It seems to me that the answer to whether those who subscribe to BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY and the teachings of folks like W.E.B. DuBois and James H. Cone, are about as representative of the Black Church in America, as WHITE SUPREMICISTS, who call themselves Christians, represent the mainstream of Americans, who happen to be white. They both a racist subsects of America's most dominent religion; Christianity.
If you have not heard of BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY, then I urge you to do your own research, as well as see how both the right and the left view Mr. DuBois and Mr. Cones.
I find it more than interesting that our first black POTUS is one who has publically subscibed to the Black Liberation Theology teachings, as well as their political movement and yet it seems taboo to talk about his deeply held beliefs and associations with this cult!
Do a google search and think for yourself! What do you think?
Here's a suggested reading...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/the_wrightobama_split_in_histo.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/the_wrightobama_split_in_histo.html)
you might also want to watch/listen to this...
Barack Obama's Black Liberation Theology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=928_TLwSl1I#)
Obama Speaks Of Rev. Wright In This 1995 Interview
Obama Speaks Of Rev. Wright In This 1995 Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh7xMhsLnac#)
Black Liberation Theology (interview wit Jerimiah Wright)
Black Liberation Theology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_KF5p57WHE#)
"Theologically, Cone's argument is as silly as the "Aryan Christianity" popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the "chosen people". Cone, Hopkins and Wright do not propose, of course, to put non-blacks in concentration camps or to conquer the world, but racially-based theology nonetheless is a greased chute to the nether regions.
Biblical theology teaches that even the most terrible events to befall Israel, such as the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, embody the workings of divine justice, even if humankind cannot see God's purpose. James Cone sees the matter very differently. Either God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him, Cone maintains:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]
In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:
In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors ... Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone]...
That is the "biblical scholarship" to which Obama referred in his March 14 defense of Wright and his academic prominence. In his response to Hannity, Wright genuinely seemed to believe that the authority of Cone and Hopkins, who now hold important posts at liberal theological seminaries, was sufficient to make the issue go away. His faith in the white establishment is touching; he honestly cannot understand why the white reporters at Fox News are bothering him when the University of Chicago and the Union Theological Seminary have put their stamp of approval on black liberation theology... "
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-white-hatred-in-black-liberation-theology (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-white-hatred-in-black-liberation-theology)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages52.fotki.com%2Fv638%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8185280%2F067obamawrightvalues-vi.jpg&hash=bb530a4176f874dd1bac23729e0d7b05e6c44fbd)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages52.fotki.com%2Fv738%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8185280%2Fcartoonobamapreacher-vi.jpg&hash=5a2f8a5c5cd3100e38eabae619083219b689184c)
Who sat for 20 years of "services," listening to this vile racist Wright, and who donated $20,000 to support Wright's racist causes? Above, "I wasn't really here" should read, "I lied through my commie ass that I wasn't listening to his racist garbage, and rewarded it from my checkbook."
Obviously, because of the abomination of slavery and the fact that Barak Obama is our first African American President, we are to give him a pass on his racist views, since they are both understandable and excusable!
Quote from: wally on October 16, 2010, 08:24:57 AM
Obviously, because of the abomination of slavery and the fact that Barak Obama is our first African American President, we are to give him a pass on his racist views, since they are both understandable and excusable!
For heaven's sake, don't forget that 'white guilt' thingy that we white people are supposed to all be afflicted or inflicted with. I believe that our collective white guilt helped to elect Obama. I can only hope that we're over that by 2012.
Quote from: crepe05 on October 16, 2010, 08:40:38 AM
For heaven's sake, don't forget that 'white guilt' thingy that we white people are supposed to all be afflicted or inflicted with. I believe that our collective white guilt helped to elect Obama. I can only hope that we're over that by 2012.
I've never really had any of that myself. Am I different than others, in that regard? maybe it's because I grew up with an awareness of the fact that many of my ancestors died fighting for (among other things) the freedom of those enslaved in this country and some even were actively involved in the Underground Railroad, helping 'negros' follow the drinking gourd' to Canada. I also grew up admiring an older cousin who was a freedom rider on the buses sent from our church down to fight the (Democrats) who were keeping the (negros, at the time) enslaved under the Jim Crow laws, in the deep south. I wished I were old enough to have risked my life then too for what I considered a noble and just cause!
I am a direct descedent of Horace Greeley (a prominent abolitionsist, as well as newspaper man) and as such, I feel no shame for the position my family has always taken regarding the oppression of our fellow human beings!
Having said all this,
two three things come to mind;
1. I have nothing to feel guilty or ashamed about, when it comes to the issue of race.
2. Nobody living today has any reason to share "collective guilt" for the actions of their
ancestors. Europeans brought slavery to their colonies in the new world long before
their was a nation known as the United States of America; It was the way things were
in these "dark ages" (no pun intended). Slavery is as old as mankind itself and was practiced
in Africa long before it's exploitation by Europeans and the UN reports that it is still being
practiced in some African nations today!
3. WhAT HAVE ANY OF THE POMINENT RACE BAITERS SUCH AS AL SHARPTEN, JESSE JACKSON,
JEREMIAH WRIGHT AND BARAK OBAMA EVER DONE TO PROMOTE HARMONY AND GOOD WILL
BETWEEN ALL THE RACES IN AMERICA AND THIS WORLD?
Black liberation theology is this: that the teachings of Christianity through Jesus (that's the "theology" part) apply to all people, of every color, including all Negro people, and that those Christian teachings assert all people are inherently equal in the eyes of God and so black people, specifically (that's the "black" part), ought to receive at the hands of society treatment equal to that received by whites and other races (that's the "liberation" part); and that's pretty much all there is to black liberation theology.
Keeping in mind that black liberation theology appeared in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the question is this: Is it "racist" for an oppressed race to strive for social treatment and basic status equal to that of the privileged (white) race in a given society?
And, given that that blacks have not yet achieved full social equality in some ways, for example in employment in the absence of affirmative action quotas; in the disproportionate number of blacks who are convicted of crimes, imprisoned, and sentenced to death, compared to whites convicted of similar crimes across the board; in lending practices; etc, another question remains: Is there not still some legitimate need for a black liberation theology movement?
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 01:13:18 PM
Black liberation theology is this: that the teachings of Christianity through Jesus (that's the "theology" part) apply to all people, of every color, including all Negro people, and that those Christian teachings assert all people are inherently equal in the eyes of God and so black people, specifically (that's the "black" part), ought to receive at the hands of society treatment equal to that received by whites and other races (that's the "liberation" part); and that's pretty much all there is to black liberation theology.
Keeping in mind that black liberation theology appeared in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the question is this: Is it "racist" for an oppressed race to strive for social treatment and basic status equal to that of the privileged (white) race in a given society?
And, given that that blacks have not yet achieved full social equality in some ways, for example in employment in the absence of affirmative action quotas; in the disproportionate number of blacks who are convicted of crimes, imprisoned, and sentenced to death, compared to whites convicted of similar crimes across the board; in lending practices; etc, another question remains: Is there not still some legitimate need for a black liberation theology movement?
I noticed you are capitalizing "God" and "Christianity". Have you always done that?
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 01:13:18 PM
Black liberation theology is this: that the teachings of Christianity through Jesus (that's the "theology" part) apply to all people, of every color, including all Negro people, and that those Christian teachings assert all people are inherently equal in the eyes of God and so black people, specifically (that's the "black" part), ought to receive at the hands of society treatment equal to that received by whites and other races (that's the "liberation" part); and that's pretty much all there is to black liberation theology.
Keeping in mind that black liberation theology appeared in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the question is this: Is it "racist" for an oppressed race to strive for social treatment and basic status equal to that of the privileged (white) race in a given society?
And, given that that blacks have not yet achieved full social equality in some ways, for example in employment in the absence of affirmative action quotas; in the disproportionate number of blacks who are convicted of crimes, imprisoned, and sentenced to death, compared to whites convicted of similar crimes across the board; in lending practices; etc, another question remains: Is there not still some legitimate need for a black liberation theology movement?
You make some good points rick, but, and yes, there is a but.
What was once as you described a necessary movement, it has been corrupted by the likes of Wright and many others.
Lets take your point about blacks and crime, that has nothing whatsoever to do with White oppression, Blacks have the same advantages as say, a poor White guy, like myself, I had nothing at all when I started my first business, except drive and determination.
What is it that is holding my black counterpart back?
Answer, his peers, he is ridiculed as being a sell out, an Uncle Tom, this is a cultural issue, not oppression from White race.
Giving someone special treatment based solely on race is a mistake, people have to earn something, to feel good about themselves.
I'd have to say, it is the Black man that is his own worst enemy, not all, mind you, but a very large percentage.
It's a cultural issue, that only they can overcome, nothing you and I, or the Dims can fix.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 01:13:18 PM
Black liberation theology is this: that the teachings of Christianity through Jesus (that's the "theology" part) apply to all people, of every color, including all Negro people, and that those Christian teachings assert all people are inherently equal in the eyes of God and so black people, specifically (that's the "black" part), ought to receive at the hands of society treatment equal to that received by whites and other races (that's the "liberation" part); and that's pretty much all there is to black liberation theology.
