I saw this on Yahoo today and had to comment. This Greek goddess (as in "babe-alicious") was banned from Olympic competition for a tweet that went something like this: with all the Africans, at least the West Nile mosquito will have homemade meals.
Really? That's racist? How exactly? Where is the Nile located?
Isn't it in Africa? So if the mosquitoes in question are of the same
location as Africans, and mosquitoes dine on blood of people (among
other species), wouldn't an African qualify as home cookin' to the
mosquitoes from Africa? And what of the white Africans? Aren't they
being slighted by the assumption that an African automatically must be a
black person? Can we please cut this racist crap from our collective
mentality, PLEASE!
The fact is that
there are far too many who insist on racism's existence, that demand it
continue and that there must be racists to feed their sad and desperate
quest for significance. It's getting to the point where actual racists
are more tolerable than the race-baiters of the world. And THAT is
sad.
For all that is wrong with true
racism (and that is that there is nothing right about it), the
race-baiters are far worse. Racists are at least sincere in their
misguided belief of their superiority (or the other guy's inferiority).
But the baiters are self-promoting frauds who don't care if their
targets are actual racists or not in their attempt to inflate their
value to society. Stay tuned as race-baiting lefties are likely to
comment.
75 comments:
I hate Blogger.
To Parkie, this qualifies as evidence that I'm a hater.
When I read the article on Yahoo I thought, "You've got to be kidding!"
For accuracy sake, the tweet was: "With so many Africans in Greece... the West Nile mosquitoes will at least eat homemade food!!!”
[Just so you know, Marshall, there’s no such thing as West Nile Mosquitos. There is a virus mosquitos carry that is called West Nile virus. And pockets of Illinois mosquitos have it. Just like everywhere. Idiot.]
Slurs are rarely alone. From the Washington Post (and I include reporting of reactions from Greeks in order to show how thousands have better judgment than Marshall):
"Indeed, within hours of the Hellenic Olympic Committees decision, thousands of fans — and critics — entered Papachristou’s Facebook page to lambaste the athlete for the tacky tripe she posted on Monday. Samsung, a major sponsor of the Olympics, instantly stripped a slick and splashy advert superimposed on the jumper’s page ahead of the London Games. And the government, concerned about rising crime, poverty and extremism feeding from the recession, harrumphed about the saga, saying the athlete’s expulsion would afford her ample time to watch the Olympics on television and “post as many vile jokes as she wants through social media.”
A tad too trenchant? Perhaps. But it wasn’t the first time Papachristou reposted racial slur or showed sympathy for far-right policies promoted by Chryssi Avgi (Golden Dawn), a party of reactionary supremacists whose high-octane war on immigration won them 7 percent of the vote in recent elections, sending them to Parliament for the first time since democracy was restored here in 1974.
In recent months, the athlete had posted several videos promoting the views of the neo-Nazi party, plus particular fondness for a group member who punched up a female lawmaker during a heated television debate."
If marsha didnt have a blog I would have thought he never used a computer before. The shallowness of his research is amazing.
The "accuracy" of the tweet doesn't change anything, of course. Nor is "accuracy" required in order to make a joke, especially on a limited forum such as a tweet.
Accuracy would be required in supposing I believed there existed such a thing as a West Nile mosquito, but for saps like feo, it's enough to make the accusation.
Parkie, the lefty lap-dog of self-styled intellectuals like feo, supposes that research is needed for a story such as this and the response to it I posted. It is not. At all. My response was soley directed toward the information in the story to which I linked. Nothing more, nothing less.
As to that, the story gives no background on this babe or anything else regarding past "racist" offenses. I had never heard of her before this story was posted on Yahoo and am not interested in anything about her (except that she appears in the picture as quite the hottie) or her personal opinions.
MY only concern was with the reaction to this one tweet and how wacky and off the wall it is considering they host teams from countries with gov'ts and politicians that wish to wipe Israel off the map. The tweet is entirely insignificant, and the story does not tie the reaction of the Olympic committees to anything she might have said or done before this. Thus, the judgement of thousands is hardly better than mine based on the details presented in the only story to which my post was a response.
More notable was that feo and Parkie (whose irrelevant and worthless comment was deleted---just because) jumped at the chance to try to demonize me without really comprehending so simple a response to an over-the-top response to a harmless tweet.
What's more, this they find justifiable, while I wonder what they're response is to the banning of a fast food store for the owners support of traditional marriage and the righteous understanding of the Christian faith. Once again we see that the left is NOT a champion of free thought and tolerance at all, but only the manner in which they choose to define them.
Jim,
I must ask you to clarify your position. Are you suggesting that you agree with me that the response to the tweet was ridiculous?
