RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 2.3
by 3
users |
~ADVERTISING~
Obama's preacher has more appeal than 'saviors'
By DENNIS CLAYSON
The flap over statements made by Barack Obama's former preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has raised several interesting issues. Even though the good reverend has said nothing that has not been said many times before (and perhaps should be said by any preacher named Jeremiah), political opponents have jumped on it, acting as if they have never heard these ideas in their entire lives.
That is the expected response in modern American politics. Of more interest is the motivation of those lining up to "understand" and excuse what has been said. After all, why shouldn't black "theology" reflect the history of oppression by a hated majority?
In fact, this is one of the aspects of modern political thinking that separates conservatives from liberals.
When one of the many "oppressed" people of the world begins shouting at those of European descent and blames them for all the world's ills, liberals "understand."
Whites are evil and have largely been the cause of much of what is wrong in the world. This belief is made necessary by ideology rather than by facts.
It works like this: progressives "understand," beat their own breasts and beg for forgiveness. In their atoned state, they then transfer their sins onto others of their own kind and blame them for the ills of the world.
Thus, while ironically accepting responsibility, they pass it on to others, who become the modern incarnate of the devil. In their saved state, yet having experienced the terrible pangs of guilt, certain progressives begin to adopt the role of saviors; atoned, holy, and able to lift up the downtrodden by the strength of their "caring."
You see "diversity matters." Why? Because like a movie set, it gives a setting to play out the story ? it adds visibility to mythology.
There is more than a little irony involved. You would have to be the product of a long-lasting Christian tradition to even think this way.
In other words, you would most likely be of European descent.
Non-European peoples learned this decades ago and have been milking it for all it's worth ever since. Obama's preacher may or may not believe what he says, but he knows his congregation does, and even more important, he knows that powerful forces in white-America believe it as well.
Conservatives don't buy into this. They already hold their own version of Christianity. They do not need to find a civil outlet to play out their cultural myths. They know that a government is simply another social organization, and that the state is no substitute for God.
I, for example, have no racial guilt. I have no white guilt. I have no American guilt. Zero! Nada! Zip!
My ancestors came to North America to find religious freedom. They never owned slaves. They did not fight in the Civil War on either side, but that is not really the issue.
Someday, I may need to apologize to my ancestors for the things I have done, but I don't need to apologize for them. What they did is what they did. They stand responsible for their own behavior, the same as I do for mine.
Most liberals spend their lives in social classes, occupations and academic disciplines where people can hold ideas that don't work for most of their life and never be found out.
Consequently, they have a tendency to emphasize "caring" and "compassion," even if their actual behavior is making it worse for the people they are trying to save.
Since much of this compassion is ideological rather than substantive, many on the left simply make the automatic, knee-jerk conclusion that conservatives do not care and lack compassion, because they do not share the same ideology.
This assertion is not only insulting, but it also shows a hubris that could not be maintained without cultural isolation and an almost flippant disregard for the truth.
Compassion without compassionate results is empty. What has happened to African-Americans since the "War on Poverty" began? Are racial relations better where liberals have been in power? Is a higher percent of blacks employed in the workforce; are more black children being raised within intact families?
Was it Mitt Romney's father or Al Gore's father who marched for civil rights?
If some leftist busybody, who sees herself as a savior, had all this progressive compassion for me, I would think of not only "understanding" Obama's preacher, but maybe even going to his church.
That is the expected response in modern American politics. Of more interest is the motivation of those lining up to "understand" and excuse what has been said. After all, why shouldn't black "theology" reflect the history of oppression by a hated majority?
In fact, this is one of the aspects of modern political thinking that separates conservatives from liberals.
When one of the many "oppressed" people of the world begins shouting at those of European descent and blames them for all the world's ills, liberals "understand."
Whites are evil and have largely been the cause of much of what is wrong in the world. This belief is made necessary by ideology rather than by facts.
It works like this: progressives "understand," beat their own breasts and beg for forgiveness. In their atoned state, they then transfer their sins onto others of their own kind and blame them for the ills of the world.
Thus, while ironically accepting responsibility, they pass it on to others, who become the modern incarnate of the devil. In their saved state, yet having experienced the terrible pangs of guilt, certain progressives begin to adopt the role of saviors; atoned, holy, and able to lift up the downtrodden by the strength of their "caring."
You see "diversity matters." Why? Because like a movie set, it gives a setting to play out the story ? it adds visibility to mythology.
There is more than a little irony involved. You would have to be the product of a long-lasting Christian tradition to even think this way.
In other words, you would most likely be of European descent.
Non-European peoples learned this decades ago and have been milking it for all it's worth ever since. Obama's preacher may or may not believe what he says, but he knows his congregation does, and even more important, he knows that powerful forces in white-America believe it as well.
Conservatives don't buy into this. They already hold their own version of Christianity. They do not need to find a civil outlet to play out their cultural myths. They know that a government is simply another social organization, and that the state is no substitute for God.
I, for example, have no racial guilt. I have no white guilt. I have no American guilt. Zero! Nada! Zip!
My ancestors came to North America to find religious freedom. They never owned slaves. They did not fight in the Civil War on either side, but that is not really the issue.
Someday, I may need to apologize to my ancestors for the things I have done, but I don't need to apologize for them. What they did is what they did. They stand responsible for their own behavior, the same as I do for mine.
Most liberals spend their lives in social classes, occupations and academic disciplines where people can hold ideas that don't work for most of their life and never be found out.
Consequently, they have a tendency to emphasize "caring" and "compassion," even if their actual behavior is making it worse for the people they are trying to save.
Since much of this compassion is ideological rather than substantive, many on the left simply make the automatic, knee-jerk conclusion that conservatives do not care and lack compassion, because they do not share the same ideology.
This assertion is not only insulting, but it also shows a hubris that could not be maintained without cultural isolation and an almost flippant disregard for the truth.
Compassion without compassionate results is empty. What has happened to African-Americans since the "War on Poverty" began? Are racial relations better where liberals have been in power? Is a higher percent of blacks employed in the workforce; are more black children being raised within intact families?
Was it Mitt Romney's father or Al Gore's father who marched for civil rights?
If some leftist busybody, who sees herself as a savior, had all this progressive compassion for me, I would think of not only "understanding" Obama's preacher, but maybe even going to his church.
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
cross1242 wrote on Apr 13, 2008 5:22 PM:
" This week, Prof. Clayson adds his voice to the criticism of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s former pastor. In view of that criticism, it’s appropriate to point out his hypocrisy toward “political opponents have jumped on it” since he is “jumping” on it too.
Prof. Clayson then spend several paragraphs telling his readers what liberals believe about rash statements by black pastors about the status of blacks in America. Prof. Clayson must spend several paragraphs explaining because since he makes an accusation that is not true. It is what is known in the philosophy of logic as a “straw man” argument. Someone wanting to argue sets up a fictional position of the opposition and then knocks it down with counter-arguments. Satire, suggesting that the opponent isn’t very bright is quite common.
How do I know that what Prof. Clayson is saying isn’t true? The chief reason is that he’s telling his readers what all libbies believe. And, since I’m a libbie in good standing, I know for certain that I do NOT believe what Prof. Clayson says. (I suppose we’ll hear from others on the hard right saying that, “It is too what libbies believe!” If so, then that person is a liar since he or she is purporting to read my mind.)
Of course, those of generous disposition would say, “That’s just you. It’s all those other libbies who are fooling themselves.”
The problem with that is that I said that I was a libbie “in good standing.” And I have never, ever encountered people with the viewpoint outlined by Prof. Clayson. I deny that Prof. Clayson’s description is true. I’m entitled to do that. What Prof. Clayson gratuitously affirms, I am entitled to gratuitously deny.
Prof. Clayson then goes into knocking down the strawman he just constructed. His argument can be capsulated in a quote of one of his sentences. It’s, “When one of the many ‘oppressed’ people of the world begins shouting at those of European descent and blames them for all the world's ills, liberals ‘understand.’”
That quote is telling because of the two parentheticals he uses in the sentence. By putting “oppressed” in quotation marks, he’s saying that he, personally, does NOT believe that there are oppressed people. And, by putting “understand” in quotes, he’s saying that the libbies don’t understand the people who claim to be “oppressed” – but he does.
Personally, I’d think that with 200+ years of slavery and 150+ years of Jim Crow and hypocrisy on race that blacks are entitled to say that their status in this country was and still is less that equal with whites.
And by saying that he understands the situation but the libbies don’t, Prof. Clayson is saying that the libbies don’t need to do anything about racism that is still prevalent in our society because the claim of oppression is baloney. Prof. Clayson seems to think that because HE is not racist, there is no need to do anything about racism. But, he seems to forget (or ignore) that racism is still rife in our society. An assertion that we need do nothing about racism just boggles my mind.
Prof. Clayson also ignores entirely what Senator Obama had to say about the Rev. Wright’s statements. And that is a tragedy. Sen. Obama stated that there is a problem with race on BOTH sides of the racial divide. And his solution was to invite a national dialogue about race. The prospect that both whites and blacks have something to learn from each other is something that may go much further to solve the racial divide than any kind of new laws. And, trying to solve our greatest national problem without the imposition of new laws is something that I would have expected Prof. Clayson to applaud rather than ignore.
In any case, what Senator Obama proposes to do about race is something for which we should all be grateful. It could be a real opportunity to establish are society where race really doesn’t make a difference.
Prof. Clayson also gets in another of his periodic cracks against his own university’s adopted motto of “Diversity Matters.” Prof. Clayson, it seems, doesn’t think that diversity matters. How someone could believe at a university that diversity doesn’t matter (he calls it “mythology”) is misplaced in a university setting. (BTW, if you want to read why UNI’s president thinks that “Diversity Matters,” go to: http://www.uni.edu/diversity/)
Prof. Clayson’s record of talking about hard-right baloney when it makes no sense at all remains intact.
"
Prof. Clayson then spend several paragraphs telling his readers what liberals believe about rash statements by black pastors about the status of blacks in America. Prof. Clayson must spend several paragraphs explaining because since he makes an accusation that is not true. It is what is known in the philosophy of logic as a “straw man” argument. Someone wanting to argue sets up a fictional position of the opposition and then knocks it down with counter-arguments. Satire, suggesting that the opponent isn’t very bright is quite common.
