I'm not assuming you are white. I simply
Posted By: Kiki on 2008-09-18
In Reply to: Something that has always - Chele
meant put yourself in the role that she was in, a minority in college. You are right though, I assumed that you weren't a minority for that scenario and I apologize. And, I didn't mention anywhere in my post about Wright, I was simply referring to her as a college student and the fact that I did not think her thesis was racist.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Some things just simply are right/wrong, black/white, yes/no.
x
I guess you want the old white, wrinkly white guy?
Right wing horsesh*t being shoved out as "truth." Sad.
And you also I am assuming? What would...
your reaction have been if Obama had announced he was suspending his campaign to return to Washington (his job actually, campaign not withstanding...he IS still a senator and we are still paying him)to deal with this crisis? Be honest. What would your reaction have been?
now who is assuming
talk about ass-u-me ...
Because I am a Jew I am pushing sex, violence, other "worldly" things on you? Are you saying a Jewish life is corrupt because we aren't christian? Never said you should put up with it. You should voice your feelings to the stores, television stations, magazines, etc.
I didn't say you shouldn't have your "christian things" out in public, I said, don't assume Ben Stein speaks for the Jewish community. Got your feathers a little ruffled there, didn't ya? LOL!
I'm assuming you mean....
that it would be a bad thing to be a Muslim? It's been proven for 2 years that he is not a Muslim but a Christian, but that's not the point. What exactly makes it bad to be a Muslim?
You know what they say about assuming don't you?
I'm originally from Florida, which is the melting pot of the US for race dear. I have black, white, asian, indian, hispanic, etc etc friends. My problem is with the fact that people still want to whine about "oh unequal treatment" when really all that has happened is a reversing of treatment. Now white people can't get any help or decent positions if there is a minority going for the same help or position.
But hey, you must know everything, so I digress.
There you go again. Assuming.
I spent many days writing and calling my reps.
McCain and what happened with his first wife has noting to do with voting.
You also do not know who I voted for.
O is rushing too fast in his decision making from my point of view. He's putting the cart before the horse. He's not thinking of consequences of closing Gitmo, the stimulus package, ending the war in Iraq too early, letting Geithner become head of IRS, and choosing Emanuel.
We shall see what happens, and I hope its for the best, but he should slow down and take his time before making decisions that will affect all of us in the coming years.
Assuming that you are serious in your inquiry,
my response follows:
I have, thus far, seen no credible evidence to corroborate the notion that Bush willingly lied about the situation in Iraq. The information available at the time regarding WMD may or may not have been incorrect, but it was information that was accepted at that time by the world community, and I can no more condemn Bush for believing it than I can condemn Clinton or the UN for believing it. Given the state of the country in the aftermath of 9/11, it seems to me that allowing any country to disregard a 14th or 15th UN resolution with regard to accounting for WMDs would have been seen as insanity.
Another poster said something to the effect that the truth has not been presented, and I think this is true. We hear about the activities of the insurgency in Iraq, but we do not hear about the day-to-day successes there because bombings are more sensational and a better news story. A troop of soldiers building a road or delivering medical equipment or school supplies isn't a story. Iraqis working alongside American soldiers is not a news story. Suicide bombings and allegations of prisoner abuse are more sensational, and so that is what the public sees, and the Bush administration has done a really poor job of keeping the public updated on what the military is actually doing in Iraq and what advances are being made in the war on terror, thus allowing the media to be the only voice heard.
As far as prisoner abuses go, I don't think conservatives have their heads in the sand, but I think they (I) have a somewhat more cynical attitude toward such abuses. While such abuses should never be tolerated, they will always happen. There are bad eggs in any basket, whether it be a prison or any other community of people. When those people break rules and do bad things, they deserve to be investigated and appropriately punished, but allowing and encouraging the entire community/effort to be indicted by the actions of those few is counterproductive. In the instance of prison abuses, I consider it irresponsible and counterproductive for the mainstream media to engage in what seems to me to amount to broad-scale bashing of the administration on the basis of these incidents.
I also think conservatives are more inclined to weigh these incidents against the larger picture, whereas liberals seem more inclined to see the actions as unacceptable (and rightly so) and thus to condemn the entire system (not justified, IMO). In other words, the possibility that some Iraqi detainees are being mistreated is concerning, and the situation should be corrected, but it is not an indictment against the entire military or the entire administration. Such abuses must be minimized proactivly, and when they do occur, they must be dealt with, but it is unrealistic to expect that they will not happen at all or that they are any indication of acceptable behavior standards of the military or the administration.
