Third Party & Independents Archives

Are you a Postmodern Racist-Speech Denier?

The Left is now holding all the race cards, and we jokers better not be too wild. Political discourse—and especially political humor—will require greater vigilance in the way one speaks, and much more so than simply purging highfalutin words like “niggardly” from one’s vocabulary when “maliciously parsimonious” might work just as well, if not so economically. Consider:

At a client meeting last Wednesday, I heard a woman blaming McCain’s defeat on what she should have simply called “Rockefeller Republicanism.” Instead, she took the long way home, opining, “Republicans can’t win elections by saying that they’re going to do the exact same things the Democrats will, only do less of it. You can’t win by trying to be “Obama Lite.”

Oops.

During a telephone conversation with my cousin, while lamenting a probable increase in government nannyism under the Obama presidency, she told me, “I’m not looking forward to having Big Brother in the White House.”

Oops.

Unless you’re some kind of postmodernist nut job who believes that language only refers to itself—that everything that’s written has a hidden meaning that’s unknown even to the writer—then these are innocent mistakes that merit little more than a wry smile. In fact, our discomfort with them attests to our hypersensitivity about race, and that’s something to celebrate, I think.

But if these same innocent verbal faux pas were uttered in an unfriendly environ, you can bet your liberal opponent would pounce upon you like a leopard, resorting to arguments ad hominem, saying that your objections to this or that policy were borne of your racist nature, which maybe they are, or maybe they aren’t, but in any case, just in case the deconstructionists are right…make that a spotted leopard!

Posted by Stephen G. Barone at November 6, 2008 1:49 PM
Comments
Comment #269721

Your point?

Posted by: womanmarine at November 6, 2008 2:28 PM
Comment #269727

womanmarine,

I think he’s asking the question that you don’t want to hear….

“Should we now treat Obama exactly like the Democrats treated Bush for the last 8 years?”

Posted by: Jim T at November 6, 2008 3:40 PM
Comment #269739

Jim T: “I think he’s asking the question that you don’t want to hear…. Should we now treat Obama exactly like the Democrats treated Bush for the last 8 years?” “

Well, I’ll admit I’ve been accused of having selective hearing, ADHD and dyslexia, but I sure didn’t get that from SGB’s post. Maybe if Bush was African-American or whatever you want to call Obama’s ancestry, you could make that case but as far as I know he’s not.

No, what SGB has done here is what’s known in the biz as creating a strawman, which he then proceeds to smash flat as a way of supposedly exposing a false belief or logical construct.

I’m not sure what SGB’s point is either, but I am sure it has nothing to do with anything any Democratic party member has done or said to or about Bush for the last 8+ years.

Posted by: EJN at November 6, 2008 5:04 PM
Comment #269747

It’s no strawman EJN.
Can we be as critical of Obama as the left was of Bush, without being labeled a racist? Or will every little statement be examined inside and out for anything that could be twisted as being racist, as a way to silence concerns and protect this guy?

Posted by: kctim at November 6, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #269752

I use the word denigrate a lot, but have never had any kind of reaction to it. I thought SNL did better on satirizing BHO last week, but I expect a little more than that. It looks like they are still timid. We’ve seen enough of the ad hominem nonsense right here from people unwilling to seriously examine a person who will be elected as POTUS next month when the electoral college meets.

I’m thinking they need something like the popemobile with an animatronic BHO waving, but we can rely on The Onion if all else fails:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_95F5e-Ac

Posted by: ohrealy at November 6, 2008 6:14 PM
Comment #269753

ohrealy

thats too funny !!

Posted by: dbs at November 6, 2008 6:21 PM
Comment #269775

kctim: Can we be as critical of Obama as the left was of Bush, without being labeled a racist?

If you’re so illiterate and insensitive that you can’t ask a serious question about policy without intentionally invoking negative racial overtones and/or so timid that you can be cowed into silence by someone attacking you for innocent use of words like “niggardly” and “denigrate” when you are asking a serious question, then the answer is no, you can’t.

Those two examples SGB gave in his original post are not offensive in the least, except apparently in SGB’s and possibly in your opinion. Note that although SGB pointed out the “mistakes” in his post, it does not seem the other party was cognizant of it, or at least he failed to make that clear.

It reminds me of when McCain got all bent out of shape when Obama referred to McCain’s fiscal policy as “lipstick on a pig” (an expression McCain himself had used in the past to describe cosmetic improvements made to something objectionable), then McCain trying (and failing) to create a furor over it by linking “lipstick” to Palin, then finally admitting he knew all along what Obama meant.

Is everything a game with you guys? Can we not have serious, adult discussions that don’t degenerate into ad hominem attacks?

Again, my point is that Bush was never attacked on the basis of his race, so it is creating a fallacious strawman to somehow equate attacking Bush for his policies with attacking Obama for his race. If you can’t see that, I might as well save my time and yours trying to make my point.

kctim: Or will every little statement be examined inside and out for anything that could be twisted as being racist, as a way to silence concerns and protect this guy?

Give an example of Bush being attacked on any basis other than the correctness (or not) of his policies and you might have a point. Same thing goes for Obama.

Now I will be the first to admit that some, such as Sharpton, have jumped all over people for using words like “niggardly”. He was wrong for doing that. But to say that somehow applies to you is again, a strawman.

If you have issues with Obama’s policies once he is inaugurated, then respectfully state the issues and you should have no problem. To try to excuse yourself from civil discourse about his policies on the mere basis that he is not white is pure BS.

Posted by: EJN at November 6, 2008 8:29 PM
Comment #269776

Well the Oldguy is back. I have been in mourning for the past few days. My wife even suggested dressing in sackcloth and pouring ashes on our heads. I felt that might be a little extreme.

As to what we will or will not be allowed to say. IMO the 1st amendment, freedom of speech will be something that you younger ones will tell your grandchildren about. Or in other words, a right you used to enjoy. Churches will loose their tax-exempt status if they say anything opposing gays or BHO’s policies. Perhaps BHO’s “Civilian Security Force” will physically attack churches.

The economy will continue to plummet. More federal money will be dumped into a failing economy. Taxes will be raised for anyone that is working. Blacks will not get all the free stuff BHO promised them. Unrest will plague our country. The 2nd amendment will be nullified, to protect the ruling government from a revolution. Unemployment and the national debt will continue to rise. The government will take over 401-K’s and the money will be used to shore up SS.

