Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 657 Comments
THE WORST PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN MY LIFETIME
"the perfect is the enemy of the good."
Amen and Amen again.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.12.2009 @ 11:26
No, I'm sure you and the Republican party would have been happy to get behind health care reform.
Of course, for the last year all I've heard is how much gosh darn y'all would really love to do some health care reform, but everything proposed is just so evil that all a good person can do is say nononono.
Really, you all tried so hard to work at health care reform. It was inspiring. All that effort to reform health care . . . as opposed to just pissing all over the reform Democrats tried.
And you would have totally supported the original goals of insuring the uninsured . . . but of course you couldn't support that if it increased the size of the federal government, or cost any money, or impinged on the private market in any way, or didn't involve tax cuts. I mean, you've got to have standards after all. So I guess the Republicans and Rick tried really, really hard to get behind this important task. It was certainly inspiring to watch.
Thanks to Rick and the Republican party for their tireless efforts to reform healthcare. If there is one thing the country can take from the last year, its how important reforming health care is to the Republican party.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 24.12.2009 @ 12:00
GOP: OUT OF GAS, OUT OF IDEAS, OVER THE CLIFF
@funny man:
Looks like you are right -- apparently the caller has pulled this stunt in the past.
Maybe I'm naive. It was certainly one of the better-acted prank calls I've heard.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.12.2009 @ 11:47
@funny man:
it was a hoax because the caller didn't play the part convincingly, or it was a hoax because there is no way that anybody that crazy and stupid actually exists?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.12.2009 @ 12:03
"But it is grotesque, deformed thinking to wish for another human being to die for political gain. And not seeing that is a reflection not so much of Bob Owens, but of the casual, anti-reason, anti-rational thinking that has gripped the Republican party and made it an irrelevancy."
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/tea-partier-calls-c-span-worried-his-prayers-for-byrd-to-die-got-inhofe-instead.php?ref=fpblg
I never understood the "God as Santa Claus" concept, but I find the comments more interesting. TPM is a pretty left site, and even there the commenters are split about whether the caller was genuine of a hoax. IMO, the caller's anguish seemed genuine.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.12.2009 @ 08:48
REFORM IS A TRIUMPH OF PROCESS OVER PRUDENCE
@manning:
Take it as you will.
You wrote in the 1st person perspective. If you are suprised that writing "I need to defend my loved ones from the black menace" leads people to conclude "I" means "manning", then I suggest you bone up on your English comprehension skills.
The fact that your "this is what others think" qualifier came later, in enitrely different comments, doesn't help.
I do take exception to being accused of calling you a liar. I don't see how that is possible for two reasons.
First, my comments stated how your 1st person comments sounded. They don't tell you what you think (according to you). I said that your statements sounded like they were written from the perspective of manning . . . and it does. The tell is in the use of words like "I" and "my". You say you are reporting what your informants think, but that doesn't change that what you wrote sounds like its from your perspective.
Here's an example:
"I want to destroy America because of what it has done to my family".
Does that sound like I am saying that, or does it sound like I am speaking for somebody else? If you responded "busboy, it sounds like you hate America", whether I do or not your statement isn't incorrect, and its not calling me a liar. Even if I tell you I don't endorse that statement, it still SOUNDS like it reflects my beliefs. That is what I said.Secondly, and far more relevant . . . according to you, you haven't actually said what you believe.
If I'm understanding your comments, you've made several 1st person statements, and then said that those statements are what your friends believe. Whether your friends believe those statements or not has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on what YOU believe. Here's an example to illustrate that:statement one: I like ice cream
statement two: statement one reflects what my friend Fred thinks.Now, based on those two statements . . . do I (busboy33) like ice cream? Fred and I can both like ice cream. Fred can like ice cream and I can hate it. Under both of those circumstances, under your explanation I can stand behind the two statements.
The closest you came to saying how YOU feel (assuming we don't attribute any of the 1st person perspective comments to you) is saying you don't endorse or promote conspiracy theories. But that is irrevelant to the topic, because you haven't said that the ideas of your informants ARE conspiracy theories.
To illustrate, let me add a third statement to the ice cream example:statement three: busboy33 does not like bad food.
Do I like ice cream or not? Have I said I don't? Have I said I do? Do I disagree with Fred? Do I think ice cream is "bad food"? Do I think Fred is right or wrong for liking ice cream?
