Obama are things that happened -- in some ways, like with the debt, to an even greater degree -- under Bush, it makes it difficult to accept these complaints at face value.
People don't dislike Obama because he is a half black, half white man. They/we dislike him because of his policies. Even my brown wife and my half white, half brown children dislike Obama. Once again, not because of the color of his skin which is just about the same as my wife's, but because of what he wants to do to America. You seem to forget how many white folks voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It is not race my friend, but political opinions that makes us differ.
Hemadoc, you got to be real, not all, but I would say the majority that does dislike Obama is because of his race. I bet if Romney had the same views as Obama, it would not be so much hatred. You may not dislike him because of his race, however, the majority of the hatred is because he is not all white. At hampdney College this weekend, Romney supporters trashed the area at the school that the most blacks reside on campus. It was a racially motivated hate crime. It is one thing to not like a person views, but not like them because of their race is stupid. Racism is real, I live in a rural area and it is so obvious here. The local newspaper supports all the rep views and they don't hide how they feel. Sad in the 21 century and people can't get along.
You are plain and simply wrong but no sense trying to avert attention to this lie perpetrated at the highest levels of the Democratic party against the GOP. If the Tea Party folks are such racists, then why is Allen West and Hermain Cain so popular. In any case, believe what you wish, but you are plainly and simply wrong. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?
Actually, I have to agree with Hemodoc on this one. (Try not to faint from shock here, Hemodoc!) While I'm well aware there are a (still too large for this century!) number of people who are against him purely for his color, there are many, many more people who just don't agree with the Democratic Party's view on government. Unfortunately, it's easy to jump to racial issues when the smaller contingent of racist idiots are so vocal and tend to get more press than the moderate Republicans who would have been happy to vote for Colin Powell or Herman Cain. I think it would be amazing if the Republicans could field an African American candidate for the next election. That would A. Tick off the racists so much they wouldn't vote at all. B. Let us focus on the political issues alone.
Hemodoc I beat my wife every day and night, that is why we have been married for over 30 long years and counting.
Then that must make me a racist as well.
The point, it is very easy to make false accusations, it is very hard to counter or deny them. Have a great day.
Hemodoc, lets move on. The election is over, hopefully someone who supports your views will fill thw White House for the next election. I am racist, I like apples better than oranges. It was fun reding everyone views. May God bless you all, look forward to getting back into the dialysis discussions.
-
While I'm well aware there are a (still too large for this century!) number of people who are against him purely for his color, there are many, many more people who just don't agree with the Democratic Party's view on government.
They don't agree with the Democratic party's view of government, or the Republican made-up caricature of the Democratic party's view of government?
B. Let us focus on the political issues alone.
Okay, let's.
How many policy differences can you think of between GWB and BHO? I can't think of one. Both offered corporate bailouts, an economic stimulus, expensive and expansive healthcare reform (all "socialism" apparently under Obama, but all good under GWB). Both have the same foreign policies. The end of the Iraq war proceeded exactly as planned under GWB. BHO didn't visit Israel during his first term (proving he is no friend of Israel), but GWB didn't visit Israel during his first term nor most of his second (and, for that matter, Reagan never visited Israel at all, nor GHWB) yet no one questioned his stated stance on Israel -- which is exactly the same as BHO's.
The double standard is even more glaring with the debt. The majorty of the debt came from before the Obama administration. The vast majority of the deficit -- a surplus when GWB took office --came from the Bush administration. So if people are angry at the Obama administration over the debt and deficit, they must really hate GWB, otherwise they aren't being honest. Or how about jobs? GWB ended his first term with a net job loss. Or taxes? Reagan raised taxes many times. Funny that it wasn't socialism then. Government spending? Spending per capita under Reagan was 14.4 percent. Under Obama? 6.4 percent. And spending growth and the deficit are going down, not up. So Reagan was a much bigger socialist, right?
I agree many Obama critics who give GWB and other Republicans a free pass for things they want to run Obama out of Washington for aren't racist. It may not be racism, but it is ignorance of the facts.
-
Racism is alive and well in America. Minorities voted for Obama, so did women, only white males supported Romney.
And, lots of whites of all flavors (male, female, young, old) voted for Obama because they liked his policies. Most statistics show that blacks "voted their race" at 95% or so, and whites split their vote among candidates with diverging viewpoints. So, in a sense, Obama is president because white voting patters were less racially focused than black voting patterns.
-
Racism is alive and well in America. Minorities voted for Obama, so did women, only white males supported Romney.
And, lots of whites of all flavors (male, female, young, old) voted for Obama because they liked his policies. Most statistics show that blacks "voted their race" at 95% or so, and whites split their vote among candidates with diverging viewpoints. So, in a sense, Obama is president because white voting patters were less racially focused than black voting patterns.
All people vote for whomever they think will best represent their interests, not just blacks or other minorities. White evangelicals consistently vote Republican. Some 84% of Mormons were planning on voting for Mitt Romney. They were all voting for a member of their "in-group." Sometimes that in-group is race, sometimes it's religion, sometimes it's sex. Black people hold no monopoly over voting for their in-group.
-
Racism is alive and well in America. Minorities voted for Obama, so did women, only white males supported Romney.
And, lots of whites of all flavors (male, female, young, old) voted for Obama because they liked his policies. Most statistics show that blacks "voted their race" at 95% or so, and whites split their vote among candidates with diverging viewpoints. So, in a sense, Obama is president because white voting patters were less racially focused than black voting patterns.
All people vote for whomever they think will best represent their interests, not just blacks or other minorities. White evangelicals consistently vote Republican. Some 84% of Mormons were planning on voting for Mitt Romney. They were all voting for a member of their "in-group." Sometimes that in-group is race, sometimes it's religion, sometimes it's sex. Black people hold no monopoly over voting for their in-group.
Dear Hober, with all due respect, a Mormon candidate is NOT part of my "in-group" yet the majority of "white evangelicals" voted for Romney not at all because of his religion or color of skin, but instead only because of his proposed views and programs. Please, spare us any further false accusations of racism, it is getting old.
-
My son's wife just got a job with a big law firm. She's black. He's white. They're happy, and so am I.
-
Dear Hober, with all due respect, a Mormon candidate is NOT part of my "in-group" yet the majority of "white evangelicals" voted for Romney not at all because of his religion or color of skin, but instead only because of his proposed views and programs. Please, spare us any further false accusations of racism, it is getting old.
Might want to reread what I wrote. I'll reiterate by quoting the salient bit: "All people vote for whomever they think will best represent their interests." Your reply above does not refute, but *supports* that point.
-
If not agreeing with Obama means you're a racist, than call me Racist Randy.
-
If not agreeing with Obama means you're a racist, than call me Racist Randy.
I voted for him because he is WHITE. Am I a racist? :rofl; Joking of course!!!
-
If not agreeing with Obama means you're a racist, than call me Racist Randy.
I voted for him because he is WHITE. Am I a racist? :rofl; Joking of course!!!
Shucks, do we really need to open up this thread again and hear all the "you are a racist" comments all over again? If it makes them feel good believing conservatives are all racist, let them. You won't change their minds anyway no matter how much you protest. The accusation is enough.
-
... If it makes them feel good believing conservatives are all racist, let them. You won't change their minds anyway no matter how much you protest. The accusation is enough.
So why the generalizations?
Of course some conservatives are racist and, of course, some are not.
And some non-conservatives are racist and some are not.
