Hillary has NO chance... [Archive]

Cochise

01-25-2006, 10:26 AM

Before any squawking happens, you might want to stop citing newsmax and reference a different source if one is available.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/62235.htm

January 25, 2006 -- WASHINGTON — Most American voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 — while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

The Gallup/CNN poll found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her.

That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1.

Men are especially anti-Clinton — 60 percent say there's no way they'd back her for commander-in-chief, and that rises to 62 percent among men 50 and over.

Among women, 22 percent say they'd definitely vote for Clinton, but just 11 percent of men agree. Her support is also lower among whites — 14 percent are committed supporters, compared with 28 percent of nonwhites.

Even among self-proclaimed liberals, just 33 percent say they'd definitely vote for her.

The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes — 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.

Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines, brushed off all questions about 2008 polls, good and bad, saying Clinton "remains focused on being the best senator she can for New York."

By the way - Clinton "remains focused on being the best senator she can for New York." should have been followed by a laugh track

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 10:36 AM

Radar Chief

01-25-2006, 10:44 AM

You are both right, however sad that may be. A woman won't be elected President unless she is an Uncle Tom-style woman who kowtows to the interests of the white supremacist patriarchy and sets the women's movement back to the 1950's. A lot of Men won't vote for her because those men are afraid of women in power, it might expose them for what they really are--hollow shells.

:spock: Uh, women are the majority in this country.
Just FYI.

Donger

01-25-2006, 10:46 AM

You are both right, however sad that may be. A woman won't be elected President unless she is an Uncle Tom-style woman who kowtows to the interests of the white supremacist patriarchy and sets the women's movement back to the 1950's. A lot of Men won't vote for her because those men are afraid of women in power, it might expose them for what they really are--hollow shells.

I would have no problem voting for a female POTUS, and I'm sure that many conservatives wouldn't either.

Brock

01-25-2006, 10:48 AM

This is no surprise. Most people are aware she's a horrible human being.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 10:52 AM

:spock: Uh, women are the majority in this country.
Just FYI.

Considering that women earn 75 cents on the dollar to what men do and furthermore that over 95 percent of all executive jobs are held by men, I think that points out the clear truth---that the majority of power in this country is held by men, and not women. Anyone who would disagree with this is nothing other than a fool. Furthermore, although women outnumber men, men vote more than women, thus negating that numerical advantage. Nice attempt at skewing the statistics, but like most right-wing b.s. it just doesn't fly when held up to any form of honest analysis.

Brock

01-25-2006, 10:55 AM

Donger

01-25-2006, 10:57 AM

Considering that women earn 75 cents on the dollar to what men do and furthermore that over 95 percent of all executive jobs are held by men, I think that points out the clear truth---that the majority of power in this country is held by men, and not women.

That there's some really f*cked up thinking.

Are you suggesting that a woman's vote counts less than a man's?

Furthermore, although women outnumber men, men vote more than women

And whose fault is that?

Radar Chief

01-25-2006, 10:58 AM

Radar Chief

01-25-2006, 10:59 AM

Are you suggesting that a woman's vote counts less than a man's?

:thumb: Beat me to it.

Cochise

01-25-2006, 11:02 AM

A new recunt personality?

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 11:02 AM

I'm pointing out statistical inconsistencies. Regarding money, it makes plenty of sense, if you can follow the logic of my original post. None of us are naive enough to believe that money does not equal power in this political system--men hold the majority of wealth in this country, and thus the power. Considering that women can't even get a position as high as VP, I don't think that a woman will be POTUS unless she is able to coalesce the right wing base and in order to do that she will need to appeal to that base who believes that women's place is in the kitchen and making babies--not on truly equal footing with men.

Brock

01-25-2006, 11:03 AM

There are zero women head coaches in the NFL. It's a travesty.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 11:04 AM

:thumb: Beat me to it.

I'm pointing out institutional factors that make it impossible for women to vote in as great of numbers as men do.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 11:05 AM

There are zero women head coaches in the NFL. It's a travesty.

I guess that's more of a Sean Hannity style dodge than Rush Limbaugh. You should be proud of your ability to emulate the only man with a bigger chin than Bill Cowher.

Donger

01-25-2006, 11:06 AM

I'm pointing out institutional factors that make it impossible for women to vote in as great of numbers as men do.

Last time I checked, you need neither power nor money to become a registered voter.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 11:11 AM

Last time I checked, you need neither power nor money to become a registered voter.

That is incredibly naive.

Considering the fact that you need about half a billion dollars to run a campaign for POTUS, there is no way that you can't run w/o money and power...and that money and power trickles down to the voters who see endless political ads. A woman running for POTUS would stimulate so much negative pub simply b/c she is a woman (yes those institutional restraints still exist) that she will have no chance--the women are just as receptive to ads as men and given the influx of right wing money, it's just not realistic.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 11:12 AM

Last time I checked, you need neither power nor money to become a registered voter.

Perhaps you could explain why voter registration numbers decrease in correspondence with income?

Donger

01-25-2006, 11:18 AM

That is incredibly naive.

Considering the fact that you need about half a billion dollars to run a campaign for POTUS, there is no way that you can't run w/o money and power...and that money and power trickles down to the voters who see endless political ads. A woman running for POTUS would stimulate so much negative pub simply b/c she is a woman (yes those institutional restraints still exist) that she will have no chance--the women are just as receptive to ads as men and given the influx of right wing money, it's just not realistic.

Errr, we were discussing voting, not running for office.

Taco John

01-25-2006, 11:19 AM

I couldn't vote for her.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 11:19 AM

If you can't see the painfully obvious correlation, then I'm not going to waste my time spelling it out for you.

Donger

01-25-2006, 11:20 AM

Perhaps you could explain why voter registration numbers decrease in correspondence with income?

Because people with more money tend to be more engaged (and care = vote) than those that do not.

Again, neither power nor money is a requisite for registering to vote. Your argument is false.

You're a student, yes?

Donger

01-25-2006, 11:22 AM

If you can't see the painfully obvious correlation, then I'm not going to waste my time spelling it out for you.

That's because you're wrong. Poor people and women can vote just as much as rich folk. Unless you're suggesting that someone is forcing them not to, your argument is false.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 11:23 AM

Lay off guys. Hamass' gripe is with democracy more than anything.

Adept Havelock

01-25-2006, 11:31 AM

Lay off guys. Hamass' gripe is with democracy more than anything.

ROFL :clap:

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 11:33 AM

That's because you're wrong. Poor people and women can vote just as much as rich folk. Unless you're suggesting that someone is forcing them not to, your argument is false.

That's precisely what I'm suggesting. Do you think that a single mother raising children who has to work two jobs to put food on the table is going to have the time or the inclination to even think about voting the same way that some upper exec who works 15 hours a week does? It's a matter of needs, and those who are less off have more pressing needs than voting, and a large part of that is due to institutional power structures that keep minorities in the ghettos and underprivileged children undereducated.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 11:35 AM

Perhaps this will further illustrate my point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

Donger

01-25-2006, 11:40 AM

That's precisely what I'm suggesting. Do you think that a single mother raising children who has to work two jobs to put food on the table is going to have the time or the inclination to even think about voting the same way that some upper exec who works 15 hours a week does? It's a matter of needs, and those who are less off have more pressing needs than voting, and a large part of that is due to institutional power structures that keep minorities in the ghettos and underprivileged children undereducated.

Wow. A true class-warfare specialist.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 11:42 AM

Wow. A true class-warfare specialist.

I'm also a culture warfare specialist. I earned my stripes as a child of the Reagan 80's :)

Donger

01-25-2006, 11:42 AM

Perhaps this will further illustrate my point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

Yeah, I stated that above.

Again, these down-trodden people still have the right to vote just like the wealthy white guys do. They fact that they CHOOSE not to does not equal being FORCED not to.

Does that clear it up?

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 11:49 AM

Yeah, I stated that above.

Again, these down-trodden people still have the right to vote just like the wealthy white guys do. They fact that they CHOOSE not to does not equal being FORCED not to.

Does that clear it up?

I don't think it's an element of choice as much as it is the overwhelming socioeconomic factors that lead to their exhaustion and a feeling of hopelessness. If you were dirt poor and worked to the bone, how much faith would you have in gov't? If you can't afford cable, how informed of a voter are you going to be? If all you see around you are the downtrodden, then you have no reason to vote, because you have no belief that your circumstances will ever change. Psychologically, it becomes an exercise in futility.

Donger

01-25-2006, 11:52 AM

I don't think it's an element of choice as much as it is the overwhelming socioeconomic factors that lead to their exhaustion and a feeling of hopelessness. If you were dirt poor and worked to the bone, how much faith would you have in gov't? If you can't afford cable, how informed of a voter are you going to be? If all you see around you are the downtrodden, then you have no reason to vote, because you have no belief that your circumstances will ever change. Psychologically, it becomes an exercise in futility.

Again, they choose not to. That does not equal being forced not to.

Anyway, to get back to the skirts, the fact that Molly Housewife would rather watch Oprah than take the hour to go and vote is not "being forced" not to vote, either.

Taco John

01-25-2006, 11:55 AM

I don't think it's an element of choice as much as it is the overwhelming socioeconomic factors that lead to their exhaustion and a feeling of hopelessness. If you were dirt poor and worked to the bone, how much faith would you have in gov't? If you can't afford cable, how informed of a voter are you going to be? If all you see around you are the downtrodden, then you have no reason to vote, because you have no belief that your circumstances will ever change. Psychologically, it becomes an exercise in futility.

So? That's their CHOICE.

What are you proposing? Anything? Or just whining?

If people choose not to vote because they feel it's an excersize in futility, that's their right to do so. They should be given no sympathy for it though.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 11:57 AM

Again, they choose not to. That does not equal being forced not to.

Anyway, to get back to the skirts, the fact that Molly Housewife would rather watch Oprah than take the hour to go and vote is not "being forced" not to vote, either.

That may be labeled a choice in the verbage of "did you vote or not", but the issue demands a deeper investigation into the causes of why not.

I fundamentally disagree that she would rather watch Oprah. Rather I believe that she has been socially constructed to think that is her only role in society. Furthermore, those 'skirts' are the ones who vote in much higher numbers than do working class women, who don't because of the reasons that I've outlined above.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 11:57 AM

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 12:00 PM

So? That's their CHOICE.

What are you proposing? Anything? Or just whining?

If people choose not to vote because they feel it's an excersize in futility, that's their right to do so. They should be given no sympathy for it though.

That's not a choice. It's Pavlovian training. They have no faith in gov't b/c gov't has failed them. After a while a dog learns to salivate to a whistle just as the underprivileged learn that no matter who they vote for their circumstances rarely change.

Donger

01-25-2006, 12:04 PM

That's not a choice. It's Pavlovian training. They have no faith in gov't b/c gov't has failed them. After a while a dog learns to salivate to a whistle just as the underprivileged learn that no matter who they vote for their circumstances rarely change.

And there it is.

It amazes me how those who claim to be fighting for the downtrodden always seem to end up calling them f*cking mindless idiots.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 12:08 PM

And there it is.

It amazes me how those who claim to be fighting for the downtrodden always seem to end up calling them f*cking mindless idiots.

It's not that they are mindless idiots, it's that they have been their environmental factors have conditioned them with a great degree of hopelessness. You are a conditioned being yourself. The fact that you don't realize it only further underscores my point. You think that these people have choices because that's what you've been told to believe. You've been told it so much that you believe it to be the empirical truth, when in reality it is nothing other than propaganda initiated to placate feelings of remorse among both the right and left of the political spectrum. Your attempt to twist my words is futile and ineffective. If you can't follow a simple analogy, then there is no need to continue this debate.

Radar Chief

01-25-2006, 12:11 PM

I guess that's more of a Sean Hannity style dodge than Rush Limbaugh. You should be proud of your ability to emulate the only man with a bigger chin than Bill Cowher.

ROFL What I originally posted.

:spock: Uh, women are the majority in this country.
Just FYI.

You reply with a “dodge”.

Considering that women earn 75 cents on the dollar to what men do and furthermore that over 95 percent of all executive jobs are held by men, I think that points out the clear truth---that the majority of power in this country is held by men, and not women. Anyone who would disagree with this is nothing other than a fool. Furthermore, although women outnumber men, men vote more than women, thus negating that numerical advantage. Nice attempt at skewing the statistics, but like most right-wing b.s. it just doesn't fly when held up to any form of honest analysis.

I ask again.

What does any of this have to do with voting?

You reply with more spin, squiggle, “dodge”.

I'm pointing out statistical inconsistencies. Regarding money, it makes plenty of sense, if you can follow the logic of my original post. None of us are naive enough to believe that money does not equal power in this political system--men hold the majority of wealth in this country, and thus the power. Considering that women can't even get a position as high as VP, I don't think that a woman will be POTUS unless she is able to coalesce the right wing base and in order to do that she will need to appeal to that base who believes that women's place is in the kitchen and making babies--not on truly equal footing with men.

None of which addresses the FACT that women are the majority in this country.
But don’t let the FACTS get in the way of your blind partisan stupidity.

Donger

01-25-2006, 12:13 PM

It's not that they are mindless idiots, it's that they have been their environmental factors have conditioned them with a great degree of hopelessness. You are a conditioned being yourself. The fact that you don't realize it only further underscores my point. You think that these people have choices because that's what you've been told to believe. You've been told it so much that you believe it to be the empirical truth, when in reality it is nothing other than propaganda initiated to placate feelings of remorse among both the right and left of the political spectrum. Your attempt to twist my words is futile and ineffective. If you can't follow a simple analogy, then there is no need to continue this debate.

Okay, for the last time...

Yes, I acknowledge that poorer/downtrodden people are less likely to vote.

There are not, however, forced not to. They choose not to.

Cochise

01-25-2006, 12:15 PM

Gee... I wonder who this newcomer could be :spock:

Brock

01-25-2006, 12:24 PM

I'll bet it was a native american a couple of months ago.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 12:40 PM

That's not a choice. It's Pavlovian training. They have no faith in gov't b/c gov't has failed them. After a while a dog learns to salivate to a whistle just as the underprivileged learn that no matter who they vote for their circumstances rarely change.
You know what, I'm a fat f@ck. Doesn't mean that the vast panoply of exercise machines, trails, running paths, health foods, etc. have been denied me. Just means I haven't got off my fat azz and made use of them.
I have nothing to say to the American who is eligible but doesn't vote. You had your say, and you said nothing. boo-fugging-hoo.

Chief Henry

01-25-2006, 12:47 PM

Chief Faithful

01-25-2006, 12:56 PM

You are both right, however sad that may be. A woman won't be elected President unless she is an Uncle Tom-style woman who kowtows to the interests of the white supremacist patriarchy and sets the women's movement back to the 1950's. A lot of Men won't vote for her because those men are afraid of women in power, it might expose them for what they really are--hollow shells.

So how does this make Hillary the right choice for President? You got anymore idioms or racist comments you can insult our intelligence with?

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 12:56 PM

You are both right, however sad that may be. A woman won't be elected President unless she is an Uncle Tom-style woman who kowtows to the interests of the white supremacist patriarchy and sets the women's movement back to the 1950's. A lot of Men won't vote for her because those men are afraid of women in power, it might expose them for what they really are--hollow shells.
Rough translation, NO ONE will be elected president unless he or she presents a platform that convinces a majority of the participating electoral to vote for him or her.

Sorry for the accent. I haven't taken 'class warrior' lessons since HS.

patteeu

01-25-2006, 02:16 PM

if you can follow the logic of my original post

I'm not embarassed to admit that I couldn't.

patteeu

01-25-2006, 02:24 PM

It's not that they are mindless idiots, it's that they have been their environmental factors have conditioned them with a great degree of hopelessness. You are a conditioned being yourself. The fact that you don't realize it only further underscores my point. You think that these people have choices because that's what you've been told to believe. You've been told it so much that you believe it to be the empirical truth, when in reality it is nothing other than propaganda initiated to placate feelings of remorse among both the right and left of the political spectrum. Your attempt to twist my words is futile and ineffective. If you can't follow a simple analogy, then there is no need to continue this debate.

Come on guys, 'Hamas' Jenkins has broken free of the Matrix and he's just trying to help us get out too.

