Obama is the great hype machine

[equalizer]

He may have good ideals, but the 60’s gradoise speeches are so passe, sounds like preaching. Oh yeah, he needs to change his name for far too many people have changed the B to a S. And he needs to get some makeup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dthLAaQyOr4

And check out the NYT spoof of lending standards

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/business/09leonhardt.html

THERE’S an old “Saturday Night Live’’ skit in which Eddie Murphy sets out to experience life as a white man in New York. He starts in a dressing room, where makeup artists lighten his skin as he studies up by reading Hallmark cards. Duly prepared, he wades into Midtown Manhattan calling himself Mr. White.

His first stop is a newsstand, where the white cashier conspiratorially tells him to take a newspaper without paying for it. Then comes a ride on a public bus that morphs into a lounge with cocktails and music after the last black rider gets off.

Finally, Mr. White enters the Equity National Bank to ask about borrowing $50,000 even though he has no identification, no collateral and no credit history. But no matter. Such things are mere “formalities,” a loan officer says, while removing stacks of cash from a metal box. “Just take what you want, Mr. White. Pay us back anytime. Or don’t. We don’t care.”

Back in 1984, when the skit was shown on NBC, nobody would have imagined that it was poking fun not just at race, but also at banks’ lending standards. At the time, not even a white man in a gray suit could have gotten a loan without any documents and paid it back at his leisure.

But if you watch the skit today on YouTube or a DVD, you can’t help but see another, unintended layer of satire. In the last few years, so-called no-doc and low-doc mortgages — in which loan applicants can avoid formalities like pay stubs and instead simply state their income — have surged in popularity. Critics call them “liars’ mortgages.”

[34f3f3f]

Funny, I thought ‘hype’ was what it was all about. The day they hang meat on the bones, is the day everyone will know what they are voting for. Ron Paul may be the exception, but he looks like he could beef up a little too.

[34f3f3f]

Funny, I thought ‘hype’ was what it was all about. The day they hang meat on the bones, is the day everyone will know what they are voting for. Ron Paul may be the exception, but he looks like he could beef up a little too.

[34f3f3f]

Funny, I thought ‘hype’ was what it was all about. The day they hang meat on the bones, is the day everyone will know what they are voting for. Ron Paul may be the exception, but he looks like he could beef up a little too.

[34f3f3f]

Funny, I thought ‘hype’ was what it was all about. The day they hang meat on the bones, is the day everyone will know what they are voting for. Ron Paul may be the exception, but he looks like he could beef up a little too.

[34f3f3f]

Funny, I thought ‘hype’ was what it was all about. The day they hang meat on the bones, is the day everyone will know what they are voting for. Ron Paul may be the exception, but he looks like he could beef up a little too.

[bsrsharma]

Shows the desperation of the electorate. In a SNL skit that mentioned his handicaps you listed, the guest comedian retorted that after having a retard in the Whitehouse, a ****** (offensive word) may not be so bad.

[bsrsharma]

Shows the desperation of the electorate. In a SNL skit that mentioned his handicaps you listed, the guest comedian retorted that after having a retard in the Whitehouse, a ****** (offensive word) may not be so bad.

[bsrsharma]

Shows the desperation of the electorate. In a SNL skit that mentioned his handicaps you listed, the guest comedian retorted that after having a retard in the Whitehouse, a ****** (offensive word) may not be so bad.

[bsrsharma]

Shows the desperation of the electorate. In a SNL skit that mentioned his handicaps you listed, the guest comedian retorted that after having a retard in the Whitehouse, a ****** (offensive word) may not be so bad.

[bsrsharma]

Shows the desperation of the electorate. In a SNL skit that mentioned his handicaps you listed, the guest comedian retorted that after having a retard in the Whitehouse, a ****** (offensive word) may not be so bad.

[asragov]

Like him or not, this was a pretty compelling speech.

It is not only hype- there is some substance here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7577.html

[nostradamus]

I honestly don’t think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the “whatever dude, whoever is president doesn’t matter” crowds in cities like SD.

If you’ve been in the south lately, you’ll know what I mean. I don’t even think this country is ready for a woman to be president, but IMO she’d stand a better chance than a black man.

This fact scares me to think that we’ll end up getting whoever else is left once you’ve eliminated the impossible. If we end up with another born-again, evangelical, or other superstitious president it will make the GW Bush years look like an era of enlightenment and truth.

[nostradamus]

I honestly don’t think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the “whatever dude, whoever is president doesn’t matter” crowds in cities like SD.

If you’ve been in the south lately, you’ll know what I mean. I don’t even think this country is ready for a woman to be president, but IMO she’d stand a better chance than a black man.

This fact scares me to think that we’ll end up getting whoever else is left once you’ve eliminated the impossible. If we end up with another born-again, evangelical, or other superstitious president it will make the GW Bush years look like an era of enlightenment and truth.

[nostradamus]

I honestly don’t think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the “whatever dude, whoever is president doesn’t matter” crowds in cities like SD.

If you’ve been in the south lately, you’ll know what I mean. I don’t even think this country is ready for a woman to be president, but IMO she’d stand a better chance than a black man.

This fact scares me to think that we’ll end up getting whoever else is left once you’ve eliminated the impossible. If we end up with another born-again, evangelical, or other superstitious president it will make the GW Bush years look like an era of enlightenment and truth.

[nostradamus]

I honestly don’t think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the “whatever dude, whoever is president doesn’t matter” crowds in cities like SD.

If you’ve been in the south lately, you’ll know what I mean. I don’t even think this country is ready for a woman to be president, but IMO she’d stand a better chance than a black man.

This fact scares me to think that we’ll end up getting whoever else is left once you’ve eliminated the impossible. If we end up with another born-again, evangelical, or other superstitious president it will make the GW Bush years look like an era of enlightenment and truth.

[nostradamus]

I honestly don’t think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the “whatever dude, whoever is president doesn’t matter” crowds in cities like SD.

If you’ve been in the south lately, you’ll know what I mean. I don’t even think this country is ready for a woman to be president, but IMO she’d stand a better chance than a black man.

This fact scares me to think that we’ll end up getting whoever else is left once you’ve eliminated the impossible. If we end up with another born-again, evangelical, or other superstitious president it will make the GW Bush years look like an era of enlightenment and truth.

[asragov]

Like him or not, this was a pretty compelling speech.

It is not only hype- there is some substance here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7577.html

[asragov]

Like him or not, this was a pretty compelling speech.

It is not only hype- there is some substance here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7577.html

[asragov]

Like him or not, this was a pretty compelling speech.

It is not only hype- there is some substance here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7577.html

[asragov]

Like him or not, this was a pretty compelling speech.

It is not only hype- there is some substance here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7577.html

[gold_dredger_phd]

The guy is an empty suit who spouts left wing bromides. I don’t know about Boomers, but people younger than that would be less likely to vote for a black man out of guilt. To me, his race is irrelevant. He’s not Hillary Clinton and that’s enough for most people. Racially obsessed Marxist journalists try to read too much into RACE, GENDER, CLASS.

He’s a better version of Jimmy Carter. That’s why I’m voting for him in November of 2008. Just what this country deserves.

[equalizer]

Hi gold D,

You are voting for an empty suit who spouts bromides? Why?

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

[paramount]

I’m keeping my fingers crossed for Ron Paul – I am amazed at how many people willingly surrender their rights little by little.

[CardiffBaseball]

I have always maintained that the first break through President, either female, black or latino, will likely be from the GOP.

As long as you fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is they’ll back you regardless. People were begging JC Watts to get involved years back, but he didn’t seem to “want it”. Texans have consistently supported Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Obama could prove me wrong, but this is what I have believed for quite some time. My theory is that either type running from the right could draw in or steal just enough from the left to make it interesting.

[bsrsharma]

fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is

Then why are they not giving any oxygen to Alan Keyes? How many GOP'ers even know he is running?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

bsrsharma: The GOP has been hijacked by the Religious Right, as evidenced by the swoon over Mike Huckabee who, in my opinion, is damn near unelectable. He shares a similar history to that other boy from Hope, namely some significant skeletons in his closet.

I might be a jaded arch-conservative, but I did really enjoy Obama’s speech, as well as watching him energize the younger vote. We have yet to see the Hillary machine go into full attack-dog mode, but you can bet this will happen shortly. How well Obama handles that will be predictive of his overall chances.

On another note entirely, it is interesting to watch McCain’s resurgence after being written off for dead just a few short months ago.

This will be a very interesting race. Even more interesting is the response of the American people: Not apathy, but energy.

[nostradamus]

Alan Keyes? Zoiks! He’s one scary dude! If he weren’t black I would suspect him to be KKK. He wants to:

Ban sex education
Ban gay marriage
Ban stem cell research
Ban the teaching of evolution
Ban abortion
Ban pornography

I suspect that last ban is why the GOP doesn’t want him… 😛

[bsrsharma]

Ban sex education…..

I am no fan of Keyes; but that list doesn't veer far off from mainstream GOP platform.

[Irish]

Obama’s positions are very similar to Hillary’s, including on this war-without-end on terror. What I know will happen if he wins the nomination, he will be crucified by the ugly republican slime machine that did such an effective job on Al Gore and John Kerry. I doubt he will survive it. But I know Hillary could survive such slime-attacks…she and her husband have been doing just that for years.
I’ll be sad if Hillary doesn’t win the nomination. It will be sad for the country because we’ll be stuck with a republican in the White House and more of the same mis-government we’ve endured for the past 7 years.

Having said all that, I like Obama. I’ll vote for him if he’s the democratic nominee.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Irish: The Republican slime machine? Is that like the “vast right wing conspiracy”?

Hillary Clinton is a vicious, well-trained political in-fighter. Don’t kid yourself about her motives, either. She is here for the power. Ask anyone involved with her run at senator in New York.

The idea that she is some kind of well meaning vestal virgin is downright absurd.

She makes the Republicans look tame when it comes to smear tactics. Just wait till she gears up and goes after Obama. His greatest worry is not the Republicans coming after him, it is her coming after him. And, make no mistake, she will – with a vengeance.

[Irish]

Allan I agree with most of what you say about Hillary.
The “republican slime machine” along with the help of the ever-compliant media, succeeded in portraying Gore as a self-important liar and Kerry, as undeserving of his Purple Heart, quite astonishing considering W did all he could to avoid serving in Viet Nam.
That’s why they need a “vicious” fighter as the democratic nominee. Anybody running for president is clearly interested in power…isn’t that pretty self-evident ? Why should Hillary be any different in that regard ?
I only hope you are right about her gearing up and going after Obama…it will be good practice for Obama, if he does win the nomination. He will need it in spades when it comes to the general election.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Irish: Let me get something right out of the way up front: I did not vote for Dubya in either election. Moreover, I find his conduct in avoiding service during Vietnam reprehensible. I served in the Army for five years, and I consider his conduct cowardice (as I consider Bill Clinton’s as well). That being said, John Kerry grossly inflated his service record, claiming credit where he should not have. Additionally, the comments he made about American servicemen and their actions in Vietnam, were and are unconscionable.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Irish: Let me get something right out of the way up front: I did not vote for Dubya in either election. Moreover, I find his conduct in avoiding service during Vietnam reprehensible. I served in the Army for five years, and I consider his conduct cowardice (as I consider Bill Clinton’s as well). That being said, John Kerry grossly inflated his service record, claiming credit where he should not have. Additionally, the comments he made about American servicemen and their actions in Vietnam, were and are unconscionable.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Irish: Let me get something right out of the way up front: I did not vote for Dubya in either election. Moreover, I find his conduct in avoiding service during Vietnam reprehensible. I served in the Army for five years, and I consider his conduct cowardice (as I consider Bill Clinton’s as well). That being said, John Kerry grossly inflated his service record, claiming credit where he should not have. Additionally, the comments he made about American servicemen and their actions in Vietnam, were and are unconscionable.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Irish: Let me get something right out of the way up front: I did not vote for Dubya in either election. Moreover, I find his conduct in avoiding service during Vietnam reprehensible. I served in the Army for five years, and I consider his conduct cowardice (as I consider Bill Clinton’s as well). That being said, John Kerry grossly inflated his service record, claiming credit where he should not have. Additionally, the comments he made about American servicemen and their actions in Vietnam, were and are unconscionable.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Irish: Let me get something right out of the way up front: I did not vote for Dubya in either election. Moreover, I find his conduct in avoiding service during Vietnam reprehensible. I served in the Army for five years, and I consider his conduct cowardice (as I consider Bill Clinton’s as well). That being said, John Kerry grossly inflated his service record, claiming credit where he should not have. Additionally, the comments he made about American servicemen and their actions in Vietnam, were and are unconscionable.

[Irish]

Allan I agree with most of what you say about Hillary.
The “republican slime machine” along with the help of the ever-compliant media, succeeded in portraying Gore as a self-important liar and Kerry, as undeserving of his Purple Heart, quite astonishing considering W did all he could to avoid serving in Viet Nam.
That’s why they need a “vicious” fighter as the democratic nominee. Anybody running for president is clearly interested in power…isn’t that pretty self-evident ? Why should Hillary be any different in that regard ?
I only hope you are right about her gearing up and going after Obama…it will be good practice for Obama, if he does win the nomination. He will need it in spades when it comes to the general election.

[Irish]

Allan I agree with most of what you say about Hillary.
The “republican slime machine” along with the help of the ever-compliant media, succeeded in portraying Gore as a self-important liar and Kerry, as undeserving of his Purple Heart, quite astonishing considering W did all he could to avoid serving in Viet Nam.
That’s why they need a “vicious” fighter as the democratic nominee. Anybody running for president is clearly interested in power…isn’t that pretty self-evident ? Why should Hillary be any different in that regard ?
I only hope you are right about her gearing up and going after Obama…it will be good practice for Obama, if he does win the nomination. He will need it in spades when it comes to the general election.

[Irish]

Allan I agree with most of what you say about Hillary.
The “republican slime machine” along with the help of the ever-compliant media, succeeded in portraying Gore as a self-important liar and Kerry, as undeserving of his Purple Heart, quite astonishing considering W did all he could to avoid serving in Viet Nam.
That’s why they need a “vicious” fighter as the democratic nominee. Anybody running for president is clearly interested in power…isn’t that pretty self-evident ? Why should Hillary be any different in that regard ?
I only hope you are right about her gearing up and going after Obama…it will be good practice for Obama, if he does win the nomination. He will need it in spades when it comes to the general election.

[Irish]

Allan I agree with most of what you say about Hillary.
The “republican slime machine” along with the help of the ever-compliant media, succeeded in portraying Gore as a self-important liar and Kerry, as undeserving of his Purple Heart, quite astonishing considering W did all he could to avoid serving in Viet Nam.
That’s why they need a “vicious” fighter as the democratic nominee. Anybody running for president is clearly interested in power…isn’t that pretty self-evident ? Why should Hillary be any different in that regard ?
I only hope you are right about her gearing up and going after Obama…it will be good practice for Obama, if he does win the nomination. He will need it in spades when it comes to the general election.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Irish: The Republican slime machine? Is that like the “vast right wing conspiracy”?

Hillary Clinton is a vicious, well-trained political in-fighter. Don’t kid yourself about her motives, either. She is here for the power. Ask anyone involved with her run at senator in New York.

The idea that she is some kind of well meaning vestal virgin is downright absurd.

She makes the Republicans look tame when it comes to smear tactics. Just wait till she gears up and goes after Obama. His greatest worry is not the Republicans coming after him, it is her coming after him. And, make no mistake, she will – with a vengeance.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Irish: The Republican slime machine? Is that like the “vast right wing conspiracy”?

Hillary Clinton is a vicious, well-trained political in-fighter. Don’t kid yourself about her motives, either. She is here for the power. Ask anyone involved with her run at senator in New York.

The idea that she is some kind of well meaning vestal virgin is downright absurd.

She makes the Republicans look tame when it comes to smear tactics. Just wait till she gears up and goes after Obama. His greatest worry is not the Republicans coming after him, it is her coming after him. And, make no mistake, she will – with a vengeance.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Irish: The Republican slime machine? Is that like the “vast right wing conspiracy”?

Hillary Clinton is a vicious, well-trained political in-fighter. Don’t kid yourself about her motives, either. She is here for the power. Ask anyone involved with her run at senator in New York.

The idea that she is some kind of well meaning vestal virgin is downright absurd.

She makes the Republicans look tame when it comes to smear tactics. Just wait till she gears up and goes after Obama. His greatest worry is not the Republicans coming after him, it is her coming after him. And, make no mistake, she will – with a vengeance.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Irish: The Republican slime machine? Is that like the “vast right wing conspiracy”?

Hillary Clinton is a vicious, well-trained political in-fighter. Don’t kid yourself about her motives, either. She is here for the power. Ask anyone involved with her run at senator in New York.

The idea that she is some kind of well meaning vestal virgin is downright absurd.

She makes the Republicans look tame when it comes to smear tactics. Just wait till she gears up and goes after Obama. His greatest worry is not the Republicans coming after him, it is her coming after him. And, make no mistake, she will – with a vengeance.

[Irish]

Obama’s positions are very similar to Hillary’s, including on this war-without-end on terror. What I know will happen if he wins the nomination, he will be crucified by the ugly republican slime machine that did such an effective job on Al Gore and John Kerry. I doubt he will survive it. But I know Hillary could survive such slime-attacks…she and her husband have been doing just that for years.
I’ll be sad if Hillary doesn’t win the nomination. It will be sad for the country because we’ll be stuck with a republican in the White House and more of the same mis-government we’ve endured for the past 7 years.

Having said all that, I like Obama. I’ll vote for him if he’s the democratic nominee.

[Irish]

Obama’s positions are very similar to Hillary’s, including on this war-without-end on terror. What I know will happen if he wins the nomination, he will be crucified by the ugly republican slime machine that did such an effective job on Al Gore and John Kerry. I doubt he will survive it. But I know Hillary could survive such slime-attacks…she and her husband have been doing just that for years.
I’ll be sad if Hillary doesn’t win the nomination. It will be sad for the country because we’ll be stuck with a republican in the White House and more of the same mis-government we’ve endured for the past 7 years.

Having said all that, I like Obama. I’ll vote for him if he’s the democratic nominee.

[Irish]

Obama’s positions are very similar to Hillary’s, including on this war-without-end on terror. What I know will happen if he wins the nomination, he will be crucified by the ugly republican slime machine that did such an effective job on Al Gore and John Kerry. I doubt he will survive it. But I know Hillary could survive such slime-attacks…she and her husband have been doing just that for years.
I’ll be sad if Hillary doesn’t win the nomination. It will be sad for the country because we’ll be stuck with a republican in the White House and more of the same mis-government we’ve endured for the past 7 years.

Having said all that, I like Obama. I’ll vote for him if he’s the democratic nominee.

[Irish]

Obama’s positions are very similar to Hillary’s, including on this war-without-end on terror. What I know will happen if he wins the nomination, he will be crucified by the ugly republican slime machine that did such an effective job on Al Gore and John Kerry. I doubt he will survive it. But I know Hillary could survive such slime-attacks…she and her husband have been doing just that for years.
I’ll be sad if Hillary doesn’t win the nomination. It will be sad for the country because we’ll be stuck with a republican in the White House and more of the same mis-government we’ve endured for the past 7 years.

Having said all that, I like Obama. I’ll vote for him if he’s the democratic nominee.

[bsrsharma]

Ban sex education…..

I am no fan of Keyes; but that list doesn't veer far off from mainstream GOP platform.

[bsrsharma]

Ban sex education…..

I am no fan of Keyes; but that list doesn't veer far off from mainstream GOP platform.

[bsrsharma]

Ban sex education…..

I am no fan of Keyes; but that list doesn't veer far off from mainstream GOP platform.

[bsrsharma]

Ban sex education…..

I am no fan of Keyes; but that list doesn't veer far off from mainstream GOP platform.

[nostradamus]

Alan Keyes? Zoiks! He’s one scary dude! If he weren’t black I would suspect him to be KKK. He wants to:

Ban sex education
Ban gay marriage
Ban stem cell research
Ban the teaching of evolution
Ban abortion
Ban pornography

I suspect that last ban is why the GOP doesn’t want him… 😛

[nostradamus]

Alan Keyes? Zoiks! He’s one scary dude! If he weren’t black I would suspect him to be KKK. He wants to:

Ban sex education
Ban gay marriage
Ban stem cell research
Ban the teaching of evolution
Ban abortion
Ban pornography

I suspect that last ban is why the GOP doesn’t want him… 😛

[nostradamus]

Alan Keyes? Zoiks! He’s one scary dude! If he weren’t black I would suspect him to be KKK. He wants to:

Ban sex education
Ban gay marriage
Ban stem cell research
Ban the teaching of evolution
Ban abortion
Ban pornography

I suspect that last ban is why the GOP doesn’t want him… 😛

[nostradamus]

Alan Keyes? Zoiks! He’s one scary dude! If he weren’t black I would suspect him to be KKK. He wants to:

Ban sex education
Ban gay marriage
Ban stem cell research
Ban the teaching of evolution
Ban abortion
Ban pornography

I suspect that last ban is why the GOP doesn’t want him… 😛

[5yearwaiter]

Now I doubt how far Clinton attack-dog mode wil work. She almost “cameout-brokeout” as like as an ordinary- not a public figure quality so do the things will go.

5yearswaiter

[Anonymous]

Clinton attack dog is now in tears:)

[Anonymous]

Clinton attack dog is now in tears:)

[Anonymous]

Clinton attack dog is now in tears:)

[Anonymous]

Clinton attack dog is now in tears:)

[Anonymous]

Clinton attack dog is now in tears:)

[5yearwaiter]

Now I doubt how far Clinton attack-dog mode wil work. She almost “cameout-brokeout” as like as an ordinary- not a public figure quality so do the things will go.

5yearswaiter

[5yearwaiter]

Now I doubt how far Clinton attack-dog mode wil work. She almost “cameout-brokeout” as like as an ordinary- not a public figure quality so do the things will go.

5yearswaiter

[5yearwaiter]

Now I doubt how far Clinton attack-dog mode wil work. She almost “cameout-brokeout” as like as an ordinary- not a public figure quality so do the things will go.

5yearswaiter

[5yearwaiter]

Now I doubt how far Clinton attack-dog mode wil work. She almost “cameout-brokeout” as like as an ordinary- not a public figure quality so do the things will go.

5yearswaiter

[Allan from Fallbrook]

bsrsharma: The GOP has been hijacked by the Religious Right, as evidenced by the swoon over Mike Huckabee who, in my opinion, is damn near unelectable. He shares a similar history to that other boy from Hope, namely some significant skeletons in his closet.

