Thread: Obama the Educator

Originally Posted by Capulet

Unless of course, a moderator wants to take notice that you've already been warned in this thread previously for personal attacks, have already done so again multiple times after the warning, and they want to actually enforce some semblance of the rules...

I think you are the one doing the attacking. You try to portray every other white as a demon. I think its time for you to grow up because your behavior is beginning to resemble that of a spoiled brat, who, if dosen't get his way, will lash out against anybody.

Personally, I don't think I fare any better. I must be nuts myself to go back and forth with you.

Originally Posted by Capulet

It's only interesting to you because it's a fiction of your own creation. The Reverend is speaking on issues of civil rights that are still not solved to this very day, and if based in a completely valid context where he is advising his parish to be wary and remembers the lessons of the past, because it is still a problem of the present.

That's a complete load of garbage.

You seem intent to cry 1930 mantras as if we were in the age of black & white TVs. Why don't you stop crying whites are demons and get your mind pass the 1930s. The continuation of these things only screams PC hatred every bit as insidious as the ugliest days of 1930s-40s fascism. Is society seriously so full of hatred that it must have these things in one form or another to continue breathing? Sometimes I wonder.

Your beloved Reverend is every bit as racist as a neo-Nazi. And calling whites demons is just as racist as calling blacks monkeys or any other garbage. You really shouldn't use racist terminologies such as these, because they're built on racist currents contaminating those who use them in ugly pitch.

Even at the height of slavery in the US, there was a substantial majority of the population who saw the practice for the barbarism it was, so, to paint all "white Americans" with the same brush is misleading. Interestingly, at about the same time as the US was formally making the practice of slavery illegal, Canada was just begining its own nasty little experiment;

Canada apologises for abuse of aboriginal children | Reuters

This was a racially based treatment which lasted into the 1970's. Groups of people who gather together based on common traits will always behave badly toward those who do not share those traits;

Attacks on Amish in Ohio target hair, beards | The Hutchinson News:

Even the 'enlightened' mystics of the East are not immune;

Sannyasi Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You could go back to the early Christian era where whites, blonds & redheads were deemed to be witches and a product of the devil. You know, I can't see any sign of humanity growing out of the pitch of hate. A new wind, a new swamp of pitch to dunk humanity into.
Cheers...

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

I think you are the one doing the attacking. You try to portray every other white as a demon. I think its time for you to grow up because your behavior is beginning to resemble that of a spoiled brat, who, if dosen't get his way, will lash out against anybody.

Personally, I don't think I fare any better. I must be nuts myself to go back and forth with you.

So to recap: you are calling me a waste of an education, a waste of a mind, less intelligent than a fool, need to grow up, and a spoiled brat.

Got it.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

That's a complete load of garbage.

You seem intent to cry 1930 mantras as if we were in the age of black & white TVs. Why don't you stop crying whites are demons and get your mind pass the 1930s. The continuation of these things only screams PC hatred every bit as insidious as the ugliest days of 1930s-40s fascism. Is society seriously so full of hatred that it must have these things in one form or another to continue breathing? Sometimes I wonder.

First off, my use of white devils was a characterization of how the Reverend speaks, so you should really be arguing with him about the term, and not me. But yes, society is still so full of hatred, and a lot of it comes from a significant percentage of African Americans that feel they are still disadvantaged and that we're into any golden age free from racism.

I certainly agree that things are way, way better than decades ago, and getting better, but I don't think it's time to take the foot off the pedal and proclaim racism (of any stripe) dead.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

Your beloved Reverend is every bit as racist as a neo-Nazi. And calling whites demons is just as racist as calling blacks monkeys or any other garbage. You really shouldn't use racist terminologies such as these, because they're built on racist currents contaminating those who use them in ugly pitch.

Well, if we want to discuss language, let's dissect the term. Demon on its own is just a noun. If I was to walk out and say to a caucasian, "man, you looked like a demon out on the court today" there is no racial significance. If I was to go to an African American and say "man, you jumped around like a monkey under the hoop", that might not fly so well.

But you're right that language does have power, and context is important. I used white devil in a manner that was specifically designed to vilify caucasians, because that is what the reverend does. He associates the caucasians of today with the sins of the past, and probably to him they're one and the same. Are they? I don't believe so, but he does so when speaking using his voice that had to be conveyed.

But racist language is even more insidious than that. There's a reason why there was a push to call "blacks" and "whites" something other than "blacks" and "whites". So if you're extremely dedicated to removing racism from language, you shouldn't refer to them by these racist terms, but as caucasians and African Americans, at least in America. Don't call actual Africans that. lol

Anyway in response I'm drifting further afield than the further afield we'd already drifted. If you want to have a sincere discussion of prejudice in language, I'm totally up for it in another thread. If the reverend comes up again, or the still-existing plight of African Americans, I will likely share in the context of standpoint theory, applying it to their particular group. If that interests you, fire it up and we'll talk. (and I'm intentionally using discuss and talk, when it comes to language there's very little devil's advocate coming from me)

Going back to the original posts, anyone who thinks Obama or Boehner are sincere is nuts. They're both politicians first and foremost, and the acquisition and maintenance of power is the primary goal. I'm always surprised at how many people are still in the "party" mentality, and convinced that when someone carries the banner of the party they prefer, that person has to be right, good, etc. It certainly makes things easier for those in power, though.

As soon as I saw Obama running for election i thought: ' A good marketing ploy, a smooth talking black man.'

Everything he said he would do as president he didn't do, he is just another arm of industry infiltrating government authority.

Have you seen 'The Obama Deception' video? Its a very eye opening account of the lies he fed the US civilians so to win election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

Originally Posted by Terry D

I could make the point that one would have to very naive, or completely unfamiliar with Illinois machine politics, to think that it is not relevant.

I have no doubt that there is a history of corruption and nepotism in Illinois. How about Texas? Were you concerned that your previous President (and one of the leading candidates today) were from a state with a history of bribe-taking, vested-interest backscratching and gross feeders at the federal trough?

I am not saying that to give Obama a pass - what he did or didn't do in Illinois will have to stand or fall on its' own merits - but what you are advocating is guilt by association, isn't it?

He bull-rushed his 'health care reform' through even though more than 60% of the US citizenry did not want it.

Really? That old chestnut? That is simply not true. Gallup, one of the leading public opinion organisations in the world would say different. At its' best ever level of opposition, the anti-healthcare faction was less than 50%. I have no problem with agreeing that there was a lot of opposition, but it wasn't over 60% - at least not once the Republican media machine had been debunked and people were told the truth about death panels, abortion reform and all the other lies that were spread. There's no reason to gild that lily, there was opposition enough to think again on that piece of legislation. It's just propagating the same lies that were debunked time and time again over the last 2 years.



If I were to state, as a politician in opposition, that a new animal control act required that all dogs over the age of 8 were to be taken from their owners and put down, then a poll was called asking whether you supported or disgreed with that act, how valid are the results of that poll?

A week passes and the public are made aware that the statement was a pack of lies and the same poll is called, do you think the results would be the same?

Selective picking of facts can make anyone's point. I have no dog in this hunt, except where the fortunes of the US affect things like my cost of fuel, insurance, travel, etc., but the amount of outright lies and dirt-baggery from the opposition that have plagued this President's time in office is astounding.

I have seen some shady politics in the last few decades, but what has gone on in the last 3 years in the US reaches new lows.