You notice; I present a bleak picture. It is a bleak picture. We will be attacked again on homeland soil, because Muslims view talk as weakness and they know BHO won’t have the stomach to do anything about it. American companies will go belly up, and we will become what the left has wanted for years, a third world nation.

And I hope these things happen because that is what Americans wanted and deserve. They deserve exactly what they get. I don’t work, I don’t have worry about unemployment, I don’t have to worry about finances, and we are heading to Florida in a few weeks to escape the cold.

On a light note, I have noticed the MSM leaders who supported BHO, now saying “we don’t really know that much about BHO or his policies”. This one came from Tom Brokaw to a PBS reporter.

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/10/30/1/a-conversation-with-tom-brokaw

This is called CYOA, because they helped to put him there, now they are running scared. It seems stupid to put someone in office just because you hate the one that is already there and is about to leave. Bush will enjoy a lifetime pension and benefits that you on the left are giving him. To use an old cliché, he will be laughing all the way to the bank.

I told you two weeks ago, that the market was reacting to the fear of a BHO presidency, and of course I was an idiot. But, the market is still dropping and the news is begining to report it may be a reaction to BHO as president.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHs5OM3gFG_DytQQZFbWfgPT08MAD949058G4

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2008/11/06/bad-economics-101-radio-host-ed-schultz-gov-rendell

Can anyone explain this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaXucD4HwU8

I remember when all on the left were so upset about Bush’s homeland security laws that would take away your rights. Can any of you on the left explain what this “Civilian Security Forse” is, and do you feel it may infringe on your rights?

Posted by: Oldguy at November 6, 2008 8:33 PM
Comment #269785

Oldguy, did you happen to read past the part that you liked in your one article? The first one you posted the link to.

“I think what is happening in the market is a continuation of really the last few weeks,” said Subodh Kumar, global investment strategist at Subodh Kumar & Associates in Toronto. “The markets are still incorporating the slowdown in the global economy.”

“I would put what we’re seeing today not so much as disappointment about policy from the incoming administration and more about continuing to incorporate assessments about how weak economies are,” he said


We can all find blogs that tell us what we want to hear. Reading a legitimate publication usually is more reliable, though.

Posted by: janedoe at November 6, 2008 8:58 PM
Comment #269786

I can’t believe I’m going to do this, but here goes anyway.

Oldguy, you really need to cut back. Whatever it is, please cut back.

Firstly, you have absolutely no reason to believe your 1st amendment rights will be curtailed. None. Nada. You don’t seriously think that do you?

Secondly, the stock market is crashing because earnings reports are being released by a variety of businesses that depend on consumer spending and they’re all reporting that demand is plummeting. Why? Because people aren’t spending as much. Why? Because they don’t feel so rich. Why? Because many people’s jobs are threatened and their home values are dropping. Why? Because the incompetents of the Bush administration have bungled this unethical, unconstitutional and probably illegal bailout of Wall Street. So quit blaming it on Obama - it’s not his fault. Yes, if you think it’s Obama’s fault that the stock market is plunging, you are what you said you were in your previous post. I didn’t say it, you did.

Thirdly, we know as much about Obama as we knew about McCain when he was Obama’s age. We know as much about Obama as we knew about Bush when he was Obama’s age. If you don’t know all you need to know, who’s fault is that? Try looking in the mirror.

Fourthly, it’s not Bush’s laws that bother most people. It’s Bush not following the laws that were already in place that bother us. Obama is more likely to follow the law than your hero the chimpster.

Posted by: EJN at November 6, 2008 9:07 PM
Comment #269790

Stephen G B,

I don’t think you’ll have much trouble talking about Obama in familiar terms, but please wait until he’s done something wrong (more wrong than winning the election) before you start using them. Pot to kettle, black & white, niggardly, etc are terms commonly used and commonly accepted. If you go over the line of common sense and/or common decency, expect to be called on it. Is your straw man dead yet?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 6, 2008 9:59 PM
Comment #269791

‘the chimpster’???? What if someone calls Obama that? LMAO

Hitler Oldguy.
Oh. Wait a minute. That was Bush.

Posted by: Dawn at November 6, 2008 10:17 PM
Comment #269792

Oldguy: you have posted another “the end of the world as we know it” post. How terrifying that must be to feel that way. Or perhaps you don’t and you are just venting. Either way, pretty terrifying stuff.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 6, 2008 10:28 PM
Comment #269796

If I may…

The clip from the Onion was hilarious.

The doom and gloomers crack me up. Obama isn’t even president yet and it’s all over for the America we once knew. I wasn’t aware that the president wielded that much clout. Maybe he’ll change our name to Obamica and do away with Christmas. BOO!

If you don’t think anyone criticized Bush on the basis of more than his policies, you haven’t been around many Democrats. He lost me at Iraq, he surrounded himself with dangerous people, and he WILL go down as one of the worst ever, but his critics made it personal far too often. Chimp, shrub, Hitler, and war criminal were the tip of the iceberg.

I still don’t know why people continually use Obama’s middle name, but they don’t use McCain’s. It’s Sidney; maybe some of the more “extreme” folks on the left would have used McCain’s middle name if it were Adolf or Benito. If it were, and if they had, I wonder if it would have appeared equally petty and desperate.

While I am surprised there hasn’t been an attack on the U.S. mainland since 9/11, keep in mind that Bush (a Republican, you know) was president on 9/11/01. It was 8.5 years between the first attack on the Towers and that one. To suggest that we’re due for another is at the same time logical and disgusting. Logical because it has happened to the last two incoming presidents and disgusting in that it appears to be wishful thinking (similar to those who seem to revel in the rising death count in Iraq to prove their point that it was wrong).

As for the piece that began this thread, this is indeed a classic strawman argument…at least until Obama’s supporters give cause for the “concern” expressed in the initial piece. I have yet to hear it.

Posted by: Sam McD at November 6, 2008 11:06 PM
Comment #269800

Oldguy, I can explain the National Civilian Security Force video. You see, it’s the type of manufactured, inflammatory issue promulgated by political partisans (usually on the right, I’m afraid) that disgusts most reasonable people and provides endless fodder for unhinged talk radio hosts and unprincipled columnists. It’s the kind of thing that people are growing sick of, and I believe that’s part of the reason the country voted the way it did.