More impressive than the amount of research marsha did.. was that he linked to a Chris Chase article.
Bravo!
The resident trolls never have anything of substance to say.
Let Parkie believe he's clever, Glenn. It's all he has in life. He impresses the hell out of himself, and maybe one or two of his classmates at recess. No matter what is presented, he sees what he wants to see. I'm sure he annoys the other kids on the short bus as he tries to convince them that he's more witty than they are. Like a herpes, he keeps returning here with nothing but annoyance. Ignore the ignorant. He's not even worth taking the scant moments required to delete. What a sad little cretin he is.
When I first read an article on the issue I was confused. It referenced the "meals from home" tweet, but I kept reading thinking that was just the begining of a few tweets. I read it twice looking for the racism.
I though it was a stupid joke, not really funny, but I got it. I didn't even think it was in bad taste, just not a good joke.
The point of the joke, as Marshall pointed out, was that "west nile" is a reference to Africa, and Africans will be in London, and mosquitoes bite humans. I get it, but it aint racist.
Without knowing anything else, I thought it was an over reaction.
Thank you, Jim. That was my point, and it indicates potential in you.
I chuckle at Glenn’s emptiness in judgment, He says the trolls bring no substance and I assume, since he’s used the plural, he includes me.
The substance I added can easily be counted:
1) An accurate quote of the tweet. Accuracy is an ambivalent value for Marshall.
The accurate quote makes clear that the Greek athlete is complaining about immigration from the continent of Africa to Greece - a tiresome act to begin with. But she is not complaining about any substance. She just makes a cheap slur about immigrants and disease.
Marshall, bizarrely, defends her tweet on the basis of geography. As if the Nile covers all of Africa. Why? Because he thinks she’s hot? Yeah. That’s his level of rational discourse.
2) I clarified the stupid biology she draws - and which Marshall obtusely parallels - and which infers that there are certain disease carrying mosquitos from the Nile. As if Greece and Illinois don’t have their own virus infected mosquitos.
3) I gave journalistic evidence that her slur is not a singular, uncharacteristic act on her part. She has a history. This is almost universally true for people who are caught in ugly prejudice. Look at George Zimmerman’s alleged history; rife with abuse and prejudice.
What is odd is that Marshall wants to import a differently oppressed people to provide smoke and mirrors defense for her African [and, really, shouldn’t we just cut to the chase and say, black] prejudice: Jews.
Jews, toward whom she also has a history of ugly prejudice.
And why does Marshall still defend her? Her body.
What moral judgements are these?
Seemingly, reading all the posts, it turns out that I am the sole presenter of substance. I’ll gloat by watching all these beautiful black people with athletic talent express joy and victory in the Olympic Games. Black people who, collectively, represent so much of the chances for all kinds of countries - due to ancient and modern immigration and ancient and modern slavery - from all five continents. Think of that. All five.
I like that he calls her "babe". Really classes up the joint, doesn't it.
Feo,
You're boring. Nice of you, however, to include yourself under the banner of "trolls". To me you're the resident false priest.
"Accuracy" of the tweet does not change anything. You're second explanation doesn't make it any more relevant to the point of my post. It had little to do with either the joke OR how hot the babe is. It refers to the incredibly over-the-top reaction to the tweet. Her ejection from the games is not punishment commensurate with her "crime" no matter what her history is. And once again, there is no reference to her history in the article and the reaction described therein. It speaks only of her tweet and her ejection because of it.
The hypocrisy of this move given the hosting of countries openly hostile to Israel is astounding and to call attention to it is appropriate, except to PC loons like yourself who regard themselves as saviors of the black race, as if they need the likes of you to save them. Like Geoffrey, you suffer from white guilt and you are more than welcome to accept all the guilt you want for your racist actions and the racist actions of people you don't even know. I won't stop you. I'll just shake my head at the blatant stupidity you exhibit.
You like to regard yourself as superior to this chick in "correcting" her "biological errors" regarding mosquitoes. If it helps your desperate ego, have at it. Only a pompous jackass like yourself would focus on such an insignificant aspect of an insignificant tweet. But then, I guess that's what insignificant assholes do make themselves feel significant.
What's more, you arrogant putz, I am not defending her or her remark at all. As I said, and the post clearly demonstrates (as anyone not looking for a way to demonize someone of whom no legitimate failure can be found), the point regards the unreasonable response to knowledge of her tweet.
And yet again, her position on race and ethnic matters has nothing to do with her athletic ability and her placement on an Olympic team. As long as they host nations hostile to Israel, Christians and the West, and hostile in a manner every bit as evil as any white supremacist or nazi, her ejection is the very definition of hypocrisy. THAT is the point of the post. Not entomology, geography or race relations.