As far as embryonic stem cell research, I personally believe that this is an area in which agreement is never going to be possible because the basic difference is more theological than anything else. I tried to explain my position on this on the conservative board, but I did it poorly. Most social conservatives/pro-life people approach the abortion and embryonic stem-cell research issues with the innate presumption that life - the presence of a new soul - begins at conception.
Regarding your above example of weighing the cells in the Petri dish versus helping the patient with Alzheimer's, the statement of the pastor you cited seems kind and loving IF one assumes that the Petri dish contains nothing more valuable than a few cells - in other words, if you assume that it does not contain a human soul. On the other hand, in the pro-life viewpoint, if I assume that the Petri dish contains a new human soul that is to be deliberately destroyed in order to help the woman with Alzheimers, I cannot be anything but horrified that one life, through no fault of its own and through no action on its part, is considered disposable for the benefit of the other.
Many conservatives find a puzzling dichotomy between the liberal abortion/stem-cell research position and the position regarding Iraq. The liberal position seems willing to accept the possibility of killing a human soul if we don't have firm proof that it exists, but the continuing US presence in Iraq in a situation in which premature withdrawal would almost certainly lead to chaos and, quite likely, the development of a Taliban or Iran-like theocracy is anathema.
Why do these divisions exist? I think that is probably a matter of who one listens to and believes, and what mindset one takes into their research. If you approach research with the mindset that America is at fault for most of her problems, that can be supported. If you take the position that America is basically just, that position can be supported. If your morality tends to focus most on social justice, that can be supported. If your morality focuses more on individual liberty, that can be supported. With the mainstream media being considered less reliable by both sides (considered a liberal mouthpiece by conservatives and a Bush puppet by liberals), I think more people are turning to online sources for their information. The danger of that, though, is that is very easy online to find sources that cater to one's preexisting position, thus widening the divide.
If I have said anything inflammatory or disrespectful above, my apologies.
You are stereotyping and assuming......
I believe you have never taken the time to reach out to gay people and see that the lifestyle is not any different from yours. Unfortunately, your bible thumping gets in the way.
You have a lot of nerve assuming these women
xoxoxo
You people on the left are always assuming you
nm
That’s all you got??? I was completely honest – you’re the one who did the assuming
My words were “DH works in stocks/trading”. Which he does. Not everyone who works in stocks/trading goes into an office in Wall Street or a stockbrokers office. There are many people behind the scenes that research companies, and other jobs dealing with the markets, trading, buying, selling, foreign currencies, etc. Many of them write articles for the companies who have clientele with big $$$ to be trading and selling. Many of them attend meetings, sit in on conference calls, etc. Also, many people when dealing with portfolios whether they are your own or various clients know what is going on in the world of the markets/finance. I never said he buys or sells “just for ourselves” and I never once said he went into an office or even eluded to the fact that he went into an office, so there you go again “assuming”. I didn’t divulge any information about his clients or anything, and I never said what he did except that he works in stocks/trading, which he does. By the way… there are many people out there who buy/sell stocks and currencies for themselves and makes or loses $$$ a day. Tell them they “don’t work” in trading. Your too busy wanting to defend yourself and make excuses and you’re doing a poor job at it. Next time maybe you should read a post slowly before assuming anything.
One thing I do know is there is a lot more going on behind the scenes and if the markets go up or down it is not just because of who is the president. But you only like to point that out when the market goes up. You praise the enlightened one when the markets go up and claim he has now walked on water and the stock market has gone up just because of him and he along, and yet you remain as silent as the wind when the markets go down. Can’t have it both ways.
I'm assuming you've never watched....(sm)
the full versions of his sermons, just the sensationalistic clips on Fox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw
It's all about context.
I'm assuming you are quite young, am I correct in
that assumption?
I'm assuming that was supposed to be a picture sm
of an angry mob, but I was unable to view it, but I get it!! That's hilarious. But I will say the comment about "first they laughed and then they died" will haunt my nightmares -- not so funny.
JTBB, I have to admire your tenacity dealing with these people. Tell me, what is it like being a pariah? I know this won't jive with your atheist beliefs, but you know that Jesus was the most famous pariah, so your're in good company!! LOL
Assuming I am the nameless one....and also for the umpteenth time...
not a Republican...I call Barack Obama a socialist because he is one, not because he supports social programs (the accused Republicans do also, to a point, otherwise there would be none), but because he wants to practice redistribution of wealth...taaxing one group of people and redistributing that money to people who did nothing to earn it...including people who already do not pay taxes.
I never said Obama was a communist. He has had communist influences in his life, that is proven, he mentions the man in his book Dreams of My Father. But I have never said Barack Obama was a communist. I don't know if he is or not. I do know he is a socialist.