That's an extremely confusing "side-step" of the question. I stand by my position that your comments on this are confusing. You made racist comments in the 1st person voice. You say this is what your friends believe. You don't say what you think. To say "this sounds like it reflects your beliefs" isn't calling you a liar . . . because it DOES sound like that and you never said that it DOESN'T reflect your beliefs. Hell, you never even said it doesn't SOUND like it reflects your beliefs. If you did make that statement, I've missed it. If you did then I apologize, and I'm a sloppy reader. But if you didn't . . . then I never called you a liar, and your umbrage is unjustified. If I was supposed to imply you didn't from your statements, then you need to be more clear. And as someone who is demonstrably skilled at the written word, I firmly believe that you know that (a guess). If you choose to leave the reader to their own devices, and expect them to deduce your personal beliefs . . . don't be offended if the reader takes the 1st person voice to mean you. If you want people to think you don't believe what you say in the 1st person voice, then SAY THAT.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.12.2009 @ 12:39
@manning:
I wasn't aware I called you a liar. Just went over my comments here and I didn't find it.
Why is it disingenuous for Obama to renounce Wright?
What does being socialist have to do with black power?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.12.2009 @ 08:23
@manning:
So in comment #21, when you say we are at war, or that you will defend you and yours from the Obsidian Menace . . . you are role-playing?
"It would be exactly the same, note you well again, were it to be whites, blues, or purple gangs that were doing the harm, but it is odds-on here that an intruder, a mugger or a ruffian will be black and probably a black power organization member or church-goer!"
Again, you're not saying this as manning, but as a person who talks to manning? That the threat to the whites you care about are blacks, and members of a seditious anti-white black organization?
I gotta say, it sounds an awful lot like it's written from the perspective of manning. It doesn't sound at all like manning is merely reporting the ideas of "manning's friend".
"but I am reporting that they see it that way which is the most important thing."
And there are people that think the planed will be destroyed in 2012 because the Mayan calendar ends then. They are idiots, and frankly I don't give a damn about their opinions.
How do YOU se it? You manning, not you manning's informant? Do you fear for the safety of those you love who are white from a black threat? Do you think a black street gang is part of a larger organized racial menace? Do you think some street punk making their bones with the gang is targeting a white person to destabilize the societal power structure? Do you think the President of the United States is plotting specifically to harm white Americans?
You've said that this is all what your informants tell you . . . but you didn't say that you disagree with any of this.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.12.2009 @ 11:45
@manning:
"The paragraph I wrote was explicating what I OBSERVE HERE ALL AROUND ME AND HAVE TOLD TO ME, not what I believe myself. You are trying to credit me with BELIEVING WHAT I OBSERVE AND SET FORTH AS WHAT MANY, MANY OTHERS THAT I KNOW WELL REALLY THINK."
Let me emphasize -- "not what I believe myself"
And yet, to demonstrate how you don't believe this yourself, you write:
"You have not been face to face with the black goons that do the bidding of nefarious organizations, nor have you delved into ACORN, or Wright’s (Obama’s minister–you know, the church he attended for 20 years?) church, or the many equally anti-white America versions of it that populate our cities, one of which I could almost hit with a stone right now. They do espouse a virulent black culture and they promote it on the streets, against whites. You can hear their preaching from the sidewalk outside, until their 250lb 'ushers' menace you to move on, and it is not pretty."
So you don't believe it . . . but it is in fact true. You are certainly not espousing white pre-emptive protection against the black power movement which seeks to destroy White Amerika, but . . .
"I was struck by what seems to be your total disbelief in the black power movement and the many-faceted subsets of it that are quite well recognized or speculated upon here."
Pick one or the other manning. Either there is a horde of dangerous militant Negros plotting the destruction of all that is White and we as Whites must repel this most insidious threat to all that we hold dear . . . or that's crap that you reject and do not believe. The two positions are absolutely contradictory.
I am well aware that there are blacks that are revolutionary, or at least preach revolutionary ideals. I am aware that there are whites that are revolutionary. Frankly, I've seen far more activity from the whites in this area than the blacks.
But the bigger point is you are crossing two unrelated issues, and your doing so raises the racist spectre. On the one hand, you've got blacks that preach struggle against white society (like the Nation of Islam). On the other side, you've got personal and anecdotal stories of petty black criminals. The guy who mugged your mom almost certainly had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any organized (and totally ineffectual) societal upheval. He was a mugger. As he mugged her, did he espouse any revolutionary ideology? What possibly rationale could you articulate to take a common criminal and relate them to a national conspiracy? Those examples serve only one purpose -- justifing why people should fear blacks. Connecting it to a (non-existent)* revolutionary threat simply takes a tragic occurance and inflates it to a nation-threatening apocalyptic danger . . . and that act serves only one purpose.
You claim you don't believe this meme -- but you are defending how justified it is. If its justified, why don't you believe it?
"I am not one to promote conspiracy theories"
What is the difference between defending and promoting?
"nor do I give credit to them, but my neighbors in the district appear to be very skillful at it, and in finding their own reasons for their beliefs, some based on facts and, most likely, much base on speculation."
Do you realize that this last comment is the FIRST TIME you claimed to NOT accept these beliefs? Especially after you said;
"We are literally at war with SOME blacks (note the emphasis: I do not lump all blacks in the same category) in the heart of the Capitol of Virginia."