How do I know that what Prof. Clayson is saying isn’t true? The chief reason is that he’s telling his readers what all libbies believe. And, since I’m a libbie in good standing, I know for certain that I do NOT believe what Prof. Clayson says. (I suppose we’ll hear from others on the hard right saying that, “It is too what libbies believe!” If so, then that person is a liar since he or she is purporting to read my mind.)
Of course, those of generous disposition would say, “That’s just you. It’s all those other libbies who are fooling themselves.”
The problem with that is that I said that I was a libbie “in good standing.” And I have never, ever encountered people with the viewpoint outlined by Prof. Clayson. I deny that Prof. Clayson’s description is true. I’m entitled to do that. What Prof. Clayson gratuitously affirms, I am entitled to gratuitously deny.
Prof. Clayson then goes into knocking down the strawman he just constructed. His argument can be capsulated in a quote of one of his sentences. It’s, “When one of the many ‘oppressed’ people of the world begins shouting at those of European descent and blames them for all the world's ills, liberals ‘understand.’”
That quote is telling because of the two parentheticals he uses in the sentence. By putting “oppressed” in quotation marks, he’s saying that he, personally, does NOT believe that there are oppressed people. And, by putting “understand” in quotes, he’s saying that the libbies don’t understand the people who claim to be “oppressed” – but he does.
Personally, I’d think that with 200+ years of slavery and 150+ years of Jim Crow and hypocrisy on race that blacks are entitled to say that their status in this country was and still is less that equal with whites.
And by saying that he understands the situation but the libbies don’t, Prof. Clayson is saying that the libbies don’t need to do anything about racism that is still prevalent in our society because the claim of oppression is baloney. Prof. Clayson seems to think that because HE is not racist, there is no need to do anything about racism. But, he seems to forget (or ignore) that racism is still rife in our society. An assertion that we need do nothing about racism just boggles my mind.
Prof. Clayson also ignores entirely what Senator Obama had to say about the Rev. Wright’s statements. And that is a tragedy. Sen. Obama stated that there is a problem with race on BOTH sides of the racial divide. And his solution was to invite a national dialogue about race. The prospect that both whites and blacks have something to learn from each other is something that may go much further to solve the racial divide than any kind of new laws. And, trying to solve our greatest national problem without the imposition of new laws is something that I would have expected Prof. Clayson to applaud rather than ignore.
In any case, what Senator Obama proposes to do about race is something for which we should all be grateful. It could be a real opportunity to establish are society where race really doesn’t make a difference.
Prof. Clayson also gets in another of his periodic cracks against his own university’s adopted motto of “Diversity Matters.” Prof. Clayson, it seems, doesn’t think that diversity matters. How someone could believe at a university that diversity doesn’t matter (he calls it “mythology”) is misplaced in a university setting. (BTW, if you want to read why UNI’s president thinks that “Diversity Matters,” go to: http://www.uni.edu/diversity/)
Prof. Clayson’s record of talking about hard-right baloney when it makes no sense at all remains intact.
"
hetfield wrote on Apr 13, 2008 6:55 PM:
" True, until Cross comes on and tells us all how Clayson is full of baloney. Clayson already predicts this however in his piece.
I also have no guilt whatsoever. "
I also have no guilt whatsoever. "
Phil wrote on Apr 14, 2008 8:57 AM:
" I have no racial guilt either.
Conservatives with Mr. Clayson's views live in a la-la land where diversity doesn't matter and where what happened in prior generations should have no bearing whatsoever on how people in a society should act today.
So the only thing "hit on the head" by this article was how badly Mr. Clayton has not learned anything about people, race, society, and the affect history has on it. Look around the world and the conflicts that go on - race, religion, historical opponents, oppressed peoples - this doesn't happen just in the USA. Mr. Clayson - are you now saying conservative is a "code" word for dumb, ignorant, and insensitive? Cause if you really believe what you just wrote, I am not sure what other conclusion to draw.
I can kind of understand how people who are uneducated and somewhat sheltered can be like this, but a professor at a state university? There are none so blind as those who will not see - or to put it another way - none so ignorant as those who will not think - i.e. the Dennis Claysons of this world. "
Conservatives with Mr. Clayson's views live in a la-la land where diversity doesn't matter and where what happened in prior generations should have no bearing whatsoever on how people in a society should act today.
So the only thing "hit on the head" by this article was how badly Mr. Clayton has not learned anything about people, race, society, and the affect history has on it. Look around the world and the conflicts that go on - race, religion, historical opponents, oppressed peoples - this doesn't happen just in the USA. Mr. Clayson - are you now saying conservative is a "code" word for dumb, ignorant, and insensitive? Cause if you really believe what you just wrote, I am not sure what other conclusion to draw.
I can kind of understand how people who are uneducated and somewhat sheltered can be like this, but a professor at a state university? There are none so blind as those who will not see - or to put it another way - none so ignorant as those who will not think - i.e. the Dennis Claysons of this world. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 14, 2008 10:15 AM:
" Phil, good point. I don't have racial guilt either.
Unfortunately, I also know that there are a lot of folks that ought to have some guilt, but don't. "
Unfortunately, I also know that there are a lot of folks that ought to have some guilt, but don't. "
xdfred wrote on Apr 14, 2008 10:18 AM:
" Professor Clayton is absolutely correct on this matter. Liberals are so obsessed with groups that they never take character into account. And historically, most people have been oppressed in by someone else at one time or another. Does anyone ever hear Asians complaining about the raw deal they got in the 1800's? They have more character and no race warlords that thrive on divisiveness tha liberals just fawn over, hence the guilt. There's a phrase that is appropriate for these folks: GET OVER IT!
I wonder how many Rev Wrights ther are preaching hate whitey to their congregations, or professors preaching the same in their classes. Ever been to an African American studies class? "
I wonder how many Rev Wrights ther are preaching hate whitey to their congregations, or professors preaching the same in their classes. Ever been to an African American studies class? "
Kramerica wrote on Apr 14, 2008 10:41 AM:
" there you have it folks, if you're conservative, you're ignorant. You finally answered my question from last week's column, Phil. Unless you think like a lib, you CAN'T be intelligent. That kind of arrogance is why it's impossible to have a civil discussion with libs. "
xdfred wrote on Apr 14, 2008 1:26 PM:
" If Obama and his left wing followers want to have a discussion on race and white guilt, let's have it, but it should start like this:
"Back in the 1960s, the Democrats went in for social engineering in a big way. They concentrated particularly on black Americans. One of the first things they did was to increase welfare, but only to those homes that didn’t have men living in them. That not only created dependency on the part of black women and children, but, inevitably, led young blacks to grow up without male authority figures around to keep them in line. The results weren’t too great for the grown-ups, either. Single black mothers, more often than not uneducated teenagers, were faced with the prospect of trying to raise and discipline unruly young guys; while far too many black men became as rootless and irresponsible as their offspring.
Nobody should be too surprised that blacks, whose families, in the main, used to be even more stable than whites during the 30s and 40s, are now in shambles. Half of teenage blacks drop out of high school before they graduate, and 70% of black babies are born to unmarried females.
But do liberals ever take any responsibility for creating this tragic mess? Of course not. All they do is insist that we all pay higher taxes so that more and more money can be spent promoting this endless cycle of victimhood and racial entitlements.
Liberals always chuckle when conservatives suggest that instead of merely having young girls practice getting prophylactics on bananas in so-called sex education classes, that abstinence be promoted in our schools. Liberals are always at their best chuckling at the ways of those they regard as hicks. That’s because liberals place far more importance on sophistication than on character, decency and values. Still, at the risk of being chuckled at, I have to ask what is so amusing about those millions of abortions taking place in America and what’s so damn funny about 25% of American girls, according to a recent survey, suffering from a sexually transmitted disease?"
Quote from
"Visitors from a Weird Planet"
By Burt Prelutsky (another ignorant conservative)
Monday, April 14, 2008
"
"Back in the 1960s, the Democrats went in for social engineering in a big way. They concentrated particularly on black Americans. One of the first things they did was to increase welfare, but only to those homes that didn’t have men living in them. That not only created dependency on the part of black women and children, but, inevitably, led young blacks to grow up without male authority figures around to keep them in line. The results weren’t too great for the grown-ups, either. Single black mothers, more often than not uneducated teenagers, were faced with the prospect of trying to raise and discipline unruly young guys; while far too many black men became as rootless and irresponsible as their offspring.
Nobody should be too surprised that blacks, whose families, in the main, used to be even more stable than whites during the 30s and 40s, are now in shambles. Half of teenage blacks drop out of high school before they graduate, and 70% of black babies are born to unmarried females.
But do liberals ever take any responsibility for creating this tragic mess? Of course not. All they do is insist that we all pay higher taxes so that more and more money can be spent promoting this endless cycle of victimhood and racial entitlements.
Liberals always chuckle when conservatives suggest that instead of merely having young girls practice getting prophylactics on bananas in so-called sex education classes, that abstinence be promoted in our schools. Liberals are always at their best chuckling at the ways of those they regard as hicks. That’s because liberals place far more importance on sophistication than on character, decency and values. Still, at the risk of being chuckled at, I have to ask what is so amusing about those millions of abortions taking place in America and what’s so damn funny about 25% of American girls, according to a recent survey, suffering from a sexually transmitted disease?"
Quote from
"Visitors from a Weird Planet"
By Burt Prelutsky (another ignorant conservative)
Monday, April 14, 2008
"
hetfield wrote on Apr 14, 2008 3:24 PM:
" Cross writes ' I deny that Prof. Clayson’s description is true. I’m entitled to do that. What Prof. Clayson gratuitously affirms, I am entitled to gratuitously deny.'
Then Phil comes on and says to the effect that if you are conservative, you are ignorant.
So which is it fellas? Your liberal tendancies are not together on this issue.
If we conservative good guys agree with Clayson we are ignorant, but are entitled(there is that word again) to think that way. "
Then Phil comes on and says to the effect that if you are conservative, you are ignorant.
So which is it fellas? Your liberal tendancies are not together on this issue.
If we conservative good guys agree with Clayson we are ignorant, but are entitled(there is that word again) to think that way. "
Phil wrote on Apr 14, 2008 8:54 PM:
" Well, well. Mr. Clayson accuses liberals of holding various beliefs, or being this or that every week but do hetfield or Kramerica say anything about it? Not at all.
