Prev: Trivia contest
Next: Anyone need 10 million dollars?
From: tripletask on 24 Jul 2010 08:31 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 25 Jul 2010 21:33 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 25 Jul 2010 23:11 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 26 Jul 2010 02:06 "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 26 Jul 2010 02:44
"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 --- |