It’s a few seconds taken out of context from a 27-minute speech that could leave the uninformed, the naive, and the distracted believing that Obama is planning an SS-like death squad, when in reality he was discussing community service with groups such as the Peace Corps and National Guard.

In the video you posted, an anonymous YouTuber references security expert Stephen Flynn’s plan for creating this citizen’s security force. Yet I can find no reference suggesting that Flynn wants this either. More to the point, it’s not in Obama’s platform, he has never mentioned it anywhere else, and it was not the gist of his speech.

If he were proposing a national security force of the kind this guy suggests, I’m guessing he would have spent more than three seconds on it. If he really expected to ram this down our throats, I think he’d have done a better job of setting us up, instead of relying on some college kid on YouTube to get the word out.

Here’s the full speech, in case anyone is interested in what Obama was really talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

Posted by: Sam McD at November 6, 2008 11:44 PM
Comment #269801

The 1st Amendment protects political speech from Government retribution. It does not protect the speaker from being treated by the public or media like a pariah should there exercise offend the public or the media.

If one wants to make jokes, one is responsible for choosing their audience and how that audience responds. Any comedian will tell you the same thing.

There are no 1st amendment issues here, and Obama’s administration will be the staunchest supporter of the 1st Amendment, so joke away at his skin color, heritage, race, religious affiliation, even his children, but, do so knowing that the 1st Amendment does NOT protect such speech from one’s audience’s responses, rejection, or ostricization of the so called “comic”.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2008 11:54 PM
Comment #269802

“Can anyone explain this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaXucD4HwU8”

Yes I can Oldguy it is tin foil hat stuff from the many nutcases on the extreme right. You really can’t be serious about this can you? Civilian security force is actually code for… well until you get you secret decoder ring I cant tell you…sorry. So show your ring and … well OK here it is, the sinister plot, Stephen Flynn is proposing a neighborhood watch. Yes if you see terrorist hauling a nuke in the waters off our coast you are asked to notify the appropriate authorities.

I agree civilian security force sounds sinister now that the far right claim’s Obama is initiating it but isn’t that what the Bush administration hired the Blackwater Co. to do in Iraq? Where was your outrage then? Are you saying that privatization of the military is wrong? I am impressed, but once again where have you been the past 8 years?

http://www.warprofiteers.com/article.php?id=11235

Posted by: j2t2 at November 7, 2008 12:02 AM
Comment #269816

Oldguy

Thanks for the upbeat rosy scenario you provide. It is hard to believe the state of our nation can regress much further. If I were you I think I might consider putting bunkers in the back yard and stocking up on supplies and weapons in anticipation of the oncoming disaster. The problem with communication outlets now days is that their is just as much garbage out there as there is factual information. One just needs to learn or at least make the effort to discern the good from the bad.

Posted by: RickIL at November 7, 2008 8:45 AM
Comment #269817

Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by: gomer pyle at November 7, 2008 8:45 AM
Comment #269824

EJN
You asked to : “Give an example of Bush being attacked on any basis other than the correctness (or not) of his policies and you might have a point”

And then you say: “Obama is more likely to follow the law than your hero the chimpster

That has nothing to do with his policies.
Will the left see that as a jab at Obama’s intelligence or as a racist remark?

Your response kind of dashes back and forth EJN. Most of it condemns us for asking if we are going to have to be on edge when daring to question Obama, but at the end you say people like Sharpton will jump on those things. Of course, you also add that he is wrong for doing so, but when he does things like that, the damage is done. One has been branded a racist and the end result is of no matter.

This isn’t about questioning policy, this is about how sensitive and defensive you guys are going to be while protecting him and his decisions.

Posted by: kctim at November 7, 2008 9:50 AM
Comment #269825

Most of these kinds of films, videos and tapes were restricted to collections of ‘bark shooters’, hiding in the woods, waiting for Armageddon, i.e., KKK, Covenant Sword and the Arm of the Lord, Posse Comitatus, etc. But with the advent of the internet, we all get a peek…Rah Rah, Sis Boom Bah!

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2008 9:58 AM
Comment #269826

Kctim and others:

My answer to this is that criticize his policies as much and as loudly as you want. As in other posts and other conversations, if it displays racist overtones or undertones I will take that into consideration when I weigh those opinions. That is what I have always done with racism and what I will continue to do. I listen and respond more fully when there is reason and thought, and consideration for whoever you are trying to convince.

That’s my stance. I defy anyone who has ever seen me or many others post things not related to policy to quote it. Have there been those that have posted things like that? Certainly. Will there be posts about Obama with racist implications? Most certainly. Hopefully they can be ignored and given the weight they deserve.

JMHO

Posted by: womanmarine at November 7, 2008 10:00 AM
Comment #269827

kctim,

Cheney/Bush is not just a fool who made mistakes and bad decisions. He is not just guilty of bad policy, poorly instituted…he is a dishonorable man, who leads other dishonorable men (and women). And, as a national disgrace, he may wear several ugly labels, but he brought it on himself. Referring to him as the CHIMPSTER is not politically motivated (although he does kinda resemble one). He’ll just have to live with it.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2008 10:05 AM
Comment #269833

“Referring to him as the CHIMPSTER is not politically motivated (although he does kinda resemble one). He’ll just have to live with it.”

no of course it’s not. hey i have noticed though that obama does bear a resemblence to a mouse or a rat, so the chimpster is moving out of the white house, and rat boy is moving in. i suppose the bho civilian force will be at my door any day now. LOL!!!

Posted by: dbs at November 7, 2008 10:51 AM
Comment #269834

kctim: And then you say: “Obama is more likely to follow the law than your hero the chimpster” That has nothing to do with his policies.

Oh, but it does have to do with Bush’s policies. Early on, he was well-known for being uncurious about anything having to do with technical details of running a government; he even proudly admitted as much himself. Hence, he was dubbed with the sobriquet “uncurious George”, in apposition to the little chimp in the children’s book series.

So you might not like me applying the name to him but it does address and certainly is relevant to his policies. Moreover, it does not attack him on the basis of his race, which is the premise of SGB’s original post.

kctim: Will the left see that as a jab at Obama’s intelligence or as a racist remark?

I guess you could try that but, again, Obama is anything but uncurious. So to refer to him as a chimp doesn’t really work as it does with Bush. I don’t think anyone will “get” what you mean if you call Obama the chimpster, and they will probably assume you’re calling him a monkey. There’s nothing in Obama’s policies that I know of that would make chimpster a very good moniker for him.

kctim: but at the end you say people like Sharpton will jump on those things.

