From: tripletask on
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:05:30 -0400, tripletask(a)gmail..com wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:20:41 -0400, tripletask(a)gmail..com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:16:56 -0400, tripletask(a)gmail..com wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:08:00 -0700 (PDT), "f. barnes"
>>><fredlb(a)centurytel.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/hello_im_a_racist_pleased_to_m.html
>>>>
>>>>[Everyone who has ever been called a racist by the left should read
>>>>this. That is, all white conservatives should read this. Free
>>>>yourself!]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>By Selwyn Duke
>>>>
>>>>There is such a thing as a conditioned response. Here's an example:
>>>>Leftists call conservatives "racists." Conservatives cower and stutter
>>>>some defense. Leftists call conservatives "racists" some more.
>>>>Conservatives cower some more. Question: How do you think you break
>>>>this pattern?
>>>>
>>>>We've seen this again with the recent vitriol spewed by NAACP head Ben
>>>>Jealous (a fitting last name). Speaking at the NAACP convention in
>>>>Kansas City, Jealous accused the Tea Party of, take a guess...cue the
>>>>"Jeopardy!" music..."racism." Just as predictably, many conservatives
>>>>are running around trying to convince everyone that, by gum, they
>>>>really are swell guys. No, really. I'm not a racist. I don't beat my
>>>>wife. I don't kick my dog. I eat my organic vegetables and drive a
>>>>Prius.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Look, why don't we just save everyone the trouble? Every time a
>>>>conservative renders an opinion, we can just play a recording with a
>>>>little weaselly voice screeching, "You're a wacist! You're a
>>>>wacist!" (Barney Frank-style) followed by a music video featuring The
>>>>Cowering Conservative -- I mean 1950s-style, duck-and-cover footage,
>>>>with the tune and all.
>>>>
>>>>And such conservatives abound. Oh, don't get me wrong, conservative
>>>>brethren, I love ya, man. But frankly, too many of you are saps. You
>>>>really don't get it. People who advocated welfare reform in the 1990s
>>>>were accused of being "racist." If you're for border control, you're
>>>>"racist." If you criticize Obama, you're "racist." If you oppose
>>>>quotas, you're "racist." If you say that, be it nature or nurture,
>>>>there are differences among groups, you're "racist." If you want
>>>>English to be the national language, you're "racist." The word has
>>>>become meaningless, used only to stifle and stigmatize opposition. And
>>>>if calling you a heretic worked in that regard, the left would do
>>>>that. And if calling you a Fig Newton worked, they would do that.
>>>>
>>>>Nevertheless, the ploy prevents sap conservatives from speaking -- and
>>>>even conceiving of -- certain truths. They won't say that so-called
>>>>racial profiling is just part of proper profiling, they pay lip
>>>>service to the relativistic idea that all cultures are morally equal,
>>>>they refuse to call bigoted blacks such as Obama and Eric Holder out
>>>>on their bigotry, they tolerate double standards with respect to hate
>>>>crime-law application and racial jokes, and they let whites persecuted
>>>>for making innocent comments twist in the wind. They won't speak
>>>>unfashionable truths for fear of becoming unfashionable people. Well,
>>>>all I can say is that if the Truth can be "racist," then hello, I'm a
>>>>"racist." Pleased to meet you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And this gets at a deeper point. On the "O'Reilly Factor" recently,
>>>>Bill O'Reilly was discussing the Jealous situation with Professor Marc
>>>>Lamont Hill. The good professor, in so many words, put forth the
>>>>leftist definition stating that only whites can be "racist" because
>>>>being so requires one to have "institutional power." OK, whatever. I
>>>>accept the definition. Really, I do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I just reject the word.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What I mean is, I've long warned against using the Lexicon of the
>>>>Left. "Racism" is a term as stupid as "ageism," only we're inured to
>>>>it. We forget that "ism" refers to a doctrine, system, or theory. So
>>>>is the leftist definition really so ridiculous? What's more ridiculous
>>>>is that we actually use their chosen term. This is why I prefer using
>>>>what simply refers to attitude -- "bigotry" -- as in Barack Obama is a
>>>>bigot, Eric Holder is a bigot, and Ben Jealous is a bigot. As for
>>>>"racism," it was originated by the left. So leave it to them. They can
>>>>define it. They can whine it. And if they ask me, I'll tell them where
>>>>they can stick it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The point is that you can't prove you're not a "racist" to the left,
>>>>because they'll just define "racist" as being whatever you are. In
>>>>fact, sap conservatives, understand something: You're not going to
>>>>"prove" anything to the NAACP. You're not going to prove anything to
>>>>the mainstream media. You're not going to prove anything to any dyed-
>>>>in-the-fool liberal. They are enemies. And enemies aren't interested
>>>>in proof; they're interested in propaganda.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So cultivate the right warrior attitude. Look at it like this: If you
>>>>were engaging in a cold war against the Nazis in 1938, would you bend
>>>>over backwards to "prove" to them that their propaganda about you was
>>>>invalid? Of course not! They know it's invalid -- that's the nature of
>>>>propaganda. And it's designed to invalidate you. And you don't respond
>>>>to enemies with defensiveness and measured responses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You propagandize against them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now, this doesn't mean you have to lie. Note that while "propaganda"
>>>>generally has a negative connotation today, it doesn't denote
>>>>dishonesty. It is simply, informs The Free Dictionary, "the organized
>>>>dissemination of information, allegations, etc., to assist or damage
>>>>the cause of a government, movement, etc." And to damage leftists'
>>>>cause, all we need do is tell the truth about them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So what this does mean is that you have to stop being "conservative"
>>>>and start being bold. The only consistent political definition of
>>>>"conservative" is one who desires to maintain the status quo. Well,
>>>>maintenance men are seldom warriors. Conservatives too often take a
>>>>conservative approach, being cautious while their enemies are callous.
>>>>They too often bring a rhetorical knife to a rhetorical gunfight. They
>>>>too often act like losers -- and lose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am not saying that we should stop making reasoned arguments, but
>>>>those are for the reasonable (those who can be swayed). They are
>>>>wholly inappropriate for unreasonable charges from dishonorable
>>>>children. Enemies bent on your destruction don't want compromise; they
>>>>won't yield to reason. They are to be fought and, God willing,
>>>>defeated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This means that when a Congressman Joe Wilson shouts "You lie!" at
>>>>Barack Obama, you respond, "Representative Wilson was wrong. Obama
>>>>lies a lot." It means that when the left bristles at a satirical
>>>>letter to Lincoln, you understand that bold, fresh pieces of insanity
>>>>will always hate satire. And, personally, do I really care that some
>>>>Tea Party folks juxtaposed Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler on a
>>>>billboard? Not really. I'm just not that concerned about Mr. Hitler's
>>>>reputation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And what of civility? Be wary. When the left is civil -- or calls for
>>>>civility -- it's usually a ruse. It's simply the tactic that best
>>>>helps them achieve their aims at the moment. Here's how it works:
>>>>Leftists lie through their teeth, and then, when you respond with
>>>>righteous indignation, they pout like little girls, saying, "You're
>>>>mean! You're intolerant! What happened to civility? [Translation: You
>>>>called our lies lies! How dare you?]" Understand that the effect here
>>>>is to stop sap conservatives from calling lies lies, thus allowing the
>>>>left to use its greatest weapon with impunity. Also understand that
>>>>the worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And understand something else: Leftists are cowards. They are
>>>>creatures of the pack, finding their strength only in numbers. After
>>>>all, what do you think being politically correct is all about? It
>>>>means doing what's fashionable in our time, what makes you popular. A
>>>>man who believes in Truth, such as Thomas More, will die for his
>>>>principles, alone, twisting in the wind. A liberal goes the way the
>>>>wind blows and will die for nothing. Stand up to leftists en masse,
>>>>and they'll fold like a tent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So free yourself. Laugh at the "racism" shtick. Make it a badge of
>>>>honor. Call leftists what they are: cowards, bigots, liars,
>>>>demagogues, and worst of all by far, enemies of Truth. Fight fire with
>>>>fire. Remember, millions of good Americans are sick and tired of
>>>>political correctness and will stand with you. So just say to our
>>>>leftist legal aliens: If you like name-calling and you want to fight,
>>>>OK. I'm a racist, sexist homophobe, and I'm in your face. What's it to
>>>>ya?
>>>
>>>
>>>Fine post! Stick with your tribe as "racism" is inherent. Even babies
>>>in
>>>cribs flinch when shown pictures of black babies. (Interesting study
>>>from a couple of years ago)
>>
>>FYI
>
>"Racism", totally overworked hence becoming meaningless.
>
>p.s. It's o.k. to be White.