But if I or another blogger make any accusations about many conservatives they sure get awfully touchy!
The point is Mr. Clayson - and those of you who agree with him on this topic - think historical prejudices, conflicts, oppression, etc. mean nothing when it comes to the problems we in society face - like racial issues. Whether it should or not is immaterial - it does. You can't ignore it - like Mr. Clayson basically is doing. And to ignore it is ignorance. What our ancestors did does matter - unfortunately and often regretably. And that is true in the USA, Russia, Iraq, and dozens of other places around the world.
Cause if it didn't matter, and everyone just put the past behind them, then there would be peace breaking out all over and many forms of bigotry would be all but gone.
So hetfield, to answer your question, yes, if you agree with Mr. Clayson on this you are ignorant - at least on this subject. A suggestion - go live in Ethiopia or Uganda or Saudi Arabia for a year - feel what is like to be a minority - then see if you agree with Mr. Clayson.
And no xfred, all discussions of racism in this country need to start with the people who did the oppressing - whether it was against blacks or native Americans, or the Chinese, or the Jews, etc. Have mistakes been made in trying to compensate for these wrongs - certainly - but you can't pick a date and say the oppressed have to forget everything that happened to them before then - that's just another form of oppression against that group and their history. "
But if I or another blogger make any accusations about many conservatives they sure get awfully touchy!
The point is Mr. Clayson - and those of you who agree with him on this topic - think historical prejudices, conflicts, oppression, etc. mean nothing when it comes to the problems we in society face - like racial issues. Whether it should or not is immaterial - it does. You can't ignore it - like Mr. Clayson basically is doing. And to ignore it is ignorance. What our ancestors did does matter - unfortunately and often regretably. And that is true in the USA, Russia, Iraq, and dozens of other places around the world.
Cause if it didn't matter, and everyone just put the past behind them, then there would be peace breaking out all over and many forms of bigotry would be all but gone.
So hetfield, to answer your question, yes, if you agree with Mr. Clayson on this you are ignorant - at least on this subject. A suggestion - go live in Ethiopia or Uganda or Saudi Arabia for a year - feel what is like to be a minority - then see if you agree with Mr. Clayson.
And no xfred, all discussions of racism in this country need to start with the people who did the oppressing - whether it was against blacks or native Americans, or the Chinese, or the Jews, etc. Have mistakes been made in trying to compensate for these wrongs - certainly - but you can't pick a date and say the oppressed have to forget everything that happened to them before then - that's just another form of oppression against that group and their history. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 15, 2008 1:32 AM:
" Xdfred, I don’t think that you’re getting the idea of what Obama wants to do regarding having a national dialog about race. What you want to do is not having a dialog but, but to read the riot act at a bunch of blacks. Since those people will have gotten together with you to try to find a solution to the race problem, they’ll find out about 30 seconds after you open your mouth that all they’re going to get is the same old same old.
What is supposed to happen is for you to talk about what makes you, or other whites, want to steer clear of blacks where you live, where you work, where you go to church, and anywhere else that you might have contact with them. Even if you personally disavow any such inclination, plenty of white people still treat black badly and the impression is that we ALL do.
And, in the dialog, blacks are supposed to talk about whether they have just given up on life because of how they and their ancestors have been treated in this country.
The objective is for BOTH races to find out that they BOTH have cause in the other races attitudes that are unproductive. If both sides find out what their role is in causing racial strife, then maybe attitudes would change.
I repeat something that I said about Prof. Clayson’s position. Obama is trying to arrange going after the basis of racial problems: people’s attitudes. And, since he’s talking about trying to solve the major problem of this country without passing a raft of new laws mandating something or prohibiting something, I’d think that someone with libertarian tendencies would cut Obama some slack to try his idea. I’d suggest that a black man as President might provide the best opportunity we could ever have of solving the racial problem.
All that doing what you want to do would do is to just keep the pot boiling.
"
What is supposed to happen is for you to talk about what makes you, or other whites, want to steer clear of blacks where you live, where you work, where you go to church, and anywhere else that you might have contact with them. Even if you personally disavow any such inclination, plenty of white people still treat black badly and the impression is that we ALL do.
And, in the dialog, blacks are supposed to talk about whether they have just given up on life because of how they and their ancestors have been treated in this country.
The objective is for BOTH races to find out that they BOTH have cause in the other races attitudes that are unproductive. If both sides find out what their role is in causing racial strife, then maybe attitudes would change.
I repeat something that I said about Prof. Clayson’s position. Obama is trying to arrange going after the basis of racial problems: people’s attitudes. And, since he’s talking about trying to solve the major problem of this country without passing a raft of new laws mandating something or prohibiting something, I’d think that someone with libertarian tendencies would cut Obama some slack to try his idea. I’d suggest that a black man as President might provide the best opportunity we could ever have of solving the racial problem.
All that doing what you want to do would do is to just keep the pot boiling.
"
cross1242 wrote on Apr 15, 2008 1:35 AM:
" hetfield, I've read your post of Apr 14, 2008 @ 3:24 PM several times. Unfortunately, it's so garbled that I can't figure out what you're talking about. Even if it's just an insult, I always like to know for sure what is said. "
coalplant wrote on Apr 15, 2008 7:12 AM:
" I love it when liberals get challenged on their silly and outdated views on race in this country. To expand on exd quote the darker skinned portion of our populance was reenslaved in the 60's by the friendly neighborhood liberal for their vote. As for Obama's dialgue on race, lets see, he talks of typical white people who are scared of everyone, he talks about how us small town hicks are only reliant on guns and religion because times are bad and fools like cross and phil lap it up like the good little sheep they are. Obama's guilt trip isn't working on me as I see the liberal elitist snob for what he is,, an empty suit, void of ideas, and full of hate for all he thinks have held him down. I will not even get started on the filth and social division his wife has spewing from her mouth.
Obama is a divider and a fool, propped up by hatred "
Obama is a divider and a fool, propped up by hatred "
Phil wrote on Apr 15, 2008 7:46 AM:
" coalplant - I guess I can't put it any more clearly than Joe Scarborough - a former Republican congressman from FL and conservative talking head did - the concept and idea that Barack Obama talked about is accurate and true - but he still shouldn't have said it because it plays into Republicans hands.
Basically, because of his willingness to analyze and understand the context of the comments, Mr. Scarborough knows that what Mr. Obama said was very truthful. But because he knows his "base" - people who don't analyze and think through such things - i.e. the reactionary and the ignorant - Mr. Scarborough knows these comments will work against Mr. Obama.
coalplant - you don't get it and you never will and I haven't the time nor desire to attempt to assist those who don't think they need it. Ignorance and bigotry will survive and be passed on to the next generation. But they always do - it just helps to know who the carriers are. "
Basically, because of his willingness to analyze and understand the context of the comments, Mr. Scarborough knows that what Mr. Obama said was very truthful. But because he knows his "base" - people who don't analyze and think through such things - i.e. the reactionary and the ignorant - Mr. Scarborough knows these comments will work against Mr. Obama.
coalplant - you don't get it and you never will and I haven't the time nor desire to attempt to assist those who don't think they need it. Ignorance and bigotry will survive and be passed on to the next generation. But they always do - it just helps to know who the carriers are. "
coalplant wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:47 AM:
" Phil, I also feel your ignorance and your bigotry,, elitist liberal snobs like yourself and Obama are the truest and most pure form of bigotry this country has produced. Liberals like yourself , label and divide all groups into your diverse little world and fly off the handle by calling names and labeling those who don't fit into your supposedly diverse world.
Obama's mistake is showing his true feelings about the religion, that it is a crutch that people only go to when they are in trouble,,,No wonder he could sit there and praise his pastor, he is without a doubt a Liberal, elitist, fraud, and I get it Phil, I never met a person who needed to be judged by the color of their skin, although I can't imagine a snob like yourself ever meeting someone whom you didn't judge by one of your liberal sub-divisions.
Thanks for not offering your assistance as the only thing a liberal snobs help would get me is dependent on the government. "
Obama's mistake is showing his true feelings about the religion, that it is a crutch that people only go to when they are in trouble,,,No wonder he could sit there and praise his pastor, he is without a doubt a Liberal, elitist, fraud, and I get it Phil, I never met a person who needed to be judged by the color of their skin, although I can't imagine a snob like yourself ever meeting someone whom you didn't judge by one of your liberal sub-divisions.
Thanks for not offering your assistance as the only thing a liberal snobs help would get me is dependent on the government. "
Leo46 wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:49 AM:
" Cross said, “The objective is for BOTH races to find out that they BOTH have cause in the other races attitudes that are unproductive. If both sides find out what their role is in causing racial strife, then maybe attitudes would change.”
I agree with you. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon. A few years ago a TV station in Dallas tried this. They got a half dozen white and a half dozen black people together to see if they could find a solution to the racial divide. The biggest hurdle? One of the black women stated, “ My daddy didn’t trust white people and he taught me not to trust white people. I hate white people.” Then she walked out. Why was she there? She thought whites would apologize to her. So, you have preachers preaching injustice, parents teaching kids to hate the other race, and politicians and activists stirring the pot, on both sides. It is like the Jewish and Palestinian problem. They have set down together a number of times. Will THEY ever find peace? Maybe, but not in our lifetimes. Getting two sides together to find peace between them wont stop the hate. The hate has to stop first. Of course all that is just my opinion.
"
I agree with you. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon. A few years ago a TV station in Dallas tried this. They got a half dozen white and a half dozen black people together to see if they could find a solution to the racial divide. The biggest hurdle? One of the black women stated, “ My daddy didn’t trust white people and he taught me not to trust white people. I hate white people.” Then she walked out. Why was she there? She thought whites would apologize to her. So, you have preachers preaching injustice, parents teaching kids to hate the other race, and politicians and activists stirring the pot, on both sides. It is like the Jewish and Palestinian problem. They have set down together a number of times. Will THEY ever find peace? Maybe, but not in our lifetimes. Getting two sides together to find peace between them wont stop the hate. The hate has to stop first. Of course all that is just my opinion.
"
Steady wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:59 AM:
" You can see the problem with liberals within this post. If you disagree with them they consider you uneducated or ill-informed. They will dissect a conservative view and add in what they believe they meant, but not take a close look at liberal views. If they do they brush over it and believe what fits within their own beliefs.
