Thursday, December 22, 2011

Uncle Onyango and Ron Paul........questionable media?

What do you all know about THIS?  Ron Paul walked off CNN for their asking him about how he " he made money and won fame with the help of a sometimes racist series of newsletters back in the 1990s."??  This sounds bad to me;  who'd allow that kind of stuff to be printed on a newsletter he's associated with? Bad, bad, bad.......

And the headlines are saying "Romney says he'd deport Obama's illegal Uncle Onyango"?    isn't that the LAW?  How could a president not either deport or do something to see if he merits legality?  Why hasn't Obama done something?  This illegal uncle was arrested for drunk driving.  Wasn't there an illegal Aunt, too?  She's been living in a Boston public housing project.  MAN.  Why shouldn't Romney have an illegal drunk deported?

By the way, the news was big on Ron Paul's situation, but the way they reported on ol' Uncle Onyango wasn't that he was a problem with a drunk driving arrest and also illegal, but that "ROMNEY WOULD DEPORT..."     No bias, RIGHT?!!  :-)  Hey, it's ROMNEY'S FAULT!  heh heh..  The fun just never stops.

z

167 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Caveat: This comment is not a defense of Ron Paul.

Note this one statement from Ron Paul, way back when:

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

Actually, John McWhorter, a black linguist, has said nearly the same thing. McWhorter can get away with saying that, Ron Paul cannot.

Is Ron Paul a racist? I think so.

But I also remember that at the time he made some of those statements, so were a lot of other people -- or, at least, a lot of other people were saying much the same thing.

In my view, Americans have become indoctrinated in and overcome by white guilt.

BTW, note that Abraham Lincoln said the following:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

And this statement by Ron Paul isn't so unusual even now in DC and the surrounding area:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Always On Watch said...

And one more thing....

Whichever GOP candidate is in the lead at the moment, the media will consistently go after that candidate tooth and nail. But never before THAT candidate is leading.

This is a deliberate strategy!

The GOP will be able to run nobody -- absolutely nobody -- that the media cannot dish the dirt on.

beamish said...

There's more to Ron Paul's newsletters than just their racist and anti-Semitic contents and conspiracy theories.

Ask yourself what is "Presidential" about either Ron Paul writing such garbage, Ron Paul having someone else write such garbage, and / or Ron Paul "not knowing" such garbage was written in his newsletters.

I'm guessing the Paultards' tune will change to "why is the media paying so much attention to our candidate?" LOL

Chakam Conservative said...

I would opine and merely say to let us research statistics from said time period and measure them against Ron Paul's words about DC and the male black population.

If there is any credibility, then Ron Paul will be vindicated. If not, then Ron Paul will have to face accountability.

Simple.

If I said, "Most of prisoners in American penal institutions are black", is that in and of itself racist? Could we not look at the population statistics of said institutions and determine if my words are factual or rhetorically motivated?

Since not all that glitters is gold, I would also say that not all that looks like racism is. We need to not be knee-jerkish about anything, including this.

Yes, yes, I know this sounds as though I am defending Ron Paul. I am not. I am simply seeking to look at what he has said, or is associated with having been said, and go from there.

beamish said...

Chakam,

Indeed, let's look at what was sold (at over a million dollars in profit) under the Ron Paul "brand name."

Paul on African-Americans: "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions"

Paul on the LA riots: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Paul on Reagan's making Martin Luther King's birthday a federal holiday: "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

"Dr." Paul on AIDS: "Gays should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because AIDS is transmitted by saliva."

Paul on the anti-government, usually racist 'militia movement': "one of the most encouraging developments in America."

Paul on Israel: "an aggressive, national socialist state."

Paul on the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."

Paul on the 9/11 atttacks: "Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the [Bush] administration because now we can invade Iraq."

Need more?

soapster said...

Seriously...does anyone have an independent thought in their head or do they just plug into the magic picture box and regurgitate the talking points that come from it.

Ron Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies. They weren't all white. Further, at the time of his practice, he did not charge Medicare or Medicade patients for services.

Over his entire political career he has taken positions, offered bills, and made countless statements pointing out how the war on drugs, our foreign policy of intervention, our judicial system disproportiantly affect minorities.

If you want criticize him for his policy positions then by all means feel free to do so but for Republican party members who chastise Democrats for playing the race card to throw it down on a 12 term congressman who has spent his entire political career championing civil liberties and individual rights speaks to the desperation of this party in peril.

soapster said...

For those at all interested in facilitating their own independent research:

http://www.ron-paul-racist.com/

Bob said...

In this case I am of two minds, really.

1. What is so wrong about Obama not deporting his uncle? Barrak needs to try to use his Presidential authority to legitimize his Uncle, but I wouldn't deport mine, either.

2. What's so wrong about Romney saying he would deport Obama's Uncle. I would deport him, too. After all, he is an illegal alien and we must enforce our laws. I would deport anybody's uncle unless there were compelling reasons to leave them alone.

I remember that Bill Clinton was criiticized for pardoning his own worthless brother, Roger, from whatever legal sins he had committed. Upon hearing this, one of the conservative news commentators remarked, "If you are the President of the United States and cannot pardon your own brother...".

As President, you would have pardon the whole family, and all the neighbors. You have to take advantage of these little situations when they come along. You just might not be re-elected.

Bob said...

Since everybody else is commenting on Ron Paul, I guess I ought to say something on topic.

I don't like Ron Paul, and never have. He has always been a brick shy of a load, fell off the good-sense wagon a long time ago, and shows no intellectual signs above the bacteria level. He is the poster-boy for Doctors Without Brains.

He is the political equivalent of a persistent computer virus that keeps crapping things up.

Ron Paul is the right-wing counterpart to Howard Dean, another member of the Doctors Without Brains crowd. Both probably have bad bedside manners, and bad breath.

Did I say I didn't think much of Ron Paul?

beamish said...

If you want criticize him for his policy positions then by all means feel free to do so

Which racist, anti-Semitic, fringe conspiracy theory-tainted policy positions in Ron Paul's newsletters are his, and which of them are merely his "unsupervised" employees raking in subscription cash from neo-Nazis?

The problem with your "Ron Paul's racist newsletters don't contain Ron Paul's views" defense, Soapy, is that you for some reason desire this idiot to be taken seriously.

Or, that only idiots do.

beamish said...

Bob,

Not Howard Dean. That descriptor fits on account that they're both doctors and mentally 30 cents short of a quarter, but there's a more out-of-touch politician Ron Paul reminds me of.

Henry Wallace.

soapster said...

Juveniles. As you run around spewing your ad hominem your party is imploding and deservedly so.

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

Conservatives can never have any indiscretions. The media will lift up every rock to find what they can unlike the anti-Semitic remarks made by the Rev Wright,which of course Obama never heard in his entire 20 years and I am sure if we had a group like Media Matters or Think Progress, we would probably be able to find a cross burning or 2 in Robert Byrd's past.But again the problem would be getting out the message especially on FOX because of all their "lying and false facts" and all.
As far as what Romney said even though legit,the dumbed down public won't be looking at the illegality of it but will be saying "How dare He say That"

beamish said...

Soapy,

Juvenile? Help us out here.

If Ron Paul's racist, anti-Semitic, fringe conspiracy theory-mongering newsletters written in the first person singular are not a repository for Ron Paul's "actual" views, should we take seriously a candidate that has profitted handsomely from catering to (or having his "unsupervised" employees cater to) those racist, anti-Semitic, conspiracy theory-mongering twits who hold such views?

Who and what are we supposed to believe?

Ron Paul's public relations / newsletters / "social commentaries" / money-making schemes were hijacked by racist twits without his knowledge?

And this speaks to Ron Paul's leadership skills how?

Ron Paul disavows nearly 30 years of political materials published in his name because he didn't know what they said?

C'mon. Juvenile? Please, tell me that is not your best defense of Ron Paul.

Z said...

AOW "The GOP will be able to run nobody -- absolutely nobody -- that the media cannot dish the dirt on."

That's for sure....they ignore their own and really dish the Conservatives.
I think context is necessary when discussing Lincoln's views (and the views of everyone else at the time)..

Ron Paul...I honestly didn't think what I'd heard about race and him was true . but..

Beamish, of course...nobody should let anything go out under his name unless he means it. Or it's some kind of editorial/opinion thing where someone's blasting the racism view, for example.

Chakam...this looks bad.

Soapster, I see your link; I wonder why he didn't want to fight Borger in that way?
Sorry we don't have an 'independent thought in our heads' but racism should be investigated if there's a shred of truth, which there seems to be.


BOB....my point is in agreement with you WHY WOULDN'T (or SHOULDN'T) ROMNEY OR ANY PRESIDENT DEPORT HIM?
The point about Obama is different; wouldn't you think he'd try to help his aunt and his uncle who are both illegal and on welfare? Why hasn't he? He's PRESIDENT for goodness sake. At least give them some cash!?

Lisa, they'll be saying EXACTLY that and that is EXACTLY why the media led with the headline worded like that...you're so right.

soapster said...

I've seen some of the newsletter material. If you're describing their contents as racist then yes, you haven't read them and yes you are simply regurgitating the talking points of the pundits and presstitutes.

It is a far more accurate characterization to state that the material in them was perhaps not politically correct.

I don't need to defend Ron Paul. His record speaks for itself.

The bulk of you had no intention whatsoever in supporting Ron Paul anyway. Thus, the newsletters merely serve as another reason for you to affirm you dislike of him regardless of what you actually know about their contents.

The people that truly care and are above the fray and BS that the MSM is pushing aren't bothered by this one bit. I know because I encounter them every single day.

Chakam Conservative said...

@Beamish,

Those were excellent quotes. However, would it be too much trouble to provide me with links to said quotes so I, and others, may confirm them?

Otherwise it is all just hearsay. I'm sure you don't want that.

Thanks!

Z said...

oh, come on, soapster..so we're all bad, misinformed people because we don't agree with you on Ron Paul? REALLY?

"The bulk of you had no intention whatsoever in supporting Ron Paul anyway"
That's true, but I don't want this thread to become yet another Ron Paul bash/support fest.

