manning #4: ...giving them part of our treasury to cease and desist in attacking Israel?
flmom #3: I nominate Jimmy Carter for this important position.
me: Worked (mostly) for Egypt.Comment Posted By Me On 9.01.2009 @ 12:13
Rick, I truly admire your fortitude as you get pwned on your own blog. Many less oblivious/courageous (I don't pretend to know which) bloggers would just delete the comments that pwned them.
While you continue to mispredict the future, 60-90 American lives a month are lost. Your pipedreams on display, while hopeful and positive, are no substitute for a realistic appraisal of the situation, right now...not how you imagine it to be in two years.Comment Posted By ME On 19.09.2007 @ 17:51
Can we at least agree that if the war were indeed unwinnable, then the prudent thing would be to leave ASAP?
I suppose not, as the blowhards on the right wouldn't want to admit that their opponents simply have a different opinion about the feasibility of the effort, not a desire to "surrender" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean in the context of this conflict).
Rick, your partisanship and inability to engage on the issues is childish and petulant. No surprise from a guy that oodles respect for a very childish and petulant president.Comment Posted By ME On 19.09.2007 @ 16:16
Wow Rick, you sure told them!
The way you completely misrepresent other people's views in order to discredit them? Brilliant!
The way you mock others who work unselfishly to make our world healthier? Genius!
Rick, you haughty little pissant. You are an intellectual pin worm who wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the face with a 12 inch dildo (though I suspect you'd enjoy that).
Maybe you can mock those abolitionists next... don't they know that slavery is natural and will never end? Besides, I heard that abolitionists wear clothes that contain cotton picked by slaves! This obviously means that their whole cause is a ruse! What jackasses!
Of course, it is you who are the jackass, a stupendous one at that.Comment Posted By ME On 9.07.2007 @ 11:38
"Putnamâ€™s study does make two positive points: in the long run, increased immigration and diversity are inevitable and desirable"
Why inevitable?Cheap labor?Cheap votes?
If it increases tensions and balkinizes the nation,why is it desirable?
"An immigrant melding country can withstand ethnic diversity and is strengthened by it. But that requires melding into the whole by all ethnic groups."
No,if the majority has a successful culture,why should they be expected to "meld" to the norms of a failed culture brought by immigrants from poorer,less successful societies?
Through out history,poor,unsuccessful tribes migrated into the territory of rich,successful tribes and attempted to grab a piece of the action for themselves.
The result is that the natives drive off the newcomers or are driven out themselves OR one or the other is absorbed or marginialized by the other.
The problem for today's newcomer's is that they lack the human capital,knowledge,education and technical skills to keep,say,California running.Comment Posted By me On 27.06.2007 @ 18:57
A relative handful of Hollywood celebrities and hi-tech moguls can't compensate for the states increasing loss of a broad,educated,technically skilled and NET tax paying middle class.
And at the most optimistic,it will be AT LEAST 3 generations for them to catch up to the natives,movimng blue collar to white collar as cultural changes take affect.
"AL QAEDA TO SLAUGHTER IRAQIS"
You're kidding right? I mean, you aren't seriously arguing that the danger in leaving Iraq lies behind what Qaeda would do?
Of course not, because given the facts, that would be an insane argument.
But you certainly implied it in your headline.Comment Posted By ME On 2.05.2007 @ 08:31
His statement that â€œsymbols only have the power you give them,â€ could also apply to specific words like â€œniggerâ€ (and, one would assume â€œkikeâ€ and â€œspic.â€
Which is the claim used to justify the black use of the dreaded "N" word,in order,it is said,to reclaim it and disempower it.
Honkie,cracker,redneck,trailer trash are all racial,class slurs consciously used to demean,diminish and debase a specific group,should we ban those words?
All symbols offend someone.
Old Glory flew over slavery,share cropping and Jim Crow,should we ban it?The muslim crescent has flown and is flying over aggresive wars of imperialism and oppression,should we ban it?
We are busily banning Christian symbols,less they offend jews,muslims,athists,gay activists,etc.Is this not offensive to many and not just Christians?
