2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[Briareos]

So to everyone who agrees with the Supreme Court's rulling today: How does it feel to be responseable for the deaths of our troops and citizens? There are going to be terrorists who will be freed by this and will go on to commit acts of terrorism that will kill our troops or our citizens.

[Corrina]

Oh. MY GOD.

The Supreme Court is letting the terrorists win! They're a threat to democracy!!

Let's do away with that damn constitution now, all those checks & balances, because OUR FREEDOM IS ON THE SIDE OF THE TERRORISTS!!!

[Sabrinaset]

Call me what you want, I call it like I see it, and all I see are poor young people, naive, or just in need of the money, signing up to go fight a war for rich people.

Did you just call every person who's ever signed up for a stretch in the military a tool ..?

[Crowley]

I'm voting for McCain because unless the person is a complete and utter scumbag of the highest order, I'll vote along party lines. No candidate is going to match up perfectly with my beliefs, and I would've been more likely to vote for Hillary than Obama because I honestly thought Hillary would've done a better job than him.
McCain is scumbag of the highest order:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgkn_DvBpio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mtqucMUX9M

And McCain from this Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZD-Hn4SitY

So McCain is A-OKay and SOUGHT the endorsement of a guy who hates Gays, Catholics and thinks the people of New Orleans deserved Katrina.

Not to mention this asshole:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUPkHyvNPo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gg621-DrmU

Supporter "You can have your Tiger Woods!"

So McCain is A-OKay with racists and bigots supporting him... so much for straight talk.



how did he vote when it came to Veteran's benefits?
He and Bush are opposing the GI Bill.

Where's that YouTube of him screaming obscenities in outrage over Walter Reed?
Oh it doesn't exist.

Where's his outrage at the troops having inadequate body armor?
I haven't seen it... could someone point it out to me.

Why can't he tell Shiite from Sunni if he's the guy with experience?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EetobKXQsr8

He also is unaware of troop levels?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42ke9Q-qXg4
The troop level in Iraq: 155,000
Pre- Surge: 130,000

Isn't the management of Iraq supposed to be his forte?

umm... and he was tortured right? So when it came time to vote on torture what'd McCain vote? He voted against a bill that would have prohibited torture.

he cracked under torture and these are two excerpts from what he had to say about that experience:

"A major aspect of his prison experience is isolation. Man is a social animal; he does not live alone. From birth to death, he lives in the company of his fellow man. His relations with other people and, especially with those closest to him, are almost as important to him as food or drink. When a man is totally isolated, he is removed from all of the interpersonal relations which are so important to him and taken out of the social role which sustains him. His internal as well as his external life is disrupted."

"After a few days it becomes apparent to the prisoner that his activity avails him nothing and that will he will be punished or reprimanded for even the smallest breaches of the routine. His requests have been listened to but never acted upon. He becomes docility of a trained animal. Indeed, the guards say that prisoners are “reduced to animals”. It is estimated that in the average case it takes from four to six weeks of rigid, total isolation to produce this phenomenon."

Yet he voted FOR torture.

So he served his country honorably... undeniably. But look... Olney was a Marine. Military service doesn't give carte blanche to bad behavior and McCain's actions in the last 20 years have been less than honorable the more digging you do.

Phil Gramm, Keating 5, S&L, Drumming for war with Iran, In bed with corporate lobbyists, opposing his own campaign finance reform bill recently... his behavior has been less than honorable.

And you know he recently made this rather rousing speech on Katrina in which he said "NEVER AGAIN" was total bullshit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRar6yKZE8g
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/katrina_kerfuffle.html

So yeah he served honorably, but his behavior following his service has been far less than that of someone I would consider to be an honorable man.

[KevinTBrown]

That is a lie. They were going to be tried in Military Tribunals which would have begun long ago but the left keeps challenging the idea that maybe it's a good idea to hide how we track down terrorists from the terrorists.

Uh, bullshit.

So to everyone who agrees with the Supreme Court's rulling today: How does it feel to be responseable for the deaths of our troops and citizens? There are going to be terrorists who will be freed by this and will go on to commit acts of terrorism that will kill our troops or our citizens.

And again, BULLSHIT.

[Paul McEnery]

I didn't pass judgment on the other professions, Paul. I don't know why you think I did.

It's implicit in saying that a military career is heroic. People have always puffed up the military as heroic, all the way back to the Roman Empire.

And it's exactly the same thing as puffing up the gangstas.

I don't know what the hell is supposed to be especially heroic about taking up a life of violent obedience -- especially during the times that McCain signed up for the service, when we were prosecuting wars of empire.

Heading off to kill people for wanting self-determination is not my idea of heroism, it really isn't. And when you see him deploying that same attitude towards Iraq and Iran, I'm really a great deal less than impressed.

Do what I want or I'll kill you. Is that your idea of what a hero's like?

[KevinTBrown]

Did you just call every person who's ever signed up for a stretch in the military a tool ..?

[ahnold voice]They're instruments of wahr![/ahnold voice]










:biggrin:

[section 8]

Yet he voted FOR torture.
.

cuz he knows first hand
Torture works.

[Paul McEnery]

Life in America would be hard without pschotherapists, and shitty without Construction workers, but life in America would be Impossible without the men and women in our nations armed forces.

From my point of view, the lowliest systems engineer has done more to make my life possible than the highest ranking member of the armed forces.

I mean, I don't want to be an arse about it. We need a standing military as long as there are bastards in the world we need protection from.

Problem is, the proactive approach of the United States since WW2 has meant that we're not very often on the side of right. We have been stomping around the world like an empire for the last 60 years. Our military policy has been about promoting the agenda of the corporate class. All this has done for the regular people of this country is take money out of their pockets.

[Tetsuo_man]

cuz he knows first hand
Torture works.

I feel so bad i laughed at that. It frieghtens me i could have a gut reaction laugh about the torture of somebody. Am i a bad person?

[Crowley]

So to everyone who agrees with the Supreme Court's rulling today: How does it feel to be responseable for the deaths of our troops and citizens? There are going to be terrorists who will be freed by this and will go on to commit acts of terrorism that will kill our troops or our citizens.

Well firstly... none of us appointed Supreme Court judges. If you recall the President nominates Justices. So in agreement or not, none of us had any role to play in the decision.

Secondly, Habeas Corpus is an essential element to our Constitution. Good responsible Americans know this and respect this idea, often referred to as the "Great Writ." The term literally means "show us the body" and then the court can determine whether it has the right to hold the prisoner.

You see, this insures that innocent people aren't being held... as has already happened at GITMO. Try reading a newspaper once in a while.

[tangentman]

As a white male voter who feels perfectly happy with either Hillary OR Obama in the President's chair, I'm compelled to ask if the open letter was "showing black separatism"? :wink: Such over-generalizations alienate potential allies to a worthy cause. I have absolutely NO desire to see McCain or any other Bush toadies take the White House. Please don't lump all white folks together.

Thanks.

[Crowley]

Did you just call every person who's ever signed up for a stretch in the military a tool ..?
That's no what I read him to say. A fair percentage of soldiers sign up as a means to pay for college or to escape lower class living conditions... wars can certainly take advantage of that.

In fact many have argued for a draft based on the fact it would even the economic playing field as to who serves in the military in times of war.

[Crowley]

I feel so bad i laughed at that. It frieghtens me i could have a gut reaction laugh about the torture of somebody. Am i a bad person?

the rather unfortunate assumption there in that joke is that tortures works... when in fact the only good it does is in getting the victim to say what the torturer wants to hear... in this case they were able to break McCain and have him declare that he hated America, but there never had him break and give away military secrets because torture is a very poor method of gaining intelligence.

[section 8]

Problem is, the proactive approach of the United States since WW2 has meant that we're not very often on the side of right. We have been stomping around the world like an empire for the last 60 years. Our military policy has been about promoting the agenda of the corporate class. All this has done for the regular people of this country is take money out of their pockets.


No arguement there, but what has that got to do with ANY grunt in the bush right now?

But you are implying that soldiers are the ones making this call, when most, if not all soldiers enlist to defend this country. Not to invade others on a whim, not to baby-sit idiots who cant co-exist.

the decision of the polititicians should NOT reflect on those in uniform. As fucked up as our current situation is, the men and women in uniform should not be blamed or criminalized for keeping their oath to obey the commander in chief.
(no mattter how much of an idiot he may be)

the military exists to PROTECT democracy, not practice it.

I had hoped we had come further than this since 'Nam. Hippies would spit on and curse soldiers upon their return, not the least bit interested in the fact that these soldiers were also victims of propoganda and bullshit.

so much for "peace Love and Understanding"

[Buzz Dixon]

The Dems have already told the die-hard Hillary supporters to drink the Kool-Aid by making sure the story of McCain's first wife got circulated last week.

[Buzz Dixon]

Actually Bush Sr. had better security.

Repeat after me: "Good morning, President Quayle".

...Kinda makes you throw up in your mouth a little, doesn't it...?Hey, Nixon only resigned after Agnew was gone...

[section 8]

And it's exactly the same thing as puffing up the gangstas.

you want proof that soldiers are not the same as "gangsta's"?

You could make that analogy in the middle of FT. Bragg, and still leave there alive. Talk shit about any number of gang-bangers in their turf, and see what happens.

[Crowley]

No arguement there, but what has that got to do with ANY grunt in the bush right now?

But you are implying that soldiers are the ones making this call, when most, if not all soldiers enlist to defend this country. Not to invade others on a whim, not to baby-sit idiots who cant co-exist.

the decision of the polititicians should NOT reflect on those in uniform. As fucked up as our current situation is, the men and women in uniform should not be blamed or criminalized for keeping their oath to obey the commander in chief.
(no mattter how much of an idiot he may be)

the military exists to PROTECT democracy, not practice it.

I had hoped we had come further than this since 'Nam. Hippies would spit on and curse soldiers upon their return, not the least bit interested in the fact that these soldiers were also victims of propoganda and bullshit.

so much for "peace Love and Understanding"
Speaking of propaganda:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/
Debunking a spitting image

By Jerry Lembcke | April 30, 2005

STORIES ABOUT spat-upon Vietnam veterans are like mercury: Smash one and six more appear. It's hard to say where they come from. For a book I wrote in 1998 I looked back to the time when the spit was supposedly flying, the late 1960s and early 1970s. I found nothing. No news reports or even claims that someone was being spat on.

What I did find is that around 1980, scores of Vietnam-generation men were saying they were greeted by spitters when they came home from Vietnam. There is an element of urban legend in the stories in that their point of origin in time and place is obscure, and, yet, they have very similar details. The story told by the man who spat on Jane Fonda at a book signing in Kansas City recently is typical. Michael Smith said he came back through Los Angeles airport where ''people were lined up to spit on us."

Like many stories of the spat-upon veteran genre, Smith's lacks credulity. GIs landed at military airbases, not civilian airports, and protesters could not have gotten onto the bases and anywhere near deplaning troops. There may have been exceptions, of course, but in those cases how would protesters have known in advance that a plane was being diverted to a civilian site? And even then, returnees would have been immediately bused to nearby military installations and processed for reassignment or discharge.

The exaggerations in Smith's story are characteristic of those told by others. ''Most Vietnam veterans were spat on when we came back," he said. That's not true. A 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Far from spitting on veterans, the antiwar movement welcomed them into its ranks and thousands of veterans joined the opposition to the war.

The persistence of spat-upon Vietnam veteran stories suggests that they continue to fill a need in American culture. The image of spat-upon veterans is the icon through which many people remember the loss of the war, the centerpiece of a betrayal narrative that understands the war to have been lost because of treason on the home front. Jane Fonda's noisiest detractors insist she should have been prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, in conformity with the law of the land.

But the psychological dimensions of the betrayal mentality are far more interesting than the legal. Betrayal is about fear, and the specter of self-betrayal is the hardest to dispel. The likelihood that the real danger to America lurks not outside but inside the gates is unsettling. The possibility that it was failure of masculinity itself, the meltdown of the core component of warrior culture, that cost the nation its victory in Vietnam has haunted us ever since.

Many tellers of the spitting tales identify the culprits as girls, a curious quality to the stories that gives away their gendered subtext. Moreover, the spitting images that emerged a decade after the troops had come home from Vietnam are similar enough to the legends of defeated German soldiers defiled by women upon their return from World War I, and the rejection from women felt by French soldiers when they returned from their lost war in Indochina, to suggest something universal and troubling at work in their making. One can reject the presence of a collective subconscious in the projection of those anxieties, as many scholars would, but there is little comfort in the prospect that memories of group spit-ins, like Smith has, are just fantasies conjured in the imaginations of aging veterans.

Remembering the war in Vietnam through the images of betrayal is dangerous because it rekindles the hope that wars like it, in countries where we are not welcomed, can be won. It disparages the reputation of those who opposed that war and intimidates a new generation of activists now finding the courage to resist Vietnam-type ventures in the 21st century.

Today, on the 30th anniversary of the end of the war in Vietnam, new stories of spat-upon veterans appear faster than they can be challenged. Debunking them one by one is unlikely to slow their proliferation but, by contesting them where and when we can, we engage the historical record in a way that helps all of us remember that, in the end, soldiers and veterans joined with civilians to stop a war that should have never been fought.

Jerry Lembcke, associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College, is the author of ''The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam."

You lived on a military base and you thought that they just deplaned into a crowd of Oliver Stone movie extras?

[Paul McEnery]

As a white male voter who feels perfectly happy with either Hillary OR Obama in the President's chair, I'm compelled to ask if the open letter was "showing black separatism"? :wink: Such over-generalizations alienate potential allies to a worthy cause. I have absolutely NO desire to see McCain or any other Bush toadies take the White House. Please don't lump all white folks together.

Thanks.

I want Obama to be president so we can get past all this crap.

Because I am tired of the people who run to McCain because of their whiteness, and they certainly exist. And I am tired of those people lying to themselves and to everyone else about how their whiteness drove their decision. Here's one speaking to a Guardian reporter:

'We'll end up slaves. We'll be made slaves just like they was once slaves,' he said. Telvor, a white Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in West Virginia's primary, said he planned to vote for Republican John McCain in November. 'At least he's an American,' he added with a disarmingly friendly smile.

At least he's an American. You heard him.

Now if you think those blatant racists aren't out there, you read the rest of the article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/08/barackobama.hillaryclinton) and remind yourself why LBJ agreed that passing Civil Rights lost the Democrats the South for a generation.

And if you think the Harriet Christian's of this world are going to fess up in front of strangers -- or even to themselves -- that they're cut from exactly the same cloth, you're sorely mistaken.

So whiteness level one is your straight up ignorant redneck cliche like Mr. Telvor here. Whiteness level two is your damn if I'm going to admit I'm a racist angry chicken haircut like Ms. Christian.

And then we got Whiteness level three, which is pretending that neither of those two things really exists or is a problem, and can't we all just get along.

