Obama is the great hype machine

[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?…

[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?…

[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?…

[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?…

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts