Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 11:25 am
Very interesting unsolicited personal analysis. You think that's in your perview, eh? Well, since you are so completely unerring, I guess you are kind to deign from your perch and share your valued ruminations. Must be good to be nimh.

I don't blindly assume anyone will forget anything. If I desire it, like everyone else, I imagine, I make a personal request. If you think I'm standing around, hoping for your approval, what does that say about your own puffery? I am who I am. Every day. I have noticed a recent shift in my usual output, but I have no idea what on earth would make you think I'm interested in "instantaneous" forgetting ( or any type of forgetting).

And, this:

"I don't know how in the hell you say they didn't behave in an acceptable way. The nation was quite fortunate for King's influence."

was merely incomplete. I knew what you meant, and had no intention of mischaracterizing it. Because you reacted as rudely as you did, I was not concerned about making that clear.

No response required.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 11:35 am
I should actually thank him for bringing all that. It illustrates a point I often think about making, but don't, or at least not with all the collected proof. A thanks to nimh for doing that for me.

It's a study in piling crap on to someone's meaning that isn't there. And, Noddy was mostly talking about how she wished more 10 year olds were articulate.

My comment was mild, I wasn't angry or offended, as I said in the one post that seems to have escaped nimh's mercurial search:


Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Lash: I'm not getting it. What if NBC had interviewed a retarded, stuttering, drooling black kid and Frank had reported it that way? Would that not have offended you? Is there any adjective you would permit us to describe any black individual with? Some boys in this world are ten years old. Some of them are articulate. Some of them are black. So why is it a put-down to call an articulate ten year old black boy an articulate ten year old black boy? I am especially mystified because you usually don't strike me as a zealot of political correctness.


Lash wrote:
Quote:
Its not what is correct or not--it has just always been weird to me that any black person who can speak passable English is referred to as "articulate". Almost always.
But, members of other race are RARELY described with that word. Its not a complaint...as my post hinted previously. I don't take umbrage or anything. Just an observation. Pay attention to such articles sometimes. You'll see what I mean.

I think I'll go get some references.


But, don't concern yourself with accuracy.

Quote:
Huh? He described a black ten-year old kid as "articulate" and you identified racism in that?


Did I? Or did other people leap (pretty damn far) to that conclusion?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 04:11 pm
Lash wrote:
It's a study in piling crap on to someone's meaning that isn't there. And, Noddy was mostly talking about how she wished more 10 year olds were articulate.

Sorry about bringing it up again. I just meant to be kidding.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 04:19 pm
I am praying for the day when we don't describe black people as articulate.

_______________

BOO! Run for the hills, protect the children. Racist insults sling violently!! Worlds collide!! Noses are picked!! What did that mean Lash say!!!???

Just kidding.

Or not.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 04:23 pm
One word -

Decaf.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 04:28 pm
Lash wrote:
BOO! Run for the hills, protect the children. Racist insults sling violently!! Worlds collide!! Noses are picked!! What did that mean Lash say!!!???

Nothing articulate, that's for sure. Razz
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 05:56 pm
Lash wrote:
My comment was mild, I wasn't angry or offended, as I said in the one post that seems to have escaped nimh's mercurial search [..]

But, don't concern yourself with accuracy.

(emphasis added)

Reading what was written might help. Notice that I wrote: "Your remark yielded these responses from others:"

And thats what I listed. Again, nothing inaccurate or deviously omissive, there.

Lash wrote:
Quote:
Huh? He described a black ten-year old kid as "articulate" and you identified racism in that?

Did I? Or did other people leap (pretty damn far) to that conclusion?

You did. Frank made a remark about thinking a bloody ten-year old black kid was "articulate", and in your direct response you made that out to be something about race.

-------------

I am also noting that you dont return to anything you said, choosing to instead (justly or unjustly) rail about my arrogant self.

Remember, you went on about how I was "tirelessly working to mischaracterise" you, because I had said that your comment then met with "wide perplexion and derision".

Well, rightly or wrongly, it obviously did - just look at how many posts it got, some making fun of the matter, others blasting you over it.

I actually agree with you that that itself exhibited a rather overdrawn reaction, though I really think it was mostly just variations of "huh what did she say?"

But, there it was - rightly or wrongly, they were there. Yet when I dared refer back to them, I suddenly was "working tirelessly to mischaracterise" you.

Weird.

I'll take one thing back though: the words "ad nauseam". Those were inappropriate, it turned out when I looked the thread back up.

The other things, however, were, despite your indignation about my reference to them, simply there. <shrugs>

I dont expect you to admit that you basically called me a liar ("working tirelessly to mischaracterise you") over a pretty de facto reference to something that was just simply there ... but if there is one thing I can not stand for it's being called variations of a liar. I might be nerdy or arrogant or haughty or boring, but I am pretty precise.

I even come back and say so when it turns out I did wrongly accuse someone of something - like the other day when I'd angrily ascribed a Brussels Journal quote to you.

Sure seems to be a rarity round here.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 07:04 pm
nimh wrote:
Lash wrote:
nimh wrote:
Lash wrote:
I am finding she was quite respectable.

Is that kinda like how a white person might remark that black person A or B is actually "quite articulate"?

I guess that would be true if you begin from a point of operation that finds all blacks unrespectable and all whites respectable. Just as the articulate point, for some, begins with an obvious surprise that a black could be articulate--hence my disfavor for the sentiment.

Otherwise, it's just stupid.

Right. Note that I wouldnt even have dreamt of remarking on your word choice, however unfortunate in context, if there hadnt been that pesky affair about your going on ad nauseam about somebody calling a black person "articulate".
A lie.
It was your inference at the time, from pretty much nothing more substantial than said use and your prejudice about the poster in question,
A lie.
that the use of the word "articulate" did indeed reveal "an obvious surprise that a black could be articulate"
A lie. I never thought, nor did I charge that sentiment against Apisa. It was an observation with no ulterior motive.
- a conclusion that, I remember, was met with wide perplexion and derision among the other posters.
True, but misdirected.
Now, the irony here was that you put yourself wide open for exactly the same kind of inference by writing that you read about King and were actually "finding she was quite respectable" - ouch. I know that you dont particularly assume that blacks in general are not respectable,

So, the substance isn't at issue. Just the technicality. I see.
but the unfortunate word choice of course made the sentence come across as extremely condescending - hence BPB's "how migthy white of you" riposte - plus, it made it all too easy a bait for anyone who'd be as hell-bent as you were at the time to ascribe all sorts of subconscious racist sentiments to his opponent.
A lie.
Thats basically what I pointed out, there. It was a re: to your fit about the "articulate" thing back then, rather than about your use of "respectable" here.
Where was my "fit" again?


The entire exercise of you beginning this against me was based on lies and errors. Hence my comment about you "working tirelessly to mischaracterise" me. It was MUCH ado about NOTHING.

Do you understand, now?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 08:23 pm
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
But where all these religious nuts that are purported to have hijacked the Republican party?

For example, one of them was the Senate majority leader. His name is Tom DeLay, and I mentioned him in the post you answered to.


rick santorum would be another.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 08:47 am
Stop...please please stop...I can't bear to re-live that earlier thread. Please, I am begging for mercy.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 09:09 am
Has anybody commented of the Mexican hospital she died at?
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 09:25 am
Has anyone commented on how Terry Schivo was politicized?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:18 am
Turning a funeral pulpit into a political soapbox

It's sad to say but it must be said. It should be clear to anyone who watched the tasteless politicization of Coretta Scott King's funeral by a black minister and by a former president why the black community remains, after all these years, as troubled as it is.

Children of the civil rights movement of the '60s are grandparents today. Babies born after the Civil Rights Act are now parents. Yet, despite the passing of generations, not only do many of the problems in the black community persist, but by many important measures, we're much worse off than we were 50 years ago.

Why do things go on with so little change? Why do they get worse?

One big reason, as the Rev. Joseph Lowery so aptly demonstrated at Mrs. King's funeral, is that those who have exercised leadership in our community since those days in the 1960s, those whom black citizens have listened to and heeded, have never understood, or never wanted to understand, when it's time to turn off the politics and the show business.

Is the pulpit at a funeral, any funeral, the place to be talking about the politics of the war in Iraq?

Aside from the question of propriety, what about the message? "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor?"

Does Lowery really believe that blacks are suffering today because they are not getting enough government money?

As I, and others, have pointed out, time and again, incomes of intact black families, those with a married father and mother living at home with their children, are in line with those of all Americans.