Well no we can't. As long as an article like this still raises hackles among white people in America because it's true, or at least true in parts, or true for some folks, which is all an article so exactly like this that it is this article is claiming, then articles like this will still need to be written.

[Paul McEnery]

The Dems have already told the die-hard Hillary supporters to drink the Kool-Aid by making sure the story of McCain's first wife got circulated last week.

That was a good bit of swiftboating, wasn't it.

And the interesting thing is, it's the women's interest right wing press that latched onto it.

[section 8]

HEY! I like Stone! he does good work ( except for JFK)
i wasn't refering anything seen or heard in the media, i'm refering to what my own Grand-Father told happened to him. Upon his return, he most defenatly caught shit, including, but not limited to a letter left on his car's windshield calling him a "Killer" and "Abomination in the eyes of mankind". He kept the letter, and still has it.

sorry if i cannot offer any of those links you're so fond of.

[Paul McEnery]

you want proof that soldiers are not the same as "gangsta's"?

You could make that analogy in the middle of FT. Bragg, and still leave there alive. Talk shit about any number of gang-bangers in their turf, and see what happens.

Hold your fire there, soldier.

(Though I've got to tell you, the only time I've faced a serious threat of violence from either of those two groups of people, it wasn't from my local gangstas, it was from sailors on leave who were looking for a fight.)

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the attitude that that's heroic, that becoming an armed soldier makes you better than someone else.

That's not just the South Central gangstas who think that way, and it's not just the hawks who think that way, it's the mafia and its the wrong kind of police, and it's the lunkhead jocks in highschool, too.

There's plenty of people who think reverting to violence makes you a big man. There's serious people in our standing army who don't think that way at all, and who serve honourably. And then there's fools who think it's a great idea to get us into a war and blow up a bunch of civilians and think somehow that that makes us better than Bin Laden.

It's that attitude I'm talking about. The "why find out what someone's talking about when you can put their eye out with a beer glass first" crowd.

And you know, that's who McCain has turned into, if he wasn't that kind of a guy all along and we're just now finding it out.

And that's not a hero in my books. That's just an asshole.

[section 8]

I feel so bad i laughed at that. It frieghtens me i could have a gut reaction laugh about the torture of somebody. Am i a bad person?

I don't know if you should feel bad,

but I feel better knowing at least one YABSTER "gets" my twisted humour

[Crowley]

of course you can't, section. That's no surprise.

[Crowley]

Hold your fire there, soldier.

(Though I've got to tell you, the only time I've faced a serious threat of violence from either of those two groups of people, it wasn't from my local gangstas, it was from sailors on leave who were looking for a fight.)

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the attitude that that's heroic, that becoming an armed soldier makes you better than someone else.

That's not just the South Central gangstas who think that way, and it's not just the hawks who think that way, it's the mafia and its the wrong kind of police, and it's the lunkhead jocks in highschool, too.

There's plenty of people who think reverting to violence makes you a big man. There's serious people in our standing army who don't think that way at all, and who serve honourably. And then there's fools who think it's a great idea to get us into a war and blow up a bunch of civilians and think somehow that that makes us better than Bin Laden.

It's that attitude I'm talking about. The "why find out what someone's talking about when you can put their eye out with a beer glass first" crowd.

And you know, that's who McCain has turned into, if he wasn't that kind of a guy all along and we're just now finding it out.

And that's not a hero in my books. That's just an asshole.

Agreed. Our country is too gun centric and looks too much to violence as an answer to everything.

[Corrina]

Crowley, section said he knew about Vietnam Vets having problems. He does. His grandfather.

Not seeing what's wrong with that.

[section 8]

Well there are assholes in the Mil who think they are better than hthe rest of us, but you'll find those same assholes in any group.

as for those sailors i dont know enough about it to realy comment, but they sound like the same exception, not the rule.

[Crowley]

Crowley, section said he knew about Vietnam Vets having problems. He does. His grandfather.

Not seeing what's wrong with that.

It's anecdotal.

With which he uses to paint the Anti-War movement as unpatriotic. Which is unfair considering a fair percentage were Veterans themselves. Furthermore... my dad returned from his service and never had any hate tossed his way... other Veterans I've know from that era didn't either. Not saying it didn't happen, but my anecdotal evidence doesn't speak broadly for the actions of the Anti-War movement. So thus to back up my points I do a bit of research.

His reference to links is the request of myself and others that he do what we all do and get evidence to back up his claims.

[Corrina]

Half this thread is anecdotal and pure opinion. Now, if he was talking about something less personal, like a historic event such as he did with Jimmy Carter, seems fair to ask for supporting evidence.

But he never said it wasn't anecdotal.

Ron Kovic's book talks about his treatment upon returning from Vietnam. It certainly wasn't all positive either.

[section 8]

Agreed. Our country is too gun centric and looks too much to violence as an answer to everything.

But again, still not the soldier's fault.

Remember, desertion during wartime, and showing cowardice in the face of the enemy, were still criminal ( in some cases, Captital) offences last time i checked. they don't have a choice in the matter.

Seriously what do you guys think? These guys report to the C.O.'s office, and the old man says,

"Hey troop how you been? can i get you anything? a soda? some hot Coa-coa? no? ok then, let me get to the point i know you got other places you'd rather be. As you know we've been having a little get together in Iraq, and feel free to say no to this but, we were wondering if you wanted to go. so how about it? you wanna go to war?

I assure you it is nothing like that, you will NEVER be asked by a C.O. if you want to go to war, (if he does he is flexing, and you had DAMNED WELL better reply with a "yes, Sir" )

[Solaris]

I'm a white woman, and I'm voting for Obama.

First, he's intelligent and articulate, and actually answers questions instead of throwing out a "rah rah" line---and actually has figured out some plans on how to address many of the country's problems.

Second, he's (OMG!) actually got some principles: aside from the fact that of the final three his record has the *least* amount of kickback allotments (I forget the actual term) to corporations in his district/state, he's also RETURNING campaign contribution checks from corporations and lobbyists---he's only accepting contributions from private individuals. And that's not just from the media: Troy knows a guy who used to be a lobbyist who sent Obama a check and got it back in the mail---seems the guy was still on the lists as a lobbyist. (And IIRC, it was a $25,000 check.)

Compare all that to McCain and *his* record... and IMO the case is perfectly clear who's the better president.

As for white women going "nyah nyah HUFF!" I think it's incredibly stupid.

I hate politics, and politicians in general---but he's the best thing I've seen coming down the pike in a long time.

Which, of course, means he probably won't win---America at large seems determined to put us further down the tubes with every election. Sigh.

[Crowley]

But again, still not the soldier's fault.
Never said it was. Not sure what you're arguing.

I know coming from a family with multiple members in the Military (marines and navy mostly) that once you're in you become Government Issue.

[Samurai]

Well firstly... none of us appointed Supreme Court judges. If you recall the President nominates Justices. So in agreement or not, none of us had any role to play in the decision.

Secondly, Habeas Corpus is an essential element to our Constitution. Good responsible Americans know this and respect this idea, often referred to as the "Great Writ." The term literally means "show us the body" and then the court can determine whether it has the right to hold the prisoner.

You see, this insures that innocent people aren't being held... as has already happened at GITMO. Try reading a newspaper once in a while.
Then I suppose in your eyes this was a massive violation of the Nazis civil rights:

http://www.traces.org/germanpows.html

Not only did we keep 400,000 German and Italian POWs ON US SOIL without a TRIAL and UNABLE TO BE RELEASED until the war ended, we actually put them to work harvesting crops, building roads, felling trees, etc! Forced labor, and no trials before an American judge for any of them! My god, the inhumanity of actually holding POWs and not releasing them back to the enemy until the enemy is defeated!

[Paul McEnery]

But again, still not the soldier's fault.

And that's my point. It's the attitude of many of the people in this country that's at fault -- the militarists.

I cringe at events like the Superbowl where the military are brought out and everyone cheers along at weapons that we know are being used to kill civilians in the Middle East.

I cringe at Fleet Week, when my entire city gets buzzed by planes -- and I have a hard time thinking that's a good thing when I know what people half the world away associate that sound with.

When Russia brings out the troops for some military display, or China (or Burma!), we know better than to go "oh, cool". Our gut instinct is to go "that's some nasty authoritarian shit there, scary". But not when it's our own military being wheeled out for some homespun propaganda.

From where I'm sitting, it's all the bloody same. It's not our militarism against theirs, it's sane and decent people against militarism. And I know there's plenty of decent people in the military who think exactly the same way.

[tangentman]

I want Obama to be president so we can get past all this crap.

Because I am tired of the people who run to McCain because of their whiteness, and they certainly exist. And I am tired of those people lying to themselves and to everyone else about how their whiteness drove their decision. Here's one speaking to a Guardian reporter:



At least he's an American. You heard him.

Now if you think those blatant racists aren't out there, you read the rest of the article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/08/barackobama.hillaryclinton) and remind yourself why LBJ agreed that passing Civil Rights lost the Democrats the South for a generation.

And if you think the Harriet Christian's of this world are going to fess up in front of strangers -- or even to themselves -- that they're cut from exactly the same cloth, you're sorely mistaken.

So whiteness level one is your straight up ignorant redneck cliche like Mr. Telvor here. Whiteness level two is your damn if I'm going to admit I'm a racist angry chicken haircut like Ms. Christian.

And then we got Whiteness level three, which is pretending that neither of those two things really exists or is a problem, and can't we all just get along.

Well no we can't. As long as an article like this still raises hackles among white people in America because it's true, or at least true in parts, or true for some folks, which is all an article so exactly like this that it is this article is claiming, then articles like this will still need to be written.


As a resident of the South, I can testify to the dogged persistence of the Telvors. Sadly, people remain stuck in the Jim Crow era. I hated such attitudes growing up, and I hate them in adulthood. Undoubtedly, we shouldn't question the conservatives who want Obama out of the White House, though I question which parts are motivated by racism and which parts are motivated by classism (and conservative agenda).

The dilemma of racism today is mostly the insidiousness of it. Events like Obama's campaign bring that racism to light. Yes, reactions to the article also stir up buried racism. However, not all of the responses are motivated by racism.

What you conveniently neglected to mention is that the ongoing racial conflict is a two-sided conflict. Perhaps this doesn't fit into your view, but racism isn't solely a "white problem". Wherever a person hates another because of race or skin color, there you'll find racism. Your post fails to account for sympathetic folks--who happen to be white--who happen to genuinely want an end to institutionalized (and cultural) racism--who get written off wholesale as "racists" or "uncaring". Racist feelings can run both ways. What about black separatists who feel nothing but contempt for all whites, regardless of their character or the contents of their hearts?

How do you help effect changes when certain people stick their fingers in their ears, yelling "No, no, no, I'm not going to listen"? I think knee-jerk antipathy to ALL white people--which wasn't exactly subtle in that article--is what bothers people who might otherwise be allies, NOT some false notion that we're all "The Getalong Gang Living in Candyland".

[section 8]

my point is,
even if those war protesters who chastised the soldiers were the minority ( and i'm sure they were, the majority wanted to end the war BECAUSE they realized these soldiers were being put in harms way over political bullshit)

we should be very careful not to repeat thier mistake, in thinking that the troops are "criminals" and are to blamed for the war itself.

[colleen]

An interesting discussion, and I have nothing to add except that West Virginia isn't in the south.

Carry on.

c

[Infra-Man]

Is it really "whiteness" or are they just going "WAAAAA the person I wanted to win didn't, I'll throw a big wobbly!"? I thought it was the latter.

It's the latter, imo, especially since the last primary contest ended just over a week ago and the formal concession happened just under a week ago.

In general, I like Tim Wise's writing. There were two or three essays of his that were on Metafilter earlier in the year concerning Obama and race, both of which I thought were interesting. In this case, though, I think he's jumping the gun with his central thesis because it's too soon to make such an assumption about the Clinton supporters in question. Give it a month. If there are still polling problems for Obama as he tries to garner the support of diehard Clinton supporters, Wise could be onto something with some of that voting block.

[Paul McEnery]

Then I suppose in your eyes this was a massive violation of the Nazis civil rights:

http://www.traces.org/germanpows.html

Not only did we keep 400,000 German and Italian POWs ON US SOIL without a TRIAL and UNABLE TO BE RELEASED until the war ended, we actually put them to work harvesting crops, building roads, felling trees, etc! Forced labor, and no trials before an American judge for any of them! My god, the inhumanity of actually holding POWs and not releasing them back to the enemy until the enemy is defeated!

Why bother responding to such distortions.

I'll be lazy and just quote a review of a documentary from tomorrow's Guardian (ain't technology wonderful!):

Alex Gibney won best documentary Oscar for this gruelling, angry movie. It dissects the way in which the US government legalised torture in its prisons in Iraq and Guantánamo by continually redefining their interrogation practices and surrounding them in a fog of legalese. The intense reluctance to set down in writing exactly what was and wasn't allowed in interrogation then made torture deniable. Gibney makes one man's story the centrepiece of his film: an innocent taxi driver named Dilawar abducted in Afghanistan, tortured and killed. Gibney has a general, devastating point to make: it isn't merely that torture doesn't get reliable information, but that the majority of Guantánamo prisoners were not arrested by the US military but handed over by local police for bounty. Could it be that the Guantánamo internment camp, with its parade of orange jumpsuited prisoners is a gigantic PR spectacle, existing to reassure everyone that something is being done on the War On Terror? A film to set alongside Errol Morris's stomach-turning Standard Operating Procedure, due for release soon.

[Paul McEnery]

my point is,
even if those war protesters who chastised the soldiers were the minority ( and i'm sure they were, the majority wanted to end the war BECAUSE they realized these soldiers were being put in harms way over political bullshit)

we should be very careful not to repeat thier mistake, in thinking that the troops are "criminals" and are to blamed for the war itself.

No, that's right.

My friend who had to fish out body parts from the gulf when she was in the Navy -- body parts we'd put there, body parts of civilians, body parts of children -- it wasn't her fault. She went there to do her duty. She went there to make something of her life. She went there to be part of something bigger than herself. And damn if she doesn't want back in, because she loved the people she served with.

But damn if she's going to go prosecute Bush's war, either.

[Crowley]

Then I suppose in your eyes this was a massive violation of the Nazis civil rights:

http://www.traces.org/germanpows.html

Not only did we keep 400,000 German and Italian POWs ON US SOIL without a TRIAL and UNABLE TO BE RELEASED until the war ended, we actually put them to work harvesting crops, building roads, felling trees, etc! Forced labor, and no trials before an American judge for any of them! My god, the inhumanity of actually holding POWs and not releasing them back to the enemy until the enemy is defeated!

Ex parte Quirin.
They were determined by military commission to be unlawful enemy combatant saboteurs. There weren't innocent civilians among them.