Let me tell you one thing, I was never considering voting for him but I'd warmed to him through some of the debates until he got into foreign affairs and then he lost me. You DO know there are opinions other than his which are valid!? :-)

soapster said...

Opinions are aplenty. Everyone is entitled to theirs. Simply having one however doesn't make it a matter of truth.

Carry on.

Z said...

"carry on"? You, too

beamish said...

Full disclosure:

I was born in 1970 in Birmingham ("Bombingham"), Alabama to very actively conservative Christian, lower middle class / working poor parents. My grandfather (my father's father) was an early Republican Party organizer in the state of Alabama, actively registering black citizens to vote when it was dangerous to be known for doing so. My grandfather's electronic appliances repair business was burned to the ground and his home was fired upon with shotguns and high-powered rifles by DemoKKKrats for his political activism and for employing blacks in his shop to teach them a trade in electronics. (My grandfather was a radioman in the US Army Signal Corps attached to the command elements of the 3rd Armored "Spearhead" Division under the Jewish-American general Maurice Rose - in itself a cool twist of history - America's first tanks to blast into Germany to crush the Nazis were LED by a Jew).

You could say battling racial hatreds is a "family tradition" in my background.

Before I was actually old enough to vote, I glommed on to the Libertarian Party's "leave me alone-ism" (I think I first subscribed to official party literature in 1986, when I was 16). Reagan was President in the White House. Some two or three years earlier, my childhood best friend's older brother, a US Marine, was killed in the Beirut bombing. I was very fond of Reagan. I remember in 5th Grade praying for his health when he was shot. The 1980s were interesting times to develop political appetites...

Anyway, back to the LP, I followed the nomination race for their 1988 Presidential candidate up until nearly the end (I would be old enough by 3 months to vote in the 1988 elections). It came down to the American Indian Movement's Russell Means, and US Congressman Ron Paul. Both tickled my political fancies - my mother's side of the family is Cherokee - but ultimately Means turned me off with his ties to AIM radicalism and violence. That left Paul.

Ron Paul won the 1988 Libertarian Party nomination in September of that year a few weeks after my 18th birthday, and I began receiving one of Ron Paul's early iterations of his newsletter.

I don't remember the exact phrasing of what I read, but I do remember to my 18 year old eyes given my background that it was one of the most ugly, vile, indefensibly racist things I had ever read from an American politician.

November came around, and I had no problem voting for Bush and Quayle.

I wasn't quite done with the Libertarian Party. In 1992, I helped the LP petition (sucessfully) for permanent ballot access in Missouri, and I still believe in a two-party system (just that Democrats don't have to be one of those parties). I'd love a Republican vs. Libertarian contest to see who would cut the size of government the most.

I voted for Andre Marrou in 1992 after working to get the LP on the ballot in Missouri.

I consider myself a small-"l" libertarian now, ending my membership in the LP proper sometime in 1994 when I ceased to be able to identify with the nonsense the party's "elite" was spewing.

I will still vote Republican or Libertarian depending on the quality of candidates (I could live with a President Gary Johnson, for example) but in no way, shape, or form do I want Ron Paul in power, or worse, have his garbage defining "libertarianism" in American politics.

Steve Forbes. Thomas Sowell. Henry Hazlitt. That's libertarianism.

Ron Paul isn't.

Z said...

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/21/ron_paul_hates_republicans_and_everything_they_stand_for/

I just had that link sent to me by Pris via email...

Soapster, check it out.

soapster said...

Redstate is a neo-con bastion.

Further, say what you will about Cynthia McKinney (she has her flaws as we all do) but she deserves to be commended for her efforts exposing the false narrative of the U.S. led Libyan invasion.

Of course if non-interventionism isn't your bag I don't suppose you'd have any interest.

beamish said...

Chakam,

James Kirchick has done yeoman's work in bringing Ron Paul's newsletters to light, particularly in his January 2008 article "Angry White Man" in the New Republic.

He provides an adequate sampling of .pdf scans of the actual Ron Paul garbage "newsletters" here.

You may now remove pleading ignorance from your line of defense.

----

Z,

Told ya it would be "whack a mole."

My mallet is getting soaked.

beamish said...

Redstate is a neo-con bastion.

And Ron Paul is a racist asshole.

Where were we?

Z said...

Soapster "neo con bastion".
Oh, okay...write off all the information and stand up for McKinney.
For the record, I'd love for us to be completely non interventionist but I understand the world and its threats better than Dr. Paul, apparently.

And, I could never respect anybody who'd say "Michele Bachmann hates Muslims" I was SO surprised by that very cheap shot. I honestly didn't think Dr Paul had that in him.


Beamish, CHakam's a good guy; he just asked for backup, which I like to see, too.


You know, I think Ron Paul hits a chord in most Americans who like hearing about getting back to the Constitution, to pulling out of countries and giving money to people who despise us, etc etc...
I just wish he wasn't quite so naive.

soapster said...

"I just wish he [Ron Paul] wasn't so naive."

What is naive is for someone to make a statement about a congressman who sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs as somehow being naive on, well...foreign affairs. Of course not to mention the naivete of proclaiming fiscal restraint and pro-life credentials while completely overlooking the cost in both blood and treasure in these very foreign affairs.

Z said...

Keep on truckin', Soapster.

beamish said...

You know, I think Ron Paul hits a chord in most Americans who like hearing about getting back to the Constitution, to pulling out of countries and giving money to people who despise us, etc etc...
I just wish he wasn't quite so naive.


Even if Ron Paul could be magically divorced from his 30 years of courting racists, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theory loons to his side (and his pocketbook), the idea that Ron Paul is a "Constitutionalist" in the mold of the Founding Fathers is hysterically laughable when you look at George Washington invading Canada to protect American interests, Thomas Jefferson sending the US Navy and Marines to stop North African / Islamic piracy, James Madison creating the central banking system, and of course that great interventionist James Monroe and his doctrine of "the Western Hemisphere is a protectorate of the United States."

Makes you wonder WHICH Founding Father Ron Paul is claiming for himself.

Paul is "Constitutionalism" for historical illiterates.

soapster said...

Of course we will. We've got ourselves a convoy.

beamish said...

What is naive is for someone to make a statement about a congressman who sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs as somehow being naive on, well...foreign affairs.

Meaningless. Joe Biden was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, yet pleaded ignorance of North Korean violations of the Agreed Nuclear Framework treaty after Bush delivered his "Axis of Evil" speech, and not even a year after Biden's committee held hearings on said treaty violations and found North Korea in violation.

Liars have no problem being liars, just as their stupid water-bearers have no problem being stupid.

And still, no viable defense of Ron Paul...

Impertinent said...

Judging by the comments here on Paul...I'd think we have nothing to fear from those who uphold the 2nd amendment and want to carry / own a gun.

It might be the first amendment that requires a permit before exercising that right.

Think of the many millions who were persecuted, maimed, killed and eliminated by speeches alone. How many were motivated by fiery speech over the decades and the effect it had on those who succumbed to it.

I can name a few.

beamish said...

Judging by the comments here on Paul...I'd think we have nothing to fear from those who uphold the 2nd amendment and want to carry / own a gun.

It might be the first amendment that requires a permit before exercising that right.


LOL! "B-b-but Ron Paul didn't say anything racist, anti-Semitic, or catering to conspiracy theorists. His 'anonymous' employees are what done it!"

Imagine a Hitler attempting to disavow his Mein Kampf as the work of unknown staffers in his employ...

You'd spit your drink in laughter at that defense, wouldn't you, Impy?

Pris said...

C'mon Soapy, the fact that Paul has no compunctions about supporting Iran having nuclear weapons, is irrational, and shows his disregard for Israel, our friend and ally. What's more, it would be a huge risk for America as well.

Or don't you consider our national security important!

This alone, is enough for me to dismiss Ron Paul from any consideration, and I made that decision long before I read all this other crazy info.

Btw, if Paul ends up running as an independent third candidate, then you'll know he has either no problem with a second term for Obama, or is determined to blast those Republicans out of contention, to "get even" for personal reasons.

Either way, it would prove he doesn't give a damn about America!

Bob said...

Soapster said, "say what you will about Cynthia McKinney... "

Here in Atlanta, we all know the woman is crazier than a bat. First of all, her dad, Billy McKinney, is the only Georgia Legislator to have ever threatened another Legislator with a knife on the State Senate floor. Democrats defended the obvious criminal conduct, and so did Cynthia. The point is that the whole family was crazy.

Remember her offer to accept the $10 million offer New York Mayor Giuliani refused after 9-11? Yep, that was your babe. How about her kissing up to Moammar Kadahfi for years? Yep, that is your girl. She loves totalitarian murderers and hates Jews.

She is a communist, and a racist. Does anyone want to identify with such reprehensible people?

beamish said...

But it’s not simply that Paul’s supporters are ignoring the manifest evidence of his moral failings. More fundamentally, their very awareness of such failings is crowded out by the atmosphere of outright fervor that pervades Paul’s candidacy. This is not the fervor of a healthy body politic—this is a less savory type of political devotion, one that escapes the bounds of sober reasoning. Indeed, Paul’s absolutist notion of libertarian rigor has always been coupled with an attraction to fantasies of political apocalypse.

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse. Over the years, Paul has added other potential catastrophes to his repertoire of dark premonitions. In the early 1990s, it was racial apocalypse, with Paul dispensing “survivalist” tips to the readers of his newsletter like the admonition to stock up on guns and construct fall-out shelters. More recently, he has argued that America’s foreign policy was a “major contributing factor” to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, an argument that has earned him admiration from some liberals. The 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration’s continuation of many Bush anti-terror policies (and the launching of the Libya War), and the formation of the Tea Party have all boosted Paul’s image as a prescient sage.

And so it’s not hard to see why Paul’s more ardent supporters stand by him: They too find it seductive to believe that the United States is on the verge of utter collapse. The benefit of indulging in such visions is that it sets the stage for the arrival of a savior: This is the role that Paul himself plays, of course. Fiercely independent, uncorrupted by the “establishment,” speaker of unpopular truths, only Paul is capable of saving the country. What are a handful of uncouth newsletters really worth when the stakes are so high?