Keeping in mind that black liberation theology appeared in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the question is this: Is it "racist" for an oppressed race to strive for social treatment and basic status equal to that of the privileged (white) race in a given society?
And, given that that blacks have not yet achieved full social equality in some ways, for example in employment in the absence of affirmative action quotas; in the disproportionate number of blacks who are convicted of crimes, imprisoned, and sentenced to death, compared to whites convicted of similar crimes across the board; in lending practices; etc, another question remains: Is there not still some legitimate need for a black liberation theology movement?
Obvously you have a different understanding of Black Liberation Theology than Rev. Wright.
Did you view this clip of his interview with Bill Moyers?
Black Liberation Theology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_KF5p57WHE#)
Quote from: taxed on October 16, 2010, 01:35:55 PM
I noticed you are capitalizing "God" and "Christianity". Have you always done that?
Yeah, pretty much. It's a grammatical convention, capitalizing a proper name; like capitalizing Istanbul or John Smith. "God" is a technically a noun of designation hijacked for use as a proper name in the monotheistic religions. Really it's just laziness: since there's only one deity, there's no need to designate he/she/it by a proper name ...even though he/she/it has one; but "God" is a quicker write than "Jehovah," "Elohim," or "Yaweh." And Christianity is the proper name of the religion created to worship Jesus (proper name again) who was called "the Christ" (proper title), meaning "the anointed one."
Quote from: wally on October 16, 2010, 02:11:05 PM
Obvously you have a different understanding of Black Liberation Theology than Rev. Wright.
Did you view this clip of his interview?
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/index.php?topic=390.0 (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/index.php?topic=390.0)
I'm not required to have the same underastanding of black liberation theology as Rev. Wright. I hasten to point out the understanding of Islam, vis-a-vis what is permitted against "infidels," held by a Muslim radical from Pakistan will differ sharply from that of a secular Muslim from Turkey. I simply tell you what balck liberation theology is at its most basic; which is not to say it cannot be radicalized just as Islamicists have radicalized the interpretation of the Qur'an, and followers of Christian Identity have radicalized certain interpretations of the Bible.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 02:18:55 PM
I'm not required to have the same understanding of black liberation theology as Rev. Wright. I hasten to point out the understanding of Islam, vis-a-vis what is permitted against "infidels," held by a Muslim radical from Pakistan will differ sharply from that of a secular Muslim from Turkey. I simply tell you what balck liberation theology is at its most basic; which is not to say it cannot be radicalized just as Islamicists have radicalized the interpretation of the Qur'an, and followers of Christian Identity have radicalized certain interpretations of the Bible.
So you are saying that there is a subsect of this subsect?
Something like Polygamists churches like the Branch Dravidian's being offshoots from the Mormon (Church of the Latter Day Saints).
If this is so, why in Heaven's name wouldn't true Believers in Black Theology speak out and take a stand against the sect that Obama chose to belong to right up through it becoming a major campaign obstacle for him? Like Islamic Jihadists, don't such perversions of a broader Religion become the dominant perception if left unchallenged!
One would think that people would stand up for what they believed in, if they saw blasphamy being committed in the name of their religion!
Quote from: Solar on October 16, 2010, 02:06:56 PM
You make some good points rick, but, and yes, there is a but.
There always is.
QuoteWhat was once as you described a necessary movement, it has been corrupted by the likes of Wright and many others.
Which I touched on in my reply to wally. There is nothing good which cannot be twisted and radicalized into something bad. An obvious historical example with which I'm well acquainted: the radicalization of evolution by natural selection into "social darwinism" which illegitimately equated a particular
social theory to a particular
biological theory, dressing up the old social axiom "might makes right" in a costume that somewhat resembled a biologist's lab coat. (And while we may argue the ethics of eugenics and sociobiology, at least those particular disciplines have their feet firmly planted in observational biology not sociology.) Social darwinism was nothing but a radical attempt by "the haves" to rationalize their position relative to "the have-nots," and, further, to also justify the creation and spread of social attitudes, policies and programs which were specifically meant to maintain an inviolable gap between both sides.
QuoteLets take your point about blacks and crime, that has nothing whatsoever to do with White oppression, Blacks have the same advantages as say, a poor White guy, like myself, I had nothing at all when I started my first business, except drive and determination.
What is it that is holding my black counterpart back?
What does this have to do, specifically, with criminal conviction/incarceration rates and sentencing disparities? Studies like those put out annually by the Justice Department, confirm that blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher proportional rate than whites (even though white criminals outnumber black criminals by about 6 to 1 in America there's a disproportionate number of blacks of both sexes in prison compared to whites), and on average blacks receive harsher sentences than whites upon conviction for the same crimes. What does that have to do with "opportunity?"
QuoteAnswer, his peers, he is ridiculed as being a sell out, an Uncle Tom, this is a cultural issue, not oppression from White race.
No, because "cultures" do not convict, juries or judges do; and "cultures" do not sentence convicted criminals, judges do. And the demographic on American judges, in case you're interested, is overwhelmingly white.
QuoteGiving someone special treatment based solely on race is a mistake, people have to earn something, to feel good about themselves.
I agree with that. However, speaking about affirmative action, how are we to ensure equitable social treatment for blacks in a white-dominated society without installing what amounts to a broad system of quotas? I certainly don't like quotas: I believe in access to the workplace and subsequent promotion based on merit. But not everyone is as open-minded as I am about race. There are many whites who will refuse to hire a black man over a white one, or refuse to promote a black woman over a white one, and who will then smugly hide their bigotry behind a lie of "merit." Since such employers certainly don't advertise their bigotry (it being against current laws), no black person seeking a job has an equitable chance with them. And the ramifications of white bigotry go far beyond blacks seeking work; the ramifications extend into virtually every area of American social interaction.
QuoteI'd have to say, it is the Black man that is his own worst enemy, not all, mind you, but a very large percentage.
And I agree with that too. In this time of a black man (or half-black, as you prefer) in the White House, "black culture" is more often than not its own worst enemy, and has been since at least the 70s.
QuoteIt's a cultural issue, that only they can overcome, nothing you and I, or the Dims can fix.
In the main that's true, I think. But there's also still a
significant portion of the problem that's controlled by whites.
Quote from: wally on October 16, 2010, 02:23:05 PM
So you are saying that there is a subsect of this subsect?
Something like Polygamists churches like the Branch Dravidian's being offshoots from the Mormon (Church of the Latter Day Saints).
If this is so, why in Heaven's name wouldn't true Believers in Black Theology speak out and take a stand against the sect that Obama chose to belong to right up through it becoming a major campaign obstacle for him? Like Islamic Jihadists, don't such perversions of a broader Religion become the dominant perception if left unchallenged!
Perhaps for the same reasons liberal Christians generally don't raise a stink against the excesses and foolishness of fundamentalists until they do something utterly outrageous, like blow up Planned Parenthood centers and murder abortion providers: it's a subconscious act of solidarity with those who hold at least the same core beliefs even if the details surrounding them differ by quite a bit.
QuoteOne would think that people would stand up for what they believed in, if they saw blasphamy being committed in the name of their religion!
Are you a Christian? ...There was an abortion provider murdered not so long ago. Did you agree with the method employed by his killer? If not, did you raise a big public stink about the insane excesses of Christian fundmentalists? If not, I think you already know the answer to your own question.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 03:11:47 PM
What does this have to do, specifically, with criminal conviction/incarceration rates and sentencing disparities? Studies like those put out annually by the Justice Department, confirm that blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher proportional rate than whites (even though white criminals outnumber black criminals by about 6 to 1 in America there's a disproportionate number of blacks of both sexes in prison compared to whites), and on average blacks receive harsher sentences than whites upon conviction for the same crimes. What does that have to do with "opportunity?"
No, because "cultures" do not convict, juries or judges do; and "cultures" do not sentence convicted criminals, judges do. And the demographic on American judges, in case you're interested, is overwhelmingly white.
Like I said, it's a cultural issue. IO grew up in a black neighborhood, they have a very different way of looking at things.
Take pride for example, if a cop stopped a black in my neighborhood, there was a confrontational atmosphere projected by the Black guy, not always, but far more than the White culture does.
I know, I saw this on a regular basis, Cop pulls up, says, "How ta doing today"?
The response from my friends an myself was always warm and friendly, but same scenario with a black, and the cop gets a cold look with a delay in answering, that is not how you make friends.
So when a Black guy gets busted, he takes his attitude right into the courtroom, that is his first mistake, his second is the idea that he will be hung out to dry.
You and I have a different view, we see the justice system as trying to do the right thing, Blacks have the opposite view.
Quote
I agree with that. However, speaking about affirmative action, how are we to ensure equitable social treatment for blacks in a white-dominated society without installing what amounts to a broad system of quotas?