Who has been in GITMO Sam? How many suicide attempts have happened? How many people have been falsely detained?

[section 8]

as a fellow( former) resident of the south i can attest that not everyone ther is stuck in the "Jim Crow era. maybe 1 in 5 in some areas 1 in 10 in others. Not good odds i know, buit the point here is that racism (and even reverse racism) in the south iusually the exception not the rule, usually.

I am not white, but to my white friends in South Carolina, i am still called "a good o'l boy" one of the guys a "redneck" if you will, like anyone else. so i take offence to the stereotypical "Racist Southerner" stigma.

[Crowley]

Why bother responding to such distortions.

I'll be lazy and just quote a review of a documentary from tomorrow's Guardian (ain't technology wonderful!):

you know this will be in one ear and out the other right?

[Crowley]

Half this thread is anecdotal and pure opinion. Now, if he was talking about something less personal, like a historic event such as he did with Jimmy Carter, seems fair to ask for supporting evidence.

But he never said it wasn't anecdotal.

Ron Kovic's book talks about his treatment upon returning from Vietnam. It certainly wasn't all positive either.

It didn't become anecdotal until after I refuted his claim... then suddenly it was anecdotal.
And not even with his initial statement about spitting.

[Mr.EZ]

Did you just call every person who's ever signed up for a stretch in the military a tool ..?

Hmm... I don't know. I suppose I did, because they're only being used as a means to an end by people with power and a high financial level in order to get more power and an even higher financial level.

Maybe tool is too strong a term. How about unwittingly naive and blind henchmen? That works for me. Also, let's not discount boot camp, which is a lovely modern form of brainwashing, so they become even more naive and blind.

[Paul McEnery]

As a resident of the South, I can testify to the dogged persistence of the Telvors. Sadly, people remain stuck in the Jim Crow era. I hated such attitudes growing up, and I hate them in adulthood. Undoubtedly, we shouldn't question the conservatives who want Obama out of the White House, though I question which parts are motivated by racism and which parts are motivated by classism (and conservative agenda).

The dilemma of racism today is mostly the insidiousness of it. Events like Obama's campaign bring that racism to light. Yes, reactions to the article also stir up buried racism. However, not all of the responses are motivated by racism.

What you conveniently neglected to mention is that the ongoing racial conflict is a two-sided conflict. Perhaps this doesn't fit into your view, but racism isn't solely a "white problem". Wherever a person hates another because of race or skin color, there you'll find racism. Your post fails to account for sympathetic folks--who happen to be white--who happen to genuinely want an end to institutionalized (and cultural) racism--who get written off wholesale as "racists" or "uncaring". Racist feelings can run both ways. What about black separatists who feel nothing but contempt for all whites, regardless of their character or the contents of their hearts?

How do you help effect changes when certain people stick their fingers in their ears, yelling "No, no, no, I'm not going to listen"? I think knee-jerk antipathy to ALL white people--which wasn't exactly subtle in that article--is what bothers people who might otherwise be allies, NOT some false notion that we're all "The Getalong Gang Living in Candyland".

I think it's important again to remember the difference between racism and racialism.

Racism = discrimination; racialism = there's a genuine race gene and we're all different.

I think there's a big difference between someone who's turned bitter as a result of years of discrimination, and someone who started out bitter because he's a racialist and thinks African-Americans aren't Americans at all.

I find that the argument that there are racialist black people too -- and surely there are -- tends to be dragged out as an excuse for the quiet hinterland of racialism in the back of some white people's minds.

There is no excuse for racialism of any kind, but there's absolutely no excuse for white racialism, and I don't much care to hear excuses like that made.

Poor dears, they're only a little bit racialist! Yeah, well screw 'em. It's time for them to face that side of themselves they've made excuses for all these decades and do something about it.

[Paul McEnery]

you know this will be in one ear and out the other right?

Not talking to him, am I. Pour encourager les autres.

[jerrymcl89]

I'm not going to suggest there's no merit to the points of the "open letter". But politics is about getting people to vote the way you want them to. And I think wagging your finger at them and telling them they are bigotted assholes might not really be the best approach to that.

[Sabrinaset]

Maybe tool is too strong a term. How about unwittingly naive and blind henchmen? That works for me. Also, let's not discount boot camp, which is a lovely modern form of brainwashing, so they become even more naive and blind.

That's a pretty insulting way to describe people who've served in the military, including several posters here.

I thought about commenting more, but I think I'll just wait until Rick gets here and let him handle it.

[Crowley]

As a resident of the South, I can testify to the dogged persistence of the Telvors. Sadly, people remain stuck in the Jim Crow era. I hated such attitudes growing up, and I hate them in adulthood. Undoubtedly, we shouldn't question the conservatives who want Obama out of the White House, though I question which parts are motivated by racism and which parts are motivated by classism (and conservative agenda).

The dilemma of racism today is mostly the insidiousness of it. Events like Obama's campaign bring that racism to light. Yes, reactions to the article also stir up buried racism. However, not all of the responses are motivated by racism.

What you conveniently neglected to mention is that the ongoing racial conflict is a two-sided conflict. Perhaps this doesn't fit into your view, but racism isn't solely a "white problem". Wherever a person hates another because of race or skin color, there you'll find racism. Your post fails to account for sympathetic folks--who happen to be white--who happen to genuinely want an end to institutionalized (and cultural) racism--who get written off wholesale as "racists" or "uncaring". Racist feelings can run both ways. What about black separatists who feel nothing but contempt for all whites, regardless of their character or the contents of their hearts?

How do you help effect changes when certain people stick their fingers in their ears, yelling "No, no, no, I'm not going to listen"? I think knee-jerk antipathy to ALL white people--which wasn't exactly subtle in that article--is what bothers people who might otherwise be allies, NOT some false notion that we're all "The Getalong Gang Living in Candyland".

Yeah you know I can't disagree here... a shitload of southerners are just not going to vote for a black guy. Hell in some parts they still have the seperate water fountains and toilets in place (relics really... but still)

Anyone who'd under the false impression that Southern racism is deadish is wearing some big fucking blinders.

[LtMarvel]

That is a lie. They were going to be tried in Military Tribunals which would have begun long ago but the left keeps challenging the idea that maybe it's a good idea to hide how we track down terrorists from the terrorists.
When? Cause it hasn't happened so far.

Why? Because the Bush gang wants 100% conviction rate. And they won't put any of them on fair trial that they can't convict.

[LtMarvel]

So to everyone who agrees with the Supreme Court's rulling today: How does it feel to be responseable for the deaths of our troops and citizens? There are going to be terrorists who will be freed by this and will go on to commit acts of terrorism that will kill our troops or our citizens.
How does it feel to spit on the US Consitution, Bri?

[Crowley]

Not talking to him, am I. Pour encourager les autres.

Quoting some Candide.. nice.

Could really double as the biography of George W. Bush.

[Mr.EZ]

That's a pretty insulting way to describe people who've served in the military, including several posters here.

I thought about commenting more, but I think I'll just wait until Rick gets here and let him handle it.

Before you report me, let me just tell you a little story.

Once upon a time, my father served in the United States Marine Corps, where he served in Viet Nam, a place my uncle, another Marine, never came back from. Then we'll fast forward a few years and we'll discuss my older brothers, both of whom joined the Marine Corps and served in the Gulf War. Then we'll fast forward to now, where I have the opinion that boot camp brainwashes good men and women into being killing machines. Why do I think this, you might ask, because that's the consensus found by my family, and their friends about their service in the Marine Corps.

My family has always been very big into the Marine Corps, my parents met on a blind date to the Marine Corps Birthday Ball, so I wouldn't even exist without the Corps. I fully expected that at the age of 18, I'd be told to enlist, but they told me no, that it was nothing that I wanted to be a part of.

My father's a very quiet man, mind you I never knew him before, but from what I've heard, he was a fun guy that loved to play the drums, and hasn't since he came back My brothers are a mixed couple. My oldest brother Allan seems ok, my next oldest brother Keith had some post traumatic stress following his time in the Gulf.

I feel no apology is necessary to any of you that I've offended, because I see these men in my life, who are not the same as they once were, and they and their opinions on the subject matter more to me than some people on a message board.

[Sabrinaset]

I'm not going to suggest there's no merit to the points of the "open letter". But politics is about getting people to vote the way you want them to. And I think wagging your finger at them and telling them they are bigotted assholes might not really be the best approach to that.

Taken a step further than that, this is the kind of person that PMB, Dazzler, and I were alluding to elsewhere ... the kind who are promoting Obama with variations of "Vote Obama, or you're a bigot" This kind of political screed .... yeech.

[Paul McEnery]

Quoting some Candide.. nice.

Could really double as the biography of George W. Bush.

i'm quoting claude rains from casablanca

[Paul McEnery]

Taken a step further than that, this is the kind of person that PMB, Dazzler, and I were alluding to elsewhere ... the kind who are promoting Obama with variations of "Vote Obama, or you're a bigot" This kind of political screed .... yeech.

So, you think there are no bigots out there, then; and even if there are, they shouldn't be confronted.

[Corrina]

That's a case for the military being a bad career choice, EZ, not for all people entering the military as stupid tools.

[LtMarvel]

Can these women go through the five states of grief and then come to their senses before we go apecrap on them?

[jerrymcl89]

So, you think there are no bigots out there, then; and even if there are, they shouldn't be confronted.

There are many places where confronting bigotry is a wonderful thing, and can bring about positive change. But when someone is in the voting booth, they are alone, and will do what they will do. Scolding them is unlikely to bring them over to your side. So I guess it depends on whether you are striving for moral superiority or winning elections. I think if it's the latter, there are better approaches (i.e., talk about the issues). I'd feel just the same about trying to persuade black voters not to stay home if they felt Obama had been screwed over in favor of Hillary.

[Corrina]

There are a ton of white women who supported Obama from the beginning and some black women who supported Hilary.

I know this essay does mention specific Hilary supporters but it tends to really go off into generalizations that really don't apply save, as I said, to a really tiny number of white women who are currently swallowing a bitter pill after putting their energy and belief in a failed campaign.

I'm just totally unconvinced this is a problem and I'm a little leery of the ton of the essay, which seems a mite bit sexist.

Mostly, I just don't see the need for it or any evidence that it exists as a real problem, other than he needed a column subject that day. .

I voted for Hilary in the primary. Now I'm voting for Obama in the general election. But I would have voted for John Edwards if he'd still been on the ballot. I don't think there's any evidence that white women exist as any kind of monolithic voting block.

[Sabrinaset]

So, you think there are no bigots out there, then; and even if there are, they shouldn't be confronted.

I didn't say that and you know it.

I said this character is saying "Vote for Obama, or YOU are a bigot." And I also think there's a few bigots on Obama's side as well, this character being one of them IMO.

Obama's side needs to do some outreach here, and be gracious in victory. If you really think this is helping him ...

[FalconX2000]

Before you report me, let me just tell you a little story.

Once upon a time, my father served in the United States Marine Corps, where he served in Viet Nam, a place my uncle, another Marine, never came back from. Then we'll fast forward a few years and we'll discuss my older brothers, both of whom joined the Marine Corps and served in the Gulf War. Then we'll fast forward to now, where I have the opinion that boot camp brainwashes good men and women into being killing machines. Why do I think this, you might ask, because that's the consensus found by my family, and their friends about their service in the Marine Corps.

My family has always been very big into the Marine Corps, my parents met on a blind date to the Marine Corps Birthday Ball, so I wouldn't even exist without the Corps. I fully expected that at the age of 18, I'd be told to enlist, but they told me no, that it was nothing that I wanted to be a part of.

My father's a very quiet man, mind you I never knew him before, but from what I've heard, he was a fun guy that loved to play the drums, and hasn't since he came back My brothers are a mixed couple. My oldest brother Allan seems ok, my next oldest brother Keith had some post traumatic stress following his time in the Gulf.

I feel no apology is necessary to any of you that I've offended, because I see these men in my life, who are not the same as they once were, and they and their opinions on the subject matter more to me than some people on a message board.

Once upon a time, I, along with every single Singaporean, went to boot camp to start off my 2 years of national service. Most of us don't like it. We think its a waste of time. We went in, did the training. It was harsh. The sargeants often punished us for the sake of it. A successful cleanliness inspection meant dropping 20 rather than 60. Yet, it wasn't anything unbearably horrible. I came out more physically fit and knowing proper CPR procedure at least.

If you and your family have had bad experiences with the military, fair enough. Sometimes bad stuff goes down and the naturally authoritarian nature of the military makes abuse easy. To just label boot camp brainwashing however, is insulting.

[section 8]

Half this thread is anecdotal and pure opinion. Now, if he was talking about something less personal, like a historic event such as he did with Jimmy Carter, seems fair to ask for supporting evidence.

But he never said it wasn't anecdotal.

Ron Kovic's book talks about his treatment upon returning from Vietnam. It certainly wasn't all positive either.


Don't worry about him Corrina, If memory serves My very ethnicity was being questioned a few pages back.

After something like that, i am certain my words are bound to fall on dumb - er i mean, deaf ears.

[Mr.EZ]

That's a case for the military being a bad career choice, EZ, not for all people entering the military as stupid tools.

That's to be true.

Once upon a time, I, along with every single Singaporean, went to boot camp to start off my 2 years of national service. Most of us don't like it. We think its a waste of time. We went in, did the training. It was harsh. The sargeants often punished us for the sake of it. A successful cleanliness inspection meant dropping 20 rather than 60. Yet, it wasn't anything unbearably horrible. I came out more physically fit and knowing proper CPR procedure at least.

If you and your family have had bad experiences with the military, fair enough. Sometimes bad stuff goes down and the naturally authoritarian nature of the military makes abuse easy. To just label boot camp brainwashing however, is insulting.

3 different men, 4 friends and my sister in law, all Marines, all would disagree with you. Whether it be for good or not, boot camp is a form of brainwashing.

Breaking someone down from what they are, into something else, is brainwashing, any way you cut it.

[tangentman]

I think it's important again to remember the difference between racism and racialism.

Racism = discrimination; racialism = there's a genuine race gene and we're all different.

I think there's a big difference between someone who's turned bitter as a result of years of discrimination, and someone who started out bitter because he's a racialist and thinks African-Americans aren't Americans at all.

I find that the argument that there are racialist black people too -- and surely there are -- tends to be dragged out as an excuse for the quiet hinterland of racialism in the back of some white people's minds.

There is no excuse for racialism of any kind, but there's absolutely no excuse for white racialism, and I don't much care to hear excuses like that made.

Poor dears, they're only a little bit racialist! Yeah, well screw 'em. It's time for them to face that side of themselves they've made excuses for all these decades and do something about it.

Paul, I'm not interested in playing semantics games with you. I refuse to let anyone who hates based on skin color off the hook by falling back on bullshit, pseudo-sociological jargon. Nobody starts life as a racist; these attitudes are learned. So let's just dispense with that little bit of equivocation right there.

Next, reverse racism isn't being dragged out to justify latent racism. I'm not speaking for people who feel alarmed because closet racism has been exposed. I'm speaking for folks who make a point of being self-aware, including knowing when racist thoughts/attitudes are at work. Mindful people who make a point of being self-aware enough to combat racism on the personal and public scale don't deserve being written off as human beings because they're white.

No, I'm not saying people deserve special awards for not being bigoted shits. However, I think self-awareness includes the ability to recognize real enemies from imagined ones.

[section 8]

Brainwashing isn't voluntary.

It's more like "re-programming" re-wiring your instincts and reflexes to keep you alive in the field.

[Sabrinaset]

Before you report me, let me just tell you a little story ...

... I feel no apology is necessary to any of you that I've offended, because I see these men in my life, who are not the same as they once were, and they and their opinions on the subject matter more to me than some people on a message board.

It hadn't even entered my mind to report you, actually. I wasn't expecting an apology from you, either. I'm just saying, what you wrote is probably going to be offensive to those on this board who served, along with people who have family members who did or ARE serving or would have served if her parents had let her... But look, I know well enough that anything I say here isn't gonna be good enough ... Rick or Fenris could answer you far better than I ever could.

[Dazzler]

An interesting discussion, and I have nothing to add except that West Virginia isn't in the south.

Carry on.

c

Hm.

Not quite true. Not quite untrue.

--Dazz

[colleen]

No. Really.

It isn't.

[section 8]

It's on the Mason-Dixon line

[Sabrinaset]

Don't worry about him Corrina, If memory serves My very ethnicity was being questioned a few pages back.

It wasn't questioned ... it was quoted. Using your own words from your own posts.

You've called yourself a mutt, a Native American, and a Redneck. Are you denying this?

[Dazzler]

No. Really.

It isn't.

No, I can tell you at least half of it is. And it is under the mason dixon line.

--Dazz

[jerrymcl89]

It's on the Mason-Dixon line

The definitive fact about West Virginia is that it is a state entirely because it refused to join the Confederacy (having been part of Virginia at the time). That makes it hard for me to see it as part of the South.

[Sabrinaset]

Hm.

Not quite true. Not quite untrue.

--Dazz

Not a girl, not yet a woman.

Britney Spears

[section 8]

*Daz* HEY! quit copying me!!:tongue:

next item on the agenda,

Tomato: Fruit or Vegitable? and did i spell tomato, and/or Vegitable correctly?

[section 8]

I am one and all of these things.

[colleen]

The definitive fact about West Virginia is that it is a state entirely because it refused to join the Confederacy (having been part of Virginia at the time). That makes it hard for me to see it as part of the South.

The point exactly, thanks.

And WV runs as far north as mid-New Jersey.

Some maps put Delaware in the "south", and I don't know many in Delaware that consider thesemelves Southern. No one in Washington DC does.

An amusing digression but off topic. Sorry.

[Mr.EZ]

Brainwashing isn't voluntary.

It's more like "re-programming" re-wiring your instincts and reflexes to keep you alive in the field.

Ah-ha. There's a better phrase to use. Re-programming is exactly what I should have said. Thanks section!

People are being reprogrammed into being killing machines.

It hadn't even entered my mind to report you, actually. I wasn't expecting an apology from you, either. I'm just saying, what you wrote is probably going to be offensive to those on this board who served, along with people who have family members who did or ARE serving or would have served if her parents had let her... But look, I know well enough that anything I say here isn't gonna be good enough ... Rick or Fenris could answer you far better than I ever could.

Huh, I figured Rick was a mod or something.

[Buzz Dixon]

There are three or four different definitions of "Southern" re whether or not a state should be considered Southern. One definition is that a state has to have been part of the Confederacy, thus eliminating Maryland, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Missouri while including Oklahoma (which was a territory under Confederate control).

[Dazzler]

The definitive fact about West Virginia is that it is a state entirely because it refused to join the Confederacy (having been part of Virginia at the time). That makes it hard for me to see it as part of the South.

A strong reason for refusal to join the Confederacy was that it was being charged taxes on par with Eastern Virginia's higher income status, which was creating extreme poverty due to Western Virginia being unable to sustain plantations because of its mountainous terrain and the corresponding income that would allow them to pay those taxes.
Plus, several towns in Southern West Virginia were burned by Union Soldiers (ala Atlanta) for suspicion of being Confederate supporters.

Since it was the only state born out of the Civil War, its history and standing in the United States is way to complex to be pigeon-holed.

Guh. It's my former Knight of the Golden Horseshoe coming out.

Just forget it. Sorry I brought it up.

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

The point exactly, thanks.

And WV runs as far north as mid-New Jersey.

Some maps put Delaware in the "south", and I don't know many in Delaware that consider thesemelves Southern. No one in Washington DC does.

An amusing digression but off topic. Sorry.

Yeah, potato patahtah. :tongue:

And back to the action on the scene.

--Dazz

[colleen]

A strong reason for refusal to join the Confederacy was that it was being charged taxes on par with Eastern Virginia's higher income status, which was creating extreme poverty due to Western Virginia being unable to sustain plantations because of it's mountainous terrain and the corresponding income that would allow them to pay those taxes.
Plus, several towns in Southern West Virginia were burned by Union Soldiers (ala Atlanta) for suspicion of being Confederate supporters.

Since it was the only state born out of the Civil War, it's history and standing in the United States is way to complex to be pigeon-holed.

Guh. It's my former Knight of the Golden Horseshoe coming out.

Just forget it. Sorry I brought it up.

--Dazz

Not your fault, I brought it up. I just found it amusing since it IS a state that is too complex to be pigeon-holed, and yet is is pigeon-holed.

[section 8]

Since while stabbing dummies with bayonetes, troops are encouraged to shout "kill" i'd have a hard time argueing with that

[Red Jack]

West Virginia was not part of the Confederacy and that is, indeed, due entirely to the Civil War. However, in the ways that we are discussing right now i.e. intrenched racism of whites towards blacks and how that may or may not influence the 2008 campaigns, WVa is, very much, a recipient of the Jim Crow and Civil Rights Era legacies. Not to mention the Reagan era.

As with all discussions of racial tension between whites and blacks in the US, ignoring the intervening periods between Reconstruction and the Present is to miss the situation entirely.

In every way that matters, West Virgina is the south. Just as much as Georgia or Florida.

[section 8]

if you are in NY then WV is "South"
If you are in NC, then WV is "North"

Aside from that the civil war has been over for quite some time, now it's just semantics.

[Dazzler]

Not your fault, I brought it up. I just found it amusing since it IS a state that is too complex to be pigeon-holed, and yet is is pigeon-holed.
Nah, it's mine. I can't not comment when it comes to West Virginia.

--Dazz

[colleen]

Nah, it's mine. I can't not comment when it comes to West Virginia.

--Dazz

I had to go look up Knight of the Golden Horseshoe. Nifty! Congratulations!

Nice talking to you!

[Dazzler]

I had to go look up Knight of the Golden Horseshoe. Nifty! Congratulations!
A lifetime ago. It did anything but wonders for my social life. Still, thank you.

Nice talking to you!
Right back atcha!

--Dazz

[section 8]

That's a case for the military being a bad career choice, EZ, not for all people entering the military as stupid tools.

that may be true but Mercinaries....Oh man they are making mad money these days

[Tom]

Exactly who are these women to whom this ugly little screed was addressed?

[Sabrinaset]

Exactly who are these women to whom this ugly little screed was addressed?

I'm guessing it's someone like this clown! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s)

[Infra-Man]

And probably the people at Hillaryis44.org (http://www.hillaryis44.org/) as well

[tangentman]

Y'know, because of the timing of my move to Savannah, I missed the primary. I'm actually grateful, because I had a hard time making up my mind between Clinton & Obama. I could go either way. Absolutely no problem with anyone who ISN'T McCain or any other Republican crony taking the presidential seat. Sure, the race between Clinton & Obama was intense, but are folks seriously bitter over the outcome?

Regardless of who won, I see the result pretty much being Obama or Hillary = Desperately Needed Change.

[section 8]

Y'know, because of the timing of my move to Savannah, I missed the primary.

You could have applied for an "Absentee Ballot" if you are registered in your previous state.

[tangentman]

You could have applied for an "Absentee Ballot" if you are registered in your previous state.

I know, but that's the first election I've missed since becoming legal to vote. I'll register locally, and come November, my ass will submit a vote for Obama. :biggrin:

[CutterMike]

(...)
As with all discussions of racial tension between whites and blacks in the US, ignoring the intervening periods between Reconstruction and the Present is to miss the situation entirely.
(...)

"If you're south of the Canadian border, you're down south." -- Malcolm X

[Crowley]

She-Hulk endorses Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3dy6myWxg8

[Michael P]

Michael, there are days when there is no mot juster than the mot you juste.

If I had any idea what that meant, I'd probably be flattered.

[Red Jack]

"If you're south of the Canadian border, you're down south." -- Malcolm X

Well. He was a genius.

[Major Comma]

Does this mean MCcain now favors GAMMA reactors over nuclear now?:biggrin:

[section 8]

Well. He was a genius.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ3rSXw5Rbo&feature=related

not always

[DavidAllred]

I'm writing an open letter to white women threatening to merely withhold... cause I'm married. :evilsmile:

[rick]

An interesting discussion, and I have nothing to add except that West Virginia isn't in the south.

Carry on.

c


Actually yes, it is.

[Paul McEnery]

There are many places where confronting bigotry is a wonderful thing, and can bring about positive change. But when someone is in the voting booth, they are alone, and will do what they will do. Scolding them is unlikely to bring them over to your side. So I guess it depends on whether you are striving for moral superiority or winning elections. I think if it's the latter, there are better approaches (i.e., talk about the issues). I'd feel just the same about trying to persuade black voters not to stay home if they felt Obama had been screwed over in favor of Hillary.
It's easy to say that, especially as that's exactly Mr. Wise's point, that that would never be an issue.

I think it's about time people in this country stopped lying to themselves about racism, about the fact that it's spread all the way across the country and not just concentrated in the South, that even liberal and left minded white people can carry racism inside them, that the far right is as racist as it is possible to be (and there are lots of them), the being a Democrat doesn't get you off the hook, that promoting a couple of tokens does not get the Republicans off the hook, that we are still within living memory of the anti-miscegenation law (and that the repeal was not majority popular), and so on.

It is about time for people to realize that accepting the civil rights movement in principle is very, very different from accepting it in your own life and heart, and that tiny acts of tacit discrimination happen every day, and that they matter. It is about time that America came to grips with the fact that until 1967, this was an apartheid country, and in many peoples heads it still is, and that the economic consequences of that apartheid are still very much with us.

It is time that people realized that little nyeh nyeh nyehs like this:

I'd feel just the same about trying to persuade black voters not to stay home if they felt Obama had been screwed over in favor of Hillary


actually come from a place of racism, since they make up a completely hypothetical, hell, counterfactual non-existent thing to excuse the actual racism that motivates some white people's resistance to Obama.

And the other excuse people will use is "well, that's stupid, are you saying anyone who won't vote for Obama is racist?"

And of course people aren't saying that. But I am saying there's a lot of that racism about, there's a lot of racism out there that people won't fess up to in their own selves, and a lot of people who think it's far, far worse to get it out in the open and talk about it and sort it out than to conceal it and insinuate it, or call Michelle Obama a Baby Mama (oh boy, that's grown up), or make stuffed toys that call him a monkey, or call him a "terrorist" for doing some "black" handshake thing.

People need to confront themselves and get it out in the open and face their dark side and stop pretending like they don't have one so they can feel good about themselves.

People don't get to feel good about themselves if they're harbouring racism. They get to feel good about themselves when they seriously confront it and deal with it.

[Red Jack]

It's easy to say that, especially as that's exactly Mr. Wise's point, that that would never be an issue.

I think it's about time people in this country stopped lying to themselves about racism, about the fact that it's spread all the way across the country and not just concentrated in the South, that even liberal and left minded white people can carry racism inside them, that the far right is as racist as it is possible to be (and there are lots of them), the being a Democrat doesn't get you off the hook, that promoting a couple of tokens does not get the Republicans off the hook, that we are still within living memory of the anti-miscegenation law (and that the repeal was not majority popular), and so on.

It is about time for people to realize that accepting the civil rights movement in principle is very, very different from accepting it in your own life and heart, and that tiny acts of tacit discrimination happen every day, and that they matter. It is about time that America came to grips with the fact that until 1967, this was an apartheid country, and in many peoples heads it still is, and that the economic consequences of that apartheid are still very much with us.

It is time that people realized that little nyeh nyeh nyehs like this:



actually come from a place of racism, since they make up a completely hypothetical, hell, counterfactual non-existent thing to excuse the actual racism that motivates some white people's resistance to Obama.

And the other excuse people will use is "well, that's stupid, are you saying anyone who won't vote for Obama is racist?"

And of course people aren't saying that. But I am saying there's a lot of that racism about, there's a lot of racism out there that people won't fess up to in their own selves, and a lot of people who think it's far, far worse to get it out in the open and talk about it and sort it out than to conceal it and insinuate it, or call Michelle Obama a Baby Mama (oh boy, that's grown up), or make stuffed toys that call him a monkey, or call him a "terrorist" for doing some "black" handshake thing.

People need to confront themselves and get it out in the open and face their dark side and stop pretending like they don't have one so they can feel good about themselves.

People don't get to feel good about themselves if they're harbouring racism. They get to feel good about themselves when they seriously confront it and deal with it.

Say amen, somebody.

[Briareos]

How does it feel to spit on the US Consitution, Bri?

The constitution has never applied to foreign POW's. This was litterly invented out of thin air. The left obviously does not take the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously and see it only as a way to get political gain when they can demagogue things and use a compliant media that is willing to parrot their talking points.

[Briareos]

Also for everone who says that we create terrorists by taking supposedly innocent people and putting them in our POW camps that is a very racist statement. There were certainly Japanese who had no intention of doing any harm to us during WW2 and when they were released they didn't go out and commit terrorist acts? In fact in most wars sometimes innocents get caught up and are taken as POWs but I don't remember them after being released fighting against us? Are you saying that the arabs that you feel were innocent victims before we picked we took them as POWs and then after release became vicious terrorists are just so beneath everyone else because others who were really innocent civilians in other wars didn't become bloodthirsty terrorists?

Of course not they really were terrorists all along. You just refuse to admit that perhaps just letting people go because we strongly believe but don't have irrefutable evidence of it is a bad idea...

[Adam C]

The constitution has never applied to foreign POW's. This was litterly invented out of thin air. The left obviously does not take the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously and see it only as a way to get political gain when they can demagogue things and use a compliant media that is willing to parrot their talking points.


Of course not they really were terrorists all along. You just refuse to admit that perhaps just letting people go because we strongly believe but don't have irrefutable evidence of it is a bad idea...

Man you must be really feeling down after the Supreme Court ruled that holding people without access habeas corpus in the manner the Bush administration has done is unconstitutional...

[tangentman]

Paul, I think you're operating under a false assumption that people aren't challenging themselves by confronting bigotry--whether it's bigotry of the external or internal variety. Disagreement with you doesn't necessarily come from "racism". You don't have the power to read people's hearts, and it's seems like you're dictating what people believe with all this pontification. Self-aware people monitor their own attitudes, take inventories of their virtues and defects, and own their thoughts, feelings, and actions.

Yes, racism is alive and well in America. Yes, people have a "shadow" in themselves that harbors all the ugliness that we try to hide from others. However, browbeating doesn't produce any effects other than alienating people who need to hear these points.

[Briareos]

Man you must be really feeling down after the Supreme Court ruled that holding people without access habeas corpus in the manner the Bush administration has done is unconstitutional...

I'm angry. This is complete misreading of the constitution and historically has never been true in similar situations. Find me one time in U.S. history where foreign POW's had habeas corpus rights. (And for the sake of argument leave out the civil war since that was America vs itself so it's a unique situation). That's what also bugs me about this is that the left is taking it and acting like this is how it's always been and that Bush is acting in a way that is unprecedented when in fact it's the supreme court that is behaving in a way it never has before.

[Briareos]

Man you must be really feeling down after the Supreme Court ruled that holding people without access habeas corpus in the manner the Bush administration has done is unconstitutional...

Oh and have you had a chance to look at 4E DND and what is your opinion on it?

[Red Jack]

Coddling them doesn't work so well either.

[rick]

The constitution has never applied to foreign POW's. This was litterly invented out of thin air. The left obviously does not take the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously and see it only as a way to get political gain when they can demagogue things and use a compliant media that is willing to parrot their talking points.


I don't really know why I bother, but you are forgetting that the prisoners at Gitmo are not POW's.

The Bush Administration very specifically did not classify the people held there as POW’s because as POW’s they would have had rights under the Geneva Conventions.

So really, like it or not, the administration can’t have it both ways.

These guys are either prisoners of war, with the rights under convention they are due, or they are criminal suspects being held under US law, which means that they have rights under the Constitution.

But either way you look at it, the Executive branch does not have the right to hold people beyond the law.

And by the way, you might not get this, but that really is a good thing.

[Briareos]

I don't really know why I bother, but you are forgetting that the prisoners at Gitmo are not POW's.

The Bush Administration very specifically did not classify the people held there as POW’s because as POW’s they would have had rights under the Geneva Conventions.

So really, like it or not, the administration can’t have it both ways.

These guys are either prisoners of war, with the rights under convention they are due, or they are criminal suspects being held under US law, which means that they have rights under the Constitution.

But either way you look at it, the Executive branch does not have the right to hold people beyond the law.

And by the way, you might not get this, but that really is a good thing.

Ah but your conveniently forgetting that under the Geneva convention that if you dress as civilians you lose all the protections of it. So that doesn't apply to terrorists.

[Adam C]

Ah but your conveniently forgetting that under the Geneva convention that if you dress as civilians you lose all the protections of it. So that doesn't apply to terrorists.

Except that as Rick pointed out then they would have protections under the constitution as criminal suspects. In cases where convention protections do not apply those combatants captured in acts of war will receive the legal protections afforded by the capturing country. I found this out by actually reading the conventions instead of reciting right-wing talking points.

I'm angry.

So what are you angry about? That the Bush administration has been denied the right to treat detainees by whatever standard it deems fit, and not the torture and abuse, not to mention kidnapping an American citizen for two years on specious grounds, and finally bringing up a different charge when the Supreme Court got ready to call "bullshit"?

Nice to see that you're a consistent defender of American values, as ever.

[rick]

Ah but your conveniently forgetting that under the Geneva convention that if you dress as civilians you lose all the protections of it. So that doesn't apply to terrorists.


Okay, first off that isn’t actually true, Protocol 1 of the Fourth Convention in fact does give Guerilla fighters not in uniform specific rights as prisoners. And secondly, it doesn’t really doesn’t matter since the administration has specificly not classified them as prisoners of war.

And do you want to know why the administration did not want these people classified as either criminals or prisoners of war?

Under the Geneva Convention it is absolutely illegal to torture prisoners.

Under US law it is absolutely illegal to torture prisoners.

[Samurai]

She-Hulk endorses Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3dy6myWxg8

You didn't watch it... She-Hulk was for McCain, it was Power Girl that was for Obama.

[Samurai]

Oh and have you had a chance to look at 4E DND and what is your opinion on it?
I bought it... some good ideas, but lots of mistakes that need fixing, and a lot of stuff that seemed missing compared to earlier editions. I want to give it a shot, but I'm going to need at least 5 pages of house rules for it...

[LtMarvel]

Also for everone who says that we create terrorists by taking supposedly innocent people and putting them in our POW camps that is a very racist statement. There were certainly Japanese who had no intention of doing any harm to us during WW2 and when they were released they didn't go out and commit terrorist acts? In fact in most wars sometimes innocents get caught up and are taken as POWs but I don't remember them after being released fighting against us? Are you saying that the arabs that you feel were innocent victims before we picked we took them as POWs and then after release became vicious terrorists are just so beneath everyone else because others who were really innocent civilians in other wars didn't become bloodthirsty terrorists?

Of course not they really were terrorists all along. You just refuse to admit that perhaps just letting people go because we strongly believe but don't have irrefutable evidence of it is a bad idea...
No, it is not a racist* statement. It's a statement of fact. The people in charge decided to pay warlords bounties on anyone they brought in. We took the Warlords at their word that these people were terrorists. Of course, some warlords turned innocent people in for the bounty. (Hell some warlords turned out to be terrorists that were attacking US troops!) Some of the innocent were tortured to death. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_Dark_Side) Given this history, I find it hard to believe that we don't still have some innocents in our custody.

The United States determined it was wrong to detain the Japanese-Americans and paid reperations to survivors. If it was wrong then, it's wrong now.

I realize you believe that the US Constitution might best be used as tp for the foriegn detainees. All people have rights in the US. All POWs have rights. Yes we have idiots in charge who wish that it weren't so, but it is so.



*You use this word, and I do not think you know what this word means. How the hell could this be racist in any context??

[Samurai]

Okay, first off that isn’t actually true, Protocol 1 of the Fourth Convention in fact does give Guerilla fighters not in uniform specific rights as prisoners. And secondly, it doesn’t really doesn’t matter since the administration has specificly not classified them as prisoners of war.

And do you want to know why the administration did not want these people classified as either criminals or prisoners of war?

Under the Geneva Convention it is absolutely illegal to torture prisoners.

Under US law it is absolutely illegal to torture prisoners.

Why does Protocol 1 apply to us when we never ratified it? Unless and until it is ratified by the Congress, it doesn't affect us at all. A signature by the President doesn't mean jack squat without ratification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I

The protocol entered into force on December 7, 1979 (six months after its adoption by the conference) and is binding for a country six months after it has ratified it. As of 14 January 2007 it had been ratified by 167 countries, with the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq being notable exceptions.

[section 8]

Confrontation makes them defensive, regardless of their views on race.
Even if someone isn't realy a racist especially if someone isnt a racist, to call someone that or accuse them of racial motives is more of a call to conflict, than
reason

I realy did not want to use this example, but
Look at Malcom X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

MLK took the road less traveled and as a result people of all races are a lot better off for it. while no one is forgetting what King did, no one seemes to recall HOW King did it.through a non-violent non-judgmental quest to promote understanding not by attacking people, and calling them "racist" at the drop of a hat.

Malcom X on the other hand....well
If X had King's number of followers, all us non-whites would be in consentration camps, and ghettos ( i mean WW2 style Ghettos, not the projects)

here is a tip something my grandmother called "rule no. 1"

NEVER scare the white people.\

This letter could have been more effective if it had merely pointed out the simularities between Obama and Clinton, and at best calmly ask the reader to ask themselves if race is a factor in their decision.

The responce would be less defensive, no accusations would have been made, and the reader will be more motivated to do some "soul searching"

[Paul McEnery]

Paul, I think you're operating under a false assumption that people aren't challenging themselves by confronting bigotry--whether it's bigotry of the external or internal variety

You really thing that's a false assumption, do you?

[rick]

Why does Protocol 1 apply to us when we never ratified it? Unless and until it is ratified by the Congress, it doesn't affect us at all. A signature by the President doesn't mean jack squat without ratification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I


Okay, fair point, we didn't ratify the protocol.

But that really doesn’t change that these guys have been kept in legal limbo for five years without being covered either by criminal statutes and the Constitution or by military law and the Geneva Conventions, but instead by decree of the Executive. This decision by the High Court forces the administration to accept the oversight of the judiciary in legal proceedings against suspected terrorists, and more importantly to force the Executive branch to follow the rules of law instead of just making it up as they go along.


Also, let's be clear here that even ignoring that the US did not ratify the protocols covering militias, the Conventions are very clear about torture being banned in all cases.

You can shoot someone has a spy or a saboteur, but you can’t torture them.

And it’s the same situation under the Constitution as well.

If the Gitmo prisoners have legal status they also have legal protections, and among those protections is the right to not be tortured.

So yeah, I would expect there to be more than a few lawsuits in the wings. But really, if the administration had simply conducted itself in an ethical manner in the first place, the US wouldn’t be looking at the litigation nightmare that is looming before us.

[Paul McEnery]

Paul, I think you're operating under a false assumption that people aren't challenging themselves by confronting bigotry--whether it's bigotry of the external or internal variety. Disagreement with you doesn't necessarily come from "racism". You don't have the power to read people's hearts, and it's seems like you're dictating what people believe with all this pontification. Self-aware people monitor their own attitudes, take inventories of their virtues and defects, and own their thoughts, feelings, and actions.

Yes, racism is alive and well in America. Yes, people have a "shadow" in themselves that harbors all the ugliness that we try to hide from others. However, browbeating doesn't produce any effects other than alienating people who need to hear these points.

Oh, I don't know. You can tell a lot about someone by what they choose to say and how they say it, what they choose not to say and how they conceal it. You can tell a lot by what arguments they use to get a point across, and which particular piece of false logic they use to avoid having to deal with a point.

You can tell a lot when somebody says that they personally don't have an issue with what I say, but I should consider the effect on other people.

You can tell a lot when suddenly it's not about the argument someone made, but that it's about "disagreeing with you."

And you can tell an awful lot when the old mind-reading gag comes out.

[Dazzler]

I can tell when someone who is adamantly opposed to the "mind reading gag" will make an exception when he's the one using it to suit his own ends via thinly veiled innuendo, of course.

--Dazz

[Paul McEnery]

I can tell when someone who is adamantly opposed to the "mind reading gag" will make an exception when he's the one using it to suit his own ends via thinly veiled innuendo, of course.

--Dazz

I fear you have failed to take my meaning.

The mind-reading gag, of course, being the implication that the ability to read between the lines is some supernatural power.

Although to some people, no doubt, the ability to actually read the lines at all probably seems like a supernatural power.

[Dazzler]

Apparently not.

Back to reading school for you!

Piffle.

That post was about as full of innuendo as anything could be.

--Dazz

[Paul McEnery]

Piffle.

That post was about as full of innuendo as anything could be.

--Dazz

No, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word. I advise you to go look it up.

I'm also going to suggest that misreadings, whether intentional or not, also tell us a lot about a person's intentions.

[Dazzler]

No, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word. I advise you to go look it up.

Yes, yes. I know. Semantics war is supposed to start now, isn't it?

I'd advise you to ditch the implication, innuendo, passive aggression, or whatever you want to call it and just say what you mean to say as plainly as possible.

--Dazz

[PatrickG]

I'm voting for McCain because unless the person is a complete and utter scumbag of the highest order, I'll vote along party lines. No candidate is going to match up perfectly with my beliefs, and I would've been more likely to vote for Hillary than Obama because I honestly thought Hillary would've done a better job than him.

Er...

McCain supports torture, opposes diplomacy, supports people who lost their homes "getting another job", calls his wife a "cunt" (but affectionately, apparently), has been caught in numerous lies, dumped his disfigured wife for an heiress, collaborated with the enemy in Vietnam.

Define scumbag so I know what details about McCain I should focus on for you.

[colleen]

Actually yes, it is.

You're late to the amusing digression, which is already concluded. Game set and match goes to the Knight of the Golden Horseshoe.

Carry on!

[4PointOh]

This letter isn't saying that if you don't vote for Obama, you're a bigot. That's a disingenuous and convenient reading of it and I believe the letter to be more nuanced than that.

It's calling out the STAUNCH democrats and STAUNCH defenders of democratic principles who ALWAYS vote democrat, but who are suddenly not going to do so. It's calling out the people who vote democrat NO MATTER WHAT--until now. Specifically, it's calling out certain women who are either going to vote against their social and economic interests by voting for McCain (the same women who rallied vehemently AGAINST McCain when Clinton was still a potential candidate) or who will not vote at all to prove some kind of point about sexism and misogyny. It's calling out these motherfuckers right here: http://sonofbaldwin.blogspot.com/2008/06/little-man-little-man.html

Tim Wise is simply calling out the elephant in the room. OF COURSE race plays a factor in the decision to jump from Clinton to McMcain. Even Clinton has said that she and Obama are not that far off from each other on the issues. Even Clinton has said that voting McCain is voting for another four years of Bush policies, which she spent her entire campaign running AGAINST. But somehow, her supporters want to vote McCain (against Clinton's wishes) as some sort of protest tribute to her?

So, no I don't think it's unreasonable to believe race and racism has a hand in that leap. But I do think it's unreasonable to believe race and racism has nothing to do with it.

[Charles RB]

So to everyone who agrees with the Supreme Court's rulling today: How does it feel to be responseable for the deaths of our troops and citizens?

I'm capable of having people in a foreign country killed simply by expressing a view on their state's political decisions?

It feels fucking awesome then! You're next, Zimbabwe!

There are going to be terrorists who will be freed by this

Ah, so you've got evidence that they did it then? Why didn't you put them on trial earlier then?

Also, are you know going to advocate for removing the right to due process and trial-by-jury for domestic crimes like theft, murder, assault, rape and organised crime? There's rapists and murderers who go free under that jury system, you best get rid of it, eh?

It's implicit in saying that a military career is heroic. People have always puffed up the military as heroic, all the way back to the Roman Empire.

And it's exactly the same thing as puffing up the gangstas.

I don't think you can really lump all the militaries all of the time in together. The Irish army only goes overseas on multi-national peacekeeping missions specifically to protect foreign civilians, I'd call that heroic.

And remember a bunch of people in Iraq are Territorial Army and National Guard, who signed up on the weekends expecting they'd be called up when really needed or during national emergencies, not to get thrown into a murky multi-faction civil war.


Not only did we keep 400,000 German and Italian POWs

So people who were wearing uniform and officially part of the enemy army.

That's not comparable to terrorism unless you're fighting Cobra. And you never will.

[4PointOh]

And just so that we're clear on what racism means IN PRACTICE and not simply the dictionary definition of racism:

It isn't simply "I hate you because your skin is X color." It is ALSO, "You're INFERIOR because your skin is X color. And because you're inferior, you should be denied certain rights and privileges and I have the power to deny you those things."

[Charles RB]

Whether it be for good or not, boot camp is a form of brainwashing.

I can't argue with this, it is mental reprogramming (to use a nicer term).

However I do not know another way in which people can be able to, on instinct, perform difficult and dangerous tasks while beeing shot at & that may involve killing a total stranger.

[Gail Simone]

I think this whole thing is just media-created bullpoop. I don't know a single Hillary supporter who would choose McCain at this point. And again, what people say to pollsters never seems to reflect how they will actually vote.

[Paul McEnery]

Yes, yes. I know. Semantics war is supposed to start now, isn't it?

I'd advise you to ditch the implication, innuendo, passive aggression, or whatever you want to call it and just say what you mean to say as plainly as possible.

--Dazz

I am saying it plainly. I'm talking -- and giving concrete examples -- about how the way people communicate oftentimes tells more than they mean to, because the legitimacy of that kind of close reading is frequently called into question, as it has been here, and usually in circumstances that seem to me to be evasive of the original issue that was in question.

Of course, that was all in the context of a conversation with someone that isn't you, but since you asked for plain speech on the matter, let's take what you're saying here as an example.

It doesn't take a genius to see that you're interpreting what I'm saying in a way that suits your agenda, while at the same time, the last thing you want is for your arguments to be inspected on their own merits, or be corrected on errors of fact, logic or usage, because you're being expressive rather than communicative.

And it's perfectly valid to want to just have a fit to make yourself feel better. Why not? But I find it's probably better to at least be honest about it and not pretend you're genuinely addressing any real points, let alone get huffy and defensive when you find you've been treading on other people's toes, because all of a sudden you're dragged into a communicative mode you had no interest in in the first place. "I was just venting" is a quite acceptable thing to say before bowing out gracefully.

So much for general communicative strategies and how they oftentimes mismatch to unfortunate effect. Now let's talk about a specific bugbear.

Bringing up "semantics" I usually take to mean that the speaker wants to avoid precise language or correct usage as a way to avoid the dual responsibility of both finding out what one actually is saying (and whether that is what one would actually wish to be saying) and being held accountable for what one is saying.

And again, this is perfectly legitimate if one's goal is simply self-centered self-expression before an uncritical audience. But when one's audience has been established to be critical, the whole business rarely concludes to anyone's satisfaction.

Naturally, all of this can be simply the age old problem of constative speakers and expressive speakers failing to grasp each other's fundamental purpose; or it can be a defensive gesture intended to protect the expressive speaker from having to face the realities that underly the expression at that time; or it can be an aggressive gesture intended to damage the constative speaker because the constative truth they're speaking itself causes pain.

Happens all the time in domestics, where the chilly constative speaker has no understanding that the expressive speaker even could take things personally when the constative speaker is taking pains to exclude all emotional content. Like that ever works. Simply to operate in that mode when the expressive person is in a tither comes across as an aggressive act, and is usually taken that way. While constative speakers become increasingly frustrated and emotional themselves because they're being taken to be saying things they really aren't.

Of course, the expressive speaker wants to avoid at all costs inspecting the root conflict that drives the emotion because for one thing, there are probably bad feelings down there that they want to avoid; but also there's the fear that if the root conflict is taken away, they won't have anything to get all dramatic about any more, and where's the fun in that.

And of course the inexpressive speaker wants to avoid at all costs facing the fact that their detached and logical arguments are also a way of deferring the emotional content that drives them, for pretty much the same reasons, plus hating a scene and wanting to preserve what's left of the crockery this one time, please God.

All of this is usually in play with miscommunication, although the perceptive person can pick up on what is being said and not said to take a fair stab at what the emotional or indeed substantial material that's being suppressed either way might actually be.

There. That straight enough for you?

[Paul McEnery]

This letter isn't saying that if you don't vote for Obama, you're a bigot. That's a disingenuous and convenient reading of it and I believe the letter to be more nuanced than that.

It's calling out the STAUNCH democrats and STAUNCH defenders of democratic principles who ALWAYS vote democrat, but who are suddenly not going to do so. It's calling out the people who vote democrat NO MATTER WHAT--until now. Specifically, it's calling out certain women who are either going to vote against their social and economic interests by voting for McCain (the same women who rallied vehemently AGAINST McCain when Clinton was still a potential candidate) or who will not vote at all to prove some kind of point about sexism and misogyny. It's calling out these motherfuckers right here: http://sonofbaldwin.blogspot.com/2008/06/little-man-little-man.html

Tim Wise is simply calling out the elephant in the room. OF COURSE race plays a factor in the decision to jump from Clinton to McMcain. Even Clinton has said that she and Obama are not that far off from each other on the issues. Even Clinton has said that voting McCain is voting for another four years of Bush policies, which she spent her entire campaign running AGAINST. But somehow, her supporters want to vote McCain (against Clinton's wishes) as some sort of protest tribute to her?

So, no I don't think it's unreasonable to believe race and racism has a hand in that leap. But I do think it's unreasonable to believe race and racism has nothing to do with it.

Yup. That's exactly it.

[Charles RB]

Also for everone who says that we create terrorists by taking supposedly innocent people and putting them in our POW camps that is a very racist statement.


No it's not, acts like this have been shown to turn people against the state, create terrorist sympathisers and create actual terrorists in other counter-terror conflicts, including one in my home state.

[4PointOh]

Here is a tip something my grandmother called "Rule no. 1":

NEVER scare the white people.

Because your grandmother knew that for some white people, the greatest fear is that they will be treated by other races as they have treated those races. Only, what some of them never seem to realize is that there are far more Martin Luther King Jr's in the community than there are Malcolm X's. But their fear is now a convenient tool for not having to distinguish fiction from reality.

For example, you know who is more likely to die at the hands of a black man? Another black man. So, should I be the one afraid of black men?

[Dazzler]

You're late to the amusing digression, which is already concluded. Game set and match goes to the Knight of the Golden Horseshoe.

Carry on!
HA!

Oh Lord...that was eighth grade. Hardly worth mentioning, and the only reason I did was because for some reason the exchange reminded me of it and all that time spent studying my bum off to win a chance to eat an ice-cream sundae at the state capitol. It's like a prize from the andy griffith show or the waltons. I can't imagine anyone outside (or, honestly, inside) WV giving two hoots.

Anyway, I don't think you were wrong, I think it's just a matter of ill-defined and shifting perspective from sources within and without much more than other states.


--Dazz

[Paul McEnery]

I don't think you can really lump all the militaries all of the time in together. The Irish army only goes overseas on multi-national peacekeeping missions specifically to protect foreign civilians, I'd call that heroic.

No, that's right of course.

I'm more talking about the attitude in the general populace, mostly of non-combatants, I think, though frequently of commander-in-chief level non-combatants who won't have to personally face the consequences of their puffery.

And it's in this sense that it's totally fair to call McCain out on it. Sure, he did serve his country in the military. I'm not too impressed with signing up to be a cold warrior in his country's veiled wars of imperial aggression, which aims he seems to whole-heartedly support, but put himself in harm's way he did, and suffer the consequences he did.

Nevertheless, it won't be him sweating it in the streets of Tehran if the balloon goes up, will it. Though it might well be him profiting from the profiteers, just like his buddies in the White House.

[Paul McEnery]

Because your grandmother knew that for some white people, the greatest fear is that they will be treated by other races as they have treated those races. Only, what some of them never seem to realize is that there are far more Martin Luther King Jr's in the community than there are Malcolm X's. But their fear is now a convenient tool for not having to distinguish fiction from reality.

For example, you know who is more likely to die at the hands of a black man? Another black man. So, should I be the one afraid of black men?

I think you should be careful never to be left alone in a locked room by yourself, because who knows what you'll do! :biggrin:

[colleen]

HA!

Oh Lord...that was eighth grade. Hardly worth mentioning, and the only reason I did was because for some reason the exchange reminded me of it and all that time spent studying my bum off to win a chance to eat an ice-cream sundae at the state capitol. It's like a prize from the andy griffith show or the waltons. I can't imagine anyone outside (or, honestly, inside) WV giving two hoots.

Anyway, I don't think you were wrong, I think it's just a matter of ill-defined and shifting perspective from sources within and without much more than other states.


--Dazz

I wish everyone on the internet was as amusing and interesting as you.

Alas, I promised myself I would turn on my blocksite and go back to my self imposed message board exile.

These message board hijinks can REALLY eat up the time!

And don't feel bad: Debate team, forensics, chess club. My nerd-o-meter went to 11.

[Dazzler]

I am saying it plainly. I'm talking -- and giving concrete examples -- about how the way people communicate oftentimes tells more than they mean to, because the legitimacy of that kind of close reading is frequently called into question, as it has been here, and usually taco taco taco. And on from here.

Yes, Paul. Sure, Paul.

--Dazz

[macul]

I can't argue with this, it is mental reprogramming (to use a nicer term).

However I do not know another way in which people can be able to, on instinct, perform difficult and dangerous tasks while beeing shot at & that may involve killing a total stranger.

You can't. That's the difference between a professional army and fielding a rabble of levy. One you can rely upon and the other you can't.

[Dazzler]

I wish everyone on the internet was as amusing and interesting as you.
No, you don't. Trust me.

Alas, I promised myself I would turn on my blocksite and go back to my self imposed message board exile.

These message board hijinks can REALLY eat up the time!
Well, I envy that commitment to exile, so good luck with it.

And don't feel bad: Debate team, forensics, chess club. My nerd-o-meter went to 11.
I think it's a safe bet that if you're even a casual poster on CBR, your nerd-o-meter runs pretty high on the scale. :wink:

See you on the flip side.

--Dazz

[Charles RB]

[Obama] actually answers questions instead of throwing out a "rah rah" line... Second, he's (OMG!) actually got some principles

Yeah, it's not natural. Best stop him getting in or the voters might get crazy ideas like wanting politicians to be like that on a regular basis!

[4PointOh]

I think you should be careful never to be left alone in a locked room by yourself, because who knows what you'll do! :biggrin:

*Doubled over, in pain, laughing*

:biggrin:

[Michael P]

I think this whole thing is just media-created bullpoop. I don't know a single Hillary supporter who would choose McCain at this point.

Aside from the ones on this board, of course.

And again, what people say to pollsters never seems to reflect how they will actually vote.

Can't argue with you there. I'd bet that anyone making a fuss about it now is likely to change their tune by November.

[Red Jack]

Confrontation makes them defensive, regardless of their views on race.
Even if someone isn't realy a racist especially if someone isnt a racist, to call someone that or accuse them of racial motives is more of a call to conflict, than
reason

I realy did not want to use this example, but
Look at Malcom X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

MLK took the road less traveled and as a result people of all races are a lot better off for it. while no one is forgetting what King did, no one seemes to recall HOW King did it.through a non-violent non-judgmental quest to promote understanding not by attacking people, and calling them "racist" at the drop of a hat.

Malcom X on the other hand....well
If X had King's number of followers, all us non-whites would be in consentration camps, and ghettos ( i mean WW2 style Ghettos, not the projects)

here is a tip something my grandmother called "rule no. 1"

NEVER scare the white people.\

This letter could have been more effective if it had merely pointed out the simularities between Obama and Clinton, and at best calmly ask the reader to ask themselves if race is a factor in their decision.

The responce would be less defensive, no accusations would have been made, and the reader will be more motivated to do some "soul searching"

I think you need to brush up on your Malcolm X. He was not, in any iteration, Hitleresque. Quite the contrary. And, at the end of his life (which would have been barely the middle if he hadn't been murdered), he was actively embracing all like-minded peoples. "Like-minded" meaning anti-racist, anti-classist thinkers. He was killed by black racists for this very reason (among others).

King was one side of the equation and X was the other and, despite the massive ongoing propaganda campaign that elevates King to deity status and says little about X beyond the most inflammatory images, the fact is they were both part of a long continuum of rebels and both of them were absolutely necessary t the struggle.

[Paul McEnery]

Yes, Paul. Sure, Paul.

--Dazz
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e208/davelovesspam/larson_what_dogs_hear.jpg

[Briareos]

And you completely missed my point. Even if they are afforded legal protections our law says that because they are foreigners they are not protected by our constitution (at least till the supreme court ruled the other day). That's why that ruling is so outrageous is that it goes against the entire history of our constitution.

Also you have two options. Either the few innocent people we have picked up in Iraq and held are neanderthals below the civilization of every other country who we have had people we held during wartime (which a few must have been innocent civilians who didn't turn around and go on terrorism sprees) or the idea that were turning mass civilians into future terrorists holds no water. The things we are doing during this war we have done in countless other situations throughout our history and there hasn't been a history of innocent civilians turning into bloodthirsty terrorists.

[Paul McEnery]

And you completely missed my point. Even if they are afforded legal protections our law says that because they are foreigners they are not protected by our constitution (at least till the supreme court ruled the other day). That's why that ruling is so outrageous is that it goes against the entire history of our constitution.

So, are you suggesting that foreigners are non-humans? Because last I looked, that's the only category not protected by the Constitution.

Also you have two options. Either the few innocent people we have picked up in Iraq and held are neanderthals below the civilization of every other country who we have had people we held during wartime (which a few must have been innocent civilians who didn't turn around and go on terrorism sprees) or the idea that were turning mass civilians into future terrorists holds no water. The things we are doing during this war we have done in countless other situations throughout our history and there hasn't been a history of innocent civilians turning into bloodthirsty terrorists.

Keep following that train of thought. Very nearly there.

[Corrina]

If the Supreme Court say it's not against our Constitution, then it's not.

Because the Supreme Court, by definition, has the final say on what is Constitutional and what is not and cannot be overturned.

You need an amendment. Like in the Dred Scot case, which took an amendment to overturn.

Until you have enough votes & support for a constitutional amendment to be passed, it doesn't matter squat what you think.

The Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional or not. They ruled this was not. Ergo, it is not.

It's the same as claiming that the 2000 Gore/Bush ruling was illegal. It can't be, by definition, illegal. Bush is the President by the law of the land. It was a legal election. Over, done, finished.

I might claim that it was a poor decision. But I cannot claim it was illegal or unconstitutional because the Supreme Court says it was constitutional. That's the law of the land.