If you or anyone else who try to question Obama’s policies allow yourselves to be brought up short and quieted by the like of Sharpton and his motley crew, shame on you.

kctim: but when he does things like that, the damage is done.

No, the damage is done when you let the likes of Sharpton take you out of the debate. The damage is done by your lacking a spine.

kctim: This isn’t about questioning policy, this is about how sensitive and defensive you guys are going to be while protecting him and his decisions.

I call BS on this. When it happens, come back and we’ll talk. You can’t predict what Obama will say, much less how you will respond, and even much less how the likes of Sharpton will respond. When you say “you guys” I don’t know who “you guys” are. If you mean me, you’re wrong. If you mean me and Sharpton, I resent your lumping me with that idiotic bag of hot air.

Just wait till you disagree with Obama on something, then let’s hear what you’ve got to say; if you can say it without snide references to watermelon and fried chicken, I think you’ll be OK.

Posted by: EJN at November 7, 2008 10:52 AM
Comment #269835

dbs: hey i have noticed though that obama does bear a resemblence to a mouse or a rat

I can’t speak for anyone else, but my referring to Bush as the chimpster is in no way related to his appearance. It is related to his (proudly admitted) lack of curiosity about the world, hence “uncurious George”, hence the chimpster.

Posted by: EJN at November 7, 2008 10:55 AM
Comment #269836

J2t2:

“I agree civilian security force sounds sinister now that the far right claim’s Obama is initiating it but isn’t that what the Bush administration hired the Blackwater Co. to do in Iraq? Where was your outrage then? Are you saying that privatization of the military is wrong? I am impressed, but once again where have you been the past 8 years?”

Blackwater Co. did work in Iraq and not on home soil. Throughout history, there have always been civilians hired for the purpose of fighting enemies. They were called “mercenaries” The idea of a “Civilian Security Force” sounds like a Gestapo unit in this country. BHO said he would finance and equip them as well as the military. There are laws preventing the military from controlling american citizens, but what about a civilian force? When you had prosecutors and police threatening to bring charges on anyone who spoke against BHO in St. Louis, is it possible to have this take place on a national level?

I find a lot of similarities between the attitude of many American people today and those of Germany in the 1930’s. The German people looked to Hitler in the same way 52% of Americans look at BHO. He was their messiah and BHO is your messiah; who is able to solve all the problems of the world. At what point did the German people say, “What have we done”? Biden basically said the same thing about what the reaction of the american people would be to the “test” that will come upon BHO, within six months.

You may say, “that was then and this is now”. Well, as an old guy, I must remind you that human nature does not change. Nations, today, can also commit the atrocities committed by nations in the past.

RickIL:

“Thanks for the upbeat rosy scenario you provide. It is hard to believe the state of our nation can regress much further.”

As a bible believing Christian, I believe it is entirely possible for not only the nation, but also the world to “regress much further”. I don’t need a bunker or supplies; my faith is not in my ability to preserve myself. Yes, I present a very bleak picture, and I find these days scary and yet very exciting. My excitement is not in a man who can create a panacea, but rather a God, whose plan is being accomplished. And I realize I invite much criticism by those on the left who are intolerant of Christianity. So shoot your “fiery darts”.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 7, 2008 10:55 AM
Comment #269837

Civilian Security Force. Is that like the police? Different, how? I didn’t watch the referenced video so as to keep an open mind. Will have to do more research.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 7, 2008 11:02 AM
Comment #269839

Oldguy:

Intolerant of Christianity? Where do you come off with that attitude? What an unChristian thing to say about fellow Christians who don’t believe as you do.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 7, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #269842

womanmarine:

“I didn’t watch the referenced video so as to keep an open mind. Will have to do more research.”

Does “keeping an open mind” mean you will speak against the “messiah” if he creates a “police state”, or will you find a way to justify him and his dirty deeds?

Concerning Christian intolerance, just watch.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 7, 2008 11:13 AM
Comment #269843

Excuse me while I go bite my tongue off.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 7, 2008 11:15 AM
Comment #269847

EJN

actually i was responding to dude, but he won’t deal with me anymore. the reference doesn’t bother me, and he does kinda have the chimp thing going on, so i just made my own observation. it’s all good.

Posted by: dbs at November 7, 2008 11:33 AM
Comment #269850

Oldguy

sounds like the rise of the SA, and later the SS. pretty spooky stuff.

Posted by: dbs at November 7, 2008 11:52 AM
Comment #269851

Yeah, no problem, dbs. Just expressing my own opinion, not dinging you for yours.

Posted by: EJN at November 7, 2008 12:01 PM
Comment #269856

EJN
“There’s nothing in Obama’s policies that I know of that would make chimpster a very good moniker for him.”

Maybe not in policy to those of you who will most times agree with him, but what if someone who does not follow like that believes he is “uncourious about anything having to do with the technical details of running a government?” Will you respect their right to call him a chimp? If it “does address and certainly is relevant to his policies,” will much be said about using that word?
We both know the answer to that one.

Obama is anything but uncurious? Obama is very inexperienced and you have nothing but some of his pretty words to back that statement up. Neither of us know how he is going to act, but to outright say he will not have any “chimp” like moments is naive.

“No, the damage is done when you let the likes of Sharpton take you out of the debate. The damage is done by your lacking a spine”

Nope. The damage is done when the likes of jackson or sharpton blow something out of proportion and it is covered non-stop for a week or so. People and the media spread their words, not the facts and that person is labeled and seen as a racist the entire time.

“Just wait till you disagree with Obama on something”

I don’t have to disagree with Obama in order for somebody to twist the meaning of the words I use. Just last week, the new KC quarterback had a really great game and all week long, when people asked me how I thought he did, I told them “that boy really came through for us didn’t he.” Now, do you honestly think I can say the same thing if Obama has a great moment? How about when I say “that boy really let us down today?” Gee, I wonder.
You know, “watermelon and fried chicken” are two of my favorite things, what do you think the reaction would be if I said I wanted to invite Obama and family over for some “watermelon and fried chicken?”

IMO, more than a few people are going to step on their tongues, the jacksons and sharptons are going to blow it all out proportion, the media will cover that part intensely and those people will be forever labeled as racist. And once that happens a few times, people will choose to just stay quiet out of fear of being unjustly labeled a racist for political reasons.