Why is it our responsibility?
QuoteI certainly don't like quotas: I believe in access to the workplace and subsequent promotion based on merit. But not everyone is as open-minded as I am about race. There are many whites who will refuse to hire a black man over a white one, or refuse to promote a black woman over a white one, and who will then smugly hide their bigotry behind a lie of "merit." Since such employers certainly don't advertising their bigotry It being against current laws), no black person seeking a job has an equitable chance with them. And the ramifications of white bigotry go far beyond blacks seeking work; the ramifications extend into virtually every area of American social interaction.
Why is it anyone's responsibility to right all wrongs?
We are an accumulation of our life experiences, if a White business owner has bad experiences with Black people, is it not his right to hire someone he knows he can get along with?
There is no reason he can't start his own business and hire only Blacks, and many Black business owners do, I have no problem with that.
QuoteAnd I agree with that too. In this time of a black man (or half-black, as you prefer) in the White House, "black culture" is more often than not its own worst enemy, and has been since at least the 70s.
In the main that's true, I think. But there's also still a significant portion of the problem that's controlled by whites.
Just because the majority of our infrastructure is owned by Whites, doesn't mean they are keeping the Black man out, most business hires the best person for the job, remember, it is after all, all about profit.
Take BP or any other large corporation, if they open a business in a predominantly black area, they find the best people from the area to fill the positions.
A lot of racism is in the black man's head.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 03:21:57 PM
Perhaps for the same reasons liberal Christians generally don't raise a stink against the excesses and foolishness of fundamentalists until they do something utterly outrageous, like blow up Planned Parenthood centers and murder abortion providers: it's a subconscious act of solidarity with those who hold at least the same core beliefs even if the details surrounding them differ by quite a bit.
Are you a Christian? ...There was an abortion provider murdered not so long ago. Did you agree with the method employed by his killer? If not, did you raise a big public stink about the insane excesses of Christian fundmentalists? If not, I think you already know the answer to your own question.
I think you must be turning a deaf ear to the loud condemnation made by Christian Churches against violent acts in general and whenever they have occurred including the Murder of Dr. Tiller.
I am a Christian, but I didn't raise a big stink because of the actions of a cazy person! I did condemn the murder of Dr. Tiller and condemned the actions of Dr. Tiller, as well, on LNF when the topic came up.
I'm concerned about the cult-like nature of the Black Theologist Church that Barak Obama belonged to for more than twenty years leading up to his becoming POTUS. The state beliefs of Obama's church (and his Mentor) are more in line with Louis Farrakahn (Seemingly Jerremiah Wright's former Mentor)than they are of any other Christian Church that I'm aware of.
If you are correct that Wright and the Obama's Belief in Black Theology is different from the mainstream Black Theology, then how would anyone ever know this, unless this is address by others who follow this theology and practice this interpretation of Christianity!
Don't you believe if we have any POTUS who belonged to a Religious Cult, preaching bigotry and hate of white people and envy of any accumulation of wealth by any white people, that this is a topic of concern for the citizens of our nation?
Quote from: taxed on October 16, 2010, 03:43:35 PM
A lot of racism is in the black man's head.
Yes, a lot. But not all. There's still a significant amount of racism in America that happens outside a black man's head and beyond his ability to control. Things certainly aren't as bad as they once were, but neither are things as good as they might be.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 04:09:54 PM
Yes, a lot. But not all. There's still a significant amount of racism in America that happens outside a black man's head and beyond his ability to control. Things certainly aren't as bad as they once were, but neither are things as good as they might be.
If you expect it "can be better", then you keep the stigma alive and breed negativity. I can't think of scenarios where bigotry or racism is actually relevant in 2010.
Quote from: wally on October 16, 2010, 03:45:17 PM
I think you must be turning a deaf ear to the loud condemnation made by Christian Churches against violent acts in general and whenever they have occurred including the Murder of Dr. Tiller.
No, I didn't miss the public condemnations. But the negative response was far from universal as most churches and Christian leaders just sat mum on the sidelines, either not wishing to comment or content to let others do the condemning for them ...not to mention the churches, congregations and Christian leaders sitting passively in silent agreement of Tiller's murder.
QuoteI am a Christian, but I didn't raise a big stink because of the actions of a crazy person! I did condemn the murder of Dr. Tiller and condemned the actions of Dr. Tiller, as well, on LNF when the topic came up.
Then good for you. I was there at the time; and others certainly didn't think Tiller's killer was "crazy," and openly applauded what he did. Jasmine, for example, was almost orgasmically pleased by Tiller's murder. And while her personal reaction was probably the strongest, she was certainly not alone in thinking Tiller's murder was not merely justifiable but in fact an act of God-pleasing Good.
QuoteI'm concerned about the cult-like nature of the Black Theologist Church that Barak Obama belonged to for more than twenty years leading up to his becoming POTUS. The state beliefs of Obama's church (and his Mentor) are more in line with Louis Farrakahn (Seemingly Jerremiah Wright's former Mentor) than they are of any other Christian Church that I'm aware of.
Because Wright said "God damn America?" That exact sentiment was commonly heard during the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings, when brimstone-breathing itinerant preachers and congregational ministers damned not just individual sinners but the whole sinful nation from the pulpit. Wright, for all the offense he gave, certainly wasn't the first pastor to ever damn America for its sins on behalf of God, and he won't be the last by a long shot. The
only thing that made him noteworthy was the fact that a future President sat in his congregation. My response to that? As long as Obama doesn't
act according to the angry theology of Rev. Wright, who cares what he
thinks in the privacy of his own mind?
QuoteIf you are correct that Wright and the Obama's Belief in Black Theology is different from the mainstream Black Theology, then how would anyone ever know this, unless this is address by others who follow this theology and practice this interpretation of Christianity!
Maybe by the common-sense realization that few things - theological movements in this case - start life as foaming-at-the-mouth radicalism. Most begin as ideas that are deliberately presentable to the majority of people as reasonable, with radicalization coming later. Thus we get an environmental movement
before we get EarthFirst! And we get (and most people have forgotten this) a majority (64%, to be exact) of Americans polling as wanting a relaxing of abortion laws
before we get the
Roe v. Wade decision from the Supreme Court. The list goes on and on...
QuoteDon't you believe if we have any POTUS who belonged to a Religious Cult
What makes it a "cult," precisely, as opposed to a particular narrow doctrinal approach?
Quotepreaching bigotry and hate of white people and envy of any accumulation of wealth by any white people, that this is a topic of concern for the citizens of our nation?
Again, as long as Obama doesn't act the way Rev. Wright might if he were President instead, what does it matter what Obama believes? I'm an atheist; yet would that matter in the end if I did nothing as President to threaten the right of conscience of Christians and other religious believers? I say that under those circumstances my personal beliefs would would be irrelevant.
Do you know how easy it is to prove Charles Darwin wrong? Just stand in a Wal-Mart checkout line and I guarantee you will stop believing in the concept of natural selection.
Second, I high fived my buddy when I heard Tiller the baby killer got a late term abortion himself. 185th or so trimester by my estimation.
The Black Theology that seems to be embraced by the radicals of today, sounds much like the rantings of Malcome X during the sixties and Louis Farrakahn throughout his hate mongering career. I not only respected Martin Luther King at the time, but I felt as though a part of me died with him when he was assasinated. I was inspired by Dr. King because he spoke to my heart and I believed then and still do today that people ought to be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin!!!
I hate the Race Baiters who make such a good living by exploiting the difference in people, rather than rejoicing in the goodness of each human spirit and promoting the worth of all people in a society that is both color blind and gender neutral!
From what I've heard and read, Black Liberation Theology fans the flames of hatred between the races and I therefore condemn it! Am I wrong!
You're exactly right Wally. Just a bunch of race baiting fools who traffic in hate and profit from instilling fear.
Liberation?????
So black drug dealers, black gangsters, who enslave and murder their own people with drugs and fear can still operate...right?
Billy
I remember the late nineteen sixties and the movement in the black communities to develope pride in young black children. The slogan was "black is beautiful" and you know what, that was beautiful and there was nothing wrong with it; in fact it was a wonderful healing initiative of the black community to turn the corner from both the institutional racism before the Civil Rights Movement and the Burn Baby Burn mentality of the Rabidly Radical Black Racists, like Malcome X.
I attended church with a few members of my church group in the inner city neighborhoods of some cities many miles away from my home. I was (and still am) proud of my little pebble in the pond and whatever ripple of HOPE and CHANGE might have been created by our having made such a minor effort to be part of building a better nation!
After a life time of working in law enforcement, I have come to know the difference between both blacks and whites who either wish to make things better and those who actually want to perpetuate chaos, fanning the flames between people, using race as a vehicle to get to where they personally wish to go!
I don't know if it is a cult or not. It's definitely a means to keep blacks angry and ignorant, and dependent...