If you don't like it, well, tough noogies.

[KevinTBrown]

If the Supreme Court say it's not against our Constitution, then it's not.

Because the Supreme Court, by definition, has the final say on what is Constitutional and what is not and cannot be overturned.

You need an amendment. Like in the Dred Scot case, which took an amendment to overturn.

Until you have enough votes & support for a constitutional amendment to be passed, it doesn't matter squat what you think.

The Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional or not. They ruled this was not. Ergo, it is not.

It's the same as claiming that the 2000 Gore/Bush ruling was illegal. It can't be, by definition, illegal. Bush is the President by the law of the land. It was a legal election. Over, done, finished.

I might claim that it was a poor decision. But I cannot claim it was illegal or unconstitutional because the Supreme Court says it was constitutional. That's the law of the land.

If you don't like it, well, tough noogies.

That's a sig-worthy line. :biggrin:

[Charles RB]

there hasn't been a history of innocent civilians turning into bloodthirsty terrorists.

Yes there has, you pillock - for a start, terrorists are originally civilians, they don't grow in a fucking vat.

[Paul McEnery]

Yes there has, you pillock - for a start, terrorists are originally civilians, they don't grow in a fucking vat.

Of course not. That's demons. Terrorists are extruded from the factories of our evil alien overlords.

[the4thpip]

http://contribute.chron.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/15/03bdfcc7-66cb-4f32-bf37-b20a2be65ec9.Large.jpg

http://frontrowreviews.blogspot.com/2008/06/really-is-this-best-you-can-do.html

[CutterMike]

Why does Protocol 1 apply to us when we never ratified it? Unless and until it is ratified by the Congress, it doesn't affect us at all. A signature by the President doesn't mean jack squat without ratification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I

The protocol entered into force on December 7, 1979 (six months after its adoption by the conference) and is binding for a country six months after it has ratified it. As of 14 January 2007 it had been ratified by 167 countries, with the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq being notable exceptions.
<sarcasm>
...Doesn't it make you feel proud to see the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free in the company of such high-minded bastions of human and civil rights...?
</sarcasm>

[kingdom2000]

And you completely missed my point. Even if they are afforded legal protections our law says that because they are foreigners they are not protected by our constitution (at least till the supreme court ruled the other day). That's why that ruling is so outrageous is that it goes against the entire history of our constitution.

Also you have two options. Either the few innocent people we have picked up in Iraq and held are neanderthals below the civilization of every other country who we have had people we held during wartime (which a few must have been innocent civilians who didn't turn around and go on terrorism sprees) or the idea that were turning mass civilians into future terrorists holds no water. The things we are doing during this war we have done in countless other situations throughout our history and there hasn't been a history of innocent civilians turning into bloodthirsty terrorists.

Against the "history" of the Constitution? Have you read it?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice the use of the word "person" throughout that statement. The only part that says citizens is the first.

Also "history" assumes this has been an issue before where Presidents have tried to avoid due process entirely and do what they want to whoever they want at anytime they want. The only "history" where such an event occured to my knowledge is the Japanese internment camps and pretty much that is decried as a colossal mistake.

I do find that lack of any moral concerns about the Gitmo to be intersting. Just this attitude that if the government suspects you, you must be guilty and should die. Just as long as it doesn't occur to anyone you know, right? Its things like this that make me glad I am no longer a republican. I couldn't live under the constant fear that repubs seem to thrive on.

[kingdom2000]

http://contribute.chron.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/15/03bdfcc7-66cb-4f32-bf37-b20a2be65ec9.Large.jpg

http://frontrowreviews.blogspot.com/2008/06/really-is-this-best-you-can-do.html

Hey fox is fair and balanced as that caption shows.

Actually I am fine with them picking on Mrs Obama. Its the nature of how republicans do business and she chose to be in the spotlight. If she doesn't like it she needs to stay home. Besides, it means that Dems can do open season on Mrs McCain and I bet she has a ton more dirt in her past. Of course she just married money rather then earning it, they should just hammer that because that sounds pretty elitist to me.

[Tetsuo_man]

Hey fox is fair and balanced as that caption shows.

Actually I am fine with them picking on Mrs Obama. Its the nature of how republicans do business and she chose to be in the spotlight. If she doesn't like it she needs to stay home. Besides, it means that Dems can do open season on Mrs McCain and I bet she has a ton more dirt in her past. Of course she just married money rather then earning it, they should just hammer that because that sounds pretty elitist to me.

Actually he married her for money and i suppose her looks.

[section 8]

I think you need to brush up on your Malcolm X. He was not, in any iteration, Hitleresque. Quite the contrary. And, at the end of his life (which would have been barely the middle if he hadn't been murdered), he was actively embracing all like-minded peoples. "Like-minded" meaning anti-racist, anti-classist thinkers. He was killed by black racists for this very reason (among others)..

No i'm afraid you misunderstood my meaning.
I did not intend to imply that X was Hitler-esqe, only that his actions, or even his very attitude would have provoked a "Hitler-esque" response from a then White government.

If they responded to peaceful demonstrations in which black men and women at the time merely sat in with signs that read things like "I AM A MAN" with the national guard, firehoses, and german shepards, What do you think they had in mind when they heard X go on about "Any means necessary"?

King was one side of the equation and X was the other and, despite the massive ongoing propaganda campaign that elevates King to deity status and says little about X beyond the most inflammatory images, the fact is they were both part of a long continuum of rebels and both of them were absolutely necessary t the struggle.

Agreed, they both had different methods opf achieving the same goals, but X's more aggresive tone made him more frightening to whites. and as i said scaring white folk is not a good idea, especially if these white folk are indeed racists. Fear is only one step away from hate, scaring them only reinforces their ignorance.

As for Kings "deity status" I think it is well deserved, i personally cannot think of another moment in human history where a man, doing whats right had such a following.

[section 8]

a post so nice, i made it twice.

[PatrickG]

Why does Protocol 1 apply to us when we never ratified it? Unless and until it is ratified by the Congress, it doesn't affect us at all. A signature by the President doesn't mean jack squat without ratification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I

And the president shouldn't be able to deploy troops into combat outside U.S. soil without a declaration of war from congress.

Giving him the funding isn't the same thing.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Hey fox is fair and balanced as that caption shows.

Actually I am fine with them picking on Mrs Obama. Its the nature of how republicans do business and she chose to be in the spotlight. If she doesn't like it she needs to stay home.

Yeah--raisin' thar pickaninnies and pleasuring her buck in the slave quarters at the plantation. That's what that headline implies the modern equivalent of--it's a pandering to their base, of the stereotype of black wimmins not being married, and raising kids--that's what 'Baby Mama' refers to. There's no fucking excuse for racist bullshit, closet or otherwise, and I didn't think I could have more contempt for Newscorp, than I already did.

[Dazzler]

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e208/davelovesspam/larson_what_dogs_hear.jpg

Eh. If I'm supposed to be the dog, and you're supposed to be the riled up dude bitching at it....

Boy, I'm sure glad I'm that dog. That just means I don't have to suffer you.

Dog: happy. Man: hell bent for a heart attack over nothing.

--Dazz

[tangentman]

Eh. If I'm supposed to be the dog, and you're supposed to be the riled up dude bitching at it....

Boy, I'm sure glad I'm that dog. That just means I don't have to suffer you.

Dog: happy. Man: hell bent for a heart attack over nothing.

--Dazz

When you deal with people who relish equivocation for its own sake, you deserve the mercy of hearing "Blah Blah Blah", rather than whatever latest quibbling they're spewing.

[mgs]

I love how people try to tell others what to vote for, like one reason would top another. A vote is a vote, whether a person doesn't care who wins, whether they wanted a female candidate, whether they wanted an Afrcian-Amercian presence in the White House, whether they're racist or sexist, whether they want change or like someone's politics or whatever.

I believe in getting all the facts out, but it all seems like a waste of time and effort to me sometimes, when trying to make another's vote, yours. Let people decide. Isn't that what the candidates are trying to let people do? I don't need another person with their own agenda telling me what to do.

[Paul McEnery]

I love how people try to tell others what to vote for, like one reason would top another. A vote is a vote, whether a person doesn't care who wins, whether they wanted a female candidate, whether they wanted an Afrcian-Amercian presence in the White House, whether they're racist or sexist, whether they want change or like someone's politics or whatever.

I believe in getting all the facts out, but it all seems like a waste of time and effort to me sometimes, when trying to make another's vote, yours. Let people decide. Isn't that what the candidates are trying to let people do? I don't need another person with their own agenda telling me what to do.

So campaigning is a waste of time, then.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Yes there has, you pillock - for a start, terrorists are originally civilians, they don't grow in a fucking vat.

Then what the hell HAS been growing in my vat?!?!!

[Charles RB]

Illegal immigrants.

[section 8]

So campaigning is a waste of time, then.


"Vote this way or you are a communist"

"Vote this way or you are a terrorist"

"Vote this way or you are a racist"

that's not campaigning, its psychological blackmail

[king mob]

http://contribute.chron.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/15/03bdfcc7-66cb-4f32-bf37-b20a2be65ec9.Large.jpg

http://frontrowreviews.blogspot.com/2008/06/really-is-this-best-you-can-do.html


So that's not faked? Fucking hell, that's awful.

[Charles RB]

Whoever typed the graphic's gotten fired, right?

Right? :frown:

[KevinTBrown]

Whoever typed the graphic's gotten fired, right?

Right? :frown:

It's Fox "news".... More than likely got a raise.

[Paul McEnery]

Whoever typed the graphic's gotten fired, right?

Right? :frown:

Not that I know of.

They did say they were vewwy sowwy though.

It is not known how many fingers they were crossing at the time.

[Buzz Dixon]

Since it was the only state born out of the Civil War, its history and standing in the United States is way to complex to be pigeon-holed. East Tennessee wanted to secede from Tennessee and remain in the Union, but were advised by Lincoln's government that doing so would only put them at risk from the Confederacy since there was no way for the Union to send troops or supplies to the area (West Virginia could be reached through bordering states).

There was also a strong anti-secessionist movement in Alabama, of all places, and anti-Confederacy guerrilla activity in both Alabama and North Carolina during the war. Meanwhile, Confederate guerrilla's reached as far north as Connecticut and as far west as California with one bonafide battle between Union and Confederate troops occurring in New Mexico.


The American Civil War was a lot more complicated than most people realize.

[section 8]

It's Fox "news".... More than likely got a raise.

Are you kidding? it Rymes. They got a promotion.

[FalconX2000]

Then what the hell HAS been growing in my vat?!?!!

Pink bats of course.

[KevinTBrown]

Are you kidding? it Rymes. They got a promotion.
What's Busta got to do with it...? :confused:

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Pink bats of course.

Ha!

Even your hats and hairnets can't save you now!

[section 8]

What's Busta got to do with it...? :confused:

I Miss Busta, that cat was talented

[LtMarvel]

And you completely missed my point. Even if they are afforded legal protections our law says that because they are foreigners they are not protected by our constitution (at least till the supreme court ruled the other day). That's why that ruling is so outrageous is that it goes against the entire history of our constitution.

Also you have two options. Either the few innocent people we have picked up in Iraq and held are neanderthals below the civilization of every other country who we have had people we held during wartime (which a few must have been innocent civilians who didn't turn around and go on terrorism sprees) or the idea that were turning mass civilians into future terrorists holds no water. The things we are doing during this war we have done in countless other situations throughout our history and there hasn't been a history of innocent civilians turning into bloodthirsty terrorists.
Would do you a world of good to listen to Friday's story on this from All Things Considered (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91488990). There is a long history of what the Bush Administration argued, and how rediculous some of those were.

[FalconX2000]

Just finished watching Wesley Clarke explaining his accusation against John McCain's leadership ability in national security. The position is naunced, yet blindingly simple. McCain has never had any leadership role in the military. Being a pilot and POW proves you've got personal courage but does almost nothing to show you would make a capable commander in chief.

Whoever typed the graphic's gotten fired, right?

Right? :frown:

The ladies working for FOX who referred to Obama's pound/fist bump with Michelle Obama as a "terrorist fist jab" and offhandedly wished that Obama would be shot have not gotten fired either.

[Charles RB]

There was also a strong anti-secessionist movement in Alabama, of all places, and anti-Confederacy guerrilla activity in both Alabama and North Carolina during the war. Meanwhile, Confederate guerrilla's reached as far north as Connecticut and as far west as California with one bonafide battle between Union and Confederate troops occurring in New Mexico.


Interesting. You got any other bits of US Civil War facts like that?

[Red Jack]

"Vote this way or you are a communist"

"Vote this way or you are a terrorist"

"Vote this way or you are a racist"

that's not campaigning, its psychological blackmail

It's not that.

if you claim you are for a candidate- say Mrs. Clinton- because you 1) can't stand what Bush the Lesser and his band of chimps have done to the country and the world and 2) because you agree with her platform, you have no legit justification for voting for McCain over Obama other than racism.

Obama and Clinton are nearly identical on their stated goals for when they get the big chair. The actual variance is almost too small to observe. So if, after this primary season, you are white person (male or female) who can't see your way clear to vote for someone who shares nearly all your preferred candidate's views and, furthermore, plan to vote for someone who actively opposes your own stated views, you're left with one primary motivation for doing so: you don't want some nigger in the White House.

If it is racism, simply say so and move on. We're big kids. We've heard of racism before. We won't be shocked. Vote your conscience. On this point, however, one doesn't get to have their cake and eat it too.

If you are a non-white female who chooses McCain over Obama because you're mad about Clinton's loss, you are an idiot and you deserve what you get.

This is serious shit here and this BS about "experience" and "stealing history" needs to stop. Mostly because it's a lie.

[Buzz Dixon]

Interesting. You got any other bits of US Civil War facts like that?The last Confederate army to surrender was made up of Cherokee warriors. The Confederacy promised independence to the Indians forcibly relocated to Oklahoma by Andrew Jackson if they helped the Confederate cause. They did, and subsequently got shat all over with the Oklahoma land rush after the Union won.

Both the Union and Confederacy employed submarines during the Civil War, though several were only semi-submersibles in so far as they did not submerge complete but only got so low in the water only their smokestack and conning towers rose above it.

Plantation owners fleeing the South at the end of the war relocated to Brazil where their descendants still hold Confederacy cotillions.

By the end of the war the Confederacy was so desperate for troops they were beginning to form combat units made up of slaves; none of these units were ever deployed, however.

Robert Smalls, a slave employed as a harbor pilot in Charleston, hijacked a Confederate gunboat and steamed out of the harbor with his wife and a dozen other slaves. He gave the Union vital information that would have enabled the Union to attack Charleston's undefended side had they heeded it, but fearing a trick the Union forces ignored Smalls' advice. Smalls and his fellow refugees were allowed to keep the gunboat and were employed as privateers by the Union navy during their blockade of Charleston.