And of course I can’t “predict” that will happen, but I can look at the past and see that it is a possibility. Which is something one cannot do when predicting it won’t happen.

Posted by: kctim at November 7, 2008 12:33 PM
Comment #269857

Oldguy, Upon review it seems a peaceful security force to me, nothing sinister at all. Seems that there is more to security than an armed force in Obama’s opinion, which I think is admirable. Your guy in the youtube video is a tin foil hat lunatic from the fringe.

“He plans to double the Peace Corps’ budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html

“There are laws preventing the military from controlling american citizens, but what about a civilian force?”

Does that include the national guard? Seems they have shouldered weapons on American citizens at ..well at least at Kent State.

“When you had prosecutors and police threatening to bring charges on anyone who spoke against BHO in St. Louis, is it possible to have this take place on a national level?”

At what point does gross exaggeration slip into propaganda Oldguy? This non issue is on the same level as any number of bushisms, such as ” Our enemies are innovative and resourceful. And so are we. They never stop thinking about ways to harm our Country and our people. And neither do we. George W.Bush Aug 5, 2004.”

“I find a lot of similarities between the attitude of many American people today and those of Germany in the 1930’s. The German people looked to Hitler in the same way 52% of Americans look at BHO. He was their messiah and BHO is your messiah;”

Well once again I have been noticing these same similarities in the conservative movement for many years but you seem fine with that. Speaking of Messiahs I am sure you have noticed the way conservatives speak of Reagan yet you have shown no outrage as our Country has been lead to the edge of financial ruin by his followers and their economic voodoo. Your use of exaggerations such as 52% of Americans yadyadyada… makes it hard to see any wisdom in your words Oldguy, it seems they are filled with fear based upon misinformation. These old divisive tactics, including the racial arguments, only hurt the country.

Allow TR to tell us where we are at Oldguy, This is what the upcoming fight is about. Our failure to learn from history has caused us to repeat it.

“The death knoll of the Republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for it’s interests as opposed to the interest of others. - T. Roosevelt Labor Day 1903”

Your concerns are baseless,IMHO and it’s time to get our government out of the hands of the plutocrats and corporate lobbyist that run it for their own benefit. The liberal/conservative argument will be moot if this fails to happen.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 7, 2008 12:35 PM
Comment #269860

Attacking anyone based on their race is just flat wrong. It doesn’t matter who they are or what race they are. And the idiots that do it are among the lowest forms of life there is.

kctim said: It’s no strawman EJN. Can we be as critical of Obama as the left was of Bush, without being labeled a racist? Or will every little statement be examined inside and out for anything that could be twisted as being racist, as a way to silence concerns and protect this guy?

We should be able to. But I’ve got the sneaking feeling we won’t be able to. I’ve already been accused several time of being racist for criticizing Obama. And that was before the election. The thing is the same folks didn’t mind me criticizing McCain.
Claiming someone is racist just because they criticize someone of another race is wrong. Specially if that person happens to be the President of the United States. But I’ll guarantee that’s just what’s gonna be happening for the next four years.
Ya see free speech is only a right when it agrees with the left.

Just what the Hell is a Civilian Security Force? Sounds like the Gestapo with another name to me.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 7, 2008 12:42 PM
Comment #269864

womanmarine
I am hoping most people will do the same as you, but I can’t help believe that too many will see “racist overtones or undertones” in just about anything negative said about the man if possible.

Dude
Bush has also been called a dumb redneck, ignorant hick and Hitler.
But, many people may come to the same beliefs about Obama, but they will not be able to express themselves as you do without being labeled a racist.
I think just how far people will go to use that label is the point of this post.

Posted by: kctim at November 7, 2008 12:47 PM
Comment #269874

kctim: the new KC quarterback had a really great game and all week long, when people asked me how I thought he did, I told them “that boy really came through for us didn’t he.” Now, do you honestly think I can say the same thing if Obama has a great moment?

Since neither Obama nor the new KC quarterback are juvenile males, why would you call them “boy”? Especially knowing the term “boy” has historically been used in the South to express a derogatory, superior relationship between a white person and a black adult male? Give me a break. Why not “That man really came through for us” or “That guy really came through for us”? Why “boy”?

kctim: believes he is “uncourious about anything having to do with the technical details of running a government?” Will you respect their right to call him a chimp?

I respect their (and your) first amendment right to say anything they want but correspondingly I wouldn’t lend much credence to their opinion if they don’t know enough about Obama to realize that he is in fact quite the opposite of Bush (and McCain, I might add) when it comes to being willing to try to understand and try to learn about things, i.e. his curiosity. I would certainly say, “OK, why do you say that?” and disabuse that person of their ignorance about this man.

kctim: what do you think the reaction would be if I said I wanted to invite Obama and family over for some “watermelon and fried chicken?”

Most likely suspicion, I’m sure, since to date you’ve expressed nothing but anger at and distrust of the man. Besides, most people who were sincere about something like that would say they want to invite him and his family over for supper rather than specifying the particular menu items. In any case, notice you’ve again drifted away from the original gist of the post which was that you doubt the ability of you and others like you to be able to question his policies without running afoul of the PC police. Let’s see you make an actual criticism of his policies without resorting to watermelon and fried chicken. I know you can do it, in spite of your seeming to intentionally try to prove me wrong.

kctim: the media will cover that part intensely and those people will be forever labeled as racist. And once that happens a few times, people will choose to just stay quiet out of fear of being unjustly labeled a racist for political reasons.

My goodness, are you related to oldguy at all? You both seem to have a very apocalyptic vision of life changing in this country on 1/20/2009. Racism is a bad thing but so is falsely claiming someone is racist. I think most people understand that. Do you?

Posted by: EJN at November 7, 2008 1:29 PM
Comment #269876

EJN

the term boy can be interpreted many ways. the use of it as in kctims example is a term of endearment. i have had friends call me that and i’m 46 years old, so that fact that your refering to a grown man doesn’t mean it’s an insult. it can also be a generalization, as in that boy needs his head examined. still not a racial slur. when it’s used in that form it shouldn’t be twisted into something it isn’t, but there are those who would to make a political statement. no one should have to walk on eggshells so to speak.

Posted by: dbs at November 7, 2008 1:43 PM
Comment #269879

Kctim: I hope so too.