Obama claims his life story has made him an unconventional candidate, but if you listen to him he is a conventional democratic presidential candidate. Obama claimed himself as both white and black and then followed by throwing out a moral equivalence. His white grandmother, like Rev. Wright, has engaged in racial stereotyping. Obama concluded that we are all complex human beings, filled with good and bad traits. Obama also posed a question: Why are we focusing so much on Rev. Wright when so many whites for so long have said similar things? And yet the preacher and the grandmother are not morally equivalent. Obama attributes Wright's statements to anger at the injustices of racist America. Obama did not exactly justify Wright's statements, but he provided a context in which they are understandable and perhaps, for some, justifiable. He offered no such context for his grandmother's statements. Her utterances were simply wrong. Whites, it would seem, don't get the benefit of the doubt or of a context. Blacks are angry and not without reason, but when whites become angry, they are called resentful (or they don't understand history - read above posts).
Obama goes on to say that white lower and middle class is being harmed by "the real culprits": corporations, special interests, and the rich. These white people can be led to see that they share a common enemy: business, the rich, conservatives and so on. Obama doesn’t want open dialogue he wants a united front against the usual villains and their hope will be to push toward the traditional liberal agenda.
Obama preaches the politics of "Us versus Them" or "the people versus the powerful." Obama practices a politics of fear and blame, a politics that has become the Democratic norm. Like them, Obama hopes to foster enough anger in voters to win the election. In Democratic primaries, blaming small, despised minorities (the rich, the special interests, business) for all the troubles of voters hardly requires courage or leadership.
I believe many people understand how Obama views America (resonates w/ his wife also). Obama does not want an open dialogue because what does Obama's politics of fear have to do with unifying a divided nation? Or is it that those things defined in his speeches have no legitimate place in Obama's America?
"
Obama claims his life story has made him an unconventional candidate, but if you listen to him he is a conventional democratic presidential candidate. Obama claimed himself as both white and black and then followed by throwing out a moral equivalence. His white grandmother, like Rev. Wright, has engaged in racial stereotyping. Obama concluded that we are all complex human beings, filled with good and bad traits. Obama also posed a question: Why are we focusing so much on Rev. Wright when so many whites for so long have said similar things? And yet the preacher and the grandmother are not morally equivalent. Obama attributes Wright's statements to anger at the injustices of racist America. Obama did not exactly justify Wright's statements, but he provided a context in which they are understandable and perhaps, for some, justifiable. He offered no such context for his grandmother's statements. Her utterances were simply wrong. Whites, it would seem, don't get the benefit of the doubt or of a context. Blacks are angry and not without reason, but when whites become angry, they are called resentful (or they don't understand history - read above posts).
Obama goes on to say that white lower and middle class is being harmed by "the real culprits": corporations, special interests, and the rich. These white people can be led to see that they share a common enemy: business, the rich, conservatives and so on. Obama doesn’t want open dialogue he wants a united front against the usual villains and their hope will be to push toward the traditional liberal agenda.
Obama preaches the politics of "Us versus Them" or "the people versus the powerful." Obama practices a politics of fear and blame, a politics that has become the Democratic norm. Like them, Obama hopes to foster enough anger in voters to win the election. In Democratic primaries, blaming small, despised minorities (the rich, the special interests, business) for all the troubles of voters hardly requires courage or leadership.
I believe many people understand how Obama views America (resonates w/ his wife also). Obama does not want an open dialogue because what does Obama's politics of fear have to do with unifying a divided nation? Or is it that those things defined in his speeches have no legitimate place in Obama's America?
"
cross1242 wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:06 AM:
" coalplant, you don't get it either. Obama has NOT suggested that the white race alone do the talking. He specifically said that it's to be a dialog. That means that the black race is to talk and learn as well. You may not say that this is a guilt trip for whites. It's to be talking and reconciliation by both races.
This is something new and not the same old same old.
"
This is something new and not the same old same old.
"
cross1242 wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:13 AM:
" Leo46, the problems you mention are real. And, for that reason, all discussions would have to be moderated by and expert. And the dialogs would probably have to involve huge swaths of the population. Nobody gets to insult others and then walk out.
This is a new way and I'm hopeful that we could see positive results within our lifetimes. "
This is a new way and I'm hopeful that we could see positive results within our lifetimes. "
hetfield wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:21 AM:
" Cross, my point above was simple. You state you can disagree with Clayson because you are entitled to your opinion.
Phil then comes on and says if you dont agree with the libs on these issues, then we are ignorant.
Why the double standard? In Phil's world we are ignorant only because we disagree with libbies. But in your libbie world you can disagree because of some entitlement. "
Phil then comes on and says if you dont agree with the libs on these issues, then we are ignorant.
Why the double standard? In Phil's world we are ignorant only because we disagree with libbies. But in your libbie world you can disagree because of some entitlement. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:15 AM:
" hetfield, I still don't get it. I'm entitled to my opinion and you're entitled to yours. But that doesn't mean that we're entitled to never have our opinions questioned. In this case, my opinion is that your opinions are wrong. I am doing my best to show how they are wrong in the hope that you might recognize your error. And, you're entitled to try to convince me that my opinions are wrong "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:17 AM:
" steady, are you saying that corporations, special interests, and the rich are NOT problems? "
xdfred wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:52 PM:
" Phil,
That's the problem in a nutshell. All the people that did the oppressing are dead and gone.
cross1242
You assume I'm white? That's funny. Really funny.
Also, corporations, special interests, and the rich are NOT problems, they are what makes this country great. What's the alternative? A State/government controlled economy and society? Been there, done that, got a piece of the wall. Without corporations, you wouldn't have jobs, goods, services, and taxes.
There is no racism in this country. If their were, Obama wouldn't be a presidential candidate, Condi Rice wouldn't be in the cabinet, Colibn Powell would be unheard of, and Oprah would be ironing clothes soemwhere. There are bigots out there. Lot's of them. In all shapes, sizes, and colors. And the loudest bigots these days are black, Obama, his pastor, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Ward Churchill, etc. Name a white bigot with the same fame. "
That's the problem in a nutshell. All the people that did the oppressing are dead and gone.
cross1242
You assume I'm white? That's funny. Really funny.
Also, corporations, special interests, and the rich are NOT problems, they are what makes this country great. What's the alternative? A State/government controlled economy and society? Been there, done that, got a piece of the wall. Without corporations, you wouldn't have jobs, goods, services, and taxes.
There is no racism in this country. If their were, Obama wouldn't be a presidential candidate, Condi Rice wouldn't be in the cabinet, Colibn Powell would be unheard of, and Oprah would be ironing clothes soemwhere. There are bigots out there. Lot's of them. In all shapes, sizes, and colors. And the loudest bigots these days are black, Obama, his pastor, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Ward Churchill, etc. Name a white bigot with the same fame. "
cire wrote on Apr 15, 2008 1:01 PM:
" Steady, very well said. In his "race speech" (that has for some reason been compared to the Gettysburg Address by a number of people), Obama did not completely excuse Reverend Wright's comments, but did say he could understand them.
Taken directly from his speech.. "But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
Now, I agree with that statement (because we need to understand the context in which everything is said), however, is Obama saying that I don’t know my American history? Because I feel I understand plenty, and yet I still condemn Rev. Wright’s comments...so what is Obama going to label me as now? A racist? Pshaw. Wright’s comments WERE hateful and WERE disgusting, and (more or less) inexcusable.
Obama (cleverly?) tried to use Wright’s remarks to bring about a discussion to "heal" racial divides. Doing so, he threw his white grandmother under the bus by stating that he has heard her make racist comments that have made him cringe. I feel sorry for the poor woman, being called out in public by her own grandson for being a racist. Am I supposed to admire a man that will smear his own family through the mud to protect the ugly comments made by his "friend" and pastor? "
Taken directly from his speech.. "But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
Now, I agree with that statement (because we need to understand the context in which everything is said), however, is Obama saying that I don’t know my American history? Because I feel I understand plenty, and yet I still condemn Rev. Wright’s comments...so what is Obama going to label me as now? A racist? Pshaw. Wright’s comments WERE hateful and WERE disgusting, and (more or less) inexcusable.
Obama (cleverly?) tried to use Wright’s remarks to bring about a discussion to "heal" racial divides. Doing so, he threw his white grandmother under the bus by stating that he has heard her make racist comments that have made him cringe. I feel sorry for the poor woman, being called out in public by her own grandson for being a racist. Am I supposed to admire a man that will smear his own family through the mud to protect the ugly comments made by his "friend" and pastor? "
Phil wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:02 PM:
" Great posts - it is interesting to have so many words put in my mouth and to find myself so elitist and judgemental!
First, I have NEVER said that people that don't agree with me are ignorant - obviously the conservative Mr. Scarborough isn't, and I disagree with him a lot - but I DID say those who don't want to try and learn and understand someone else's point of view - and who want to judge Mr. Obama and his pastor without ever experiencing what they have or their ancestors have is ignorant. Ignorant of the world, ignorant of different races, religions, human nature and world history. And if you can't understand that - well then my point is proven. That's not being elitist - its just the truth.
Second it is so hilarious to be called an elitist liberal - FUNNY! I am the most live and let live person - do your own thing - live your own life - I won't and don't judge you at all. Mr. Clayson's article was the elitist opinion here. And those of you who agree with it - well you are now members of that club. Mr. Clayson's view are extremely elitist and judgemental - every week he assigns some new viewpoint or characteristic to that evil "left". Conservative elitist snobbery is what he is espousing. His writing drips with it.
So if you like Mr. Clayson and agree with his writings....guess you know where you are... "
First, I have NEVER said that people that don't agree with me are ignorant - obviously the conservative Mr. Scarborough isn't, and I disagree with him a lot - but I DID say those who don't want to try and learn and understand someone else's point of view - and who want to judge Mr. Obama and his pastor without ever experiencing what they have or their ancestors have is ignorant. Ignorant of the world, ignorant of different races, religions, human nature and world history. And if you can't understand that - well then my point is proven. That's not being elitist - its just the truth.
Second it is so hilarious to be called an elitist liberal - FUNNY! I am the most live and let live person - do your own thing - live your own life - I won't and don't judge you at all. Mr. Clayson's article was the elitist opinion here. And those of you who agree with it - well you are now members of that club. Mr. Clayson's view are extremely elitist and judgemental - every week he assigns some new viewpoint or characteristic to that evil "left". Conservative elitist snobbery is what he is espousing. His writing drips with it.