The glaring pockets of poverty in the black community are in the broken families, the single parent homes. The incidence of these broken families is three times higher today than they were in the 1960's when Lowery was marching with Dr. King.

If personal responsibility, and really trying to solve problems, were Lowery's game, he'd be trying to understand what happened.

If he thought about it, and wanted to be honest about it, he might appreciate that because he and his colleagues couldn't get off the soapbox after the work was done in 1965, just as he couldn't get off the soapbox at Mrs. King's funeral, they helped lead a community that was breaking out of the shackles of oppression into a new slavery of dependence.

These black leaders helped build a culture built on the assumption that freedom and justice was always one new government program away. The behavioral problems that have besieged our community since the 1960s _ family collapse, promiscuity, drugs, crime, disrespect for education _ directly result from this.

I'm sure Lowery must have some way to blame President Bush for the fact that although blacks constitute 13.5 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 47 percent of the million Americans with HIV infection. Or to point to Republicans as the cause of HIV/AIDS rates being 19 times higher among black women than among white women and seven times higher among black men than among white men.

Surely Lowery must believe that if the United States didn't invade Iraq, black women today would not be aborting as many babies as they are birthing.

Certainly, in the good reverend's mind, if it weren't for Republicans, the majority of black men would marry the women they impregnate and seven out of 10 black children wouldn't be in homes without fathers.

President Carter also did his part to get the word out about what the problems are in black America.

"We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, those who were most devastated by Katrina, to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans."

I guess it must have been a freak of nature that opened the door for Condoleezza Rice to emerge out of the backwaters of Alabama to become provost of Stanford University and make her way to become our secretary of state.

The good news is that as I travel around the country, I have a sense that increasing numbers of blacks are getting the message that they don't need government. They're discovering that opportunity in America is there for everyone. But that success reflects the values that individuals, regardless of color, adopt today and the choices they make.

It's sad that today blacks still have to hear from a minister who worked with Dr. King and from a former president of the United States that they suffer because America is racist and because the government doesn't spend enough money. But, as was once said, we shall overcome.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:24 am
odd how you credit Rice with crawling out of the backwaters of Alabama but will not allow Clinton the same respect and admiration for crawling out of snakeshit Arkansas.

I don['t think on a personal level you give a rats ass about anything but a chance to try and get a few punches in on the "left" Of course, that's just my opinion.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:25 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
But where all these religious nuts that are purported to have hijacked the Republican party?

For example, one of them was the Senate majority leader. His name is Tom DeLay, and I mentioned him in the post you answered to.


rick santorum would be another.


Assuming that Tom Delay and Rick Santorum are religious nuts, which I don't think either qualify unless you think all people professing the Christian faith are religious nuts, I'm still looking for any organized group of bonafide religious fanatical holy rollers as Thomas described them who have any measurable influence over legislation or policy.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:09 am
McGentrix wrote:

It's sad to say but it must be said.


Sad to say but must be said? Yeah, right. How about, "I couldn't wait to write it"?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:10 am
yes of course, I'm sure neither DeLay nor Santorum have any influence on legislation. Oh yeah, and Lyndon Johnson was just a passerby in congress.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:18 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Assuming that Tom Delay and Rick Santorum are religious nuts, which I don't think either qualify unless you think all people professing the Christian faith are religious nuts,

It is possible to profess the Christian faith without believing that working mothers who take birth control pills cause youth violence -- or that kids in daycare or the teaching of evolution does.

Hence I am not calling Tom DeLay a religious nut for being a Christian. I am calling him a religious nut for saying things like this when asked about the Columbine highschool massacre: "Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills."
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:26 am
D'artagnan wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

It's sad to say but it must be said.


Sad to say but must be said? Yeah, right. How about, "I couldn't wait to write it"?


You should look into the author of the commentary before jumping to conclusions.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:28 am
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Assuming that Tom Delay and Rick Santorum are religious nuts, which I don't think either qualify unless you think all people professing the Christian faith are religious nuts,

It is possible to profess the Christian faith without believing that working mothers who take birth control pills cause youth violence -- or that kids in daycare or the teaching of evolution does.

Hence I am not calling Tom DeLay a religious nut for being a Christian. I am calling him a religious nut for saying things like this when asked about the Columbine highschool massacre: "Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 7.55 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:22:30