If it does happen, I will just consider the source. But then, I don’t tend to read things into those types of speech unless they are blatant.

We do agree sometimes :)

Posted by: womanmarine at November 7, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #269880

dbs, are you black? Are the people who call you “boy” black? You’ve conveniently omitted these important details.

Where I come from in the midwest USA, no non-black person calls a black adult male “boy” without intending an insult.

I’m fully aware the term “boy” can be interpreted in many ways, but it is NOT a term of endearment for a non-black person to call a black adult male “boy”. It’s simply not.

As for “that boy needs his head examined”, that might not be an insult if “that boy” is not being spoken to and is not within hearing of the statement, but to say “Boy, you need your head examined” would most certainly be an insult if said by a white person to a black adult male.

But now, let’s see you try it dbs, since you’ve offered your opinion: offer a criticism of a policy of Obama’s without using “boy”. I’m sure you can do it.

Posted by: EJN at November 7, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #269881
no one should have to walk on eggshells so to speak

You mean like those of us opposed to the war in Iraq and Bush’s handling of it being called traitors or worse?

Posted by: womanmarine at November 7, 2008 1:56 PM
Comment #269882

I think we all need to keep in mind that calling a man “boy” has cultural and regional differences of meaning. I have experienced most of them (not to myself of course), and many have varied connotations, from joke to hatred. Let’s not overinterpret here folks!!

Posted by: womanmarine at November 7, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #269884

kctim,

I’m sorry, I mustuv missed the dumb red-neck, the ignorant hick, and the Hitler…not that they don’t all fit, but they don’t fit together very well…dumb hick Hitler…welllll…not too good. My referring to him as a chimp has more to do with Mike Lukovich (political cartoonist for the AJC) than anything else. He draws the Chimpster as a chimp, and it rubbed off on me…sorry…just one of my many weaknesses.

I expect the cartoonists will also control how we refer to Obama. It is unlikely they’ll draw him or refer to him as ‘nigger’, so if you stay away from KKK leaflets, etc., you’ll probably be okay.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2008 2:08 PM
Comment #269885

EJN
“Why “boy”?”

Maybe because of where I am from? How I was brought up? Or because its a term commonly used by teammate? Do you play sports? Watch them? “My boy whooped their butts” and such things are said quite often.
But, you asked why instead of jumping to conclusions on this one and that is how it should be.

“I respect their (and your) first amendment right to say anything they want but correspondingly I wouldn’t lend much credence to their opinion if they don’t know enough about Obama to realize that he is in fact quite the opposite of Bush”

Obama has not had to do anything yet, so at best all you can say is you hope he will be the opposite of Bush.

“I would certainly say, “OK, why do you say that?””

Its good to hear that.

“and disabuse that person of their ignorance about this man”

We are not talking about telling somebody why you think they are wrong about the man, we are talking about whether you can respect their right to call him a chimp if feel he has acted as such.

“Besides, most people who were sincere about something like that would say they want to invite him and his family over for supper rather than specifying the particular menu items.”

I take it your are not from the rural midwest? We don’t ask somebody to come over for a beverage, we ask them to come over for a beer or tea. Sure we ask people to come over for dinner, but we also ask people to come over for some dogs, pig, ribs, wings, chicken and burgers too.

“In any case, notice you’ve again drifted away from the original gist of the post which was that you doubt the ability of you and others like you to be able to question his policies without running afoul of the PC police.”

Sigh. I do not doubt my ability to do so, but then again, I don’t care if others take my words out of context for political reasons. I am not a politician. But many talking heads, advisors and the such do care and the “gist” of the post is whether they will be crucified by people taking their words and making them something that was not meant.

“Let’s see you make an actual criticism of his policies without resorting to watermelon and fried chicken. I know you can do it, in spite of your seeming to intentionally try to prove me wrong.”

We are not discussing his policies and I have not even tried to criticize them. I want to know just how far people are going to go to tag somebody as a racist in order to protect this guy.

“Racism is a bad thing but so is falsely claiming someone is racist. I think most people understand that. Do you?”

Well, seeing how I am the one saying false claims are wrong and harmful, I would guess that I do understand it very well. However, if I was trying to make this all about disagreeing with policy, then you would be correct in asking if I understood or not.

Posted by: kctim at November 7, 2008 2:34 PM
Comment #269887

womanmarine
I have no doubt in believing you will handle the situation as you say and I hope most people will handle it the same way.

EJN
“Where I come from in the midwest USA, no non-black person calls a black adult male “boy” without intending an insult”

This ranks right up there with you assuming you know how people invite each other over to eat.
I have played sports with men of all different colors in the military and out, and have never had a problem with using the term boy in such a way. That boy launched it! That boy nailed it! That boy hit it! are all statements I have said and had said to me by my friends and teammates, black, white, red etc…

Dude
I know overt things like that won’t be done. I mean come on, drawing Obama as a chimp would be a stupid thing to do no matter how dumb or (un)curious or whatever happens. But I think what Baron is asking is if we must watch every little word used or risk being labeled as a racist?
Not me personaly, I don’t care. But what about those who do care?

Posted by: kctim at November 7, 2008 2:51 PM
Comment #269892

EJN

“dbs, are you black? Are the people who call you “boy” black? You’ve conveniently omitted these important details.”

relax…. all i did was try to point out there are those that might take that term out of context, and use it to play politics when it wasn’t used in context in a negative fashion, or wasn’t intended to be degrading.

as far as what someone says behind my back, i could care less. if they don’t have the courage to say to me directly then it means nothing.

“But now, let’s see you try it dbs, since you’ve offered your opinion: offer a criticism of a policy of Obama’s without using “boy”. I’m sure you can do it.”

c’mmon EJN lighten up i wasn’t trying to insult anyone. sorry if i injected my opinion into this thread….jeaz !

Posted by: dbs at November 7, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #269894

womanmarine

“Let’s not overinterpret here folks!!”

exactly.