What’s important to realize is that this sort of political myopia is endemic to libertarianism. The movement’s obsession with consistency is actually a mark of paranoia. If you’re already persuaded by Paul’s suggestions that fiat money is what ails our economy, that our country’s foreign policy is rotten to its very core, it’s tempting to take the next step and interpret his failure to be nominated as the result of political persecution. Sullivan, thus, complains of a deliberate media blackout against the Texas Congressman, blaming “liberals who cannot take domestic libertarianism seriously and from neocons desperate to keep the Military Industrial Complex humming at Cold War velocity.” There is a bitter irony of course in the fact that a movement so devoted to individual responsibility is so apt to be on the search for others to blame. Paul of course is the prime example: Here is an absolutist libertarian who advocates the ideals of individual rights and responsibility, yet cannot own up to the words that were published under his name, instead blaming it on a variety of as yet unnamed aides.


ROFLMAO!

soapster said...

"Or don't you consider our national security important!"

The greatest threat to our national security is a domestic economic implosion.

"This alone, is enough for me to dismiss Ron Paul from any consideration, and I made that decision long before I read all this other crazy info.

Btw, if Paul ends up running as an independent third candidate, then you'll know he has either no problem with a second term for Obama, or is determined to blast those Republicans out of contention, to "get even" for personal reasons.

Either way, it would prove he doesn't give a damn about America!"


Do you give a damn about America or do you simply run around with the flag of Israel in one hand and Osama bin Laden's head in the other yelling "America F*ck yeah!"

The America I know and love was built on dissent. To infer someone must fall in line because others desire it so is actually antithetical to the entire American experiment.

beamish said...

Do you give a damn about America or do you simply run around with the flag of Israel in one hand and Osama bin Laden's head in the other yelling "America F*ck yeah!"

No, nothing at all anti-Semitic about Ron Paul supporters. How dare we discern otherwise. [/sarcasm]

The America I know and love was built on dissent. To infer someone must fall in line because others desire it so is actually antithetical to the entire American experiment.

Rah rah!

America isn't a theoretical "experiment," Soapy. It is a very real nation in a very real world filled with very real competing interests and very real threats.

We'll work on shapes and colors next.

soapster said...

There's nothing at all anti-Semitic about recognizing the fact that Israel is not the 51st state and that we do not have a treaty with Israel.

To claim that it is Beamish is the resort to the same damn racist charge that you like to bitch about when the Democrats do it.

I go to the VA hospital, where my girlfriend is a Surgical Technician, one weekend out of the month. I see the consequences of the foreign policy you so endear. It is a disasterous foreign policy which has far more to do with the occupation and subsequent exploitation of resources for corporate gain than it does with any traditionally American ideal.

Ducky's here said...

I bought a couple six packs at that store. Uncle Onyango seemed very nice.

Z said...

Pris, thanks for that reminder about the Iran/nukes thing. This is a guy who equates our power with Iran's power? "If WE have nukes, why shouldn't THEY have nukes?"
Sounds more like DUcky than a Conservative candidate....which in itself says a lot against Paul!

Bob...thanks for that. You would know, living there. What a world that anybody'd want to associate himself with HER.

Ducky, nobody says drunk illegals can't be nice.
just like Ron Paul, how naive of you.

beamish said...

There's nothing at all anti-Semitic about recognizing the fact that Israel is not the 51st state and that we do not have a treaty with Israel.

There is absolutely something anti-Semitic about your vehemence towards Israel. No one has claimed Israel is the "51st state," and contrary to your foreign policy ignorance, America has several diplomatic, military, and strategic intelligence-sharing treaties with Israel.

But, let's focus on your shared anti-Semitism with Ron Paul, shall we?

To claim that it is Beamish is the resort to the same damn racist charge that you like to bitch about when the Democrats do it.

Nonsense. I frequently criticize Israel for supplying food, water, medicine and electricity to the Hamas and Fatah terrorist organizations.

Now, back to you. Why do you criticize Israel?

go to the VA hospital, where my girlfriend is a Surgical Technician, one weekend out of the month. I see the consequences of the foreign policy you so endear. It is a disasterous foreign policy which has far more to do with the occupation and subsequent exploitation of resources for corporate gain than it does with any traditionally American ideal.

Which "traditionally American ideal" are you refering to?

Abandoning allies in conflict? Responding favorably and in acquiescence to the demands of terrorists? Surrendering sovereignty and national security to anyone who attacks a US Navy ship overseas?

These are Ron Paul's alternate universe divinations, not "traditional American ideals."

It would help your cause of attempting to revise American history a whole hell of a lot if you weren't absolutely ignorant of American history, Soapy.

Chakam Conservative said...

@Beamish,

You said to me, after finally providing me with a link to examine,
"You may now remove pleading ignorance from your line of defense."

Seriously? Can you get any more condescending?

Did I say I was defending Ron Paul? Listen, if someone said, Beamish said that all Jews need to die!, I would want verification and not just the normal knee-jerk belief that is so common.

Is that not right and just? Should anyone here merely believe your quotes from Ron Paul as Gospel, or should there be an accounting, a verification, a factual basis? Indeed.

I do support Ron Paul, but that is in no way me being a "Paultard" or a "Paulbot". No man, this side of Heaven, is infallible, and all of us are subject to critique.

Notwithstanding your misplaced arrogance, (especially when addressing me), I shall be reading the link you posted and dig in for myself. I do thank you for this resource.

Ducky's here said...

z, remind me occasionally that the right is a little humor impaired and one should never try sarcasm.

Z said...

Ducky, I grieve that you can never show a human side no matter how provoked by kindness but now I'm supposed to consider you funny and delightfully sarcastic?

EVERYONE re the Ron Paul argument: I would appreciate a little less insulting and condescending attitudes toward those you disagree with.

thanks.

beamish said...

Chakam,

You said to me, after finally providing me with a link to examine,
"You may now remove pleading ignorance from your line of defense."

Seriously? Can you get any more condescending?


Yes! Yes, I can. :)

And I reserve the right to explore and exploit that option further.

Did I say I was defending Ron Paul? Listen, if someone said, Beamish said that all Jews need to die!, I would want verification and not just the normal knee-jerk belief that is so common.

You come from a blog that announces your support for Ron Paul. In a prior thread here at Z's, YOU replied to my criticisms of Ron Paul's foreign policy and his supporters' pathological anti-Israel comments with:

*yawn*

I'm sorry...were you saying something to me? I dozed off and wasn't paying attention. Please continue your vilification of Ron Paul because some jackass white supremacists like him. I totally get that correlation. Of course, I see it now...Ron Paul wants to kill Jews and Blacks and probably Homosexuals, too! Thank you for enlightening us all, beamish!

Next.


...so, forgive me if I point out your ill-fitting "intellectual honesty" costume.

Come up to my level so I won't be "condescending," twerp.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish said:

There's more to Ron Paul's newsletters than just their racist and anti-Semitic contents and conspiracy theories.

Absolutely!

That's why I put the caveat at the beginning of my first comment in this thread.

Meanwhile, as Soapster said: The GOP is imploding.

Always On Watch said...

Z,
Context means zero to the mainstream media.

And, possibly, to the electorate as well. The electorate is so much into sound bytes -- as opposed to substance.

beamish said...

AOW,

Meanwhile, as Soapster said: The GOP is imploding.

Any scraping of Ron Paul supporters and other barnacles off of the hull of the USS Republican Party is a good and blessed thing.

beamish said...

Ron Paul is leaving Congress next year. His crap-weasel son Rand will be booted from the Senate in 2016.

And then, we'll have to plumb the depths of Daily Kos, Stormfront, and other left-wing websites for anything like the hilarity of the Paul-verse.

But, we won't.

soapster said...

"Any scraping of Ron Paul supporters and other barnacles off of the hull of the USS Republican Party is a good and blessed thing."

You are an idiot Beamish.

If you think the Republican party can remain a viable party without the support of the youth, independents, and disaffected Democrats that Ron Paul is bringing into the party then why are your pundits, presstitutes, and apparatchiks working so feverishly trying to discredit his rising success?

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
When I mentioned the imploding, I wasn't thinking of only Ron Paul and his supporters.

Maybe a political party is always this at odds for an election in which that party isn't the incumbent party.

But, honestly, I see more division in the GOP this year than I've noticed before.

beamish said...

You are an idiot Beamish.

Whoa. That's high praise from a Paultard.

If you think the Republican party can remain a viable party without the support of the youth, independents, and disaffected Democrats that Ron Paul is bringing into the party then why are your pundits, presstitutes, and apparatchiks working so feverishly trying to discredit his rising success?

My "feverish" work discrediting Paultarded-ness comes in the form of A+ grades in college level American history, world history, economics, and international relations.

[Really it comes in the form of the A+ I received in 5th Grade on a report on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, but that's just snarky to say...]

The Republican Party will remain viable with or without Paultards, and more so without.

beamish said...

AOW,

When I mentioned the imploding, I wasn't thinking of only Ron Paul and his supporters.

I told you back in 2008 that the fight against Obama needed to be ideological. Now it is. FWIW, Ron Paul enjoys the "what if the Republican Party climbed up into Dennis Kucinich's treehouse and began barking at the moon" aspect of this ideological vetting.

Maybe a political party is always this at odds for an election in which that party isn't the incumbent party.

Conservatives are no longer content with the established "Vice-Presidential slot" sop.

But, honestly, I see more division in the GOP this year than I've noticed before.

Obama supporters have no primaries to combat in this time. Idle hands, and all that.

soapster said...

Oh snap! Looks like we gots us some racists over at National Review.

"Here’s an excerpt from a National Review editorial back in August 1957, exactly 50 years ago:


The central question that emerges–and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal–is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is byno means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own.

And here’s more along similar lines, from a March 1960 National Review editorial:


In the Deep South the Negroes are retarded. Any effort to ignore the fact is sentimentalism or demagoguery. In the Deep South the essential relationship is organic, and the attempt to hand over to the Negro the raw political power with which to alter it is hardly a solution."


http://www.brinklindsey.com/?p=131

Meanwhile about that racist Ron Paul....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
Conservatives are no longer content with the established "Vice-Presidential slot" sop.