There you go again assuming everyone who marries is are christian heterosexuals
The middle east people don't marry according to our bible. The jews have their version, and so do all other religions. Even the bush people from Africa and Australia marry, and they don't marry based on the bible of christianity.
Talk about being screwed up! Trying to make a point with nonsense.
I sure can't want for all the states to follow suit and make marriage legal for homosexuals.
If you believe in christianity and the bible that's fine and good, but don't push your beliefs on everyone else, because we believe you are wrong.
Correction - I meant wait before assuming, not "want"
x
Simply put... sm
The 1st amendment protects the speech you don't want to hear, not just the speech you want to hear.
You don't want to hear my dissenting opinion, but thank you, U.S. forefathers and subsequent soldiers, for protecting my right to say it to you.
I don't want to hear YOUR holier-than-thou bible thumping rants, but you have every right to say it to me, and I'm not going to tell you that you can't.
Who says I don't care... I am simply saying
that the rich are not evil, which you seem to paint them as. In fact, a lot of philanthropy comes from the rich. College scholarships, donations, etc. We are not all the same and we cannot all be the same and we never will be the same. How about instead of pity for those less fortunate, let's encourage them to be self-sufficient? This is the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY and there will always be a segment of society who will not pull themselves up in spite of all the opportunities available. I can't spend a lot of time worrying about that because it futile.
Well perhaps we are simply misunderstood
like this:
We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you. —George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss., Sept. 20, 2005
Wow! Brazil is big. —George W. Bush, after being shown a map of Brazil by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brasilia, Brazil,
If it were to rain a lot, there is concern from the Army Corps of Engineers that the levees might break. And so, therefore, we're cautious about encouraging people to return at this moment of history. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2005
The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American values or, you know — European values, they're universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere. —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005
I can only speak to myself. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
After all, Europe is America's closest ally. —George W. Bush, Mainz, Germany, Feb. 23, 2005
I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God. —George W. Bush, ABC's 20/20, Washington D.C., Jan. 14, 2005
I want to appreciate those of you who wear our nation's uniform for your sacrifice. —George W. Bush, Jacksonville, Fla.
See, that's the thing...you simply cannot allow
That's one of many things that make this kind of stupidity forum domination. Grownups back off and let their children throw tantrums sometimes. Go ahead. Let her rip. I'm outta here for now, but not for long.
I am simply saying that I think it is funny
that they listed that as a point for her foreign experience. Yes, I saw the first one and it should be listed. I just don't have a clue why they would list that as a point for it. Though, it is clearly a Republican or anti-Obama site so it would, just as the Democrat, anti-Republican sites would do something equally as ridiculous.
I also try to not bash either side, unless I am provoked  . I do think you can oppose one side and keep it level-headed. When people start completely bashing and name-calling, etc., it kind of throws all credibility out the window for me.
Like I said, pubs simply do not
nm
Why would you post this, other than to simply
nm
you are simply wrong.
Posting over and over and over does not make something true. Case in point - Iran was involved in the 911 attack. It has been 7 years, and SP is still saying that lie.
We don't HATE, like the right does. We simply
XX
And he could easily do that simply by....(sm)
upholding G. W. Bush's patriot act. Go figure.
I simply prefer not to post here. SM
I have a hectic and stressful enough life as it is, as many MTs do. I don't know anything about the other issue. I use to go to MTDaily and there was always trouble there with the ISP thing and their own prejudice. So I don't go there anymore. I suggest that might be an option for you if you feel the way you do.
Murtha simply wants it investigated, one way or the other...sm
Although I doubt the soldiers have corrupt intent *if* there is any merit in the claims.
I was simply imitating your posts...
I guess you don't like to be on the receiving end.
I dont see it that way at all. Obama simply cant be
nm
This is simply a matter of color.
This man has gotten off the hook answering the tough questions because everyone is trying to be so PC; we don't want to upset the black man or the black community. WHo cares? He's running for President. If being black keeps him from answering the hard questions, why the heck do I want him running my country.
Racism is alive and well in this country.
Simply curious about the motive.
x
I WANT to respect Obama, but I cant simply
nm
I accused nobody of anything. I simply stated that
a triple digit IQ, i.e., intelligence quotient, as in intelligent leadership, would be good for the country for a change, the implication being we have not had that until now. If it speaks stupid, thinks stupid, looks stupid and acts stupid, chances are it is, well, stupid.
I do not spend any time on sites that speculate about widely varying IQ scores for either party's candidates, since that type of data can only produce subjective conclusions. I also do not pursue illogical arguments that in one breath give Obama's SAT/LSAT scores and in the next, accuse him of hiding that information. For me, SAT scores and IQ are 2 mutually exclusive concepts unless and until someone can produce a resource that can convince me otherwise.