I might be a jaded arch-conservative, but I did really enjoy Obama’s speech, as well as watching him energize the younger vote. We have yet to see the Hillary machine go into full attack-dog mode, but you can bet this will happen shortly. How well Obama handles that will be predictive of his overall chances.

On another note entirely, it is interesting to watch McCain’s resurgence after being written off for dead just a few short months ago.

This will be a very interesting race. Even more interesting is the response of the American people: Not apathy, but energy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

bsrsharma: The GOP has been hijacked by the Religious Right, as evidenced by the swoon over Mike Huckabee who, in my opinion, is damn near unelectable. He shares a similar history to that other boy from Hope, namely some significant skeletons in his closet.

I might be a jaded arch-conservative, but I did really enjoy Obama’s speech, as well as watching him energize the younger vote. We have yet to see the Hillary machine go into full attack-dog mode, but you can bet this will happen shortly. How well Obama handles that will be predictive of his overall chances.

On another note entirely, it is interesting to watch McCain’s resurgence after being written off for dead just a few short months ago.

This will be a very interesting race. Even more interesting is the response of the American people: Not apathy, but energy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

bsrsharma: The GOP has been hijacked by the Religious Right, as evidenced by the swoon over Mike Huckabee who, in my opinion, is damn near unelectable. He shares a similar history to that other boy from Hope, namely some significant skeletons in his closet.

I might be a jaded arch-conservative, but I did really enjoy Obama’s speech, as well as watching him energize the younger vote. We have yet to see the Hillary machine go into full attack-dog mode, but you can bet this will happen shortly. How well Obama handles that will be predictive of his overall chances.

On another note entirely, it is interesting to watch McCain’s resurgence after being written off for dead just a few short months ago.

This will be a very interesting race. Even more interesting is the response of the American people: Not apathy, but energy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

bsrsharma: The GOP has been hijacked by the Religious Right, as evidenced by the swoon over Mike Huckabee who, in my opinion, is damn near unelectable. He shares a similar history to that other boy from Hope, namely some significant skeletons in his closet.

I might be a jaded arch-conservative, but I did really enjoy Obama’s speech, as well as watching him energize the younger vote. We have yet to see the Hillary machine go into full attack-dog mode, but you can bet this will happen shortly. How well Obama handles that will be predictive of his overall chances.

On another note entirely, it is interesting to watch McCain’s resurgence after being written off for dead just a few short months ago.

This will be a very interesting race. Even more interesting is the response of the American people: Not apathy, but energy.

[bsrsharma]

fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is

Then why are they not giving any oxygen to Alan Keyes? How many GOP'ers even know he is running?

[bsrsharma]

fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is

Then why are they not giving any oxygen to Alan Keyes? How many GOP'ers even know he is running?

[bsrsharma]

fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is

Then why are they not giving any oxygen to Alan Keyes? How many GOP'ers even know he is running?

[bsrsharma]

fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is

Then why are they not giving any oxygen to Alan Keyes? How many GOP'ers even know he is running?

[CardiffBaseball]

I have always maintained that the first break through President, either female, black or latino, will likely be from the GOP.

As long as you fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is they’ll back you regardless. People were begging JC Watts to get involved years back, but he didn’t seem to “want it”. Texans have consistently supported Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Obama could prove me wrong, but this is what I have believed for quite some time. My theory is that either type running from the right could draw in or steal just enough from the left to make it interesting.

[CardiffBaseball]

I have always maintained that the first break through President, either female, black or latino, will likely be from the GOP.

As long as you fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is they’ll back you regardless. People were begging JC Watts to get involved years back, but he didn’t seem to “want it”. Texans have consistently supported Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Obama could prove me wrong, but this is what I have believed for quite some time. My theory is that either type running from the right could draw in or steal just enough from the left to make it interesting.

[CardiffBaseball]

I have always maintained that the first break through President, either female, black or latino, will likely be from the GOP.

As long as you fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is they’ll back you regardless. People were begging JC Watts to get involved years back, but he didn’t seem to “want it”. Texans have consistently supported Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Obama could prove me wrong, but this is what I have believed for quite some time. My theory is that either type running from the right could draw in or steal just enough from the left to make it interesting.

[CardiffBaseball]

I have always maintained that the first break through President, either female, black or latino, will likely be from the GOP.

As long as you fit their mold of family values or whatever the theme of the days is they’ll back you regardless. People were begging JC Watts to get involved years back, but he didn’t seem to “want it”. Texans have consistently supported Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Obama could prove me wrong, but this is what I have believed for quite some time. My theory is that either type running from the right could draw in or steal just enough from the left to make it interesting.

[paramount]

I’m keeping my fingers crossed for Ron Paul – I am amazed at how many people willingly surrender their rights little by little.

[paramount]

I’m keeping my fingers crossed for Ron Paul – I am amazed at how many people willingly surrender their rights little by little.

[paramount]

I’m keeping my fingers crossed for Ron Paul – I am amazed at how many people willingly surrender their rights little by little.

[paramount]

I’m keeping my fingers crossed for Ron Paul – I am amazed at how many people willingly surrender their rights little by little.

[Anonymous]

Nost: “I honestly don’t think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the “whatever dude, whoever is president doesn’t matter” crowds in cities like SD.”

Submitted by equalizer on January 4, 2008 – 9:04pm.

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

equalizer, I understand Nost’s comments but that still doesn’t make it right. I know how the two-faced hypocrits are in the south because I use to live in Georgia. We need to stand up to the racists and bigots and keep pushing to effect change. It’s sad to think in this day and age a man can be kept out of the white house solely because he is African-American. A “purple” dog would have been a better president than GW Bush.

Obama gets my vote.

[Anonymous]

Nost: “I honestly don’t think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the “whatever dude, whoever is president doesn’t matter” crowds in cities like SD.”

Submitted by equalizer on January 4, 2008 – 9:04pm.

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

equalizer, I understand Nost’s comments but that still doesn’t make it right. I know how the two-faced hypocrits are in the south because I use to live in Georgia. We need to stand up to the racists and bigots and keep pushing to effect change. It’s sad to think in this day and age a man can be kept out of the white house solely because he is African-American. A “purple” dog would have been a better president than GW Bush.

Obama gets my vote.

[Anonymous]

Nost: “I honestly don’t think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the “whatever dude, whoever is president doesn’t matter” crowds in cities like SD.”

Submitted by equalizer on January 4, 2008 – 9:04pm.

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

equalizer, I understand Nost’s comments but that still doesn’t make it right. I know how the two-faced hypocrits are in the south because I use to live in Georgia. We need to stand up to the racists and bigots and keep pushing to effect change. It’s sad to think in this day and age a man can be kept out of the white house solely because he is African-American. A “purple” dog would have been a better president than GW Bush.

Obama gets my vote.

[Anonymous]

Nost: “I honestly don’t think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the “whatever dude, whoever is president doesn’t matter” crowds in cities like SD.”

Submitted by equalizer on January 4, 2008 – 9:04pm.

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

equalizer, I understand Nost’s comments but that still doesn’t make it right. I know how the two-faced hypocrits are in the south because I use to live in Georgia. We need to stand up to the racists and bigots and keep pushing to effect change. It’s sad to think in this day and age a man can be kept out of the white house solely because he is African-American. A “purple” dog would have been a better president than GW Bush.

Obama gets my vote.

[Anonymous]

Nost: “I honestly don’t think that this country is ready for a black man to be president. If you live in areas like SD, LA, SF, NY, etc. sure there seem to be a lot of people who are not racist or chauvinist, but the people who always turn up to vote the most are in the southern states. They are more into politics than the “whatever dude, whoever is president doesn’t matter” crowds in cities like SD.”

Submitted by equalizer on January 4, 2008 – 9:04pm.

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

equalizer, I understand Nost’s comments but that still doesn’t make it right. I know how the two-faced hypocrits are in the south because I use to live in Georgia. We need to stand up to the racists and bigots and keep pushing to effect change. It’s sad to think in this day and age a man can be kept out of the white house solely because he is African-American. A “purple” dog would have been a better president than GW Bush.

Obama gets my vote.

[equalizer]

Hi gold D,

You are voting for an empty suit who spouts bromides? Why?

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

[equalizer]

Hi gold D,

You are voting for an empty suit who spouts bromides? Why?

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

[equalizer]

Hi gold D,

You are voting for an empty suit who spouts bromides? Why?

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

[equalizer]

Hi gold D,

You are voting for an empty suit who spouts bromides? Why?

Please keep repeating Nost comments to understand US electorate.

[gold_dredger_phd]

The guy is an empty suit who spouts left wing bromides. I don’t know about Boomers, but people younger than that would be less likely to vote for a black man out of guilt. To me, his race is irrelevant. He’s not Hillary Clinton and that’s enough for most people. Racially obsessed Marxist journalists try to read too much into RACE, GENDER, CLASS.

He’s a better version of Jimmy Carter. That’s why I’m voting for him in November of 2008. Just what this country deserves.

[gold_dredger_phd]

The guy is an empty suit who spouts left wing bromides. I don’t know about Boomers, but people younger than that would be less likely to vote for a black man out of guilt. To me, his race is irrelevant. He’s not Hillary Clinton and that’s enough for most people. Racially obsessed Marxist journalists try to read too much into RACE, GENDER, CLASS.

He’s a better version of Jimmy Carter. That’s why I’m voting for him in November of 2008. Just what this country deserves.

[gold_dredger_phd]

The guy is an empty suit who spouts left wing bromides. I don’t know about Boomers, but people younger than that would be less likely to vote for a black man out of guilt. To me, his race is irrelevant. He’s not Hillary Clinton and that’s enough for most people. Racially obsessed Marxist journalists try to read too much into RACE, GENDER, CLASS.

He’s a better version of Jimmy Carter. That’s why I’m voting for him in November of 2008. Just what this country deserves.

[gold_dredger_phd]

The guy is an empty suit who spouts left wing bromides. I don’t know about Boomers, but people younger than that would be less likely to vote for a black man out of guilt. To me, his race is irrelevant. He’s not Hillary Clinton and that’s enough for most people. Racially obsessed Marxist journalists try to read too much into RACE, GENDER, CLASS.

He’s a better version of Jimmy Carter. That’s why I’m voting for him in November of 2008. Just what this country deserves.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

As long as the cynical, power-lusting Clinton machine does not get into the White House, I am happy. I hope she does not run for president every four years like that guy Ted Kennedy.

When she’s 80 years old the demented old Moonbat will be clawing at the White House door shreiking that she deserved to run the country. Funny to see that level of physical aggression from someone in a walker.

This is a democracy and the people will get what they deserve, but not what they want. : D

[zk]

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here.

gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?

[drunkle]

“gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?”

it’s his veiled way of saying niger lovers.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Typical straw man argument coming from a liberal. You put words or intentions in your opponents’ mouths and then once you have demonized them, you have to think no more about what they have to say. What a clever strategy! Did you just think of that or did you learn that college from your Marxist professors.

My best friend in high school was black and I didn’t care at that time or now what color or national origin someone is. But, I don’t have any friends who are liberals and never will. They are just too arrogant and self-satisfied to be tolerated.

Modern day liberalism is just loser-worship. It’s just repackaged altruism which has been around for thousands of years, most recently popularized in the New Testament.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Typical straw man argument coming from a liberal. You put words or intentions in your opponents’ mouths and then once you have demonized them, you have to think no more about what they have to say. What a clever strategy! Did you just think of that or did you learn that college from your Marxist professors.

My best friend in high school was black and I didn’t care at that time or now what color or national origin someone is. But, I don’t have any friends who are liberals and never will. They are just too arrogant and self-satisfied to be tolerated.

Modern day liberalism is just loser-worship. It’s just repackaged altruism which has been around for thousands of years, most recently popularized in the New Testament.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Typical straw man argument coming from a liberal. You put words or intentions in your opponents’ mouths and then once you have demonized them, you have to think no more about what they have to say. What a clever strategy! Did you just think of that or did you learn that college from your Marxist professors.

My best friend in high school was black and I didn’t care at that time or now what color or national origin someone is. But, I don’t have any friends who are liberals and never will. They are just too arrogant and self-satisfied to be tolerated.

Modern day liberalism is just loser-worship. It’s just repackaged altruism which has been around for thousands of years, most recently popularized in the New Testament.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Typical straw man argument coming from a liberal. You put words or intentions in your opponents’ mouths and then once you have demonized them, you have to think no more about what they have to say. What a clever strategy! Did you just think of that or did you learn that college from your Marxist professors.

My best friend in high school was black and I didn’t care at that time or now what color or national origin someone is. But, I don’t have any friends who are liberals and never will. They are just too arrogant and self-satisfied to be tolerated.

Modern day liberalism is just loser-worship. It’s just repackaged altruism which has been around for thousands of years, most recently popularized in the New Testament.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Typical straw man argument coming from a liberal. You put words or intentions in your opponents’ mouths and then once you have demonized them, you have to think no more about what they have to say. What a clever strategy! Did you just think of that or did you learn that college from your Marxist professors.

My best friend in high school was black and I didn’t care at that time or now what color or national origin someone is. But, I don’t have any friends who are liberals and never will. They are just too arrogant and self-satisfied to be tolerated.

Modern day liberalism is just loser-worship. It’s just repackaged altruism which has been around for thousands of years, most recently popularized in the New Testament.

[NotCranky]

Drunkle, you are awesome.

Of course that is what he is saying. It is going to be a pity but if race comes into the equation,and it will. there will be more people not electing him or even sabotaging him because of African roots, than voting for him because of it.

Melanin-phobics like gold dredger can’t entertain the idea for a minute that Obama is a viable candidate or at least attempt to respect that many people think so or think he is the “best of the worst”. It is really sad that this racist theme is going to play out over and over again.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I disagree. I think gold makes some excellent points. The problem is that any mention of the underlying motives driving the Left are immediately demonized and deemed racist. Far from it. What he was saying is not only true, but easily proved.

Look at the Left’s embracing of various groups (regardless of substance) and solely because of color, gender or orientation. If you attempt to attack these groups based on their politics, or beliefs, or policies, you become racist, or sexist or homophobic.

While the GOP and the Right are often accused (rightly) of conducting smear campaigns, the Dems and the Left are equally adept.

When confronted with a strong line of attack, Drunkle fell back on a common theme: Accuse the accuser of a more serious, but completely unrelated, flaw. In this case, racism.

This is why having an open discourse and dialogue of any productivity is near dead in this country at this time. It’s sad really.

[NotCranky]

Allan you have been doing the same thing. That is why I will not debate you. I bet you thought it was because you are more educated? It is easy to point out the biases of others and even stretch them as GD is doing and at the same time make discourse impossible because of your own, which is what you do IMO. Now about that empire thing…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Geez, man, let the empire thing go, will you? We’re not an empire. We might be hegemonic, though.

I wasn’t aware I was demonizing anyone. Give me an example, please.

For the record, I did not ascribe education to any of the various times we locked it up over various issues. I don’t deny feeling strongly about certain things, but I don’t feel as though I have ever made it personal. If I am wrong on this, please tell me. Sincerely. I’d like to know, because that is not how I try to conduct myself.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Geez, man, let the empire thing go, will you? We’re not an empire. We might be hegemonic, though.

I wasn’t aware I was demonizing anyone. Give me an example, please.

For the record, I did not ascribe education to any of the various times we locked it up over various issues. I don’t deny feeling strongly about certain things, but I don’t feel as though I have ever made it personal. If I am wrong on this, please tell me. Sincerely. I’d like to know, because that is not how I try to conduct myself.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Geez, man, let the empire thing go, will you? We’re not an empire. We might be hegemonic, though.

I wasn’t aware I was demonizing anyone. Give me an example, please.

For the record, I did not ascribe education to any of the various times we locked it up over various issues. I don’t deny feeling strongly about certain things, but I don’t feel as though I have ever made it personal. If I am wrong on this, please tell me. Sincerely. I’d like to know, because that is not how I try to conduct myself.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Geez, man, let the empire thing go, will you? We’re not an empire. We might be hegemonic, though.

I wasn’t aware I was demonizing anyone. Give me an example, please.

For the record, I did not ascribe education to any of the various times we locked it up over various issues. I don’t deny feeling strongly about certain things, but I don’t feel as though I have ever made it personal. If I am wrong on this, please tell me. Sincerely. I’d like to know, because that is not how I try to conduct myself.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Geez, man, let the empire thing go, will you? We’re not an empire. We might be hegemonic, though.

I wasn’t aware I was demonizing anyone. Give me an example, please.

For the record, I did not ascribe education to any of the various times we locked it up over various issues. I don’t deny feeling strongly about certain things, but I don’t feel as though I have ever made it personal. If I am wrong on this, please tell me. Sincerely. I’d like to know, because that is not how I try to conduct myself.

[NotCranky]

Allan you have been doing the same thing. That is why I will not debate you. I bet you thought it was because you are more educated? It is easy to point out the biases of others and even stretch them as GD is doing and at the same time make discourse impossible because of your own, which is what you do IMO. Now about that empire thing…

[NotCranky]

Allan you have been doing the same thing. That is why I will not debate you. I bet you thought it was because you are more educated? It is easy to point out the biases of others and even stretch them as GD is doing and at the same time make discourse impossible because of your own, which is what you do IMO. Now about that empire thing…

[NotCranky]

Allan you have been doing the same thing. That is why I will not debate you. I bet you thought it was because you are more educated? It is easy to point out the biases of others and even stretch them as GD is doing and at the same time make discourse impossible because of your own, which is what you do IMO. Now about that empire thing…

[NotCranky]

Allan you have been doing the same thing. That is why I will not debate you. I bet you thought it was because you are more educated? It is easy to point out the biases of others and even stretch them as GD is doing and at the same time make discourse impossible because of your own, which is what you do IMO. Now about that empire thing…

[drunkle]

allan:

you’re saying that i “pulled the race card”. i can’t believe you would say that. go back and read the post in question, read the question that was posed to gold and read my response to the questioner.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Your use of the term “nigger lover” is what prompted my response. I don’t feel that gold was drawing that conclusion at all. Rather, I felt he was making the valid point that the left in this country have embraced certain groups and causes solely because of skin color, gender or orientation.

Examples would include GALA, the completely fabricated holiday Kwanzaa, and NOW.

These groups, causes, etc are held completely above reproach by the extreme left wing of the Dems, and any attempt to question them draws immediate and vitriolic reproach.

[drunkle]

allan:

what is your interpretation of the phrase “liberals love melanin”?

why are you using the terms “lefty” and “extreme left wing” when gold did not? why are you trying to apologize for him?

edit:

hey, since we’re going down this road, what do you think of slavery or genocide?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: I am not apologizing for gold, nor am I defending him/her. He/She seems perfectly capable of doing that himself/herself.

My interpretation of that phrase is this (and it goes hand in hand with the terms “Left” and “extreme left wing”): The reactionary wing of the Democratic Party has elevated people of color, and specifically blacks, into a nearly exalted position, and one above question and/or reproach.

I’d like to use both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as examples. I won’t stoop to using the term “poverty pimps”, but it is both applicable and apropos. Both of them have made a career out of attacking whites (specifically those whites that run “The Establishment”) and the various depredations that these self-same whites have perpetrated on the black race.

Race norming, the supposed “racial bias” of the SATs, the notion that the CIA was behind getting black vets hooked on heroin (post-Vietnam) or moving cocaine/crack into ghettos (1980s), the list is extensive. Both of them have made comments and/or been involved in incidents that, were they white, would have drawn howls of condemnation. Think Jackson’s “Hymie-town” remark about NYC, or Sharpton’s involvement with the Tawana Brawley hoax. None of this has drawn so much as a peep out of the Dems.

It would certainly seem that the extreme left does indeed love melanin. And note that I am using the term “left” in place of “liberal”. I have nothing against liberals (in the truest and best interpretation of the word), and I think liberal democracy is a positive force for good in the world.

[drunkle]

allan:

al and jesse have run presidential bids and yet they did not receive the “melanin loving liberal” vote. true or false?

perceiving someone as “exalting blacks” is not equivalent as perceiving someone as a “niger lover” to you?

do you think racism does not exist and has not ever existed?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: True, on the Al/Jesse question, but not for the reason you are implying. Rather, the Dems (like the Repubs) are in the business of winning elections. Like it or not, neither was perceived as a potential winner, much the same way that Alan Keyes is not perceived as a winner by the Republicans. Nothing to do with either love, or Christian Love, but the calculus of taking the White House.

No, on the question of exalting blacks versus nigger lover. It does not, and should not. Rather it means embracing a cause, ideology or issue without being willing to subject it to question or scrutiny.

Racism absolutely exists, and it always has. It always will. Sad, but a fact of human nature. We’re tribal by nature, and regardless of color, always will be.

[drunkle]

allan:

so, there are issues to elections other than whether or not “liberals love melanin”? fancy that!

“exalting blacks” vs niger lover… that may be your definition, your interpretation of gold’s statement, but it is definitely not mine. especially considering the fact that no other issue on obama was raised!

ok, you acknowledge racism exists. but do you shrug it off and say it’s not your problem? or excuse it by saying it’s human nature? hey, it’s human nature to rape and pillage, is that ok too?

finally, getting back to this:
“When confronted with a strong line of attack, Drunkle fell back on a common theme: Accuse the accuser of a more serious, but completely unrelated, flaw. In this case, racism.”

do you still think that i made a cop out comment when his post was completely empty of anything other than race?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Except gold’s post(s) were not solely consumed with the issue of race. I have been arguing just that point the entire time. I don’t find the term “nigger lover” a cop-out comment. I believe you misread the point gold was making regarding the extreme left’s purblindness regarding color and “blackness” (meaning, not the color, but the culture, i.e. Kwanzaa).

I don’t shrug off racism, and never have. Having been both an athlete and a soldier, I believe in meritocracy, not advancement through color, or money, or social position. Unfortunately, “The Golden Rule” (Those with the Gold make the Rules) holds sway. I don’t condone raping or pillaging, either. Being both German and Catholic, I have enough of that in my history to ever condone it.

marion: People are tribal by nature. History, anthropology and sociology all confirm this. I might have done a poor job of attempting that point in ascribing it to human nature, but people in general hew to the familiar and fear the unfamiliar.

[drunkle]

allen:

the guy’s only other point was “anyone but hillary”. his one other comment regarding obama was about white guilt and is still exactly in the vein of niger lover. he was not doing anything other than trolling.

i didn’t bother with his follow up posts. “it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin.” was all i needed to see to know where that dead end would end.

you did in fact accuse me of pulling the race card. you did in fact say that i avoided the issue by accusing him of racism. if you try to use my admission of not reading his follow up as evidence of me copping out, think about the statement “it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin.”. think about the insinuations even outside of race.

edit:

and as far as not shrugging off racism… great. you believe in meritocracy and yet, you do realize that the standards are different depending your skin?

edit 2:

perhaps you were implying by your comments on “the golden rule” that you do know standards are different. in that case, you know that it’s not right. and you would accept someone or some “people’s” criticisms of such?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Point taken, and my apologies.