About time!

I just hope that the GOP "machine" doesn't put us right back into that sop mode.

soapster said...

"The Republican Party will remain viable with or without Paultards, and more so without."

Good then you shouldn't give a rat's ass if he runs 3rd party or if his supporters don't support your socialist light candidate. So y'all can quit your whining.

beamish said...

Soapy,

That's the same "conservative" National Review that didn't endorse Reagan in 1980, endorsed Romney in 2008, and is presently massaging their smear glands in overdrive against Newt Gingrich?

Golly. You've convinced me National Review is just as left-wing and racist as Ron Paul.

Oh wait, you meant that because you can find trash in the National Review 50 years ago that we should excuse Ron Paul's production of trash over the last 30 years and currently?

What a sorry state "libertarianism" is in now. I recall when it couldn't attract the logically deficient.

Rita said...

IMO, Pris is on the money here. Paul's stance on Iran was a deal breaker for me. I see no point in wasting my time on exploring anything else about him. That one statement said it all.

Btw, did LibKid just morph into Soapy? Sure sounds like it.

beamish said...

"The Republican Party will remain viable with or without Paultards, and more so without."

Good then you shouldn't give a rat's ass if he runs 3rd party or if his supporters don't support your socialist light candidate. So y'all can quit your whining.

Let me know when Paultards become collectively larger than 0.3% of the voting population.

Silverfiddle said...

Wow! I'm sorry I showed up so late. Lively discussion.

I have to side with Beamish on this one. I think its an open question whether Paul is a racist. What evidence do we have besides these newsletters? Actions? People coming forward to report racist things he said or did?

Still and all, the best you can say about Ron Paul on this is that he associates with racists and stupidly allows them to use his name for this kind of trash. Not exactly presidential.

It also disturbs me that this man is a magnet for 911 troofers, neonazis, white supremacists, and various lefwing loonies, nuts and flakes.

He praised PFC Bradley Manning as a hero, the little cupcake who turned over secrets he swore to guard to wikileaks.

Ron Paul is a nut who happens to be right on the US Constitution and our banking system. Next!

beamish said...

Btw, did LibKid just morph into Soapy? Sure sounds like it.

KosKids are fun, no?

beamish said...

Ron Paul is a nut who happens to be right on the US Constitution and our banking system. Next!

That's legitimately arguable, Silverfiddle.

Yes, Ron Paul is a racist, anti-Semitic, conspiracy theory-mongering dipshit and foriegn policy imbecile, but...

...he also fails Constitution 101 on the limits of states rights, and advocates of returning to the gold standard like Ron Paul are abysmally illiterate of Economics 101.

soapster said...

Oh yes..those scarry Iranians who want to kill all the Jews. Well except of course the ones that live there.

For you sake Pris and Beamish, et al. I hope we do go to war with Iran and I hope they call up your chidren and grandchildren to go directly to the front lines. And I hope that the printing presses run so hot and heavy that the ink on that paper money literally stains your hands as you cart wheelbarrows full to your local grocer for a loaf of stale moldy bread.

But I digress...you'll be oh so much safer.

Rita said...

Beam:

Yep. DailyKos kids is right on the money.

When someone wishes someone else's kids to be on the front line of a war, there is something seriously wrong with their mental state.

beamish said...

Oh yes..those scarry Iranians who want to kill all the Jews. Well except of course the ones that live there.

You forgot to mention the "scarry" [sic] Iranians that held 52 American embassy workers hostage for over a year, that backed the Hezbollah terrorist network that killed 241 Americans in Beirut in 1983 and 19 Americans in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, and of course the Iranian manufacturers of all the IEDs that have wounded the American servicemen you visit in your girlfriend's hospital ward.

For you sake Pris and Beamish, et al. I hope we do go to war with Iran and I hope they call up your chidren and grandchildren to go directly to the front lines. And I hope that the printing presses run so hot and heavy that the ink on that paper money literally stains your hands as you cart wheelbarrows full to your local grocer for a loaf of stale moldy bread.

Better than huffing it through a lengthened recession and deeper depression trying to get a loan from a bank that wants to be repaid in gold...

But I digress...you'll be oh so much safer.

And Ron Paul will still be a racist idiot reveling his fellow anti-Semites in the dank corners of the internet with a conspiracy about how the war on drugs is a government attempt to stop people from thwarting Zionist mind control lasers.

soapster said...

@Rita, if the shoe fits wear it.

It's the policy you and the rest in here are advocating so be a "good" patriot and own it.

I see the real costs of it and while I don't even personally know many of the vets my dog and I visit, my heart aches for them. This is why I am not a neo-con warhawk.

There isn't anything wrong with the mental state of an individual who understands that there is a very real personal and financial cost to this military adventurism.

beamish said...

When someone wishes someone else's kids to be on the front line of a war, there is something seriously wrong with their mental state.

Relatively ineffective line of attack, given I have two brothers who are retired military, several cousins and friends who served in Iraq and Bosnia, and two cousins presently serving in Afghanistan, including a female Army medical evacuation helicopter pilot who'd snap little bitches like Soapy in half with stories of flying into machine gun fire.

They's tough on the innernet, ain't they?

FrogBurger said...

I think Beamish you are misguided on the Ron Paul thin.

Mrs FrogBurger came to the conservative cause via Ron Paul after being a Clinton democrat. Granted she also heard my rants about the left and my experience in France. But he was good at conveying the small gov message to her and she realized she agreed with it, and not the stuff on the left.

Now she's distanced herself because she has done more thinking.

And she's actually more conservative than I am on some issues, for which I have a Libertarian streak.

So give people a break sometimes.

Rita said...

Soapy: Don't you EVEN try to lecture me on the horrors of war! You have no freaking clue just because you are supposedly so kind to visit a Vet.

I live with one, kid. I've heard the war stories, listened to the night terrors 40 years after Vietnam.

My husband fought for this country. What have you done for it? You sit back in judgment while enjoying the freedoms he and thousands like him shed blood for your right to sound like a moron.

You are also free to move to Iran since it's such a wonderful place.

And I am free to completely ignore your idiotic comments.

You're done.

beamish said...

if the shoe fits wear it.

Go back to scribbling about how the "tyrant" Lincoln suspended habeas corpus protections for seditious slavery advocates, you "libertarian" dipshit.

beamish said...

I think Beamish you are misguided on the Ron Paul thin.

Am I? How so?

Mrs FrogBurger came to the conservative cause via Ron Paul after being a Clinton democrat. Granted she also heard my rants about the left and my experience in France. But he was good at conveying the small gov message to her and she realized she agreed with it, and not the stuff on the left.

She likely also came to realize that Ron Paul is a leftist.

FrogBurger said...

Oh yes..those scarry Iranians who want to kill all the Jews. Well except of course the ones that live there.

Well my 2 iranian friends who left are Jewish and Christian. The Jewish one crossed the Turkish border in the snow when he was a kid. So something must be going on there against non Muslim iranians.

I'm personally divided on this issue. I agree one country should not attack another one if it is not attacked.

But I wish Hitler could have been attacked way earlier. We would have saved millions of Jews, Europeans and Americans.

beamish said...

Frogburger,

I'm personally divided on this issue. I agree one country should not attack another one if it is not attacked.

If that's the standard, Iran has been attacking America and Americans since 1979.

When do we respond with more than economic sanctions?

FrogBurger said...

Economic sanctions are pointless I find. And I don't know Beamish. I'm not an expert on Iran honestly. I know very little so it's hard for me to give an opinion. I don't like talking out of my rear end.

FrogBurger said...

She likely also came to realize that Ron Paul is a leftist.

You're a freaking pain in the ass Beamish.

Anybody that doesn't agree with you is a leftist.

Plus, left and right are just a simplistic way at looking at political ideas.

Trestin said...

They never deport people anymore.

beamish said...

You're a freaking pain in the ass Beamish.

Why?

Anybody that doesn't agree with you is a leftist.

Not true. Some people who disagree with me are merely idiots.

FrogBurger said...

Then I'm a proud idiot.

beamish said...

left and right are just a simplistic way at looking at political ideas.

Collectivism vs. individualism?

Socialism vs. capitalism?

Totalitarianism vs. libertarianism?

Welfare statism vs. laissez faire?

Liberal vs. conservative?

Political taxonomies are easily characterized, but that doesn't make them simplistic.

You tell me what makes Ron Paul either "libertarian" or "conservative" or both, Frogburger.

Or is that a "pain in the ass?"

beamish said...

Then I'm a proud idiot.

I respect your candor. It's not often a Ron Paul defender will be so forthright and honest.

Kid said...

Z, thanks for pointing me to Mr Z's writing, especially the last post. He had an obvious ability to rise above his own mortality and spend more time thinking of you and others. That's greatness imo.

On the societal images - if only more people could see such things in real life.

FrogBurger said...

Yes, you are a pain in the ass. You annoy me as much as Ducky at times.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian to me. And there's a left-leaning and right-leaning libertarianism if you want to talk in terms of right and left.

FrogBurger said...

Did I defend Ron Paul?

You're as intellectually dishonest as Ducky b/c you make me say things I haven't said.

Rita said...

Z is gonna be so mad when she gets home and sees what a mess everyone left here.

I'm gonna go hide behind the couch.

FrogBurger said...

Rita, that's funny.

Z said...

"Trestin said...
They never deport people anymore."

Ya, where are they when I need people to deport bloggers?

Rita said...

See? I TOLD you guys she was gonna be mad.

Someone let me know when the coast is clear so I can sneak back in and look completely innocent.

beamish said...

Ron Paul is a Libertarian to me. And there's a left-leaning and right-leaning libertarianism if you want to talk in terms of right and left.

Left-leaning libertarianism? Is that where Ron Paul's hero Murray Rothbard gets to cheer like a schoolgirl for the Budapest butcher Khrushchev, and glowingly eulogize Che Guevara?

What a strange oxymoron left-leaning libertarianism" is.

Yes, Ron Paul is a leftist. He is NOT a libertarian.

Did I defend Ron Paul?

