Can you believe what this idiot GOP Sen. said?

fair and balanced- I will make a deal with you. If you can show that the quote below does not exist, then I will apolgize to you profusely. Do not follow the forlorn example of some on these posts who try to state that my quotes are incorrect when I can prove that they are.

However, if you do not accept the Encyclopedia Brittanica as an authority, there is not much I can do to persuade you. I will tell you one thing for sure. I do not accept your undocumented word.

I don't play the game of reading an opinion of someone who may or may not have any expertise. When I am uncertain, I go to the sources.

Now, please be so good as to refute the following or to hold that the source is not adequate or admit that you are incorrect.

Source- Encyclopedia Brittanica- 1989-P. 504 under ARAB--second paragraph--

I will capitalize it since you appear to have missed it last time.

'MOST ARABIC SPEAKING PEOPLES ARE OF MEDITERREAN PHYSICAL TYPE OF THE CAUCASOID GEOGRAPHICAL RACE."

Refute( with evidence, of course) show that the source is not adequate( with evidence, of course) or cease the silly nonsense.

Bill W, says that "Racist remarks are decided by the person receiving them, not giving them.

After giving this matter some thought, I called Senator Inhof's office and asked whether Senator Inhofe thought he had been demeaned using the definition given by Bill W.

The staff person said:

Certainly, since the person receiving the slur is the one who defines it, It is entirely possible that Senator Inhof may feel that his attackers are "racist".

So much nonsense to refute; so little time.

Anon

This is the kind of hair-splitting that gives hair-splitting a bad name, and that is what we are talking about here, calling people bad names, and whether some names rise to the level of racism. In the quote above it says 'usually involving the idea..." , it should say 'usually, but not always,...' making it indeed possible for one Caucasian to make a racist slur against another, in the sense of casting them out of the caste, so to speak. :wink:

I am trying to tread lightly here

When one uses the term "towelhead"' referring to another, especially one wearing some kind of traditional headgear, it is meant to show a difference, a distance, between the speaker and his object and, this is the good part, anyone else who might fit that same difference. It's derogatory and separating language aimed at a group and can't, by any stretch of the imagination or sharpness of razor (so I don't lose the keen edge of my hairsplitting image.) be seen as benign. It's clearly racist.

I do think we should test M's idea that it's impossible for one Caucasian to make a racist remark against another. First, we need two groups of Caucasians, I pick a dozen lads from the recently victorious Iraqi National soccer team and a dozen cowboys fresh from the Rodeo Bar on 3rd Ave.
Now what we'll do is meet in Central Park on the Great Lawn about midnight and have mporter address the gathered thusly:

"I brought all you shitkickers and towelheads here because ....."


Someone should be on hand to record their responses, I am busy that night, whenever it is....

Joe

I'll do the play-by-play, Joe.

Or buy tickets.

Whatever I need to do to help pull off the event.

It is simply one of the most laughable spectator sports, watching some goofy-ass racist flail about like a boated marlin, insisting -- in the most pompous terms -- that he isn't racist.

(Actually it's even more fun watching the crap get beaten out of him, but I can't really admit to that, being a leftist pacifist and all...)

This poster needs to be ignored.

Not ignored - Hilter was igonored by too, too many - this racist and all his ilk (read neocon) need to be watched but given no platform......

Who's the racist and who are the ilk? You have me confused on this one...

Regarding abuzz.com...

"Straight men as far as the eye can see."

Me

I agree with Mr. Blatham. Therefore, Mr. Rumsfeld should resign, The Congress of the United States should demand that all of our troops withdraw from Iraq forthwith and President Bush should declare he is not running for another term.

If Mr. Blatham thinks that a blurb from a "military paper" and a statement from a person who is powered by motivations which are unknown, even if he is the father of the dead men, will result in the above, he needs to get a firm grip on reality.

Maybe such things happened in Canada under the former Prime Minister, Cretin, but they do not happen here.

JoeNation-

Is it racist to call people "towel heads"?

Bill W, says that "Racist remarks are decided by the person receiving them, not giving them"

Under such a definition, would you not say that the attack on this post on Senator Inhof would also be "racist"?

Is he really an Idiot? A Moron?

Look up the definition of those words and you will find that it is impossible to be so classified.

Are Arabs towelheads?

They wear headcoverings. But to call them that is demeaning even though they do wear headcoverings but to call a US Senator an Idiot or a Moron is not even though by definition he cannot be either an Idiot or a Moron.

The left makes very interesting commentaries.

My man is not a towelhead but an upstanding Iraqi murderer.

Your man, may be a US Senator but if he says something I disagree with, he is a Moron and/or an Idiot.

If I, or anyone associated with me, called my friend, Jim Inhofe, a moron, I should like to apologize to the morons. You morons are better than that, and I think you know that.

And to the idiots of the world: if we offended you in any way by including my friend, Jim Inhofe, as a member of your group, I am deeply sorry. I know that comparing Jim's idiotic remarks to remarks made by complete idiots such as yourselves reflects badly on both the Senator and yourselves and I withdraw such comparisons forthwith.

The Senator remains a class unto himself, beyond moronic or idiotic, or more precisely, below such designations. A recent application to the National DumbAssociation was rejected because of lack of the virtue of common sense which most, but not all, dumbasses possess.

I'd say, thinking back about those Saturday mornings at the donut shop with Jim, that he was less stupid than what my dad would have called thick.

Thick.

That is the condition that makes one believe all kinds of things: like that Jesus is coming back soon and we need to support Israel, not because we believe it is the right thing to do, but because we believe Jesus is coming back soon.

Jim believes that.

I think such thinking is moronic and idiotic and thick-headed, but I expect to hear from the legions of thick-headed thinkers soon, so I refrain from completely speaking my mind.


Joe

You really did not answer my question, Joe Nation and I know why. You don't have a leg to stand on.

You object to people who wear towels on their heads being called towel heads but you don't think it is stupid to call a US Senator A Moron or an Idiot. You apparently do not know what an Idiot is.

The dictionary definition of an idiot is: One lacking the mental capacity to develop beyond the mental age of three years.

You apparently do not know what a Moron is>

The dictionary definition of Moron isa person having an IQ of 50-69.

Even someone who appears to be as clueless as you will realize that it would be impossible for anyone who fell under the definition of Idiot or Moron as defined to graduate from the University of Tulsa in 1973 and become the mayor of Tulsa in 1978.

Because the left wing does not know how to express themselves, they are left with the puerile choices of calling Senator Inhofe either a moron or an Idiot.

The disadvantage for you here M is that I know Jim Inhofe personally. I know him, I've conversed with him on serious and semi-serious issues; I directed some of his political ads back in the 70's when he was mayor and I was both working for KTUL TV and a member of Congressman James R. Jones' staff in Tulsa. So when I call him a dumbass, I get to because I reserve the right to poke fun at the people I know and make judgements about how many wheels they might have in the sand at any one time. You, however, armed only with your trusty dictionary, seem bound by the limits of Funk and Wagnell's and your own limited sense of what is fair play and good use of words.

When you call anyone a towel head you are making a racist remark because you are referring, whether you realize it or not, to a group of individuals.

When I, or anyone else, refers to the Senator from Oklahoma as a idiot we are referencing only Jim Inhofe.

No, wait, we could be referring to Don Nickles too. He's also an idiot.

Now, I and others know that neither of these gentlemen devolve to the medical definition of either moron or idiot, but they certainly fit the street definition.

Lighten up, M, or you will too.

Joe

And just what is the street definition of Towelhead?

I'll tell you what it is. Yesterday, the Disney corporation fired a woman for being a towelhead. Yes, Disney fired a woman for wearing a Muslim Hijab. How "racist". I assume that Disney will now go out of business because they fired that woman.

Of course, you are free to insult Senator Inhof but I really don't believe that you know him or have even met him.

The street definition fits Senator Inhof only when it comes from partisan Democrats.

I called Bill Clinton a "perjurer"

I suppose that is a street definition also.

But I can give REASONS why I think that Clinton was a perjurer. You can't give any reasons why Senator Inhof is an idiot or a moron other than partisan lies.

I will wait for your reasons. If you can't or won't give any, I will give rational, empirical reasons why Clinton is a perjurer. I find that the left wing always folds up when challenged on particulars.

So it's OK to call someone you know an "idiot," but it's not OK to call someone you don't know a "towelhead?" Can you call people you don't know "idiots?"

Before you can claim to "know" someone (and thereby be free to call them an idiot) do you need to have directed some of their political ads, or is it OK to call someone an idiot whom you have come to "know" through their postings in an internet forum?

Is it that it's OK to direct an insult at someone in particular, but not OK to direct one at no one in particular?

Calling someone an idiot or moron is rude and offensive. Calling someone a towelhead is rude and offensive. Apparently, however, the latter is much greater a rude offense than the former? Why so?

Obviously, based on this thread, it has something to do with racism, real or perceived.

Is insulting someone based on their religion as offensive as insulting them based on their race? Maybe that depends upon whether the religion is domestic or more exotic in nature.

Is insulting someone based on their political beliefs as offensive as insulting them based on their race?

Is insulting someone based on their looks as offensive as insulting them based on their race?

How about sexual orientation? Where does an insult based on sexual orientation fit in the hierarchy of offense?