That being said, I would also opine that you are somewhat hung up on the insinuation, and missing the larger point. That point? That the left is indeed pulling a mea culpa when it comes to white guilt, and giving anyone of color a hall pass – if they toe the rhetorical line, of course.

Are the Republicans guilty of similar behavior? You bet. I am not so naive as to argue that somehow those on the reactionary right are any better. They’re not.

So we’re clear: I am not some gun-toting right winger. While conservative, I didn’t check my brain at the door. My issues are largely centered on the extremes of both parties hijacking the discussion and polarizing this country to the point that not only is the center lost, but so is the ability to maintain a civil discussion.

As I said, I am not here to apologize for gold. I got the gist of where he was going, just as you got the insinuation cloaked within. I very much object to his vilification of liberals. I would substitute left wing for liberal.

[drunkle]

allan:

i know you’re not stupid. that’s why i’m posting and arguing with you rather than gold.

the insinuation is important; turning your other cheek doesn’t work. nonsense should be addressed and taken head on. sometimes i dont. sometimes i’m lazy. but not today.

“white guilt” is a whole study unto itself. i’ll let that lie for now. i just got lazy again. suffice for now, whites are not the only ones who can see injustice, blacks are not the only ones that suffer injustice.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: And you’ll get no disagreement from me on the point that turning the other cheek doesn’t work. Nor does sharing an ideological common ground with someone mean that you have to excuse whatever they say. As I said earlier, I am not here to apologize for gold.

As to nonsense being addressed: Again, I agree wholeheartedly. We have reached a point that, societally speaking, anything goes. Between political correctness and general ignorance, we sit back and let nearly anything pass without comment, either from fear of giving offense, or fear of being labeled and then demonized.

I find both Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh infuriating, as well as their know nothing adherents. I think creationism and Intelligent Design are twaddle, but I also don’t believe Science (when treated as a religion) has all of the answers either. Yet, that is. I find Dubya and Huckabee of the same mold, but profess that Hillary scares me just as much, and less because of her ideology, but because of who she really is under the window dressing.

I appreciate your taking the time to trade barbs with me, I enjoyed it.

Speaking of being lazy, I’m going to wander off and vegetate in front of the TV. All of this thinking has really tired out the hamster.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: And you’ll get no disagreement from me on the point that turning the other cheek doesn’t work. Nor does sharing an ideological common ground with someone mean that you have to excuse whatever they say. As I said earlier, I am not here to apologize for gold.

As to nonsense being addressed: Again, I agree wholeheartedly. We have reached a point that, societally speaking, anything goes. Between political correctness and general ignorance, we sit back and let nearly anything pass without comment, either from fear of giving offense, or fear of being labeled and then demonized.

I find both Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh infuriating, as well as their know nothing adherents. I think creationism and Intelligent Design are twaddle, but I also don’t believe Science (when treated as a religion) has all of the answers either. Yet, that is. I find Dubya and Huckabee of the same mold, but profess that Hillary scares me just as much, and less because of her ideology, but because of who she really is under the window dressing.

I appreciate your taking the time to trade barbs with me, I enjoyed it.

Speaking of being lazy, I’m going to wander off and vegetate in front of the TV. All of this thinking has really tired out the hamster.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: And you’ll get no disagreement from me on the point that turning the other cheek doesn’t work. Nor does sharing an ideological common ground with someone mean that you have to excuse whatever they say. As I said earlier, I am not here to apologize for gold.

As to nonsense being addressed: Again, I agree wholeheartedly. We have reached a point that, societally speaking, anything goes. Between political correctness and general ignorance, we sit back and let nearly anything pass without comment, either from fear of giving offense, or fear of being labeled and then demonized.

I find both Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh infuriating, as well as their know nothing adherents. I think creationism and Intelligent Design are twaddle, but I also don’t believe Science (when treated as a religion) has all of the answers either. Yet, that is. I find Dubya and Huckabee of the same mold, but profess that Hillary scares me just as much, and less because of her ideology, but because of who she really is under the window dressing.

I appreciate your taking the time to trade barbs with me, I enjoyed it.

Speaking of being lazy, I’m going to wander off and vegetate in front of the TV. All of this thinking has really tired out the hamster.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: And you’ll get no disagreement from me on the point that turning the other cheek doesn’t work. Nor does sharing an ideological common ground with someone mean that you have to excuse whatever they say. As I said earlier, I am not here to apologize for gold.

As to nonsense being addressed: Again, I agree wholeheartedly. We have reached a point that, societally speaking, anything goes. Between political correctness and general ignorance, we sit back and let nearly anything pass without comment, either from fear of giving offense, or fear of being labeled and then demonized.

I find both Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh infuriating, as well as their know nothing adherents. I think creationism and Intelligent Design are twaddle, but I also don’t believe Science (when treated as a religion) has all of the answers either. Yet, that is. I find Dubya and Huckabee of the same mold, but profess that Hillary scares me just as much, and less because of her ideology, but because of who she really is under the window dressing.

I appreciate your taking the time to trade barbs with me, I enjoyed it.

Speaking of being lazy, I’m going to wander off and vegetate in front of the TV. All of this thinking has really tired out the hamster.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: And you’ll get no disagreement from me on the point that turning the other cheek doesn’t work. Nor does sharing an ideological common ground with someone mean that you have to excuse whatever they say. As I said earlier, I am not here to apologize for gold.

As to nonsense being addressed: Again, I agree wholeheartedly. We have reached a point that, societally speaking, anything goes. Between political correctness and general ignorance, we sit back and let nearly anything pass without comment, either from fear of giving offense, or fear of being labeled and then demonized.

I find both Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh infuriating, as well as their know nothing adherents. I think creationism and Intelligent Design are twaddle, but I also don’t believe Science (when treated as a religion) has all of the answers either. Yet, that is. I find Dubya and Huckabee of the same mold, but profess that Hillary scares me just as much, and less because of her ideology, but because of who she really is under the window dressing.

I appreciate your taking the time to trade barbs with me, I enjoyed it.

Speaking of being lazy, I’m going to wander off and vegetate in front of the TV. All of this thinking has really tired out the hamster.

[drunkle]

allan:

i know you’re not stupid. that’s why i’m posting and arguing with you rather than gold.

the insinuation is important; turning your other cheek doesn’t work. nonsense should be addressed and taken head on. sometimes i dont. sometimes i’m lazy. but not today.

“white guilt” is a whole study unto itself. i’ll let that lie for now. i just got lazy again. suffice for now, whites are not the only ones who can see injustice, blacks are not the only ones that suffer injustice.

[drunkle]

allan:

i know you’re not stupid. that’s why i’m posting and arguing with you rather than gold.

the insinuation is important; turning your other cheek doesn’t work. nonsense should be addressed and taken head on. sometimes i dont. sometimes i’m lazy. but not today.

“white guilt” is a whole study unto itself. i’ll let that lie for now. i just got lazy again. suffice for now, whites are not the only ones who can see injustice, blacks are not the only ones that suffer injustice.

[drunkle]

allan:

i know you’re not stupid. that’s why i’m posting and arguing with you rather than gold.

the insinuation is important; turning your other cheek doesn’t work. nonsense should be addressed and taken head on. sometimes i dont. sometimes i’m lazy. but not today.

“white guilt” is a whole study unto itself. i’ll let that lie for now. i just got lazy again. suffice for now, whites are not the only ones who can see injustice, blacks are not the only ones that suffer injustice.

[drunkle]

allan:

i know you’re not stupid. that’s why i’m posting and arguing with you rather than gold.

the insinuation is important; turning your other cheek doesn’t work. nonsense should be addressed and taken head on. sometimes i dont. sometimes i’m lazy. but not today.

“white guilt” is a whole study unto itself. i’ll let that lie for now. i just got lazy again. suffice for now, whites are not the only ones who can see injustice, blacks are not the only ones that suffer injustice.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Point taken, and my apologies.

That being said, I would also opine that you are somewhat hung up on the insinuation, and missing the larger point. That point? That the left is indeed pulling a mea culpa when it comes to white guilt, and giving anyone of color a hall pass – if they toe the rhetorical line, of course.

Are the Republicans guilty of similar behavior? You bet. I am not so naive as to argue that somehow those on the reactionary right are any better. They’re not.

So we’re clear: I am not some gun-toting right winger. While conservative, I didn’t check my brain at the door. My issues are largely centered on the extremes of both parties hijacking the discussion and polarizing this country to the point that not only is the center lost, but so is the ability to maintain a civil discussion.

As I said, I am not here to apologize for gold. I got the gist of where he was going, just as you got the insinuation cloaked within. I very much object to his vilification of liberals. I would substitute left wing for liberal.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Point taken, and my apologies.

That being said, I would also opine that you are somewhat hung up on the insinuation, and missing the larger point. That point? That the left is indeed pulling a mea culpa when it comes to white guilt, and giving anyone of color a hall pass – if they toe the rhetorical line, of course.

Are the Republicans guilty of similar behavior? You bet. I am not so naive as to argue that somehow those on the reactionary right are any better. They’re not.

So we’re clear: I am not some gun-toting right winger. While conservative, I didn’t check my brain at the door. My issues are largely centered on the extremes of both parties hijacking the discussion and polarizing this country to the point that not only is the center lost, but so is the ability to maintain a civil discussion.

As I said, I am not here to apologize for gold. I got the gist of where he was going, just as you got the insinuation cloaked within. I very much object to his vilification of liberals. I would substitute left wing for liberal.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Point taken, and my apologies.

That being said, I would also opine that you are somewhat hung up on the insinuation, and missing the larger point. That point? That the left is indeed pulling a mea culpa when it comes to white guilt, and giving anyone of color a hall pass – if they toe the rhetorical line, of course.

Are the Republicans guilty of similar behavior? You bet. I am not so naive as to argue that somehow those on the reactionary right are any better. They’re not.

So we’re clear: I am not some gun-toting right winger. While conservative, I didn’t check my brain at the door. My issues are largely centered on the extremes of both parties hijacking the discussion and polarizing this country to the point that not only is the center lost, but so is the ability to maintain a civil discussion.

As I said, I am not here to apologize for gold. I got the gist of where he was going, just as you got the insinuation cloaked within. I very much object to his vilification of liberals. I would substitute left wing for liberal.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Point taken, and my apologies.

That being said, I would also opine that you are somewhat hung up on the insinuation, and missing the larger point. That point? That the left is indeed pulling a mea culpa when it comes to white guilt, and giving anyone of color a hall pass – if they toe the rhetorical line, of course.

Are the Republicans guilty of similar behavior? You bet. I am not so naive as to argue that somehow those on the reactionary right are any better. They’re not.

So we’re clear: I am not some gun-toting right winger. While conservative, I didn’t check my brain at the door. My issues are largely centered on the extremes of both parties hijacking the discussion and polarizing this country to the point that not only is the center lost, but so is the ability to maintain a civil discussion.

As I said, I am not here to apologize for gold. I got the gist of where he was going, just as you got the insinuation cloaked within. I very much object to his vilification of liberals. I would substitute left wing for liberal.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Just saw your edits 1 and 2.

1. Yes, the standards are different depending on your skin. No argument from me on that one.

2. Yes, the standards are different depending on your wealth and/or social standing. Yep, I also know it is not right, and would accept any just criticism.

Not to be a wise-ass, but isn’t that what you and I are doing right now?

[drunkle]

“Not to be a wise-ass, but isn’t that what you and I are doing right now?”

what do you mean?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: I was referring to our exchanging criticisms.

[drunkle]

“I was referring to our exchanging criticisms.”

i’m still not getting it. it may have to do with the fact that i’m on my 3rd or 8th glass of wine.

for the record, i like(d) edwards and paul. i think obama is a robot.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: It’s probably not the wine, but the fact that I have been simultaneously working and posting. I probably went off the beam there, in a vain attempt to be clever.

I like Paul. I’d like to say I support McCain as well, but he has whored and pandered with the best of them, so I’d be hard pressed to argue integrity and ideological purity and then throw my support his way.

As far as Edwards goes, take a hard look at his “income equality” approach and then juxtapose that with his unwillingness to extend those same standards to attorneys. Big surprise, huh?

Obama might be a robot, but he seems to be invigorating the electorate, which is a really good thing. If he gets the vote out…

[drunkle]

“I probably went off the beam there, in a vain attempt to be clever.”

see? you’re not stupid. anyone who can admit vanity, or at least, the possibility of vanity is ok with me. hell, i post because i like reading my own writing.

there is no depth to my liking of edwards. i liked his presence in 04, i like his willingness to take on corporate influence in politics. it’s a very focused and direct attack vs obama’s general hope that things will change. if i ran for president, my platform would be mono issue: political reform. elimination of the electoral college, elimination of congress for parlimentary government, elimination of the 2 party duopoly, public sponsorship of campaigns… and 20 year term as president. with some provision for recall, of course. after i reigned for 20 years, of course.

i’m suspicious of “the electorate”, the same electorate that voted in bush twice. the same knee jerk bone heads that rah rah’d the invasion of iraq and forgot about al queda. maybe this time, the electorate will be smarter? doubtful.

[drunkle]

“I probably went off the beam there, in a vain attempt to be clever.”

see? you’re not stupid. anyone who can admit vanity, or at least, the possibility of vanity is ok with me. hell, i post because i like reading my own writing.

there is no depth to my liking of edwards. i liked his presence in 04, i like his willingness to take on corporate influence in politics. it’s a very focused and direct attack vs obama’s general hope that things will change. if i ran for president, my platform would be mono issue: political reform. elimination of the electoral college, elimination of congress for parlimentary government, elimination of the 2 party duopoly, public sponsorship of campaigns… and 20 year term as president. with some provision for recall, of course. after i reigned for 20 years, of course.

i’m suspicious of “the electorate”, the same electorate that voted in bush twice. the same knee jerk bone heads that rah rah’d the invasion of iraq and forgot about al queda. maybe this time, the electorate will be smarter? doubtful.

[drunkle]

“I probably went off the beam there, in a vain attempt to be clever.”

see? you’re not stupid. anyone who can admit vanity, or at least, the possibility of vanity is ok with me. hell, i post because i like reading my own writing.

there is no depth to my liking of edwards. i liked his presence in 04, i like his willingness to take on corporate influence in politics. it’s a very focused and direct attack vs obama’s general hope that things will change. if i ran for president, my platform would be mono issue: political reform. elimination of the electoral college, elimination of congress for parlimentary government, elimination of the 2 party duopoly, public sponsorship of campaigns… and 20 year term as president. with some provision for recall, of course. after i reigned for 20 years, of course.

i’m suspicious of “the electorate”, the same electorate that voted in bush twice. the same knee jerk bone heads that rah rah’d the invasion of iraq and forgot about al queda. maybe this time, the electorate will be smarter? doubtful.

[drunkle]

“I probably went off the beam there, in a vain attempt to be clever.”

see? you’re not stupid. anyone who can admit vanity, or at least, the possibility of vanity is ok with me. hell, i post because i like reading my own writing.

there is no depth to my liking of edwards. i liked his presence in 04, i like his willingness to take on corporate influence in politics. it’s a very focused and direct attack vs obama’s general hope that things will change. if i ran for president, my platform would be mono issue: political reform. elimination of the electoral college, elimination of congress for parlimentary government, elimination of the 2 party duopoly, public sponsorship of campaigns… and 20 year term as president. with some provision for recall, of course. after i reigned for 20 years, of course.

i’m suspicious of “the electorate”, the same electorate that voted in bush twice. the same knee jerk bone heads that rah rah’d the invasion of iraq and forgot about al queda. maybe this time, the electorate will be smarter? doubtful.

[drunkle]

“I probably went off the beam there, in a vain attempt to be clever.”

see? you’re not stupid. anyone who can admit vanity, or at least, the possibility of vanity is ok with me. hell, i post because i like reading my own writing.

there is no depth to my liking of edwards. i liked his presence in 04, i like his willingness to take on corporate influence in politics. it’s a very focused and direct attack vs obama’s general hope that things will change. if i ran for president, my platform would be mono issue: political reform. elimination of the electoral college, elimination of congress for parlimentary government, elimination of the 2 party duopoly, public sponsorship of campaigns… and 20 year term as president. with some provision for recall, of course. after i reigned for 20 years, of course.

i’m suspicious of “the electorate”, the same electorate that voted in bush twice. the same knee jerk bone heads that rah rah’d the invasion of iraq and forgot about al queda. maybe this time, the electorate will be smarter? doubtful.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: It’s probably not the wine, but the fact that I have been simultaneously working and posting. I probably went off the beam there, in a vain attempt to be clever.

I like Paul. I’d like to say I support McCain as well, but he has whored and pandered with the best of them, so I’d be hard pressed to argue integrity and ideological purity and then throw my support his way.

As far as Edwards goes, take a hard look at his “income equality” approach and then juxtapose that with his unwillingness to extend those same standards to attorneys. Big surprise, huh?

Obama might be a robot, but he seems to be invigorating the electorate, which is a really good thing. If he gets the vote out…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: It’s probably not the wine, but the fact that I have been simultaneously working and posting. I probably went off the beam there, in a vain attempt to be clever.

I like Paul. I’d like to say I support McCain as well, but he has whored and pandered with the best of them, so I’d be hard pressed to argue integrity and ideological purity and then throw my support his way.

As far as Edwards goes, take a hard look at his “income equality” approach and then juxtapose that with his unwillingness to extend those same standards to attorneys. Big surprise, huh?

Obama might be a robot, but he seems to be invigorating the electorate, which is a really good thing. If he gets the vote out…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: It’s probably not the wine, but the fact that I have been simultaneously working and posting. I probably went off the beam there, in a vain attempt to be clever.

I like Paul. I’d like to say I support McCain as well, but he has whored and pandered with the best of them, so I’d be hard pressed to argue integrity and ideological purity and then throw my support his way.

As far as Edwards goes, take a hard look at his “income equality” approach and then juxtapose that with his unwillingness to extend those same standards to attorneys. Big surprise, huh?

Obama might be a robot, but he seems to be invigorating the electorate, which is a really good thing. If he gets the vote out…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: It’s probably not the wine, but the fact that I have been simultaneously working and posting. I probably went off the beam there, in a vain attempt to be clever.

I like Paul. I’d like to say I support McCain as well, but he has whored and pandered with the best of them, so I’d be hard pressed to argue integrity and ideological purity and then throw my support his way.

As far as Edwards goes, take a hard look at his “income equality” approach and then juxtapose that with his unwillingness to extend those same standards to attorneys. Big surprise, huh?

Obama might be a robot, but he seems to be invigorating the electorate, which is a really good thing. If he gets the vote out…

[drunkle]

“I was referring to our exchanging criticisms.”

i’m still not getting it. it may have to do with the fact that i’m on my 3rd or 8th glass of wine.

for the record, i like(d) edwards and paul. i think obama is a robot.

[drunkle]

“I was referring to our exchanging criticisms.”

i’m still not getting it. it may have to do with the fact that i’m on my 3rd or 8th glass of wine.

for the record, i like(d) edwards and paul. i think obama is a robot.

[drunkle]

“I was referring to our exchanging criticisms.”

i’m still not getting it. it may have to do with the fact that i’m on my 3rd or 8th glass of wine.

for the record, i like(d) edwards and paul. i think obama is a robot.

[drunkle]

“I was referring to our exchanging criticisms.”

i’m still not getting it. it may have to do with the fact that i’m on my 3rd or 8th glass of wine.

for the record, i like(d) edwards and paul. i think obama is a robot.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: I was referring to our exchanging criticisms.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: I was referring to our exchanging criticisms.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: I was referring to our exchanging criticisms.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: I was referring to our exchanging criticisms.

[drunkle]

“Not to be a wise-ass, but isn’t that what you and I are doing right now?”

what do you mean?

[drunkle]

“Not to be a wise-ass, but isn’t that what you and I are doing right now?”

what do you mean?

[drunkle]

“Not to be a wise-ass, but isn’t that what you and I are doing right now?”

what do you mean?

[drunkle]

“Not to be a wise-ass, but isn’t that what you and I are doing right now?”

what do you mean?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Just saw your edits 1 and 2.

1. Yes, the standards are different depending on your skin. No argument from me on that one.

2. Yes, the standards are different depending on your wealth and/or social standing. Yep, I also know it is not right, and would accept any just criticism.

Not to be a wise-ass, but isn’t that what you and I are doing right now?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Just saw your edits 1 and 2.

1. Yes, the standards are different depending on your skin. No argument from me on that one.

2. Yes, the standards are different depending on your wealth and/or social standing. Yep, I also know it is not right, and would accept any just criticism.

Not to be a wise-ass, but isn’t that what you and I are doing right now?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Just saw your edits 1 and 2.

1. Yes, the standards are different depending on your skin. No argument from me on that one.

2. Yes, the standards are different depending on your wealth and/or social standing. Yep, I also know it is not right, and would accept any just criticism.

Not to be a wise-ass, but isn’t that what you and I are doing right now?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Just saw your edits 1 and 2.

1. Yes, the standards are different depending on your skin. No argument from me on that one.

2. Yes, the standards are different depending on your wealth and/or social standing. Yep, I also know it is not right, and would accept any just criticism.

Not to be a wise-ass, but isn’t that what you and I are doing right now?

[drunkle]

allen:

the guy’s only other point was “anyone but hillary”. his one other comment regarding obama was about white guilt and is still exactly in the vein of niger lover. he was not doing anything other than trolling.

i didn’t bother with his follow up posts. “it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin.” was all i needed to see to know where that dead end would end.

you did in fact accuse me of pulling the race card. you did in fact say that i avoided the issue by accusing him of racism. if you try to use my admission of not reading his follow up as evidence of me copping out, think about the statement “it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin.”. think about the insinuations even outside of race.

edit:

and as far as not shrugging off racism… great. you believe in meritocracy and yet, you do realize that the standards are different depending your skin?

edit 2:

perhaps you were implying by your comments on “the golden rule” that you do know standards are different. in that case, you know that it’s not right. and you would accept someone or some “people’s” criticisms of such?