You're as intellectually dishonest as Ducky b/c you make me say things I haven't said.


And the Tooth Fairy made Ron Paul produce his racist, anti-Semitic newsletters. What fun passing "libertarian" personal responsibility for one's own words off on others can be!

To wit: "Now she's distanced herself [from Ron Paul] because she has done more thinking."

But not as much thinking as you have, huh FrogBurger?

In all actuality, I see your wife in analogy of someone who was enticed by the "fanciness" of Ron Paul's ideological swap-meet Rolex knockoff, but changed her mind when she found a real one.

If I'm misunderstanding you, please explain this odd construction you concoct called "left-leaning libertarianism."

Is it anything like "turd-flavored candy" or "laissez faire fascism?"

FrogBurger said...

You need to get psychological help, Beamish.

Z said...

Rita, the coast is clear. I couldn't resist using Tristan's comment.
I don't mind the back/forth but when I ask what I thought were old friends so specifically to tone it done, it shows me things that make me unhappy. I've asked and asked and I'd prefer these people use their own damned blogs to be so nasty at.

Well, you never know with a post, do you?
this one got quite a lot of stuff....

Soapster, by the way, let me just say one thing:

Paul's saying that he has no problem with Iran having shootable nukes is SO nuts after Iran's promised to do us and Israel in (let's stay on US since Israel bugs you so much, just for conversation sake), that anything he says after that has to be written off.

a bunch of wahoo kids who'd rather NOT fight for our country so they hide behind a guy who promises no wars isn't who I'd want voting for ME no matter HOW Much I hate war.

And who doesn't?

Z said...

Just saw the last few comments.
I'm going on Moderation.

(#$&@#(*&$@#

tha malcontent said...

In soapster's mind,It seems as if everyone that disagrees with Ron Paul, myself included is an idiot!
Ron Paul’s principles are idiotic, and he has downright stupid and ridiculous views and will (hopefully) never get the nomination, because if he does we can look forward to another 4 years of Barack Obama.
I’m really puzzled why anyone would even consider voting let alone campaign for him. I find him to be completely deranged.

FrogBurger said...

I'm going on moderation too i.e back to work and then holidays. Merry Christmas everyone.

liberaldude said...

The man has been in the country for almost 50 years. He's more American than most of you commenting on this.

Z said...

Sorry, I just HAD to publish Libdud's comment because it takes the cake even for HIM in stupidity.
Welcome to the left, folks....my GOD.
And they vote.

beamish said...

I found Frogburger's "left-leaning libertarians" (an oxymoron for the ages, to be sure...)

Wow. Just, wow.

Rita said...

I'm assuming Libdunce is referring to Obama's uncle?

If so, being in this country 50 years makes him more of an American than I am since I was born here in 1959 and have never lived outside the US?

I don't understand why these ignorant kids come to a conservative site and prove they have no clue about politics, foreign affair or even life.

I'm pretty sure Ahmadinejad would welcome their input. I'll even chip in for a one-way fare for them.

beamish said...

You need to get psychological help, Beamish.

Is Sakharov's "psychologist" available, or do I have to wait in line, Herr Frogburger?

FrogBurger said...

Yes, Beamish. Please call me Mein Fuhrer. Or Mon Marechal.

You're officially as low as Ducky in terms of intellectual honesty. It's pretty sad.

Bob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

Rita, amazing, isn't it? I honestly think they must be paid by someone.

I have to go back on Moderation.

Kid said...

I wonder if libdude's got any good cookie recipes. What say you LD?

Something using tarragon or saffron perhaps ?

Z said...

Bob, fine, save me the trouble of going on moderation again.

I wouldn't mind the intellectual process if some didn't have to resort to insulting others and acting like they have the key and nobody else does.

Glad you're enjoying it. If everybody could play adult, I would, too. B

thanks.

beamish said...

Yes, Beamish. Please call me Mein Fuhrer. Or Mon Marechal.

Don't flatter yourself, Petain.

beamish said...

I don't always agree with Beamish, but if I wanted to disagree with him online, I would bring my lunch, a dictionary, and a thesaurus while boning up on Google search techniques.

A good apprehension of political science, philosophy, and history will do.

Chances are that Beamish knows more about the subject at hand than most people, and he likes to fight.

Well, I do know the ropes ;)

Kid said...

The left only has complaints and insults.

The battle cry of the incompetent and ignorant. ;-)

What they don't realize is We've all been where they are now, and have discovered liberalism to be dishonest, totally unrealistic, and a dead end. But it is funny to see them come back with such pathetic responses. "No, You Are!"
hahahaaa

Like a cat with it's head under a blankie and everything else sticking out, thinking they'll never find me here.

I mean, they're not even capable of typing a phrase into Google. AHahhaa.

But yes, they vote.

btw, Libdude, here's a speeling error for you to focus on. hehehh

Z said...

By the way, BOb...I wouldn't quite agree with you on all you said.
Do YOU think the Tea Partiers are leftists?

Kid, I thought you speeled better than that!? :-)

Chakam Conservative said...

36 comments out of 108 = troll.

Kid said...

Z! Don't tell me You're actually libdude also..

beamish said...

Z,

The Tea Party 'movement' is leftist in the sense that ALL populist movements in American history have been leftist.

Populism is NOT conservatism, nonetheless.

And given that the voices of the Tea Party - Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Dana Loesch, et. al. are all shilling for Romney (or at least attacking his opponents 24 / 7) after Herman "Rainbow PUSH Coalition" Cain, Rick "I love Hillarycare and TARP" Perry, Michelle "Gimme welfare" Bachmann, and Ron "Hug a terrorist" Paul have flamed out, I believe reality is demostrating the essential truth of my position even better than I ever did.

Z said...

Beamish, I don't give a damn.
I just lost one of my favorite commenters.
Thanks for getting so ugly that people are leaving.

Rita said...

OH Kid. Now THAT would be funny if Z was actually LibKid. But if Z wanted to create another online persona, I have no doubt she could manage to provide a good argument rather than just the drivel that comes from LD or Soapy's comments.

Beam: Please. Give it a rest. Everyone already has heard your screaming about how everyone that disagrees with you is a leftist, which is why I found FB's comment funny.

You're not helping your case.

Z said...

Rita, I hope Kid's just teasing because I spelled the word the same way he did for LibDude.
I'd take a gun to my head if I thought like libdud. :-)

Kid said...

Rita, Z could manage anything she wanted.

Z, No, I was making a little yoke.

Z said...

Kid, if I don't want to lose my blog or close it down, and I WILL, I can't mention certain topics anymore.
I just lost one of my favorite commenters (via email) and I'm not very happy about that.
I'd say more but I won't.


I know you were joking...that's why I said that about teasing :) Sit down a speel and write another comment!

Kid said...

Ok Z, I won't ask for details. (Personally, I like women who have secrets anyway:) )

But I'm sorry to hear you have lost someone you did not wish to lose as a commenter. This thread did seem to get out of hand a bit and that's all I'll say about that.

Well, keep em coming. I'll chime in when I think I have something interesting to say or add.

Odd weather this year. Dec 20 yesterday, and I was out for a good bit in shorts and a t-shirt. It's coming though. It better. I just spent 900 for a snow thrower - Husqvarna if anyone must know :)

I hope this time of year is being good to you Z.
We have a son and girlfriend coming down for sushi and Dim Sum at the best places for either.

Z said...

Kid, sushi and Dim SUm...yum; that line about the new snow blower's so funny. Yes, it had better.


Beamish, please find a thread on my blog in the last six months where it got this ugly and insulting between commenters and you weren't here.
thanks.
I'll do you a favor; I'll take down your sidebar comments as you asked me to and you stop coming here. Deal?

net observer said...

This is great reading, guys. I had to download this so I can dig into it later offline. It's a Z-blog classic. Seriously.

The fascinating thing is I'm black and I like Ron Paul. I can't all of a sudden start hating him based on this alone.

I read some of the RP quotes beam listed. They are compelling to say the least. But what does it all mean in the end?

Frankly, I'm not shocked that a libertarian-minded white man in his mid-70s has said things like that. Nonetheless, at some point, you have to ask: "Is Paul REALLY a racist? Or just someone who has a problem with much of black culture in America in general?"

We don't have to love everybody. And the fact that we don't doesn't necessarily mean we're trying to oppress any innocent people.

Just a thought.

net observer said...

Of course now, as I read more, I see it got a little out of hand around here. Sorry 'bout that Z-boo.

Kid said...

Net, There are white people who score zero or 100, and black who score 0 or 100. We can all see them.
They're in the news.
White trash, black trash. People who are amazing of any color.

It's that whole label nonsense.

Morgan freeman says "You stop calling me a black man, and I'll stop calling you a white man, and we'll just ignore the whole racism thing." More or less.
Racism was dead in the 70s in Pittsburgh.
If I point out that 82 out of 83 murders in Cincinnati happen in the Over the Rhine district and that is predominately black, am I a racist? Or do I merely report the facts.

People need to get a grip but it seems each year takes us in the wrong direction.

So is there a serious problem with Paul? Bachmann? Maybe Santorum is out man. Otherwise we end up with Newt or Romney - both liberal sock puppet rinos and the song remains the same. Four more years of zero impact on the already implemented liberal/communist agenda at best, or 4 more years of more slowly implementing same, or hey, Maybe implementing it at the same pace with a new face.

Gag me already with this fiscal responsibility, lower spending, xyz nonsense.

4 or 8 or 12 years at best from now, obamacare will still be there ruining many people's lives and taking their money for nothing. All the cancerous liberal departments and programs will still be in place waiting for the dems to pick up right where they left off.
I've been observing for 50+ years and let me tell anyone who is interested - It ain't getting better year after year.
I feel for the young people.

net observer said...

Kid,

I think you were agreeing with me to a point. Hard to tell.

Nobody's a racist when they point out facts, no matter where the chips fall. Only a racist is a racist.

Is the country goin' the h*ll in a handbasket? I don't think so. But that appears to be the belief du jour among conservative these days.

Always On Watch said...

Wow!

What a thread!

We get all wound up, but never persuade or dissuade anyone else. Do we?

All of us who know Beamish know that he isn't going to change his views.