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 16, 2010, 05:37:48 PM
I don't know if it is a cult or not. It's definitely a means to keep blacks angry and ignorant, and dependent...
It must work, look at Husein,the
Dumb Ass is punishing America out of
hatred and
ignorance. :))
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 16, 2010, 05:37:48 PM
I don't know if it is a cult or not. It's definitely a means to keep blacks angry and ignorant, and dependent...
Oddly, these points are some of the few areas where they actually don't need outside assistance.
Quote from: Dan on October 16, 2010, 06:39:02 PM
Oddly, these points are some of the few areas where they actually don't need outside assistance.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: taxed on October 16, 2010, 04:15:37 PM
If you expect it "can be better", then you keep the stigma alive and breed negativity. I can't think of scenarios where bigotry or racism is actually relevant in 2010.
I mentioned three of those areas earlier.
This isn't black and white, taxed, it's all shades of gray. Because nothing is ever perfectly good there will always be areas touched by racism, areas in need of improvement; and because nothing is ever perfectly bad there will always be perceptions of racism where none exists or are unintended. But working for the reduction of racism in the places it still exists neither "keeps the stigma alive" nor "breeds negativity" but rather encourages social harmony and moves toward a more positive world.
Quote from: Dan on October 16, 2010, 04:49:46 PM
Do you know how easy it is to prove Charles Darwin wrong? Just stand in a Wal-Mart checkout line and I guarantee you will stop believing in the concept of natural selection.
You're a shmuck, Dan, and obviously a complete ignoramus when it comes to the subject of evolution by natural selection (or any of its other mechanisms), otherwise you would have never posted such a wooden-headed remark even in jest.
QuoteSecond, I high fived my buddy when I heard Tiller the baby killer got a late term abortion himself. 185th or so trimester by my estimation.
There you go, a knuckle-dragging fundie asshat who believes cold-blooded murder could ever please Jesus.
Quote from: wally on October 16, 2010, 04:58:00 PM
The Black Theology that seems to be embraced by the radicals of today, sounds much like the rantings of Malcome X during the sixties
You might want to backtrack slightly on Malcolm X, who following his hajj to Mecca returned to the US to spend the remainder of his life preaching on behalf of racial unity.
Quoteand Louis Farrakahn throughout his hate mongering career. I not only respected Martin Luther King at the time, but I felt as though a part of me died with him when he was assasinated. I was inspired by Dr. King because he spoke to my heart and I believed then and still do today that people ought to be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin!!!
Yes, they should be. And what a delightful world this would be if everyone believed that. But the unhappy fact is that they don't, do they?
QuoteI hate the Race Baiters who make such a good living by exploiting the difference in people, rather than rejoicing in the goodness of each human spirit and promoting the worth of all people in a society that is both color blind and gender neutral!
Then almost by this self-assigned definition you must hate the Birthers, am I right? Because they all live and die by race-baiting over Obama.
QuoteFrom what I've heard and read, Black Liberation Theology fans the flames of hatred between the races and I therefore condemn it! Am I wrong!
You've likely only heard the black liberation theology that's made it into the news. Earlier I told you what the core of it is about, in my initial post in this thread. You can correctly call what I described as "mainstream black liberation theology" and Wright's version as radical black liberation theology. Think of it as the same distinction you find between peace-loving Muslims (the "mainstream") and Hamas (the radicals).
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 16, 2010, 05:37:48 PM
I don't know if it is a cult or not. It's definitely a means to keep blacks angry and ignorant, and dependent...
Really? By what mechanisms? I'm not talking about Wright's brand of BLT but the mainstream version I described earlier.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 06:59:59 PM
I mentioned three of those areas earlier.
This isn't black and white, taxed, it's all shades of gray. Because nothing is ever perfectly good there will always be areas touched by racism, areas in need of improvement; and because nothing is ever perfectly bad there will always be perceptions of racism where none exists or are unintended. But working for the reduction of racism in the places it still exists neither "keeps the stigma alive" nor "breeds negativity" but rather encourages social harmony and moves toward a more positive world.
Give an example.
Quote from: Solar on October 16, 2010, 03:36:51 PMWhy is it our responsibility? Why is it anyone's responsibility to right all wrongs?
Not all wrongs, perhaps, but there's a bit of a constitutional mandate to rectify this one and others like it, going back to the explicit obligation (found in the Constitution's preamble) of the government to "insure domestic tranquility." Can you not agree that the end of racism would produce a nation more tranquil domestically than one in which racism is allowed to survive and flourish?
Quote from: Solar on October 16, 2010, 07:23:26 PM
Give an example.
It should be self-evident: a society without racism is superior to one with racism. Or, if you don't like the word "superior," then a society without racism is more peaceful.
Quote from: taxed on October 16, 2010, 03:43:35 PM
A lot of racism is in the black man's head.
I don't blame them. They have been spoon fed it by the left and People like Sharpton for generations...
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 16, 2010, 07:36:04 PM
I don't blame them. They have been spoon fed it by the left and People like Sharpton for generations...
Not to mention having it literally pounded into their heads by innumerable cops, southern hayseeds, and northern skinheads and the various political, social, and religious kith and kin of the aforementioned.
Quote from: wally on October 16, 2010, 09:02:41 AM
I've never really had any of that myself. Am I different than others, in that regard? maybe it's because I grew up with an awareness of the fact that many of my ancestors died fighting for (among other things) the freedom of those enslaved in this country and some even were actively involved in the Underground Railroad, helping 'negros' follow the drinking gourd' to Canada. I also grew up admiring an older cousin who was a freedom rider on the buses sent from our church down to fight the (Democrats) who were keeping the (negros, at the time) enslaved under the Jim Crow laws, in the deep south. I wished I were old enough to have risked my life then too for what I considered a noble and just cause!
I am a direct descedent of Horace Greeley (a prominent abolitionsist, as well as newspaper man) and as such, I feel no shame for the position my family has always taken regarding the oppression of our fellow human beings!
Having said all this, two three things come to mind;
1. I have nothing to feel guilty or ashamed about, when it comes to the issue of race.
2. Nobody living today has any reason to share "collective guilt" for the actions of their
ancestors. Europeans brought slavery to their colonies in the new world long before
their was a nation known as the United States of America; It was the way things were
in these "dark ages" (no pun intended). Slavery is as old as mankind itself and was practiced
in Africa long before it's exploitation by Europeans and the UN reports that it is still being
practiced in some African nations today!
3. WhAT HAVE ANY OF THE POMINENT RACE BAITERS SUCH AS AL SHARPTEN, JESSE JACKSON,
JEREMIAH WRIGHT AND BARAK OBAMA EVER DONE TO PROMOTE HARMONY AND GOOD WILL
BETWEEN ALL THE RACES IN AMERICA AND THIS WORLD?
BLT is simply Social Justice enforced by white guilt.
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 16, 2010, 07:43:55 PM
BLT is simply Social Justice enforced by white guilt.
More like white shame ...and shame can be a positive force for good.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 07:30:07 PM
It should be self-evident: a society without racism is superior to one with racism. Or, if you don't like the word "superior," then a society without racism is more peaceful.
But that does not answer the question, you stated
Quote"But working for the reduction of racism in the places it still exists neither "keeps the stigma alive" nor "breeds negativity" but rather encourages social harmony and moves toward a more positive world."
So give an example of working to reduce racism.
Actually BLT has played an important role in our society. It helps the liberals with their self loathing....
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 16, 2010, 08:18:36 PM
Actually BLT has played an important role in our society. It helps the liberals with their self loathing....
And Bert, having run out of anything intelligent to say, leans heavily, panting hard, against the affectionate, nonjudging sheep of the conservative talking point.
Quote from: Solar on October 16, 2010, 07:53:48 PM
But that does not answer the question, you stated So give an example of working to reduce racism.
Do you hear crickets?
Quote from: Solar on October 16, 2010, 07:53:48 PM
But that does not answer the question, you stated, "But working for the reduction of racism in the places it still exists neither "keeps the stigma alive" nor "breeds negativity" but rather encourages social harmony and moves toward a more positive world." So give an example of working to reduce racism.
Okay. Reducing racism as a facet of human attitude is pretty difficult because it lives inside people's heads and only reveals itself through their actions. Racism as an attitude will eventually be taken down to a minimum and held there through teaching that all people are inherently alike, not just in their essential physiology but in their instinctive responses to external stimuli and, almost universally, in their basic social desires too. Long before that happens society will take steps - aggressive steps if necessary - to eliminate racism
as a public practice.. Affirmative action is such a program. It ensures that employers cannot capriciously discriminate against minorities (black, specifically, in this case) in their hiring practices, by compelling their labor force to closely resemble, in demographic microcosm, the greater local society, or offer a compelling, legally acceptable reason why this should not be so. Thus, hypothetically, a software company may be exempt from hiring black programmers (programming being a skilled position) in proportion to the number of blacks in the local community as long as it can demonstrate there are not enough black programmers in the community itself. (Simple in concept, not always so simple in practice since the onus is on the company.) The problem with affirmative action is that it not only fails to cure racist attitudes, it often inflames them, with racists (as well as non-racists) complaining that blacks are getting a "free ride" and "screwing white people out of jobs." Well, free ride it may be (until the black hire proves himself incompetent at the job he was hired for), but "screwing white people out of jobs" is a dead racist giveaway: white people are no more guaranteed access to jobs than black people are - however white racists will almost always choose to hire a white over a black person which "screws black people out of jobs."