So if you like Mr. Clayson and agree with his writings....guess you know where you are... "
coalplant wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:12 AM:
" Phil, What makes you a liberal snob is that you assume we don't understand Obama's viewpoint. We understand it, we've seen it before, and we do not accept it as it is dividing and divisive and ignorant of what people in small towns and rural areas actually believe. Obama is so far out of touch with reality, that he doesn't even recognize the chickens coming home to roost in his campaign.
Your right though your not an elitist, your live in the wrong area of the country to be considered that by the diverse democrat party. "
Your right though your not an elitist, your live in the wrong area of the country to be considered that by the diverse democrat party. "
Steady wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:26 AM:
" Phil, you did it again and don't even realize it. You stated that:
"I DID say those who don't want to try and learn and understand someone else's point of view - and who want to judge Mr. Obama and his pastor without ever experiencing what they have or their ancestors have is ignorant."
You are assuming that those that disagree haven't taken the time to understand to learn from someone else's point and this is where you and cross continue to be wrong in YOUR judgement. We have read, studied, listened to, talked with and have made a well informed educated decision that we do not agree with Obama views or the views of liberals.
I would argue that it is you that continue to judge those with different points a view. It is tough to look in the mirror but here are few lines from your post:
"I won't and don't judge you at all; Conservative elitist snobbery is what he is espousing; agree with his writings....guess you know where you are..."
Thanks for not judging Phil. "
"I DID say those who don't want to try and learn and understand someone else's point of view - and who want to judge Mr. Obama and his pastor without ever experiencing what they have or their ancestors have is ignorant."
You are assuming that those that disagree haven't taken the time to understand to learn from someone else's point and this is where you and cross continue to be wrong in YOUR judgement. We have read, studied, listened to, talked with and have made a well informed educated decision that we do not agree with Obama views or the views of liberals.
I would argue that it is you that continue to judge those with different points a view. It is tough to look in the mirror but here are few lines from your post:
"I won't and don't judge you at all; Conservative elitist snobbery is what he is espousing; agree with his writings....guess you know where you are..."
Thanks for not judging Phil. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:20 PM:
" xdfred @ Apr 15, 2008 12:52 PM said, "There is no racism in this country."
If you really believe that, then you're living in a dream world. And, if you really don't then you're a racist. "
If you really believe that, then you're living in a dream world. And, if you really don't then you're a racist. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:26 PM:
" For all of you who thing that all libbies believe that those on the hard-right are stupid, I'd suggest that you're mistaken.
You seem to be living with the belief that you are entitled to live your lives without being challenged by anyone that your views are mistaken. Unfortunately, in America with all that jazz about "free speech" the only way that's going to happen is to become a hermit.
Get over it. If you're going to participate in public discourse, then your views will be challenged. You're supposed to think about things and not get hurt feelings because other people don't agree with you. "
You seem to be living with the belief that you are entitled to live your lives without being challenged by anyone that your views are mistaken. Unfortunately, in America with all that jazz about "free speech" the only way that's going to happen is to become a hermit.
Get over it. If you're going to participate in public discourse, then your views will be challenged. You're supposed to think about things and not get hurt feelings because other people don't agree with you. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:39 PM:
" This is to those who have said that "corporations, special interests, and the rich" are NOT problems.
I'd suggest that your are very much mistaken. After racism, those three are the biggest problems we have in our society.
Corporations (at least the big ones)are problems because because the stockholders believe that profit is the SOLE function of a business. That means that they are entitled to do anything to maximize profit no matter who else it hurts.
"Special interests" are a problem because the words alone mean that the interest is interested only in themselves and the rest can be dammed. Somehow, everyone must think about the welfare of others and not just themselves. (It's that "brother's keeper" thing again.)
And the rich are a problem because, somehow, even though they are rich they believe that they are entitled to be richer. The whole thing about the rich are entitled to skate while everyone else struggles is just reprehensible. In particular,what W has done to shift the burden off the rich and on to the poor is criminal. "
I'd suggest that your are very much mistaken. After racism, those three are the biggest problems we have in our society.
Corporations (at least the big ones)are problems because because the stockholders believe that profit is the SOLE function of a business. That means that they are entitled to do anything to maximize profit no matter who else it hurts.
"Special interests" are a problem because the words alone mean that the interest is interested only in themselves and the rest can be dammed. Somehow, everyone must think about the welfare of others and not just themselves. (It's that "brother's keeper" thing again.)
And the rich are a problem because, somehow, even though they are rich they believe that they are entitled to be richer. The whole thing about the rich are entitled to skate while everyone else struggles is just reprehensible. In particular,what W has done to shift the burden off the rich and on to the poor is criminal. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:40 PM:
" coalplant, how about a little more respect for your next president? "
Phil wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:26 PM:
" Steady - my apologies - I should have excluded you from those who haven't studied the issue as deeply. I was writing about other postings.
On the other hand, I strongly disagree with your critique of Mr. Obama and his comments.
Perhaps you have had similar life experience to Mr. Obama and Rev. Wright and can judge from their perspective. But unless you have, you - just as I am - would be ignorant of what their life experience and perspective has been like. So to judge his comments as you did - well I just think you are way off base.
As for Mr. Clayson's comments - they certainly come off as elitist. So am I judging the views of those that agree with Mr. Clayson - yes I am. So while I am not judging your lifestyle, etc., I will admit I am judging your (and others who agree with Mr. Clayson) view of this issue.
Just as you judged Mr. Obama. "
On the other hand, I strongly disagree with your critique of Mr. Obama and his comments.
Perhaps you have had similar life experience to Mr. Obama and Rev. Wright and can judge from their perspective. But unless you have, you - just as I am - would be ignorant of what their life experience and perspective has been like. So to judge his comments as you did - well I just think you are way off base.
As for Mr. Clayson's comments - they certainly come off as elitist. So am I judging the views of those that agree with Mr. Clayson - yes I am. So while I am not judging your lifestyle, etc., I will admit I am judging your (and others who agree with Mr. Clayson) view of this issue.
Just as you judged Mr. Obama. "
Kramerica wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:36 PM:
" My my my, Steady, you really struck a cord with the biggest hypocrite on this board.
"
You seem to be living with the belief that you are entitled to live your lives without being challenged by anyone that your views are mistaken."
But when HIS views are challenged...LOOK OUT!!!
AND Phil said : "Conservatives with Mr. Clayson's views live in a la-la land where diversity doesn't matter and where what happened in prior generations should have no bearing whatsoever on how people in a society should act today. "
There you have it. Hypocrisy and arrogance at its finest. "
"
You seem to be living with the belief that you are entitled to live your lives without being challenged by anyone that your views are mistaken."
But when HIS views are challenged...LOOK OUT!!!
AND Phil said : "Conservatives with Mr. Clayson's views live in a la-la land where diversity doesn't matter and where what happened in prior generations should have no bearing whatsoever on how people in a society should act today. "
There you have it. Hypocrisy and arrogance at its finest. "
hetfield wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:55 PM:
" Cross mentioned what the next president should have, our respect.
I respect a person who has been in the service, faced death and torture for years, and then devoted the rest of his life to public service. I have no respect for carpetbaggers who lie about being under fire in Kosovo, or writers who have served only to try to improve their standing in life. What has either demo done so far to deserve our respect and our vote, other than run as a democratic candidate? Look at how they both have made huge mistakes in the last weeks trying to gain your vote.
Hilary Rodham(why doesnt she use that name anymore?) Clinton can't even secure her marriage own let alone a nation.
It is my sincere desire that the rest of America wake up and vote for the most respectful candidate.
"
I respect a person who has been in the service, faced death and torture for years, and then devoted the rest of his life to public service. I have no respect for carpetbaggers who lie about being under fire in Kosovo, or writers who have served only to try to improve their standing in life. What has either demo done so far to deserve our respect and our vote, other than run as a democratic candidate? Look at how they both have made huge mistakes in the last weeks trying to gain your vote.
Hilary Rodham(why doesnt she use that name anymore?) Clinton can't even secure her marriage own let alone a nation.
It is my sincere desire that the rest of America wake up and vote for the most respectful candidate.
"
xdfred wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:47 PM:
" cross 1242
" xdfred @ Apr 15, 2008 12:52 PM said, "There is no racism in this country." There isn't for the reasons I sited and many others. Feel free to prove/show otherwise. Of course, it's easy to confuse racism with bigotry. But prove the racism. Prove state accepted exclusion persecution due to race. That went out with DEMOCRAT Jim Crow laws. Oh, wait, there is racism in this country. It's called affirmative action! Exclusion due to race. OK, other than that, prove the racism you and Obama and others like you thrive on. The whole point of Clayson's article. This explains the hostility.
Another goody. "If you really believe that, then you're living in a dream world. And, if you really don't then you're a racist. " Again, prove it. Prove either assertion.
Typical liberal. Instead of discussion on the topic, you accuse others of racism. How would the people I mentioned before and others like them get to where they are if we were a racist nation?
And who made you judge and jury of who is or isn't a racist. Oh, I forgot. There's that white guilt and self serving fake moral superiority Clayson was writing about.
If a white person walks up east fourth street, Waterloo, and gets dirty looks because he's white, are the people giving him dirty looks racists?
As to your diatribe about corporations, special interests, and rich people being a problem, where would we be if we were to do away with all those? In your dream world? "Workers of the world, unite...."
"
" xdfred @ Apr 15, 2008 12:52 PM said, "There is no racism in this country." There isn't for the reasons I sited and many others. Feel free to prove/show otherwise. Of course, it's easy to confuse racism with bigotry. But prove the racism. Prove state accepted exclusion persecution due to race. That went out with DEMOCRAT Jim Crow laws. Oh, wait, there is racism in this country. It's called affirmative action! Exclusion due to race. OK, other than that, prove the racism you and Obama and others like you thrive on. The whole point of Clayson's article. This explains the hostility.
Another goody. "If you really believe that, then you're living in a dream world. And, if you really don't then you're a racist. " Again, prove it. Prove either assertion.
Typical liberal. Instead of discussion on the topic, you accuse others of racism. How would the people I mentioned before and others like them get to where they are if we were a racist nation?