Long but contains many useful tidbits and countermoves. This charging
of "racism" should just be ignored. It you prefer the company of your
own kind that is your business.

http://www.vdare.com/ V-dAre
From: Nasty on
roach AH#123 wrote:
> <me(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:hico465abjd74cj60jkiucpd2h93rj7jkt(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:26:22 -0700 (PDT), "Road Glidin' Don"
>> <d.langkd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 24, 3:41 pm, m...(a)nospam.com wrote:
>>> Come on! Instead of beating around the brazilian bush, let's get the
>>> people straight to the good stuff:
>>>
>>> http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/danikapatrick/danika_patrick_1.jpg
>>
>> I [posted that page
>
> I don't know who she is,

Wow. You must be the only guy in here that doesn't know who she is.

>but she doesn't do anything for me.

Me either, truth be told.

> Not enough curvature for my taste.

Yup.

>
> But I don't mean that in a bad way

Neither do I.
From: Road Glidin' Don on
On Jul 25, 7:33 pm, Nasty <na...(a)tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> roach AH#123 wrote:

> >but she doesn't do anything for me.
>
> Me either, truth be told.
>
> > Not enough curvature for my taste.
>
> Yup.

Perhaps, a boob job would help.

Not carried away, mind you. Those formula 1 driver compartments are
snug fits.
From: CW on

"Road Glidin' Don" <d.langkd(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ac9a484c-50cc-443f-9630-01660fbc7ee7(a)f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 25, 7:33 pm, Nasty <na...(a)tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> roach AH#123 wrote:

> >but she doesn't do anything for me.
>
> Me either, truth be told.
>
> > Not enough curvature for my taste.
>
> Yup.

>Perhaps, a boob job would help.

Nope, leave them just the way they are. Perfect.


From: invisible68 on

"roach AH#123" <roachah123(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c4c3c70$1(a)127.0.0.1...
>
> <me(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:hico465abjd74cj60jkiucpd2h93rj7jkt(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:26:22 -0700 (PDT), "Road Glidin' Don"
>> <d.langkd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 24, 3:41 pm, m...(a)nospam.com wrote:
>>>Come on! Instead of beating around the brazilian bush, let's get the
>>>people straight to the good stuff:
>>>
>>>http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/danikapatrick/danika_patrick_1.jpg
>>
>>
>> I [posted that page
>
> I don't know who she is, but she doesn't do anything for me.
> Not enough curvature for my taste.
>
just wait a couple more years.... when she is done racing....that is....

Invisible68
>


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Trivia contest
Next: Anyone need 10 million dollars?