Is ethnicity the same as race, and if not which is more offensive, an insult based on ethnicity or one based on race?

How about regionality? Is an insult based on regionality OK?

I was once in a group in which each person was given a long list of actions. Beside each one, the person was to mark a box indicating "there's nothing really wrong with this" or "not advisable" or "This is wrong".

The actions started out with 'stepping on cracks in the sidewalk', 'chewing gum', saying 'damn', and gradually escalated to 'smoking pot', 'going bra-less in a see through blouse', 'smoking cigarettes', 'jaywalking', 'speeding', 'speeding in a school zone', 'getting drunk', lying, stealing, etc.

Obviously the point of the exercise was to determine where we drew on the line on what was okay and what was not okay. It turned out to be a fascinating process.

I think Finn's list of things that are 'okay' vs 'not okay' is also fascinating in this environment of exaggerated political correctness. I'm trying to decide if being called a 'towelhead' which is apparently verbotin would be more offensive to me than being called a 'moron' or some equivalent which happens fairly regularly here.

Shouldn't the guideline be the context in which something is used more than the actual word itself? Or is the word itself so offensive that it is hurtful no matter what the environment?

So when the city official in Washington DC used the word "niggardly," in proper accordance with its definition and some African-American citizens decided he was making a racist comment, they were right and he was not?



I must not be up to date on racist insults. My Norwegian relatives told me "square-head" was a nasty term for a Scandinavian. I don't think any of them wore turbans. And where does "pull-start" come from? That's a pretty lame insult.

[QUOTE="Finn dAgain, some of the left wing on this thread would have flunked the Jesuit Father Doyle's Philosophy class. He insisted on Defintion.

Again, Racism means
"The doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that ONE'S OWN RACE IS SUPERIOR.

Get it???

ONE'S OWN RACE IS SUPERIOR.

It is obvious to all but the lame brained that one cannot be racist to people who are members of one's own race.
One can be rude and insulting, certainly, as in calling people-"Towelheads" or " Idiots " or Morons" but, according to the definition, one cannot be racist unless the person being labeled is OF ANOTHER RACE.

I don't know that I can explain what fairandbalanced means but it seems to me that if F&B can't produce a quote from either a military intelligence or Red Cross report that states that 70% - 90% of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were mistakenly arrested, McGentrix has had the better of this debate within a debate.

It is not merely semantics or statistics. Whatever one thinks of Senator Inhof's comments, a basic premise for them was that the prisoners of Abu Ghraib were a particularly nasty lot, and guilty of worse crimes than those committed against them.

One can argue as to whether or not such prisoners who might have important intelligence are deserving of special attention, and one can easily make the case that assuming special attention is justified, the guards at Abu Ghraib crossed the line, but fairandbalanced is, clearly, suggesting that the prisoners who were abused at Abu Ghraib were very likely innocent Iraqis mistakenly detained.

If there wasn't an important distinction here, why would F&B raise the issue?

Even if 90% of all Iraqi detainees were mistakenly arrested, that would leave 10% who were not because there was no doubt to their identities and past misdeeds. It is entirely possible that the majority of this group were isolated within Abu Ghraib.

One should be able to argue against the excesses of Abu Ghraib without gilding the lily: which would include comparing the abuse to the tender mercies of Saddam and his thugs, as well as implying the prisoners were all innocents.

I would think that being menaced by a snarling dog is far preferable to being eaten alive by a pack of Uday's dobermans.

Being forced to simulate sex acts is indeed humiliating, but a far cry from being forced to watch one's wife and daughters raped and then tortured to death.

And sodomizing someone with a broomstick is brutal and depraved, but not nearly as horrific as feeding someone feet first into an industrial shredder.

I accept the argument that we should hold ourselves to higher standards than the Saddams of the world, and the fact that our troops engaged in some of these acts is disheartening, but describing the abuse in Abu Ghraib as atrocities is well over the top. American soldiers, sad to say, have been involved in atrocities. My Lai was an atrocity, Abu Ghraib was not. And whether or not it was, it is being too readily ignored that we have, as we did with My Lai, acknowledged it and are taking steps to punish the guilty. It is somewhat ironic that those who are screaming for the blood of Generals, Cabinet members and the president without a full investigation and trial, are so concerned about these same rights for the detainees in Gitmo and Iraq.

And, Finn, you realize, of course, that if George Bush is re-elected in November, only the extreme left wing crazies will criticize any so called "abuses" on the level at which we find them now.

The "abuse" crowd is a partisan crowd who, I am convinced, do not suffer because the Iraqis are being mistreated or they would have raised a much much louder cry about the hundreds of thousands murdered and tortured in the Sudan.