The flag issue is more complicated than you acknowledge,frankly.To many,many southerners it has become a symbol of opposition to,dare I say,the cultural imperialism of the White left elite that has long since declared ALL things southern as nasty if not downright evil and to be abolished.
Just mention Nascar and watch the sneers bloom among the Annointed as they shudder in horror.
P.S. I watched "Holiday Inn" on one of the cable channels a couple of months ago,a small inaccuracy that never the less undermines your other factual claims.
P.P.S. You seem to take the idea of banning it as a positive while insisting you oppose censorship.
Well,a neat way to keep your own hands clean,bemoaning censorship in general while implying approval in this case.
P.P.P.S. The last thing the conservative movement needs,or frankly will tolerate,is self appointed Inquistors attempting to police it with "more PC than thou"ness to show they are,unlike THOSE people,socially acceptble to their betters.Comment Posted By me On 27.04.2007 @ 13:21
Ahhhhhh....I see now.
Any "hate speech" less blunt and crude than "nappy headed ho's" doesn't count as racist hate speech.
As long as he didn't actually say anything as explicit as "rich white honkey crackerboy rapists",then the entire racist,sexist,elitist,snobby tone,texture and narritive is ok.
As for what we may think your brother was thinking,well,he TOLD us what he was thinking in the damn post,what part of that are you not grasping?!?Comment Posted By me On 15.04.2007 @ 14:48
Personal attacks,juvenile name calling....jeez,talk about projection.
You've gome from defending your bro's free speech right to say something stupid and offensive and not lose his(million dollar)gig to defending your brother's position(white boys bad,must hang)!
All while avoiding any specific critisism of his position(s)by the posters here.
The NYT is trying to ignore this,Nancy Grace headed for the hills(Jon Stewarts take of her is great)while others push the Imus crap as a distraction and your brother decides it's a great time to step up to the plate and use his chin for a bat.
Yes,Comment Posted By me On 15.04.2007 @ 12:27
Terry is an idiot who is out of step even with his own media class and reading your posts,it seems to be a genetic trait.
"Canâ€™t tell the difference between â€œnappy headed hoâ€ andâ€¦what? Just where do you find â€œhate speechâ€ or â€œracistâ€ comments in that blog post?"
Allow me to quote myself:
"Expressing regret that 3 people targeted for their race,sex and gender escaped a lynching is pretty hateful"
The consensus that your brother represents seems to be:
1)it's a pity those kids didn't get lynched despite the best efforts of Nifong,Duke U.,the Gang of 88,campus brownshirts,various race hustlers and the so called respectable media(as represented by your brother,Nancy Grace,the NYT,etc.)
2)that being able to afford competent legal counsel is somehow cheating
(if your white).
3)that because they're "rich white boys",they'll get over this and the year of hell they've been put thru(wanted posters,biased reporting insisting and assuming guilt,gangs of hysterical,pot banging wich hunters demanding castration),the slander and defamation that will follow them is,well,no biggie because they're,well,WHITE(unlike those poor,poor basketball girls,who will be scarred for life).
4)That the corruption of the criminal justice system and the Durham PD is not a problem(as long as it only goes after the right kinda people).
5)and the really,really important point,that if any of the people in this get held responsible for their deliberate actions(except Nifong,and he's disposable),well,that'll be a goddam shame.
And why will this be a shame?Well,because they're "our kind of people",that's why.
Your brother wrote a really stupid,nasty op-ed that displayed his fashionable self-loathing bigotry and class snobbery toward "rich,privileged white boys" who aren't as rich and privileged as he is and he's getting pounded for it.
On the upside?
It's further diminished and discredited
the highly biased MSM,exposed(yet again) the very nasty mentality among the "Annointed" and opened the corrupt culture of academia to widespread public scrutiny.
Oh,and the Imus thing?Comment Posted By me On 15.04.2007 @ 11:40
Anybody die because of what he said?
Anybody dead because of what Sharpton has said?
Pages (2) :  2