And who made you judge and jury of who is or isn't a racist. Oh, I forgot. There's that white guilt and self serving fake moral superiority Clayson was writing about.
If a white person walks up east fourth street, Waterloo, and gets dirty looks because he's white, are the people giving him dirty looks racists?
As to your diatribe about corporations, special interests, and rich people being a problem, where would we be if we were to do away with all those? In your dream world? "Workers of the world, unite...."
"
cross1242 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 3:06 AM:
" xdfred, regarding your distinction of "racism" and "bigotry," I judge that you're trying to make a distinction between state mandated discrimination (usually call de jure discrimination) and private discrimination (usually called de facto discrimination).
Note that on "private discrimination" I am talking about ACTION and not mere THOUGHT.
So, are you saying that there is no de jure discrimination anymore but that we can't or shouldn't do anything about de facto discrimination (that is, action and not just thought)? "
Note that on "private discrimination" I am talking about ACTION and not mere THOUGHT.
So, are you saying that there is no de jure discrimination anymore but that we can't or shouldn't do anything about de facto discrimination (that is, action and not just thought)? "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 3:09 AM:
" hetfield, is "or writers who have served only to try to improve their standing in life" supposed to mean Barack Obama? If so, aren't you leaving out a significant amount of his background? "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 3:13 AM:
" Kramerica, you said, "But when HIS views are challenged...LOOK OUT!!!"
Did I not say that everyone has a right to dispute the opinion of others? I have no illusion that people should not dispute my opinions. But there are a lot of folks here who think that if I dispute his or her opinion that I'm implying that they aren't very bright. This site is intended for disputation and isn't meant to be a mutual admiration society for the hard right. "
Did I not say that everyone has a right to dispute the opinion of others? I have no illusion that people should not dispute my opinions. But there are a lot of folks here who think that if I dispute his or her opinion that I'm implying that they aren't very bright. This site is intended for disputation and isn't meant to be a mutual admiration society for the hard right. "
Kramerica wrote on Apr 17, 2008 8:56 AM:
" You do it often, Cross, you just too close minded to see it. "
xdfred wrote on Apr 17, 2008 9:16 AM:
" cross1242, you are correct, for once. Private discrimination will always exist as slong as people have fredom of thought. You and I are free to hate anyone we wish. And we are free to associate or not associate with others as we wish. But you cannot break the law, regardless of reason. The problem with the liberal mindset is that you think you can change how people think by forced experimentation without accountability. Brown v Board of Ed was a disaster, but it made liberals feel good.
So, are you saying that there is no de jure discrimination anymore YES but that we can't or shouldn't do anything about de facto discrimination (that is, action and not just thought)? " As long as the discrimination we address is color blind. Again, want to take a walk up east 4th? "
So, are you saying that there is no de jure discrimination anymore YES but that we can't or shouldn't do anything about de facto discrimination (that is, action and not just thought)? " As long as the discrimination we address is color blind. Again, want to take a walk up east 4th? "
hetfield wrote on Apr 17, 2008 9:57 AM:
" Cross, in regards to Barack Hussein Obama, yes I did exlude some of his background. This was on purpose to illustrate how unprepared and what complete utter lack of experience he has. He is a one term senator from Illinois, a one time loser in a run for House in Illinois and an attorney.
Now, why do you think he was chosen as keynote speaker at he 2004 Demo. convention, as still a State legislator? He appealed to the right demographic and could give a heck of a speech.
The left, in their utter haste to try to create the illusion of change, are so confused by the fluff and fanfare of this guy, it is scary. My only hope is that Americans wake up and start to pay attention to what is going on, before it is too late. "
Now, why do you think he was chosen as keynote speaker at he 2004 Demo. convention, as still a State legislator? He appealed to the right demographic and could give a heck of a speech.
The left, in their utter haste to try to create the illusion of change, are so confused by the fluff and fanfare of this guy, it is scary. My only hope is that Americans wake up and start to pay attention to what is going on, before it is too late. "
xdfred wrote on Apr 17, 2008 10:05 AM:
" So cross1242, what should we do about this personal racism problem you and race hustlers thrive on? What can be done instead of just beating our puny chests and saying something should be done? What should someone who has been mugged because of the color of his skin do? Or a landlord who's properties have been trashed by members of a given race do to avoid stereotyping? Or a person who has been taught to hate whitey all his life, what should that person do? "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 12:22 PM:
" hetfield, by your use of his middle name, you show everyone where you're coming from.
And, if Obama's qualifications were just that he was a "writer" no one would be interested. Leaving out most of his qualifications and then complaining that he lacks qualifications may be a new type of logical error.
As for experience, experience at the old way of doing thinks is not a qualification. I remember way back to JFK when the same argument was used against him. It wasn't a valid argument then and isn't any more valid now. "
And, if Obama's qualifications were just that he was a "writer" no one would be interested. Leaving out most of his qualifications and then complaining that he lacks qualifications may be a new type of logical error.
As for experience, experience at the old way of doing thinks is not a qualification. I remember way back to JFK when the same argument was used against him. It wasn't a valid argument then and isn't any more valid now. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 12:27 PM:
" xdfred, and also what about people who are so stuck in invalid racial stereotypes that they refuse to consider that they're wrong.
Obama's proposal for a national dialog (not a mutual accusation session) is a long way from chest beating about doing something. For people who want to be reasonable, it will work. For people who are stuck in old ways of thinking about race, after that dialog is successfully completed they will find themselves marginalized. That's not ideal but it is better than what we have now. "
Obama's proposal for a national dialog (not a mutual accusation session) is a long way from chest beating about doing something. For people who want to be reasonable, it will work. For people who are stuck in old ways of thinking about race, after that dialog is successfully completed they will find themselves marginalized. That's not ideal but it is better than what we have now. "
Kramerica wrote on Apr 17, 2008 12:54 PM:
" Cross, I guess it depends on what your definition of "IT" is..........LOL, sorry couldn't resist. IT equals treating people as inferiors and imbeciles because they don't subscribe to your beliefs. You'd be more respected on this board if you didn't talk down to people. "
xdfred wrote on Apr 17, 2008 1:26 PM:
" cross1242
" xdfred, and also what about people who are so stuck in invalid racial stereotypes that they refuse to consider that they're wrong.
Nice non answer. In other words, you don't have a clue as to what should be done. Typical.
Like Obama, all talk, no ideas. But let's have a "dialog" for "change" why don't we.
Clayson is 100% right on this one.
Another thing, is it wrong to call a guy named Barack Hussein Obama Barack Hussein Obama? That is his name, isn't it?
When did Barack Hussein Obama become a bad word?
"
" xdfred, and also what about people who are so stuck in invalid racial stereotypes that they refuse to consider that they're wrong.
Nice non answer. In other words, you don't have a clue as to what should be done. Typical.
Like Obama, all talk, no ideas. But let's have a "dialog" for "change" why don't we.
Clayson is 100% right on this one.
Another thing, is it wrong to call a guy named Barack Hussein Obama Barack Hussein Obama? That is his name, isn't it?
When did Barack Hussein Obama become a bad word?
"
cross1242 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 2:46 PM:
" xdfred, you know very well what's wrong with using Obama's middle name. You're trying to imply that he is, somehow a Muslim radical in moderates clothing.
Obama has proposed a national dialog on race so that whites can find out that, despite the laws, the blacks can't get decent jobs, housing, or the other benefits of life. Maybe in a conversation including blacks you'd find out that when they say what they've done to get good jobs, housing, etc and can't get them, that maybe they are telling the truth.
And maybe you'd also find out in real dialogs with blacks that all the violence (most is black on black and not black on white) is due to the total loss of hope.
I understand that you don't believe it now. But, Obama's proposing a way for you to be made aware of the real problems that blacks and other minorities in our society have. "
Obama has proposed a national dialog on race so that whites can find out that, despite the laws, the blacks can't get decent jobs, housing, or the other benefits of life. Maybe in a conversation including blacks you'd find out that when they say what they've done to get good jobs, housing, etc and can't get them, that maybe they are telling the truth.
And maybe you'd also find out in real dialogs with blacks that all the violence (most is black on black and not black on white) is due to the total loss of hope.
I understand that you don't believe it now. But, Obama's proposing a way for you to be made aware of the real problems that blacks and other minorities in our society have. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 2:52 PM:
" Kramerica @ Apr 17, 2008 12:54 PM said, "IT equals treating people as inferiors and imbeciles because they don't subscribe to your beliefs. You'd be more respected on this board if you didn't talk down to people."
Kramerica, for the umpteenth time, you are mistaking my forceful arguments against your positions as lack of respect for you as a human being. Despite your apparent belief to the contrary, you are not entitled in a public forum to expect that your views won't be challenged.
And, while I'm at it, it is the hard right on this forum that consistently resort to personal attacks against me and other libbies who have the temerity to question what those on the hard right have to say here. Whatever I may have said that has been misconstrued as lack of respect has been made up for in spades by those on the hard right. "
Kramerica, for the umpteenth time, you are mistaking my forceful arguments against your positions as lack of respect for you as a human being. Despite your apparent belief to the contrary, you are not entitled in a public forum to expect that your views won't be challenged.
And, while I'm at it, it is the hard right on this forum that consistently resort to personal attacks against me and other libbies who have the temerity to question what those on the hard right have to say here. Whatever I may have said that has been misconstrued as lack of respect has been made up for in spades by those on the hard right. "
Leo46 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 4:04 PM:
" Cross said..."Obama has proposed a national dialog on race so that whites can find out that, despite the laws, the blacks can't get decent jobs, housing, or the other benefits of life"
This is the problem, if the "dialog" turns into a lecture to whites about how bad blacks have it, then it will be a disaster. Probably end up causing more problems. Both sides have resentments that should be faced. Like I said before that wont happen till the hate goes away. "
This is the problem, if the "dialog" turns into a lecture to whites about how bad blacks have it, then it will be a disaster. Probably end up causing more problems. Both sides have resentments that should be faced. Like I said before that wont happen till the hate goes away. "
xdfred wrote on Apr 17, 2008 4:08 PM:
" cross1242
I didn't realize you were so adept at reading Barack Hussein Obama's (oops) Barack's (no that won't work either, too middle Eastern), Obama's (no, sounds like Osama, HIS mind so well, given the fact that it changes with the direction of the wind. Or are you just some party hack?
