[sdgrrl]

You are right Lincoln and JFK were not crusaders of civil rights in the beginning.

“If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union.” Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s friendship with Frederick Douglass definitely helped reshape his views of what a black person is and that they are as intelligent and human as any one else.

Lincoln did allow Douglass in White House to discuss his grievances which was very radical.

Kennedy wanted to remain President and feared the Civil Rights movement might end his chance for being elected and for reelection, especially because the Southern Dems.

Like Lincoln though, MLK and Kennedy also had a relationship definitely aided by Kings wife who called upon JFK when King was jailed. They did eventually have a friendship of respect and empathy.

I appreciate both men because they saw the world one way until they were introduced to another. Eventually, both men could not hide from the humanity they were introduced to and I appreciate that.

[sdgrrl]

You are right Lincoln and JFK were not crusaders of civil rights in the beginning.

“If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union.” Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s friendship with Frederick Douglass definitely helped reshape his views of what a black person is and that they are as intelligent and human as any one else.

Lincoln did allow Douglass in White House to discuss his grievances which was very radical.

Kennedy wanted to remain President and feared the Civil Rights movement might end his chance for being elected and for reelection, especially because the Southern Dems.

Like Lincoln though, MLK and Kennedy also had a relationship definitely aided by Kings wife who called upon JFK when King was jailed. They did eventually have a friendship of respect and empathy.

I appreciate both men because they saw the world one way until they were introduced to another. Eventually, both men could not hide from the humanity they were introduced to and I appreciate that.

[sdgrrl]

You are right Lincoln and JFK were not crusaders of civil rights in the beginning.

“If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union.” Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s friendship with Frederick Douglass definitely helped reshape his views of what a black person is and that they are as intelligent and human as any one else.

Lincoln did allow Douglass in White House to discuss his grievances which was very radical.

Kennedy wanted to remain President and feared the Civil Rights movement might end his chance for being elected and for reelection, especially because the Southern Dems.

Like Lincoln though, MLK and Kennedy also had a relationship definitely aided by Kings wife who called upon JFK when King was jailed. They did eventually have a friendship of respect and empathy.

I appreciate both men because they saw the world one way until they were introduced to another. Eventually, both men could not hide from the humanity they were introduced to and I appreciate that.

[sdgrrl]

You are right Lincoln and JFK were not crusaders of civil rights in the beginning.

“If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union.” Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s friendship with Frederick Douglass definitely helped reshape his views of what a black person is and that they are as intelligent and human as any one else.

Lincoln did allow Douglass in White House to discuss his grievances which was very radical.

Kennedy wanted to remain President and feared the Civil Rights movement might end his chance for being elected and for reelection, especially because the Southern Dems.

Like Lincoln though, MLK and Kennedy also had a relationship definitely aided by Kings wife who called upon JFK when King was jailed. They did eventually have a friendship of respect and empathy.

I appreciate both men because they saw the world one way until they were introduced to another. Eventually, both men could not hide from the humanity they were introduced to and I appreciate that.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Felix: I came across this little gem from Joe Klein over at Time: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/yes-its-racism-but-its-complicated/

In essence, Klein argues that, by and large, the protesters are indeed racist, but not solely based on Obama’s color. Rather, they (and the “they” in this case are high school educated Middle Americans of a certain race and type) are worried about “furriners” (Klein’s word, not mine) and thus are out protesting. The “furriners” that we’re all afraid of, apparently, run the gamut from Hispanics, Asians, homosexuals and, of course, educated, “uppity” (again, Klein’s word) blacks.

So, in one fell swoop, Klein addresses: Obama as representative of “the other”, the ignorance and lack of upper education of the protesters (implying that we’d all be so better able to understand Obama’ brilliance if we were all possessed of a secondary education), and the inherent racism/bigotry of ANY and ALL opposition to the President and his policies.

You see that same infantile arrogance in posters like Brian, when he talks about the “missing teeth” of the protesters and opines vacuously about American “weakness” as a function of the Bush presidency. One only has to look to today’s news of Obama’s abandonment of the missile defense shield and Putin’s evident glee to see American weakness.

Nope, what we’re treated to these days from the American Left, the MSM and the indoctrinated like Brian and Pat, is the product of a co-opted educational system, the death and dearth of critical thinking and analysis and the purblindness that comes from a misplaced sense of one’s superiority over those that dissent or disagree. It’s funny, but the very people that are accusing others of acting like Nazis are in fact behaving more like them.

“Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig”.[/quote]

Good morning Allan. I disagree with some of your statments.

Yes Obama is cutting the Bush missile defense plan in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean nothing is being planned to replace it.

Maybe we shouldn’t defend ourselves with technology from circa 2005 when we can have technology from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akh8bx5yRBQc

I agree not all the protesters are wingnuts. My fiance’s best friend was a huge contributor to tea parties over two years ago.

i don’t like the words “all” and “every” when describing groups of people, because that is discrimination even if its describing tea partiers.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Felix: I came across this little gem from Joe Klein over at Time: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/yes-its-racism-but-its-complicated/

In essence, Klein argues that, by and large, the protesters are indeed racist, but not solely based on Obama’s color. Rather, they (and the “they” in this case are high school educated Middle Americans of a certain race and type) are worried about “furriners” (Klein’s word, not mine) and thus are out protesting. The “furriners” that we’re all afraid of, apparently, run the gamut from Hispanics, Asians, homosexuals and, of course, educated, “uppity” (again, Klein’s word) blacks.

So, in one fell swoop, Klein addresses: Obama as representative of “the other”, the ignorance and lack of upper education of the protesters (implying that we’d all be so better able to understand Obama’ brilliance if we were all possessed of a secondary education), and the inherent racism/bigotry of ANY and ALL opposition to the President and his policies.

You see that same infantile arrogance in posters like Brian, when he talks about the “missing teeth” of the protesters and opines vacuously about American “weakness” as a function of the Bush presidency. One only has to look to today’s news of Obama’s abandonment of the missile defense shield and Putin’s evident glee to see American weakness.

Nope, what we’re treated to these days from the American Left, the MSM and the indoctrinated like Brian and Pat, is the product of a co-opted educational system, the death and dearth of critical thinking and analysis and the purblindness that comes from a misplaced sense of one’s superiority over those that dissent or disagree. It’s funny, but the very people that are accusing others of acting like Nazis are in fact behaving more like them.

“Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig”.[/quote]

Good morning Allan. I disagree with some of your statments.

Yes Obama is cutting the Bush missile defense plan in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean nothing is being planned to replace it.

Maybe we shouldn’t defend ourselves with technology from circa 2005 when we can have technology from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akh8bx5yRBQc

I agree not all the protesters are wingnuts. My fiance’s best friend was a huge contributor to tea parties over two years ago.

i don’t like the words “all” and “every” when describing groups of people, because that is discrimination even if its describing tea partiers.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Felix: I came across this little gem from Joe Klein over at Time: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/yes-its-racism-but-its-complicated/

In essence, Klein argues that, by and large, the protesters are indeed racist, but not solely based on Obama’s color. Rather, they (and the “they” in this case are high school educated Middle Americans of a certain race and type) are worried about “furriners” (Klein’s word, not mine) and thus are out protesting. The “furriners” that we’re all afraid of, apparently, run the gamut from Hispanics, Asians, homosexuals and, of course, educated, “uppity” (again, Klein’s word) blacks.

So, in one fell swoop, Klein addresses: Obama as representative of “the other”, the ignorance and lack of upper education of the protesters (implying that we’d all be so better able to understand Obama’ brilliance if we were all possessed of a secondary education), and the inherent racism/bigotry of ANY and ALL opposition to the President and his policies.

You see that same infantile arrogance in posters like Brian, when he talks about the “missing teeth” of the protesters and opines vacuously about American “weakness” as a function of the Bush presidency. One only has to look to today’s news of Obama’s abandonment of the missile defense shield and Putin’s evident glee to see American weakness.

Nope, what we’re treated to these days from the American Left, the MSM and the indoctrinated like Brian and Pat, is the product of a co-opted educational system, the death and dearth of critical thinking and analysis and the purblindness that comes from a misplaced sense of one’s superiority over those that dissent or disagree. It’s funny, but the very people that are accusing others of acting like Nazis are in fact behaving more like them.

“Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig”.[/quote]

Good morning Allan. I disagree with some of your statments.

Yes Obama is cutting the Bush missile defense plan in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean nothing is being planned to replace it.

Maybe we shouldn’t defend ourselves with technology from circa 2005 when we can have technology from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akh8bx5yRBQc

I agree not all the protesters are wingnuts. My fiance’s best friend was a huge contributor to tea parties over two years ago.

i don’t like the words “all” and “every” when describing groups of people, because that is discrimination even if its describing tea partiers.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Felix: I came across this little gem from Joe Klein over at Time: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/yes-its-racism-but-its-complicated/

In essence, Klein argues that, by and large, the protesters are indeed racist, but not solely based on Obama’s color. Rather, they (and the “they” in this case are high school educated Middle Americans of a certain race and type) are worried about “furriners” (Klein’s word, not mine) and thus are out protesting. The “furriners” that we’re all afraid of, apparently, run the gamut from Hispanics, Asians, homosexuals and, of course, educated, “uppity” (again, Klein’s word) blacks.