So affirmative action programs meet your criteria for at least functionally reducing acts of public racism. Another would be something we've wrangled over in the past - criminalizing the right of refusing service based on race. There is simply no rational justification supporting a service provider's general right to refuse service (based on a customer's race, or religion, or sexuality) which outweighs society's general need and right to maintain peace and order. There may actually be rare compelling exceptions to that rule, but I'm at a loss for one at the moment.
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 16, 2010, 08:59:27 PM
Yeah, I definitely hear crickets...
Crickets are the only thing you CAN hear when you keep your head up your ass, Bert. ;-)
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 07:07:48 PM
You're a shmuck, Dan, and obviously a complete ignoramus when it comes to the subject of evolution by natural selection (or any of its other mechanisms), otherwise you would have never posted such a wooden-headed remark even in jest.
And you're a humorless leftist dweeb who is incapable of laughing at himself. So we'll all do it for you.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 07:07:48 PM
There you go, a knuckle-dragging fundie asshat who believes cold-blooded murder could ever please Jesus.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said it would please Jesus. I said it would please me. And if you value the life of baby killers so much then you can go fuck yourself.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 07:38:23 PM
Not to mention having it literally pounded into their heads by innumerable cops, southern hayseeds, and northern skinheads and the various political, social, and religious kith and kin of the aforementioned.
Some of the biggest bigots I've ever met in my life were black. And look at the violent black bigotry in African countries like Rwanda and Sudan and South Africa sondont talk to me like bigotry is some exclusively white invention.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 09:04:46 PM
Crickets are the only thing you CAN hear when you keep your head up your ass, Bert. ;-)
It's creepy that you spend so much time thinking about Bert's ass. :o
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 07:18:27 PM
Then almost by this self-assigned definition you must hate the Birthers, am I right? Because they all live and die by race-baiting over Obama.
I hate the smear tactic of labling someone who questions any POTUS' candidates qualifications and when the questions are not fully answered and such a cadidate becomes POTUS then I hate the fact that anyone can get away with what appears to bew a massive fraud!
With all the illegal aliens flooding into this country from the failed Narco-state of Mexico and all of the new identities created giving them the appearence of being US citizens, is it inconceivable that one day in the future we might not have a candidate for POTUS who may not have actually been born in this country? Would it be "racist" to want to find out if such a person is qualified.
Bear in mind that the Founders of our nation wanted to ensure that there would never be a time where a foreign born President could ever be elected. They feared that such a person might have alligances to others in foreign nations and not to those over whom he might try to dictate!
I am a Constitutionalist and I respect the rationale of those great men who created our Constitution and I have repeatedly taken an oath to protect, preserve and defend our Constitution, throughout my life! That oath is sacred to me and more than just a formality of being sworn in to an office!
Obama has yet to proove anything about these allegation which were first raised by the Clinton campaign, during the primary. Just because John McCain decided that he would make them off limits did not mean he spoke for anyone other than his own damn self!
I don't know if Obama is or is not a natural born citizen. He's fought it every inch of the way and that makes me suspicious! They must be an accounting and their will be...trust me!
Quote from: Darwinist on October 16, 2010, 09:01:04 PM
Okay. Reducing racism as a facet of human attitude is pretty difficult because it lives inside people's heads and only reveals itself through their actions. Racism as an attitude will eventually be taken down to a minimum and held there through teaching that all people are inherently alike, not just in their essential physiology but in their instinctive responses to external stimuli and, almost universally, in their basic social desires too.
So you want to somehow remove human nature, the natural defense response we all have?
You do realize that when bad things happen in our lives, like learning fire is hot, or glass can cut if not respected, or when someone dressed a certain way reflects their personality.
These are things we learn throughout life that keeps us safe, but using your logic, we are somehow supposed to unlearn them.
QuoteLong before that happens society will take steps - aggressive steps if necessary - to eliminate racism as a public practice.. Affirmative action is such a program. It ensures that employers cannot capriciously discriminate against minorities (black, specifically, in this case) in their hiring practices, by compelling their labor force to closely resemble, in demographic microcosm, the greater local society, or offer a compelling, legally acceptable reason why this should not be so.
Oh goody, more laws and regulations, one more bureaucracy, more people to answer to, more paper work to fill out, more employees to hire as a police force to watch over the private sector.
QuoteThus, hypothetically, a software company may be exempt from hiring black programmers (programming being a skilled position) in proportion to the number of blacks in the local community as long as it can demonstrate there are not enough black programmers in the community itself. (Simple in concept, not always so simple in practice since the onus is on the company.) The problem with affirmative action is that it not only fails to cure racist attitudes, it often inflames them, with racists (as well as non-racists) complaining that blacks are getting a "free ride" and "screwing white people out of jobs." Well, free ride it may be (until the black hire proves himself incompetent at the job he was hired for), but "screwing white people out of jobs" is a dead racist giveaway:
This is the answer I expected, you can't force something that isn't ready to fit, if you do, you only make the situation worse.
Quotewhite people are no more guaranteed access to jobs than black people are - however white racists will almost always choose to hire a white over a black person which "screws black people out of jobs."
And this is different from a black racist not wanting to hire Whites?
Blacks have the Exact same opportunity as do you and I when it comes to opening a business, there is no reason they can't open a business right in their own community and hire specifically Blacks, and I doubt you would hear Whites crying racism.
Quote
So affirmative action programs meet your criteria for at least functionally reducing acts of public racism.
-
But it meets no criteria whatsoever, as you yourself stated, it can and will build more resentment, in turn exacerbating racism.
QuoteAnother would be something we've wrangled over in the past -criminalizing the right of refusing service based on race. There is simply no rational justification supporting a service provider's general right to refuse service (based on a customer's race, or religion, or sexuality) which outweighs society's general need and right to maintain peace and order. There may actually be rare compelling exceptions to that rule, but I'm at a loss for one at the moment.
So now you advocate Fascism?
Are you also ready to pass laws of association? Whereby I have to prove that I have mingled with x amount of black people per week?
He would rather force CHANGE on people; failing to recognize that this is doomed to fail because of the bitter, deep seething resentment held by anyone who is forced to do anything!
People generally change their own opinions of others based upon the actions the other people take. If someone is prospering and is not harming you in any way, most people tend to admire such a person and want to associate themselves such a person, regardless of what they look like on the outside. Positives actually attract positives!
However, anyone who perceives another person or group as being a threat to them or their loved ones is perceived as an advesary, if not an enemy! Perception is REALITY! If one gives others the perception that they are hostile towards them and mean them harm, then negatives actually attract negatives and one will reap what he/she sews!
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 02:06:15 AMAnd you're a humorless leftist dweeb who is incapable of laughing at himself. So we'll all do it for you.
In fact I'm self-effacing away from a computer, poking fun at myself a lot. I don't post at message boards to laugh at myself; I post concerning issues I consider serious, and I post in a serious vein as befits serious issues. Maybe you and others think being at a message board is all masturbatory fun and games; good for you. But others have a different take; some of us think the issues facing our country are worthy of sober concern and analysis. If you and your crew of jokesters want to laugh at that attitude, go right ahead.
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 02:09:08 AMStop putting words in my mouth. I never said it would please Jesus.
Then you are no Christian, and indeed cannot be as long as you celebrate murder.
QuoteI said it would please me. And if you value the life of baby killers so much then you can go fuck yourself.
Yes, of course. But let me ask you something: do you have the courage to actually kill an abortion provider yourself, or will you always remain a sniveling little coward who watches others act on behalf of your beliefs, and thanks God someone has the courage you lack?
Hey Darwinist, you say that you come here to talk about big ideas. Lol. Seriously, how empty does your life have to be that you, a leftist, needs to come to a political forum for conservatives and be so openly confrontational. You aren't here to exchange ideas, learn or educate. You're just here to pick fights. How incredibly empty your life must be. How utterly devoid of any competing interests your life must be. No woman (or man, not judging). No kids. No friends. No hobbies. I'll bet you don't even have a pet. All you have is your bigotry and impotent rage and you have to vent that at anonymous people on a posting board. How sad. I honestly pity you......until you open your damned mouth and act like a jackass.
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 02:13:18 AM
Some of the biggest bigots I've ever met in my life were black.
Me too. But can you not see that attitude - at least for some of them - is justifiable in light of actual historical events? Is it
natural for people who have been institutionally oppressed and capriciously brutalized by those in authority, to embrace their oppressors and brutalizers with open arms and generous forgiveness - or is it more natural for them to grow hardened in resentment, and to come to generalize their view their oppressors with the exact same prejudice with which their oppressors view them generally?