[drunkle]

allen:

the guy’s only other point was “anyone but hillary”. his one other comment regarding obama was about white guilt and is still exactly in the vein of niger lover. he was not doing anything other than trolling.

i didn’t bother with his follow up posts. “it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin.” was all i needed to see to know where that dead end would end.

you did in fact accuse me of pulling the race card. you did in fact say that i avoided the issue by accusing him of racism. if you try to use my admission of not reading his follow up as evidence of me copping out, think about the statement “it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin.”. think about the insinuations even outside of race.

edit:

and as far as not shrugging off racism… great. you believe in meritocracy and yet, you do realize that the standards are different depending your skin?

edit 2:

perhaps you were implying by your comments on “the golden rule” that you do know standards are different. in that case, you know that it’s not right. and you would accept someone or some “people’s” criticisms of such?

[drunkle]

allen:

the guy’s only other point was “anyone but hillary”. his one other comment regarding obama was about white guilt and is still exactly in the vein of niger lover. he was not doing anything other than trolling.

i didn’t bother with his follow up posts. “it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin.” was all i needed to see to know where that dead end would end.

you did in fact accuse me of pulling the race card. you did in fact say that i avoided the issue by accusing him of racism. if you try to use my admission of not reading his follow up as evidence of me copping out, think about the statement “it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin.”. think about the insinuations even outside of race.

edit:

and as far as not shrugging off racism… great. you believe in meritocracy and yet, you do realize that the standards are different depending your skin?

edit 2:

perhaps you were implying by your comments on “the golden rule” that you do know standards are different. in that case, you know that it’s not right. and you would accept someone or some “people’s” criticisms of such?

[drunkle]

allen:

the guy’s only other point was “anyone but hillary”. his one other comment regarding obama was about white guilt and is still exactly in the vein of niger lover. he was not doing anything other than trolling.

i didn’t bother with his follow up posts. “it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin.” was all i needed to see to know where that dead end would end.

you did in fact accuse me of pulling the race card. you did in fact say that i avoided the issue by accusing him of racism. if you try to use my admission of not reading his follow up as evidence of me copping out, think about the statement “it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin.”. think about the insinuations even outside of race.

edit:

and as far as not shrugging off racism… great. you believe in meritocracy and yet, you do realize that the standards are different depending your skin?

edit 2:

perhaps you were implying by your comments on “the golden rule” that you do know standards are different. in that case, you know that it’s not right. and you would accept someone or some “people’s” criticisms of such?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Except gold’s post(s) were not solely consumed with the issue of race. I have been arguing just that point the entire time. I don’t find the term “nigger lover” a cop-out comment. I believe you misread the point gold was making regarding the extreme left’s purblindness regarding color and “blackness” (meaning, not the color, but the culture, i.e. Kwanzaa).

I don’t shrug off racism, and never have. Having been both an athlete and a soldier, I believe in meritocracy, not advancement through color, or money, or social position. Unfortunately, “The Golden Rule” (Those with the Gold make the Rules) holds sway. I don’t condone raping or pillaging, either. Being both German and Catholic, I have enough of that in my history to ever condone it.

marion: People are tribal by nature. History, anthropology and sociology all confirm this. I might have done a poor job of attempting that point in ascribing it to human nature, but people in general hew to the familiar and fear the unfamiliar.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Except gold’s post(s) were not solely consumed with the issue of race. I have been arguing just that point the entire time. I don’t find the term “nigger lover” a cop-out comment. I believe you misread the point gold was making regarding the extreme left’s purblindness regarding color and “blackness” (meaning, not the color, but the culture, i.e. Kwanzaa).

I don’t shrug off racism, and never have. Having been both an athlete and a soldier, I believe in meritocracy, not advancement through color, or money, or social position. Unfortunately, “The Golden Rule” (Those with the Gold make the Rules) holds sway. I don’t condone raping or pillaging, either. Being both German and Catholic, I have enough of that in my history to ever condone it.

marion: People are tribal by nature. History, anthropology and sociology all confirm this. I might have done a poor job of attempting that point in ascribing it to human nature, but people in general hew to the familiar and fear the unfamiliar.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Except gold’s post(s) were not solely consumed with the issue of race. I have been arguing just that point the entire time. I don’t find the term “nigger lover” a cop-out comment. I believe you misread the point gold was making regarding the extreme left’s purblindness regarding color and “blackness” (meaning, not the color, but the culture, i.e. Kwanzaa).

I don’t shrug off racism, and never have. Having been both an athlete and a soldier, I believe in meritocracy, not advancement through color, or money, or social position. Unfortunately, “The Golden Rule” (Those with the Gold make the Rules) holds sway. I don’t condone raping or pillaging, either. Being both German and Catholic, I have enough of that in my history to ever condone it.

marion: People are tribal by nature. History, anthropology and sociology all confirm this. I might have done a poor job of attempting that point in ascribing it to human nature, but people in general hew to the familiar and fear the unfamiliar.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Except gold’s post(s) were not solely consumed with the issue of race. I have been arguing just that point the entire time. I don’t find the term “nigger lover” a cop-out comment. I believe you misread the point gold was making regarding the extreme left’s purblindness regarding color and “blackness” (meaning, not the color, but the culture, i.e. Kwanzaa).

I don’t shrug off racism, and never have. Having been both an athlete and a soldier, I believe in meritocracy, not advancement through color, or money, or social position. Unfortunately, “The Golden Rule” (Those with the Gold make the Rules) holds sway. I don’t condone raping or pillaging, either. Being both German and Catholic, I have enough of that in my history to ever condone it.

marion: People are tribal by nature. History, anthropology and sociology all confirm this. I might have done a poor job of attempting that point in ascribing it to human nature, but people in general hew to the familiar and fear the unfamiliar.

[drunkle]

allan:

so, there are issues to elections other than whether or not “liberals love melanin”? fancy that!

“exalting blacks” vs niger lover… that may be your definition, your interpretation of gold’s statement, but it is definitely not mine. especially considering the fact that no other issue on obama was raised!

ok, you acknowledge racism exists. but do you shrug it off and say it’s not your problem? or excuse it by saying it’s human nature? hey, it’s human nature to rape and pillage, is that ok too?

finally, getting back to this:
“When confronted with a strong line of attack, Drunkle fell back on a common theme: Accuse the accuser of a more serious, but completely unrelated, flaw. In this case, racism.”

do you still think that i made a cop out comment when his post was completely empty of anything other than race?

[drunkle]

allan:

so, there are issues to elections other than whether or not “liberals love melanin”? fancy that!

“exalting blacks” vs niger lover… that may be your definition, your interpretation of gold’s statement, but it is definitely not mine. especially considering the fact that no other issue on obama was raised!

ok, you acknowledge racism exists. but do you shrug it off and say it’s not your problem? or excuse it by saying it’s human nature? hey, it’s human nature to rape and pillage, is that ok too?

finally, getting back to this:
“When confronted with a strong line of attack, Drunkle fell back on a common theme: Accuse the accuser of a more serious, but completely unrelated, flaw. In this case, racism.”

do you still think that i made a cop out comment when his post was completely empty of anything other than race?

[drunkle]

allan:

so, there are issues to elections other than whether or not “liberals love melanin”? fancy that!

“exalting blacks” vs niger lover… that may be your definition, your interpretation of gold’s statement, but it is definitely not mine. especially considering the fact that no other issue on obama was raised!

ok, you acknowledge racism exists. but do you shrug it off and say it’s not your problem? or excuse it by saying it’s human nature? hey, it’s human nature to rape and pillage, is that ok too?

finally, getting back to this:
“When confronted with a strong line of attack, Drunkle fell back on a common theme: Accuse the accuser of a more serious, but completely unrelated, flaw. In this case, racism.”

do you still think that i made a cop out comment when his post was completely empty of anything other than race?

[drunkle]

allan:

so, there are issues to elections other than whether or not “liberals love melanin”? fancy that!

“exalting blacks” vs niger lover… that may be your definition, your interpretation of gold’s statement, but it is definitely not mine. especially considering the fact that no other issue on obama was raised!

ok, you acknowledge racism exists. but do you shrug it off and say it’s not your problem? or excuse it by saying it’s human nature? hey, it’s human nature to rape and pillage, is that ok too?

finally, getting back to this:
“When confronted with a strong line of attack, Drunkle fell back on a common theme: Accuse the accuser of a more serious, but completely unrelated, flaw. In this case, racism.”

do you still think that i made a cop out comment when his post was completely empty of anything other than race?

[Anonymous]

Submitted by Rustico on January 7, 2008 – 7:52pm.

Drunkle, you are awesome.

Of course that is what he is saying. It is going to be a pity but if race comes into the equation,and it will. there will be more people not electing him or even sabotaging him because of African roots, than voting for him because of it.

Melanin-phobics like gold dredger can’t entertain the idea for a minute that Obama is a viable candidate or at least attempt to respect that many people think so or think he is the “best of the worst”. It is really sad that this racist theme is going to play out over and over again.

Rustico, well said. Very well said.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on January 7, 2008 – 9:30pm.

Racism absolutely exists, and it always has. It always will. Sad, but a fact of human nature. We’re tribal by nature, and regardless of color, always will be.

I’m trying to observe and stay out of the way, but a quick comment. Allan, I don’t believe racism stems from human nature. Human beings aren’t born racist, but rather “taught” it. Racism isn’t tribal, it’s about certain people believing they are better than others and those people are the lowest life forms on the planet.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by Rustico on January 7, 2008 – 7:52pm.

Drunkle, you are awesome.

Of course that is what he is saying. It is going to be a pity but if race comes into the equation,and it will. there will be more people not electing him or even sabotaging him because of African roots, than voting for him because of it.

Melanin-phobics like gold dredger can’t entertain the idea for a minute that Obama is a viable candidate or at least attempt to respect that many people think so or think he is the “best of the worst”. It is really sad that this racist theme is going to play out over and over again.

Rustico, well said. Very well said.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on January 7, 2008 – 9:30pm.

Racism absolutely exists, and it always has. It always will. Sad, but a fact of human nature. We’re tribal by nature, and regardless of color, always will be.

I’m trying to observe and stay out of the way, but a quick comment. Allan, I don’t believe racism stems from human nature. Human beings aren’t born racist, but rather “taught” it. Racism isn’t tribal, it’s about certain people believing they are better than others and those people are the lowest life forms on the planet.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by Rustico on January 7, 2008 – 7:52pm.

Drunkle, you are awesome.

Of course that is what he is saying. It is going to be a pity but if race comes into the equation,and it will. there will be more people not electing him or even sabotaging him because of African roots, than voting for him because of it.

Melanin-phobics like gold dredger can’t entertain the idea for a minute that Obama is a viable candidate or at least attempt to respect that many people think so or think he is the “best of the worst”. It is really sad that this racist theme is going to play out over and over again.

Rustico, well said. Very well said.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on January 7, 2008 – 9:30pm.

Racism absolutely exists, and it always has. It always will. Sad, but a fact of human nature. We’re tribal by nature, and regardless of color, always will be.

I’m trying to observe and stay out of the way, but a quick comment. Allan, I don’t believe racism stems from human nature. Human beings aren’t born racist, but rather “taught” it. Racism isn’t tribal, it’s about certain people believing they are better than others and those people are the lowest life forms on the planet.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by Rustico on January 7, 2008 – 7:52pm.

Drunkle, you are awesome.

Of course that is what he is saying. It is going to be a pity but if race comes into the equation,and it will. there will be more people not electing him or even sabotaging him because of African roots, than voting for him because of it.

Melanin-phobics like gold dredger can’t entertain the idea for a minute that Obama is a viable candidate or at least attempt to respect that many people think so or think he is the “best of the worst”. It is really sad that this racist theme is going to play out over and over again.

Rustico, well said. Very well said.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on January 7, 2008 – 9:30pm.

Racism absolutely exists, and it always has. It always will. Sad, but a fact of human nature. We’re tribal by nature, and regardless of color, always will be.

I’m trying to observe and stay out of the way, but a quick comment. Allan, I don’t believe racism stems from human nature. Human beings aren’t born racist, but rather “taught” it. Racism isn’t tribal, it’s about certain people believing they are better than others and those people are the lowest life forms on the planet.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by Rustico on January 7, 2008 – 7:52pm.

Drunkle, you are awesome.

Of course that is what he is saying. It is going to be a pity but if race comes into the equation,and it will. there will be more people not electing him or even sabotaging him because of African roots, than voting for him because of it.

Melanin-phobics like gold dredger can’t entertain the idea for a minute that Obama is a viable candidate or at least attempt to respect that many people think so or think he is the “best of the worst”. It is really sad that this racist theme is going to play out over and over again.

Rustico, well said. Very well said.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on January 7, 2008 – 9:30pm.

Racism absolutely exists, and it always has. It always will. Sad, but a fact of human nature. We’re tribal by nature, and regardless of color, always will be.

I’m trying to observe and stay out of the way, but a quick comment. Allan, I don’t believe racism stems from human nature. Human beings aren’t born racist, but rather “taught” it. Racism isn’t tribal, it’s about certain people believing they are better than others and those people are the lowest life forms on the planet.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: True, on the Al/Jesse question, but not for the reason you are implying. Rather, the Dems (like the Repubs) are in the business of winning elections. Like it or not, neither was perceived as a potential winner, much the same way that Alan Keyes is not perceived as a winner by the Republicans. Nothing to do with either love, or Christian Love, but the calculus of taking the White House.

No, on the question of exalting blacks versus nigger lover. It does not, and should not. Rather it means embracing a cause, ideology or issue without being willing to subject it to question or scrutiny.

Racism absolutely exists, and it always has. It always will. Sad, but a fact of human nature. We’re tribal by nature, and regardless of color, always will be.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: True, on the Al/Jesse question, but not for the reason you are implying. Rather, the Dems (like the Repubs) are in the business of winning elections. Like it or not, neither was perceived as a potential winner, much the same way that Alan Keyes is not perceived as a winner by the Republicans. Nothing to do with either love, or Christian Love, but the calculus of taking the White House.

No, on the question of exalting blacks versus nigger lover. It does not, and should not. Rather it means embracing a cause, ideology or issue without being willing to subject it to question or scrutiny.

Racism absolutely exists, and it always has. It always will. Sad, but a fact of human nature. We’re tribal by nature, and regardless of color, always will be.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: True, on the Al/Jesse question, but not for the reason you are implying. Rather, the Dems (like the Repubs) are in the business of winning elections. Like it or not, neither was perceived as a potential winner, much the same way that Alan Keyes is not perceived as a winner by the Republicans. Nothing to do with either love, or Christian Love, but the calculus of taking the White House.

No, on the question of exalting blacks versus nigger lover. It does not, and should not. Rather it means embracing a cause, ideology or issue without being willing to subject it to question or scrutiny.

Racism absolutely exists, and it always has. It always will. Sad, but a fact of human nature. We’re tribal by nature, and regardless of color, always will be.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: True, on the Al/Jesse question, but not for the reason you are implying. Rather, the Dems (like the Repubs) are in the business of winning elections. Like it or not, neither was perceived as a potential winner, much the same way that Alan Keyes is not perceived as a winner by the Republicans. Nothing to do with either love, or Christian Love, but the calculus of taking the White House.

No, on the question of exalting blacks versus nigger lover. It does not, and should not. Rather it means embracing a cause, ideology or issue without being willing to subject it to question or scrutiny.

Racism absolutely exists, and it always has. It always will. Sad, but a fact of human nature. We’re tribal by nature, and regardless of color, always will be.

[drunkle]

allan:

al and jesse have run presidential bids and yet they did not receive the “melanin loving liberal” vote. true or false?

perceiving someone as “exalting blacks” is not equivalent as perceiving someone as a “niger lover” to you?

do you think racism does not exist and has not ever existed?

[drunkle]

allan:

al and jesse have run presidential bids and yet they did not receive the “melanin loving liberal” vote. true or false?

perceiving someone as “exalting blacks” is not equivalent as perceiving someone as a “niger lover” to you?

do you think racism does not exist and has not ever existed?

[drunkle]

allan:

al and jesse have run presidential bids and yet they did not receive the “melanin loving liberal” vote. true or false?

perceiving someone as “exalting blacks” is not equivalent as perceiving someone as a “niger lover” to you?

do you think racism does not exist and has not ever existed?

[drunkle]

allan:

al and jesse have run presidential bids and yet they did not receive the “melanin loving liberal” vote. true or false?

perceiving someone as “exalting blacks” is not equivalent as perceiving someone as a “niger lover” to you?

do you think racism does not exist and has not ever existed?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: I am not apologizing for gold, nor am I defending him/her. He/She seems perfectly capable of doing that himself/herself.

My interpretation of that phrase is this (and it goes hand in hand with the terms “Left” and “extreme left wing”): The reactionary wing of the Democratic Party has elevated people of color, and specifically blacks, into a nearly exalted position, and one above question and/or reproach.

I’d like to use both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as examples. I won’t stoop to using the term “poverty pimps”, but it is both applicable and apropos. Both of them have made a career out of attacking whites (specifically those whites that run “The Establishment”) and the various depredations that these self-same whites have perpetrated on the black race.

Race norming, the supposed “racial bias” of the SATs, the notion that the CIA was behind getting black vets hooked on heroin (post-Vietnam) or moving cocaine/crack into ghettos (1980s), the list is extensive. Both of them have made comments and/or been involved in incidents that, were they white, would have drawn howls of condemnation. Think Jackson’s “Hymie-town” remark about NYC, or Sharpton’s involvement with the Tawana Brawley hoax. None of this has drawn so much as a peep out of the Dems.

It would certainly seem that the extreme left does indeed love melanin. And note that I am using the term “left” in place of “liberal”. I have nothing against liberals (in the truest and best interpretation of the word), and I think liberal democracy is a positive force for good in the world.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: I am not apologizing for gold, nor am I defending him/her. He/She seems perfectly capable of doing that himself/herself.

My interpretation of that phrase is this (and it goes hand in hand with the terms “Left” and “extreme left wing”): The reactionary wing of the Democratic Party has elevated people of color, and specifically blacks, into a nearly exalted position, and one above question and/or reproach.

I’d like to use both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as examples. I won’t stoop to using the term “poverty pimps”, but it is both applicable and apropos. Both of them have made a career out of attacking whites (specifically those whites that run “The Establishment”) and the various depredations that these self-same whites have perpetrated on the black race.

Race norming, the supposed “racial bias” of the SATs, the notion that the CIA was behind getting black vets hooked on heroin (post-Vietnam) or moving cocaine/crack into ghettos (1980s), the list is extensive. Both of them have made comments and/or been involved in incidents that, were they white, would have drawn howls of condemnation. Think Jackson’s “Hymie-town” remark about NYC, or Sharpton’s involvement with the Tawana Brawley hoax. None of this has drawn so much as a peep out of the Dems.

It would certainly seem that the extreme left does indeed love melanin. And note that I am using the term “left” in place of “liberal”. I have nothing against liberals (in the truest and best interpretation of the word), and I think liberal democracy is a positive force for good in the world.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: I am not apologizing for gold, nor am I defending him/her. He/She seems perfectly capable of doing that himself/herself.

My interpretation of that phrase is this (and it goes hand in hand with the terms “Left” and “extreme left wing”): The reactionary wing of the Democratic Party has elevated people of color, and specifically blacks, into a nearly exalted position, and one above question and/or reproach.

I’d like to use both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as examples. I won’t stoop to using the term “poverty pimps”, but it is both applicable and apropos. Both of them have made a career out of attacking whites (specifically those whites that run “The Establishment”) and the various depredations that these self-same whites have perpetrated on the black race.

Race norming, the supposed “racial bias” of the SATs, the notion that the CIA was behind getting black vets hooked on heroin (post-Vietnam) or moving cocaine/crack into ghettos (1980s), the list is extensive. Both of them have made comments and/or been involved in incidents that, were they white, would have drawn howls of condemnation. Think Jackson’s “Hymie-town” remark about NYC, or Sharpton’s involvement with the Tawana Brawley hoax. None of this has drawn so much as a peep out of the Dems.

It would certainly seem that the extreme left does indeed love melanin. And note that I am using the term “left” in place of “liberal”. I have nothing against liberals (in the truest and best interpretation of the word), and I think liberal democracy is a positive force for good in the world.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: I am not apologizing for gold, nor am I defending him/her. He/She seems perfectly capable of doing that himself/herself.

My interpretation of that phrase is this (and it goes hand in hand with the terms “Left” and “extreme left wing”): The reactionary wing of the Democratic Party has elevated people of color, and specifically blacks, into a nearly exalted position, and one above question and/or reproach.

I’d like to use both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as examples. I won’t stoop to using the term “poverty pimps”, but it is both applicable and apropos. Both of them have made a career out of attacking whites (specifically those whites that run “The Establishment”) and the various depredations that these self-same whites have perpetrated on the black race.

Race norming, the supposed “racial bias” of the SATs, the notion that the CIA was behind getting black vets hooked on heroin (post-Vietnam) or moving cocaine/crack into ghettos (1980s), the list is extensive. Both of them have made comments and/or been involved in incidents that, were they white, would have drawn howls of condemnation. Think Jackson’s “Hymie-town” remark about NYC, or Sharpton’s involvement with the Tawana Brawley hoax. None of this has drawn so much as a peep out of the Dems.

It would certainly seem that the extreme left does indeed love melanin. And note that I am using the term “left” in place of “liberal”. I have nothing against liberals (in the truest and best interpretation of the word), and I think liberal democracy is a positive force for good in the world.

[NotCranky]

Allan, My response was too flippant for you to understand much of what I would attempt to convey if I had the time and inclination. My wife needs the computer because we wont buy another one for fear of abandoning the children.

Quickly, I will give you that you have not demonized me or picked on me directly. I have had some disappointment with regards to your views and expression. Probably made for the right time to take permanent leave of the discussion. I am a complete failure at timing that correctly or at least at keeping my mouth shut after the time has come.
Best wishes

[NotCranky]

Allan, My response was too flippant for you to understand much of what I would attempt to convey if I had the time and inclination. My wife needs the computer because we wont buy another one for fear of abandoning the children.

Quickly, I will give you that you have not demonized me or picked on me directly. I have had some disappointment with regards to your views and expression. Probably made for the right time to take permanent leave of the discussion. I am a complete failure at timing that correctly or at least at keeping my mouth shut after the time has come.
Best wishes

[NotCranky]

Allan, My response was too flippant for you to understand much of what I would attempt to convey if I had the time and inclination. My wife needs the computer because we wont buy another one for fear of abandoning the children.

Quickly, I will give you that you have not demonized me or picked on me directly. I have had some disappointment with regards to your views and expression. Probably made for the right time to take permanent leave of the discussion. I am a complete failure at timing that correctly or at least at keeping my mouth shut after the time has come.
Best wishes

[NotCranky]

Allan, My response was too flippant for you to understand much of what I would attempt to convey if I had the time and inclination. My wife needs the computer because we wont buy another one for fear of abandoning the children.

Quickly, I will give you that you have not demonized me or picked on me directly. I have had some disappointment with regards to your views and expression. Probably made for the right time to take permanent leave of the discussion. I am a complete failure at timing that correctly or at least at keeping my mouth shut after the time has come.
Best wishes

[NotCranky]

Allan, My response was too flippant for you to understand much of what I would attempt to convey if I had the time and inclination. My wife needs the computer because we wont buy another one for fear of abandoning the children.

Quickly, I will give you that you have not demonized me or picked on me directly. I have had some disappointment with regards to your views and expression. Probably made for the right time to take permanent leave of the discussion. I am a complete failure at timing that correctly or at least at keeping my mouth shut after the time has come.
Best wishes

[drunkle]

allan:

what is your interpretation of the phrase “liberals love melanin”?

why are you using the terms “lefty” and “extreme left wing” when gold did not? why are you trying to apologize for him?

edit:

hey, since we’re going down this road, what do you think of slavery or genocide?

[drunkle]

allan:

what is your interpretation of the phrase “liberals love melanin”?

why are you using the terms “lefty” and “extreme left wing” when gold did not? why are you trying to apologize for him?

edit:

hey, since we’re going down this road, what do you think of slavery or genocide?

[drunkle]

allan:

what is your interpretation of the phrase “liberals love melanin”?

why are you using the terms “lefty” and “extreme left wing” when gold did not? why are you trying to apologize for him?

edit:

hey, since we’re going down this road, what do you think of slavery or genocide?

[drunkle]

allan:

what is your interpretation of the phrase “liberals love melanin”?

why are you using the terms “lefty” and “extreme left wing” when gold did not? why are you trying to apologize for him?

edit:

hey, since we’re going down this road, what do you think of slavery or genocide?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Your use of the term “nigger lover” is what prompted my response. I don’t feel that gold was drawing that conclusion at all. Rather, I felt he was making the valid point that the left in this country have embraced certain groups and causes solely because of skin color, gender or orientation.

Examples would include GALA, the completely fabricated holiday Kwanzaa, and NOW.

These groups, causes, etc are held completely above reproach by the extreme left wing of the Dems, and any attempt to question them draws immediate and vitriolic reproach.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Your use of the term “nigger lover” is what prompted my response. I don’t feel that gold was drawing that conclusion at all. Rather, I felt he was making the valid point that the left in this country have embraced certain groups and causes solely because of skin color, gender or orientation.

Examples would include GALA, the completely fabricated holiday Kwanzaa, and NOW.

These groups, causes, etc are held completely above reproach by the extreme left wing of the Dems, and any attempt to question them draws immediate and vitriolic reproach.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Your use of the term “nigger lover” is what prompted my response. I don’t feel that gold was drawing that conclusion at all. Rather, I felt he was making the valid point that the left in this country have embraced certain groups and causes solely because of skin color, gender or orientation.

Examples would include GALA, the completely fabricated holiday Kwanzaa, and NOW.

These groups, causes, etc are held completely above reproach by the extreme left wing of the Dems, and any attempt to question them draws immediate and vitriolic reproach.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: Your use of the term “nigger lover” is what prompted my response. I don’t feel that gold was drawing that conclusion at all. Rather, I felt he was making the valid point that the left in this country have embraced certain groups and causes solely because of skin color, gender or orientation.

Examples would include GALA, the completely fabricated holiday Kwanzaa, and NOW.

These groups, causes, etc are held completely above reproach by the extreme left wing of the Dems, and any attempt to question them draws immediate and vitriolic reproach.

[Dukehorn]

As a person of color, I’d like toss in my two cents.

I’d like other Asians to toss in their two cents because I’ve personally experienced racism and I know what I’ve encountered is not half as bad as what blacks encounter in the US. I’m not discounting what whites have to say on that issue, but it is remarkable the number of whites conservatives that pretend that racism isn’t an issue. Just because you say you aren’t a racist doesn’t make it true. And it’s not a strawman argument when one initiates a debate with a comment that the left wing loves melanin to examine the possible corollary, that the right wing hates it.

First off, in another thread here, I had to respond when someone mocked Obama for being editor of the Harvard Law Review when that same person was willing to vote for someone who scraped by with gentlemen’s Cs while in school. Why does a black who does well in school get called out possibly on affirmative action grounds but some white who is an obvious legacy candidate gets a pass for doing poorly in school?

As for “isolated” instances of racism, how many personal experiences does someone have to experience to determine that our society isn’t color-blind? 5, 10, 15, 50? As I’ve grown older and moved from the Deep South to California, my personal experiences with racism have diminished, but is that a function of overall society or me moving to a more diverse part of the country and my work/personal group being composed entirely of folks with graduate degrees?

I don’t know the answer, but let’s just say I was shocked to see an Indian Sikh colleague of mine called a sand nigger back in 2003 when he and I were on the campus of a North Carolina public university to give a presentation. I guess the anti-PC folks would claim that it’s just free speech and not a hate issue, but I guess you just had to be there.

[zk]

Dukehorn, you’re pretty angry for an Asian dude!

(Yes, that’s an attempt at humor, racially stereotyping a guy who just railed about racial issues)

is that a function of overall society or me moving to a more diverse part of the country and my work/personal group being composed entirely of folks with graduate degrees?

In my opinion, it’s definitely the latter.

Whenever I go back east, I’m struck by the difference in racial attitudes. One might think “struck” is a strong word; the differences are subtle. But just because they’re subtle doesn’t mean they aren’t deep or powerful or meaningful.

I’d wager that the today’s California children are grown, they will be even more colorblind than the current generation of Californians. When my daughter was in preschool, there were 20 kids there, and maybe 6 of them were white. My daughter and several others are mixed, and there were several each of Arabs, South Asians, East Asians and a hispanic or two. Those children really didn’t seem to notice that much who was Chinese or who was middle eastern.

I actually agree with whoever said that humans by nature are afraid of those who are different from us. I think we evolved to be that way. And in modern times, that fear is best overcome/removed in two ways. One is exposure to those of other races at an early age. The other is education. Californians have for quite some time (and even more so now) associated from a young age with those of other races.

So, if that’s all correct, you’ll always have more racism in homogenous or segregated areas with low levels of education.

I guess the anti-PC folks would claim that it’s just free speech and not a hate issue, but I guess you just had to be there.

I say it’s a free speech and a hate issue. Sure, if that ignorant fool wants to call somebody a name like that, he’s free to do so. And he’s also a hateful person. And he’s doomed to the misery of being a hateful person, probably for the rest of his life. Leave him alone to suffer the fate he’s earned for himself.

[zk]

Dukehorn, you’re pretty angry for an Asian dude!

(Yes, that’s an attempt at humor, racially stereotyping a guy who just railed about racial issues)

is that a function of overall society or me moving to a more diverse part of the country and my work/personal group being composed entirely of folks with graduate degrees?

In my opinion, it’s definitely the latter.

Whenever I go back east, I’m struck by the difference in racial attitudes. One might think “struck” is a strong word; the differences are subtle. But just because they’re subtle doesn’t mean they aren’t deep or powerful or meaningful.

I’d wager that the today’s California children are grown, they will be even more colorblind than the current generation of Californians. When my daughter was in preschool, there were 20 kids there, and maybe 6 of them were white. My daughter and several others are mixed, and there were several each of Arabs, South Asians, East Asians and a hispanic or two. Those children really didn’t seem to notice that much who was Chinese or who was middle eastern.

I actually agree with whoever said that humans by nature are afraid of those who are different from us. I think we evolved to be that way. And in modern times, that fear is best overcome/removed in two ways. One is exposure to those of other races at an early age. The other is education. Californians have for quite some time (and even more so now) associated from a young age with those of other races.

So, if that’s all correct, you’ll always have more racism in homogenous or segregated areas with low levels of education.

I guess the anti-PC folks would claim that it’s just free speech and not a hate issue, but I guess you just had to be there.

I say it’s a free speech and a hate issue. Sure, if that ignorant fool wants to call somebody a name like that, he’s free to do so. And he’s also a hateful person. And he’s doomed to the misery of being a hateful person, probably for the rest of his life. Leave him alone to suffer the fate he’s earned for himself.

[zk]

Dukehorn, you’re pretty angry for an Asian dude!

(Yes, that’s an attempt at humor, racially stereotyping a guy who just railed about racial issues)

is that a function of overall society or me moving to a more diverse part of the country and my work/personal group being composed entirely of folks with graduate degrees?

In my opinion, it’s definitely the latter.

Whenever I go back east, I’m struck by the difference in racial attitudes. One might think “struck” is a strong word; the differences are subtle. But just because they’re subtle doesn’t mean they aren’t deep or powerful or meaningful.

I’d wager that the today’s California children are grown, they will be even more colorblind than the current generation of Californians. When my daughter was in preschool, there were 20 kids there, and maybe 6 of them were white. My daughter and several others are mixed, and there were several each of Arabs, South Asians, East Asians and a hispanic or two. Those children really didn’t seem to notice that much who was Chinese or who was middle eastern.

I actually agree with whoever said that humans by nature are afraid of those who are different from us. I think we evolved to be that way. And in modern times, that fear is best overcome/removed in two ways. One is exposure to those of other races at an early age. The other is education. Californians have for quite some time (and even more so now) associated from a young age with those of other races.

So, if that’s all correct, you’ll always have more racism in homogenous or segregated areas with low levels of education.

I guess the anti-PC folks would claim that it’s just free speech and not a hate issue, but I guess you just had to be there.

I say it’s a free speech and a hate issue. Sure, if that ignorant fool wants to call somebody a name like that, he’s free to do so. And he’s also a hateful person. And he’s doomed to the misery of being a hateful person, probably for the rest of his life. Leave him alone to suffer the fate he’s earned for himself.

[zk]

Dukehorn, you’re pretty angry for an Asian dude!

(Yes, that’s an attempt at humor, racially stereotyping a guy who just railed about racial issues)

is that a function of overall society or me moving to a more diverse part of the country and my work/personal group being composed entirely of folks with graduate degrees?

In my opinion, it’s definitely the latter.

Whenever I go back east, I’m struck by the difference in racial attitudes. One might think “struck” is a strong word; the differences are subtle. But just because they’re subtle doesn’t mean they aren’t deep or powerful or meaningful.

I’d wager that the today’s California children are grown, they will be even more colorblind than the current generation of Californians. When my daughter was in preschool, there were 20 kids there, and maybe 6 of them were white. My daughter and several others are mixed, and there were several each of Arabs, South Asians, East Asians and a hispanic or two. Those children really didn’t seem to notice that much who was Chinese or who was middle eastern.

I actually agree with whoever said that humans by nature are afraid of those who are different from us. I think we evolved to be that way. And in modern times, that fear is best overcome/removed in two ways. One is exposure to those of other races at an early age. The other is education. Californians have for quite some time (and even more so now) associated from a young age with those of other races.

So, if that’s all correct, you’ll always have more racism in homogenous or segregated areas with low levels of education.

I guess the anti-PC folks would claim that it’s just free speech and not a hate issue, but I guess you just had to be there.

I say it’s a free speech and a hate issue. Sure, if that ignorant fool wants to call somebody a name like that, he’s free to do so. And he’s also a hateful person. And he’s doomed to the misery of being a hateful person, probably for the rest of his life. Leave him alone to suffer the fate he’s earned for himself.

[zk]

Dukehorn, you’re pretty angry for an Asian dude!

(Yes, that’s an attempt at humor, racially stereotyping a guy who just railed about racial issues)

is that a function of overall society or me moving to a more diverse part of the country and my work/personal group being composed entirely of folks with graduate degrees?

In my opinion, it’s definitely the latter.

Whenever I go back east, I’m struck by the difference in racial attitudes. One might think “struck” is a strong word; the differences are subtle. But just because they’re subtle doesn’t mean they aren’t deep or powerful or meaningful.

I’d wager that the today’s California children are grown, they will be even more colorblind than the current generation of Californians. When my daughter was in preschool, there were 20 kids there, and maybe 6 of them were white. My daughter and several others are mixed, and there were several each of Arabs, South Asians, East Asians and a hispanic or two. Those children really didn’t seem to notice that much who was Chinese or who was middle eastern.

I actually agree with whoever said that humans by nature are afraid of those who are different from us. I think we evolved to be that way. And in modern times, that fear is best overcome/removed in two ways. One is exposure to those of other races at an early age. The other is education. Californians have for quite some time (and even more so now) associated from a young age with those of other races.

So, if that’s all correct, you’ll always have more racism in homogenous or segregated areas with low levels of education.

I guess the anti-PC folks would claim that it’s just free speech and not a hate issue, but I guess you just had to be there.

I say it’s a free speech and a hate issue. Sure, if that ignorant fool wants to call somebody a name like that, he’s free to do so. And he’s also a hateful person. And he’s doomed to the misery of being a hateful person, probably for the rest of his life. Leave him alone to suffer the fate he’s earned for himself.

[Dukehorn]

As a person of color, I’d like toss in my two cents.

I’d like other Asians to toss in their two cents because I’ve personally experienced racism and I know what I’ve encountered is not half as bad as what blacks encounter in the US. I’m not discounting what whites have to say on that issue, but it is remarkable the number of whites conservatives that pretend that racism isn’t an issue. Just because you say you aren’t a racist doesn’t make it true. And it’s not a strawman argument when one initiates a debate with a comment that the left wing loves melanin to examine the possible corollary, that the right wing hates it.

First off, in another thread here, I had to respond when someone mocked Obama for being editor of the Harvard Law Review when that same person was willing to vote for someone who scraped by with gentlemen’s Cs while in school. Why does a black who does well in school get called out possibly on affirmative action grounds but some white who is an obvious legacy candidate gets a pass for doing poorly in school?

As for “isolated” instances of racism, how many personal experiences does someone have to experience to determine that our society isn’t color-blind? 5, 10, 15, 50? As I’ve grown older and moved from the Deep South to California, my personal experiences with racism have diminished, but is that a function of overall society or me moving to a more diverse part of the country and my work/personal group being composed entirely of folks with graduate degrees?

I don’t know the answer, but let’s just say I was shocked to see an Indian Sikh colleague of mine called a sand nigger back in 2003 when he and I were on the campus of a North Carolina public university to give a presentation. I guess the anti-PC folks would claim that it’s just free speech and not a hate issue, but I guess you just had to be there.

[Dukehorn]

As a person of color, I’d like toss in my two cents.

I’d like other Asians to toss in their two cents because I’ve personally experienced racism and I know what I’ve encountered is not half as bad as what blacks encounter in the US. I’m not discounting what whites have to say on that issue, but it is remarkable the number of whites conservatives that pretend that racism isn’t an issue. Just because you say you aren’t a racist doesn’t make it true. And it’s not a strawman argument when one initiates a debate with a comment that the left wing loves melanin to examine the possible corollary, that the right wing hates it.

First off, in another thread here, I had to respond when someone mocked Obama for being editor of the Harvard Law Review when that same person was willing to vote for someone who scraped by with gentlemen’s Cs while in school. Why does a black who does well in school get called out possibly on affirmative action grounds but some white who is an obvious legacy candidate gets a pass for doing poorly in school?

As for “isolated” instances of racism, how many personal experiences does someone have to experience to determine that our society isn’t color-blind? 5, 10, 15, 50? As I’ve grown older and moved from the Deep South to California, my personal experiences with racism have diminished, but is that a function of overall society or me moving to a more diverse part of the country and my work/personal group being composed entirely of folks with graduate degrees?

I don’t know the answer, but let’s just say I was shocked to see an Indian Sikh colleague of mine called a sand nigger back in 2003 when he and I were on the campus of a North Carolina public university to give a presentation. I guess the anti-PC folks would claim that it’s just free speech and not a hate issue, but I guess you just had to be there.

[Dukehorn]

As a person of color, I’d like toss in my two cents.

I’d like other Asians to toss in their two cents because I’ve personally experienced racism and I know what I’ve encountered is not half as bad as what blacks encounter in the US. I’m not discounting what whites have to say on that issue, but it is remarkable the number of whites conservatives that pretend that racism isn’t an issue. Just because you say you aren’t a racist doesn’t make it true. And it’s not a strawman argument when one initiates a debate with a comment that the left wing loves melanin to examine the possible corollary, that the right wing hates it.

First off, in another thread here, I had to respond when someone mocked Obama for being editor of the Harvard Law Review when that same person was willing to vote for someone who scraped by with gentlemen’s Cs while in school. Why does a black who does well in school get called out possibly on affirmative action grounds but some white who is an obvious legacy candidate gets a pass for doing poorly in school?

As for “isolated” instances of racism, how many personal experiences does someone have to experience to determine that our society isn’t color-blind? 5, 10, 15, 50? As I’ve grown older and moved from the Deep South to California, my personal experiences with racism have diminished, but is that a function of overall society or me moving to a more diverse part of the country and my work/personal group being composed entirely of folks with graduate degrees?

I don’t know the answer, but let’s just say I was shocked to see an Indian Sikh colleague of mine called a sand nigger back in 2003 when he and I were on the campus of a North Carolina public university to give a presentation. I guess the anti-PC folks would claim that it’s just free speech and not a hate issue, but I guess you just had to be there.

[Dukehorn]

As a person of color, I’d like toss in my two cents.

I’d like other Asians to toss in their two cents because I’ve personally experienced racism and I know what I’ve encountered is not half as bad as what blacks encounter in the US. I’m not discounting what whites have to say on that issue, but it is remarkable the number of whites conservatives that pretend that racism isn’t an issue. Just because you say you aren’t a racist doesn’t make it true. And it’s not a strawman argument when one initiates a debate with a comment that the left wing loves melanin to examine the possible corollary, that the right wing hates it.

First off, in another thread here, I had to respond when someone mocked Obama for being editor of the Harvard Law Review when that same person was willing to vote for someone who scraped by with gentlemen’s Cs while in school. Why does a black who does well in school get called out possibly on affirmative action grounds but some white who is an obvious legacy candidate gets a pass for doing poorly in school?

As for “isolated” instances of racism, how many personal experiences does someone have to experience to determine that our society isn’t color-blind? 5, 10, 15, 50? As I’ve grown older and moved from the Deep South to California, my personal experiences with racism have diminished, but is that a function of overall society or me moving to a more diverse part of the country and my work/personal group being composed entirely of folks with graduate degrees?

I don’t know the answer, but let’s just say I was shocked to see an Indian Sikh colleague of mine called a sand nigger back in 2003 when he and I were on the campus of a North Carolina public university to give a presentation. I guess the anti-PC folks would claim that it’s just free speech and not a hate issue, but I guess you just had to be there.

[drunkle]

allan:

you’re saying that i “pulled the race card”. i can’t believe you would say that. go back and read the post in question, read the question that was posed to gold and read my response to the questioner.

[drunkle]

allan:

you’re saying that i “pulled the race card”. i can’t believe you would say that. go back and read the post in question, read the question that was posed to gold and read my response to the questioner.

[drunkle]

allan:

you’re saying that i “pulled the race card”. i can’t believe you would say that. go back and read the post in question, read the question that was posed to gold and read my response to the questioner.

[drunkle]

allan:

you’re saying that i “pulled the race card”. i can’t believe you would say that. go back and read the post in question, read the question that was posed to gold and read my response to the questioner.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I disagree. I think gold makes some excellent points. The problem is that any mention of the underlying motives driving the Left are immediately demonized and deemed racist. Far from it. What he was saying is not only true, but easily proved.

Look at the Left’s embracing of various groups (regardless of substance) and solely because of color, gender or orientation. If you attempt to attack these groups based on their politics, or beliefs, or policies, you become racist, or sexist or homophobic.

While the GOP and the Right are often accused (rightly) of conducting smear campaigns, the Dems and the Left are equally adept.

When confronted with a strong line of attack, Drunkle fell back on a common theme: Accuse the accuser of a more serious, but completely unrelated, flaw. In this case, racism.

This is why having an open discourse and dialogue of any productivity is near dead in this country at this time. It’s sad really.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I disagree. I think gold makes some excellent points. The problem is that any mention of the underlying motives driving the Left are immediately demonized and deemed racist. Far from it. What he was saying is not only true, but easily proved.

Look at the Left’s embracing of various groups (regardless of substance) and solely because of color, gender or orientation. If you attempt to attack these groups based on their politics, or beliefs, or policies, you become racist, or sexist or homophobic.

While the GOP and the Right are often accused (rightly) of conducting smear campaigns, the Dems and the Left are equally adept.

When confronted with a strong line of attack, Drunkle fell back on a common theme: Accuse the accuser of a more serious, but completely unrelated, flaw. In this case, racism.

This is why having an open discourse and dialogue of any productivity is near dead in this country at this time. It’s sad really.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I disagree. I think gold makes some excellent points. The problem is that any mention of the underlying motives driving the Left are immediately demonized and deemed racist. Far from it. What he was saying is not only true, but easily proved.

Look at the Left’s embracing of various groups (regardless of substance) and solely because of color, gender or orientation. If you attempt to attack these groups based on their politics, or beliefs, or policies, you become racist, or sexist or homophobic.

While the GOP and the Right are often accused (rightly) of conducting smear campaigns, the Dems and the Left are equally adept.

When confronted with a strong line of attack, Drunkle fell back on a common theme: Accuse the accuser of a more serious, but completely unrelated, flaw. In this case, racism.

This is why having an open discourse and dialogue of any productivity is near dead in this country at this time. It’s sad really.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I disagree. I think gold makes some excellent points. The problem is that any mention of the underlying motives driving the Left are immediately demonized and deemed racist. Far from it. What he was saying is not only true, but easily proved.

Look at the Left’s embracing of various groups (regardless of substance) and solely because of color, gender or orientation. If you attempt to attack these groups based on their politics, or beliefs, or policies, you become racist, or sexist or homophobic.

While the GOP and the Right are often accused (rightly) of conducting smear campaigns, the Dems and the Left are equally adept.

When confronted with a strong line of attack, Drunkle fell back on a common theme: Accuse the accuser of a more serious, but completely unrelated, flaw. In this case, racism.

This is why having an open discourse and dialogue of any productivity is near dead in this country at this time. It’s sad really.