Adept Havelock

01-25-2006, 03:01 PM

Come on guys, 'Hamas' Jenkins has broken free of the Matrix and he's just trying to help us get out too.
ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 04:24 PM

Spoken like a true RACIST PiG......... :(

Do you even know what an uncle tom is? It's a person who goes against their race or people in order to stay in the good graces of another race or people that is exercising power on them. Read a book, for God's sake.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 04:36 PM

ROFL What I originally posted.

You reply with a “dodge”.

Men hold the power of wealth in this country which controls the electorate. Women have higher rates of poverty and illiteracy, both of which make them less likely to vote. If you aren't educated on the importance of voting, and if you are downtrodden, why are you supposed to care?

I ask again.

You reply with more spin, squiggle, “dodge”.

You obviously understand nothing about the electoral process. Winning elections takes money, which requires fundraising. Female candidates are less likely to generate funds, and thus less likely to win. The fact that there are more women in the US points out nothing other than a number...it says nothing about voter tendencies, which point out that men have many institutional advantages that lead them to higher rates of voting than women. Moreover, urban 'women are substantially less likely to be targets of get out the vote drives. Additionally, many of them work long hours, often double shifts or lack available transportation, making it difficult and impractical for them to go to their voting precinct. An additional problem is that many lack proper identification or move often, which creates an even greater hassle in regard to voter registration.

None of which addresses the FACT that women are the majority in this country.
But don’t let the FACTS get in the way of your blind partisan stupidity.

You also completely disregard the fact that more men than women in this country vote. You cannot be simplistic enough to think that census figures equal voter demographics. It's a lot more complicated than that. Furthermore, the women in this country least likely to vote are unwed poor mothers, who also happen to be a group most stepped on by society. If you put up 200 feet of razor wire around Johnson County polls, those rich bastards wouldn't be nearly as likely to vote. But because the contstraints on these voters are psychological, economic, and social, you choose to overlook them and marginalize their problems rather than look at endemic flaws in the system. That's an arrogant, egocentric view.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 04:37 PM

I typed within your quote to address each section, but here is it delineated for your pleasure:

Men hold the power of wealth in this country which controls the electorate. Women have higher rates of poverty and illiteracy, both of which make them less likely to vote. If you aren't educated on the importance of voting, and if you are downtrodden, why are you supposed to care?

You obviously understand nothing about the electoral process. Winning elections takes money, which requires fundraising. Female candidates are less likely to generate funds, and thus less likely to win. The fact that there are more women in the US points out nothing other than a number...it says nothing about voter tendencies, which point out that men have many institutional advantages that lead them to higher rates of voting than women. Moreover, urban 'women are substantially less likely to be targets of get out the vote drives. Additionally, many of them work long hours, often double shifts or lack available transportation, making it difficult and impractical for them to go to their voting precinct. An additional problem is that many lack proper identification or move often, which creates an even greater hassle in regard to voter registration.

Donger

01-25-2006, 04:41 PM

You also completely disregard the fact that more men than women in this country vote. You cannot be simplistic enough to think that census figures equal voter demographics. It's a lot more complicated than that. Furthermore, the women in this country least likely to vote are unwed poor mothers, who also happen to be a group most stepped on by society. If you put up 200 feet of razor wire around Johnson County polls, those rich bastards wouldn't be nearly as likely to vote. But because the contstraints on these voters are psychological, economic, and social, you choose to overlook them and marginalize their problems rather than look at endemic flaws in the system. That's an arrogant, egocentric view.

The world needs ditch-diggers, too.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 04:42 PM

The world needs ditch-diggers, too.

That's pathetic. I would have figured as much from a group who only musters a defense once I leave for class.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 04:45 PM

Spoken like a true RACIST PiG......... :(

Since you obviously don't know the definition, here it is for Uncle Tom:

It is used to denote African Americans whose political views or allegiances are labeled by critics as detrimental to black Americans as a group. This term has been used by some African-Americans to malign black Republicans and appointees, due to their participation in a Republican administration, although it has also been used to describe Democratic African-American politicians accused of ignoring the African-American community.

If you are going to accuse somebody of racism, you might want to start with those who are making racist statements as opposed to those who support egalitarian values and belief systems.

Donger

01-25-2006, 04:47 PM

That's pathetic. I would have figured as much from a group who only musters a defense once I leave for class.

It was a joke, Skippy. Lighten up.

What would you like to see done in order to help these downtrodden people?

BTW, you're a teacher or a student? If a teacher, what subject?

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 04:55 PM

I'm sorry if I got a little heated, it's a passionate subject for me.

I would like to see genuine social reform. We need to reinvest in the infrastructure of the cities. I realize that means going into large amounts of debt, but I think at least some of that could be ameliorated by reducing/eliminating the tax cuts (I know, I know).

It would be nice if we could institute systems that paid teachers in inner city districts more money in order entice them there--so that the kids had a fighting chance.

I'm a teacher and a student. I teach English Composition.

Donger

01-25-2006, 05:02 PM

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:04 PM

You know what, I'm a fat f@ck. Doesn't mean that the vast panoply of exercise machines, trails, running paths, health foods, etc. have been denied me. Just means I haven't got off my fat azz and made use of them.
I have nothing to say to the American who is eligible but doesn't vote. You had your say, and you said nothing. boo-fugging-hoo.

I was at class--committments sometimes get in the way of political diatribes.

You know what, you may be a fat f*ck, but have you ever stopped to think that the US has the highest rate of obesity among all industrialized nations? Why do you think that is? Lifestyle and corresponding convenience of terrible foods, combined with genetics. You may eat shitty food and yes it is shitty, but when it's so damned easy to eat a cheeseburger rather than eat baked chicken, you're going to choose the cheeseburger. Your choice isn't as apparent as you may think. You're used to being unhealthy, it's easier to be fat, and after a while you just accept the fact that you are fat, just like these downtrodden people accept the fact that their lot in life will never change.

Donger

01-25-2006, 05:12 PM

I was at class--committments sometimes get in the way of political diatribes.

You know what, you may be a fat f*ck, but have you ever stopped to think that the US has the highest rate of obesity among all industrialized nations? Why do you think that is? Lifestyle and corresponding convenience of terrible foods, combined with genetics. You may eat shitty food and yes it is shitty, but when it's so damned easy to eat a cheeseburger rather than eat baked chicken, you're going to choose the cheeseburger. Your choice isn't as apparent as you may think. You're used to being unhealthy, it's easier to be fat, and after a while you just accept the fact that you are fat, just like these downtrodden people accept the fact that their lot in life will never change.

Conversely, as long as we're making generalizations, couldn't one also say that perhaps 'the downtrodden' remain that way because they're lazy or not willing to work hard in order to free themselves from the bottom?

Chief Henry

01-25-2006, 05:15 PM

Since you obviously don't know the definition, here it is for Uncle Tom:

It is used to denote African Americans whose political views or allegiances are labeled by critics as detrimental to black Americans as a group. This term has been used by some African-Americans to malign black Republicans and appointees, due to their participation in a Republican administration, although it has also been used to describe Democratic African-American politicians accused of ignoring the African-American community.

If you are going to accuse somebody of racism, you might want to start with those who are making racist statements as opposed to those who support egalitarian values and belief systems.

Are you saying this about Condy Rice? Are you suggesting
Condy Rice is an Uncle Tom? WHy don't use just use the name of Rice
as an Uncle Tom, instead of "beating around the bush"...

Its too bad your ashamed of Condy Rice. She's a self made woman
and your using racist terms like Uncle TOm in discribing her. Thats
BRILLIANT :rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:16 PM

Conversely, as long as we're making generalizations, couldn't one also say that perhaps 'the downtrodden' remain that way because they're lazy or not willing to work hard in order to free themselves from the bottom?

That's not one I'm willing to make. I may be painting in broad strokes, but I'm only pointing out causes for particular behaviors--namely indoctrination and convenience. In no way am I going to make your above statement--leave that to Ann Coulter.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:21 PM

Are you saying this about Condy Rice? Are you suggesting
Condy Rice is an Uncle Tom? WHy don't use just use the name of Rice
as an Uncle Tom, instead of "beating around the bush"...

Its too bad your ashamed of Condy Rice. She's a self made woman
and your using racist terms like Uncle TOm in discribing her. Thats
BRILLIANT :rolleyes:

Actually, Condy Rice would be considered an Aunt Jemima, and yes I think those terms are applicable to her. Given the fact that she supports an administration that has such a deplorable record with minorities and the underprivileged, she should be taken to task for her political alliances, especially when the goals of her political allies are far out of step with those of her African American brethren.

Once again, there is a difference between a pejorative term, and a racist term. Uncle Tom may be pejorative, but it is in no way racist. It points out the very people who kowtow TO RACISTS. You could not be more incorrect.

Donger

01-25-2006, 05:21 PM

That's not one I'm willing to make. I may be painting in broad strokes, but I'm only pointing out causes for particular behaviors--namely indoctrination and convenience. In no way am I going to make your above statement--leave that to Ann Coulter.

You subsribe to social egalitarianism, I take it?

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:22 PM

You subsribe to social egalitarianism, I take it?

I just posted that elsewhere on this board. You are correct.

Donger

01-25-2006, 05:23 PM

especially when the goals of her political allies are far out of step with those of her African American brethren.

Let me get this straight: black folks should only work for goals/administrations/whatever that help their African-American brethren? But, it's not okay for white folk to do the same?

Donger

01-25-2006, 05:24 PM

I just posted that elsewhere on this board. You are correct.

You're relatively young, yes? Early 20s tops?

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:26 PM

Let me get this straight: black folks should only work for goals/administrations/whatever that help their African-American brethren? But, it's not okay for white folk to do the same?

I think that black and white people are in fundamentally different positions within this society. Condi Rice should focus on helping the Black community out, rather than herself. Whites should also focus on helping out the black community, and to abandon that responsibility is also reprehensible. But Rice instead serves the interests of the dominant white male entreprenuer and thus spits on the very people she shares the closest bond with.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:27 PM

You're relatively young, yes? Early 20s tops?

23, yet uncorrupted by the 'real world' the conservatives speak so derisively about.

Donger

01-25-2006, 05:32 PM

I think that black and white people are in fundamentally different positions within this society. Condi Rice should focus on helping the Black community out, rather than herself. Whites should also focus on helping out the black community, and to abandon that responsibility is also reprehensible. But Rice instead serves the interests of the dominant white male entreprenuer and thus spits on the very people she shares the closest bond with.

Maybe Condi considers her closest bonds to be based not in the color of her skin, but her political ideology. Somewhat presumptuous and skin-pigment-centric of you to assume otherwise.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 05:32 PM

Actually, Condy Rice would be considered an Aunt Jemima, and yes I think those terms are applicable to her. Given the fact that she supports an administration that has such a deplorable record with minorities and the underprivileged, she should be taken to task for her political alliances, especially when the goals of her political allies are far out of step with those of her African American brethren.

Once again, there is a difference between a pejorative term, and a racist term. Uncle Tom may be pejorative, but it is in no way racist. It points out the very people who kowtow TO RACISTS. You could not be more incorrect.
The belief that black people should act from a set of black principles, and white act from a set of white principles, indeed that those principles universally exist, IS racist.

Donger

01-25-2006, 05:33 PM

23, yet uncorrupted by the 'real world' the conservatives speak so derisively about.

Actually, I'd say that you've been corrupted by it rather decisively. But, I could be wrong.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 05:34 PM

I was at class--committments sometimes get in the way of political diatribes.

You know what, you may be a fat f*ck, but have you ever stopped to think that the US has the highest rate of obesity among all industrialized nations? Why do you think that is? Lifestyle and corresponding convenience of terrible foods, combined with genetics. You may eat shitty food and yes it is shitty, but when it's so damned easy to eat a cheeseburger rather than eat baked chicken, you're going to choose the cheeseburger. Your choice isn't as apparent as you may think. You're used to being unhealthy, it's easier to be fat, and after a while you just accept the fact that you are fat, just like these downtrodden people accept the fact that their lot in life will never change.
We get it, you discount all notions of personal autonomy and resonsibility, opting instead for a heuristic of individuals powerless against any forces acting upon them.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:34 PM

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:37 PM

We get it, you discount all notions of personal autonomy and resonsibility, opting instead for a heuristic of individuals powerless against any forces acting upon them.

That is a gross oversimplification of my statement. I am willing to consider extraneous factors before jumping to unnecessary conclusions unlike you, Baby Lee. All civilized people have certain responsibilities, but along with responsibilities are many institutional apparatuses that cause many choices to not in fact be choices but rather the path of least resistance.

Donger

01-25-2006, 05:40 PM

From Wikipedia

Rice was eight when her schoolmate Denise McNair was killed in the bombing of the primarily African-American Sixteenth Street Baptist Church by white supremacists on September 15, 1963. Rice states that growing up during racial segregation taught her determination against adversity, and the need to be "twice as good" as non-minorities

It doesn't sound like she values political philosophies over the color of her skin--it just seems that she forgot about these values once she got in the catbird seat. Nice try.

Nonsense. She perseverved in the face of adversity.

Here's the rest:

She said the Democratic Party's speeches to ''women, minorities, and the poor'' really meant ''helpless people and the poor.'' In a profile in The Washington Post, Rice said, ''I decided I'd rather be ignored than patronized.''

The national security adviser to President Bush was asked if she thinks the Democratic Party still patronizes ''women, minorities, and the poor.'' Laughing, she declined to answer the specific question last week before the Trotter Group, an organization of African-American columnists. But her answer was as riveting as if she had actually gone on to trash the Democrats.

''The fact of the matter is, race matters in America,'' Rice said. ''It has, it always has ... It is not that I mind being associated with the group. I am African-American and proud of it. I wouldn't have it any other way. And it has shaped who I am and it will continue to shape who I am.

''I do not believe it has limited who I am or what I can become. And that's because I had parents who, while telling me what it meant to be African-American and exposing me to that, also allowed me to develop as an individual to be who I wanted to be.''

Rice said the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham that killed four girls, including friend Denise McNair, shaped her views on the war on terrorism. ''If you've been through home-grown terrorism,'' Rice said, ''you recognize there isn't any cause that can be served by it ... Because what it's meant to do is end the conversation.''

In profiles, Rice talks about being hollered at as a child by a white store clerk for touching a hat. Rice's mother told the clerk ''Don't you talk to my daughter that way!'' Her mother then said, ''Now, Condoleezza, you go and touch every hat in this store.''

That reminded me of around 1965 when I was about 10. I bought comic books and ice cream in a drug store in DeKalb, Miss. Later, my grandfather informed me that was the ''white folks'' drug store. He could have berated me for breaking white folks' rules. Instead, he smiled and said, ''Good.''

For me, not accepting racial barriers would mean going on to little things like being on the first integrated child championship bowling team at a particular alley in Milwaukee, then bigger things like sportswriting when there were few African-Americans covering pro teams for major newspapers.

For Rice, it meant parents who ''didn't say to me, 'You know, it's really weird for a black girl from Birmingham, Ala., to want to be a Soviet specialist.''' Rice said that she liked Motown, the blues, and funk music like most of her friends, but her parents drove her to learn Brahms. Rice has often said bluntly that she had to master the white world better than a whole lot of white people to succeed.

''Sometimes when we say to our kids, 'You are a minority,' we don't say it in a way that says it is part of who you are, we say it as if it's an impediment that cannot be overcome by hard work and access to education and all of those things,'' Rice said. ''And I just think the messages are wrong when there is only focus on what group you happen to belong to, rather than the group is part of who you are, but also, who you are is who you are as an individual.

''We don't talk about it very much, but, yes ... it is a very good thing for the rest of the world that when Colin Powell and I walk in with the president of the United States, we are there as secretary of state and national security adviser, because I think it says to people that there aren't boundaries in which black Americans are not supposed to play ... I think it's an extremely important message to our kids. That's why I talk so much about the individual. It's not to deny the group, but I really think it's important that we appeal to each individual's worth and capability.''

Such reflections do not make Rice's political views and America's global arrogance any more appealing to me. But those who dismiss her as a hotheaded cold war queen miss a chance to dwell on her focus and drive. Unlike many black conservatives who shout louder than white ''color-blind'' conservatives that race no longer matters, Rice has no problem saying race matters, and since it is so, black folks had better work to get the most out of their individual talents.