"It seems that many of the members of these gangs, a few of which have been put out of business, are regular attendees at one or another of the black power churches, or so they confess, and from that you can draw your own conclusions."(wink wink, nudge nudge. Lord knows, when I think of street gangs, I always think of politically organized societial revolution. Its not simply criminal street gangs, no sir. Now, I'm not SAYING that they are the organized military wing of the organized black revolutionary movement . . . but I'll sure as hell suggest that exact thing and slyly wink.)
"You see, I am not a racist, but I AM going to defend myself and my family from these vicious blacks, and I will support voting to eradicate those blacks that abuse their positions from their power of office, all the way up to the President, where the crimes are far more 'white-collar' and refined, but still quite effective in robbing my bank account."
Black street gangs to the president -- the blacks are out to get me and mine! I must fight against this black threat!
But I'm not viewing blacks in a negative light because they are black. Nope. I'm viewing blacks in a negative light because they are a threat. Certainly not ALL blacks . . . that would be silly. Buts lots of them blacks are a threat (relation of the President and a street hood? They're both black), and WE have to defend from THEM. The President is the same as a street criminal. Both are out to get ME and MINE, and they are doing so because we are white, and they are black.
Btw, let me emphasize I'm not racist. And how could anybody read all of that and come to that conclusion? Why, that's just crazy!No. No, its not. You (and the whites around you) are at WAR with the Black Menace. A war consisting of Whites fighting the Blacks that are a threat. There's a term for that -- its called a race war. What you are saying is that you certainly don't want a race war, but it is currently happening. The Blacks (sorry, SOME blacks) are engaged in war with you and yours, the basis of that war is race (black on black crime? just crime. Obama policies that harm blacks? Coincidence. Either of those things harm a white person? Conspiracy!), and you have to defend yourself -- and that race war extends all the way to the President. Why include the President? Well, his policies are (according to you) hurting you financially. And he's black. And you're white. So there you go -- it's all part of the same race war. No difference between the Obama Administration and somebody getting jumped by a street gang. They both involve a White harmed by a Black.
Of course, you don't believe this, or espouse it, or promote it, right? I mean, you actually did exactly that -- but you didn't mean it. Do I have that right?
After all that this may sound disingenuous, but I mean it sincerely -- Merry Christmas to you and yours (and everybody out there), and I hope this unpleasant topic does not diminish your enjoyment of the holiday and (hopefully) spending some quality family time with those you love.
*: let me clarify "non-existent". As I said, there are blacks (and whites) that preach such revolutionary thoughts. What steps have occured in furtherance of those ideals? None. What actual threat do those people pose? Absolutely none, as far as I can see. How much legislation have they championed and passed? What political representation have they secured? What organized riots have they created? Criminal societally-destabilizing sprees have they pulled off in the last 30 years? The answers as far as I know are none, zero, none, and zero.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 24.12.2009 @ 16:43
How is that a threat? It isn't.
I actually used to follow the Nation of Islam quite closely in Ohio (they always annoyed me because they'd never sell me their damn newspaper -- I always had to send a black friend as a proxy to buy it for me). As far as I could tell, their main goal, despite all their revolutionary proclimations . . . was to milk blacks for money. Buy the latest lecture from Sister Whatever. Buy the latest book from Reverend Whatever. They never actually DID anything, just sold the same crap over and over to the same receptive audience. No rallies, no marches, no actual impact on society of the laws governing the town -- just a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Sad certainly . . . but no threat to society or me and mine.
@manning:
How can you say --
"it isn’t a simple color issue at all. It is an issue born of a virulent black culture that hates America, and wishes to wreck its revenge on the white majority–think Reverend White–and Obama is its titular leader."
-- and then say that you are only opposed to the criminals that happen to be black? Your first statement identifies a "virulent black culture" "with Obama as its titular head". What "culture" are you talking about? The culture of mugging and raping? The 'Anti-Klan', dedicated to the destruction of white society? "Culture" is a society-wide trait. This isn't a critique of individuals, despite what you say. It is an attack on a people.
Reinforcing that is naming Obama as "its titular head". What connects Obama to the guy that mugged your mom? What connects him . . . aside from his skin color? Do they attend the same secret 'let's destroy the white people' meetings? Any reports of Obama reading "The Anti-Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? No.You seem to be looking at Black Americans as ALL members of the secret society . . . and then place the burden on individuals to convince you that they are somehow free of its evil clutches.
I'm sorry to say, that's pretty damn racist. Maybe not intentional, maybe not "god I hate me some big-lipped ni**ers" . . . but racist nonetheless.
It pains me to type everything I've just said. I do respect you and your opinions. But I because I respect you, I have to be honest with you and tell you what I see in what you write.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 24.12.2009 @ 00:09