Keep in mind, if you can, Dan, that the great race riots of the 60s and early 70s, and the contentious civil rights marches and sit-ins and acts of civil disobedience where non-resisting blacks were beaten (sometimes to death) by police, and set-upon with police dogs, and tear-gassed and fire-hosed, may not be part of the warp and weft of the experiences of the current generation of blacks, but those things are certainly part of the direct experience of their parents and grandparents - and, despite appearances to the contrary, parents and grandparents still convey information about their lives to their children, information that shapes perceptions and attitudes. How likely are you to be kindly disposed toward white people if it was a white cop who beat your uncle into that wheelchair he'll spend the rest of his life in, or a bunch of white rednecks who burned down the home your mother grew up in and lynched your grandfather? Can you possibly see how such things might create a little resentment, even hatred? And can you possibly see the stories of these events, passed to children and grandchildren, might foster indirect but no less virulent resentments and hatreds? And if you can see any of these things, and knowing that racism
still results in occasional deaths and maimings of blacks around this country, and that membership in Aryan organizations is on the rise, how then can you possibly hope to suggest that blacks have no reason to hang on to some worry?
QuoteAnd look at the violent black bigotry in African countries like Rwanda and Sudan and South Africa sondont talk to me like bigotry is some exclusively white invention.
Bigotry is a
human condition. Bear in mind the vast majority of bigotry in Africa is black-on-black, with the divisions ignited along tribal lines rather than drawn according to skin color.
But of course blacks in Africa don't like whites. Have you
ever looked at the history of white colonialism in Africa?? Not only colonial landowners but colonial governments treated black tribesmen like so many pieces of cordwood; their lives were not just insignificant they were utterly without value. And so they were cavalierly worked to death, and maimed and killed brutally - object lessons to their fellows against rebellion and even dissent. (Keep in mind, as a historical parallel, that it was the white European who taught the American Indian the brutality of scalping, not the other way around.) Black Africans have a lot of historical reason not to view whites with anything but suspicion and anger.
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 02:14:34 AM
It's creepy that you spend so much time thinking about Bert's ass. :o
It's creepier that you spend so much time paying attention to it.
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 09:16:16 AM
Hey Darwinist, you say that you come here to talk about big ideas. Lol. Seriously, how empty does your life have to be that you, a leftist, needs to come to a political forum for conservatives and be so openly confrontational. You aren't here to exchange ideas, learn or educate. You're just here to pick fights. How incredibly empty your life must be. How utterly devoid of any competing interests your life must be. No woman (or man, not judging). No kids. No friends. No hobbies. I'll bet you don't even have a pet. All you have is your bigotry and impotent rage and you have to vent that at anonymous people on a posting board. How sad. I honestly pity you......until you open your damned mouth and act like a jackass.
There isn't a small animal within ten miles of the alley where he keeps his refrigerator-crate. Ricky strangled them all.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 09:31:33 AM
It's creepier that you spend so much time paying attention to it.
And it's Creepier still that you go to conservative sites to ick fights and make insults about bert's ass.
Quote from: wally on October 17, 2010, 05:22:11 AM
I hate the smear tactic of labling someone who questions any POTUS' candidates qualifications and when the questions are not fully answered and such a cadidate becomes POTUS then I hate the fact that anyone can get away with what appears to bew a massive fraud!
With all the illegal aliens flooding into this country from the failed Narco-state of Mexico and all of the new identities created giving them the appearence of being US citizens, is it inconceivable that one day in the future we might not have a candidate for POTUS who may not have actually been born in this country? Would it be "racist" to want to find out if such a person is qualified.
Bear in mind that the Founders of our nation wanted to ensure that there would never be a time where a foreign born President could ever be elected. They feared that such a person might have alligances to others in foreign nations and not to those over whom he might try to dictate!
I am a Constitutionalist and I respect the rationale of those great men who created our Constitution and I have repeatedly taken an oath to protect, preserve and defend our Constitution, throughout my life! That oath is sacred to me and more than just a formality of being sworn in to an office!
Obama has yet to proove anything about these allegation which were first raised by the Clinton campaign, during the primary. Just because John McCain decided that he would make them off limits did not mean he spoke for anyone other than his own damn self!
I don't know if Obama is or is not a natural born citizen. He's fought it every inch of the way and that makes me suspicious! They must be an accounting and their will be...trust me!
You don't know if Obama was born in this country or not ....when a copy of Obama's legal birth certificate has been provided by the state of Hawaii; when every senior Republican in government has said, when asked, that OF COURSE Obama is an American-born citizen; when every court challenge concerning Obama's citizenship has been unceremoniously thrown out as frivolous! And yet AFTER all of this you still "don't know??"
I suggest you
prefer to remain ignorant.
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 09:35:34 AM
And it's Creepier still that you go to conservative sites to ick fights and make insults about bert's ass.
"Bert's ass" ... why are you being redundant?
Quote from: quiller on October 17, 2010, 09:32:01 AM
There isn't a small animal within ten miles of the alley where he keeps his refrigerator-crate. Ricky strangled them all.
Between strangling stray animals and fixated on Bert's ass, little Ricky is one creepy dude.
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 09:38:35 AM
Between strangling stray animals and fixated on Bert's ass, little Ricky is one creepy dude.
This was the same creep who kept LNF ablaze for weeks over his support for child molesters, before CLAIMING he was only playing devil's-advocate.
This is the same creep who lied about his previous jobs in Idaho as (choke) a "radio announcer." The station had no listing for the air name Ricky openly gave on the LNF. I forgot to try checking at K-Mart --- Ricky's Blue Light Specials announcements were probably hilarious, hearing him advertise his favorite feminine hygiene products.
Ricky's the one who hates himself so badly he simply must share that worthlessness with those who soon can't stand him. He's not even a good bad example.
Take for example how he uses outdated information because that's all he has. He thinks I'm still 70 pounds heavier than when his eyewitness last saw me, yet persists in childish nicknames like "Blobby" to show how clever he is while selling blood to the Red Cross, to pay off his drug habit.
He will never rise as high as second-rate.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 09:38:23 AM
"Bert's ass" ... why are you being redundant?
Don't you need to go register with local law enforcement or something?
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 09:49:43 AM
Don't you need to go register with local law enforcement or something?
That's probably why he left Idaho for Colorado. That or he ran out of excuses to hang around school playgrounds.
Quote from: Solar on October 17, 2010, 07:43:44 AM
So you want to somehow remove human nature, the natural defense response we all have?
When it's based on irrational prejudice, yes.
QuoteYou do realize that when bad things happen in our lives, like learning fire is hot, or glass can cut if not respected, or when someone dressed a certain way reflects their personality.
These are things we learn throughout life that keeps us safe, but using your logic, we are somehow supposed to unlearn them.
Tell me one bad thing that an entire race is responsible for. Can't? No surprise. But there are people who hate entire races not just individuals. Can their hatred possibly be rational? No, because even if they have reason to hate certain individuals of a certain race generalizing that hate to the entire race is, on its face, irrational. Societies generally prefer rationalism to irrationalism (religion as an exception); this is implicit in the material fact that all societies create authority structures and at least some rules everyone is expected to live by - because organization in anything is an outgrowth of the desire for rationality (and predictablity, and convenience - and rationality makes things predictable and is convenient, whereas irrationality doesn't and isn't), and lack of organization is a symptom of irrationality.
It's the generalization of suspicion and dislike that creates bigotry and prejudice. (Note the "PRE" in prejudice: to be prejudiced is to PRE-judge. Negative prejudice, such as racial prejudice, is the judging of the hatred race
before (that's the meaning of "pre") any reason to judge presents itself. If a black man walks into your shop and robs you, you have every instinctual right to be suspicious of that man if he ever walks into your shop again - and that's a rational response, based on direct experience. But when you generalize your suspicion to all black men, now you're being
irrational because ALL black men have not robbed you. Do you see? And if you further generalize to include black women as well ("... who would hang around wih a robber but another robber?"), now you've redoubled your irrationality, becoming suspicious and untrusting of an entire race based on the actions of a single individual who harmed you.
The irrationality of this manifests most directly in a comparison of like incidents: if you're white and a white man robs you in your shop, do you typically come to be suspicious of all white men? No. Because they're like you, and so you consider the robber an aberration. But if it's a black man who robs you, what makes it so easy to generalize his individual act of robbery as representative of his entire race? It's because we instinctively distrust "the Other." It's an evolved survival mechanism. Now at one time, and under certain circumstances, it was extremely useful, when our ancestors lived on the open veldt in small family bands, and literally every consumable thing was potentially a source of food, including other people.
But the need for that instinct has become anachronistic in city-based civilizations which rely for their cohesion on the general acceptance of the fact that people typically aren't going to harm you much less turn you into their lunch. So while we still may be suspicious of people whose behavior indicates they might be dangerous, we no longer have to be suspicious of everyone we meet. ....well, not unless we're paranoid, that is. (And note: suspicion of or viewing everyone as a genuine threat to one's personal well-being has in fact become recognized in civilized society as an
undesirable mental condition with a very real potential to be hazardous to others; and so we see the close conceptual connection between prejudice and bigotry and clinical paranoia.)
QuoteOh goody, more laws and regulations, one more bureaucracy, more people to answer to, more paper work to fill out, more employees to hire as a police force to watch over the private sector.
Governments, laws, and regulations, as well as the enforcement agencies created to uphold and implement their policies, are the price for living in a civilized society. Don't like it? I hear there are any number of private islands, with permanent fresh water sources, for sale around the world. Buy one, and then run your personal little kingdom any way you like.
QuoteThis is the answer I expected, you can't force something that isn't ready to fit, if you do, you only make the situation worse.
Maybe, initially. But people adapt readily ...even to things that are done for their own good. For example, how many people have you robbed today? None? Why? Robbing someone certainly has advantages favoring you, right? You might not rob someone because you've been taught it's wrong (that would be one of those pesky regulations you so dislike, alas); but maybe you don't rob because you don't much like the consequences of getting caught. But that means you have adapted yourself to refrain from engaging in an activity that has some very clear favorable advantages for you, providing you get away with it. There. You see? You
can adapt to something that's for your own good ...like not suffering the consequences of robbing someone. And so people will also be able to adapt to avoiding the consequences of behaving in a bigoted way. The trick is to make behaving like a bigot more costly, when caught, than not behaving like a bigot at all.
QuoteAnd this is different from a black racist not wanting to hire Whites?
No. And black racists should be treated with the exact same heavy legal hand as white racists. It's not
about black and white; it's about making
public racism such a risky thing to do that no one even wants to try getting away with it.
QuoteBlacks have the Exact same opportunity as do you and I when it comes to opening a business, there is no reason they can't open a business right in their own community and hire specifically Blacks, and I doubt you would hear Whites crying racism.
I don't know why you keep going on with this "opportunity" thing. Not everyone wants to have their own business; not everyone
can due to financial exigencies. Look around: 99% of the people in the country are employed not employers. All this jive about "opportunity" makes it sound as if you think that ratio is reversed, or should be. And this thing about blacks can open businesses to specifically hire and cater to blacks? What's with that? Do you miss the old Jim Crow days, Solar, when America was divided into black and white, with each hiring and catering to their own? Because that's what you just suggested - a nonistitutionalized form of Jim Crow, the voluntary racial balkanization of the US.
QuoteBut it meets no criteria whatsoever, as you yourself stated, it can and will build more resentment, in turn exacerbating racism.
Until people adapt to it. After that they'll think no more of it than you think about not robbing people..
QuoteSo now you advocate Fascism?
Obviously not, if you understand what Fascism is.
QuoteAre you also ready to pass laws of association? Whereby I have to prove that I have mingled with x amount of black people per week?
And now you exaggerate for effect. How could such a quota ever be set, considering a shopkeeper has no control at all over the demographic of the customers coming into his store - unless he himself tries to weed out certain types, such as by putting up a "No Coloreds" sign on the door?
Preventing a shop owner from turning customers away based on their race promotes a rational society - one which denies the validity of racism, and refuses to tolerate racism's innate irrationality, while still leaving room for people to dislike and distrust
individuals who have a proven track record of harm. It also benefits the shopkeeper economically by automatically increasing his customer base, and therefore - at least potentially - his sales as well. A win for society, and a win for the shop owner (whether he wants it or not).
Dan, Bert and Bob:
You all remind me of naughty little children who, seeing their mommy's handsome, suave date putting the moves on her on the livingroom couch, take it upon themselves to behave as malignantly as possible in hope of distracting either or both. But I'm not playing. So run along, little boys. I hear your Lincoln Logs and GI Joe dolls calling your names.
Thats funny you condescending little prick because you remind me of a douche bag.
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 12:17:27 PM
Thats funny you condescending little prick because you remind me of a douche bag.
Ever the mature one. What an example you set for the other posters. :-*
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 12:28:18 PM
Ever the mature one. What an example you set for the other posters. :-*
You know you love it. For guys like you negative attention us better than no attention at all.
I get plenty of attention of the positive sort. I come to places like this because it's fun seeing you all scurry like brainless pismires trying to protect your little anthill from a tornado.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 01:02:29 PM
I get plenty of attention of the positive sort. I come to places like this because it's fun seeing you all scurry like brainless pismires trying to protect your little anthill from a tornado.
So you joined this forum simply to denigrate the forum and it's members. That says everything we need to know about you.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 01:02:29 PM
I get plenty of attention of the positive sort. I come to places like this because it's fun seeing you all scurry like brainless pismires trying to protect your little anthill from a tornado.
No, you come to sites like this because your life is so empty and utterly meaningless that anonymous insults are the high point of your day. As I said before, I sorta pity you.
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 17, 2010, 01:05:41 PM
So you joined this forum simply to denigrate the forum and it's members. That says everything we need to know about you.
Actually I think he came here to talk about your ass Bert. :o
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Actually I think he came here to talk about your ass Bert. :o
Well you have to admit it is a particularly nice ass....
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 17, 2010, 01:05:41 PM
So you joined this forum simply to denigrate the forum and it's members. That says everything we need to know about you.
And yet Solar and I, and to a lesser extent wally and I, have been having a discussion about ideas.
What have you and Dan and Bob contributed toward the discussion of ideas in this thread so far, Bert? Not a damn thing.
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 01:10:53 PM
No, you come to sites like this because your life is so empty and utterly meaningless that anonymous insults are the high point of your day. As I said before, I sorta pity you.
LOL! And why did you start this board, pipsqueak? Because there was a
need for another message board on the Worldwide Web??
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 17, 2010, 01:13:55 PM
Well you have to admit it is a particularly nice ass....
Which one? The one below your coccyx, or the one above your shirt collar?
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 01:18:09 PM
LOL! And why did you start this board, pipsqueak? Because there was a need for another message board on the Worldwide Web??
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Well it's not like anyone is going to miss you if you decide to leave.
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Well it's not like anyone is going to miss you if you decide to leave.
Which you have obligingly asserted you'll never force me to do.
"Henhouse, meet Fox. He'll be guarding you for a while." :D
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 01:27:25 PM
Which you have obligingly asserted you'll never force me to do.
"Henhouse, meet Fox. He'll be guarding you for a while." :D
You flatter yourself. You have more in common with a hemroid than a fox. And you really, really, really overestimate your importance if you think anyone cares enough to ban you.
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2010, 01:36:05 PM
You flatter yourself. You have more in common with a hemroid than a fox. And you really, really, really overestimate your importance if you think anyone cares enough to ban you.
What's a "hemroid," you illiterate moron?
You just want so desperately to be relevant. Poor Ricky. :'(
By the way, have any of you seen my thread in The Pit? It's great reading.
"Well," said the hero, slouching casually on his barstool and draining the last of his whiskey. "I'm a'gonna let you ne'er-do-wells stew in yer own juices fer a'while. But don't ya'll worry none, because ...I'll be back." So saying, he stood and looked each of his adversaries in the eye in turn, sketched an ironic tip of his jet-black Stetson in their general direction, and turned on his hell and ambled into the dusty street where he untied his horse from the hitching post, swung into the saddle, and, with a gentle cluck to nudge his mount to a slow walk, rode away down the street without looking back.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 01:51:57 PM
"Well," said the hero, slouching casually on his barstool and draining the last of his whiskey. "I'm a'gonna let you ne'er-do-wells stew in yer own juices fer a'while. But don't ya'll worry none, because ...I'll be back." So saying, he stood and looked each of his adversaries in the eye in turn, sketched an ironic tip of his jet-black Stetson in their general direction, and turned on his hell and ambled into the dusty street where he untied his horse from the hitching post, swung into the saddle, and, with a gentle cluck to nudge his mount to a slow walk, rode away down the street without looking back.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDLE-Main/CDLE/1248095317089 (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDLE-Main/CDLE/1248095317089)
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 01:40:01 PM
By the way, have any of you seen my thread in The Pit? It's great reading.
Sure is! You got edited like LNF never bothered to.
Many happy returns, crotch-grabber.
He does seem to be very fond of Bert...........
He's also fond of waiting until someone signs out, before posting garbage he can't prove, to people who know better than to listen. Ricky is a disease. He should be tossed off a mountain, soonest.
Did you know that Ricky actually has a picture of Bert's ass tattooed on his own as. :o :o :o
Did you know Dan actually keeps a piece of my cock in his mouth at all times? He chews it like Wrigley's.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 03:20:21 PM
Did you know Dan actually keeps a piece of my cock in his mouth at all times? He chews it like Wrigley's.
Try staying above the fray, you not only lowered yourself with that one, you actually laid in the mud for that shot.