Your complaint appears to be about unwarranted generalizations, but the form of your complaint makes unwarranted generalizations. That seems counter-productive.
cheers,
skg
-
I prefer dark chocolate and milk chocolate over white chocolate. In fact, I won't give white chocolate a chance! Does that make me a racist?
(Just wanted to change the mood in here. I agree with HemoDoc - do we really need to dig this thread up again??? Seriously?)
Now, off to find myself some non-white chocolate!
KarenInWA
-
... If it makes them feel good believing conservatives are all racist, let them. You won't change their minds anyway no matter how much you protest. The accusation is enough.
So why the generalizations?
Of course some conservatives are racist and, of course, some are not.
And some non-conservatives are racist and some are not.
Your complaint appears to be about unwarranted generalizations, but the form of your complaint makes unwarranted generalizations. That seems counter-productive.
cheers,
skg
Actually, political discussions on IHD are totally counter productive as well my friend. In any case, you failed to understand my conditional sentence that begin with the most important modifier, if! Thus, it is grammatically incorrect to accuse me of making a sweeping generalization since my comment was in the form of a question that I answered essentially, so be it. In other words, IF they wish to accuse some or all of us as racist, so what? That has nothing to do with the truth of the issue at hand. Just sayin, ya no what i mean? If yawl folks want to believe conservatives are racist for not voting for Obama, so be it. But, that is not what motivates the majority of us who oppose Obama at all. In fact, I quite enjoy Herman Cain and ex-Rep West. Perhaps, they ain't black enough if us alleged racist GOP folks appreciate and support them. No matter how you skin it, once the allegation is ventured, you cannot defend against it. So, if folks want to believe that false allegation, so be it.
Do we really need to go through another inane round of ridiculous accusations of the GOP being racist? Well, have at it if you feel better doing it.
-
Actually, political discussions on IHD are totally counter productive as well my friend. In any case, you failed to understand my conditional sentence that begin with the most important modifier, if! Thus, it is grammatically incorrect to accuse me of making a sweeping generalization since my comment was in the form of a question that I answered essentially, so be it. Just sayin, ya no what i mean? If yawl folks want to believe conservatives are racist for not voting for Obama, so be it.
Do we really need to go through another inane round of ridiculous accusations of the GOP being racist? Well, have at it if you feel better doing it.
Do we really need to go through another inane round of ridiculous accusations of people labeling you a racist when the exact opposite has happened across 9+ pages of posts? Well, have at it if you feel better doing it.
skg, well-stated, I was thinking the exact same thing as you. Great minds and all that. :)
-
Actually, political discussions on IHD are totally counter productive as well my friend. In any case, you failed to understand my conditional sentence that begin with the most important modifier, if! Thus, it is grammatically incorrect to accuse me of making a sweeping generalization since my comment was in the form of a question that I answered essentially, so be it. Just sayin, ya no what i mean? If yawl folks want to believe conservatives are racist for not voting for Obama, so be it.
Do we really need to go through another inane round of ridiculous accusations of the GOP being racist? Well, have at it if you feel better doing it.
Do we really need to go through another inane round of ridiculous accusations of people labeling you a racist when the exact opposite has happened across 9+ pages of posts? Well, have at it if you feel better doing it.
skg, well-stated, I was thinking the exact same thing as you. Great minds and all that. :)
Hmmmm, I must venture where you got my alleged personal interjection out of the comment you quoted. I guess I must represent all conservatives then. Ahhhh, yes, yes, my persecution complex. I forgot. Add that to the list of racist as well. In any case, so be it.
-
Actually, political discussions on IHD are totally counter productive as well my friend. In any case, you failed to understand my conditional sentence that begin with the most important modifier, if! Thus, it is grammatically incorrect to accuse me of making a sweeping generalization since my comment was in the form of a question that I answered essentially, so be it. Just sayin, ya no what i mean? If yawl folks want to believe conservatives are racist for not voting for Obama, so be it.
Do we really need to go through another inane round of ridiculous accusations of the GOP being racist? Well, have at it if you feel better doing it.
Do we really need to go through another inane round of ridiculous accusations of people labeling you a racist when the exact opposite has happened across 9+ pages of posts? Well, have at it if you feel better doing it.
skg, well-stated, I was thinking the exact same thing as you. Great minds and all that. :)
Hmmmm, I must venture where you got my alleged personal interjection out of the comment you quoted. I guess I must represent all conservatives then. Ahhhh, yes, yes, my persecution complex. I forgot. Add that to the list of racist as well. In any case, so be it.
Read over what you've written in this thread. You accused many of us repeatedly of calling you a racist when we did no such thing. And again in this response, no matter what anyone says, if we don't agree with you that there are no racists in the GOP, and most especially the birther movement, then we are calling you personally a racist. I certainly don't believe for one moment that you represent all conservatives, you are the one who has repeatedly used the phrase "conservatives LIKE ME".
I thought you didn't want to participate in political discussions anymore on here? If it's so pointless to talk to ANY OF US (except MooseMom, per your words), then why do you continually hover over these discussions?
-
Actually, political discussions on IHD are totally counter productive as well my friend. In any case, you failed to understand my conditional sentence that begin with the most important modifier, if! Thus, it is grammatically incorrect to accuse me of making a sweeping generalization since my comment was in the form of a question that I answered essentially, so be it. Just sayin, ya no what i mean? If yawl folks want to believe conservatives are racist for not voting for Obama, so be it.
Do we really need to go through another inane round of ridiculous accusations of the GOP being racist? Well, have at it if you feel better doing it.
Do we really need to go through another inane round of ridiculous accusations of people labeling you a racist when the exact opposite has happened across 9+ pages of posts? Well, have at it if you feel better doing it.
skg, well-stated, I was thinking the exact same thing as you. Great minds and all that. :)
Hmmmm, I must venture where you got my alleged personal interjection out of the comment you quoted. I guess I must represent all conservatives then. Ahhhh, yes, yes, my persecution complex. I forgot. Add that to the list of racist as well. In any case, so be it.
Read over what you've written in this thread. You accused many of us repeatedly of calling you a racist when we did no such thing. And again in this response, no matter what anyone says, if we don't agree with you that there are no racists in the GOP, and most especially the birther movement, then we are calling you personally a racist. I certainly don't believe for one moment that you represent all conservatives, you are the one who has repeatedly used the phrase "conservatives LIKE ME".
I thought you didn't want to participate in political discussions anymore on here? If it's so pointless to talk to ANY OF US (except MooseMom, per your words), then why do you continually hover over these discussions?
Nope, Cariad, I just told Bill don't bother with the IPAB discussion any further, I had enough sarcasm for one day. And yes, Moosemom is the only one of late who actually discusses political issues without personal attacks in a friendly tone. Just a bit bored without my little girl here in CA to sing the Wheels on the Bus go round and round, so I will go round and round a few rounds here on IHD. Is that a problem Cariad? It is better than shredding documents and cleaning out the attic anyway.
Now the birther movement, why call them racist? You are doing it again when you said you wouldn't. If you believe the document that Obama put forth is a real document, then sorry, the digital evidence speaks against that. If you want to believe it is a real document, so be it. But looking at digital evidence is not racist or racism. Sorry, but there are many questions that Obama has not provided answers nor do I believe he ever will. Once again, that is not racism. But, it matters not. If that is what you wish to believe, it is a free country, or at least for a bit longer anyway.
-
Nope, Cariad, I just told Bill don't bother with the IPAB discussion any further, I had enough sarcasm for one day. And yes, Moosemom is the only one of late who actually discusses political issues without personal attacks in a friendly tone. Just a bit bored without my little girl here in CA to sing the Wheels on the Bus go round and round, so I will go round and round a few rounds here on IHD. Is that a problem Cariad? It is better than shredding documents and cleaning out the attic anyway.