I made a simple statement in response to Bushisms which any self-respecting American would find embarrassing and not worthy of the highest office in the land. That statement was construed as some sort of accusation in a reply from somebody who felt the need to defend Bush. I answered that by further discussion of Bush's stupidity, not his IQ. I was not focused on the number, rather the lack of intelligence.
Therefore, I feel no need to defend my position nor excuse myself for not conducting exhaustive research in defense of somebody else's ideas and number hang-ups.
I want smart leadership. Sue me.
Simply not true... FOXISM nm
nm
Where did I state that? I simply stated
You've really got a bee in your bonnet today, don't you?
It's simply that I take nothing from this source at face value.
I know some of the other side of issues that MM has addressed, I know what he does to produce some of the "effects" he creates, and I refuse to be sucked in by anything he does, most of which is deceitful.
Get a room? Something on my nose? Simply
because I was polite to someone, chose to give one of the "nice" ones the benefit of the doubt while finding posts like yours uninformative, childish and a pure waste of keystrokes?
I agree, given the never-ending bitterness and hatefulness you have, it will all come back to bite you in the butt some day. One usually gets back what they give.
Simply put, those who have salvation are bound for heaven.
matter if a person is Jewish or not.
Right, nothing psychotic, simply common sense.
nm
That is simply not true. No funerals for fetuses ever.
THINK about it. Foolish to argue this point.
Simply displays a different point of view...nm
x
Did you bother to read the endorsement or simply
Think about it.
I agree....simply because what people will say to a caller...
or even on this board or to a friend even...when that person gets to the point of voting...I am not sure all those saying to the pollsters "Obama" will actually vote for him. Remember the exit polls for Kerry...it looked like he was winning everywhere by large margin and when the votes came in...not so. We are not going to know until election night. And I still think it will be close, but I don't think Obama has it sewn up by a long shot.
This is a day for us to simply step back and stand together
progressives, conservatives liberals and the like...just simply as Americans, waking up and greeting the dawn of a new day.
This is simply NOT TRUE. Read what the United
Mine Workers of America have to say about it. I've copied and pasted it in its entirety. It completely REFUTES yet another false claim that's been repeated on this board.
McCain campaign’s last minute distortion of Obama’s coal record an act of desperation
United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) International President Cecil E. Roberts issued the following statement today:
“Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have once again demonstrated that they are willing to say anything and do anything to win this election. Their latest twisting of the truth is about coal and some comments Sen. Obama made last January about the future use of coal in America.
“Here is what the McCain campaign left out of Sen. Obama’s actual words: ‘But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it.’
“Sen. Obama has been consistent with that message not just in the coalfields, but everywhere else he goes as well. Despite what the McCain campaign and some far right-wing blogs would have Americans believe, Sen. Obama has been and remains a tremendous supporter of coal and the future of coal.
“I noted that Sen. McCain even went so far yesterday as to say he has always been a supporter of coal. I wonder, then, how he can justify his statement at a Senate hearing in 2000 that, ‘In a perfect world we would like to transition away from coal entirely,’ and his leading role in sponsoring legislation in 2003 that would have wiped out 78 percent of all coal production in America?
“Fortunately, UMWA members, their families and their friends and neighbors in the coalfields know all too well what is going on here. They’re not going to fall for it, and we urge others throughout America who care about coal to review what the candidates’ records on coal actually are. We are confident that once they do, and once they see the many other benefits to working families of voting for Sen. Obama, they will make the right choice for themselves and their families
Berg is no leftie. He is simply a disenfranchised
and, NO, that does not make him a leftie. The dem party has a broad range of degree of conservativism vs liberalism. A fringe pub is not qualified to judge one way or the other who among the dems is left, right or center, since everyone left of them (including the majority of their own political party) are "lefties." Berg is a Hillary diehard, pure and simple. If you doubt this, just take a look at the timing of when he filed his law suit. He did not challenge O's eligibility until it became apparent that his own candidate was going to lose in the primaries.
Berg is no leftie. He is simply a disenfranchised
and, NO, that does not make him a leftie. The dem party has a broad range of degree of conservativism vs liberalism. A fringe pub is not qualified to judge one way or the other who among the dems is left, right or center, since everyone left of them (including the majority of their own political party) are "lefties." Berg is a Hillary diehard, pure and simple. If you doubt this, just take a look at the timing of when he filed his law suit. He did not challenge O's eligibility until it became apparent that his own candidate was going to lose in the primaries.
This is simply not true. I doubt that Obama will be...sm
anyone's "puppet" as both Bushes were. As well, the president does have a power of veto. It will be interesting to see how everything pans out over the next few years. I believe Obama sees an open, transparent, cooperative presidency but will be no ones fool.
|