Posted by: dbs at November 7, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #269898

I think that perhaps the use of a little common sense is in order when it comes to the race issue. If a person cares about being mis-interpreted as racist then that person has to use a little common sense and caution in their presentation of a statement. As an example the only guide to judging character of our fellow bloggers on this site is the manner in which we as individuals use written words. If we hope to present ourselves in a particular persona then we must use the proper wording to do so. We must be careful as to what context we apply words. It is quite acceptable as a few point out here to joke around between friends with the knowledge that the use of certain words is nothing more than a little fun not directed with conviction at a particular individual. However, use those words in a particular context in the midst of a stranger and you can bet your ass you are going to be labeled. Anyone who is truly not a racist will naturally have the good sense to avoid putting themselves in a compromising position. Most true racists are transparent to the point that it is obvious. I will view anyone who refers to Obama in the manner of boy, chimp, coon, nigger, jungle bunny etc. as racist. That is because these are words that are commonly used by racists to refer to those of color. Now if anyone prefers to refer to him as stupid, ignorant, assh*%e or whatever I am cool with that. I may not agree, but non of those terms are largely associated with racism. They could easily be applied at anytime, under most any context, with any person, without fear of racial undertones.

Posted by: RickIL at November 7, 2008 3:54 PM
Comment #269899

I gotta say you guys are pretty slippery and I’ve wasted way too much of my time trying to have an honest discussion about this.

Suffice it to say that your concerns about something, that by your own admission has not yet actually happened, MIGHT happen are way overblown, just like oldguy’s fears of losing his 1st amendment rights, the tanking stock market and some kind of black helicopter type of Nazi SS organization.

If you guys and your partisans really want to raise issues without being seen as racist, it’s a pretty easy thing to do if you would make the slightest effort.

On the other hand, it’s also pretty easy to come across as racist if that’s what you intend, as Mr. Tim has demonstrated again and again with his use of “boy”, “watermelon” and “fried chicken”.

If you want to play games about using “innocent” words like “boy” in addressing someone who is an adult black male not familiar to you, i.e. Obama, then expect to be called on it and don’t act like you are innocent because you’re not.

Posted by: EJN at November 7, 2008 4:05 PM
Comment #269900

RickIL: I think that perhaps the use of a little common sense is in order when it comes to the race issue. If a person cares about being mis-interpreted as racist then that person has to use a little common sense and caution in their presentation of a statement.

Exactly

I couldn’t have put it any better. Thanks, Mr. RickIL.

Posted by: EJN at November 7, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment #269902

here’s a campaign messege played by the afl cio during the last weeks of the race. ultimate messege IMO was if you don’t vote for obama you’re a racist. listen for yourself.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/10/09/afge-leader-dont-let-racism-distract-us-from-real-issues/

Posted by: dbs at November 7, 2008 4:45 PM
Comment #269904

RickIL
Of course people have to use their heads and be careful, but we all have seen how things get blown out of proportion.
Few ignorant people will say intentionally stupid hateful things and we should deal with that, but lets not jump the gun and take everybody who says something and treat them like true racists.
Well put post Rick.

EJN
IF you wanted an honest discussion, you would be discussing the fact that sometimes words are used to label somebody as a racist when the intent was not racial at all.

“If you want to play games about using “innocent” words like “boy” in addressing someone who is an adult black male not familiar to you, i.e. Obama, then expect to be called on it and don’t act like you are innocent because you’re not”

Nobody said they were going to call Obama “boy” or anything like that. If you actually read things, you would see that people are saying that not everything that could be taken as a racist remark was meant as one.
People are hoping that the media and Obama’s handlers will take an approach similar to that of Ricks and womanmarines and “call” people on it when there is proof of actual racism. What don’t want is for people to fly off the handle as you have and start calling people racists when they have no idea what the person was trying to say.
No wonder you feel like your wasting your time.

Posted by: kctim at November 7, 2008 4:59 PM
Comment #269911

Look, sometimes there are going to be misunderstandings. Just be willing to apologize, to explain. If you get mad, you only make the situation worse. If they act like adults, you can talk them down. If they don’t act like adults, just be the adult.

On the subject of the fried chicken and watermelon reference, I recall all those items being on a 10 or $20 food stamp with Obama’s face on it. I know political correctness can create some misunderstandings. But how do you misunderstand something like that? They’re piling on the stereotypes one on top of the other, the watermelon being of particularly nasty vintage. Do some research into racist tropes of previous times, and you’ll find watermelons figuring largely in those illustrations, often accompanying the Pickaninnies, sambos, step’n fetchits, mammies, and other grossly distorted portraits of blacks. This person, in other words, either put that one in by sheer luck, or they knew just how terrible it’s inclusion was. Given the tone of the rest of the image, and the additional stereotypes applied, it’s unlikely the person was not going for a racist message.

If you’re really in doubt, just ask yourself, “Would I consider the tone and implications acceptable where they direct my way, or a friend’s way?” The best insurance against being misunderstood is doing your best to have a non-adversarial, even friendly relationship with people in the first place.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2008 6:16 PM
Comment #269927

Speaking of politically incorrect speech, here’s R Naydar claiming that BHO has a choice between being Uncle Sam and Uncle Tom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrCw6iRhvaI

Posted by: ohrealy at November 7, 2008 10:24 PM
Comment #269930

Apparently, “he’s young, handsome and even tanned.” remarks by Berlusconi about BHO, have caused a reaction in Europe:

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

and

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/06/europe/italy.php

Teapot tempest.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 7, 2008 10:38 PM
Comment #269932

>But I think what Baron is asking is if we must watch every little word used or risk being labeled as a racist?

Posted by: kctim at November 7, 2008 02:51 PM

kctim,

I don’t know if Barone is married or not. I think you are…do you refer to your wife as a ‘broad’, ‘split-tail’, ‘cu*t’, etc? I don’t think it very likely…you know where to draw the line…right? How much more difficult can it be when talking about Obama?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 7, 2008 10:51 PM
Comment #269944

dude, it seems abundantly clear that many on here don’t feel that the colloquial terms for a person of color have a negative connotation. So they incessantly say them with full knowledge that they find their mark.
Haven’t we learned prior to the election, that they have no limit to what they say or do? Look at the posts that are right back to the same level of hate and contempt as before the election.
As far as they’re concerned, there is only one party worthy of recognition. As long as they are in control, they’re happier than pigs in shit. When we gain control, we’re out to dominate the country…screw everyone that is not “of the party”……(and I often wonder just what physical attributes we have that make us so easily identified) and destroy the world.
I haven’t really decided if it’s just pathetic or funnier than hell. Actually it’s lunacy and I’m pretty tired of it.

Posted by: janedoe at November 8, 2008 1:38 AM
Comment #269945

“As far as they’re concerned, there is only one party worthy of recognition. As long as they are in control, they’re happier than pigs in shit. When we gain control, we’re out to dominate the country…screw everyone that is not “of the party”…”


how ironic is this statement ?

Posted by: dbs at November 8, 2008 1:48 AM
Comment #269949

janedoe,

You keep forgetting that kctim is not OF the ‘party’…he’ll remind you pretty soon, I’m sure. His is a totally different ilk. His attitude toward race is not politically motivated, I’m sure of that.

kctim, thinks that all black people are on the dole, and that he pays taxes for their support. It probably drove him crazy to find out Obama actually pulled himself up (like one of Alger’s heroes) by his own efforts and intellect.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 8, 2008 6:52 AM
Comment #269996

Marysdude, your comment privileges have been suspended for critiquing the messengers instead of their message.

Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at November 8, 2008 8:53 PM
Comment #270087

Stephen
“This person, in other words, either put that one in by sheer luck, or they knew just how terrible it’s inclusion was”

EJN was the first to bring it up, but I think he was trying to be a wise butt, not insensitive.

Dude
“I don’t know if Barone is married or not. I think you are…do you refer to your wife as a ‘broad’, ‘split-tail’, ‘cu*t’, etc? I don’t think it very likely…you know where to draw the line…right? How much more difficult can it be when talking about Obama?”

As I said, blatant racism should be addressed, but we must be careful so as not to wrongly accuse somebody of racism if the intent was not racial.
Of course I know where to draw the line as you say, but there have been a few times where I have said something and she took it in a totally different way than how it was meant.

Look, its not going to be difficult to talk about Obama. Some will be intentionally racist remarks, but the majority will be honest mistakes and I hope we don’t jump to conclusions as you guys have done on here.

Sorry to see that you felt you needed to stoop so low in order to make your point, Dude. I always enjoyed reading your contributions.

Posted by: kctim at November 10, 2008 2:13 PM
Comment #270141

kctim…..good way to finally win a point…. Post a comment when there’s no way for the subject to be able to respond…and refute.

Posted by: janedoe at November 11, 2008 12:45 PM
Comment #270144

It’s been a few days now but I can’t believe someone didn’t point out that kctim over and over to try to prove his point said it’s the same thing to say “that boy really did so and so” and calling someone a “boy”. Not the same thing at all ,boy, and you know it. I lived in the South in the past too, you know.

Posted by: ray at November 11, 2008 1:23 PM
Comment #270157

Ray
Read what is said instead of what you want said. I never said its ok to call somebody “boy” with racial undertones to it. What I did say is will a person be called a racist if they use that word in a non-racial way and I gave examples of how that is possible.
To act as if nobody is going to say the wrong thing at the wrong time is naive and giving somebody a lifetime label of being a racist when its not warranted, is wrong.

Janedoe
I don’t try to win “points” on here. If I wanted to do that, then I too would just blindly follow and only say things that praise the left.
I didn’t wait to post a comment. I leave work at 5pm on Friday and come back at 8am Monday. The weekend is time I only spend with my family.
With that said, Dude may be suspended from posting, but he is still able to read and I felt I owed him an honest response.

Posted by: kctim at November 11, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #270163

kctim, nothing honest about it…more like C.S.
Might as well give it up, too, ray. You’re spitting into the wind.

Posted by: janedoe at November 11, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #270167

I know, janedoe, but untill some people see it in print, they might think that “hey Boy” and recalling how “that Boy did good” is the same and it’s not at all. I will give kctim some slack, he’s posted here for years now as have I.

Posted by: ray at November 11, 2008 4:33 PM
Comment #270168

Ray, if people are reading all of the posts, then they know that nobody has claimed that the two were the same.
Now, you can “give it up” as janedoe usually does when she cannot backup her points if you want, I don’t care. But, if you want to address the actual point being made, I’m all ears.

Posted by: kctim at November 11, 2008 4:46 PM
Comment #270177

kctim, one can back up points ‘til the cows come home, but if the other side doesn’t get it….it’s lost effort.
Don’t fall into the same quicksand others have been lured into ray…..notice how the numbers are dwindling.

Posted by: janedoe at November 11, 2008 11:08 PM
Comment #270194

Ok Janedoe, then back up the point trying to be made that we are racists because we say not all remarks that could be taken as a racial slur, were meant as a racial slur, so we need to use common sense and make sure an innocent person isn’t unfairly labeled a racist for the rest of their life.

The “numbers are dwindling” because it is now the 4th or 5th article down and because people are tired of being unfairly labeled a racist for daring to ask a simple question.

Posted by: kctim at November 12, 2008 10:37 AM
Comment #270210

I’m not backing anything up any more. It doesn’t matter when you refuse to read and let anything penetrate. The typical bullying tactics continue…victory by antagonism, and not by proving points. Posting rights lost, no more challenge.

Posted by: janedoe at November 12, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #270649

>Sorry to see that you felt you needed to stoop so low in order to make your point, Dude.
Posted by: kctim at November 10, 2008 02:13 PM

kctim,

I think this Dude character must have hit a nerve. It apparently caused you to sink to the same level.

Marysdude merely said that you felt blacks were causing your tax monies to be wasted, was that incorrect?

I’ve read many of your posts wherein you mention how you are forced to pay taxes for things you don’t agree with and for people who don’t deserve it, but I never saw Marysdude refer to you as being ‘low’.

Posted by: Nincompoop at November 19, 2008 11:53 PM
Comment #270867

Nin
To be honest, Dude hit no nerve of mine and I do not agree with him being suspended. He and I have gone back and forth a ton of times and I have always enjoyed it and never take things personally. But, the rules are clear here and the moderator felt he crossed them.

Yes, it is incorrect to say that I believe “black” Americans are the cause of my taxes to be wasted. If you have read my posts, then you know that my main concern is with what is govts job and what it is allowed to tax for.
Helping my fellow Americans is not “wasting” tax monies if it is done correctly, but forcing Americans to comply is wasting the rights we were given by our founders.

In addition, I never said Dude was “low,” but that he chose to stoop low when he suggested I was being racist.

Posted by: kctim at November 24, 2008 10:52 AM
Comment #271076

kctim,

As Mr. Clinton would say…it all depends on what the definition of ‘low’ is…:)

Posted by: Marysdude at November 28, 2008 4:21 AM
Comment #271281

Touche Dude.

Posted by: kctim at December 1, 2008 4:09 PM
Post a comment