Now the birther movement, why call them racist? You are doing it again when you said you wouldn't. If you believe the document that Obama put forth is a real document, then sorry, the digital evidence speaks against that. If you want to believe it is a real document, so be it. But looking at digital evidence is not racist or racism. Sorry, but there are many questions that Obama has not provided answers nor do I believe he ever will. Once again, that is not racism. But, it matters not. If that is what you wish to believe, it is a free country, or at least for a bit longer anyway.
I believe there is a racist element to the birther movement as I said about 8 pages back. You say you don't want to re-open the topic, then rehash the same tired arguments in an effort to bait me into beating my head against that wall again.
Your writing from the Traditional America thread: "It seems discussing diverse opinions on IHD is a no go any longer with the exception of Moosemom alone."
Yes, I love MooseMom, too, but there is no way I would insult the rest of IHD by making such a sweeping generalization. It couldn't possibly be you with the problem, huh? No, it's everyone else who refuses to agree with you that is so unreasonable, that's far more likely. I don't see anyone else, conservative nor dem taking these little debates so ridiculously seriously.
I have my little boys here with me and am not bored in the slightest, so I don't need you to amuse me. We're well past Wheels on the Bus and instead discuss political issues of the day. My kids have an encouraging, intuitive understanding of what matters in life. :)
-
If not agreeing with Obama means you're a racist, than call me Racist Randy.
I voted for him because he is WHITE. Am I a racist? :rofl; Joking of course!!!
Nein! :sarcasm;
-
I thought you didn't want to participate in political discussions anymore on here? If it's so pointless to talk to ANY OF US (except MooseMom, per your words), then why do you continually hover over these discussions?
:rofl;
That's all he wants to talk about. If you look at the last 6 pages of his contributions to this forum they are all political rants with the exception of 1 sentence. Too bad a doctor with kidney failure doesn't have anything more positive to add to this forum anymore. Sad, very sad.
:embarassed:
-
Nope, Cariad, I just told Bill don't bother with the IPAB discussion any further, I had enough sarcasm for one day. And yes, Moosemom is the only one of late who actually discusses political issues without personal attacks in a friendly tone. Just a bit bored without my little girl here in CA to sing the Wheels on the Bus go round and round, so I will go round and round a few rounds here on IHD. Is that a problem Cariad? It is better than shredding documents and cleaning out the attic anyway.
Now the birther movement, why call them racist? You are doing it again when you said you wouldn't. If you believe the document that Obama put forth is a real document, then sorry, the digital evidence speaks against that. If you want to believe it is a real document, so be it. But looking at digital evidence is not racist or racism. Sorry, but there are many questions that Obama has not provided answers nor do I believe he ever will. Once again, that is not racism. But, it matters not. If that is what you wish to believe, it is a free country, or at least for a bit longer anyway.
I believe there is a racist element to the birther movement as I said about 8 pages back. You say you don't want to re-open the topic, then rehash the same tired arguments in an effort to bait me into beating my head against that wall again.
Your writing from the Traditional America thread: "It seems discussing diverse opinions on IHD is a no go any longer with the exception of Moosemom alone."
Yes, I love MooseMom, too, but there is no way I would insult the rest of IHD by making such a sweeping generalization. It couldn't possibly be you with the problem, huh? No, it's everyone else who refuses to agree with you that is so unreasonable, that's far more likely. I don't see anyone else, conservative nor dem taking these little debates so ridiculously seriously.
I have my little boys here with me and am not bored in the slightest, so I don't need you to amuse me. We're well past Wheels on the Bus and instead discuss political issues of the day. My kids have an encouraging, intuitive understanding of what matters in life. :)
Whatever Cariad. In any case, still waiting for my wife's cousin who was supposed to be here two hours ago. And yes, my three year old girl likes the wheels on the bus go round and round. Is there something wrong with that???? In any case, who stated I insulted all of IHD. Wow, that is a bit much isn't Cariad??? Anyway, Moosemom's demeanor is a great example of how to discuss issues. And yes, go look back at Epoman and his discussions on many of the same topics as we do today in off topic and political section. He rumbled, but he did not insult folks. Yes, I stick to my comment that "it seems discussing diverse opinions on IHD is a no go any longer with the exception of Moosemom alone."
So go ahead and zap me some more if you wish instead of talking about the topic at hand. Still waiting for the cousins to show up.
-
I thought you didn't want to participate in political discussions anymore on here? If it's so pointless to talk to ANY OF US (except MooseMom, per your words), then why do you continually hover over these discussions?
:rofl;
That's all he wants to talk about. If you look at the last 6 pages of his contributions to this forum they are all political rants with the exception of 1 sentence. Too bad a doctor with kidney failure doesn't have anything more positive to add to this forum anymore. Sad, very sad.
:embarassed:
Yup, can always count on YL to criticize me for something. How about just talking about the topic LIKE Moosemom does instead of finding a new way to dis HemoDoc???? In any case, just showing once again what I stated was true.
Anyone want to talk about the topic or just ridicule HemoDoc for a while longer???
You are too much YL. Have a great day once again.
In any case, the cousins still aren't here!!!
-
Whatever Cariad. In any case, still waiting for my wife's cousin who was supposed to be here two hours ago. And yes, my three year old girl likes the wheels on the bus go round and round. Is there something wrong with that???? In any case, who stated I insulted all of IHD. Wow, that is a bit much isn't Cariad??? Anyway, Moosemom's demeanor is a great example of how to discuss issues. And yes, go look back at Epoman and his discussions on many of the same topics as we do today in off topic and political section. He rumbled, but he did not insult folks. Yes, I stick to my comment that "it seems discussing diverse opinions on IHD is a no go any longer with the exception of Moosemom alone."
So go ahead and zap me some more if you wish instead of talking about the topic at hand. Still waiting for the cousins to show up.
Where did I say something was wrong with a 3-year-old singing Wheels on the Bus? Do you need to try to find some slight in absolutely everything? You mentioned what you do with your child and so I mentioned what I do with mine.
Stating that you and MooseMom are the only people who can discuss political issues properly is an insult, and one that you trot out quite frequently, yet here you always are, saying how none of us are worth talking to yet desperately trying for the last word. You can discuss things with MooseMom because she is willing to do what few others are, continue to approach you with respect when you've repeatedly failed to show that same respect to others, accuse her of ad hominem attacks while not addressing those you've made toward others, and generally demand that everyone recognise your superiority in all political views. Some one needs to saint that woman. :angel;
You've said you don't want to drag this thread up again, yet you accuse me of not discussing the original topic. Which is it? Do you want to discuss the topic of racism in politics, or not? Do you want to keep accusing me and everyone else of calling you a racist when we haven't?
-
I have found that "Racist" is what you are called as soon as you begin to win an argument with a liberal. It was the all-purpose, worst, most vile thing one could possibly be and you were required to crawl away in shame once that label was applied to you. Not any more. It's over-use had led to it losing it's punch. What a shame for the real racism that occurs.
-
Whatever Cariad. In any case, still waiting for my wife's cousin who was supposed to be here two hours ago. And yes, my three year old girl likes the wheels on the bus go round and round. Is there something wrong with that???? In any case, who stated I insulted all of IHD. Wow, that is a bit much isn't Cariad??? Anyway, Moosemom's demeanor is a great example of how to discuss issues. And yes, go look back at Epoman and his discussions on many of the same topics as we do today in off topic and political section. He rumbled, but he did not insult folks. Yes, I stick to my comment that "it seems discussing diverse opinions on IHD is a no go any longer with the exception of Moosemom alone."