High drop out rates, unwed mothers, violence within the community. This is all due to loss of hope? Nonsense. There are too many success stories out there for a thinking person to believe that.
I help out in career fairs at East and West highschools here in Waterloo. That's all I really have to say on that matter.
Everyone needs a good education to get decent jobs, housing, and the other rewards for effort and sacrifice. Speaking proper English and not looking/acting like a disresectful thug doesn't hurt, either.
Our Constitution says you have the right to pursue happiness, but you to do what it takes to catch it. And our country is the best at having those opportunities available to those who want to put in the effort and sacrifice, regardless of ethnic status.
At East on one of my career fair appearances, I was by the swimming pool when some of the guys I had talked to earlier came out after playing I.M. basketball. It sounded like an intense game. I told them it sounded like they put out some good effort. Then I said that's the effort it takes to succeed career wise. "
I didn't realize you were so adept at reading Barack Hussein Obama's (oops) Barack's (no that won't work either, too middle Eastern), Obama's (no, sounds like Osama, HIS mind so well, given the fact that it changes with the direction of the wind. Or are you just some party hack?
High drop out rates, unwed mothers, violence within the community. This is all due to loss of hope? Nonsense. There are too many success stories out there for a thinking person to believe that.
I help out in career fairs at East and West highschools here in Waterloo. That's all I really have to say on that matter.
Everyone needs a good education to get decent jobs, housing, and the other rewards for effort and sacrifice. Speaking proper English and not looking/acting like a disresectful thug doesn't hurt, either.
Our Constitution says you have the right to pursue happiness, but you to do what it takes to catch it. And our country is the best at having those opportunities available to those who want to put in the effort and sacrifice, regardless of ethnic status.
At East on one of my career fair appearances, I was by the swimming pool when some of the guys I had talked to earlier came out after playing I.M. basketball. It sounded like an intense game. I told them it sounded like they put out some good effort. Then I said that's the effort it takes to succeed career wise. "
xdfred wrote on Apr 17, 2008 4:09 PM:
" cross1242
"Kramerica, for the umpteenth time, you are mistaking my forceful arguments against your positions as lack of respect for you as a human being. Despite your apparent belief to the contrary, you are not entitled in a public forum to expect that your views won't be challenged."
Yet you're the only one I've read that called someone else (me) a racist. "
"Kramerica, for the umpteenth time, you are mistaking my forceful arguments against your positions as lack of respect for you as a human being. Despite your apparent belief to the contrary, you are not entitled in a public forum to expect that your views won't be challenged."
Yet you're the only one I've read that called someone else (me) a racist. "
cire wrote on Apr 17, 2008 4:17 PM:
" cross wrote.. "Obama has proposed a national dialog on race so that whites can find out that, despite the laws, the blacks can't get decent jobs, housing, or the other benefits of life."
hahah, that's great. I just told that to my boss (who happens to be black) and he got a kick out of that comment. "
hahah, that's great. I just told that to my boss (who happens to be black) and he got a kick out of that comment. "
hetfield wrote on Apr 17, 2008 4:19 PM:
" Cross, I wont take responsibility for his name. It is what it is. He was raised in a Muslim household by a Muslim step-father. I don't know why using it would promote some motive, but thanks for telling me it does.
And you aren't seriously bringing JFK into this discussion are you? That is a very poor example. JFK's tenure was arguably the most dangerous time for the US, caused mostly by his inexperience. We easily could have been attacked by Cuba and the USSR without cooler heads, mostly on their parts.
I supposed that is all you had though, JFK, Carter, then Bill. Not alot of options for you. Does every democratic president sleep around during his time in the white house? (excepting Carter, but he had his brother to contend with.) "
And you aren't seriously bringing JFK into this discussion are you? That is a very poor example. JFK's tenure was arguably the most dangerous time for the US, caused mostly by his inexperience. We easily could have been attacked by Cuba and the USSR without cooler heads, mostly on their parts.
I supposed that is all you had though, JFK, Carter, then Bill. Not alot of options for you. Does every democratic president sleep around during his time in the white house? (excepting Carter, but he had his brother to contend with.) "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 6:55 PM:
" xdfred @ Apr 17, 2008 4:09 PM said, "you're the only one I've read that called someone else (me) a racist."
Actually, xdfred, what I said was, "If you really believe that, then you're living in a dream world. And, if you really don't then you're a racist."
I assumed that you were living in a dream world. Little did I know that you'd self-identify yourself as a racist. So, if you're looking for who called you a racist, look in a mirror. "
Actually, xdfred, what I said was, "If you really believe that, then you're living in a dream world. And, if you really don't then you're a racist."
I assumed that you were living in a dream world. Little did I know that you'd self-identify yourself as a racist. So, if you're looking for who called you a racist, look in a mirror. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 7:02 PM:
" Leo46 @ Apr 17, 2008 4:04 PM said, "if the "dialog" turns into a lecture to whites about how bad blacks have it, then it will be a disaster."
I agree.
Nobody can go into lecture mode. Both sides need to talk honestly about how they themselves feel and how they see the others. It's obvious just from some of those here that they don't believe it when blacks say that they are still being discriminated against. If, without lecturing, the problems of blacks in this society are demonstrated, maybe it will get some of the hard-right discrimination deniers to see what part of the problem is. And, maybe the blacks can learn what the whites are afraid of. Both need to let the scales drop from their eyes. "
I agree.
Nobody can go into lecture mode. Both sides need to talk honestly about how they themselves feel and how they see the others. It's obvious just from some of those here that they don't believe it when blacks say that they are still being discriminated against. If, without lecturing, the problems of blacks in this society are demonstrated, maybe it will get some of the hard-right discrimination deniers to see what part of the problem is. And, maybe the blacks can learn what the whites are afraid of. Both need to let the scales drop from their eyes. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 7:04 PM:
" cire @ Apr 17, 2008 4:17 PM said, "I just told that to my boss (who happens to be black) and he got a kick out of that comment."
cere, I just don't believe that you are relating correctly what happened. "
cere, I just don't believe that you are relating correctly what happened. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 17, 2008 7:10 PM:
" hetfield, I believe that his Muslim father was only in his life for two years. He was raised largely by his mother who was a Christian from Kansas.
Look, my momma had no stupid children. Don't try to play games that Obama's full name shows something sinister. And have some respect for everyone else here. We all know you're doing a cheap shot and it won't work.
You say, "We easily could have been attacked by Cuba." You must not have been alive at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK put a quarantine around Cuba and you criticize him for not being tough on defense. You make no sense. "
Look, my momma had no stupid children. Don't try to play games that Obama's full name shows something sinister. And have some respect for everyone else here. We all know you're doing a cheap shot and it won't work.
You say, "We easily could have been attacked by Cuba." You must not have been alive at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK put a quarantine around Cuba and you criticize him for not being tough on defense. You make no sense. "
Leo46 wrote on Apr 18, 2008 7:02 AM:
" There you go again Cross. Blacks are discriminated against and whites are afraid. There are an awful lot of reasons for some blacks being discontent and some whites being fed up. And the hard right are not the only ones questioning racism in this country.
For myself, I worked at Sears in Des Moines in the mid 60's. Believe it or not, but I had a black supervisor. And no it wasn’t in janitorial services it was in the catalog dept. He was a great guy, we got along well, and even took our breaks together. Within six months he was moved over to run the tool dept. This was in the Mid 60's, where was the discrimination? Where is the discrimination today in Obama getting the Dem nomination for President? In my humble opinion, the biggest cause of black oppression is that they are constantly being told how bad they have it, how hoopless life is for them, and it’s all the fault white people. The answer to that has to come from within the black community. "
For myself, I worked at Sears in Des Moines in the mid 60's. Believe it or not, but I had a black supervisor. And no it wasn’t in janitorial services it was in the catalog dept. He was a great guy, we got along well, and even took our breaks together. Within six months he was moved over to run the tool dept. This was in the Mid 60's, where was the discrimination? Where is the discrimination today in Obama getting the Dem nomination for President? In my humble opinion, the biggest cause of black oppression is that they are constantly being told how bad they have it, how hoopless life is for them, and it’s all the fault white people. The answer to that has to come from within the black community. "
hillaryc wrote on Apr 18, 2008 7:16 AM:
" Cross wrote
'Obama has proposed a national dialog on race so that whites can find out that, despite the laws, the blacks can't get decent jobs, housing, or the other benefits of life. Maybe in a conversation including blacks you'd find out that when they say what they've done to get good jobs, housing, etc and can't get them, that maybe they are telling the truth.'
Wow I've never seen a liberals view of race stated more clearly than this bigotted little rant posted by Cross.
Cross once you fix 'the Blacks' problems will you move onto 'the Asians' and then 'the hispanics' and then 'the Gays'. What a diverse little world you live in everyone divided up into their own group, all needing your help to succede.
Never will you find a post from the liberal( I hope their liberals but who knows) posers on here that actually recognizes that this country provides more opportunity, more equality and more freedom than any other. You just have to be willing to work hard, live a moral life and recognize the only thing holding you back is yourself and the social policies of the Democrat party.
Obama in 08
Cling to him instead of your guns and religion for he is the light and the truth "
'Obama has proposed a national dialog on race so that whites can find out that, despite the laws, the blacks can't get decent jobs, housing, or the other benefits of life. Maybe in a conversation including blacks you'd find out that when they say what they've done to get good jobs, housing, etc and can't get them, that maybe they are telling the truth.'
Wow I've never seen a liberals view of race stated more clearly than this bigotted little rant posted by Cross.
Cross once you fix 'the Blacks' problems will you move onto 'the Asians' and then 'the hispanics' and then 'the Gays'. What a diverse little world you live in everyone divided up into their own group, all needing your help to succede.
Never will you find a post from the liberal( I hope their liberals but who knows) posers on here that actually recognizes that this country provides more opportunity, more equality and more freedom than any other. You just have to be willing to work hard, live a moral life and recognize the only thing holding you back is yourself and the social policies of the Democrat party.
Obama in 08
Cling to him instead of your guns and religion for he is the light and the truth "
hetfield wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:08 AM:
" Cross writes 'You say, "We easily could have been attacked by Cuba." You must not have been alive at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK put a quarantine around Cuba and you criticize him for not being tough on defense. You make no sense. "
Cross, look up Operation Mongoose, and Bay of Pigs. These failed US operations, the brainchild of JFK and Bobby, were the sole reason for Cuba's alliance with Russia. Only after the US agreed to remove the Jupiter missiles in Turkey did Russia agree to dismantle missiles in Cuba.
A quarantine in Cuba would have had NO affect on whether Cuba could have fired missiles. Again you make allegations of my age, and anything else the good guys say, because of your elitist lefty save the seals attitude. "
Cross, look up Operation Mongoose, and Bay of Pigs. These failed US operations, the brainchild of JFK and Bobby, were the sole reason for Cuba's alliance with Russia. Only after the US agreed to remove the Jupiter missiles in Turkey did Russia agree to dismantle missiles in Cuba.
A quarantine in Cuba would have had NO affect on whether Cuba could have fired missiles. Again you make allegations of my age, and anything else the good guys say, because of your elitist lefty save the seals attitude. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 18, 2008 9:51 AM:
" hetfield @ Apr 18, 2008 8:08 AM said, "look up Operation Mongoose, and Bay of Pigs."
Actually, hetfield, that operation was dreamed up under the Eisenhower Administration. It took place under JFKs because he let it go ahead rather than canceling it.
hetfield also says, "Only after the US agreed to remove the Jupiter missiles in Turkey."
Actually, the facts are that the Jupiter C missiles in Turkey were anachronistic and were going to be dismantled anyway. So, the US agreed to do what it was going to do anyway. JFK and Khrushchev agreed to keep that part of the deal secret precisely because there were "no surrender" folks who would have objected to the removal even if they were no longer needed.
He also says, "A quarantine in Cuba would have had NO affect on whether Cuba could have fired missiles."
Well, that's not exactly true either. Some (but only some) of the Cuban missiles were operational. And those missiles were under the operational control of the Russians and not the Cubans. More missiles were on the way -- so the quarantine certainly stopped them. (Remember the photos of Russian ships with what were clearly missiles under canvas on their decks?) And, Kennedy's announcement that the launch of any of the Cuban missiles would lead to an American attack on Russia certainly gave the Russians a second or third thought that they'd better not hit the launch button.
Once again, the hard-right has it's own history that is not shared by the rest of the world. "
Actually, hetfield, that operation was dreamed up under the Eisenhower Administration. It took place under JFKs because he let it go ahead rather than canceling it.
hetfield also says, "Only after the US agreed to remove the Jupiter missiles in Turkey."
Actually, the facts are that the Jupiter C missiles in Turkey were anachronistic and were going to be dismantled anyway. So, the US agreed to do what it was going to do anyway. JFK and Khrushchev agreed to keep that part of the deal secret precisely because there were "no surrender" folks who would have objected to the removal even if they were no longer needed.
He also says, "A quarantine in Cuba would have had NO affect on whether Cuba could have fired missiles."
Well, that's not exactly true either. Some (but only some) of the Cuban missiles were operational. And those missiles were under the operational control of the Russians and not the Cubans. More missiles were on the way -- so the quarantine certainly stopped them. (Remember the photos of Russian ships with what were clearly missiles under canvas on their decks?) And, Kennedy's announcement that the launch of any of the Cuban missiles would lead to an American attack on Russia certainly gave the Russians a second or third thought that they'd better not hit the launch button.
Once again, the hard-right has it's own history that is not shared by the rest of the world. "
Steady wrote on Apr 18, 2008 10:21 AM:
" Victims, victims, victims is what liberals preach. There is so much to say on this but I'll leave it at one small analysis.
Discriminated for housing, ok, let us makes laws that you can't and go after those who do not provide mortage loans.
What is in the news now? How the mortage companies are so bad and they dooped these poor people in signing loans.
Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions. "
Discriminated for housing, ok, let us makes laws that you can't and go after those who do not provide mortage loans.
What is in the news now? How the mortage companies are so bad and they dooped these poor people in signing loans.
Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions. "
xdfred wrote on Apr 18, 2008 10:50 AM:
" cross1242
wrote on Apr 17, 2008 6:55 PM:
" xdfred @ Apr 17, 2008 4:09 PM said, "you're the only one I've read that called someone else (me) a racist."
Actually, xdfred, what I said was, "If you really believe that, then you're living in a dream world. And, if you really don't then you're a racist."
I assumed that you were living in a dream world. Little did I know that you'd self-identify yourself as a racist. So, if you're looking for who called you a racist, look in a mirror. "
OK, so you conditionally called me a racist. But that's what people like you who don't have any facts or logic do. I see it quite often.
So, who is going to attend this so called conference hosted by your new found savior, Barack Hussein Obama? Before he implodes politically, that is. Are you one of those bitter people he was talking about in San Francisco? He's all done. He can play the race card all he wants, but he's done. End of story. He and Hillary are doing their best to lose the nomination with his snobbery and racism, and her pathetic lying. Never mind the general election.
Clayson was right. You're one of the ones he's talking about. "
wrote on Apr 17, 2008 6:55 PM:
" xdfred @ Apr 17, 2008 4:09 PM said, "you're the only one I've read that called someone else (me) a racist."
Actually, xdfred, what I said was, "If you really believe that, then you're living in a dream world. And, if you really don't then you're a racist."
I assumed that you were living in a dream world. Little did I know that you'd self-identify yourself as a racist. So, if you're looking for who called you a racist, look in a mirror. "
OK, so you conditionally called me a racist. But that's what people like you who don't have any facts or logic do. I see it quite often.
So, who is going to attend this so called conference hosted by your new found savior, Barack Hussein Obama? Before he implodes politically, that is. Are you one of those bitter people he was talking about in San Francisco? He's all done. He can play the race card all he wants, but he's done. End of story. He and Hillary are doing their best to lose the nomination with his snobbery and racism, and her pathetic lying. Never mind the general election.
Clayson was right. You're one of the ones he's talking about. "
hetfield wrote on Apr 18, 2008 1:18 PM:
" JFK's own general said that the agreement with Russia was the biggest defeat the US had known. In reality, as more and more comes out about JFK and his administration, Camelot it was not. The 'dream' lefty president and his legacy wears more like shambles.
"
"
xdfred wrote on Apr 18, 2008 3:50 PM:
" "It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay "rights." Abortion "rights." On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism's power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia, and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension."
Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists
By Brent Bozell III
Friday, April 18, 2008
"
Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists
By Brent Bozell III
Friday, April 18, 2008
"
Leo46 wrote on Apr 18, 2008 5:26 PM:
" Wow, great documentary by Stein. Everyone needs to see it. Especially Libs. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 19, 2008 12:21 PM:
" xdfred @ Apr 18, 2008 3:50 PM quoted Brent Bozell saying, "There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay "rights." Abortion "rights." On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic."
The quote of Bozell illustrates a consistent theme among the hard right. It's the theme of persecution. The same thing exists among the hard right in religion. Somehow, for both, it's important to believe that they are being persecuted for their beliefs. True, nobody is taking any of them out and burning them at the stake, but the suspicion that they are being laughed at by others suffices to believe that it's persecution.
I have often wondered where this comes from. As far as I can see, all that is happening is that arguments, sometimes powerful arguments, are being presented that the hard right is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It's my guess that the mere fact that people argue against them is converted to belief in persecution. The hard-right really, really, really believe that they are right. So, the only possible explanation is that all those other people must be persecuting them for their beliefs. (As in, "I'm not marching out of step. It's everyone else who is marching out of step.")
The whole complaint of persecution is just more hard-right baloney. "
The quote of Bozell illustrates a consistent theme among the hard right. It's the theme of persecution. The same thing exists among the hard right in religion. Somehow, for both, it's important to believe that they are being persecuted for their beliefs. True, nobody is taking any of them out and burning them at the stake, but the suspicion that they are being laughed at by others suffices to believe that it's persecution.
I have often wondered where this comes from. As far as I can see, all that is happening is that arguments, sometimes powerful arguments, are being presented that the hard right is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It's my guess that the mere fact that people argue against them is converted to belief in persecution. The hard-right really, really, really believe that they are right. So, the only possible explanation is that all those other people must be persecuting them for their beliefs. (As in, "I'm not marching out of step. It's everyone else who is marching out of step.")
The whole complaint of persecution is just more hard-right baloney. "
cross1242 wrote on Apr 19, 2008 12:32 PM:
" hetfield, I still have no idea who "JFK's own general" might be. But, since it was the military, and not the president, who decided that the Jupiter Cs in Turkey were antiquated, his objection to doing that is dubious. We agreed to do what we were going to do anyway. That's the best possible agreement to make.
And, what, pray tell, were we supposed to do at the time of the Cuban missile crisis: let the war start with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles leading the charge?
I was in college in Omaha at that time. And, Omaha, as everyone knows is next door to SAC at Offutt AFB. I remember the churches being filled at the time with people believing they were about to die. (The black humor at the time was that, "everything south of Dodge Street would be a smoking crater.") The consequences of going to war were unimaginable. Fortunately, both JFK (and Bobby) and Khrushchev all recognized that. It is fortunate that neither side were led by people with war fever. Unfortunately, some people including some of our current leaders did not learn that lesson. They are apparently willing to go to war just because of testosterone poisoning. "
And, what, pray tell, were we supposed to do at the time of the Cuban missile crisis: let the war start with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles leading the charge?
I was in college in Omaha at that time. And, Omaha, as everyone knows is next door to SAC at Offutt AFB. I remember the churches being filled at the time with people believing they were about to die. (The black humor at the time was that, "everything south of Dodge Street would be a smoking crater.") The consequences of going to war were unimaginable. Fortunately, both JFK (and Bobby) and Khrushchev all recognized that. It is fortunate that neither side were led by people with war fever. Unfortunately, some people including some of our current leaders did not learn that lesson. They are apparently willing to go to war just because of testosterone poisoning. "
hetfield wrote on Apr 20, 2008 11:01 PM:
" Cross writes "They are apparently willing to go to war just because of testosterone poisoning. "
I thought Congress voted to go to war because terrorists attacked and murdered thousands? The president promised to attack any country that harborded or assisted any terrorist group. Iraq certainly did that.
"
I thought Congress voted to go to war because terrorists attacked and murdered thousands? The president promised to attack any country that harborded or assisted any terrorist group. Iraq certainly did that.
"
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
coalplant wrote on Apr 13, 2008 7:43 AM: