Im a Racist

[Hemodoc]

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

[MooseMom]

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.

[MooseMom]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

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.

[Hemodoc]

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

[MooseMom]

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.)

[Hemodoc]

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

[MooseMom]

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!

[Hemodoc]

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!!

[Hemodoc]

Gerald, where is your outrage against the black DJ above who peppered the black woman running for congress with racial slurs?

[Hemodoc]

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.

[cariad]

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

[Hemodoc]

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

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.

[galvo]

Hello,

Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

Peace! Dudes!!

[cariad]

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

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]

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!!! )

 

[galvo]

You're in form, Richard. Getting ready for another lousy footy season?

[cariad]

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.

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[Gerald Lively]

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]

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

[galvo]

"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

[cariad]

"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.

[cariad]

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

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.

[cariad]

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