[bfrank]

At least he's an American.

Yeah, but he was from West VA....that explains everything......

[bfrank]

I love how people try to tell others what to vote for, like one reason would top another.

Do you say this at every election?

[bfrank]

. I don't know a single Hillary supporter who would choose McCain at this point.
There are a few here, no?

[Sabrinaset]

I think this whole thing is just media-created bullpoop. I don't know a single Hillary supporter who would choose McCain at this point. And again, what people say to pollsters never seems to reflect how they will actually vote.

There are a few here, no?

This sounds just a liiiitle too close to Kael's "I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."

[CutterMike]

East Tennessee wanted to secede from Tennessee and remain in the Union, but were advised by Lincoln's government that doing so would only put them at risk from the Confederacy since there was no way for the Union to send troops or supplies to the area (West Virginia could be reached through bordering states).

There was also a strong anti-secessionist movement in Alabama, of all places, and anti-Confederacy guerrilla activity in both Alabama and North Carolina during the war. Meanwhile, Confederate guerrilla's reached as far north as Connecticut and as far west as California with one bonafide battle between Union and Confederate troops occurring in New Mexico.


The American Civil War was a lot more complicated than most people realize.

Actually, uniformed Confederate soldiers raided St. Albans, Vermont in October, 1864.

[bfrank]

This sounds just a liiiitle too close to Kael's "I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."

um, no, sorry....there are a few hillary folks here that have stated in other threads that they would be voting for McCain.....

I'd look it up for you, but they're not worth my time.........

[KevinTBrown]

Just finished watching Wesley Clarke explaining his accusation against John McCain's leadership ability in national security. The position is naunced, yet blindingly simple. McCain has never had any leadership role in the military. Being a pilot and POW proves you've got personal courage but does almost nothing to show you would make a capable commander in chief.

You got a link or reference to that??? I'd love to see it. :smile:

[Sabrinaset]

um, no, sorry....there are a few hillary folks here that have stated in other threads that they would be voting for McCain.....

I'd look it up for you, but they're not worth my time.........

I wasn't refuting your post, but Gails. Just because she doesn't know that any exist doesn't mean they don't exist, and possibly in large numbers for all I know.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I have never been alive for an election where people, once their primary-election candidate dropped out, did NOT threaten at the time to vote for the other party's guy in the general election.

However, the general election being months away, VERY few actually do. It's a heat of the moment/disappointment sorta thing.

[Sabrinaset]

I have never been alive for an election where people, once their primary-election candidate dropped out, did NOT threaten at the time to vote for the other party's guy in the general election.

However, the general election being months away, VERY few actually do. It's a heat of the moment/disappointment sorta thing.

There's still plenty of time for things to change. I mean, Obama could become a Scientoligist between now and the election! :eek:

[Pink Bat Maxine]

There's still plenty of time for things to change. I mean, Obama could become a Scientoligist between now and the election! :eek:

Well, SOMEONE needs to stand up to the ancient alien warlords!

[Charles RB]

Facts

Awesome, thanks.

[4PointOh]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15rich.html?hp

[section 8]

I wasn't refuting your post, but Gails. Just because she doesn't know that any exist doesn't mean they don't exist, and possibly in large numbers for all I know.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

( a little Boondocks joke)

[Tetsuo_man]

I suspect allot of the clinton angry women yadda yadda are plants from rush's operation chaos.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Honestly, how many political threads do we need? :frown:

Could we get some of them folded together?

[Tetsuo_man]

That's true. This should probabbly be in the election thread.

[section 8]

We need one more

[Sabrinaset]

Honestly, how many political threads do we need? :frown:

Could we get some of them folded together?

I completely agree. This is YABS, all the political stuff really belongs elsewhere.

[Tetsuo_man]

I completely agree. This is YABS, all the political stuff really belongs elsewhere.

Yep three who agree. Anyway this definitely should be in the election thread.

[Corrina]

We're here!

[FalconX2000]

You got a link or reference to that??? I'd love to see it. :smile:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25148900#25139036

[Nick Soapdish]

And you completely missed my point. Even if they are afforded legal protections our law says that because they are foreigners they are not protected by our constitution (at least till the supreme court ruled the other day). That's why that ruling is so outrageous is that it goes against the entire history of our constitution.

Also you have two options. Either the few innocent people we have picked up in Iraq and held are neanderthals below the civilization of every other country who we have had people we held during wartime (which a few must have been innocent civilians who didn't turn around and go on terrorism sprees) or the idea that were turning mass civilians into future terrorists holds no water. The things we are doing during this war we have done in countless other situations throughout our history and there hasn't been a history of innocent civilians turning into bloodthirsty terrorists.

I guess that the administration loves terrorists then.

This is from a year ago, but of the 385 that we were holding in Gitmo, we were planning on trying about 80 and freeing the rest.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145_pf.html)

We're just having a bit of difficulty with it trying to explain to other countries why they should be released there when we've been calling them "the worst of the worst". But the reason that we're releasing them is that we couldn't find any evidence that they were involved in anything against us. Previously, we've been arguing against releasing anybody even if they were innocent because they'd become a threat against us by dint of being imprisoned by us.

And shouldn't this have been in the Politics thread?

[Tetsuo_man]

Why can't that one thread be taken in here into this thread. You know the one (said in maurice lamarche voice).

[Crowley]

Pat Buchanan:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25148900#25131063

Barrack Obama is "exotic."

[section 8]

At least their being honest.

McCain: "I can't Referee every spot run on television"

Very true, he tried during the Bush/Kerry election.

Poor Pat, he did not choose his words well.
Other words Buchanan could have used
"unusual canidate" "New blood" or the one i would have used "Novel"

Obama's campaign has been run mainly on the fact that he is not a run-of the- mill Politician, and given the nature of the conversation i don't think it was racialy motivated, even coming from Buchanan.

[the4thpip]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25148900#25139036

I agree with that one host that he is sounding very vice presidential.

[KevinTBrown]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25148900#25139036

Thank you!

And IS Clark VP material...?

[Tetsuo_man]

Thank you!

And IS Clark VP material...?

I've been thinking that he was since febuary.

[section 8]

Thank you!

And IS Clark VP material...?

I'd say so, a Obama/Clark ticket would be appealing to a lot of voters. Personally i'd rather see an Obama/Edwards ticket, but it wouldn't be as well rounded, as Edwards and Obama have a lot in common.

[mgs]

There's still plenty of time for things to change. I mean, Obama could become a Scientoligist between now and the election! :eek:

the unknowns about him scare me.

[K-DoG7p7]

so apparently McCain has said he wants to see a man on Mars...

I'm sorry mister McCain.. but even if NASA suddenly grew balls and went with Mars Direct.. there in no way someone your age will ever see man on mars :P

[section 8]

so apparently McCain has said he wants to see a man on Mars...

I'm sorry mister McCain.. but even if NASA suddenly grew balls and went with Mars Direct.. there in no way someone your age will ever see man on mars :P

Did he say which man?
:biggrin:

[Red Jack]

the unknowns about him scare me.

Really? Such as?

Well, in any case, here's a little primer (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/semr?source=SEM-register-google-obama-search-national)

Or here (http://www.barackobama.com/splash/donate/donate.html)

or even a place where he actually answers questions (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/semr?source=SEM-register-google-obama-search-national)

[MacQuarrie]

I'm a 49-year-old white male, generally of a conservative-libertarian bent, and I'm voting for Obama.... unless he picks Hillary as a running mate. I wouldn't vote for her for anything under any circumstances.

If Obama picks her and wins the election anyway (I believe it will seriously damage his chances), he'll be dead and she will be President two years and one day after he takes office. That way she can have a shot at two-and-a-half terms. I think she would have no compunctions at all about Vince Fostering Obama.

If Hillary's on the ticket, I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate.

[mgs]

Really? Such as?

basically everything.

[Jack Zodiac]

If Hillary's on the ticket, I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate.

Fuck "if!" Bob Barr for President! :biggrin:

[Red Jack]

basically everything.

Yeah, that doesn't mean anything. What do you mean, specifically?

[K-DoG7p7]

Did he say which man?
:biggrin:

Thats sounds alot like a repeat of Paul Dini's joke...
http://kingofbreakfast.livejournal.com/

[4PointOh]

Yeah, that doesn't mean anything. What do you mean, specifically?

He's black.


:cool:

[section 8]

in that case, i'll go back to what i originally wanted to post.

Don't be so sure McCain could out live us all.

[K-DoG7p7]

Don't be so sure McCain could out live us all.

frightening thought

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Pat Buchanan:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25148900#25131063

Barrack Obama is "exotic."

You scoff, but wait until you see his dance of the seven veils!

[section 8]

Black Republicans unsure about Obama
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080615/ap_on_el_pr/black_conservatives_obama_6

Edwards not ruling out VP. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080615/pl_afp/usvotevp

[Red Jack]

He's black.


:cool:

Is he? I could have sworn he was white. I saw picture of his mom. She's not black.

Huh.

Go figure.

[Evan Waters]

I'm a 49-year-old white male, generally of a conservative-libertarian bent, and I'm voting for Obama.... unless he picks Hillary as a running mate. I wouldn't vote for her for anything under any circumstances.

If Obama picks her and wins the election anyway (I believe it will seriously damage his chances), he'll be dead and she will be President two years and one day after he takes office. That way she can have a shot at two-and-a-half terms. I think she would have no compunctions at all about Vince Fostering Obama.

Yes, because there's so much proof that Foster was murdered.

[Buzz Dixon]

in that case, i'll go back to what i originally wanted to post.

Don't be so sure McCain could out live us all.I think McCain and Obama will both outlive Hillary Clinton (and I'm writing about natural causes here, not accidents, etc.).

[LtMarvel]

I think even MacQ will admit that he's irrational when it comes to the Clintons.

[4PointOh]

Is he? I could have sworn he was white. I saw picture of his mom. She's not black.

Huh.

Go figure.

LOL! You do know that I was being facetious, yes?

[AllisterH]

I think McCain and Obama will both outlive Hillary Clinton (and I'm writing about natural causes here, not accidents, etc.).

Hmm?

How do you figure that?

Women naturally outlive men anyway...so I fully expect her to outlive McCain at the least.

[section 8]

not to mention no matter what you think of her, Hillary is one tough old broad.

[section 8]

is he like uncle ruckus?
Does he have "Re-vitiligo" and is actually white?

[Buzz Dixon]

Hmm?

How do you figure that?

Women naturally outlive men anyway...so I fully expect her to outlive McCain at the least.A lot of would be presidential candidates fade fast after losing the nomination or the presidency. It's almost as if they've been working for that one moment all their lives, and then when it's over, so's their point of living.

Mind you, I am not wishing this happens, just saying it would not be unheard of. Barring some massive upheaval between now and the Democratic convention, she will never be the President of the United States under any circumstances now. Assuming Obama wins the Presidency, her influence in the party will diminish dramatically.

In short, much of her reason for living is now gone.

[PatrickG]

Pat Buchanan:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25148900#25131063

Barrack Obama is "exotic."

Yeah. He's playing bulldog again.

But ask Buchanan whose foreign policy scares him the least. He's all but endorsed Obama on that front.

Also: Note. Just before the "exotic" comment, he says that the only strategy the Republicans have is to emulate the Democrats who oppose Reagan in 1980. Now, how well did that work?

After he gets called on the exotic line, he says "It's the best I've got!"

Buchanan is a demagogue and definitely a supporter of rhetoric over any kind of pragmatism. The man is grossly racially insensitive at times. He also plays politics like a trial lawyer.

He also doesn't speak for the Republican party, who he has almost no real common ground with left. But nobody's hiring a right wing isolationist anarcho-populist commentator. (Who, incidentally? Has more in common with Al Sharpton than John McCain. Buchanan's donors and Sharpton's donors are a lot of the same people.) So he's fighting an uphill battle now and he has to construct pretty absurd scenarios.

Keep in mind, while most Republicans today badmouth the New Deal, you've got Buchanan saying Nixon deserves the real credit for it and that it's a good thing. He's also one of the anti-war voices in the Republican party.

I'm also 99% convinced Buchanan's leaning towards voting for Obama.

Buchanan is sleazy and detestable in all the same ways that some lawyers are... and he'll play the race card or the gender card or any card to get an advantage over somebody.

But I bet if you pinned him down, he's leaning towards Obama over McCain right now in terms of who he'd vote for.

And that's what somebody needs to do the next time he comes out with something like "exotic". (Though, really, as much bad blood as there is between him and the GOP, I wouldn't put it past him if he wasn't looking to help torpedo McCain.)

[Nick Soapdish]

East Tennessee wanted to secede from Tennessee and remain in the Union, but were advised by Lincoln's government that doing so would only put them at risk from the Confederacy since there was no way for the Union to send troops or supplies to the area (West Virginia could be reached through bordering states).

There was also a strong anti-secessionist movement in Alabama, of all places, and anti-Confederacy guerrilla activity in both Alabama and North Carolina during the war. Meanwhile, Confederate guerrilla's reached as far north as Connecticut and as far west as California with one bonafide battle between Union and Confederate troops occurring in New Mexico.


The American Civil War was a lot more complicated than most people realize.

The movement in East Tennessee got far enough that they had picked out a name - Franklin.

And part of Alabama actually did secede from the Confederancy, but not to join the Union - the Republic of Winston.


By the end of the war the Confederacy was so desperate for troops they were beginning to form combat units made up of slaves; none of these units were ever deployed, however.


It took a long time for them to get that desperate because it went against their ideology - February of 1865. A lot of Southerners preferred to lose the war than to win it with black support.

First, it was a tacit admission that blacks were good enough to be soldiers and that's not leaving much that they weren't good enough. They were also having trouble with the idea of recruiting slaves to become soldiers with the promise of becoming freedmen (and their families) because their position was that blacks were better off and preferred to be slaves. There was also the fear that it would lead towards universal emancipation.

[PatrickG]

so apparently McCain has said he wants to see a man on Mars...

I'm sorry mister McCain.. but even if NASA suddenly grew balls and went with Mars Direct.. there in no way someone your age will ever see man on mars :P

Sure he can. If Kucinich can see a man on Mars, I'm sure McCain can. ;)

[Buzz Dixon]

Didn't South Carolina, in one last futile gesture, secede from the Confederacy in the very last days of the war?

[Buzz Dixon]

Sure he can. If Kucinich can see a man on Mars, I'm sure McCain can. ;)Will somebody please make the obvious Uranus joke and get it over with?:rolleyes:

[Lester C.]

Some white women have had their hearts ripped out and are mad as hell. Given the number of black people I know who swore they would vote for McCain if Clinton won this isn't so hard to understand. I don't care who Obama picks as a VP, but for his sake, she'd better be a liberated outspoken intelligent white woman who will legitimately share power with him.