[drunkle]

rus:

seriously, that guy makes such a blatantly racial comment and *i’m* the one “pulling the race card”? it’s unbelieveable…

yeah, he’s not outright disparaging blacks but he’s ascribing racial favoritism/sympathy as the only possible reason that people would support obama. and i’m pulling the race card? unbelievable.

and you *know* the guy has heard of jesse jackson and al sharpton and would be the first to make disparaging comments about them, most likely racial, and yet glibly ignores the fact that those two have run for president and have not received the sympathy vote.

oh, right. and alan keyes is floundering in the rep party nomination bid solely because republicans would *never* vote for a black man. right??? no “melanin love” in the gop, just christian love…

[drunkle]

rus:

seriously, that guy makes such a blatantly racial comment and *i’m* the one “pulling the race card”? it’s unbelieveable…

yeah, he’s not outright disparaging blacks but he’s ascribing racial favoritism/sympathy as the only possible reason that people would support obama. and i’m pulling the race card? unbelievable.

and you *know* the guy has heard of jesse jackson and al sharpton and would be the first to make disparaging comments about them, most likely racial, and yet glibly ignores the fact that those two have run for president and have not received the sympathy vote.

oh, right. and alan keyes is floundering in the rep party nomination bid solely because republicans would *never* vote for a black man. right??? no “melanin love” in the gop, just christian love…

[drunkle]

rus:

seriously, that guy makes such a blatantly racial comment and *i’m* the one “pulling the race card”? it’s unbelieveable…

yeah, he’s not outright disparaging blacks but he’s ascribing racial favoritism/sympathy as the only possible reason that people would support obama. and i’m pulling the race card? unbelievable.

and you *know* the guy has heard of jesse jackson and al sharpton and would be the first to make disparaging comments about them, most likely racial, and yet glibly ignores the fact that those two have run for president and have not received the sympathy vote.

oh, right. and alan keyes is floundering in the rep party nomination bid solely because republicans would *never* vote for a black man. right??? no “melanin love” in the gop, just christian love…

[drunkle]

rus:

seriously, that guy makes such a blatantly racial comment and *i’m* the one “pulling the race card”? it’s unbelieveable…

yeah, he’s not outright disparaging blacks but he’s ascribing racial favoritism/sympathy as the only possible reason that people would support obama. and i’m pulling the race card? unbelievable.

and you *know* the guy has heard of jesse jackson and al sharpton and would be the first to make disparaging comments about them, most likely racial, and yet glibly ignores the fact that those two have run for president and have not received the sympathy vote.

oh, right. and alan keyes is floundering in the rep party nomination bid solely because republicans would *never* vote for a black man. right??? no “melanin love” in the gop, just christian love…

[drunkle]

rus:

seriously, that guy makes such a blatantly racial comment and *i’m* the one “pulling the race card”? it’s unbelieveable…

yeah, he’s not outright disparaging blacks but he’s ascribing racial favoritism/sympathy as the only possible reason that people would support obama. and i’m pulling the race card? unbelievable.

and you *know* the guy has heard of jesse jackson and al sharpton and would be the first to make disparaging comments about them, most likely racial, and yet glibly ignores the fact that those two have run for president and have not received the sympathy vote.

oh, right. and alan keyes is floundering in the rep party nomination bid solely because republicans would *never* vote for a black man. right??? no “melanin love” in the gop, just christian love…

[NotCranky]

Drunkle, you are awesome.

Of course that is what he is saying. It is going to be a pity but if race comes into the equation,and it will. there will be more people not electing him or even sabotaging him because of African roots, than voting for him because of it.

Melanin-phobics like gold dredger can’t entertain the idea for a minute that Obama is a viable candidate or at least attempt to respect that many people think so or think he is the “best of the worst”. It is really sad that this racist theme is going to play out over and over again.

[NotCranky]

Drunkle, you are awesome.

Of course that is what he is saying. It is going to be a pity but if race comes into the equation,and it will. there will be more people not electing him or even sabotaging him because of African roots, than voting for him because of it.

Melanin-phobics like gold dredger can’t entertain the idea for a minute that Obama is a viable candidate or at least attempt to respect that many people think so or think he is the “best of the worst”. It is really sad that this racist theme is going to play out over and over again.

[NotCranky]

Drunkle, you are awesome.

Of course that is what he is saying. It is going to be a pity but if race comes into the equation,and it will. there will be more people not electing him or even sabotaging him because of African roots, than voting for him because of it.

Melanin-phobics like gold dredger can’t entertain the idea for a minute that Obama is a viable candidate or at least attempt to respect that many people think so or think he is the “best of the worst”. It is really sad that this racist theme is going to play out over and over again.

[NotCranky]

Drunkle, you are awesome.

Of course that is what he is saying. It is going to be a pity but if race comes into the equation,and it will. there will be more people not electing him or even sabotaging him because of African roots, than voting for him because of it.

Melanin-phobics like gold dredger can’t entertain the idea for a minute that Obama is a viable candidate or at least attempt to respect that many people think so or think he is the “best of the worst”. It is really sad that this racist theme is going to play out over and over again.

[drunkle]

“gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?”

it’s his veiled way of saying niger lovers.

[drunkle]

“gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?”

it’s his veiled way of saying niger lovers.

[drunkle]

“gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?”

it’s his veiled way of saying niger lovers.

[drunkle]

“gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?”

it’s his veiled way of saying niger lovers.

[gold_dredger_phd]

They were hanging out on the Naomi Wolf thread.

I’m not that interested that I keep a dosier of everyone’s handle and their posts and what category, politically, they fit into.

But, it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin. Since liberals are collectivists and see people as members of a group, be it racial, sexual, political, or economic class, rather than as individuals, they can instantly categorize everyone. Everyone within the preferred categories are supposed to toe the ideological line and act according to their stereotype. Woe unto the non-conformists within the typically liberal or left wing groups.

Most politics is theater. Electability is about likability for the majority of swing voters.

[gold_dredger_phd]

They were hanging out on the Naomi Wolf thread.

I’m not that interested that I keep a dosier of everyone’s handle and their posts and what category, politically, they fit into.

But, it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin. Since liberals are collectivists and see people as members of a group, be it racial, sexual, political, or economic class, rather than as individuals, they can instantly categorize everyone. Everyone within the preferred categories are supposed to toe the ideological line and act according to their stereotype. Woe unto the non-conformists within the typically liberal or left wing groups.

Most politics is theater. Electability is about likability for the majority of swing voters.

[gold_dredger_phd]

They were hanging out on the Naomi Wolf thread.

I’m not that interested that I keep a dosier of everyone’s handle and their posts and what category, politically, they fit into.

But, it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin. Since liberals are collectivists and see people as members of a group, be it racial, sexual, political, or economic class, rather than as individuals, they can instantly categorize everyone. Everyone within the preferred categories are supposed to toe the ideological line and act according to their stereotype. Woe unto the non-conformists within the typically liberal or left wing groups.

Most politics is theater. Electability is about likability for the majority of swing voters.

[gold_dredger_phd]

They were hanging out on the Naomi Wolf thread.

I’m not that interested that I keep a dosier of everyone’s handle and their posts and what category, politically, they fit into.

But, it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin. Since liberals are collectivists and see people as members of a group, be it racial, sexual, political, or economic class, rather than as individuals, they can instantly categorize everyone. Everyone within the preferred categories are supposed to toe the ideological line and act according to their stereotype. Woe unto the non-conformists within the typically liberal or left wing groups.

Most politics is theater. Electability is about likability for the majority of swing voters.

[gold_dredger_phd]

They were hanging out on the Naomi Wolf thread.

I’m not that interested that I keep a dosier of everyone’s handle and their posts and what category, politically, they fit into.

But, it’s a well known fact that liberals love melanin. Since liberals are collectivists and see people as members of a group, be it racial, sexual, political, or economic class, rather than as individuals, they can instantly categorize everyone. Everyone within the preferred categories are supposed to toe the ideological line and act according to their stereotype. Woe unto the non-conformists within the typically liberal or left wing groups.

Most politics is theater. Electability is about likability for the majority of swing voters.

[zk]

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here.

gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?

[zk]

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here.

gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?

[zk]

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here.

gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?

[zk]

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here.

gd, who is a liberal, why do you think so, and what comments did they make that indicate they love melanin?

[Anonymous]

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on January 7, 2008 – 6:45pm.

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

How insulting. You assume too much. Who said we were going to vote for Obama because he’s black? Perhaps we are voting for him because we think he’d make a good president regardless of his skin color. What’s the problem here? Can’t a black man make a good president?

My response was regarding Nost’s statement and it was simply that I oppose the hypocrits in the south trying to keep Obama out because he IS black. I don’t see anyone on here implying they are voting for him because of his race.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on January 7, 2008 – 6:45pm.

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

How insulting. You assume too much. Who said we were going to vote for Obama because he’s black? Perhaps we are voting for him because we think he’d make a good president regardless of his skin color. What’s the problem here? Can’t a black man make a good president?

My response was regarding Nost’s statement and it was simply that I oppose the hypocrits in the south trying to keep Obama out because he IS black. I don’t see anyone on here implying they are voting for him because of his race.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on January 7, 2008 – 6:45pm.

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

How insulting. You assume too much. Who said we were going to vote for Obama because he’s black? Perhaps we are voting for him because we think he’d make a good president regardless of his skin color. What’s the problem here? Can’t a black man make a good president?

My response was regarding Nost’s statement and it was simply that I oppose the hypocrits in the south trying to keep Obama out because he IS black. I don’t see anyone on here implying they are voting for him because of his race.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on January 7, 2008 – 6:45pm.

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

How insulting. You assume too much. Who said we were going to vote for Obama because he’s black? Perhaps we are voting for him because we think he’d make a good president regardless of his skin color. What’s the problem here? Can’t a black man make a good president?

My response was regarding Nost’s statement and it was simply that I oppose the hypocrits in the south trying to keep Obama out because he IS black. I don’t see anyone on here implying they are voting for him because of his race.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by gold_dredger_phd on January 7, 2008 – 6:45pm.

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

How insulting. You assume too much. Who said we were going to vote for Obama because he’s black? Perhaps we are voting for him because we think he’d make a good president regardless of his skin color. What’s the problem here? Can’t a black man make a good president?

My response was regarding Nost’s statement and it was simply that I oppose the hypocrits in the south trying to keep Obama out because he IS black. I don’t see anyone on here implying they are voting for him because of his race.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

As long as the cynical, power-lusting Clinton machine does not get into the White House, I am happy. I hope she does not run for president every four years like that guy Ted Kennedy.

When she’s 80 years old the demented old Moonbat will be clawing at the White House door shreiking that she deserved to run the country. Funny to see that level of physical aggression from someone in a walker.

This is a democracy and the people will get what they deserve, but not what they want. : D

[gold_dredger_phd]

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

As long as the cynical, power-lusting Clinton machine does not get into the White House, I am happy. I hope she does not run for president every four years like that guy Ted Kennedy.

When she’s 80 years old the demented old Moonbat will be clawing at the White House door shreiking that she deserved to run the country. Funny to see that level of physical aggression from someone in a walker.

This is a democracy and the people will get what they deserve, but not what they want. : D

[gold_dredger_phd]

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

As long as the cynical, power-lusting Clinton machine does not get into the White House, I am happy. I hope she does not run for president every four years like that guy Ted Kennedy.

When she’s 80 years old the demented old Moonbat will be clawing at the White House door shreiking that she deserved to run the country. Funny to see that level of physical aggression from someone in a walker.

This is a democracy and the people will get what they deserve, but not what they want. : D

[gold_dredger_phd]

Liberals love melanin as judged by some of the comments here. Are all of you so guilty about what happened before the civil rights movement that you would vote for somebody because of the color of their skin? Racial preferences again, but liberals love those so much they enacted them into law.

As long as the cynical, power-lusting Clinton machine does not get into the White House, I am happy. I hope she does not run for president every four years like that guy Ted Kennedy.

When she’s 80 years old the demented old Moonbat will be clawing at the White House door shreiking that she deserved to run the country. Funny to see that level of physical aggression from someone in a walker.

This is a democracy and the people will get what they deserve, but not what they want. : D

[mixxalot]

Mitt Romney

I cannot stand this jerk. He is an arrogant pretty boy LDS freak and robber baron .

I am rooting for Ron Paul. Duncan Hunter is a close second. I am surprised how many suckers want Mitt or that other right wing zealot freak, Huckabee.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

drunkle: It sounds as Putin could learn a thing or two from you. You could always go for that Idi Amin kind of thing: President For Life. Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier had that going on in Haiti, too. Those three are probably not good examples, in that things didn’t turn out too well for any of them.

mixxalot: Romney and Huckabee are further proof of the GOP’s veer into Looneyville. One is LDS, the other doesn’t believe in evolution. Oy gevalt.

And don’t get me started on the LDS.

Or was it LSD?

[zk]

As this thread has already moved off its original topic, I won’t feel like I’m thread-jacking with this question:

Allan, I’d like to hear your ideas on the LDS. Specifically, I’ve always been curious why any religion or cult, even one as wacky as Heaven’s Gate, is considered wacky by other religious people. And the LDS, for some reason, seem to evoke a particularly strong claims of wackiness from others who believe in the Judeo-Christian god, and I’m curious why that is.

(Tone is hard to read on a forum, and I’m pretty weak at projecting the right tone even in person, so let me say that I’m not denigrating your or anybody’s beliefs. I am very curious about this topic, though, and I appreciate the opportunity to hear the opinions of an obviously intelligent, thoughtful person. That said,)

I mean, from the point of view of an objective atheist (me), all religions seem pretty much equally absurd. (Why, for instance, is it any less likely that there’s a spaceship behind a comet waiting to rescue you than that a man was resurrected from the dead by an all powerful being and that you will be saved for all eternity by that being if only you let that man into your heart?) But from the point of a person who (I’m making an assumption here) believes in a god (you), why do you find the Mormons any wackier than the Hindus or the Muslims? Or Heaven’s Gate? Or do you?

[bsrsharma]

why do you find the Mormons any wackier than the Hindus or the Muslims?

What Is It About Mormonism?

Ambroise Tezenas for The New York Times

Bathed in the Jordan Or in this case, the glow from the Jordan River Temple, seen from a house in Salt Lake City.

• By NOAH FELDMAN

Published: January 6, 2008

Our post-denominational age should be the perfect time for a Mormon to become president, or at least the Republican nominee. Mormons share nearly all the conservative commitments so beloved of the evangelicals who wield disproportionate influence in primary elections. Mormons also embody, in their efficient organizational style, the managerial competence that the party’s pro-business wing considers attractive. For the last half-century, Mormons have been so committed to the Republican Party that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once felt the need to clarify that Republican affiliation is not an actual condition of church membership.

Enlarge This Image

Ambroise Tezenas for The New York Times

Headquarters Salt Lake Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah, which is still mostly shrouded in secrecy.

Yet the Mormons’ political loyalty is not fully reciprocated by their fellow Republicans. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans told the Harris Poll last year that they probably or definitely would not vote for a Mormon for president. Among evangelicals, some of the discomfort is narrowly religious: Mormon theology is sometimes understood as non-Christian and heretical. Elsewhere, the reasons for the aversion to Mormons are harder to pin down — bigotry can be funny that way — but they are certainly not theological. A majority of Americans have no idea what Mormons believe.

Mormonism’s political problem arises, in large part, from the disconcerting split between its public and private faces. The church’s most inviting public symbols — pairs of clean-cut missionaries in well-pressed white shirts — evoke the wholesome success of an all-American denomination with an idealistic commitment to clean living. Yet at the same time, secret, sacred temple rites and garments call to mind the church’s murky past, including its embrace of polygamy, which has not been the doctrine or practice of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or LDS, for a century. Mormonism, it seems, is extreme in both respects: in its exaggerated normalcy and its exaggerated oddity. The marriage of these opposites leaves outsiders uncomfortable, wondering what Mormonism really is……………

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06mormonism-t.html?em&ex=1199941200&en=5c33c44c22e18395&ei=5087

 

[bsrsharma]

why do you find the Mormons any wackier than the Hindus or the Muslims?

What Is It About Mormonism?

Ambroise Tezenas for The New York Times

Bathed in the Jordan Or in this case, the glow from the Jordan River Temple, seen from a house in Salt Lake City.

• By NOAH FELDMAN

Published: January 6, 2008

Our post-denominational age should be the perfect time for a Mormon to become president, or at least the Republican nominee. Mormons share nearly all the conservative commitments so beloved of the evangelicals who wield disproportionate influence in primary elections. Mormons also embody, in their efficient organizational style, the managerial competence that the party’s pro-business wing considers attractive. For the last half-century, Mormons have been so committed to the Republican Party that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once felt the need to clarify that Republican affiliation is not an actual condition of church membership.

Enlarge This Image

Ambroise Tezenas for The New York Times

Headquarters Salt Lake Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah, which is still mostly shrouded in secrecy.

Yet the Mormons’ political loyalty is not fully reciprocated by their fellow Republicans. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans told the Harris Poll last year that they probably or definitely would not vote for a Mormon for president. Among evangelicals, some of the discomfort is narrowly religious: Mormon theology is sometimes understood as non-Christian and heretical. Elsewhere, the reasons for the aversion to Mormons are harder to pin down — bigotry can be funny that way — but they are certainly not theological. A majority of Americans have no idea what Mormons believe.

Mormonism’s political problem arises, in large part, from the disconcerting split between its public and private faces. The church’s most inviting public symbols — pairs of clean-cut missionaries in well-pressed white shirts — evoke the wholesome success of an all-American denomination with an idealistic commitment to clean living. Yet at the same time, secret, sacred temple rites and garments call to mind the church’s murky past, including its embrace of polygamy, which has not been the doctrine or practice of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or LDS, for a century. Mormonism, it seems, is extreme in both respects: in its exaggerated normalcy and its exaggerated oddity. The marriage of these opposites leaves outsiders uncomfortable, wondering what Mormonism really is……………

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06mormonism-t.html?em&ex=1199941200&en=5c33c44c22e18395&ei=5087

 

[bsrsharma]

why do you find the Mormons any wackier than the Hindus or the Muslims?

What Is It About Mormonism?

Ambroise Tezenas for The New York Times

Bathed in the Jordan Or in this case, the glow from the Jordan River Temple, seen from a house in Salt Lake City.

• By NOAH FELDMAN

Published: January 6, 2008

Our post-denominational age should be the perfect time for a Mormon to become president, or at least the Republican nominee. Mormons share nearly all the conservative commitments so beloved of the evangelicals who wield disproportionate influence in primary elections. Mormons also embody, in their efficient organizational style, the managerial competence that the party’s pro-business wing considers attractive. For the last half-century, Mormons have been so committed to the Republican Party that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once felt the need to clarify that Republican affiliation is not an actual condition of church membership.

Enlarge This Image

Ambroise Tezenas for The New York Times

Headquarters Salt Lake Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah, which is still mostly shrouded in secrecy.

Yet the Mormons’ political loyalty is not fully reciprocated by their fellow Republicans. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans told the Harris Poll last year that they probably or definitely would not vote for a Mormon for president. Among evangelicals, some of the discomfort is narrowly religious: Mormon theology is sometimes understood as non-Christian and heretical. Elsewhere, the reasons for the aversion to Mormons are harder to pin down — bigotry can be funny that way — but they are certainly not theological. A majority of Americans have no idea what Mormons believe.

Mormonism’s political problem arises, in large part, from the disconcerting split between its public and private faces. The church’s most inviting public symbols — pairs of clean-cut missionaries in well-pressed white shirts — evoke the wholesome success of an all-American denomination with an idealistic commitment to clean living. Yet at the same time, secret, sacred temple rites and garments call to mind the church’s murky past, including its embrace of polygamy, which has not been the doctrine or practice of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or LDS, for a century. Mormonism, it seems, is extreme in both respects: in its exaggerated normalcy and its exaggerated oddity. The marriage of these opposites leaves outsiders uncomfortable, wondering what Mormonism really is……………

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06mormonism-t.html?em&ex=1199941200&en=5c33c44c22e18395&ei=5087

 

[bsrsharma]

why do you find the Mormons any wackier than the Hindus or the Muslims?

What Is It About Mormonism?

Ambroise Tezenas for The New York Times

Bathed in the Jordan Or in this case, the glow from the Jordan River Temple, seen from a house in Salt Lake City.

• By NOAH FELDMAN

Published: January 6, 2008

Our post-denominational age should be the perfect time for a Mormon to become president, or at least the Republican nominee. Mormons share nearly all the conservative commitments so beloved of the evangelicals who wield disproportionate influence in primary elections. Mormons also embody, in their efficient organizational style, the managerial competence that the party’s pro-business wing considers attractive. For the last half-century, Mormons have been so committed to the Republican Party that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once felt the need to clarify that Republican affiliation is not an actual condition of church membership.

Enlarge This Image

Ambroise Tezenas for The New York Times

Headquarters Salt Lake Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah, which is still mostly shrouded in secrecy.

Yet the Mormons’ political loyalty is not fully reciprocated by their fellow Republicans. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans told the Harris Poll last year that they probably or definitely would not vote for a Mormon for president. Among evangelicals, some of the discomfort is narrowly religious: Mormon theology is sometimes understood as non-Christian and heretical. Elsewhere, the reasons for the aversion to Mormons are harder to pin down — bigotry can be funny that way — but they are certainly not theological. A majority of Americans have no idea what Mormons believe.

Mormonism’s political problem arises, in large part, from the disconcerting split between its public and private faces. The church’s most inviting public symbols — pairs of clean-cut missionaries in well-pressed white shirts — evoke the wholesome success of an all-American denomination with an idealistic commitment to clean living. Yet at the same time, secret, sacred temple rites and garments call to mind the church’s murky past, including its embrace of polygamy, which has not been the doctrine or practice of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or LDS, for a century. Mormonism, it seems, is extreme in both respects: in its exaggerated normalcy and its exaggerated oddity. The marriage of these opposites leaves outsiders uncomfortable, wondering what Mormonism really is……………

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06mormonism-t.html?em&ex=1199941200&en=5c33c44c22e18395&ei=5087

 

[bsrsharma]

why do you find the Mormons any wackier than the Hindus or the Muslims?

What Is It About Mormonism?

Ambroise Tezenas for The New York Times

Bathed in the Jordan Or in this case, the glow from the Jordan River Temple, seen from a house in Salt Lake City.

• By NOAH FELDMAN

Published: January 6, 2008

Our post-denominational age should be the perfect time for a Mormon to become president, or at least the Republican nominee. Mormons share nearly all the conservative commitments so beloved of the evangelicals who wield disproportionate influence in primary elections. Mormons also embody, in their efficient organizational style, the managerial competence that the party’s pro-business wing considers attractive. For the last half-century, Mormons have been so committed to the Republican Party that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once felt the need to clarify that Republican affiliation is not an actual condition of church membership.

Enlarge This Image

Ambroise Tezenas for The New York Times

Headquarters Salt Lake Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah, which is still mostly shrouded in secrecy.

Yet the Mormons’ political loyalty is not fully reciprocated by their fellow Republicans. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans told the Harris Poll last year that they probably or definitely would not vote for a Mormon for president. Among evangelicals, some of the discomfort is narrowly religious: Mormon theology is sometimes understood as non-Christian and heretical. Elsewhere, the reasons for the aversion to Mormons are harder to pin down — bigotry can be funny that way — but they are certainly not theological. A majority of Americans have no idea what Mormons believe.

Mormonism’s political problem arises, in large part, from the disconcerting split between its public and private faces. The church’s most inviting public symbols — pairs of clean-cut missionaries in well-pressed white shirts — evoke the wholesome success of an all-American denomination with an idealistic commitment to clean living. Yet at the same time, secret, sacred temple rites and garments call to mind the church’s murky past, including its embrace of polygamy, which has not been the doctrine or practice of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or LDS, for a century. Mormonism, it seems, is extreme in both respects: in its exaggerated normalcy and its exaggerated oddity. The marriage of these opposites leaves outsiders uncomfortable, wondering what Mormonism really is……………

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06mormonism-t.html?em&ex=1199941200&en=5c33c44c22e18395&ei=5087

 

[Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: As a Catholic, I want to tread carefully on the issue of Mormonism. I don’t think of Hindus, or Buddhists, or Jews, or other Christian sects as wacky. I have an issue with Islam, but largely because it is a religion designed to be proselytized by the sword, and offers no equal accommodation with other faiths, especially where it is the dominant religion.

There is a demonstrable historicity to Jesus. One can find proof of his existence, as well as his teachings, and his torture and death at the hands of the Romans. Does this make him the Son of God? No, but I believe he is.

My main issue with the Mormons is how this religion came into being. An angel named Moroni brought a set of golden plates down to earth for Joseph Smith to read and transcribe. Transcription was achieved by using magic goggles (also provided by Moroni). The Book of Mormon is the result of this event. The Book of Mormon makes some pretty fantastical representations (Jesus coming to America after his resurrection is one), and these have been debunked by historians and scholars over the years. And not just Christian historians and scholars. BYU (Brigham Young University) has spent considerable time and money trying to prove that the representations made in the Book of Mormon did in fact happen, but has failed utterly.

Again, as a Catholic, I want to be very careful in using the word “cult” as that finger can justifiably be pointed right back at us. However, Catholicism’s theological underpinnings are sound, unlike Mormonism’s. Remember, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest prior to the Schism, and his issue with the Church was not theological, rather it centered on abuses (bastard children, sale of indulgences, land holdings and sales, etc) that were wholly earthly in nature.

[zk]

Perhaps I should be able to tell by the context what “Catholicism’s theological underpinnings are sound, unlike Mormonism’s” means. But since it seems to be at the crux of your argument, I’d prefer to ask exactly what you mean by that rather than to assume.

[zk]

Perhaps I should be able to tell by the context what “Catholicism’s theological underpinnings are sound, unlike Mormonism’s” means. But since it seems to be at the crux of your argument, I’d prefer to ask exactly what you mean by that rather than to assume.

[zk]

Perhaps I should be able to tell by the context what “Catholicism’s theological underpinnings are sound, unlike Mormonism’s” means. But since it seems to be at the crux of your argument, I’d prefer to ask exactly what you mean by that rather than to assume.

[zk]

Perhaps I should be able to tell by the context what “Catholicism’s theological underpinnings are sound, unlike Mormonism’s” means. But since it seems to be at the crux of your argument, I’d prefer to ask exactly what you mean by that rather than to assume.

[zk]

Perhaps I should be able to tell by the context what “Catholicism’s theological underpinnings are sound, unlike Mormonism’s” means. But since it seems to be at the crux of your argument, I’d prefer to ask exactly what you mean by that rather than to assume.

[Dukehorn]

Heh heh, I actually am an angry Asian dude (well when it comes to anonymous folks glibly talking about racism or creationism–otherwise I’m at a pretty good stage in my life)

Anyhow, surprisingly enough I was a card-carrying Republican over 10 years ago–was asked to become involved with the Republican National Committee way back then. Refused to vote for Bush for governor of Texas and felt like I’ve been FORCED steadily leftward due to my concerns about the environment, my love for science, my involvement in high tech industries and my secularism. Guess I’ve always been a fiscal conservative but the social issues have gotten to be more important to me.

I guess the day that a prominent NYC law firm asked me as a 2L to sign a document that they had interviewed a “minority candidate” really brought to focus how shitty life could be for really smart African Americans (strangely, only that one law firm did that and they did give me an offer).

[Anonymous]

Submitted by Dukehorn on January 8, 2008 – 5:31pm.

I guess the day that a prominent NYC law firm asked me as a 2L to sign a document that they had interviewed a “minority candidate” really brought to focus how shitty life could be for really smart African Americans (strangely, only that one law firm did that and they did give me an offer).

Exactly, Duke.

Did anyone see the below? Take a look at this. That someone would allow something so vile and unconscionable to come out of their mouth is unbelievable! She should be fired immediately. No questions, no discussions, just told to clear off her desk and escorted right out of the building.

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/golf_experts/post/Golf-Channel-anchor-says-young-golfers-should-l?urn=golf,60618

[no_such_reality]

From your link: ” have not seen the clip, nor do I know the context of the remarks. ”

In other words, the author is jumping to conclusions, inserting his own context and crying foul.

Hey, let’s cruxify that Government department manager because some idiot got offended when he used the word niggardly to describe the cheap, miserly, petty allocation of funds for the budget to fight a problem.

[Anonymous]

no such reality, there is no disputing the remark. This is what she said:

Tilghman made a shocking comment during Friday’s telecast of the PGA Tour’s opening event. She said — on the air — that today’s young players should “lynch Tiger Woods in a back alley.”

Any questions?

[equalizer]

From FOX:
During their usual post-round banter as they wrapped up Day 2 at the Plantation Course at Kapalua, Tilghman and cohort Nick Faldo discussed young players who could possibly challenge Tiger. Faldo, ever the joker, said perhaps the youngsters should “gang up (on Tiger) for a while.” The pair laughed a bit before Tilghman responded by saying, “Lynch him in a back alley.” The pair chuckled awkwardly before moving on.

This happended on Fri or Sun and you people still cant get over it, Woods did.

Mark Steinberg, Woods’ agent, said, “It is a complete non-issue. Kelly and Tiger are friends. It might have been a poor choice of words, but there was absolutely no ill intent whatsoever.”

Associated content said it best:
“What will become of Tilghman remains to be seen. Perhaps in a show that we have grown past the point of overreacting to this type of public guffaw, nothing will become of the incident. Maybe then, we can truly move beyond racism in sports.”

I read 8000+ comments on yahoo and 500 on Fox page. its pretty clear you people are just jealous of this beautiful lady who obviously earns her 100,000+ salary with her alluring beauty not her witty dialogue. Here is good one that descibes most of the comments:

“I don’t think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers.”

[NotCranky]

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

Why not? I think a persons faith is not automatically a big issue. If a candidate panders and plys believers that is a big strike against them in my book. Rejection of equal political representation, on the basis religious opinion, however superior in the soundness of its derivation, is a failure on the part of the politician who practices that way.

I am not against atheism either but from what I have seen atheists are not generally speaking evolved significantly so that rule by them would make things better. Main benefit would be no religious schizms to ply domestically or internationally.Being what we are we would probably try to force the world to comply with our national atheism and find them coming up short so that we could justify taking their lives, oil or whatever. Didn’t someone do that already?

Somebody pass me a bottle!

[NotCranky]

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

Why not? I think a persons faith is not automatically a big issue. If a candidate panders and plys believers that is a big strike against them in my book. Rejection of equal political representation, on the basis religious opinion, however superior in the soundness of its derivation, is a failure on the part of the politician who practices that way.

I am not against atheism either but from what I have seen atheists are not generally speaking evolved significantly so that rule by them would make things better. Main benefit would be no religious schizms to ply domestically or internationally.Being what we are we would probably try to force the world to comply with our national atheism and find them coming up short so that we could justify taking their lives, oil or whatever. Didn’t someone do that already?

Somebody pass me a bottle!

[NotCranky]

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

Why not? I think a persons faith is not automatically a big issue. If a candidate panders and plys believers that is a big strike against them in my book. Rejection of equal political representation, on the basis religious opinion, however superior in the soundness of its derivation, is a failure on the part of the politician who practices that way.

I am not against atheism either but from what I have seen atheists are not generally speaking evolved significantly so that rule by them would make things better. Main benefit would be no religious schizms to ply domestically or internationally.Being what we are we would probably try to force the world to comply with our national atheism and find them coming up short so that we could justify taking their lives, oil or whatever. Didn’t someone do that already?

Somebody pass me a bottle!

[NotCranky]

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

Why not? I think a persons faith is not automatically a big issue. If a candidate panders and plys believers that is a big strike against them in my book. Rejection of equal political representation, on the basis religious opinion, however superior in the soundness of its derivation, is a failure on the part of the politician who practices that way.

I am not against atheism either but from what I have seen atheists are not generally speaking evolved significantly so that rule by them would make things better. Main benefit would be no religious schizms to ply domestically or internationally.Being what we are we would probably try to force the world to comply with our national atheism and find them coming up short so that we could justify taking their lives, oil or whatever. Didn’t someone do that already?

Somebody pass me a bottle!

[NotCranky]

Think about that for a moment; and then ask yourself whether you would be willing to vote for a Catholic…

Why not? I think a persons faith is not automatically a big issue. If a candidate panders and plys believers that is a big strike against them in my book. Rejection of equal political representation, on the basis religious opinion, however superior in the soundness of its derivation, is a failure on the part of the politician who practices that way.

I am not against atheism either but from what I have seen atheists are not generally speaking evolved significantly so that rule by them would make things better. Main benefit would be no religious schizms to ply domestically or internationally.Being what we are we would probably try to force the world to comply with our national atheism and find them coming up short so that we could justify taking their lives, oil or whatever. Didn’t someone do that already?

Somebody pass me a bottle!

[Anonymous]

Submitted by equalizer on January 8, 2008 – 10:45pm.

This happended on Fri or Sun and you people still cant get over it, Woods did.

Who are you referring to when you say, “You people”?

And about this woman, why would she use the word “lynch” even if she was joking around? A kindergartener knows the implications of that word said about a black person. A freudian slip maybe?…

[no_such_reality]

Who cares why she chose that word. Whoop de do. It wasn’t a threat. It wasn’t meant as intimidation. It wasn’t meant as a slur.

Why did she choose that word? Maybe because she isn’t a hyperstrung nilly that panics whenever anybody says anything that can possibly be read wrong, interpeted as a vieled ‘they’re out to get me’ comment.

Yep, once again, the race mongers are making something of nothing. You dig under many of the recent hate crime panics, whether the vandelised writings at Chapman or some of the nooses ‘ominously’ displayed around campuses, you find the race mongers decrying the hate groups are the ones doing it. They put the nooses up. The prof of awareness studies vandelised her own stuff to get attention for it.

As the saying goes, point a finger, three point back.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

NSR: The other adjunct to your observation, and the more ominous one in my opinion, is this: It suppresses dissent. One of the unspoken aspects of the PC movement is that it attempts to force a dialectic upon people. You cannot refer to someone as “handicapped”, rather, they are “physically challenged”. Someone is not “black”, rather, they are “African-American”.

Any deviation from this is immediately castigated, and called racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. This has the effect of suppressing free speech and expression out of fear of giving offense or being perceived as a racist, or worse.

Was the comment in question meant to suggest a return to the 1920s South and lynch mobs? Absolutely not. It was a poor choice of phrases, granted, but nothing worse than that. The immediate firestorm following shows the level of insane sensitivity now attached to any word that might possibly give offense.

It’s pathetic really. Orwell was absolutely right in his observation that controlling the language meant controlling the culture. There are certain posters here that would do well with a reading of “1984”. Big Brother loves you.

[Aecetia]

Hillary et al:

I think Hillary is a woman in name only. I am less concerned about Mr. Obama’s race than his lack of experience. At least Mitt has had a real job. It is time to listen to what they say more than what they look like. Turn off the picture and turn up the volume.

[Aecetia]

Hillary et al:

I think Hillary is a woman in name only. I am less concerned about Mr. Obama’s race than his lack of experience. At least Mitt has had a real job. It is time to listen to what they say more than what they look like. Turn off the picture and turn up the volume.

[Aecetia]

Hillary et al:

I think Hillary is a woman in name only. I am less concerned about Mr. Obama’s race than his lack of experience. At least Mitt has had a real job. It is time to listen to what they say more than what they look like. Turn off the picture and turn up the volume.

[Aecetia]

Hillary et al:

I think Hillary is a woman in name only. I am less concerned about Mr. Obama’s race than his lack of experience. At least Mitt has had a real job. It is time to listen to what they say more than what they look like. Turn off the picture and turn up the volume.

[Aecetia]

Hillary et al:

I think Hillary is a woman in name only. I am less concerned about Mr. Obama’s race than his lack of experience. At least Mitt has had a real job. It is time to listen to what they say more than what they look like. Turn off the picture and turn up the volume.

[equalizer]

Allan:

Preemptive strike: I dont need a lecture from you. Its obvious that your mind has been sterilized from the left that you want to attack me for suggesting the diaries. For you my friend, I will give a more liberal assignment. You need to read from “From Freedom to Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America” if you haven’t already. Peace.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

equalizer: Spence, huh? I preferred “Justice for None”. It seemed more coherent, at least to me. Aren’t you supposed to recommend “Anarchist’s Cookbook” when recommending “Turner Diaries”? I thought they were a matched set.

Only problem with the “Turner Diaries” is that I start seeing black helicopters every time I read it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

equalizer: Spence, huh? I preferred “Justice for None”. It seemed more coherent, at least to me. Aren’t you supposed to recommend “Anarchist’s Cookbook” when recommending “Turner Diaries”? I thought they were a matched set.

Only problem with the “Turner Diaries” is that I start seeing black helicopters every time I read it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

equalizer: Spence, huh? I preferred “Justice for None”. It seemed more coherent, at least to me. Aren’t you supposed to recommend “Anarchist’s Cookbook” when recommending “Turner Diaries”? I thought they were a matched set.

Only problem with the “Turner Diaries” is that I start seeing black helicopters every time I read it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

equalizer: Spence, huh? I preferred “Justice for None”. It seemed more coherent, at least to me. Aren’t you supposed to recommend “Anarchist’s Cookbook” when recommending “Turner Diaries”? I thought they were a matched set.

Only problem with the “Turner Diaries” is that I start seeing black helicopters every time I read it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

equalizer: Spence, huh? I preferred “Justice for None”. It seemed more coherent, at least to me. Aren’t you supposed to recommend “Anarchist’s Cookbook” when recommending “Turner Diaries”? I thought they were a matched set.

Only problem with the “Turner Diaries” is that I start seeing black helicopters every time I read it.

[equalizer]

Allan:

Preemptive strike: I dont need a lecture from you. Its obvious that your mind has been sterilized from the left that you want to attack me for suggesting the diaries. For you my friend, I will give a more liberal assignment. You need to read from “From Freedom to Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America” if you haven’t already. Peace.

[equalizer]

Allan:

Preemptive strike: I dont need a lecture from you. Its obvious that your mind has been sterilized from the left that you want to attack me for suggesting the diaries. For you my friend, I will give a more liberal assignment. You need to read from “From Freedom to Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America” if you haven’t already. Peace.

[equalizer]

Allan:

Preemptive strike: I dont need a lecture from you. Its obvious that your mind has been sterilized from the left that you want to attack me for suggesting the diaries. For you my friend, I will give a more liberal assignment. You need to read from “From Freedom to Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America” if you haven’t already. Peace.

[equalizer]

Allan:

Preemptive strike: I dont need a lecture from you. Its obvious that your mind has been sterilized from the left that you want to attack me for suggesting the diaries. For you my friend, I will give a more liberal assignment. You need to read from “From Freedom to Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America” if you haven’t already. Peace.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

NSR: The other adjunct to your observation, and the more ominous one in my opinion, is this: It suppresses dissent. One of the unspoken aspects of the PC movement is that it attempts to force a dialectic upon people. You cannot refer to someone as “handicapped”, rather, they are “physically challenged”. Someone is not “black”, rather, they are “African-American”.

Any deviation from this is immediately castigated, and called racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. This has the effect of suppressing free speech and expression out of fear of giving offense or being perceived as a racist, or worse.

Was the comment in question meant to suggest a return to the 1920s South and lynch mobs? Absolutely not. It was a poor choice of phrases, granted, but nothing worse than that. The immediate firestorm following shows the level of insane sensitivity now attached to any word that might possibly give offense.

It’s pathetic really. Orwell was absolutely right in his observation that controlling the language meant controlling the culture. There are certain posters here that would do well with a reading of “1984”. Big Brother loves you.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

NSR: The other adjunct to your observation, and the more ominous one in my opinion, is this: It suppresses dissent. One of the unspoken aspects of the PC movement is that it attempts to force a dialectic upon people. You cannot refer to someone as “handicapped”, rather, they are “physically challenged”. Someone is not “black”, rather, they are “African-American”.

Any deviation from this is immediately castigated, and called racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. This has the effect of suppressing free speech and expression out of fear of giving offense or being perceived as a racist, or worse.

Was the comment in question meant to suggest a return to the 1920s South and lynch mobs? Absolutely not. It was a poor choice of phrases, granted, but nothing worse than that. The immediate firestorm following shows the level of insane sensitivity now attached to any word that might possibly give offense.

It’s pathetic really. Orwell was absolutely right in his observation that controlling the language meant controlling the culture. There are certain posters here that would do well with a reading of “1984”. Big Brother loves you.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

NSR: The other adjunct to your observation, and the more ominous one in my opinion, is this: It suppresses dissent. One of the unspoken aspects of the PC movement is that it attempts to force a dialectic upon people. You cannot refer to someone as “handicapped”, rather, they are “physically challenged”. Someone is not “black”, rather, they are “African-American”.

Any deviation from this is immediately castigated, and called racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. This has the effect of suppressing free speech and expression out of fear of giving offense or being perceived as a racist, or worse.

Was the comment in question meant to suggest a return to the 1920s South and lynch mobs? Absolutely not. It was a poor choice of phrases, granted, but nothing worse than that. The immediate firestorm following shows the level of insane sensitivity now attached to any word that might possibly give offense.

It’s pathetic really. Orwell was absolutely right in his observation that controlling the language meant controlling the culture. There are certain posters here that would do well with a reading of “1984”. Big Brother loves you.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

NSR: The other adjunct to your observation, and the more ominous one in my opinion, is this: It suppresses dissent. One of the unspoken aspects of the PC movement is that it attempts to force a dialectic upon people. You cannot refer to someone as “handicapped”, rather, they are “physically challenged”. Someone is not “black”, rather, they are “African-American”.

Any deviation from this is immediately castigated, and called racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. This has the effect of suppressing free speech and expression out of fear of giving offense or being perceived as a racist, or worse.

Was the comment in question meant to suggest a return to the 1920s South and lynch mobs? Absolutely not. It was a poor choice of phrases, granted, but nothing worse than that. The immediate firestorm following shows the level of insane sensitivity now attached to any word that might possibly give offense.

It’s pathetic really. Orwell was absolutely right in his observation that controlling the language meant controlling the culture. There are certain posters here that would do well with a reading of “1984”. Big Brother loves you.

[equalizer]

NSR,

You decry the PC police, yet you sit here and you are advocating that we should judge her by her intent. What kind of republican/libertarian are you?? Just because she is a beautiful lady, you automatically assume that she is just a girl and didn’t know what that meant, she probably just heard that on Imus? What if she were hot and witty like this blond beauty AC:

“If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” this is least objectionable thing she has said. I can’t quote anything else or I will be banned by the PC police.

Then what? What if she had bad intent? What if it was a slur? Then we shouldn’t have free press and she should be fired and run out of town?? Yep, that’s exactly what you are saying. You are no better than the left you claim to be lecturing. I didn’t see you defending Imus. Ron Paul was the only patriot besides me defending Imus.
You probably don’t get the Family Guy.

You should read “1984” and if you haven’t been brainwashed you should check out the “Turner diaries” and you might find sympathy with the encroachment of a socialist/commie bureaucracy and the oppression of most forms of liberty.

[no_such_reality]

Wow Equalizer, way to jump to irrational conclusions.

My point was quite simple, she just gaffed. I could understand people be riled if she was promoting hate, I don’t think she was. That’s the point. Everybody is screaming like she’s promoting hate and they are over reacting.

As for public broadcast channels, people have a right to react to what is said on them. As for Imus, I didn’t pay any attention at all. I simply don’t care.

I’m more concerned about the Farrakhans and Dukes of the world. Should they be stifled? No, unless they go to far.

Can you scream fire in a crowded theatre, No. It is the same thing.

[equalizer]

NSR,
I dont think any rational person would think it was anything other than a dimwit comment. Them people were offended by the word, not by any of her deep thoughts there.

Irrational conclusions? About how “I simple dont care ” about free speech. Nothing irrational there.

[no_such_reality]

I don’t care about Imus. The way I see it, it was free market in action reacting to free speech. He was free to be stupid, the market reacted.

There is also a major difference, people were offended by the context of Imus’ message, largely in context. As opposed to the mere use of a word which is apparently prohibited and has a defacto context applied.

[equalizer]

NSR

I over reacted on principle and should chill out.

Allan: I liked Spence’s book cause he is one of a kind liberal who really practices free speech and freedom in general. I guess you read his book, “How to argue and win everytime” and yes i completely forget about his justice for none book.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

equalizer: Yep, it was the other Spence book I was referring to.

I did not read “How to argue” by Spence; it is probably the three years I spent in speech and debate, combined with my naturally cantankerous personality.

I don’t disagree with Spence’s ideas regarding the overly corporatized modern American monoculture. I simply took issue with the book’s incoherence in making the point.

I’m with you on the over-reaction on principle and needing to chill out. I seem to have been doing that a lot lately myself.

Have you read any Christopher Hitchens? Just curious. If yes, what are your thoughts as to his writings?

[nostradamus]

Equalizer et. al. you people should get a kick out of this. Kelly Tilghman was suspended today for her “lynch” comments. Al Sharpton actually stepped into the picture.

linky

Clearly her comments were taken out of context but here we are in Idiocracy again.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Nost: Al Sharpton weighed in? Gosh, this must be serious.

Interesting, especially in that Tiger shrugged off the comments, saying that he understood it to be an inadvertent slip.

That was a damn funny movie, by the way. Struck a little too close to home in a lot of ways, though. Don’t have to drive very far in any one direction to find some alarming parallels.

[calysmeow]

I find it disconcerting that there is an email circulating that states Obama was raised by a Radical Muslim step-father and an Atheist Mother, and only joined a Christian church recently to cover his beliefs.

It is said that Al-Qaeda has claimed it would destroy the US ‘from the inside out’. Were they referring to the Presidential position?

Is any of it true? I don’t know, but it makes you wonder….

[zk]

calysmeow, you read something, and you have no idea whether it’s true. And yet it makes you wonder. Why does it make you wonder? And what does it make you wonder?

When you read the Weekly World News, do you wonder whether Brad and Angelina really gave birth to a half unicorn half apeman baby?

[Aecetia]

I thought you might find the following article from snopes.com interesting: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Aecetia: Definitely interesting. There was similar hysteria in 1960 during JFK’s campaigning and subsequent victory. There was a great deal of handwringing over the President-elect bringing the Vatican into the White House, and conspiracy theorists were having a field day over how the Catholic Church was going to take over America.

I am not an Obama fan, nor a supporter, but I am hard pressed to imagine him as some sort of African revolutionary, bent on becoming King of America.

[pertinazzio]

<>

Yeah, and quite possibly our next great leader! Personally, I like McCain.

[pertinazzio]

<>

Yeah, and quite possibly our next great leader! Personally, I like McCain.

[pertinazzio]

<>

Yeah, and quite possibly our next great leader! Personally, I like McCain.

[pertinazzio]

<>

Yeah, and quite possibly our next great leader! Personally, I like McCain.

[pertinazzio]

<>

Yeah, and quite possibly our next great leader! Personally, I like McCain.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Aecetia: Definitely interesting. There was similar hysteria in 1960 during JFK’s campaigning and subsequent victory. There was a great deal of handwringing over the President-elect bringing the Vatican into the White House, and conspiracy theorists were having a field day over how the Catholic Church was going to take over America.

I am not an Obama fan, nor a supporter, but I am hard pressed to imagine him as some sort of African revolutionary, bent on becoming King of America.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Aecetia: Definitely interesting. There was similar hysteria in 1960 during JFK’s campaigning and subsequent victory. There was a great deal of handwringing over the President-elect bringing the Vatican into the White House, and conspiracy theorists were having a field day over how the Catholic Church was going to take over America.

I am not an Obama fan, nor a supporter, but I am hard pressed to imagine him as some sort of African revolutionary, bent on becoming King of America.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Aecetia: Definitely interesting. There was similar hysteria in 1960 during JFK’s campaigning and subsequent victory. There was a great deal of handwringing over the President-elect bringing the Vatican into the White House, and conspiracy theorists were having a field day over how the Catholic Church was going to take over America.

I am not an Obama fan, nor a supporter, but I am hard pressed to imagine him as some sort of African revolutionary, bent on becoming King of America.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Aecetia: Definitely interesting. There was similar hysteria in 1960 during JFK’s campaigning and subsequent victory. There was a great deal of handwringing over the President-elect bringing the Vatican into the White House, and conspiracy theorists were having a field day over how the Catholic Church was going to take over America.

I am not an Obama fan, nor a supporter, but I am hard pressed to imagine him as some sort of African revolutionary, bent on becoming King of America.

[Aecetia]

I thought you might find the following article from snopes.com interesting: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp

[Aecetia]

I thought you might find the following article from snopes.com interesting: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp

[Aecetia]

I thought you might find the following article from snopes.com interesting: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp

[Aecetia]

I thought you might find the following article from snopes.com interesting: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp

[drunkle]

“When you read the Weekly World News, do you wonder whether Brad and Angelina really gave birth to a half unicorn half apeman baby?”

unquestionably.

i’m also waiting for a shipment of extenze.

[drunkle]

“When you read the Weekly World News, do you wonder whether Brad and Angelina really gave birth to a half unicorn half apeman baby?”

unquestionably.

i’m also waiting for a shipment of extenze.

[drunkle]

“When you read the Weekly World News, do you wonder whether Brad and Angelina really gave birth to a half unicorn half apeman baby?”

unquestionably.

i’m also waiting for a shipment of extenze.

[drunkle]

“When you read the Weekly World News, do you wonder whether Brad and Angelina really gave birth to a half unicorn half apeman baby?”

unquestionably.

i’m also waiting for a shipment of extenze.

[drunkle]

“When you read the Weekly World News, do you wonder whether Brad and Angelina really gave birth to a half unicorn half apeman baby?”

unquestionably.

i’m also waiting for a shipment of extenze.

[zk]

calysmeow, you read something, and you have no idea whether it’s true. And yet it makes you wonder. Why does it make you wonder? And what does it make you wonder?

When you read the Weekly World News, do you wonder whether Brad and Angelina really gave birth to a half unicorn half apeman baby?

[zk]

calysmeow, you read something, and you have no idea whether it’s true. And yet it makes you wonder. Why does it make you wonder? And what does it make you wonder?

When you read the Weekly World News, do you wonder whether Brad and Angelina really gave birth to a half unicorn half apeman baby?

[zk]

calysmeow, you read something, and you have no idea whether it’s true. And yet it makes you wonder. Why does it make you wonder? And what does it make you wonder?

When you read the Weekly World News, do you wonder whether Brad and Angelina really gave birth to a half unicorn half apeman baby?

[zk]

calysmeow, you read something, and you have no idea whether it’s true. And yet it makes you wonder. Why does it make you wonder? And what does it make you wonder?

When you read the Weekly World News, do you wonder whether Brad and Angelina really gave birth to a half unicorn half apeman baby?

[Arraya]

“I find it disconcerting that there is an email circulating that states Obama was raised by a Radical Muslim step-father and an Atheist Mother, and only joined a Christian church recently to cover his beliefs.”

That is ridiculous. An atheist would never marry a radical muslim. But I guess some people do not understand why that is absurd. That really shows the target demographic of the audiance intended for the rumor.

I thought this was his love child with Hillary…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy

[calysmeow]

Another tidbit from the web:

The Los Angeles Times sent a reporter to Jakarta in Indonesia where Obama’s mum, Ann Dunham, took him with husband number two, Lolo Soetoro, when he was six. His name then was Barry Soetoro, and he stayed until he was 10 years old.

“Barry was a Muslim. He went to the mosque,” revealed boyhood buddy Zulfin Adi. His primary school teacher said he was registered as a Muslim and so he attended Koranic religious class.

Americans have nightmares about fervent young men who grew up in Muslim religious schools. At the very least, and however unfairly, this is dynamite material for Republicans as new national opinion polls show Obama cutting Hillary Clinton’s lead to single digits.

Obama is hurriedly shifting ground. Now he WAS a Muslim; but never a “practising Muslim”.
—
And, yes, I do wonder – I wonder if any of it is true or not. I wonder if we, as Americans in a country created as ‘one nation under GOD’, are having the wool pulled over our eyes. I wonder which candidate has the best chance of making change for the better if elected. I wonder about alot of things, but I usually wonder along the analytical lines.

[calysmeow]

Arraya, why is this so ridiculous?

“That is ridiculous. An atheist would never marry a radical muslim. But I guess some people do not understand why that is absurd. That really shows the target demographic of the audiance intended for the rumor.”

Just because someone is an Atheist and does not believe in GOD, does not mean they could not believe in Allah, or some other entity.

[Anonymous]

calysmeow, you are confused.

Allah is god according to the muslim faith. Atheists do not believe in a supreme being meaning they would not believe allah.

And no, I’m not Atheist. I’m a Christian.

[calysmeow]

Marion, I stand corrected.

I knew a family during my childhood that claimed to be ‘Atheists’, yet the mother said that she believed there may be a higher power at work sometimes, but didn’t acknowledge that it was GOD. I guess she wasn’t a traditional Atheist.

Still, why wouldn’t an Atheist marry a Muslim? It could happen, couldn’t it? I know many couples of different beliefs that are happily married, they just choose to each follow their own path. Do Atheists or Muslims require their spouses to be of the same mindset? I guess I don’t understand blanket comments like that – I see alot of grey here.

[NotCranky]

I knew a family during my childhood that claimed to be ‘Atheists’, yet the mother said that she believed there may be a higher power at work sometimes, but didn’t acknowledge that it was GOD. I guess she wasn’t a traditional Atheist.

People are not born atheists or believers. They become one or the other, usually believer first in this age. When one, through personal growth or life experience or what not becomes atheistic they can become plagued by certain schisms because the early conditioning is very strong. Not to say that one can’t go from atheist to believer and have the same problem. Anyway the atheist bound person may revert to praying and such intermittently or just decide that they can handle both praying or believing on occasion, this would be an intentionally schismatic individual. Eventually they decide the praying part is simply talking to themselves and they drop it, almost completely or completely. Old habits die hard. Agnosticism and deism are different and etiher may apply to the woman in question. I guess I would call my self agnostic but I don’t believe attaching a religious label to myself is really very important. The fact that other people do is a big topic of interest.
Sorry to anyone who already knew this stuff.

[NotCranky]

I knew a family during my childhood that claimed to be ‘Atheists’, yet the mother said that she believed there may be a higher power at work sometimes, but didn’t acknowledge that it was GOD. I guess she wasn’t a traditional Atheist.

People are not born atheists or believers. They become one or the other, usually believer first in this age. When one, through personal growth or life experience or what not becomes atheistic they can become plagued by certain schisms because the early conditioning is very strong. Not to say that one can’t go from atheist to believer and have the same problem. Anyway the atheist bound person may revert to praying and such intermittently or just decide that they can handle both praying or believing on occasion, this would be an intentionally schismatic individual. Eventually they decide the praying part is simply talking to themselves and they drop it, almost completely or completely. Old habits die hard. Agnosticism and deism are different and etiher may apply to the woman in question. I guess I would call my self agnostic but I don’t believe attaching a religious label to myself is really very important. The fact that other people do is a big topic of interest.
Sorry to anyone who already knew this stuff.

[NotCranky]

I knew a family during my childhood that claimed to be ‘Atheists’, yet the mother said that she believed there may be a higher power at work sometimes, but didn’t acknowledge that it was GOD. I guess she wasn’t a traditional Atheist.

People are not born atheists or believers. They become one or the other, usually believer first in this age. When one, through personal growth or life experience or what not becomes atheistic they can become plagued by certain schisms because the early conditioning is very strong. Not to say that one can’t go from atheist to believer and have the same problem. Anyway the atheist bound person may revert to praying and such intermittently or just decide that they can handle both praying or believing on occasion, this would be an intentionally schismatic individual. Eventually they decide the praying part is simply talking to themselves and they drop it, almost completely or completely. Old habits die hard. Agnosticism and deism are different and etiher may apply to the woman in question. I guess I would call my self agnostic but I don’t believe attaching a religious label to myself is really very important. The fact that other people do is a big topic of interest.
Sorry to anyone who already knew this stuff.

[NotCranky]

I knew a family during my childhood that claimed to be ‘Atheists’, yet the mother said that she believed there may be a higher power at work sometimes, but didn’t acknowledge that it was GOD. I guess she wasn’t a traditional Atheist.

People are not born atheists or believers. They become one or the other, usually believer first in this age. When one, through personal growth or life experience or what not becomes atheistic they can become plagued by certain schisms because the early conditioning is very strong. Not to say that one can’t go from atheist to believer and have the same problem. Anyway the atheist bound person may revert to praying and such intermittently or just decide that they can handle both praying or believing on occasion, this would be an intentionally schismatic individual. Eventually they decide the praying part is simply talking to themselves and they drop it, almost completely or completely. Old habits die hard. Agnosticism and deism are different and etiher may apply to the woman in question. I guess I would call my self agnostic but I don’t believe attaching a religious label to myself is really very important. The fact that other people do is a big topic of interest.
Sorry to anyone who already knew this stuff.

[NotCranky]

I knew a family during my childhood that claimed to be ‘Atheists’, yet the mother said that she believed there may be a higher power at work sometimes, but didn’t acknowledge that it was GOD. I guess she wasn’t a traditional Atheist.

People are not born atheists or believers. They become one or the other, usually believer first in this age. When one, through personal growth or life experience or what not becomes atheistic they can become plagued by certain schisms because the early conditioning is very strong. Not to say that one can’t go from atheist to believer and have the same problem. Anyway the atheist bound person may revert to praying and such intermittently or just decide that they can handle both praying or believing on occasion, this would be an intentionally schismatic individual. Eventually they decide the praying part is simply talking to themselves and they drop it, almost completely or completely. Old habits die hard. Agnosticism and deism are different and etiher may apply to the woman in question. I guess I would call my self agnostic but I don’t believe attaching a religious label to myself is really very important. The fact that other people do is a big topic of interest.
Sorry to anyone who already knew this stuff.

[Arraya]

calysmeow,

It could happen, but unlikely.

Atheists tend to be anti-religous ESPECIALLY any type of fundamentalism. Basically, Atheist’s think there is an inherent flaw in believing in a higher power. It would be like a black person marrying a kkk member IMO, which also could happen, though unlikely.

Regarding the family from your childhood. They would be more appropriately called agnostic.

[Arraya]

calysmeow,

It could happen, but unlikely.

Atheists tend to be anti-religous ESPECIALLY any type of fundamentalism. Basically, Atheist’s think there is an inherent flaw in believing in a higher power. It would be like a black person marrying a kkk member IMO, which also could happen, though unlikely.

Regarding the family from your childhood. They would be more appropriately called agnostic.

[Arraya]

calysmeow,

It could happen, but unlikely.

Atheists tend to be anti-religous ESPECIALLY any type of fundamentalism. Basically, Atheist’s think there is an inherent flaw in believing in a higher power. It would be like a black person marrying a kkk member IMO, which also could happen, though unlikely.

Regarding the family from your childhood. They would be more appropriately called agnostic.

[Arraya]

calysmeow,

It could happen, but unlikely.

Atheists tend to be anti-religous ESPECIALLY any type of fundamentalism. Basically, Atheist’s think there is an inherent flaw in believing in a higher power. It would be like a black person marrying a kkk member IMO, which also could happen, though unlikely.

Regarding the family from your childhood. They would be more appropriately called agnostic.

[Arraya]

calysmeow,

It could happen, but unlikely.

Atheists tend to be anti-religous ESPECIALLY any type of fundamentalism. Basically, Atheist’s think there is an inherent flaw in believing in a higher power. It would be like a black person marrying a kkk member IMO, which also could happen, though unlikely.

Regarding the family from your childhood. They would be more appropriately called agnostic.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by calysmeow on January 10, 2008 – 4:52pm.Still,

why wouldn’t an Atheist marry a Muslim?

Caly, that would depend on the personal belief systems of the two individuals involved. Some people are not opposed to marrying outside of their religions, even though their respective religions might be opposed to such a situation.

[calysmeow]

Exactly. Which is why I disagreed with the statement ‘An atheist would never marry a radical muslim’.

It may be unlikely, but it could happen.

[NotCranky]

It may be unlikely, but it could happen.

Being that Obama turned out democrat the likely hood is very great. Just kidding!

[zk]

“I wonder about alot of things, but I usually wonder along the analytical lines.”

You can’t wonder along analytical lines. You can think and research and try to develop conclusions along analytical lines. But you don’t seem to be doing any of that. You just seem to be unskeptically reading extremely unreliable sources (an email floating around the internet has taken us to new heights of unreliability, and the First Post online magazine is only a notch or two above that) and wondering things that a tiny bit of analysis (or common sense, for that matter) will show to be ridiculous.

As far as an atheist marrying a radical muslim, you leave out the “radical” part some of the time when you discuss it. There’s a huge difference between a person who is muslim only because he is required to be one by the state (there are countries where citizens are required to be muslims) and one who would kill babies in the name of allah because he follows the radical strain of islam. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I think that you’d be hard pressed to find a single one who’d marry a radical muslim. And, of course a radical muslim would never marry an atheist. As the atheist is, to him, an infidel, the radical muslim would want to murder the atheist. (I actually laughed when I read arraya’s post, because it’s a pretty funny joke that I think he made intentionally. You think of a radical muslim married to an atheist, and the first thing you think is that the radical muslim want to murder an infidel, not marry one. But arraya turns it around and says that an atheist wouldn’t marry a radical muslim.)

“ I wonder if any of it is true or not. I wonder if we, as Americans in a country created as ‘one nation under GOD’, are having the wool pulled over our eyes.”

You’re having the wool pulled over your eyes by someone who knows that there are unskeptical, unanalytical people out there who can be made to wonder about a candidate they (the writers of the email) don’t like simply by spewing false information.

[zk]

“I wonder about alot of things, but I usually wonder along the analytical lines.”

You can’t wonder along analytical lines. You can think and research and try to develop conclusions along analytical lines. But you don’t seem to be doing any of that. You just seem to be unskeptically reading extremely unreliable sources (an email floating around the internet has taken us to new heights of unreliability, and the First Post online magazine is only a notch or two above that) and wondering things that a tiny bit of analysis (or common sense, for that matter) will show to be ridiculous.

As far as an atheist marrying a radical muslim, you leave out the “radical” part some of the time when you discuss it. There’s a huge difference between a person who is muslim only because he is required to be one by the state (there are countries where citizens are required to be muslims) and one who would kill babies in the name of allah because he follows the radical strain of islam. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I think that you’d be hard pressed to find a single one who’d marry a radical muslim. And, of course a radical muslim would never marry an atheist. As the atheist is, to him, an infidel, the radical muslim would want to murder the atheist. (I actually laughed when I read arraya’s post, because it’s a pretty funny joke that I think he made intentionally. You think of a radical muslim married to an atheist, and the first thing you think is that the radical muslim want to murder an infidel, not marry one. But arraya turns it around and says that an atheist wouldn’t marry a radical muslim.)

“ I wonder if any of it is true or not. I wonder if we, as Americans in a country created as ‘one nation under GOD’, are having the wool pulled over our eyes.”

You’re having the wool pulled over your eyes by someone who knows that there are unskeptical, unanalytical people out there who can be made to wonder about a candidate they (the writers of the email) don’t like simply by spewing false information.

[zk]

“I wonder about alot of things, but I usually wonder along the analytical lines.”

You can’t wonder along analytical lines. You can think and research and try to develop conclusions along analytical lines. But you don’t seem to be doing any of that. You just seem to be unskeptically reading extremely unreliable sources (an email floating around the internet has taken us to new heights of unreliability, and the First Post online magazine is only a notch or two above that) and wondering things that a tiny bit of analysis (or common sense, for that matter) will show to be ridiculous.

As far as an atheist marrying a radical muslim, you leave out the “radical” part some of the time when you discuss it. There’s a huge difference between a person who is muslim only because he is required to be one by the state (there are countries where citizens are required to be muslims) and one who would kill babies in the name of allah because he follows the radical strain of islam. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I think that you’d be hard pressed to find a single one who’d marry a radical muslim. And, of course a radical muslim would never marry an atheist. As the atheist is, to him, an infidel, the radical muslim would want to murder the atheist. (I actually laughed when I read arraya’s post, because it’s a pretty funny joke that I think he made intentionally. You think of a radical muslim married to an atheist, and the first thing you think is that the radical muslim want to murder an infidel, not marry one. But arraya turns it around and says that an atheist wouldn’t marry a radical muslim.)

“ I wonder if any of it is true or not. I wonder if we, as Americans in a country created as ‘one nation under GOD’, are having the wool pulled over our eyes.”

You’re having the wool pulled over your eyes by someone who knows that there are unskeptical, unanalytical people out there who can be made to wonder about a candidate they (the writers of the email) don’t like simply by spewing false information.

[zk]

“I wonder about alot of things, but I usually wonder along the analytical lines.”

You can’t wonder along analytical lines. You can think and research and try to develop conclusions along analytical lines. But you don’t seem to be doing any of that. You just seem to be unskeptically reading extremely unreliable sources (an email floating around the internet has taken us to new heights of unreliability, and the First Post online magazine is only a notch or two above that) and wondering things that a tiny bit of analysis (or common sense, for that matter) will show to be ridiculous.

As far as an atheist marrying a radical muslim, you leave out the “radical” part some of the time when you discuss it. There’s a huge difference between a person who is muslim only because he is required to be one by the state (there are countries where citizens are required to be muslims) and one who would kill babies in the name of allah because he follows the radical strain of islam. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I think that you’d be hard pressed to find a single one who’d marry a radical muslim. And, of course a radical muslim would never marry an atheist. As the atheist is, to him, an infidel, the radical muslim would want to murder the atheist. (I actually laughed when I read arraya’s post, because it’s a pretty funny joke that I think he made intentionally. You think of a radical muslim married to an atheist, and the first thing you think is that the radical muslim want to murder an infidel, not marry one. But arraya turns it around and says that an atheist wouldn’t marry a radical muslim.)

“ I wonder if any of it is true or not. I wonder if we, as Americans in a country created as ‘one nation under GOD’, are having the wool pulled over our eyes.”

You’re having the wool pulled over your eyes by someone who knows that there are unskeptical, unanalytical people out there who can be made to wonder about a candidate they (the writers of the email) don’t like simply by spewing false information.

[zk]

“I wonder about alot of things, but I usually wonder along the analytical lines.”

You can’t wonder along analytical lines. You can think and research and try to develop conclusions along analytical lines. But you don’t seem to be doing any of that. You just seem to be unskeptically reading extremely unreliable sources (an email floating around the internet has taken us to new heights of unreliability, and the First Post online magazine is only a notch or two above that) and wondering things that a tiny bit of analysis (or common sense, for that matter) will show to be ridiculous.

As far as an atheist marrying a radical muslim, you leave out the “radical” part some of the time when you discuss it. There’s a huge difference between a person who is muslim only because he is required to be one by the state (there are countries where citizens are required to be muslims) and one who would kill babies in the name of allah because he follows the radical strain of islam. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I think that you’d be hard pressed to find a single one who’d marry a radical muslim. And, of course a radical muslim would never marry an atheist. As the atheist is, to him, an infidel, the radical muslim would want to murder the atheist. (I actually laughed when I read arraya’s post, because it’s a pretty funny joke that I think he made intentionally. You think of a radical muslim married to an atheist, and the first thing you think is that the radical muslim want to murder an infidel, not marry one. But arraya turns it around and says that an atheist wouldn’t marry a radical muslim.)

“ I wonder if any of it is true or not. I wonder if we, as Americans in a country created as ‘one nation under GOD’, are having the wool pulled over our eyes.”

You’re having the wool pulled over your eyes by someone who knows that there are unskeptical, unanalytical people out there who can be made to wonder about a candidate they (the writers of the email) don’t like simply by spewing false information.

[NotCranky]

It may be unlikely, but it could happen.

Being that Obama turned out democrat the likely hood is very great. Just kidding!

[NotCranky]

It may be unlikely, but it could happen.

Being that Obama turned out democrat the likely hood is very great. Just kidding!

[NotCranky]

It may be unlikely, but it could happen.

Being that Obama turned out democrat the likely hood is very great. Just kidding!