So go ahead and zap me some more if you wish instead of talking about the topic at hand. Still waiting for the cousins to show up.
Where did I say something was wrong with a 3-year-old singing Wheels on the Bus? Do you need to try to find some slight in absolutely everything? You mentioned what you do with your child and so I mentioned what I do with mine.
Stating that you and MooseMom are the only people who can discuss political issues properly is an insult, and one that you trot out quite frequently, yet here you always are, saying how none of us are worth talking to yet desperately trying for the last word. You can discuss things with MooseMom because she is willing to do what few others are, continue to approach you with respect when you've repeatedly failed to show that same respect to others, accuse her of ad hominem attacks while not addressing those you've made toward others, and generally demand that everyone recognise your superiority in all political views. Some one needs to saint that woman. :angel;
You've said you don't want to drag this thread up again, yet you accuse me of not discussing the original topic. Which is it? Do you want to discuss the topic of racism in politics, or not? Do you want to keep accusing me and everyone else of calling you a racist when we haven't?
Oh my, Cariad, are you quite done chastising me???? Perhaps you might want to return to the topic of the thread if you can. For your information, since this thread reopened, I have not done as you say at all my dear. Oh my, enough already. Can we get back to the topic. Once again, just like Moosemom does.
So, add a superiority complex to my persecution complex. Hmmmm, are they mutually compatible???? Once again, what you think of me is not the topic of this thread if you haven't noticed.
You no what Cariad, this is getting old. The subtitle on this section states: Political discussions - no personal attacks or name calling I have stuck to the topic of these threads. If you persist in your personal crusade against me here at IHD, I will in the future not respond, but I will report each one to the moderators. So, make up your mind, continue the personal crusade against me, or talk about the topic at hand. Your choice, but I am tired of this myself and I assume everyone else reading it is likewise.
Have a great day.
-
I have found that "Racist" is what you are called as soon as you begin to win an argument with a liberal. It was the all-purpose, worst, most vile thing one could possibly be and you were required to crawl away in shame once that label was applied to you. Not any more. It's over-use had led to it losing it's punch. What a shame for the real racism that occurs.
So true. :flower;
-
Whatever Cariad. In any case, still waiting for my wife's cousin who was supposed to be here two hours ago. And yes, my three year old girl likes the wheels on the bus go round and round. Is there something wrong with that???? In any case, who stated I insulted all of IHD. Wow, that is a bit much isn't Cariad??? Anyway, Moosemom's demeanor is a great example of how to discuss issues. And yes, go look back at Epoman and his discussions on many of the same topics as we do today in off topic and political section. He rumbled, but he did not insult folks. Yes, I stick to my comment that "it seems discussing diverse opinions on IHD is a no go any longer with the exception of Moosemom alone."
So go ahead and zap me some more if you wish instead of talking about the topic at hand. Still waiting for the cousins to show up.
Where did I say something was wrong with a 3-year-old singing Wheels on the Bus? Do you need to try to find some slight in absolutely everything? You mentioned what you do with your child and so I mentioned what I do with mine.
Stating that you and MooseMom are the only people who can discuss political issues properly is an insult, and one that you trot out quite frequently, yet here you always are, saying how none of us are worth talking to yet desperately trying for the last word. You can discuss things with MooseMom because she is willing to do what few others are, continue to approach you with respect when you've repeatedly failed to show that same respect to others, accuse her of ad hominem attacks while not addressing those you've made toward others, and generally demand that everyone recognise your superiority in all political views. Some one needs to saint that woman. :angel;
You've said you don't want to drag this thread up again, yet you accuse me of not discussing the original topic. Which is it? Do you want to discuss the topic of racism in politics, or not? Do you want to keep accusing me and everyone else of calling you a racist when we haven't?
Oh my, Cariad, are you quite done chastising me???? Perhaps you might want to return to the topic of the thread if you can. For your information, since this thread reopened, I have not done as you say at all my dear. Oh my, enough already. Can we get back to the topic. Once again, just like Moosemom does.
So, add a superiority complex to my persecution complex. Hmmmm, are they mutually compatible???? Once again, what you think of me is not the topic of this thread if you haven't noticed.
You no what Cariad, this is getting old. The subtitle on this section states: Political discussions - no personal attacks or name calling I have stuck to the topic of these threads. If you persist in your personal crusade against me here at IHD, I will in the future not respond, but I will report each one to the moderators. So, make up your mind, continue the personal crusade against me, or talk about the topic at hand. Your choice, but I am tired of this myself and I assume everyone else reading it is likewise.
Have a great day.
Personal attacks are things, for example, like me calling you an ignorant do**hebag or you calling me a little t*at. I do not see anything resembling that in her post.
-
Oh my, Cariad, are you quite done chastising me???? Perhaps you might want to return to the topic of the thread if you can. For your information, since this thread reopened, I have not done as you say at all my dear. Oh my, enough already. Can we get back to the topic. Once again, just like Moosemom does.
So, add a superiority complex to my persecution complex. Hmmmm, are they mutually compatible???? Once again, what you think of me is not the topic of this thread if you haven't noticed.
You no what Cariad, this is getting old. The subtitle on this section states: Political discussions - no personal attacks or name calling I have stuck to the topic of these threads. If you persist in your personal crusade against me here at IHD, I will in the future not respond, but I will report each one to the moderators. So, make up your mind, continue the personal crusade against me, or talk about the topic at hand. Your choice, but I am tired of this myself and I assume everyone else reading it is likewise.
Have a great day.
You have stated that MooseMom is the only person who can meet your standards for discussion. That's a bit sanctimonious of you, don't you think? Once again, you flatter yourself into thinking that I sit around with nothing better to do than talk about you. I have no crusade against you, I am sick and bloody tired of you accusing everyone of attacking you, and there is simply no way that I am not going to respond when you keep beating the same tired tune. I take accusations of attacks seriously, and you have tried to set it up so that any time anyone wants to discuss where they see racism in the GOP, that this somehow means that we are actually personally attacking you.
I invite you to exercise your right to report any or all of my posts to moderators. You have been threatening me and others along those lines for years. I choose to take it to the person with whom I have a problem or disagreement rather than running off to drag people who are currently in mourning into my little online spats. You see insult everywhere. If I cannot defend myself when you make these accusations then the mods may as well ban me because I won't be back. I do my best to keep the tone as respectful as possible, but I am not going to change my views nor tiptoe around you while you feel free to fling insults and accusations at me. Do your worst.
-
Oh my, Cariad, are you quite done chastising me???? Perhaps you might want to return to the topic of the thread if you can. For your information, since this thread reopened, I have not done as you say at all my dear. Oh my, enough already. Can we get back to the topic. Once again, just like Moosemom does.
So, add a superiority complex to my persecution complex. Hmmmm, are they mutually compatible???? Once again, what you think of me is not the topic of this thread if you haven't noticed.
You no what Cariad, this is getting old. The subtitle on this section states: Political discussions - no personal attacks or name calling I have stuck to the topic of these threads. If you persist in your personal crusade against me here at IHD, I will in the future not respond, but I will report each one to the moderators. So, make up your mind, continue the personal crusade against me, or talk about the topic at hand. Your choice, but I am tired of this myself and I assume everyone else reading it is likewise.
Have a great day.
You have stated that MooseMom is the only person who can meet your standards for discussion. That's a bit sanctimonious of you, don't you think? Once again, you flatter yourself into thinking that I sit around with nothing better to do than talk about you. I have no crusade against you, I am sick and bloody tired of you accusing everyone of attacking you, and there is simply no way that I am not going to respond when you keep beating the same tired tune. I take accusations of attacks seriously, and you have tried to set it up so that any time anyone wants to discuss where they see racism in the GOP, that this somehow means that we are actually personally attacking you.
I invite you to exercise your right to report any or all of my posts to moderators. You have been threatening me and others along those lines for years. I choose to take it to the person with whom I have a problem or disagreement rather than running off to drag people who are currently in mourning into my little online spats. You see insult everywhere. If I cannot defend myself when you make these accusations then the mods may as well ban me because I won't be back. I do my best to keep the tone as respectful as possible, but I am not going to change my views nor tiptoe around you while you feel free to fling insults and accusations at me. Do your worst.
Once again Cariad, the topic of this thread is racism, not your opinion of Hemodoc. Let's stick to the topic. Enough said.
-
You have stated that MooseMom is the only person who can meet your standards for discussion. That's a bit sanctimonious of you, don't you think? Once again, you flatter yourself into thinking that I sit around with nothing better to do than talk about you. I have no crusade against you, I am sick and bloody tired of you accusing everyone of attacking you, and there is simply no way that I am not going to respond when you keep beating the same tired tune. I take accusations of attacks seriously, and you have tried to set it up so that any time anyone wants to discuss where they see racism in the GOP, that this somehow means that we are actually personally attacking you.
I invite you to exercise your right to report any or all of my posts to moderators. You have been threatening me and others along those lines for years. I choose to take it to the person with whom I have a problem or disagreement rather than running off to drag people who are currently in mourning into my little online spats. You see insult everywhere. If I cannot defend myself when you make these accusations then the mods may as well ban me because I won't be back. I do my best to keep the tone as respectful as possible, but I am not going to change my views nor tiptoe around you while you feel free to fling insults and accusations at me. Do your worst.
Once again Cariad, the topic of this thread is racism, not your opinion of Hemodoc. Let's stick to the topic. Enough said.
So you want to talk about the actual topic now? The topic is also not "how can I threaten to get other members banned". I have stuck to the topic as much as you have, if not more, but again, not going to sit here and watch you threaten or insult me without responding.You've repeatedly stated you won't respond to me, only to respond in record time. You just yesterday sarcastically asked why this topic was even re-opened, now here you are deciding that you have the authority to tell people that they have to remain on topic, something that you do not have the strongest track record with, to be perfectly candid.
Anyone interested in my opinion on the topic has only to go back and read pages and pages of my thoughts on racism in politics, but they'll have to wade through a fair number of Bible quotes to get there. In summation: some conservatives are racist, they really don't make any secret of that. I never called you a racist and you know it, but of course you tried to admonish everyone to not even discuss the topic because you decided this was a personal attack against you.
-
You have stated that MooseMom is the only person who can meet your standards for discussion. That's a bit sanctimonious of you, don't you think? Once again, you flatter yourself into thinking that I sit around with nothing better to do than talk about you. I have no crusade against you, I am sick and bloody tired of you accusing everyone of attacking you, and there is simply no way that I am not going to respond when you keep beating the same tired tune. I take accusations of attacks seriously, and you have tried to set it up so that any time anyone wants to discuss where they see racism in the GOP, that this somehow means that we are actually personally attacking you.
I invite you to exercise your right to report any or all of my posts to moderators. You have been threatening me and others along those lines for years. I choose to take it to the person with whom I have a problem or disagreement rather than running off to drag people who are currently in mourning into my little online spats. You see insult everywhere. If I cannot defend myself when you make these accusations then the mods may as well ban me because I won't be back. I do my best to keep the tone as respectful as possible, but I am not going to change my views nor tiptoe around you while you feel free to fling insults and accusations at me. Do your worst.
Once again Cariad, the topic of this thread is racism, not your opinion of Hemodoc. Let's stick to the topic. Enough said.
So you want to talk about the actual topic now? The topic is also not "how can I threaten to get other members banned". I have stuck to the topic as much as you have, if not more, but again, not going to sit here and watch you threaten or insult me without responding.You've repeatedly stated you won't respond to me, only to respond in record time. You just yesterday sarcastically asked why this topic was even re-opened, now here you are deciding that you have the authority to tell people that they have to remain on topic, something that you do not have the strongest track record with, to be perfectly candid.
Anyone interested in my opinion on the topic has only to go back and read pages and pages of my thoughts on racism in politics, but they'll have to wade through a fair number of Bible quotes to get there. In summation: some conservatives are racist, they really don't make any secret of that. I never called you a racist and you know it, but of course you tried to admonish everyone to not even discuss the topic because you decided this was a personal attack against you.
All right, so be it, note sent to moderator.
-
You have stated that MooseMom is the only person who can meet your standards for discussion. That's a bit sanctimonious of you, don't you think? Once again, you flatter yourself into thinking that I sit around with nothing better to do than talk about you. I have no crusade against you, I am sick and bloody tired of you accusing everyone of attacking you, and there is simply no way that I am not going to respond when you keep beating the same tired tune. I take accusations of attacks seriously, and you have tried to set it up so that any time anyone wants to discuss where they see racism in the GOP, that this somehow means that we are actually personally attacking you.
I invite you to exercise your right to report any or all of my posts to moderators. You have been threatening me and others along those lines for years. I choose to take it to the person with whom I have a problem or disagreement rather than running off to drag people who are currently in mourning into my little online spats. You see insult everywhere. If I cannot defend myself when you make these accusations then the mods may as well ban me because I won't be back. I do my best to keep the tone as respectful as possible, but I am not going to change my views nor tiptoe around you while you feel free to fling insults and accusations at me. Do your worst.
Once again Cariad, the topic of this thread is racism, not your opinion of Hemodoc. Let's stick to the topic. Enough said.
So you want to talk about the actual topic now? The topic is also not "how can I threaten to get other members banned". I have stuck to the topic as much as you have, if not more, but again, not going to sit here and watch you threaten or insult me without responding.You've repeatedly stated you won't respond to me, only to respond in record time. You just yesterday sarcastically asked why this topic was even re-opened, now here you are deciding that you have the authority to tell people that they have to remain on topic, something that you do not have the strongest track record with, to be perfectly candid.
Anyone interested in my opinion on the topic has only to go back and read pages and pages of my thoughts on racism in politics, but they'll have to wade through a fair number of Bible quotes to get there. In summation: some conservatives are racist, they really don't make any secret of that. I never called you a racist and you know it, but of course you tried to admonish everyone to not even discuss the topic because you decided this was a personal attack against you.
He's over in my gay rights thread making it about religion...so I agree, he doesn't exactly have solid ground.
-
You have stated that MooseMom is the only person who can meet your standards for discussion. That's a bit sanctimonious of you, don't you think? Once again, you flatter yourself into thinking that I sit around with nothing better to do than talk about you. I have no crusade against you, I am sick and bloody tired of you accusing everyone of attacking you, and there is simply no way that I am not going to respond when you keep beating the same tired tune. I take accusations of attacks seriously, and you have tried to set it up so that any time anyone wants to discuss where they see racism in the GOP, that this somehow means that we are actually personally attacking you.
I invite you to exercise your right to report any or all of my posts to moderators. You have been threatening me and others along those lines for years. I choose to take it to the person with whom I have a problem or disagreement rather than running off to drag people who are currently in mourning into my little online spats. You see insult everywhere. If I cannot defend myself when you make these accusations then the mods may as well ban me because I won't be back. I do my best to keep the tone as respectful as possible, but I am not going to change my views nor tiptoe around you while you feel free to fling insults and accusations at me. Do your worst.