And are any of those who disagree with him going to change his views? Not that I can tell.

What are we accomplishing in these heated discussions?

Two things that are absolute in these discussions here:

1. Upsetting Z

2. Insulting one another

Look, I like a firefight as well as anyone (except that Beamish loves a firefight more than I do). But I don't like a firefight if having one doesn't win the battle.

What the hell IS "the battle," anyway?

beamish said...

AOW,

What the hell IS "the battle," anyway?

I was under the impression that "the battle" was for the truth about Ron Paul's paper trail history of racist, anti-Semitic, conspiracy theory-mongering statements from which he has built over the last 30+ years a following and donor base comprised of racist, anti-Semitic conspiracy mongers, and navigating through the smokescreens Ron Paul has personally thrown up to avoid owning responsibility for not just his malicious, clearly indefensible and marginalized views but also how he and his campaigns have thrived financially from them.

It's a battle about image, not just Ron Paul's image, but what image he brings to the Republican Party should the GOP foolishly nominate him as their standard-bearer in a Presidential election and the even more merciless vetting he will face being an actual documentably verifiable racist challenging a black President.

It's a battle about integrity, both Ron Paul's lack of integrity, and the lack of integrity of those who choose to go down fighting with him.

This isn't the Democratic Party where a "Grand Kleagle" (top recruiter) for the Ku Klux Klan (Robert Byrd) gets a free pass to become the "Soul of the Senate."

This is the Republican Party, where Klansman / white supremacist David Duke once the entire GOP officially and quite adamantly and vocally donating time, money, and energy to support his Democratic Party opponents and driving his racist ass off the stage and out of town as quickly as possible.

Has the Republican Party lost its sense of image and integrity and self-awareness, and thus its credibility and marketability by NOT putting the mealymouthed hack Ron Paul beyond the pale of reasonable discourse?

Will the trickle of people Ron Paul may bring into the party replace the torrent of people who WILL leave it if the GOP nominates Ron Paul?

And after "GOP Presidential nominee" Ron Paul is soundly trounced by Barack Obama and the 23 currently vulnerable Democratic Senators are buoyed to re-election alongside a newly elected Democratic Party majority in the House, will the Republican Party ever recover?

That's what "the battle" is about.

I've tossed my pearls. Cue up the swine.

Chakam Conservative said...

@Beamish,

You simply do not get it, do you?

Your comments are atrocious, ugly, and venomous. You peddle yourself as some sort of admirable and respect-worthy blogger, but you use Z's blog as your bully pulpit with all the grace of a crack addict on payday.

Z has said to you:
"Beamish, please find a thread on my blog in the last six months where it got this ugly and insulting between commenters and you weren't here.
thanks.
I'll do you a favor; I'll take down your sidebar comments as you asked me to and you stop coming here. Deal?"

Yet, here you are again, acting the role of the attention-starved child needing affirmation and a soapbox to give you the impression of being worth anyone's time.

You should not be here. Z has told you to not be here. This is her blog. By you coming here you show yourself to be an arrogant and pretentious cur, disrespectful and ill-mannered.

You must be under 30 years of age.

beamish said...

Right on cue.

Chakam Conservative said...

@Beamish,

What's on cue is your inability to do as Z has said and not come here.

With each following comment you show yourself to be rude, childish, and ignorant.

This is Z's blog. This is Z's house. She has told you to not come here any longer, and here you are.

People are reading this, Beamish, and are seeing you for the child you are, stomping your feet as in a temper tantrum.

Z does not want you here. Her blog. Her rules. For once in your life, be respectful.

Your petty attempts at fomenting my ire have failed, Beamish. You're not worthy to untie the laces of my combat boots.

This conversation is done. Have the last word, though, as I do grant you permission. I know your kind always needs the last word. Just remember, everyone is reading all of this.

beamish said...

Chakam Conservative said...

Oink. Oink oink. Oink oink oink.

I'm well aware people are reading this.

And I'm well aware that I've linked a prior thread above where you initiated being rude and uncivil to me.

But pretend otherwise, if that makes you feel "conservative."

liberaldude said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Z said...

beamish, I thought we had a deal; this is YOUR choice, not mine. You can't be here lately without insulting everyone for not thinking like you do.

Please link me a thread that every got this ugly which you weren't associated with. thanks

Z said...

libdud. grow up
I'm going to delete ALL your ridiculous comments as I'd promised.
you're gone.
thanks.

(Elbro, if you see this, please delete ANY of his if you see them when I'm not around..thanks!)

Bob said...

Z:
Sorry things have gotten so unfriendly, but I don't think anybody wouuld get so darned mad if the name calling were left off. It is fun calling someone an idiot just to see what their reaction will be, but not everybody can handle a verbal food fight and not be insulted.

I think it is the name calling that does the damage in the comments.

Z said...

Bob, that's the whole point. I agree. thanks

Z said...

Let me just add that name calling isn't even quite so bad as twisting peoples' words to the point where, in some instances, they were suddenly "NAZIS" or "LEFTIES", etc.
I might just shut down this comments thread.
I love blogging and getting a good argument going but there's a tone recently which I'm not at all proud to host.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
I was under the impression that "the battle" was for the truth...

Okay, I accept and understand that definition.

But are you making any headway?

More important, Z, the webmistress here, has apparently taken issue with your style of expression.

Take it or leave it, and I don't mean it to sound condescending:

I'm a tough ol' broad -- right or wrong, that's what I am and proud of it too. Your style doesn't rankle me in the least, but Z isn't a tough ol' broad (That doesn't make either she or I a better person, IMO).

You and I have disagreed in the past. I'm living in a kind of hell right now, as you know, and can't find a way out. I'm royally pissed that Mr. AOW is in the position now of having to rely on the government (SSDI and Medicare) or otherwise go belly up and have two of us on the government dole. We don't milk the benefits at all, but take only what we must. The only other option is a divorce. Yeah, we've thought about that too. But then Mr. AOW's care would cost the taxpayer even more. I work only to pay the cost of the bills. Not a penny left over -- and we continue to raid our retirement savings.

Anyway, in my view, you don't have to drip honey. But neither do you have to drip venom. I KNOW that you can be a gentleman when you want to be.

Maybe -- just maybe -- as I was advised over 20 years ago by the best boss I ever had: "Your sarcasm is a problem. You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

Well, I'm still sarcastic much of the time. But I HAVE toned it down, and I've found out that the toning down actually advanced whatever I was doing (usually, teaching).

Anyway, that's my two cents.

BTW, Beamish, I'm forever indebted to you over the avatar idea you came up with me for me. Warren tweaked the design, but my understanding was that the idea was first yours.

Z said...

AOW, this has little to do with me.
I just lost a favorite commenter because he emailed he doesn't like letting himself get pulled into the slime.
Others are emailing and asking why I let Beamish stick around when he's always got to have the last word and is so out of touch and mean.
You and he both know how much I admired his mind and his humor and his amazing way with words. So this is harder to take than with the average JERK.

I don't delete most Liberals because I want decent conversation, even arguments; I've prided myself on that with my blog. I think you know that. I don't want a conservative echo chamber but I want civility.

Thanks for your support but this has been going on a few months now and I'm so done with it. Imagine thinking a friend would heed my requests....but, alas.
It shouldn't take much to just join in conversations without calling good people NAZIS or GAY just because we disagree.

Always On Watch said...

Z,
I understand.

Ah, well, a while back, I told you how ugly blogging gets during "election season."

This election season is my first with a Democrat incumbent to defeat. I believe that it's IMPERATIVE that we get BHO out of the Oval Office -- even if we end up voting in a liver sandwich!

Now we are seeing the ugly side of the GOP (I mean that in several respects). The GOP and its supporters aren't always on the high road -- though some of us wish that were so.

beamish said...

Z,

beamish, I thought we had a deal; this is YOUR choice, not mine. You can't be here lately without insulting everyone for not thinking like you do.

For that, I'm sorry. Is Rhino season over?

I did not make any such "deal." If you want me to leave, ask now and I will not reply to your public pronouncement, nor return. Nor will I create a laundry basket of sock puppets to attack your blog. Haven't the time, nor the inclination. Not everyone works for the government.

If you want me to stay, and in the future shrug off being called a "grandma killer" not just by your favorite federal sock puppet agency but by you as well and whatever other smears and distortions and just outright name-calling going unchecked towards me without reply, I'll do my best George W. Bush impression possible. God bless America.

It shouldn't take much to just join in conversations without calling good people NAZIS or GAY just because we disagree.

How about "grandma killer" or spamming posters with a crude caricatures?

Or is that too much honey and not enough vinegar?

Z said...

I'm going through a rough time, Beamish...lay OFF>

Have a good Christmas.

beamish said...

Perhaps we are both going through a rough time. My thick skin just ain't what it used to be. I'll get my mojo back.

If I've become a nuisance to you personally, I apologize. If I may, I'd just like to offer that my "offensiveness" is insignificant in comparison to what the billion-dollar Obama 2012 campaign will impose upon whoever the GOP candidate is.

We can agree to disagree, on any matter. I deal with insults and heckling and being libelled differently than you do, and I realize I'm no innocent when it comes to malicious initiations or retaliations.

I apologize for my participation in disrupting the desired and apporpriate decorum around here.

Merry Christmas to you too, Z.

And have a Happy Getting that Punk OUT of the White House Year too :)

Z said...

Beamish, you tick me off to the Nth degree and then you write something like this. geeeZ

thanks, I appreciate it.

I need to get some commenters back, however. I'll have to buy one of my faves lunch :-) (You listening, mon ami?!)

Impertinent said...

"Beamish, you tick me off to the Nth degree and then you write something like this. geeeZ "



Well...maybe we're all a bit paranoid and bi polar these days? Speaking of which...anyone seen Sue around lately?

Impertinent said...

Do we give this study any validity at all? Or...do we dispute and dismiss the findings because we're embarrassed to find that we might agree with them?

Are we "cowards" as Holder has branded Americans...or are we going to have an honest dialogue about issues we feel are affecting society? Both societies.

Let's all line up for those "Air Jordans" that are an essential part of some of our citizens identities.


http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html

Rita said...

Don't get me started on that freakin' Air Jordon fiasco this morning.

When I was watching all the idiots trampling each other on the local and national news two words came to mind.

Jesus Wept

net observer said...

Imp,

The more interesting question, I think, is this: "If we accept the findings, then what?"

Americans have long-known that street crime is more associated with African-Americans than any other ethnic group. Based on prison populations, based on anecdotal experiences, etc.

So let's assume that everybody accepts these stats 100%. What's next?

How’s that Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out for Ya? said...

My thoughts on that dumb-ass Ron Paul and the vicious crap that he wrote some 12 or twenty years ago, or whenever he wrote it, AND HE DID WRITE IT!!!!! . He wrote it and he is now backtracking, which is a sure sign of a lying ass-hole. It's not against the law to be a freaken anti-Semite or even a Racist if you are honest about it and if you really believe what you say then stand up and admit it, don't be a weasel and a coward, expect people to stand behind you. I liked a lot of things Ron Paul was offering up and was a reluctant supporter, back in the days when he was a unheard of congressman. Maybe because I thought he was truthful. But the more I learned about him and the more I heard and read about him , the more I think he is just crazy. I would like to see him exposed for what he is and get the hell out of the republican party. He makes it smell bad. And he gives credit the the liberals who think that our party is a racist one.

Z said...

I hate stats like that.
I see schools where Black educators take over from the State/Feds and give these kids food and love and confidence and they SHINE (yes, Black kids...fancy THAT :) (sarcasm)

it's CRAP that whites aren't as prone to gangs; they would be, too, if it was as much a cultural thing by now with Black kids and Hispanics........
We need to BREAK THE TREND, BREAK THE TRADITION. DOn't let it be the COOL thing to go to jail.
The funniest thing I EVER heard Eddie Murphy do in a comedy routing (other than TRADING PLACES" line about coasters!!! HA!) is when he said "and you hear the kids in the 'hood talkin' about their brother who didn't go to jail? you not supposed to go to jail, that shouldn't be something you have to talk about!" (He said it MUCH funnier, I can't remember now how he did, but I cracked up and he was SO righteous!)

HOW I wish Obama would have taken advantage of the Black side he clings to despite being half White ,and spoken UP. hey, how about like THIS?:::

I AM A BLACK PRESIDENT AND I'M SICK AND TIRED OF BLACK KIDS IN JAIL, BLACK KIDS ON DRUGS, BLACK KIDS FLUNKING SCHOOL....DAMN IT, DOOOO SOMETHING WITH YOUR LIVES. I DID! LARRY ELDER HAS! WALTER WILLIAMS AND THOMAS SOWELL HAVE. NET OBSERVER HAS!! LOTS OF BLACK MEN AND WOMEN DO JUST FINE, THANKYOUVERYMUCH.

NOW PICK UP THOSE STUPID LOOSE PANTS, TAKE THE JOINT OUT OF YOUR POUTING, ANGRY MOUTH, AND GET A LIFE. AMERICA'S A LAND OF OPPORTUNITY; IGNORE THE POVERTY PIMPS WHO THINK YOU'RE TOO NEEDY AND STUPID TO GET AHEAD. SHOW THEM YOU'RE WRONG! STOP EMBARRASSING ME.

BE AMERICANS! AMERICA NEEDS YOU AND WANTS YOU TO SUCCEED. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WHITES WANT THAT, TOO. YA, THERE ARE RACISTS, BUT HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO A BLACK BARBER SHOP? YOU GONNA TELL MEEE THAT THERE ISN'T RACISM TOWARD WHITES?

I AM HERE TO SHOW YOU IT CAN BE DONE. I'M GOING TO KICK YOUR BUTTS TO THE MOON IF I DON'T SEE YOU GROWING UP AND MATURING AND BREAKING THE RIDICULOUS CHAIN OF LOW EXPECTATIONS ..

IF YOU WANT TO LIVE LIKE YOU'RE MORE STUPID THAN WHITES AND BLAME WHITES, THAT'S YOOOOOOOOOUR FAULT, DON'T BLAME THEM.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.


:) IN MY DREAMS z

Z said...

HOPEY CHANGEY.....sing it, sistah!! :-)

Kid said...

Z, In my opinion, a good start would be to stop paying women to pop kids out like pieces of toast into zero opportunity, drug and crime infested environments, while at the same time "punishing them" financially if they do get married to one of the guys that fathered one of the kids.

I see them all over. I have people testifying to me that they are all over. It is their way to get money. And they don't spend it on the kids. They send those kids out into the neighborhood for their food, water and education.

Think the democrat politicians that support this don't know what's going on?

It's modern day slavery. It is why I hate democrat politicians. They've been the racists and the slave owners from day one and they've never stopped. They have no interest in making things better.

Truly mind-bending. la dee da dee da deee da...........(to keep the blood pressure down)

Z said...

Kid, I'd like to read a post on this subject by you. think about it :-)
Signed,
The Managing Editor
Blogsville, USA :-)

Kid said...

Z, on the kids? I can do that. It's an awfully depressing subject though, but I will because I think it's the number one issue in America. Seriously, the rest of the stuff will take care of itself.

net observer said...

PART 1

Z,

That was Chris Rock's routine: i.e., the "civil war" in the black community between normal black folks and "you-know-what's". Actually, I think I'm the one who sent it to you years ago.

In fairness, Obama is very much on record for saying the kinds of things you wished he would say. I specifically recall a youtube video of a speech he delivered at a black church a few years ago. He not only spoke loudly and clearly about the serious need for responsible fatherhood in the black community, but he also made reference to that same Chris Rock routine.

Plus, I think Obama leads by example with his own family. (apparently, unlike Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain)

In any case, I readily admit that during his presidency, Obama, to my knowledge, hasn't spoken like that. But there may be a legitimate reason therein.

Just think about it: If Obama talked like that on a regular basis, conservatives like Hannity would immediately accuse him of "black prejudice" or whatever. Hannity et al would be screaming ad infinitum, "See! He's just focusing on blacks! He doesn't care about ALL Americans! He's trying to divide our country! Remember Jeremiah Wright!"

And if Hannity et al DIDN'T say that they'd alternatively say, "Well, the only reason Obama's talking like this now is because of the upcoming election."

So why bother?

Still, putting all that aside, there's a much larger point here, Z: In truth, these stats don't represent black people. These stats represent THOSE black people. These stats represent the sub-cultures that THOSE black people come from, which is generally different from the black sub-cultures that I and most other blacks come from.

Having said that, if you asked me, "Net, as a black man, do the 'Retro Air Jordan' news reports embarrass me in any way?" I would likely respond, "Yes, but not so much. After all, those fools don't represent me, or my family, or my friends, or my colleagues, etc."

Yes, they share my skin color; and maybe we occasionally speak in a similar jargon; and maybe we share a few musical likes and dislikes. But generally speaking, we come from two very different worlds.

There's an interesting analogy here, Z: Whenever I talk about conservatives sharing common ground with white racialists on various race-based issues, you and other decent conservatives take strong offense. For the record, I don't blame you for taking offense. Frankly, I like the fact that you DO, because it so underlines your seriousness about the ugliness of racial prejudice.

net observer said...

PART 2

But let's delve into specifically why my assertion offends you so much: I think it's because you KNOW that you are not in any way connected to, or sympathetic to, racism, racialism or racial prejudice. So any hint or suggestion to the contrary infuriates you.

Again, I fully respect that. But the fact that you're NOT a racist or a racialist doesn't negate the fact that a lot of racists and racialists share common ground with conservatives on issues like illegal immigration, affirmative action, racial profiling, etc.

Delving deeper: What if I went further than just pointing out a few similarities? What if I suggested that you and other decent conservatives were somehow indirectly or tangentially responsible for white racialism?

What if said to you, "Z, what are YOU and the other good conservatives doing about those white racialists you share common ground with? Why don't you guys speak out against it more?"

If I did that, ultimately, I think I would be placing an unfair burden on you. Because pragmatically, there's not a whole lot you can do about some independent white racialists having a few conservative opinions. Bottom line, despite the similarities, you have no real connection to those guys.

And like most blacks, I don't have any real connection to those lawless, prison-bound idiots whose skin looks like mine.

I know it's not ENTIRELY that simple, Z. But it's pretty darn close.

For the record, I don't mind someone asking me, "As a black person, what do you think about this Air Jordan madness? What would YOU do about it? Maybe you have a perspective that could offer some insight?" Those are all logical, interesting questions that any fair-minded black person would anticipate. But other than that, I don't know what else we law-abiding black people are expected to do about "Air Jordan" violence or whatever.

You REALLY wanna know what I think, Z? Any black kid who goes fisticuffs for some over-priced sneakers ain't about to listen MY advice -- and probably not Obama's either. He MIGHT listen to the reformed grown-up that was once in his shoes (a la "Beyond Scared Straight" on A&E). But even that's a gamble.

Kid said...

Net, I know you're not talking to me, but maybe some of what I sad motivated some of what you said.?

Anyway, as a Conservative, I want to see everyone successful. I won't try to list them.

I want to go into places of business run by every kind of person you can imagine and profiting from those businesses. Enjoying and understanding capitalism. Making good lives for they and their families, so when evil knocks on their door, they laugh in its face.

As far as popping kids out like pieces of toast, it's not all black. Google up donna trevino and Marcus Fiesel/Cincinnati sometime, but not right after lunch if ya know what I mean and certainly well after the holidays are over. Note this donna creature was pregnant again while the trial was going on. How, I can't imagine.

Anyway, it is mostly black. It has become a way of life, the democrat politicians have made it a way of life - for them. Not trying to pick a fight and I sincerely hope this doesn't make you angry. But I see many waking up to how evil the democrats really are and that's a good thing in my mind so this is said with the best of intentions.

As far as surface level conservatives with suspect motives and actions, those are simply redneck A*.

Not enough true conservatives. All we care about is liberty for everyone. Period.

net observer said...

Kid,

I totally believe what you're saying, even though sometimes it may sound like I don't. Believe it or not, I LOVE when conservatives stand up and say what you just said. As Dennis Prager so often says, it provides clarity. And on THIS subject, clarity is a necessity.

Yes, I push the envelope when I discuss racial issues in America. Why? Because it's serious business to me. A lot of time, sweat, tears and tension are unnecessarily squandered over this issue.

But it's the perpetual misunderstanding among people that frustrates me the most. I am convinced the only way to change this is through honest, civil, serious dialogue. We can't be easily offended and we can't be too quick to go on the defensive.

Kid, it's totally okay to say that African-Americans, as a group, are extremely over-represented in street crime, or lower SAT scores, or whatever. If it's true, it's true.

But it's kinda like what I said to Imp earlier: Okay, now what?

If I can quote Chris Rock again, "Every thing white people don't like about black people, black people REALLY don't like about black people."

My point is you can't toss around facts like that without any followup statements or additional perspectives. Why? Because that's what the REAL racists do! (i.e., toss around ugly facts about groups they don't like in an obvious display of demagoguery)

If you don't like being labelled "racist", you can't keep doing what racists do. (Please ignore and forgive my use of the term "you"; I'm only speaking generically to make a point)

Kid, I've spent much of my adult life engaged in healthy, enlightening conversation with people on the right. For the most part, I understand where they are coming from. I know it is NOT a racist place. As I've stressed before, I still think of MY politics as right-leaning, based on the OLD definitions.

In any event, my experience tells me the primary difference between white conservatives and white racialists is the TARGET of their "hatred", for lack of a better word. Racists hate other people. Conservatives hate the political philosophy that created the mess (i.e., "the left" in their view).

And it's ironic. The average middle-class African-American and the average white conservative are ultimately in agreement on many of these issues. Remember that Chris Rock didn't get in any trouble for that routine, and most of his audience during that show was black.

Like Chris Rock said, followed by a massive applause, "A black woman bustin' her butt with multiple jobs takin' care of two kids HATES a b!tch with nine kids collecting welfare checks!" It's TRUE.

But the conflicts between blacks and conservatives are mostly based around not the basic facts, but a lack of trust. African-Americans are solid Democrats; which means they lean left. Conservatives don't trust the left.

Conversely, conservatives, unfortunately, share common ground with racialists and racists on issues like immigration, profiling, etc. So, from the point of view of a left-leaning black guy, conservatives look kinda racist.

It's not an illogical thought process, Kid. Case in point, Imp's stats came from a group directly connected to "American Renaissance", an openly racialist publication and organization.

I think it's safe to say that American Renaissance does NOT represent people who care about black social or economic improvement. If anything, their message is directed specifically at white people: i.e., "BEWARE! No miscegenation! No 'self-hatred'!"

They remind me a LOT of my old days on the black left.

But anyway, that's enough for now =) Appreciate the open, honest dialogue.

Kid said...

Net, Thank You So Much. It's late and I've had a couple, and we have guests through tomorrow, so it'll be Tuesday probably before I reply. fwiw.

I want to do your responses justice.

I really do think this basic issue is the biggest issue for America and the affected individuals, and while you and I won't solve anything by talking about it, you have to start somewhere eh? :)
We're blogging and commenting so why not address some of this stuff in this way.

Well, the first step to solving any problem is recognition that there is a problem.

Kids really are my hot button. Life is hard enough already.

Kid said...

Net, Well, got some quiet time here and I'm awake now.

I don't have a whole lot to say because I agree 100% with what you're saying.

I think one of the biggest problems with the racial effect is that the two groups (if we just look at it as black/white for ease) is that each group seems to have a small number of people 'speaking for them'. And either side is then stuck with these words. Jesse and Al and in context here, Ron Paul, or whoever actually wrote the newsletters.

So, I believe that has to change before we can make much more progress. Morgan Freeman "I'll stop calling you a white man, and you stop calling me a black man" seems as far away a concept as world peace if 'we' keep listening to the inciters.

Why can't anyone of any color rely on non-discrimination laws to protect them? The poor I guess. Fine, let's have something like the ACLU represent them. We'd spend a lot less than we do keeping racism alive. I think those things are solvable and not 'unintentional consequences'.

Really, why is there a "Black Caucus" in congress? That does not help, it perpetuates the idea that 'we' are different. They the people who should be setting the example ! :) Geeez.

Chris seems to have a good attitude about it and has been making the point you're making.

The only people I hate are the people who use others for gain. Dem politicians as I said, and others like kim jong, islamic leaders, etc. No shortage of those vermin.

I certainly don't trust the left, with each step they take more of my liberties are gone and there are the other problems. Not that I'm a fan of republicans either. They're about as useful as a pack of giggling school girls.

Well, feel free to keep me honest. It is sometimes difficult to say something then clarify it so it doesn't just sound like a racist talking point.

Finally, the problem seems to be getting worse by the say. The politicians are dividers on most levels and certainly on the race level.

Well, my focus is the kids of any color, which it seems to me, the Dems are breeding as future voting supporters and nothing more. Actually Paying for child abuse.

Hope you have a great new year sir.

net observer said...

Kid, I appreciate all that.

When you said that our "representatives" often exacerbate the situation, that REALLY hit home with me. I would add the "soundbite media culture" as well.

But when you earlier talked about how conservatives like you want to see people PROSPER and how THAT is one of conservatism's primary motivations, you could have passed around a collection plate at that point lol

THAT'S THE CONSERVATISM I REMEMBER FROM 15 YEARS AGO! lol

I don't know what happened to this movement or the term since then. Hell, maybe it's me. I don't know =)

We'll be talkin', tho'.

Kid said...

Net
"conservatives like you want to see people PROSPER and how THAT is one of conservatism's primary motivations"

I'm feeling like part of a smaller and smaller group every day. Yes, I want to see them all doing well. It's the only answer! And they had it figured out 300 years ago.

This is the header to my blog...
"Greatest Words Ever Written: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that ALL Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government."

It does seem possible doesn't it?..

Kid said...

Net, Yes, add Rush, Sean, and most of the rest of them into the category of unhelpful. To clarify.

dmarks said...

Ron Paul wrote some horrible anti-black racist crap in that newsletter. The only way to get past it is to apologize profusely.

Anonymous said...

Some staffer wrote politically incorrect stuff that doesn't matter... it was almost 20 years ago. Bet you all didn't care when your man Obama wrote a racist book and has dangerous organized racists like Farrakhan and Panters supporting him.

This is not the behavior of a racist and this man in this video is not the only one.

http://youtu.be/8Rv0Z5SNrF4

You all should be as decent and Christian as Ron Paul who is squeaky clean.

Anonymous said...

@AlwaysOnWatch:

Ron Paul did NOT write the stuff you quoted.
Ron Paul has ALREADY disavowed it.

Even Wolf Blitzer said this is not you, as he doesn't act or speak like that and everyone knows it.

PC even affects dumb RINOS I see.

Anonymous said...

There is no 'conspiracy' about dumb communists trying to turn us over to communism and world gov't. i can see the moronishness right here on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Comments I particularly enjoyed:


SOAPSTER:

”I go to the VA hospital, where my girlfriend is a Surgical Technician, one weekend out of the month. I see the consequences of the foreign policy you so endear. It is a disastrous foreign policy which has far more to do with the occupation and subsequent exploitation of resources for corporate gain than it does with any traditionally American ideal.”


”If you think the Republican party can remain a viable party without the support of the youth, independents, and disaffected Democrats that Ron Paul is bringing into the party then why are your pundits, presstitutes, and apparatchiks working so feverishly trying to discredit his rising success?


FROGBURGER:


”[Your wife] likely also came to realize that Ron Paul is a leftist.”



You're a freaking pain in the ass, Beamish.

Anybody that doesn't agree with you is a leftist.

Plus, left and right are just a simplistic way at looking at political ideas.


Z:

”Beamish, please find a thread on my blog in the last six months where it got this ugly and insulting between commenters and you weren't here.
thanks.


I'll do you a favor; I'll take down your sidebar comments as you asked me to and you stop coming here. Deal?”



[NOTE: “DING DONG MERRILY IN HIGH! IN HEAVEN THE BELLS ARE RINGING. ...”;-]


KID:

’If I point out that 82 out of 83 murders in Cincinnati happen in the Over the Rhine district and that is predominately black, am I a racist? Or do I merely report the facts. If I point out that 82 out of 83 murders in Cincinnati happen in the Over the Rhine district and that is predominately black, am I a racist? Or do I merely report the facts?”


CHAKAM:

”@Beamish,

You simply do not get it, do you?

Your comments are atrocious, ugly, and venomous. You peddle yourself as some sort of admirable and respect-worthy blogger, but you use Z's blog as your bully pulpit with all the grace of a crack addict on payday.”


AOW:


” ... I believe that it's IMPERATIVE that we get BHO out of the Oval Office -- even if we end up voting in a liver sandwich! ...”


AOW summed it up brilliantly. THAT is what we need to focus on. THAT should be our unified goal. Internecine warfare sparked and nourished by irrational, spiteful, egocentric, Nazi-esque bigots who use “facts” only as weapons to brutalize and antagonize anyone with whom they disagree is not what we need to get The BLACK Knight out of the WHITE House.


It has often been said, “The more things change the more they remain the same.”


I disagree -- in part. Things do change, but sadly bad scenes only seem to repeat themselves, albeit with new characters, and get progressively worse.

"... When will they ever learn?...

Know your enemies. Satan is The Great Deceiver, and his most powerful weapon is to spread CONFUSION and foster DISSENSION.

No one can have a rational discussion with a truculent, intransigent bigot whose modus operandi is to try to shout down all opposition and bully everyone within range into submission with repeated insults.

My advice -- not that you asked for it -- would be DON’T TRY.

Let’s hope the NEW YEAR brings us to our senses, and revives a spirit of mutual respect, courtesy -- and honest CURIOSITY about each other's views.

~ FreeThinke

PS: NetO deserves an OSCAR for his stellar performance as a gentleman, a master diplomat and an eminently rational individual. - FT

Always On Watch said...

Anonymous,
Ron Paul did NOT write the stuff you quoted.
Ron Paul has ALREADY disavowed it.


Got a link for that?