So, in one fell swoop, Klein addresses: Obama as representative of “the other”, the ignorance and lack of upper education of the protesters (implying that we’d all be so better able to understand Obama’ brilliance if we were all possessed of a secondary education), and the inherent racism/bigotry of ANY and ALL opposition to the President and his policies.

You see that same infantile arrogance in posters like Brian, when he talks about the “missing teeth” of the protesters and opines vacuously about American “weakness” as a function of the Bush presidency. One only has to look to today’s news of Obama’s abandonment of the missile defense shield and Putin’s evident glee to see American weakness.

Nope, what we’re treated to these days from the American Left, the MSM and the indoctrinated like Brian and Pat, is the product of a co-opted educational system, the death and dearth of critical thinking and analysis and the purblindness that comes from a misplaced sense of one’s superiority over those that dissent or disagree. It’s funny, but the very people that are accusing others of acting like Nazis are in fact behaving more like them.

“Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig”.[/quote]

Good morning Allan. I disagree with some of your statments.

Yes Obama is cutting the Bush missile defense plan in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean nothing is being planned to replace it.

Maybe we shouldn’t defend ourselves with technology from circa 2005 when we can have technology from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akh8bx5yRBQc

I agree not all the protesters are wingnuts. My fiance’s best friend was a huge contributor to tea parties over two years ago.

i don’t like the words “all” and “every” when describing groups of people, because that is discrimination even if its describing tea partiers.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Felix: I came across this little gem from Joe Klein over at Time: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/yes-its-racism-but-its-complicated/

In essence, Klein argues that, by and large, the protesters are indeed racist, but not solely based on Obama’s color. Rather, they (and the “they” in this case are high school educated Middle Americans of a certain race and type) are worried about “furriners” (Klein’s word, not mine) and thus are out protesting. The “furriners” that we’re all afraid of, apparently, run the gamut from Hispanics, Asians, homosexuals and, of course, educated, “uppity” (again, Klein’s word) blacks.

So, in one fell swoop, Klein addresses: Obama as representative of “the other”, the ignorance and lack of upper education of the protesters (implying that we’d all be so better able to understand Obama’ brilliance if we were all possessed of a secondary education), and the inherent racism/bigotry of ANY and ALL opposition to the President and his policies.

You see that same infantile arrogance in posters like Brian, when he talks about the “missing teeth” of the protesters and opines vacuously about American “weakness” as a function of the Bush presidency. One only has to look to today’s news of Obama’s abandonment of the missile defense shield and Putin’s evident glee to see American weakness.

Nope, what we’re treated to these days from the American Left, the MSM and the indoctrinated like Brian and Pat, is the product of a co-opted educational system, the death and dearth of critical thinking and analysis and the purblindness that comes from a misplaced sense of one’s superiority over those that dissent or disagree. It’s funny, but the very people that are accusing others of acting like Nazis are in fact behaving more like them.

“Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig”.[/quote]

Good morning Allan. I disagree with some of your statments.

Yes Obama is cutting the Bush missile defense plan in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean nothing is being planned to replace it.

Maybe we shouldn’t defend ourselves with technology from circa 2005 when we can have technology from now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=akh8bx5yRBQc

I agree not all the protesters are wingnuts. My fiance’s best friend was a huge contributor to tea parties over two years ago.

i don’t like the words “all” and “every” when describing groups of people, because that is discrimination even if its describing tea partiers.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

What is a radical to you Felix?

JFK was probably seen as a radical for his view and support of Civil Rights.

Martin L. King was seen as a radical.

Roosevelt was a radical for his social programs.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were radicals for fighting the “tradition” of women having no voice in government.

Lincoln was a radical for supporting the end of slavery.

Each of these people were radical in reshaping America from a different light than what existed in 1776. Is that a bad thing?

I guess I am a liberal because of what I see as radical righties.

People that want prayer in school.

Those who viciously hate homosexuals.

People that want no birth control at all or sex education.

Those that want creationsim to replace evolution.

Left has “radicals” but please don’t tell me the right has none when they have Michelle Bachmann, had Rick Santorum and many others.

No disrespect to you Felix, but a radical can be seen in many different ways depending on who is asked.

[sdgrrl]

Aec, I wasn’t attacking zeits post, we pretty much disagree on everything. He felt things were less civil today and I feel things are more civil today. Maybe you don’t like my observations, but I really don’t care.

He made the point and opinion that things are less civil today and that it is by societal changes.

I simply made the case how I appreciate how society has changed.

Take it or leave it those are my opinions. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Author]

Posts