I know you are better than that, but if you can't go toe to toe, it only exposes your inability for debate.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 03:20:21 PM
Did you know Dan actually keeps a piece of my cock in his mouth at all times? He chews it like Wrigley's.
I'm sure Lin would do it if you got a job...
Quote from: crepe05 on October 16, 2010, 08:40:38 AM
For heaven's sake, don't forget that 'white guilt' thingy that we white people are supposed to all be afflicted or inflicted with. I believe that our collective white guilt helped to elect Obama. I can only hope that we're over that by 2012.
Says a lot about how voters think regarding women Presidents, when they can elect a nobody with no discernable past (or political reputation) get elected over someone competent.
God help us all, but Hillary Rodham Clinton would be an improvement, and even the Dems are now catching on to that. Bubba is out campaigning SOLELY for the pols who supported Shrill's campaign. The juggernaut is leaving the station, and Obama will not be onboard.
Quote from: Solar on October 17, 2010, 03:37:35 PM
Try staying above the fray, you not only lowered yourself with that one, you actually laid in the mud for that shot.
I know you are better than that, but if you can't go toe to toe, it only exposes your inability for debate.
If you look, Neither Dan nor Bert nor quiller has contributed anything but attack in this thread. If they want to attack me, then fine, I'll be happy to step up and give back as good and better than they can.
You and I have done something different: we've been talking about ideas; and so far we've kept things civil (whereas Dan, Bert, and quiller haven't even tried to keep things civil because they all know they can't hold a candle to me in an honest debate). Don't forget, Solar, that what you and I are doing is different and separate from what I'm doing with them. In other words, I'll remain civil with you as long as you remain civil with me.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 06:27:41 PM
If you look, Neither Dan nor Bert nor quiller has contributed anything but attack in this thread. If they want to attack me, then fine, I'll be happy to step up and give back as good and better than they can.
You and I have done something different: we've been talking about ideas; and so far we've kept things civil (whereas Dan, Bert, and quiller haven't even tried to keep things civil because they all know they can't hold a candle to me in an honest debate). Don't forget, Solar, that what you and I are doing is different and separate from what I'm doing with them. In other words, I'll remain civil with you as long as you remain civil with me.
My first few posts tell a different story as they had nothing to do with you or were directed at you.
Now now Darwinist. Does taxed have to grab a paddle?
Quote from: taxed on October 17, 2010, 07:02:18 PM
Now now Darwinist. Does taxed have to grab a paddle?
Why should he expect me to lower myself to his level of debate, when clearly his immorality and psychosis would prevent cogent exchanges? He claims victory when none was achieved. He is outclassed, and knows it. And that stings worst of all for such a patent self-marginalizer.
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 17, 2010, 06:32:26 PM
My first few posts tell a different story as they had nothing to do with you or were directed at you.
My first post to you, in response to your first post in this thread, was a short series of questions pertaining to what you posted.
My second post to you, a response to your second post, was a countering observation to that post. Ditto for both our third posts.
Your fourth post was a knee-jerk, liberal bashing sound-bite, and that's what I said about it in a cuttingly sarcastic way.
Your fifth and sixth posts were oblique sarcastic references to waiting for me to reply to someone else's post, which I was in the process of doing while you put your bandwidth-wasting posts out. And after I posted my response, I sarcastically addressed your previous two posts.
In Reply 73 you finally addressed me directly, and then only to make a sarcastic and inaccurate observation, which I ignored.
In my Reply 79, I addressed, sarcastically, your semi-witty remark to Dan about your own nice ass.
And then, no longer able to restrain yourself, you went after my family in Reply 94, thinking, I guess, you were "protecting" Dan.
And that's how thinngs have played out in this thread.
Quote from: quiller on October 17, 2010, 07:08:05 PM
Why should he expect me to lower myself to his level of debate, when clearly his immorality and psychosis would prevent cogent exchanges? He claims victory when none was achieved. He is outclassed, and knows it. And that stings worst of all for such a patent self-marginalizer.
How is it that you can slap him around without using vulgarity? Can you maybe write up some debate pointers so strangers on the internet don't get him upset?
Quote from: taxed on October 17, 2010, 07:02:18 PM
Now now Darwinist. Does taxed have to grab a paddle?
Would you pleeeeeeeeease!? Oh, Mummy, it's been so long since I've had a right smart paddling!
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 07:11:03 PM
Would you pleeeeeeeeease!? Oh, Mummy, it's been so long since I've had a right smart paddling!
You asked for it...
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parenting-blog.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F04%2Fspanking.jpg&hash=e6b200f09aa1b5b7f787c41a22ff18613fb4d0a0)
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 07:09:24 PM
My first post to you, in response to your first post in this thread, was a short series of questions pertaining to what you posted.
My second post to you, a response to your second post, was a countering observation to that post. Ditto for both our third posts.
Your fourth post was a knee-jerk, liberal bashing sound-bite, and that's what I said about it in a cuttingly sarcastic way.
Your fifth and sixth posts were oblique sarcastic references to waiting for me to reply to someone else's post, which I was in the process of doing while you put your bandwidth-wasting posts out. And after I posted my response, I sarcastically addressed your previous two posts.
In Reply 73 you finally addressed me directly, and then only to make a sarcastic and inaccurate observation, which I ignored.
In my Reply 79, I addressed, sarcastically, your semi-witty remark to Dan about your own nice ass.
And then, no longer able to restrain yourself, you went after my family in Reply 94, thinking, I guess, you were "protecting" Dan.
And that's how thinngs have played out in this thread.
Your posts toward me were baiting and got more aggressive when I did not respond..
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 07:09:24 PM
My first post to you, in response to your first post in this thread, was a short series of questions pertaining to what you posted.
My second post to you, a response to your second post, was a countering observation to that post. Ditto for both our third posts.
Your fourth post was a knee-jerk, liberal bashing sound-bite, and that's what I said about it in a cuttingly sarcastic way.
Your fifth and sixth posts were oblique sarcastic references to waiting for me to reply to someone else's post, which I was in the process of doing while you put your bandwidth-wasting posts out. And after I posted my response, I sarcastically addressed your previous two posts.
In Reply 73 you finally addressed me directly, and then only to make a sarcastic and inaccurate observation, which I ignored.
In my Reply 79, I addressed, sarcastically, your semi-witty remark to Dan about your own nice ass.
And then, no longer able to restrain yourself, you went after my family in Reply 94, thinking, I guess, you were "protecting" Dan.
And that's how thinngs have played out in this thread.
You're married?
Quote from: taxed on October 17, 2010, 07:15:13 PM
You asked for it...
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parenting-blog.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F04%2Fspanking.jpg&hash=e6b200f09aa1b5b7f787c41a22ff18613fb4d0a0)
Oh, thank you, thank you! I'm sure it was as good for you as it was for me! :D
Quote from: Cryptic Bert on October 17, 2010, 07:15:58 PM
Your posts toward me were baiting and got more aggressive when I did not respond..
ZOMG! The Master (of) Bait himself is going to whimper about being baited now?? LOL!! That's rich!
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 07:20:24 PM
ZOMG! The Master (of) Bait himself is going to whimper about being baited now?? LOL!! That's rich!
You just need a hug.
Quote from: taxed on October 17, 2010, 07:17:25 PM
You're married?
Living in sin by mutual agreement. Does that make my partner any less family?
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 07:22:51 PM
Living in sin. Does that make my partner any less family?
Yes.
Quote from: taxed on October 17, 2010, 07:23:13 PM
Yes.
Oh?/ How? Colorado is a common-law marriage state. So according to local law, we are married. Are we still not family?
Quote from: taxed on October 17, 2010, 07:10:01 PM
How is it that you can slap him around without using vulgarity? Can you maybe write up some debate pointers so strangers on the internet don't get him upset?
I routinely avoid vulgarity, though I do indulge for specific effect, under specific circumstances.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages56.fotki.com%2Fv1601%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8185187%2Frickys_nightmares-vi.jpg&hash=ab91eb9fbf10c724fd568167a1fb2cd565d536b2)
Darwinist is a marginally-talented manipulator and would-be ladies-man, on-line, and a pathetically-transparent con-man in almost every post he writes. He is a thoroughgoing fraud, and I strongly urge others here to regard every word he says with deepest suspicion.
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 07:20:24 PM
ZOMG! The Master (of) Bait himself is going to whimper about being baited now?? LOL!! That's rich!
Actually I didn't whimper I ignored those posts. Due try and keep up...
Quote from: Darwinist on October 17, 2010, 07:25:04 PM
Oh?/ How? Colorado is a common-law marriage state. So according to local law, we are married. Are we still not family?
You guys are just good friends.
A pity all the wrong people get fed into wood chippers.
Quote from: quiller on October 17, 2010, 08:12:44 PM
A pity all the wrong people get fed into wood chippers.
I feel sorry for the wood chipper.
Quote from: Solar on October 17, 2010, 08:18:02 PM
I feel sorry for the wood chipper.
Best advice, spread tarps so the snow won't give you away.