Once again Cariad, the topic of this thread is racism, not your opinion of Hemodoc. Let's stick to the topic. Enough said.
So you want to talk about the actual topic now? The topic is also not "how can I threaten to get other members banned". I have stuck to the topic as much as you have, if not more, but again, not going to sit here and watch you threaten or insult me without responding.You've repeatedly stated you won't respond to me, only to respond in record time. You just yesterday sarcastically asked why this topic was even re-opened, now here you are deciding that you have the authority to tell people that they have to remain on topic, something that you do not have the strongest track record with, to be perfectly candid.
Anyone interested in my opinion on the topic has only to go back and read pages and pages of my thoughts on racism in politics, but they'll have to wade through a fair number of Bible quotes to get there. In summation: some conservatives are racist, they really don't make any secret of that. I never called you a racist and you know it, but of course you tried to admonish everyone to not even discuss the topic because you decided this was a personal attack against you.
He's over in my gay rights thread making it about religion...so I agree, he doesn't exactly have solid ground.
Nope, just expressing the prevailing sentiment of at least half of the folks here in America, or at least as represented by many surveys on the issue in any case. You mentioned the Chick-fil-A issue which was entirely about the CEO/owners Christian beliefs and the stand he took against gay marriage, yet by all accounts as you acknowledge, he did not discriminate against gays either selling to them or working there. So, you were the one that actually brought up the religious issue yourself my friend.
-
Personal attacks are things, for example, like me calling you an ignorant do**hebag or you calling me a little t*at. I do not see anything resembling that in her post.
Thank you for this, iKAZ. :cuddle;
All right, so be it, note sent to moderator.
I'm shaking.
-
Personal attacks are things, for example, like me calling you an ignorant do**hebag or you calling me a little t*at. I do not see anything resembling that in her post.
Thank you for this, iKAZ. :cuddle;
All right, so be it, note sent to moderator.
I'm shaking.
No problemo! :P
-
Okay, fine. The moderator is here. This is, may I remind you all, the political section. The rules are looser here, because we expect you to stay out if you can't handle it. So, here's my Official Moderator Warning:
Play nice, or in the spirit of Mother's Day, I'm taking the thread away and none of you can play with it.
jbeany, Moderator.
-
Okay, fine. The moderator is here. This is, may I remind you all, the political section. The rules are looser here, because we expect you to stay out if you can't handle it. So, here's my Official Moderator Warning:
Play nice, or in the spirit of Mother's Day, I'm taking the thread away and none of you can play with it.
jbeany, Moderator.
:rofl;
-
Is there any interest in finding a real thread amongst the rubble?
There are some interesting questions -- at least to me:
1. When is an accusation of racism warranted?
2. When is an accusation of racism unwarranted?
3. What are appropriate responses in either of the "problematic" cases -- an accusation of racism which is unwarranted, or no such accusation when it is?
4. Are there gray areas?
For what it's worth, I think the questions can just as easily be asked about any sort of prejudice (along with an accusation of prejudice) -- we could substitute "homophobia" for "racism", if we wished. Or perhaps "ignorance of/insensitivity to" serious medical conditions. The answers might be similar for such different topics, or maybe not.
I think there is little hope of getting anywhere in such a discussion unless one is careful to avoid generalities. There may not be anything which is true of all conservatives or of all liberals or all IHD'ers or .... But, for specific instances of accusation or prejudice, it might be possible to reach something vaguely resembling agreement.
cheers,
skg
-
Is there any interest in finding a real thread amongst the rubble?
There are some interesting questions -- at least to me:
1. When is an accusation of racism warranted?
Obliviously obvious Hate crimes
2. When is an accusation of racism unwarranted?
Asking for my coffee black.
3. What are appropriate responses in either of the "problematic" cases -- an accusation of racism which is unwarranted, or no such accusation when it is?
Warranted Racism? Fines, maybe jail time. It's not as big of an offense as it used to be. Unwarranted, the accuser better be giving you a little something something for labeling you a racist for a time being.
4. Are there gray areas?
Well, blacks call each other the 'N' word like it's a term of endearment, but 'whyte fulk' say it and it's racist. Yet they can call us Honky Crackahs and Whitey with no racist remarks. Duhell?
For what it's worth, I think the questions can just as easily be asked about any sort of prejudice (along with an accusation of prejudice) -- we could substitute "homophobia" for "racism", if we wished. Or perhaps "ignorance of/insensitivity to" serious medical conditions. The answers might be similar for such different topics, or maybe not.
I think there is little hope of getting anywhere in such a discussion unless one is careful to avoid generalities. There may not be anything which is true of all conservatives or of all liberals or all IHD'ers or .... But, for specific instances of accusation or prejudice, it might be possible to reach something vaguely resembling agreement.
cheers,
skg
EDITED:Fixed quote tag error-kitkatz, Moderator
-
Is there any interest in finding a real thread amongst the rubble?
There are some interesting questions -- at least to me:
1. When is an accusation of racism warranted?
2. When is an accusation of racism unwarranted?
3. What are appropriate responses in either of the "problematic" cases -- an accusation of racism which is unwarranted, or no such accusation when it is?
4. Are there gray areas?
For what it's worth, I think the questions can just as easily be asked about any sort of prejudice (along with an accusation of prejudice) -- we could substitute "homophobia" for "racism", if we wished. Or perhaps "ignorance of/insensitivity to" serious medical conditions. The answers might be similar for such different topics, or maybe not.
I think there is little hope of getting anywhere in such a discussion unless one is careful to avoid generalities. There may not be anything which is true of all conservatives or of all liberals or all IHD'ers or .... But, for specific instances of accusation or prejudice, it might be possible to reach something vaguely resembling agreement.
cheers,
skg
The thread began in response to politically motivated accusations of alleged racism among conservatives and especially targeting the Tea Party movement. Just like asking, "when did you stop beating your wife," it is pretty much impossible to answer such a provocative question which is not founded in truth. Once again, the accusation is enough and watch the victim of that targeted attack squirm.
Many people today continue to believe the lie that the Tea Party is racist. Sorry, that was not at all the motivation for the Tea Party coming forth, but that is now the popular misconception.
I believe the best example of what the Tea Party is/was all about is the rally where hundreds of men and woman and children stood for hours to listen to a black man speak about restoring American ideals and ended with a rousing tribute from a marine singing the second stanza of the Star Spangled Banner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9_bP219ehQ
The accusation of racism against Tea Party folks is absolutely refuted by this one video, yet many have never seen the video showing exactly what motivated most of the folks in the movement. Instead, the accusation of racism continues even today quite unjustly. In other words, it was and is a very powerful and effective political tool, but it is quite dishonest.
-
Is there any interest in finding a real thread amongst the rubble?
There are some interesting questions -- at least to me:
1. When is an accusation of racism warranted?
2. When is an accusation of racism unwarranted?
3. What are appropriate responses in either of the "problematic" cases -- an accusation of racism which is unwarranted, or no such accusation when it is?
4. Are there gray areas?
For what it's worth, I think the questions can just as easily be asked about any sort of prejudice (along with an accusation of prejudice) -- we could substitute "homophobia" for "racism", if we wished. Or perhaps "ignorance of/insensitivity to" serious medical conditions. The answers might be similar for such different topics, or maybe not.