In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, ''It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.''' One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:40 PM

The belief that black people should act from a set of black principles, and white act from a set of white principles, indeed that those principles universally exist, IS racist.

Considering that Black people attend college at lower rates, earn less money, have higher rates of imprisonment, violent crime, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and many other maladies, I think that points out precisely WHY they should be concerned with their principles as a group, and why whites should also invest in the future of African Americans. Never did I once say whites should act from white principles, that is a blatant lie.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 05:41 PM

That is a gross oversimplification of my statement. I am willing to consider extraneous factors before jumping to unnecessary conclusions unlike you, Baby Lee. All civilized people have certain responsibilities, but along with responsibilities are many institutional apparatuses that cause many choices to not in fact be choices but rather the path of least resistance.
And while you excuse taking the path of least resistance as reasonable in light of the 'apparatus.' I call it weakness.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:44 PM

Nonsense. She perseverved in the face of adversity.

Here's the rest:

She said the Democratic Party's speeches to ''women, minorities, and the poor'' really meant ''helpless people and the poor.'' In a profile in The Washington Post, Rice said, ''I decided I'd rather be ignored than patronized.''

The national security adviser to President Bush was asked if she thinks the Democratic Party still patronizes ''women, minorities, and the poor.'' Laughing, she declined to answer the specific question last week before the Trotter Group, an organization of African-American columnists. But her answer was as riveting as if she had actually gone on to trash the Democrats.

''The fact of the matter is, race matters in America,'' Rice said. ''It has, it always has ... It is not that I mind being associated with the group. I am African-American and proud of it. I wouldn't have it any other way. And it has shaped who I am and it will continue to shape who I am.

''I do not believe it has limited who I am or what I can become. And that's because I had parents who, while telling me what it meant to be African-American and exposing me to that, also allowed me to develop as an individual to be who I wanted to be.''

Rice said the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham that killed four girls, including friend Denise McNair, shaped her views on the war on terrorism. ''If you've been through home-grown terrorism,'' Rice said, ''you recognize there isn't any cause that can be served by it ... Because what it's meant to do is end the conversation.''

In profiles, Rice talks about being hollered at as a child by a white store clerk for touching a hat. Rice's mother told the clerk ''Don't you talk to my daughter that way!'' Her mother then said, ''Now, Condoleezza, you go and touch every hat in this store.''

That reminded me of around 1965 when I was about 10. I bought comic books and ice cream in a drug store in DeKalb, Miss. Later, my grandfather informed me that was the ''white folks'' drug store. He could have berated me for breaking white folks' rules. Instead, he smiled and said, ''Good.''

For me, not accepting racial barriers would mean going on to little things like being on the first integrated child championship bowling team at a particular alley in Milwaukee, then bigger things like sportswriting when there were few African-Americans covering pro teams for major newspapers.

For Rice, it meant parents who ''didn't say to me, 'You know, it's really weird for a black girl from Birmingham, Ala., to want to be a Soviet specialist.''' Rice said that she liked Motown, the blues, and funk music like most of her friends, but her parents drove her to learn Brahms. Rice has often said bluntly that she had to master the white world better than a whole lot of white people to succeed.

''Sometimes when we say to our kids, 'You are a minority,' we don't say it in a way that says it is part of who you are, we say it as if it's an impediment that cannot be overcome by hard work and access to education and all of those things,'' Rice said. ''And I just think the messages are wrong when there is only focus on what group you happen to belong to, rather than the group is part of who you are, but also, who you are is who you are as an individual.

''We don't talk about it very much, but, yes ... it is a very good thing for the rest of the world that when Colin Powell and I walk in with the president of the United States, we are there as secretary of state and national security adviser, because I think it says to people that there aren't boundaries in which black Americans are not supposed to play ... I think it's an extremely important message to our kids. That's why I talk so much about the individual. It's not to deny the group, but I really think it's important that we appeal to each individual's worth and capability.''

Such reflections do not make Rice's political views and America's global arrogance any more appealing to me. But those who dismiss her as a hotheaded cold war queen miss a chance to dwell on her focus and drive. Unlike many black conservatives who shout louder than white ''color-blind'' conservatives that race no longer matters, Rice has no problem saying race matters, and since it is so, black folks had better work to get the most out of their individual talents.

In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, ''It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.''' One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

And what lessons did she learn from this? Look out for you and you only it would seem. You would think that someone exposed to so much racism would have a stronger grasp on how hard it is to succeed. Most people are not blessed with her intelligence and interpersonal skills, it doesn't come that easy for them. This is something she obviously completely overlooked. She sure as hell doesn't seem to care much about holding hands with people on Stone Mountain, but rather raking in her tax break.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 05:44 PM

Considering that Black people attend college at lower rates, earn less money, have higher rates of imprisonment, violent crime, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and many other maladies, I think that points out precisely WHY they should be concerned with their principles as a group, and why whites should also invest in the future of African Americans. Never did I once say whites should act from white principles, that is a blatant lie.
Almost as big as the lie that I alleged that you said that they SHOULD.

The point is simple. You posit that black skin tone should dictate thought processes, beliefs and actions. It's a racist view.

It's OK, I ain't mad atcha. There's time to learn.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:46 PM

And while you excuse taking the path of least resistance as reasonable in light of the 'apparatus.' I call it weakness.

Which when translated means that those who don't vote and don't earn money are weak and lazy by nature. You think that it's in the human nature to fight--and that is fools logic. It's in human nature to conform.

That's Social Darwinism if I've ever seen it. Go join a Nazi rally.

Donger

01-25-2006, 05:47 PM

Most people are not blessed with her intelligence and interpersonal skills.

And maybe, given those facts, they don't deserve to reach the levels of success that she has?

I know its icky for idealists to acknowledge, but people are NOT equal.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:48 PM

Almost as big as the lie that I alleged that you said that they SHOULD.

The point is simple. You posit that black skin tone should dictate thought processes, beliefs and actions. It's a racist view.

It's OK, I ain't mad atcha. There's time to learn.

I posit that if one is part of an oppressed group, then they should band together with that group in order to find a common good. Calling that racist is analagous to calling the War on Terror genocide because we banded together to fight a common foe.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 05:50 PM

Which when translated means that those who don't vote and don't earn money are weak and lazy by nature. You think that it's in the human nature to fight--and that is fools logic. It's in human nature to conform.

That's Social Darwinism if I've ever seen it. Go join a Nazi rally.
F-UCK YOU!!!
It appears that you've given up on any pretense of reasoned discussion, and have leapt into the loving arms of ad hominem attacks. So feel free to take it elsewhere. Asshole.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:50 PM

And maybe, given those facts, they don't deserve to reach the levels of success that she has?

I know its icky for idealists to acknowledge, but people are NOT equal.

I agree that people are not equal, but they should be given equal opportunities to succeed. Despite many of the hardships she faced, Ms. Rice had many opportunities that many girls her age, including that unfortunate bombing victim, never did. But whenever she reached her inscrutable level of power she did nothing to help those who suffered along side her as a child. I see that as heartless.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 05:52 PM

I posit that if one is part of an oppressed group, then they should band together with that group in order to find a common good. Calling that racist is analagous to calling the War on Terror genocide because we banded together to fight a common foe.
And I'm sure you are certified dissent-free on the issue of Bush's GWOT.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:52 PM

F-UCK YOU!!!
It appears that you've given up on any pretense of reasoned discussion, and have leapt into the loving arms of ad hominem attacks. So feel free to take it elsewhere. Asshole.

You obviously have no reproach for my comments, so it is you in fact who resorted to ad hominem attacks. I am merely calling it as I see it, and when you make a clear analogy stating that a certain group is downtrodden because they are fundamentally weak, then I see nothing other than the espousal of Social Darwinism. If you have a problem with that, look in the mirror or think about some introspection into your own ideology.

Donger

01-25-2006, 05:52 PM

I agree that people are not equal, but they should be given equal opportunities to succeed. Despite many of the hardships she faced, Ms. Rice had many opportunities that many girls her age, including that unfortunate bombing victim, never did. But whenever she reached her inscrutable level of power she did nothing to help those who suffered along side her as a child. I see that as heartless.

Stupid people won't succeed, regardless of their race. She had opportunities because she's very bright, had good parents and was driven.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:54 PM

Stupid people won't succeed, regardless of their race. She had opportunities because she's very bright, had good parents and was driven.

I agree with your statement in and of itself, but there are many bright driven people that get chewed up by urban life.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 05:57 PM

And I'm sure you are certified dissent-free on the issue of Bush's GWOT.

You are obviously itching for a fight because you feel embarrassed by the inherent racism in your logic. I'm not going to stoop to your level, but I will simply say that I think it is difficult to eliminate a global, disparate phenomenon such as terrorism with widespread military intervention. I see it as more like a law enforcement problem, and thus requires the flexibility of well funded local and international police agencies working together in order to unearth many of these cells. It's hard for an army to find 5 people who could be anywhere in the world, but numerous cops networking skills can do so.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 05:57 PM

You obviously have no reproach for my comments, so it is you in fact who resorted to ad hominem attacks. I am merely calling it as I see it, and when you make a clear analogy stating that a certain group is downtrodden because they are fundamentally weak, then I see nothing other than the espousal of Social Darwinism. If you have a problem with that, look in the mirror or think about some introspection into your own ideology.
1. I made no ad hominem attacks.
2. I never said any group was fundamentally weak. I said that THE ACT of choosing the path of least resistence is weak.

We've a a system of equality of opportunity. You have observed that system in action and noted that people don't take equal advantage. Your solution is to scrap equal opportunity and skew opportunity to the people who fail to exercise their opportunities in the first place. I disagree.

Donger

01-25-2006, 05:59 PM

We've a a system of equality of opportunity. You have observed that system in action and noted that people don't take equal advantage. Your solution is to scrap equal opportunity and skew opportunity to the people who fail to exercise their opportunities in the first place. I disagree.

Silence the NAZI, please.

chiefs4me

01-25-2006, 06:00 PM

You're relatively young, yes? Early 20s tops?

they don't even notice the web you spin....:shake:

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 06:00 PM

You are obviously itching for a fight because you feel embarrassed by the inherent racism in your logic. I'm not going to stoop to your level, but I will simply say that I think it is difficult to eliminate a global, disparate phenomenon such as terrorism with widespread military intervention. I see it as more like a law enforcement problem, and thus requires the flexibility of well funded local and international police agencies working together in order to unearth many of these cells. It's hard for an army to find 5 people who could be anywhere in the world, but numerous cops networking skills can do so.
So you have a different view from Bush on what would be an effective war on terror.
Perhaps Ms. Rice has nothing more than a different view on how the citizenry optimize their civic existence.

And, as has been clearly demonstrated here. The views you have espouse possess the inherent racism. Just leveling the accusation at me doesn't it make it so.

Donger

01-25-2006, 06:01 PM

I agree with your statement in and of itself, but there are many bright driven people that get chewed up by urban life.

Those that get chewed up by by choosing to live it? I've no sympathy.

Those that get caught in the crossfire while attempting to escape? Complete sympathy.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 06:01 PM

1. I made no ad hominem attacks.
2. I never said any group was fundamentally weak. I said that THE ACT of choosing the path of least resistence is weak.

We've a a system of equality of opportunity. You have observed that system in action and noted that people don't take equal advantage. Your solution is to scrap equal opportunity and skew opportunity to the people who fail to exercise their opportunities in the first place. I disagree.

So calling me an asshole and saying f*ck you in 48 point font was not an ad hominem attack.

I guess I know how much credence to place in your word now.

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that our system as currently implemented is an equal opportunity system. Rather I see it as one that promotes a white capitalist patriarchy, and if it didn't then why do nearly all people of power in this country share those three common features?

The myth of equal opportunity is a lie spread by the right and left wings in order to placate their base against the injustices inherent in their ideologies.

Donger

01-25-2006, 06:01 PM

they don't even notice the web you spin....:shake:

What?

Donger

01-25-2006, 06:03 PM

So calling me an asshole and saying f*ck you in 48 point font was not an ad hominem attack.

I guess I know how much credence to place in your word now.

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that our system as currently implemented is an equal opportunity system. Rather I see it as one that promotes a white capitalist patriarchy, and if it didn't then why do nearly all people of power in this country share those three common features?

The myth of equal opportunity is a lie spread by the right and left wings in order to placate their base against the injustices inherent in their ideologies.

Well now, perhaps you shouldn't have implied that BL, one of our more level-headed posters, a NAZI.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 06:04 PM

So you have a different view from Bush on what would be an effective war on terror.
Perhaps Ms. Rice has nothing more than a different view on how the citizenry optimize their civic existence.

And, as has been clearly demonstrated here. The views you have espouse possess the inherent racism. Just leveling the accusation at me doesn't it make it so.

The only problem with the logic in your statement is that I see Bush's tacit view and Rice's (completely hypothetical) view as being utterly incorrect. Explain to me how Rice can move from a stance of such brazen awareness of the importance of her race and the difficulties to thrive as a member of it to joining a political apparatus that shits on the very people she grew up with?

Donger

01-25-2006, 06:04 PM

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that our system as currently implemented is an equal opportunity system. Rather I see it as one that promotes a white capitalist patriarchy, and if it didn't then why do nearly all people of power in this country share those three common features?

Why do you think that the vast majority of NFL players are black?

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 06:05 PM

So calling me an asshole and saying f*ck you in 48 point font was not an ad hominem attack.
I countered your 'arguments' with reason. I expressed my disdain for your personality with epithets.
Those are epithets, not ad hominem attacks, and you earned them.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 06:05 PM

Well now, perhaps you shouldn't have implied that BL, one of our more level-headed posters, a NAZI.

When one makes statements that claim a particular group fails because of weaknesses inherent within its constitution, that is a Darwinist statement and is no different than the rhetoric of Hitler or the Klan.

Donger

01-25-2006, 06:08 PM

When one makes statements that claim a particular group fails because of weaknesses inherent within its constitution, that is a Darwinist statement and is no different than the rhetoric of Hitler or the Klan.

I'd be willing to bet that BL feels that taking the path of least resistance is a weakness regardless of which race is doing it.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 06:08 PM

When one makes statements that claim a particular group fails because of weaknesses inherent within its constitution, that is a Darwinist statement and is no different than the rhetoric of Hitler or the Klan.
What is wrong with you. Are you so shaky in your positions that you are completely compelled to misrepresent mine just to have something 'productive' to say.

That's twice now. RETRACT!!

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 06:10 PM

Why do you think that the vast majority of NFL players are black?

There is an absolute difference between athletic ability and academic/professional service potential. People will seek out great athletes, and great scholars regardless of where they come from---you are arguing extremes to try and prove a point--hat doesn't work. If you have two people of equal athletic ability and one is given access to excellent coaching, strength and conditioning, mental preparedness, etc. then that person will have a much greater chance at success than the person who uses broken down equipment, runs with shitty shoes, and never gets a physical.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 06:11 PM

I'd be willing to bet that BL feels that taking the path of least resistance is a weakness regardless of which race is doing it.
And I was remarking on the ACT of taking the path of least resistence, not which particular demographic does so.
But Hamass is so lost at this point that he can only battle the imagined bogeymen he's created, not the actual participants in this thread.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 06:12 PM

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 06:13 PM

I countered your 'arguments' with reason. I expressed my disdain for your personality with epithets.
Those are epithets, not ad hominem attacks, and you earned them.

Ad hominem is latin for to the man, attacks to a person. f*ck you is an imperative command telling me to go f*ck myself. That is, it is an attack towards my person, the very definition of ad hominem. You should brush up on your argumentation skills before you tell me what is what, it's obvious that you are unaware of the subject which you speak of.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 06:18 PM

And I was remarking on the ACT of taking the path of least resistence, not which particular demographic does so.
But Hamass is so lost at this point that he can only battle the imagined bogeymen he's created, not the actual participants in this thread.

I think that the discourse within this thread speaks for itself. You accuse me of making racist statements when it is you yourself who are the one espousing an ideology of Social Darwinism and thinly veiled racial hatred. We have a complete disagreement with basic implementations of public policy, but rather than keep a cool head about it you resort to childish attacks followed quickly by baseless accusations and lies to cover up the weakness of your statements. I'm sorry that you have so much hatred that you have to take it out on people on an internet message board. Hopefully you find some solace somewhere.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 06:19 PM

Ad hominem is latin for to the man, attacks to a person. f*ck you is an imperative command telling me to go f*ck myself. That is, it is an attack towards my person, the very definition of ad hominem. You should brush up on your argumentation skills before you tell me what is what, it's obvious that you are unaware of the subject which you speak of.
An ad hominem attack refers to trying to discount someone's ARGUMENTS by reference to proposed personal shortcomings irrelevant to the merits. I invited you to engage in ononism based on your posting style. I countered your arguments on the merits.
You OTOH, attempted to discount my ARGUMENTS by calling me a Nazi.

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 06:21 PM

I think that the discourse within this thread speaks for itself. You accuse me of making racist statements when it is you yourself who are the one espousing an ideology of Social Darwinism and thinly veiled racial hatred. We have a complete disagreement with basic implementations of public policy, but rather than keep a cool head about it you resort to childish attacks followed quickly by baseless accusations and lies to cover up the weakness of your statements. I'm sorry that you have so much hatred that you have to take it out on people on an internet message board. Hopefully you find some solace somewhere.
And you've thrice proven you cannot debate without mischaracterizing your opposition in a manner that assures your upper hand.
You want to debate? Debate what I said. At this point it's no accident. You're consciously lying about my position.
You have no evidence of my racial hatred [however veiled] because I;
1. don't have any, and
2. haven't espoused any.
OTOH, I've laid out a clear and cogent case for the racism in your stance. And you've done nothing to counter. It's sad from the start, because you can't. And it's doubly sad because you don't even try.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-25-2006, 06:24 PM

Baby Lee

01-25-2006, 06:27 PM

There's the way it is, and the way you want it to be. Me 'mischaracterizing' your position is breaking it down into its constituent parts and exposing them for what they are, an ideology of oppression and white apathy.
You've done nothing of the sort. And I don't know what's sadder, the possibility that you KNOW that, and yet continue in this vein, or the possibility that you DON'T KNOW.
I guess it's the former. Because at least if it's the latter, we can all look forward to the day that it dawns on you, and we celebrate the genesis of another sentient citizen.

Nightwish

01-25-2006, 06:38 PM

Considering that women earn 75 cents on the dollar to what men do and furthermore that over 95 percent of all executive jobs are held by men, I think that points out the clear truth---that the majority of power in this country is held by men, and not women. Anyone who would disagree with this is nothing other than a fool. Furthermore, although women outnumber men, men vote more than women, thus negating that numerical advantage. Nice attempt at skewing the statistics, but like most right-wing b.s. it just doesn't fly when held up to any form of honest analysis.
In addition to those points, a lot of the women in this country are as opposed to a female President as the men are. They may be the majority sex, but that doesn't mean that they would represent a majority vote in favor of a woman President, even if it was one they liked.

What I'd like to know from this poll is of those who answered that they clearly would or would not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008, how many answered that way because she's a woman, and how many answered that way specifically because she's Hillary Clinton? I suspect that a lot of those who vehemently denied they'd vote for Hillary would also probably give a similar answer if queried about Condaleeza Rice.

alanm

01-25-2006, 06:44 PM

Nightwish

01-25-2006, 06:51 PM

Honestly, I don't think Hillary, or any other woman can win in '08. Although I would have no problem with a woman President, I think it is too radical a change to expect at this point. Condi is seen by many as too weak, and Hillary is seen as too controversial. I think the Democrats would have more success electing a woman President, but first they will have to regain control of the White House, and significantly clean up the mess the Republicans have left behind. That would get the country used to having the Dems in control again. Then from there you can take another step toward change by offering a woman candidate for the Presidency. But it's gonna have to be done in baby steps, not a radical leap by a party that isn't in power while the nation's politics are as messy as they've ever been.

patteeu

01-25-2006, 06:57 PM

I think that the discourse within this thread speaks for itself. You accuse me of making racist statements when it is you yourself who are the one espousing an ideology of Social Darwinism and thinly veiled racial hatred. We have a complete disagreement with basic implementations of public policy, but rather than keep a cool head about it you resort to childish attacks followed quickly by baseless accusations and lies to cover up the weakness of your statements. I'm sorry that you have so much hatred that you have to take it out on people on an internet message board. Hopefully you find some solace somewhere.

It certainly does. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the language. This thread reminds me of the Black Knight scene in Monte Python and the Holy Grail with you playing the part of the limbless Black Knight.

http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/HolyGrail/jpgs/04-kn-4.jpg

alanm

01-25-2006, 07:00 PM

banyon

01-25-2006, 10:01 PM

This is possibly the first time I've hoped that a Newsmax article posted by Recxjake was accurate.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 05:37 AM

It certainly does. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the language. This thread reminds me of the Black Knight scene in Monte Python and the Holy Grail with you playing the part of the limbless Black Knight.

What you have proven is a systemic inability to read between the lines of what someone says. As a shouting post for the right wing , all Baby Lee did was thinly conceal his rhetoric with various platitudes and excuses, namely that those who don't succeed only do so because they are weak. He said so much themselves, that those who fail, fail because of weakness, not because of a lack of opportunities. He could not have been more explicit. That is nothing other than a might equals right philosophy which again is Social Darwinism, which is the same philosophy espoused by Hitler and other groups advocating racial stratification and/or hatred. Perhaps you should actually analyze the text rather than come to the conclusion that you desire because of either your a) political leaning or b) loyalty to this poster.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 05:38 AM

http://www.ioa.com/~shermis/socjus/socdar.html

Social Darwinism is a quasi-philosophical, quasi-religious, quasi-sociological view that came from the mind of Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher in the 19th century. It did not achieve wide acceptance in England or Europe, but flourished in this country, as is true of many ideologies, religions, and philosophies. A good summary of Social Darwinism is by Johnson:

In these years, when Darwin's Origin of Species, popularized by Herbert Spencer as "the survival of the fittest, " and applied to races as well as species in a vulgarized form, Social Darwinism, the coming Christian triumph was presented as an Anglo-Saxon Protestant one.

Social Darwinism is by no means dead, for vestiges of it can be found in the present.

But, for our purposes, it is the use to which some people made of biological evolution which concerns us. Some simplified the idea to "survival of the fittest." Others believed that an identical process took place among human beings. They believed that white Protestant Europeans had evolved much further and faster than other "races." And some, especially the followers of Herbert Spencer, took it one step further. Human society is always in a kind of evolutionary process in which the fittest- which happened to be those who can make lots of money--were chosen to dominate. There were armies of unfit, the poor, who simply could not compete. And just as nature weeds out the unfit, an enlightened society ought to weed out its unfit and permit them to die off so as not to weaken the racial stock.

This idea eventually led to a variety of practices and beliefs, e.g., Nordic Racism, used by German anthropologists and later Nazi theoreticians. It also led to eugenics in which, it was believed, the unfit transmit their undesirable characteristics. A breeding program for human beings would see to it that the unfit did not transmit their undesirable characteristics.

Another application of a biological concept to human behavior was the notion that any attempt to provide welfare for the poor was a tragically misguided mistake. Feeding or housing the poor simply permitted them to survive and to transmit their unfitness to their children, who in turn would pass it on to their children. A spurious piece of sociology about two families known as the Jukes and the Kallikaks purported to trace a race of criminals and prostitutes to two persons in the Revolutionary War. This study was used for many years to demonstrate that "inferiority" was inherited.

Baby Lee

01-26-2006, 08:50 AM

What you have proven is a systemic inability to read between the lines of what someone says. As a shouting post for the right wing , all Baby Lee did was thinly conceal his rhetoric with various platitudes and excuses, namely that those who don't succeed only do so because they are weak. He said so much themselves, that those who fail, fail because of weakness, not because of a lack of opportunities. He could not have been more explicit. That is nothing other than a might equals right philosophy which again is Social Darwinism, which is the same philosophy espoused by Hitler and other groups advocating racial stratification and/or hatred. Perhaps you should actually analyze the text rather than come to the conclusion that you desire because of either your a) political leaning or b) loyalty to this poster.
That's right folks, deep down in my remarks, nearly completely hidden, but visible between the lines and on the periphery was a thinly veiled message of hate that could not have been more explicit, express, even blatant.

Baby Lee - his writings are rhetorical sine waves.

Chief Faithful

01-26-2006, 08:56 AM

Chief Henry

01-26-2006, 09:09 AM

Stupid people won't succeed, regardless of their race. She had opportunities because she's very bright, had good parents and was driven.
rep for Donger

Chief Henry

01-26-2006, 09:12 AM

patteeu

01-26-2006, 09:20 AM

That's right folks, deep down in my remarks, nearly completely hidden, but visible between the lines and on the periphery was a thinly veiled message of hate that could not have been more explicit, express, even blatant.

Baby Lee - his writings are rhetorical sine waves.

ROFL You are both subtle and obvious in your blatant, hidden racism.

patteeu

01-26-2006, 09:21 AM

This guy teaches our children... pray for the kids.

My kids don't attend a madrasa so I think they are safe.

Radar Chief

01-26-2006, 09:31 AM

When one makes statements that claim a particular group fails because of weaknesses inherent within its constitution, that is a Darwinist statement and is no different than the rhetoric of Hitler or the Klan.

Or the Black Panthers, or Hamas, or Luis Farrakhan, or etc….
Why is it that you limit your rhetoric to only white racist groups?
Spread the love ‘round, judgeing from your posts there’s obviously loads more hate come’n from more than just those damn cracka’s.

Chief Faithful

01-26-2006, 09:31 AM

In addition to those points, a lot of the women in this country are as opposed to a female President as the men are. They may be the majority sex, but that doesn't mean that they would represent a majority vote in favor of a woman President, even if it was one they liked.

What I'd like to know from this poll is of those who answered that they clearly would or would not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008, how many answered that way because she's a woman, and how many answered that way specifically because she's Hillary Clinton? I suspect that a lot of those who vehemently denied they'd vote for Hillary would also probably give a similar answer if queried about Condaleeza Rice.

Yes, I would vote for Condaleeza Rice and no I would not vote for Hillary Clinton. I know my wife would do the same.

Not voting for Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with being a female and everything to do with her being a political animal with no soul and extreme socialistic leanings. I would vote for Rice because she is extremely bright, honest, and believes in traditional core American values. In summary, the difference for me and my wife is trust.

So what does that say to your suspicions?

Sully

01-26-2006, 09:39 AM

I honestly know very littel about Hillary, so her lack of a penis aside, what is she about? (I've only gotten into politics for the last 1.5 years, or so, so I'm way behind)
Tell me what makes her "extremely socialistic" or not. Why is she good/bad?

Jilly

01-26-2006, 10:16 AM

patteeu

01-26-2006, 10:35 AM

I think the reason that Hamas is so ill-received here is that I'm guessing the posters here are mainly white men...I'm making a broad judgment...they may be black men, but they are mainly men. The things that Hamas is saying threaten a position of power, it would mean sacrificing that power in order for someone else to gain power. Self-sacrifice is not something our "look out for number one" society is good at. The reason for the rejection of a policy that might start actually addressing the problems associated with the African American community means that we might actually have to sacrifice some of our white priveleges that we don't even realize we have. People who are in the position of power and who have always had it cannot ever know what it is like to walk in the "other's" shoes and it isn't until we start listening and addressing that not everyone can conform to a societal norm that they were never a part of forming that we can start stepping towards the equality we seem to think we have already.

Fortunately for us, you have broken through the barriers to knowledge that still hold the rest of us back and have decided to generously share this secret. I can't tell you how grateful I am to have been so blessed.

Chief Henry

01-26-2006, 10:44 AM

My kids don't attend a madrasa so I think they are safe.

But somebodys kids do...

Radar Chief

01-26-2006, 10:52 AM

I think the reason that Hamas is so ill-received here is that I'm guessing the posters here are mainly white men...I'm making a broad judgment...they may be black men, but they are mainly men. The things that Hamas is saying threaten a position of power, it would mean sacrificing that power in order for someone else to gain power. Self-sacrifice is not something our "look out for number one" society is good at. The reason for the rejection of a policy that might start actually addressing the problems associated with the African American community means that we might actually have to sacrifice some of our white priveleges that we don't even realize we have. People who are in the position of power and who have always had it cannot ever know what it is like to walk in the "other's" shoes and it isn't until we start listening and addressing that not everyone can conform to a societal norm that they were never a part of forming that we can start stepping towards the equality we seem to think we have already.

Really? I thought it’s because Hamas’ BS deflections are the same justifications dropped on the oppressed in order to make them think they’re oppression is beyond their control, related to what they are, and thus meant to keep them hopeless and further oppressed.
The last thing any spokesman for the oppressed wants the oppressed to know is that they have the ability to pull themselves up by their own boot straps.
Guess it’s all in what’cha wanna read. :shrug:

Chief Faithful

01-26-2006, 11:16 AM

I think the reason that Hamas is so ill-received here is that I'm guessing the posters here are mainly white men...I'm making a broad judgment...they may be black men, but they are mainly men. The things that Hamas is saying threaten a position of power, it would mean sacrificing that power in order for someone else to gain power. Self-sacrifice is not something our "look out for number one" society is good at. The reason for the rejection of a policy that might start actually addressing the problems associated with the African American community means that we might actually have to sacrifice some of our white priveleges that we don't even realize we have. People who are in the position of power and who have always had it cannot ever know what it is like to walk in the "other's" shoes and it isn't until we start listening and addressing that not everyone can conform to a societal norm that they were never a part of forming that we can start stepping towards the equality we seem to think we have already.

My secret to success has been revealed, its my fault I admit it! As an Arab American I learned that lesson well and started oppressing the black man and women from my youth leading to positions of power and success. Next I'm going to oppress the white man and rule the world! BWAHAHAHAHA!

CHIEF4EVER

01-26-2006, 11:37 AM

Explain to me how Rice can move from a stance of such brazen awareness of the importance of her race and the difficulties to thrive as a member of it to joining a political apparatus that shits on the very people she grew up with?

Translation: Since Condeleeza Rice didn't play the "everyone is out to get me because of my race" card and instead she did what she needed to do to be successful, she all of a sudden is shitting on the very subculture she came from? That is retarded beyond description sir.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 11:55 AM

Translation: Since Condeleeza Rice didn't play the "everyone is out to get me because of my race" card and instead she did what she needed to do to be successful, she all of a sudden is shitting on the very subculture she came from? That is retarded beyond description sir.

Then explain this quote by her, "As a minority, you have to work twice as hard to be successful."

patteeu

01-26-2006, 12:01 PM

Then explain this quote by her, "As a minority, you have to work twice as hard to be successful."

You are a master of the non sequitur.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 12:05 PM

You are a master of the non sequitur.

You are inable to follow a logical progression of thought. If someone said it's twice as hard to make it in this country when you are black, you would accuse them of playing the race card, but when someone says you have to work twice as hard to make it as a minority, you accuse me of using a non sequitor. They are the same thing, the exact same thing. Stop looking through the eyes of the National Review and use some independent analysis for once. Working twice as hard to make is when you are a minority is just another way of saying "it's hard to make it in this country when you are black".

Baby Lee

01-26-2006, 12:11 PM

You are inable to follow a logical progression of thought.
And, for an English composition teacher, you are fairly incapable of forming a sentence composed entirely of proper grammer and actual English words.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 12:15 PM

And, for an English composition teacher, you are fairly incapable of forming a sentence composed entirely of proper grammer and actual English words.

If that's the best you can do to sidetrack my arguments, the right wing has a long way to go. That's a petty shot from a defeated man. It should be noted that the 'U' and 'I' are beside one another on the keyboard, however, and thus it's a perfectly reasonable error. If you would like, I could go back and run your numerous posts through the ringer of grammatical correctness.

patteeu

01-26-2006, 12:16 PM

You are inable to follow a logical progression of thought. If someone said it's twice as hard to make it in this country when you are black, you would accuse them of playing the race card, but when someone says you have to work twice as hard to make it as a minority, you accuse me of using a non sequitor. They are the same thing, the exact same thing. Stop looking through the eyes of the National Review and use some independent analysis for once. Working twice as hard to make is when you are a minority is just another way of saying "it's hard to make it in this country when you are black".

Haha. But getting back to the thread, what Rice said (if she even said it, do you have a link?) has nothing to do with "a political apparatus that shits on the very people she grew up with." Furthermore, times have changed dramatically since "she grew up." Try to understand that not everyone accepts your patronizingly racist worldview as ground truth, Hammy.

Baby Lee

01-26-2006, 12:22 PM

If that's the best you can do to sidetrack my arguments, the right wing has a long way to go. That's a petty shot from a defeated man. It should be noted that the 'U' and 'I' are beside one another on the keyboard, however, and thus it's a perfectly reasonable error. If you would like, I could go back and run your numerous posts through the ringer of grammatical correctness.
No, that's the glib jab of the guy who realized that a rational discussion with you is a waste of his time, but still loves his cheap and easy irony.

BTW - even if the phrase 'you are unable to follow' manages to be comprised entirely of actual words, it's still grammatically incorrect. :thumb: ROFL

Jilly

01-26-2006, 03:55 PM

Baby Lee

01-26-2006, 03:59 PM

Of course, I'm an ignorant and stupid person and so is anyone else who disagrees with a majority view....I mean really, what a horrible thought to actually believe that people might need to depend on each other and rely on each other for help; my god, why should any of us ever change to actually help our fellow humanity dig out of the trenches? I mean really, anyone can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, why should we do anything to help? I think I'll just go put on my blindfold and pretend that nothing unjust is happening in the world at all. Frick....
We've gone pretty far afield from the original topic. Nobody's saying "don't help." Hamass started with the proposition that democracy is unfair because the system is so fricken ponderous that the oppressed are sapped of the strength to so much as pull a lever come election time. The fact that there are more women voters than men voters is irrelevant because them dames end up pulled over at the side of the road bawling their eyes out at the difficulties inherent in choosing a representative or voting on an initiative.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 04:47 PM

“You are unable to follow a logical progression of thought.”

You (noun, also the subject of this given sentence)
Are (a form of the verb ‘to be’ indicating a current state in this case)
Unable (adjective, it describes something about you, in this case an inability to follow a logical progression of thought, along with the rules of basic grammar. On a deeper level, it also shows how clouded your own brain is by your dogged determination to prove yourself right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.)
“To follow a logical progression” is a prepositional phrase, and wholly grammatically correct.
“Of thought” is another prepositional phrase, and purposely grammatically acceptable.

Considering that most standard English consists of a Subject-Verb-Object construction and this sentence is indicative of that fact, you are woefully misguided in your attempt to grammatically nitpick.

Of course, were you trying to get every single nuance of your above quote wrong, then you succeeded admirably.

Patteau, here is the link to the Condi Rice quote (BTW, read the thread, it is mentioned numerous times within the thread, as well as directly cited by both myself and a fellow poster)

From
http://www.racematters.org/lessononlifecondoleezzarice.htm
Such reflections do not make Rice's political views and America's global arrogance any more appealing to me. But those who dismiss her as a hotheaded cold war queen miss a chance to dwell on her focus and drive. Unlike many black conservatives who shout louder than white ''color-blind'' conservatives that race no longer matters, Rice has no problem saying race matters, and since it is so, black folks had better work to get the most out of their individual talents.
In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, ''It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.''' One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

Furthermore, she supports affirmative action, yet still ignores the plight of her race in numerous other ways

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/rice.action/index.html

Another source is

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

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 04:51 PM

We've gone pretty far afield from the original topic. Nobody's saying "don't help." Hamass started with the proposition that democracy is unfair because the system is so fricken ponderous that the oppressed are sapped of the strength to so much as pull a lever come election time. The fact that there are more women voters than men voters is irrelevant because them dames end up pulled over at the side of the road bawling their eyes out at the difficulties inherent in choosing a representative or voting on an initiative.

That is a gross misrepresentation of my stance. Never did I say that democracy does not work. The United States is not ALL DEMOCRACY. The United States is A DEMOCRACY, and one that does not function to its potential. What I said is that our current political system is not fully representative of the populace do to a myriad of socioeconomic and political factors, not the inherent weakness that Baby Lee seems to suggest (and suggests again in this post with his dismissive and sarcastic final phrase).

Donger

01-26-2006, 05:17 PM

That is a gross misrepresentation of my stance. Never did I say that democracy does not work. The United States is not ALL DEMOCRACY. The United States is A DEMOCRACY, and one that does not function to its potential. What I said is that our current political system is not fully representative of the populace do to a myriad of socioeconomic and political factors, not the inherent weakness that Baby Lee seems to suggest (and suggests again in this post with his dismissive and sarcastic final phrase).

For the love of God.

It's not "fully representative of the populace" because THEY CHOOSE NOT TO VOTE.

They have the right. They chose not to exercise it.

Only a liberal would blame that on someone other the person who chooses not to.

Donger

01-26-2006, 05:22 PM

For the love of God.

It's not "fully representative of the populace" because THEY CHOOSE NOT TO VOTE.

They have the right. They chose not to exercise it.

Only a liberal would blame that on someone other the person who chooses not to.

Oh, one other thing, ALL of these people that you claim aren't represented are, of course. Perhaps if they chose to actually participate in the selection of their representatives, they might get better representatives.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 05:37 PM

Oh, one other thing, ALL of these people that you claim aren't represented are, of course. Perhaps if they chose to actually participate in the selection of their representatives, they might get better representatives.

To quote the great Seargent Al Powell, "Christ man, can't you see what's happening, can't you read between the line?"

Yes they theoretically [I]could vote, but they don't because of a myriad of socioeconomic and political factors. They are ignored by the government and receive substandard educations. That substandard education manifests itself in a variety of ways, including poor employment availability, long work hours, and a lesser desire to consume outside sources of media which makes them far less likely to vote. Numerous sociological studies and analyses of voter turnout back this up. Considering that women are on average much more likely to be illiterate and impoverished, they are thus far more likely to fall into the above demographics, which as a consequence makes them less likely to vote. It's a 'choice', but it's not the same choice that you and I have. It requires a hell of a lot more effort.

Donger

01-26-2006, 05:44 PM

To quote the great Seargent Al Powell, "Christ man, can't you see what's happening, can't you read between the line?"

Yes they theoretically [I]could vote, but they don't because of a myriad of socioeconomic and political factors. They are ignored by the government and receive substandard educations. That substandard education manifests itself in a variety of ways, including poor employment availability, long work hours, and a lesser desire to consume outside sources of media which makes them far less likely to vote. Numerous sociological studies and analyses of voter turnout back this up. Considering that women are on average much more likely to be illiterate and impoverished, they are thus far more likely to fall into the above demographics, which as a consequence makes them less likely to vote. It's a 'choice', but it's not the same choice that you and I have. It requires a hell of a lot more effort.

Forgive me, but theoretical my ass. I understand why they don't, but that does not equal being denied the right.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 05:48 PM

I didn't say they were DENIED the right, I said that their opportunities were unequal which makes it far less likely for them excercise that right.

Donger

01-26-2006, 06:08 PM

I didn't say they were DENIED the right, I said that their opportunities were unequal which makes it far less likely for them excercise that right.

Unless you're suggesting that someone is forcing them not to, your argument is false.

That's precisely what I'm suggesting.

Make up your mind.

patteeu

01-26-2006, 06:08 PM

Of course, I'm an ignorant and stupid person and so is anyone else who disagrees with a majority view....I mean really, what a horrible thought to actually believe that people might need to depend on each other and rely on each other for help; my god, why should any of us ever change to actually help our fellow humanity dig out of the trenches? I mean really, anyone can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, why should we do anything to help? I think I'll just go put on my blindfold and pretend that nothing unjust is happening in the world at all. Frick....

I apologize for being a dick to you. The "those who haven't walked in the shoes can't possibly understand' argument always annoys me. I still think what you said was wrong, but I should have been more gentle (and constructive) in my criticism since you are fairly new here and, unlike 'Hamas' Jenkins, you don't appear to be looking for a fight. Sorry.

patteeu

01-26-2006, 06:23 PM

...

Patteau, here is the link to the Condi Rice quote (BTW, read the thread, it is mentioned numerous times within the thread, as well as directly cited by both myself and a fellow poster)

From
http://www.racematters.org/lessononlifecondoleezzarice.htm
Such reflections do not make Rice's political views and America's global arrogance any more appealing to me. But those who dismiss her as a hotheaded cold war queen miss a chance to dwell on her focus and drive. Unlike many black conservatives who shout louder than white ''color-blind'' conservatives that race no longer matters, Rice has no problem saying race matters, and since it is so, black folks had better work to get the most out of their individual talents.
In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, ''It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.''' One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

Furthermore, she supports affirmative action, yet still ignores the plight of her race in numerous other ways

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/rice.action/index.html

Another source is

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

Ah I see that you play pretty loose with your quotes. What Rice actually says is a far cry from what you tried to claim she said. First of all, your quote was fake. But even if we grant you some leeway and accept your fake quote as a paraphrase, it still fails to provide much support for your claim. As I mentioned in my previous post, there have been a lot of changes between the officially sanctioned segregation of Ms. Rice's childhood (which is what she is discussing when she talked about what others told her) and the hand dealt to present day minorities. What Ms. Rice thinks about the difficulties faced by minorities in a segregated environment doesn't give us too much insight into what she thinks about present day difficulties.

patteeu

01-26-2006, 06:27 PM

To quote the great Seargent Al Powell, "Christ man, can't you see what's happening, can't you read between the line?"

Yes they theoretically [I]could vote, but they don't because of a myriad of socioeconomic and political factors. They are ignored by the government and receive substandard educations. That substandard education manifests itself in a variety of ways, including poor employment availability, long work hours, and a lesser desire to consume outside sources of media which makes them far less likely to vote. Numerous sociological studies and analyses of voter turnout back this up. Considering that women are on average much more likely to be illiterate and impoverished, they are thus far more likely to fall into the above demographics, which as a consequence makes them less likely to vote. It's a 'choice', but it's not the same choice that you and I have. It requires a hell of a lot more effort.

In light of all the obstacles and insufficient governmental support, maybe we could just have the government vote for them. That would solve the whole issue.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 07:00 PM

Mr. Kotter

01-26-2006, 07:04 PM

So, anyone know which of the LWNJ's has taken on this new "Hamas'Jenkins" alias....I've narrowed it to about 4 or 5 of them.... :hmmm:

Or maybe it's the latest DU recruit.... :hmmm:

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 07:06 PM

Make up your mind.

co·er·cion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ûrzhn, -shn)
n.
The act or practice of coercing.
Power or ability to coerce.

I think that we are all aware that people always have a choice. Someone can put a gun to my head and say, "where is your wallet?" I don't have to tell them, but the overwhelming circumstances will generally dictate that I do so. So merely having a choice does not always mean that it is the most feasible one, I think you are intelligent enough to decipher that.

Underprivileged citizens are in a similar situation. They are constantly told that help is on the way, and maybe they vote...but hope never comes...they vote again...but no help ever comes. After a while, as I said before, they see it as an exercise in futility. Do they still have a choice, yes, but just like someone learns from Pavlovian training, if a particular stimulus is placed in front of you enough times and the same result happens every time, you become conditioned to expect it always happen when that stimulus presents itself.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 07:10 PM

In light of all the obstacles and insufficient governmental support, maybe we could just have the government vote for them. That would solve the whole issue.

That's a fascist response I'm quickly beginning to expect from someone of your caliber. Sarcasm is the defense of a defeated mind.

Mr. Kotter

01-26-2006, 07:16 PM

Wow.....the days I miss the old political banter from the old CP, it just takes a thread like this to remind me why I've been happier spending more time in the Lounge, given some of the LWNJs who continue to buzz around this place like flies on shit.... :shake:

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 07:19 PM

Wow.....the days I miss the old political banter from the old CP, it just takes a thread like this to remind me why I've been happier spending more time in the Lounge.... :shake:

Why, so you can neg rep people simply because you don't agree with their viewpoints, even though you lack available counterarguments? For someone who supports candidates that "uphold freedom and fight 'terrststs' " you seem to enjoy decidedly anti-democratic policies of smear tactics.

Mr. Kotter

01-26-2006, 07:22 PM

Why, so you can neg rep people simply because you don't agree with their viewpoints, even though you lack available counterarguments? For someone who supports candidates that "uphold freedom and fight 'terrststs' " you seem to enjoy decidedly anti-democratic policies of smear tactics.

Counterarguments with you, would be like a hot chick with a gay guy....no real response.

Nah. I do it mostly because it annoys you....and because any Username that celebrates a terrorist organization deserves it--especially one as delusional as you, DU-troll/LWNJ-longtime-poster-alias. ;)

Do I hear you begging for more? Say, "Daddy, may I have more?" and I'll give you what you want...you naughty little boy.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 07:30 PM

Make up your mind.

As I have said numerous times, it is primarily a problem of education and underlying socioeconomic factors

From the American Journal of Political Science, page 74

The most important factor in voter turnout is education. The more educated a person, the more likely he or she is to vote, even when controlled for other factors such as income and class that are closely associated with education level. Income has some effect independently: wealthier people are more likely to vote, regardless of their educational background.

Therefore, the people who are poor, who pay less in property taxes have less money for schools, which leads to a lower quality of education, which leads to less education. Given that African Americans and other minorities earn far less per capita than whites in this country, and have lower high school graduation rates, I think that goes a long way to explaining their 'choice' or lack thereof. It is important to know that income also has an effect.

Since I can actually cite sources, despite being accused of otherwise by posters such as patteau, perhaps you can actually respond with something of meaning rather than attempting to take this conversation to the gutter for the Nth time.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 07:33 PM

Counterarguments with you, would be like a hot chick with a gay guy....no real response.

Nah. I do it mostly because it annoys you....and because any Username that celebrates a terrorist organization deserves it--especially one as delusional as you, DU-troll/LWNJ-longtime-poster-alias. ;)

Do I hear you begging for more? Say, "Daddy, may I have more?" and I'll give you what you want...you naughty little boy.

You can't give any counterarguments because you don't have any. There are arguments for your side, but they are lacking and have been thoroughly exhausted. I have refuted your peers repeated attempts within this thread, and both I and you know that, as would any disinterested outside observer.

Your brazen attempt at machismo is a pathetic admission of your inability to formulate an intelligent response.

Nightwish

01-26-2006, 08:12 PM

So what does that say to your suspicions?
Not a darn thing. You're one person. I didn't say I suspected everyone would be as reticent to vote for Condi as Hillary, I said "a lot of them" would. Get a few hundred more people, from a similar sample, to say the same thing, then weed out those who are only saying it because it is the "team line," then if there are still enough of them left, my suspicions might be challenged. Until then ...

Mr. Kotter

01-26-2006, 08:17 PM

You can't give any counterarguments because you don't have any. There are arguments for your side, but they are lacking and have been thoroughly exhausted. I have refuted your peers repeated attempts within this thread, and both I and you know that, as would any disinterested outside observer.

Your brazen attempt at machismo is a pathetic admission of your inability to formulate an intelligent response.

Uh-huh. Keep tellin' yourself that.

:)

Donger

01-26-2006, 08:20 PM

As I have said numerous times, it is primarily a problem of education and underlying socioeconomic factors

From the American Journal of Political Science, page 74

The most important factor in voter turnout is education. The more educated a person, the more likely he or she is to vote, even when controlled for other factors such as income and class that are closely associated with education level. Income has some effect independently: wealthier people are more likely to vote, regardless of their educational background.

Therefore, the people who are poor, who pay less in property taxes have less money for schools, which leads to a lower quality of education, which leads to less education. Given that African Americans and other minorities earn far less per capita than whites in this country, and have lower high school graduation rates, I think that goes a long way to explaining their 'choice' or lack thereof. It is important to know that income also has an effect.

Since I can actually cite sources, despite being accused of otherwise by posters such as patteau, perhaps you can actually respond with something of meaning rather than attempting to take this conversation to the gutter for the Nth time.

You claimed that they are being FORCED not to vote.

That is incorrect.

They are choosing not to.

Again, I've acknowledged that poorer people do not vote with the frequency of less poor people.

They have EXCATLY the same right to vote, regardless of their social or economic condition.

And, I'm spent with this. It's akin to pissing in the wind.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-26-2006, 09:23 PM

Why do you think Republicans are so reticent to spend money on social programs? Because they know if they spend money on social programs it will improve the standing of minorities in this country and upset the balance of power that has the party of white men currently in the catbird seat of this country. The prevailing socioeconomic conditions create an environment whereby it is far more difficult for an underprivileged person to vote. These conditions are exacerbated by the apathy of the Republican party to help out any people who are not like their own. That is a method of coercion, albeit indirect. So in fact, yes they are being forced not to vote.

You don't want the onus of blame placed upon yourself for being complicit in the ongoing race war in this country so you place the blame at the feet of the underprivileged, say "well she made it out", stating rare and exceptional cases, and act as though that everyone should be as exemplary. That's apathy.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 05:43 AM

Then explain this quote by her, "As a minority, you have to work twice as hard to be successful."

And how do you know that this quote is a fake? Or are you just posturing?

Because I can't find any evidence that she ever said it. If she did, then prove it.

And when you finish doing that (or fail to do that as I suspect you will), feel free to address the rest of post #156.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 06:43 AM

Yet again, here is the full attribution from the cite that I mentioned in post 156 as well as its original source material.

In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, ''It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.''' One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address ismailto:%20jackson@globe.com.

This story ran on page A19 of the Boston Globe on 11/20/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 07:12 AM

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 07:13 AM

From Lexis Nexis:

Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company
The Boston Globe

November 20, 2002, Wednesday ,THIRD EDITION

SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. A19

LENGTH: 795 words

HEADLINE: DERRICK Z. JACKSON;
A LESSON FROM CONDOLEEZZA RICE

BYLINE: BY DERRICK Z. JACKSON

BODY:
WASHINGTON

CONDOLEEZZA RICE was reminded of her decision to become a Republican after the 1984 Democratic National Convention. She said the Democratic Party's speeches to "women, minorities, and the poor" really meant "helpless people and the poor." In a profile in The Washington Post, Rice said, "I decided I'd rather be ignored than patronized."

The national security adviser to President Bush was asked if she thinks the Democratic Party still patronizes "women, minorities, and the poor." Laughing, she declined to answer the specific question last week before the Trotter Group, an organization of African-American columnists. But her answer was as riveting as if she had actually gone on to trash the Democrats.

"The fact of the matter is, race matters in America," Rice said. "It has, it always has . . . It is not that I mind being associated with the group. I am African-American and proud of it. I wouldn't have it any other way. And it has shaped who I am and it will continue to shape who I am.

"I do not believe it has limited who I am or what I can become. And that's because I had parents who, while telling me what it meant to be African-American and exposing me to that, also allowed me to develop as an individual to be who I wanted to be."

Rice said the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham that killed four girls, including friend Denise McNair, shaped her views on the war on terrorism. "If you've been through home-grown terrorism," Rice said, "you recognize there isn't any cause that can be served by it . . . Because what it's meant to do is end the conversation."

In profiles, Rice talks about being hollered at as a child by a white store clerk for touching a hat. Rice's mother told the clerk "Don't you talk to my daughter that way!" Her mother then said, "Now, Condoleezza, you go and touch every hat in this store."

That reminded me of around 1965 when I was about 10. I bought comic books and ice cream in a drug store in DeKalb, Miss. Later, my grandfather informed me that was the "white folks" drug store. He could have berated me for breaking white folks' rules. Instead, he smiled and said, "Good."

For me, not accepting racial barriers would mean going on to little things like being on the first integrated child championship bowling team at a particular alley in Milwaukee, then bigger things like sportswriting when there were few African-Americans covering pro teams for major newspapers.

For Rice, it meant parents who "didn't say to me, 'You know, it's really weird for a black girl from Birmingham, Ala., to want to be a Soviet specialist.' " Rice said that she liked Motown, the blues, and funk music like most of her friends, but her parents drove her to learn Brahms. Rice has often said bluntly that she had to master the white world better than a whole lot of white people to succeed.

"Sometimes when we say to our kids, 'You are a minority,' we don't say it in a way that says it is part of who you are, we say it as if it's an impediment that cannot be overcome by hard work and access to education and all of those things," Rice said. "And I just think the messages are wrong when there is only focus on what group you happen to belong to, rather than the group is part of who you are, but also, who you are is who you are as an individual.

"We don't talk about it very much, but, yes . . . it is a very good thing for the rest of the world that when Colin Powell and I walk in with the president of the United States, we are there as secretary of state and national security adviser, because I think it says to people that there aren't boundaries in which black Americans are not supposed to play . . . I think it's an extremely important message to our kids. That's why I talk so much about the individual. It's not to deny the group, but I really think it's important that we appeal to each individual's worth and capability."

Such reflections do not make Rice's political views and America's global arrogance any more appealing to me. But those who dismiss her as a hotheaded cold war queen miss a chance to dwell on her focus and drive. Unlike many black conservatives who shout louder than white "color-blind" conservatives that race no longer matters, Rice has no problem saying race matters, and since it is so, black folks had better work to get the most out of their individual talents.

In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, "It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.' " One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.

LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2002

Are there any other baseless accusations you'd like to make in fulfilling your duty as a right-wing hand puppet, or have you made an ass out of yourself enough today?

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 08:04 AM

There are arguments for your side, but they are lacking and have been thoroughly exhausted. I have refuted your peers repeated attempts within this thread, and both I and you know that, as would any disinterested outside observer.
You haven't refuted a d@mn thing. And I would invite any and all 'disinterested observers' to weigh in. Go ahead folks, I won't be mad atcha. Tell me how Hamass cleaned my clock in this thread.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 08:36 AM

From Lexis Nexis:

...

Do you understand what a quote is? This Boston Globe article doesn't support your contention that Ms. Rice said what you said she said.

Then explain this quote by her, "As a minority, you have to work twice as hard to be successful."

Sully

01-27-2006, 08:37 AM

I don't thinkit's a matter of "cleaning someone's clock" at all. I think Hamas has some strong beliefs, that he/she backs up with facts and studies, and he/she is passionate about it. I think this whole thread has overreached its intent, but around here, that happens in nearly every thread.
Personally, I tend to fall on Hamas' side of the idealism. You would have to believe there are barriers to a certain people bettering themselves as a whole, implied or not, unless you truly felt that as a race they were inferior. Blacks and women, though we as a society have moved in the right direction, are still disproportionately mistreated (wages, poverty, crime) and to believe they are disproportionately inclined to "choose" to be such, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
I haven't taken the time to dig through articles and stats to specifically address it all, but I think in this thread, in others, and in everyday knowledge, it has been fleshed out enough for my comments not to seem as though they are made up. Just the fact that these things have been brought up, and the defensiveness of people to argue against it with such venom, shows to me that there is at least a little something to it.

Here's where this post can be hammered...
A) The grammar is probably bad... I don't care.
B) I didn't post any links to back up my "facts"...again, I don't care. We've all seen the stories and numbers enough.

I do think that it's a shame that in threads like these we can't disagree without being disagreeable.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 08:49 AM

Just the fact that these things have been brought up, and the defensiveness of people to argue against it with such venom, shows to me that there is at least a little something to it.

Just the fact that [the wisdom of Bush's approach to the GWoT] has been brought up and the defensiveness of people to argue against it with such venom, shows to me that there is at least a little something to it.

Sully

01-27-2006, 08:52 AM

Just the fact that [the wisdom of Bush's approach to the GWoT] has been brought up and the defensiveness of people to argue against it with such venom, shows to me that there is at least a little something to it.
That's apples and oranges, and I know that you are smart enought o know that.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 09:00 AM

BTW, the issue isn't whether or not there are obstacles in place that make one choice harder than the other for a given person. The issue is whether or not these obstacles are so powerful that they "force" the person to make one choice rather than another (thereby effectively taking away his/her choice, and responsibility for that choice, in the matter).

There are all kinds of obstacles. People who work have obstacles that homeless degenerates don't have (e.g. they might be busy at work on the day of the election). People who are homeless degenerates have obstacles that people who work don't have (e.g. they might not have convenient transportation to get them to the polling site). My wife and her sister had nearly identical childhoods and similar obstacles to overcome as they became adults. My wife made some tough decisions to educate herself and work hard at every job she's ever taken. Her sister decided to get a job so she could finance her life of self-indulgence. The results were shaped by their decisions. Some people make good choices and some do not, regardless of the obstacles they face. I'm sure my sister-in-law thinks that her hardships were forced on her by the obstacles she faced.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 09:00 AM

That's apples and oranges, and I know that you are smart enought o know that.

Let's assume I'm not as smart as you and you explain it to me.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 09:05 AM

Personally, I tend to fall on Hamas' side of the idealism. You would have to believe there are barriers to a certain people bettering themselves as a whole, implied or not, unless you truly felt that as a race they were inferior.
First off, I truly don't see how you can view Hamas' takes as idealistic. He bemoans the percieved condition and offers no solution outside the ephemeral, undefined, glittering generality of 'overturn the entire system of fascist white privilege.' It was the cynicism and fatalism, as well as the generalized scattershot anger, of his posts that initially led to me responding.
Don't confuse my criticism of Hamas' fatalism and lashing out with denying that there are barriers to people bettering themselves. I so much as pointed out that I'm a fat f@ck and haven't overcome the barriers to me being a more fit and attractive person.
Hamas thinks the solution to convince people that they can't overcome obstacles, but it's OK, we'll knock those obstacles out of the way for you.
I think the solution is actively persuading people that they ARE able to overcome obstacles, if they apply themselves.
I think that, for all it's good intentions, Hamas' approach continues the cycle of dependence.
At it's most distilled essence. Hamas thinks that the system needs to be configured so that things come out equally, regardless of individual effort. I think it needs to be configured so that all who make an effort have an equal chance at success, AND an effort is made to make sure all are convinced that it's worthwhile to make an effort.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 09:08 AM

Just the fact that these things have been brought up, and the defensiveness of people to argue against it with such venom, shows to me that there is at least a little something to it.
So, by that logic, I shouldn't criticize Fred Phelps, lest you think there might be some merit to his 'God Hates Fags' campaign?

I don't rebuke things I know to be right because it's 'rightness' makes me uncomfortable. I'm plenty busy rebuking things I know to be wrong.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 09:14 AM

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 09:18 AM

You haven't refuted a d@mn thing. And I would invite any and all 'disinterested observers' to weigh in. Go ahead folks, I won't be mad atcha. Tell me how Hamass cleaned my clock in this thread.

So I didn't refute a damned thing whenever I pointed out your idiocy over the grammar issue?

I didn't refute anything when I actually cited sources and facts instead of merely speaking right wing gibberish?

I didn't refute anything whenever I pointed out your own incorrect definition of the term ad hominem? If you would like a source backing me up as correct on that, I have one at hand and I would be more than happy to 'clean your clock' once again.

Your anger in this thread only stems from the fact that you know you were put down here, and you know that I know it, and that fact pisses you off. That's why you didn't sound off after your completely asinine post regarding my grammar yesterday, which was one of the most pathetic and inaccurate examples of argumentation I have ever seen.

Sully

01-27-2006, 09:20 AM

Pat- I'm not going to get in the middle of this pissing match. You are clearly more educated than me in many ways, at this point in life. You absolutely know the difference between what I posted and what you retorted with. I'm not dodging, I just opt not to get into that discussion since it has nothing to do with what I initially was posting about. If you wanna mark that down in your book as a win, feel free. Doesn't matter.

Baby Lee- I think, after reading your post, that maybe I have been hearing you wrong. If that's my fault, I apologize. I had been hearing, from the majority in this thread, that the barriers Hamas wrote of were imagined and she was making them up. If I read that into posts where it wasn't, I'm sorry. I guess, though, the argument boils down to this: How much help do we give people, and in what way, to overcome barriers? You see Hamas' ideas as harmful in the long run. She sees yours as ignoring the problem and going with the status quo. Maybe neither of you have the right answer. But I still say that his/her passion toward the problem is going to go further to fix it than the idea that "they just need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps" crowd. I still believe that some of the obstacles need to be knocked down. I believe what Hamas is saying (and I've misread people's actual feelings a few times already, so this is clearly just my interpretation) is that it may be unfair ( here comes the "life isn't fair line) for some to have to overcome obstacles that those within the power structure don't have to overcome.
My simplistic view is this. I break a lot of things down into sports terminology...
You wouldn't want to start a football game down by 2-3 touchdowns, right? I mean, it could be overcome, with hard work, individual effort, education and execution, but you would never agree to allow your team to start that way in every game. If your team started with the score at 0-0, and then lost, then yeah, it's their responsibility. But we need to constantly be intent on trying to make the score 0-0 for everyone. I guess that's how I see Hamas' argument... I think the argument is that it's not 0-0 yet.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 09:22 AM

First off, I truly don't see how you can view Hamas' takes as idealistic. He bemoans the percieved condition and offers no solution outside the ephemeral, undefined, glittering generality of 'overturn the entire system of fascist white privilege.' It was the cynicism and fatalism, as well as the generalized scattershot anger, of his posts that initially led to me responding.
Don't confuse my criticism of Hamas' fatalism and lashing out with denying that there are barriers to people bettering themselves. I so much as pointed out that I'm a fat f@ck and haven't overcome the barriers to me being a more fit and attractive person.
Hamas thinks the solution to convince people that they can't overcome obstacles, but it's OK, we'll knock those obstacles out of the way for you.
I think the solution is actively persuading people that they ARE able to overcome obstacles, if they apply themselves.
I think that, for all it's good intentions, Hamas' approach continues the cycle of dependence.
At it's most distilled essence. Hamas thinks that the system needs to be configured so that things come out equally, regardless of individual effort. I think it needs to be configured so that all who make an effort have an equal chance at success, AND an effort is made to make sure all are convinced that it's worthwhile to make an effort.

So let me get this straight, I'm not offering a solution, because my solution isn't feasible in your mind? Then what is the point of me offering a solution if it has to be considered doable by you? Should I run all my proposals through you as a de facto editor, or should I actually stick to my own intellect? I'm going with the latter. Furthermore, if you'd like solutions, I'll be more than happy to give them to you. I alluded to them in a post to Donger, and I can expound upon them now if you wish.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 09:25 AM

I didn't refute anything whenever I pointed out your own incorrect definition of the term ad hominem? If you would like a source backing me up as correct on that, I have one at hand and I would be more than happy to 'clean your clock' once again.
As I've already pointed out, the literal translation of the words ad, hominem, and attack, are irrelevant, as "ad hominem attack" is a term of art referring to a recognized logical fallacy.
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
I fully admit that my epithets were attacks on you. But they were based on your posting style, not your arguments. Therefore, they were not within the accepted understanding of an 'ad hominem attack.'

And you earned every bit of my epithets, while there is no amount of 'earning' that transforms an ad hominem attack from a logical fallacy to a compellling argument.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 09:32 AM

You wouldn't want to start a football game down by 2-3 touchdowns, right? I mean, it could be overcome, with hard work, individual effort, education and execution, but you would never agree to allow your team to start that way in every game. If your team started with the score at 0-0, and then lost, then yeah, it's their responsibility. But we need to constantly be intent on trying to make the score 0-0 for everyone. I guess that's how I see Hamas' argument... I think the argument is that it's not 0-0 yet.
Problem is, Hamas has already intoned, in THIS THREAD, that even if you start 0-0, if 'his side' loses, it's probably because they have inferior equipment and the system is slanted so that they expect defeat.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 09:39 AM

In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, "It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.' "

What about this do you not understand patteau? It could not be any more clear. As a minority, 'you have to be twice as good' in order to make it. Your denseness regarding this is astounding.

Your original quote was fake. That you refuse to admit it doesn't change that fact.

I addressed the actual comment that Rice made in the rest of post #156. Maybe you would care to address that part of the post?

Sully

01-27-2006, 09:41 AM

Problem is, Hamas has already intoned, in THIS THREAD, that even if you start 0-0, if 'his side' loses, it's probably because they have inferior equipment and the system is slanted so that they expect defeat.
I suppose I missed that. Not the first time I misread the intention.
My problem is that I'm pretty passionate about this, and once the term "bootstraps" comes into play, I get blinded by my emotions a little bit.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 09:44 AM

I suppose I missed that. Not the first time I misread the intention.
My problem is that I'm pretty passionate about this, and once the term "bootstraps" comes into play, I get blinded by my emotions a little bit.
And I get passionate when the term 'incapable' comes into play.
You think 'bootstraps' is unrealistic and cold. I think 'incapable' is demeaning and perpetuates the very problems you seek to solve.
And I never said 'bootstraps.' The strongest I worded it was 'taking the path of least resistance is weakness.' A proposition so self-evident as to be aphoristic.
I prefer to inspire people to achieve over assuring them of reward without at least a modicum of effort.
I'd submit we have the same aims, with different views on how to best achieve them. While Hamas attributes to me, wrongly and with no evidence, a hidden, thinly veiled, blatant, alter-aim.

Sully

01-27-2006, 09:49 AM

And I get passionate when the term 'incapable' comes into play.
You think 'bootstraps' is unrealistic and cold. I think 'incapable' is demeaning and perpetuates the very problems you seek to solve.
I prefer to inspire people to achieve over assuring them of reward without at least a modicum of effort.
I think that, while that may have been a bit of hyperbole on Hamas' part, there was a context that went along with that statement that was too quickly overlooked to move on to the sexy "incapable" word.
With that, I'll leave you folks to it. Have a good weekend, and enjoy the good weather while it lasts.
I wasn't saying that you said the bootstraps thing, I just know once that was said is where I became angry with tthe direction. If I made it seem that it was you who said it, I'm sorry.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 09:49 AM

I didn't refute anything when I actually cited sources and facts instead of merely speaking right wing gibberish?

If by "refute" you mean you've proven someone wrong, your delusional. Citing sources and facts don't prove anything if they don't support what you are saying or if they are merely the opinions of others with whom you agree.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 10:03 AM

I didn't refute anything when I actually cited sources and facts instead of merely speaking right wing gibberish?
The complete sum and substance of Hamass' "sources" and "facts"

In response to my statement that I took responsibility for my weight

the US has the highest rate of obesity among all industrialized nations. . .

In response to my statement that "the belief that black people should act from a set of black principles, and white act from a set of white principles, indeed that those principles universally exist, IS racist."

Black people attend college at lower rates, earn less money, have higher rates of imprisonment, violent crime, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and many other maladies
From there, it has purely been his convoluted and fallacy riddled logic as to how I'm a hidden, thinly veiled, blatant racist, and how he's claimed victory.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 10:13 AM

patteeu

01-27-2006, 10:21 AM

I suppose I missed that. Not the first time I misread the intention.
My problem is that I'm pretty passionate about this, and once the term "bootstraps" comes into play, I get blinded by my emotions a little bit.

I respect your attempt to discuss this issue reasonably.

FYI, the only other poster who has used the term "bootstraps" in this thread (prior to this post of yours) was TitsMagee, who apparently is on your side of this issue.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 10:29 AM

That is preposterous. That quote that I said was not made up, and you know it. Rice said you have to work twice as hard to make it as a minority, and the quote that I excerpted clearly shows that she stated that. It was published in the Boston Globe and the author clearly cites a Newsweek quotation that she had made the previous year.

Regarding your statements Baby Lee...an ad hominem attack is an attack designed against a person in order to overshadow a glaring deficiency within the attacking person's logic. You attacked me because I frustrated you with clearly identifiable facts and statistics. You had no recourse, so you attacked me--that is the purpose of an ad hominem attack--to draw attention away from your absent logic.

Furthermore Baby Lee I never said that if you start at 0-0 'my side' loses. That is a blatant lie, and you know it. The reason why I am arguing is precisely because THE SCORE IS NOT 0-0. If it were, then I would have no need to argue, but you refuse to admit that the playing field is unbalanced and you repeatedly misquote me in order to do so.

In addition to that, Baby Lee, the totality of my sources and facts are woefully misrepresented by that quote which you purposely chose in order to take my argument out of context. You're like a person arguing that God hates all people by excising snippets of the Bible. If I chose to snip your words and rearrange them at will, as well as misconstrue their original meaning, I could very easily construct a speech reminiscent of Hitler or Mussolini. You clearly disregard the facts I stated from the Globe article, and the facts which I have cited (and I might add, I am one of the few who actually does cite and not pull dogma out of my ass) numerous times in post 156, among other areas.

The quote that you excerpted from me

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering that Black people attend college at lower rates, earn less money, have higher rates of imprisonment, violent crime, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and many other maladies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is wholly inaccurate in the context which you situate it within your post, and you and I both know that, as would anyone who read this thread. I was arguing for a more even playing field for Blacks by stating that THE SCORE IS NOT 0-0 as referenced by these demographic statistics, and then you attempt to skew that into a racist statement in order to support your own apathy. It's pathetic. Why don't you just say that you care about no one other than yourself and what is best for you, and damned be the world, because you've clearly outlined such a position through your rhetoric, but have thusfar lacked the spine to come out and say it.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 10:30 AM

I think that, while that may have been a bit of hyperbole on Hamas' part, there was a context that went along with that statement that was too quickly overlooked to move on to the sexy "incapable" word.
With that, I'll leave you folks to it. Have a good weekend, and enjoy the good weather while it lasts.
I wasn't saying that you said the bootstraps thing, I just know once that was said is where I became angry with tthe direction. If I made it seem that it was you who said it, I'm sorry.

You excuse the excess of 'Hamas' Jenkins calling it hyperbole but get out of sorts when you hear the word "bootstraps" even though it didn't come from the people at whom you direct your emotion? From my point of view, 'Hamas' Jenkins took the absolutist position (certain groups of people are robbed of choice by obstacles that force them to act in a certain way like pavlovian dogs) and his critics took the nuanced position on this issue (no matter the degree of obstacle faced by a given individual, in the end, choice is still available) even if you disagree with some aspects of that nuanced position.

Donger

01-27-2006, 10:31 AM

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 10:33 AM

Your positioned is not nuanced, it's known as a Supercrip story. You see one person with a disability achieve things in life, so you automatically write off all the others in order to make yourself feel better about your own lack of involvement. Just because one person can walk the appalachian trail blind doesn't mean that all blind people can. Some can't even cross the street. But because one person makes it out (Condi Rice), you assume that everything is fine and dandy and then dismiss the plight of the 'Other'. There is a difference between nuance and moral relativism.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 10:36 AM

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 10:38 AM

That is your opinion, and of course I disagree.

I could just as easily say that Democrats have a vested interest in keeping the downtrodden that way, since when they do vote, it's overwhelmingly Democratic. Why would they want to lose their powerbase by turning them into rich Republicans?

That is a valid theory which I think needs to be discussed. I disagree, and point to examples of the Great Society as enacted by LBJ and other EOE and AA programs as such. If they wanted to keep them downtrodden, I don't think such programs would have ever been created. Do they do enough? No, and the Democrats should be taken to task for that. But given the concerns of Republicans, I hardly feel that they are a palatable alternative.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 10:38 AM

Regarding your statements Baby Lee...an ad hominem attack is an attack designed against a person in order to overshadow a glaring deficiency within the attacking person's logic. You attacked me because I frustrated you with clearly identifiable facts and statistics. You had no recourse, so you attacked me--that is the purpose of an ad hominem attack--to draw attention away from your absent logic.
1. Give a fact or statistic you provided IN RESPONSE TO MY POSTS other than those I noted above.
2. I hurled epithets at you solely because you accused me of being a fascist with no evidence to support it. It was over your posting style, not your arguments [unless you count 'you're a fascist' as an argument]. My responses to your arguments have been reasoned, logically sound and fallacy free.
3. An ad hominem attack is decidedly NOT an attempt to hide flaws in your own logic. It is an attempt to diminish the arguments of your opponent by alleging character flaws of the opponent unrelated to the argument presented.

BTW - the only person to ostensibly side with you on the 'cleaning my clock' issue has since retracted and we have come to an understanding. So, congrats on all that.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 10:40 AM

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 11:04 AM

TFurthermore Baby Lee I never said that if you start at 0-0 'my side' loses. That is a blatant lie, and you know it. The reason why I am arguing is precisely because THE SCORE IS NOT 0-0. If it were, then I would have no need to argue, but you refuse to admit that the playing field is unbalanced and you repeatedly misquote me in order to do so.
I didn't say "if you start 0-0, Hamass' side loses." I said "even if you start 0-0, IF 'his side' loses, it's probably because they have inferior equipment and the system is slanted so that they expect defeat."
If you have two people of equal athletic ability and one is given access to excellent coaching, strength and conditioning, mental preparedness, etc. then that person will have a much greater chance at success than the person who uses broken down equipment, runs with shitty shoes, and never gets a physical.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 12:19 PM

If you have two people of equal athletic ability and one is given access to excellent coaching, strength and conditioning, mental preparedness, etc. then that person will have a much greater chance at success than the person who uses broken down equipment, runs with shitty shoes, and never gets a physical.

That above quote in no way signals equality, it only shows two people of comparable ability and what will be expected of them if one is exposed to excellent tutelage and the other receives substandard tutelage. Therefore, the one with advantages in training starts far above 0-0. So your point is moot because the game never starts as equal. You know that and I know that. That is one of the most asinine attempts of refutation I've ever seen.

You want some more stats on ad hominem, here you go buddy:
From Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum (A College Level Composition Book written by a Ph.D whom I've actually met--so I know his credentials)

"In an 'ad hominem' argument the writer rejects opposing views by attacking the person that holds them. By calling opponents names, the author avoids the issue. The proposal is lost in the attack against the man himself, an attack that violates the principals of logic. The writer must make their pionts by citing evidence in support of their views and by challenging contrary evidence." Page 51

Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum, 9th Edition, Leonard J. Rosen, editor

Sully

01-27-2006, 12:22 PM

Really? I thought it’s because Hamas’ BS deflections are the same justifications dropped on the oppressed in order to make them think they’re oppression is beyond their control, related to what they are, and thus meant to keep them hopeless and further oppressed.
The last thing any spokesman for the oppressed wants the oppressed to know is that they have the ability to pull themselves up by their own boot straps.
Guess it’s all in what’cha wanna read. :shrug:

Sully

01-27-2006, 12:23 PM

I respect your attempt to discuss this issue reasonably.

FYI, the only other poster who has used the term "bootstraps" in this thread (prior to this post of yours) was TitsMagee, who apparently is on your side of this issue.
Please see my quote above.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 12:23 PM

The quote cited in the Boston Globe article is different than the one you attributed to Ms. Rice. Once you get past your apparent need to misrepresent her, maybe you can address the rest of post #156.

From post 156

In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, ''It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.''' One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

From the Boston Globe article:

Post 174, which you have still refused to attribute

In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, "It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.' " One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.

LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2002

Show me the freakin' difference between those two, because I'd like to see it.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 12:24 PM

You want some more stats on ad hominem, here you go buddy:
From Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum (A College Level Composition Book written by a Ph.D whom I've actually met--so I know his credentials)

"In an 'ad hominem' argument the writer rejects opposing views by attacking the person that holds them. By calling opponents names, the author avoids the issue. The proposal is lost in the attack against the man himself, an attack that violates the principals of logic. The writer must make their pionts by citing evidence in support of their views and by challenging contrary evidence." Page 51

Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum, 9th Edition, Leonard J. Rosen, editor
How much more clear can I make it? I've kept my assessment of you the person [ie, you can GFY, asshole], and my assessment of your arguments [refuted with reason], separate.
I addressed 'the issue' just fine. Then, when you went from debate to name calling [in your case, WITH the purpose of deflecting from my arguments], I addressed YOU as well.

If it makes you feel better, by all means. EVERYONE!! Please ignore the fact that I find Hamass' demeanor to be assholish when assessing the 'debate.' And still feel free to tell me how wrong I've been on here. How Hamass has cleaned my clock.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 12:27 PM

Please see my quote above.

I stand corrected. Thanks. :)

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 12:28 PM

F-UCK YOU!!!
It appears that you've given up on any pretense of reasoned discussion, and have leapt into the loving arms of ad hominem attacks. So feel free to take it elsewhere. Asshole.

You give up on attempts at refutation here and instead attack me instead of discussion the issue at hand, instead telling me to shut up and move on. You ignore the debate and focus on personal attacks to TAKE ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE DEBATE. That is precisely an ad hominem attack.

Sully

01-27-2006, 12:31 PM

I honestly reject your out-of-hand dismissal of my post #178 as "apples and oranges." I don't see it and I don't really think you do either. My post is ridiculous in the same way that your parallel statement from post #177 was ridiculous. I don't agree with the idea that a proposition is made more credible because of the defensive and venomous nature with which people oppose it. And rather than listening for tone, I recommend that you actually look for content because you've misread the arguments that are being made by those who disagree with 'Hamas' Jenkins, IMO.
The difference is quite a bit.
Apples= my contention that the venomous defensiveness signals some truth to Hamas' assertions that people don't want to change the status quo for fear that they will have to hand over some of their, however small, power in order to help others. I was saying that the fear makes the argument more passionate, and ultimately more hateful.
Oranges= An argument that ANY defensiveness would equal the same thing. To bring the Iraq war argument into this ignores that this argument (the specific one I was talking about) is about power, power structures, and the complete desperation by those in power to keep that power in their hands.

I agree with you that in every circumstance venom and defensiveness don't add credibility to an opposing argument. It would be ridiculous to say that. I was simply saying that it's my belief that this is the case here. Now, I could be wrong (I don't think I am). When guessing about human nature, and specific peoples' nature (especially on a message board) there must be a lot of leeway for error. It's just that what I observed was a lot of people's anger level rising dramatically in the face of, what seemed, a decent argument against them.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 12:32 PM

You give up on attempts at refutation here and instead attack me instead of discussion the issue at hand, instead telling me to shut up and move on. You ignore the debate and focus on personal attacks to TAKE ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE DEBATE. That is precisely an ad hominem attack.
Absolutely I abandoned the debate. That's what I said [It appears that you've given up on any pretense of reasoned discussion . . . take it elsewhere.]. But it wasn't to take attention away from it. It was to make clear that you had proven yourself [not your arguments, yourSELF] unworthy of further discourse.
You'd already lost the debate by pulling the fascist card. I had nothing to gain from taking attention away from that fact, except to make my point on my assessment of you the person.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 12:36 PM

The difference is quite a bit.
Apples= my contention that the venomous defensiveness signals some truth to Hamas' assertions that people don't want to change the status quo for fear that they will have to hand over some of their, however small, power in order to help others. I was saying that the fear makes the argument more passionate, and ultimately more hateful.
Oranges= An argument that ANY defensiveness would equal the same thing. To bring the Iraq war argument into this ignores that this argument (the specific one I was talking about) is about power, power structures, and the complete desperation by those in power to keep that power in their hands.

I agree with you that in every circumstance venom and defensiveness don't add credibility to an opposing argument. It would be ridiculous to say that. I was simply saying that it's my belief that this is the case here. Now, I could be wrong (I don't think I am). When guessing about human nature, and specific peoples' nature (especially on a message board) there must be a lot of leeway for error. It's just that what I observed was a lot of people's anger level rising dramatically in the face of, what seemed, a decent argument against them.
Don't beat around the bush. Do you accept my assertion that my response is borne of disgust with the imprinting of defeatism on the people you claim to try to help? Or do you read the tea leaves, and presume that my response is borne of fear of losing my 'white privilege?'
Good or bad, I ain't mad atcha. Tell the truth.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 12:37 PM

Ah I see that you play pretty loose with your quotes. What Rice actually says is a far cry from what you tried to claim she said. First of all, your quote was fake. But even if we grant you some leeway and accept your fake quote as a paraphrase, it still fails to provide much support for your claim. .

I have proven through three sources, two websites and a Lexis Nexis Citation of a Boston Globe Article Including Page Number and edition precisely where the quote came from. They are all identical.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there have been a lot of changes between the officially sanctioned segregation of Ms. Rice's childhood (which is what she is discussing when she talked about what others told her) and the hand dealt to present day minorities. What Ms. Rice thinks about the difficulties faced by minorities in a segregated environment doesn't give us too much insight into what she thinks about present day difficulties.

I believe that it is patently obvious through any number of sociological studies, as well as analysis of economic figures that African Americans still earn far less per capita than whites, receive substandard educations, have to deal with institutional racism, among many many other problems.

Have situations improved for blacks since Rice was a child? Yes. Are they even close to being equal to the hand dealt whites? Absolutely not. I think that everyone on this board would admit that. The fact that she is willing to turn her back on the members of her race despite problems that presently exist is nothing other than abandonment. She's foresaking the needs of the many for her short term political gain as a Republican puppet. It's a sad commentary.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 12:42 PM

patteeu

01-27-2006, 12:45 PM

From post 156

In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, ''It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.''' One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

From the Boston Globe article:

Post 174, which you have still refused to attribute

In a Newsweek interview last year, Rice said, "It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.' " One does not have to like Rice's politics to appreciate how being twice as good has made her the most powerful woman in the world.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.

LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2002

Show me the freakin' difference between those two, because I'd like to see it.

Take my hand, young 'Hamas' Jenkins, and I will walk you through this one more time.

The two passages you reference here are identical. However, neither is the same as the fake quote you originally attributed to Ms. Rice which can be found in post #138.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 12:47 PM

Absolutely I abandoned the debate. That's what I said [It appears that you've given up on any pretense of reasoned discussion . . . take it elsewhere.]. But it wasn't to take attention away from it. It was to make clear that you had proven yourself [not your arguments, yourSELF] unworthy of further discourse.
You'd already lost the debate by pulling the fascist card. I had nothing to gain from taking attention away from that fact, except to make my point on my assessment of you the person.

I'm unworthy of further discourse yet you still remain here, vehemently posting away to prove your point despite your assertion that you 'won the debate'. The debate was not won, you snapped when I made the clear assertion that someone who equates a group's inability to succeed as being indicative of inherent weakness is a dogma of Social Darwinism, which was the same justification that the Nazi's and other fascists used in order to justify their brutal regimes.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 12:48 PM

If you think that instilling social programs and advocating change through action in order to help bring people out of the gutter is instilling defeatism in them, then I would say you have no empathy as a human being.
We've entered a parallel universe. This statement says absolutely nothing, yet it is definitely different from what you've said this point.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 12:52 PM

you snapped when I made the clear assertion that someone who equates a group's inability to succeed as being indicative of inherent weakness is a dogma of Social Darwinism, which was the same justification that the Nazi's and other fascists used in order to justify their brutal regimes.
I think the indication that even you realize how much you effed up is shown by the fact that you felt the need to completely lie about my position before you could even bring yourself to compare it to Fascism.

Sully

01-27-2006, 12:53 PM

Don't beat around the bush. Do you accept my assertion that my response is borne of disgust with the imprinting of defeatism on the people you claim to try to help? Or do you read the tea leaves, and presume that my response is borne of fear of losing my 'white privilege?'
Good or bad, I ain't mad atcha. Tell the truth.
First off. I'm not worried about you being mad at me. You are smart enough and (usually) respectful enough, in my experience, to handle it if someone has a poor opinion of you or not without it turning into the typical muddled dwon name-calling bullshit. I've been down that road other places, and it's a much more stimulating conversation to actually discuss ideas.
Secondly, as to the point of your question...I think about it in terms of a group. The group thought is much different from how each individual may justify it. So you may honestly and with all your heart believe that to change the system would be to make those who are weak, weaker. I don't know you, but if that's what you say, I have no reason to doubt it. But as a power group, as the thousands and thousands who belong in the same group as you, or I, or anyone like us, my claim is that the reason we are taught to think that, or allowed to think in that way, is to keep the structure that is there up and running. To keep the patterns of power the same. So everyone (in the power group) wins. The individual gets to feel they truly feel their ideas make the world better, and the group as a whole gets to keep a grip on what they already have.
Now, I get that, in re-reading that, it sounds very tin foil hat-ish and paranoid, and idealistic. but I do believe that it is the way things are right now. I see too much evidence for it and too little against it.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 12:53 PM

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 12:57 PM

I think the indication that even you realize how much you effed up is shown by the fact that you felt the need to completely lie about my position before you could even bring yourself to compare it to Fascism.

I have to lie about your position? Not once have you ever characterized my ideas in any realm even approaching the truth. My calling you a fascist was in DIRECT RESPONSE to the weakness that you referred to earlier in this board. I spelled it out for you then, and I spelled it out for you just now. I don't feel as though I've 'effed up' in the least.

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 01:00 PM

The difference is quite a bit.
Apples= my contention that the venomous defensiveness signals some truth to Hamas' assertions that people don't want to change the status quo for fear that they will have to hand over some of their, however small, power in order to help others. I was saying that the fear makes the argument more passionate, and ultimately more hateful.
Oranges= An argument that ANY defensiveness would equal the same thing. To bring the Iraq war argument into this ignores that this argument (the specific one I was talking about) is about power, power structures, and the complete desperation by those in power to keep that power in their hands.

I agree with you that in every circumstance venom and defensiveness don't add credibility to an opposing argument. It would be ridiculous to say that. I was simply saying that it's my belief that this is the case here. Now, I could be wrong (I don't think I am). When guessing about human nature, and specific peoples' nature (especially on a message board) there must be a lot of leeway for error. It's just that what I observed was a lot of people's anger level rising dramatically in the face of, what seemed, a decent argument against them.

I don't follow the logic behind your assertion that venom and defensiveness are particularly relevant to credibility in this argument (as opposed to arguments on other topics). It seems to me that it flows from a preconceived notion about the merits of the arguments available to each side.

I think what you mistake for anger over the thought of handing over power is a frustration with the argument style used by 'Hamas' Jenkins and his comical tendancy to accuse others of doing what, in fact, he is doing. E.g. Accusing his opponents of racism while it is he who makes the group-based arguments. See also the debate between HJ and Baby Lee regarding the Ad Hominem fallacy.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 01:00 PM

...I think about it in terms of a group. The group thought is much different from how each individual may justify it.

Now, I get that, in re-reading that, it sounds very tin foil hat-ish and paranoid, and idealistic. but I do believe that it is the way things are right now. I see too much evidence for it and too little against it.
Didn't get a tin-foil, paranoid, or idealistic, vibe. Did get a strong 'stereotyping' vibe, though. ;)

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 01:01 PM

We've entered a parallel universe. This statement says absolutely nothing, yet it is definitely different from what you've said this point.

That statement says quite a bit, you are just too obtuse to open your ears to anything that I am saying. I am advocating for change, and you want to keep the status quo because it privileges people such as yourself. That is a selfish, apathetic worldview that I somehow doubt you would have if you were in the position of the disenfranchised minority.

Sully

01-27-2006, 01:01 PM

I'm definitely stereotyping. I'll admit that.

mlyonsd

01-27-2006, 01:03 PM

THis has become a nasty place. That's the second time I've heard someone called "obtuse" this week. It's just not right.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 01:05 PM

used by 'Hamas' Jenkins and his comical tendancy to accuse others of doing what, in fact, he is doing. E.g. Accusing his opponents of racism while it is he who makes the group-based arguments. See also the debate between HJ and Baby Lee regarding the Ad Hominem fallacy.

I'm arguing for increased social spending for a group that has statistically been proven to be underprivileged, and therefore I'm racist? The ad-hominem debate only proved that Baby Lee is not as intelligent as he would like to believe as he gave a wholly incorrect definition for the term, was subsequently corrected by me, and then changed his story, which still did not absolve him from the fact that he was guilty of said fallacy.

Baby Lee

01-27-2006, 01:07 PM

I'm arguing for increased social spending for a group that has statistically been proven to be underprivileged, and therefore I'm racist? The ad-hominem debate only proved that Baby Lee is not as intelligent as he would like to believe as he gave a wholly incorrect definition for the term, was subsequently corrected by me, and then changed his story, which still did not absolve him from the fact that he was guilty of said fallacy.
Again, anyone ANYONE. Feel free to step up, besides Hamas, and say I'm wrong on this one.

Donger

01-27-2006, 01:07 PM

I am advocating for change, and you want to keep the status quo because it privileges people such as yourself.

What privileges to I receive due to the existence of the downtrodden?

Sully

01-27-2006, 01:08 PM

I don't follow the logic behind your assertion that venom and defensiveness are particularly relevant to credibility in this argument (as opposed to arguments on other topics). It seems to me that it flows from a preconceived notion about the merits of the arguments available to each side.

I think what you mistake for anger over the thought of handing over power is a frustration with the argument style used by 'Hamas' Jenkins and his comical tendancy to accuse others of doing what, in fact, he is doing. E.g. Accusing his opponents of racism while it is he who makes the group-based arguments. See also the debate between HJ and Baby Lee regarding the Ad Hominem fallacy.
Yeah, I can see that. And it's probably right. I agree more with Hamas' side than yours, so I may have seen something that wasn;t there.
There is definitely anger coming from both sides here (thanks Capt. Obvious), and that's sad. I would like to read a few things that I haven't...
1) Originally the thread was about Clinton. Why is she so bad/ good? I really don't know much about her.
2) Hamas believes strongly in changing the system (as do I), in what ways should that be done? Instead of arguing semantics of words, I would think that would be a much more gratifying argument? Conversely, Do you Pat, and you Lee believe there should be no changes at all? Or have I red you wrong?

This is all a cop-out. I could post ideas of mine, but I do much better reacting, positively or nagatively, to others' ideas, and fashioning my ideas afterwards.

Donger

01-27-2006, 01:09 PM

I'm arguing for increased social spending for a group that has statistically been proven to be underprivileged, and therefore I'm racist? The ad-hominem debate only proved that Baby Lee is not as intelligent as he would like to believe as he gave a wholly incorrect definition for the term, was subsequently corrected by me, and then changed his story, which still did not absolve him from the fact that he was guilty of said fallacy.

Actually, your general attacks on white people are quite telling.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 01:09 PM

What privileges to I receive due to the existence of the downtrodden?

Better socioeconomic status, fewer people to compete with you in the job market, a cushy suburban home, among others.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 01:11 PM

Actually, your general attacks on white people are quite telling.

Telling of what? I'm a white male. Nice try.

patteeu

01-27-2006, 01:13 PM

"As a minority, you have to work twice as hard to be successful."

''It wasn't as if someone said, 'You have to be twice as good' and 'isn't that a pity' or 'isn't that wrong.' It was just, 'You have to be twice as good.'''

Thank you for FINALLY pointing out the post from which your viewpoint came. Is there a linguistic difference between the two quotes? Yes. Is there an argumentative or philosophical difference between the two? Absolutely not.

This is the 3rd time I've FINALLY pointed it out explicitly (see posts 171 and 176 for the 1st and 2nd times). I've pointed it out in other posts as well in a less explicit manner. And since I posted my first challenge to your fake quote in post #143, before you ever posted the Boston Globe attribution, I couldn't possibly have been referring to that.

I think it's a big deal when you try to pass fake quotes off as though they are real. If you were paraphrasing, you could have made that clear without damaging your credibility. But having said that, I gave you credit for the paraphrase when I pointed out that you played loose with quotes and I went on to point out that the world is far different today than they were during Rice's childhood. Her comment was a specific reference to her childhood. For you to try to pass that off as commentary on today's "black experience" (for lack of a better term) is quite dishonest, IMO.

If someone says "I hate Jews" and later when asked about it says "I hate people who are descendents of Abraham and David as mentioned in the Bible" they may have used different words, but they said the exact same thing. The end result is identical. If that's the best you can do to shoot holes in my argument than you have a long way to go.

I was willing to get past your fake quote with a mere comment, but it was you who took exception to my comment. I didn't make your dishonesty the cornerstone of my counterargument, I went on and addressed it as though it were a paraphrase of Ms. Rice's comments, which it was.

Donger

01-27-2006, 01:14 PM

Better socioeconomic status, fewer people to compete with you in the job market, a cushy suburban home, among others.

And my hard work over the years has nothing to do with these?

Donger

01-27-2006, 01:21 PM

Telling of what? I'm a white male. Nice try.

Of course you are. I didn't think you weren't.

Nor does that fact preclude the possibility that you are racist.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 01:22 PM

And my hard work over the years has nothing to do with these?

I'm not discounting your work, but you still seem to discount the fact that sometimes hard work isn't enough for people not as privileged as you.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 01:24 PM

Because I can't find any evidence that she ever said it. If she did, then prove it.

And when you finish doing that (or fail to do that as I suspect you will), feel free to address the rest of post #156.

Do you understand what a quote is? This Boston Globe article doesn't support your contention that Ms. Rice said what you said she said.

These are your quotes from 171 and 176. All they say is that she never made that quote. You never reference post 138. That's fine, you made a mistake, but I'm not going to call you a liar for pointing me to information that isn't where you claim it is to be located. You're being hypocritical.

Donger

01-27-2006, 01:27 PM

I'm not discounting your work, but you still seem to discount the fact that sometimes hard work isn't enough for people not as privileged as you.

Yes, sometimes hard work isn't enough. Intelligence, drive, etc. certainly do help.

Are you suggesting that every one of these downtrodden deserve the help of the 'privileged' like myself? There is a basic fact here: some people are just not very bright. Do you really want to artificially prop them up just so that they can eventually fall on the faces?

I don't know which is more cruel.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 01:32 PM

This is the 3rd time I've FINALLY pointed it out explicitly (see posts 171 and 176 for the 1st and 2nd times). I've pointed it out in other posts as well in a less explicit manner. And since I posted my first challenge to your fake quote in post #143, before you ever posted the Boston Globe attribution, I couldn't possibly have been referring to that.

I think it's a big deal when you try to pass fake quotes off as though they are real. If you were paraphrasing, you could have made that clear without damaging your credibility. But having said that, I gave you credit for the paraphrase when I pointed out that you played loose with quotes and I went on to point out that the world is far different today than they were during Rice's childhood. Her comment was a specific reference to her childhood. For you to try to pass that off as commentary on today's "black experience" (for lack of a better term) is quite dishonest, IMO.

I was willing to get past your fake quote with a mere comment, but it was you who took exception to my comment. I didn't make your dishonesty the cornerstone of my counterargument, I went on and addressed it as though it were a paraphrase of Ms. Rice's comments, which it was.

In post 138 I was paraphrasing, but I was under the impression that you were referring explicitly to the Globe comment since I showed three areas in which it occured, yet you still claimed that 'her quote was a fake'.When you repeatedly refer to me misstating her and I constantly repost the same quote and you don't point me out to the post in question it becomes an exercise in futility. We both needed to clarify better in that instance.

With that being said, I say now as I have said earlier in this board, although conditions have improved for Afr. Am. since Rice was a child, it is still much more difficult for them to succeed. What I was taking her to task for, and still do, was seemingly forgetting this in lieu of her own political goals, which as a member of the Republican party are wholly different from increased social spending on the underprivileged.

'Hamas' Jenkins

01-27-2006, 01:36 PM

Yes, sometimes hard work isn't enough. Intelligence, drive, etc. certainly do help.

Are you suggesting that every one of these downtrodden deserve the help of the 'privileged' like myself? There is a basic fact here: some people are just not very bright. Do you really want to artificially prop them up just so that they can eventually fall on the faces?

I don't know which is more cruel.

I don't want to 'prop them up', I want them to have the same chances that the privileged classes of this society have access to. As I was arguing earlier, I am hoping for an egalitarian society. I don't deny that some people aren't bright, but why should a C student like George Bush, or Al Gore for that matter get a chance to (or actually) become POTUS? It's blatantly unfair and only happened b/c of who their daddy's were and the resources available to them. That is an extreme example, but think of the advantages many kids get when exposed to the best that money can buy. Some people will invariably fail, I'm not suggesting prop all black people up because they have it bad, I'm saying that they should all be given a chance to succeed--the same chance you got.

Donger

01-27-2006, 01:36 PM

although conditions have improved for Afr. Am. since Rice was a child, it is still much more difficult for them to succeed.

So, programs such as Affirmative Action and the like make it more difficult for them to succeed?

Donger

01-27-2006, 01:42 PM

I don't want to 'prop them up', I want them to have the same chances that the privileged classes of this society have access to. As I was arguing earlier, I am hoping for an egalitarian society. I don't deny that some people aren't bright, but why should a C student like George Bush, or Al Gore for that matter get a chance to (or actually) become POTUS? It's blatantly unfair and only happened b/c of who their daddy's were and the resources available to them. That is an extreme example, but think of the advantages many kids get when exposed to the best that money can buy. Some people will invariably fail, I'm not suggesting prop all black people up because they have it bad, I'm saying that they should all be given a chance to succeed--the same chance you got.

You acknowledge that there are stupid people.
You acknowledge that you don't want to prop them up.
Yet, you want an egalitarian society.

Okay. Look, I admire your idealism, I just don't share it. I escaped socialism once. I've seen what it turns people into. I do not want to see it here.