I think there is little hope of getting anywhere in such a discussion unless one is careful to avoid generalities. There may not be anything which is true of all conservatives or of all liberals or all IHD'ers or .... But, for specific instances of accusation or prejudice, it might be possible to reach something vaguely resembling agreement.
cheers,
skg
I think these are great questions, skg. Sadly, in this thread I think we also need to ask the question "what are appropriate responses to someone who cannot be reassured that no one is accusing anyone on IHD of being a racist?"
The original poster was Paul. Now, I disagree with Paul on almost everything possible, but you couldn't ask to meet a nicer individual. He really knew how to keep politics separate from the support aspect of this forum, and he was there for me as much as anyone else. I have no doubt that he started this discussion out of a sincere frustration that he felt. As I would be the first to tell him, I hardly agree with Obama all the time, either. I am not concerned that people are calling me a racist, though. I have certainly faced that situation several times, though, of being told that my actions were racially charged. My reactions were tailored to the diverse situations in which I had found myself.
Racism is touchy (duh!) and I see a parallel to false accusations of rape. Rape is an under-reported crime as it is, and false allegations, rare as they are, do enormous damage to the women who have truly survived that nightmare. However, like rape, if the result is that people are afraid to call it out when they see it, or even worse, don't believe the next woman who comes along and tells her story, then I have to question people's commitment to the cause if they are so ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Racism needs to be pointed up when it occurs. If it upsets people, to borrow a phrase, so be it. The response to unwarranted accusations of any sort should be to call those unwarranted claims out and defend the person under criticism. However, that unwarranted accusations have occurred should never, never stop people from speaking up loud and clear when they see racism in action.
Are there grey areas? Well, aren't there always? :)
-
Is there any interest in finding a real thread amongst the rubble?
There are some interesting questions -- at least to me:
1. When is an accusation of racism warranted?
2. When is an accusation of racism unwarranted?
3. What are appropriate responses in either of the "problematic" cases -- an accusation of racism which is unwarranted, or no such accusation when it is?
4. Are there gray areas?
For what it's worth, I think the questions can just as easily be asked about any sort of prejudice (along with an accusation of prejudice) -- we could substitute "homophobia" for "racism", if we wished. Or perhaps "ignorance of/insensitivity to" serious medical conditions. The answers might be similar for such different topics, or maybe not.
I think there is little hope of getting anywhere in such a discussion unless one is careful to avoid generalities. There may not be anything which is true of all conservatives or of all liberals or all IHD'ers or .... But, for specific instances of accusation or prejudice, it might be possible to reach something vaguely resembling agreement.
cheers,
skg
I think these are great questions, skg. Sadly, in this thread I think we also need to ask the question "what are appropriate responses to someone who cannot be reassured that no one is accusing anyone on IHD of being a racist?"
That is a strange question to focus on out of all of this entire discussion since all I observed on this thread were rhetorical questionings of painting all in one large group with a broad brush of racism that had nothing whatsoever to do with individual motivations or applications to a given individual revealing the fallacy of calling all Tea Party folks racist.
The danger of this false allegation against folks such as those in the Tea Party is it gives an unduly biased and even slanderous view of someone who might identify as a Tea Party Patriot who has not any racism within them as their motivation for participating in that manner. So, once again, there are many rhetorical devices, and that is one that should make folks stop painting conservatives with a broad brush of racism.
I would instead point to a concept not taught widely in America any longer of God and Country and to uphold both of them. If folks think Tea Party folks are racist, then they simply do not understand the underlying, old fashioned values of patriotism and love of our God that was once a virtue in this nation, but no longer is.
The irony is that those that accuse the Tea Party of racism go into cognitive dissonance in trying to explain the Tea Party support and admiration for such people as Allen West, Marco Rubio and Herman Caine in addition to Senator Cruz from Texas. Racism??? NOPE, just good old fashioned ideals once praised in this nation.
One last thing, go find a WWII vet if you can and talk to them about what the flag means to them. Most likely, you won't get far into the conversation before both of you have tears streaming down your face. I didn't understand this until I entered the military myself. There are millions of Americans who have willingly and would willingly sacrifice their very lives for the American ideals other people trash and denigrate with little thought. Racism, no just good old fashioned love of God and Country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9_bP219ehQ
Last Verse of our National Anthem:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Folks, that used to be celebrated not ridiculed throughout this great land. If you truly want to know what motivates the Tea Party folks, just watch the entire video a couple of times.
-
Hemodoc, I may be wrong, and I may be unintentionally putting words into skg's mouth, but I got the impression that he was attempting to broaden this discussion by posing more general questions that don't specifically target the Tea Party.
We all have read lengthy threads which start on one topic but then morph into something else.
I have often wondered who gets to define what is racist. If you say something that you don't mean to be racist or sexist or some other-ist, but the person you are talking to hears racism or sexism, what happens next?
Does anyone remember when Tiger Woods first won The Masters? Apparently the winner gets to choose the celebratory menu, and Fuzzy Zoeller flippantly said that Woods would choose fried chicken and collard greens. I was living in England at the time, and I remember thinking that I'd kill for decent friend chicken and collard greens, and please add blackeyed peas. When I read in the press that Zoeller was accused of being racist because of those remarks, I didn't understand it. I had to read an explanation in a British newspaper. I had to be told that Zoeller was being racist. So, who got to decide that?
-
Hemodoc, I may be wrong, and I may be unintentionally putting words into skg's mouth, but I got the impression that he was attempting to broaden this discussion by posing more general questions that don't specifically target the Tea Party.
We all have read lengthy threads which start on one topic but then morph into something else.
I have often wondered who gets to define what is racist. If you say something that you don't mean to be racist or sexist or some other-ist, but the person you are talking to hears racism or sexism, what happens next?
Does anyone remember when Tiger Woods first won The Masters? Apparently the winner gets to choose the celebratory menu, and Fuzzy Zoeller flippantly said that Woods would choose fried chicken and collard greens. I was living in England at the time, and I remember thinking that I'd kill for decent friend chicken and collard greens, and please add blackeyed peas. When I read in the press that Zoeller was accused of being racist because of those remarks, I didn't understand it. I had to read an explanation in a British newspaper. I had to be told that Zoeller was being racist. So, who got to decide that?
No problem Moosemom. I just responded to an ongoing issue and comments made over and over again. Making an accusation that a group is racist is also in essence calling anyone that is a member of the group or a person who identifies with that group likewise racist. Since many folks were calling the Tea Party racist, I simply wanted to show that painting such a broad generalization is shallow, rather ignorant, biased and bigoted. While I have never attended a Tea Party event, I identify with the ideals of that movement. Interestingly, my wife who is a naturalized US citizen, formerly from the Philippines, she also identifies with the Tea Party movement although she certainly does not fit the "profile" of a so called Tea Party person. In any case, some folks turned that around into some sort of persecution complex on my part completely missing the point of what I was intending to simply show that what motivated the Tea Party movement had nothing to do with racism whatsoever.
In any case, I was not answering skg in my comment above, but instead Cariad who has brought up this issue several times over and over again. Nevertheless, I suspect that many folks will continue to believe the propaganda campaign accusation that Tea Party folks are indeed racist. That is a popular belief today among many people and I hear it not just here on IHD.
The issue becomes dealing with a false allegation once it is ventured against a group or a person. Casting aspersions has long been a political ploy, but today it appears to be an art form that generates a great deal of consternation for those accused falsely and a great deal of enjoyment for those doing the casting. Hmmm, sounds a bit like, why yes, the Rules for Radicals by Alinsky. Let see, the false accusation against the Tea Party folks fits into at least a couple of his rules:
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
So, here we are years later and the accusation is still an active ongoing issue. So, no matter how many Tea Party folks protest, the allegation alone is enough to do great damage. And indeed it has.
-
Another question:
Should the rules be different for different races? It is acceptable for voters of one race to "vote their race", but racist if voters of another color "vote their race?".
-
I know! How's that work? Or for Jamie Fox to get up and say that his race is the most talented in the world? Why weren't their riots in the streets? I think it is just normal. What Grandmother doesn't think HER kids are the cutest and best at everything. Even at a lower realm, my dog is the best.
-
Another question:
Should the rules be different for different races? It is acceptable for voters of one race to "vote their race", but racist if voters of another color "vote their race?".
It's "acceptable" for anyone to vote however they wish for whatever reason they wish.
People more often than not vote for whichever candidate they deem to be "like me". We hear all the time about someone voting for the candidate they'd enjoy having a beer with. People vote all the time for the guy from their home town. Women often vote for the female candidate because they may feel she is more "like them". That's why no candidate stands a chance unless they blather on about how happily married they are and how many kids and/or dogs they have because they want to paint a picture of similarity.
There are no "rules" when it comes to voting. The big fight is really just being ABLE to vote these days.
-
I know! How's that work? Or for Jamie Fox to get up and say that his race is the most talented in the world? Why weren't their riots in the streets? I think it is just normal. What Grandmother doesn't think HER kids are the cutest and best at everything. Even at a lower realm, my dog is the best.
:rofl; You're hilarious. You say I AM, but I think you are. xD
-
Another question:
Should the rules be different for different races? It is acceptable for voters of one race to "vote their race", but racist if voters of another color "vote their race?".
It's "acceptable" for anyone to vote however they wish for whatever reason they wish.
People more often than not vote for whichever candidate they deem to be "like me". We hear all the time about someone voting for the candidate they'd enjoy having a beer with. People vote all the time for the guy from their home town. Women often vote for the female candidate because they may feel she is more "like them". That's why no candidate stands a chance unless they blather on about how happily married they are and how many kids and/or dogs they have because they want to paint a picture of similarity.
There are no "rules" when it comes to voting. The big fight is really just being ABLE to vote these days.
I thought the only voting rule in the last election was vote and vote often.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS77Z57mQBg
-
And here I was thinking that the only rule was to make it as difficult as possible for as many people as possible to vote! :rofl;
-
And here I was thinking that the only rule was to make it as difficult as possible for as many people as possible to vote! :rofl;
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
Just goes to show that both sides have heart-felt claims against the other.
-
You no what Cariad, this is getting old. The subtitle on this section states: Political discussions - no personal attacks or name calling I have stuck to the topic of these threads. If you persist in your personal crusade against me here at IHD, I will in the future not respond, but I will report each one to the moderators. So, make up your mind, continue the personal crusade against me, or talk about the topic at hand. Your choice, but I am tired of this myself and I assume everyone else reading it is likewise.
Have a great day.
If you cannot take the response to the outrageous accusations you make, then don't make them. I never called everyone in the Tea Party racist. Never. I also am hardly leading a 'crusade'. As I've said, and will continue to say so long as you keep flinging these accusations at me, you are putting words in my mouth and I do not appreciate it in the least. Screeching at me to stay on topic when you bring up Saul Alinsky (there is a thread for that) is hypocrisy. You say you won't answer my posts, and then sure enough....
Since many folks were calling the Tea Party racist, I simply wanted to show that painting such a broad generalization is shallow, rather ignorant, biased and bigoted. While I have never attended a Tea Party event, I identify with the ideals of that movement. Interestingly, my wife who is a naturalized US citizen, formerly from the Philippines, she also identifies with the Tea Party movement although she certainly does not fit the "profile" of a so called Tea Party person. In any case, some folks turned that around into some sort of persecution complex on my part completely missing the point of what I was intending to simply show that what motivated the Tea Party movement had nothing to do with racism whatsoever.
In any case, I was not answering skg in my comment above, but instead Cariad who has brought up this issue several times over and over again. Nevertheless, I suspect that many folks will continue to believe the propaganda campaign accusation that Tea Party folks are indeed racist. That is a popular belief today among many people and I hear it not just here on IHD.
By YOUR calculus, you have called EVERYONE in the radical world a retard. In this very thread.
Yup, I have read Machiavelli in my younger days and I throw his garbage in the same heap as Alinski, Rubin all the other retards in the radical world.
I identify with the ideals of the radical world. So in addition to calling me 'shallow, rather ignorant, biased and bigoted', you've also called me a retard. Nice.
-
Racism is alive and well in America. Please examine the vote in the past general election where the so-called ethnic minorities overwhelmingly voted against the Republican agenda.
GOP is opposing any meaningful immigration policy. Gingrich wants to limit immigration to white Europeans. Bachmann seens to think the US government is run by Muslims and demands an investigation. And party official say they lost the election because they need more angry white men.
gl
-
You no what Cariad, this is getting old. The subtitle on this section states: Political discussions - no personal attacks or name calling I have stuck to the topic of these threads. If you persist in your personal crusade against me here at IHD, I will in the future not respond, but I will report each one to the moderators. So, make up your mind, continue the personal crusade against me, or talk about the topic at hand. Your choice, but I am tired of this myself and I assume everyone else reading it is likewise.
Have a great day.
If you cannot take the response to the outrageous accusations you make, then don't make them. I never called everyone in the Tea Party racist. Never. I also am hardly leading a 'crusade'. As I've said, and will continue to say so long as you keep flinging these accusations at me, you are putting words in my mouth and I do not appreciate it in the least. Screeching at me to stay on topic when you bring up Saul Alinsky (there is a thread for that) is hypocrisy. You say you won't answer my posts, and then sure enough....
Since many folks were calling the Tea Party racist, I simply wanted to show that painting such a broad generalization is shallow, rather ignorant, biased and bigoted. While I have never attended a Tea Party event, I identify with the ideals of that movement. Interestingly, my wife who is a naturalized US citizen, formerly from the Philippines, she also identifies with the Tea Party movement although she certainly does not fit the "profile" of a so called Tea Party person. In any case, some folks turned that around into some sort of persecution complex on my part completely missing the point of what I was intending to simply show that what motivated the Tea Party movement had nothing to do with racism whatsoever.
In any case, I was not answering skg in my comment above, but instead Cariad who has brought up this issue several times over and over again. Nevertheless, I suspect that many folks will continue to believe the propaganda campaign accusation that Tea Party folks are indeed racist. That is a popular belief today among many people and I hear it not just here on IHD.
By YOUR calculus, you have called EVERYONE in the radical world a retard. In this very thread.
Yup, I have read Machiavelli in my younger days and I throw his garbage in the same heap as Alinski, Rubin all the other retards in the radical world.
I identify with the ideals of the radical world. So in addition to calling me 'shallow, rather ignorant, biased and bigoted', you've also called me a retard. Nice.
THE WORD. *GASP*
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
-
It's funny you bring this subject up. I am totally not a racist, however I did not vote for Obama and I knew we were in trouble if he was to be voted in. I also said he would more than likely win. I strongly believe some folks voted him in to office to prove they were NOT racist. A little different look at things, maybe but I am glad we finally had a President from a different race get voted in. That's done now so when will we get a female President? Just thinking we should get that out of the way as well. ::) Maybe we need to find someone who really has this Country in their best interest and move forward...I don't care what gender or what color, I just want someone who really knows what they are doing.
Cheers Sluff ye hit it spot on..