What a pathetic attempt at condescension and "holier-than-thou" liberal crap to suggest I defend her (and because of her awesome body). By the way, your last paragraph is senseless drivel.
Geoffrey,
I like that I call her "babe", too. Real women aren't offended by such terms. Real women understand it's just another way to say "she's very attractive". You wouldn't know class if it kicked your butt around the block.
1. "Her ejection from the games is not punishment commensurate with her “crime”…
She is not an independent athlete. These are the Olympic Games, Marshall. Nations are represented. She represents Greece. So, your argument, really, is only with the Greek Olympic Committee and the thousands of Greek citizens who have expressed disgust with the tone of her slur.
And they have decided. They are the appropriate ones to have decided.
2. “… given the hosting of countries openly hostile to Israel.” Yes, I would say this is the founding vision of the Olympic Games: fostering unity by bringing antagonists together to compete with just athletics, not weapons, thereby hoping to gain mutual respect. So you’ve completely forgotten the meaning of the whole thing.
[By the way, when you repeated and consistently miss larger issues because of the smallness of your vision, it’s very hard for me not to feel smugly superior. But then I’ve been better educated, so it’s not solely my merit.]
And, again, you glibly throw up Jews as a smokescreen to avoid engaging with the race based slur at hand.
3. "as saviors of the black race, as if they need the likes of you to save them. Like Geoffrey, you suffer from white guilt…”
I agree, Marshall, I suffer white guilt. But it’s not because of black people and Lord knows it’s not because I can save them. Rather, it is just the reverse for all of us. Black folks will contribute to the salvation of us all.
But I do suffer white guilt - not because of black people - but because of white people. Like black folks always feel a burden to represent their race when the eyes of a community or nation or the world are on them, so, too, do I feel that white folks like me reflect on my origins.
That’s why I seek a real holiness, a real hold on the image and likeness of God in communities of the white diaspora. Because we have so incriminated ourselves so profoundly in social policy and in private neighborhoods.
I suffer because there are still too many repugnant white people. Like you.
It has nothing to do with black people. That’s your bugaboo.
"White guilt" . . . fascinating concept, no? Sensitive, thoughtful, compassionate people understand their responsibility for and participation in structures that dehumanize; therefore, they seek to acknowledge these realities and atone for them in some small way.
So, yeah. Guilty as charged (no irony intended). Except, of course, I consider it a first step toward spiritual and social maturity which some, apparently, have yet to take.
Feo,
As to point 2, it is clear that I have the proper understanding of the Games' purpose in trying to unite the world. My comments here have addressed that in a manner that should not appear cryptic to one so educated as yourself. But again, yours is not to educate, but to condescend as a result of having passed tests and receiving grades while gaining absolutely no wisdom. Thus, your smugness, not imagined by me but intended by your arrogance, is no replacement for the waste of all that reading and education. You, like Geoffrey, give higher education a bad name.
As to point 3, white guilt is NEVER because of black people but because of dysfunction on the part of the white people who suffer it. What have you done to black people, aside from trying to defend them against people like me who are not racist, that would provoke feelings of guilt in you? When will you begin to see them as people only and not people of another race?
Black folks will not contribute to MY salvation as that has already been accomplished. This comment of yours is preposterous, but typical of the gibberish you try to pass off as intellectual insight.
You seek a real holiness? REally? You told me we are already holy. I told you we weren't and you tried to give me crap. Which is it, fraud?
And again, how have you incriminated yourself? Why do you hate black people so much? Does your imaginary black wife know this about you?
You are an excellent example of a repugnant person, and you'd be so regardless of your skin color. Society suffers because of people like you who cannot separate the person from his appearance. THAT has nothing to do with black people either, but everything to do with your dysfunction.
Why do you take pride in being an American, Marshall?
Geoffrey, feo's twin brother,
How are you responsible for the structures that dehumanize black people and how and why do you participate in them? Neither you nor feo do jack shit to atone for your perceived violations of Christian behavior in anything, let alone race relations. Nor do either of you understand what spiritual maturity is. You simply like to think so.
But hey, if you want to carry a cross as if any black person gives a rat's ass about your superficial overtures, why you go right ahead. I'll stand back with rational people of all races and laugh.
I take pride in being an American for a host of reasons. Among them is our stated defense of freedom of opinion, no matter how stupid that opinion is. This gives people like yourself, feo, an opportunity you abuse routinely. Is there a point to your asking the question?
I just want to see if I understand your position, Art. You do not care what the actual quote is; you do not care about the history of racist comments made by the person whose position you are defending; you have no interest in learning (a) your original quote is wrong; the person who made the quote has said history noted above; Feodor and I, being suffused with white guilt are quick to defend the comment under discussion not on any merits, but out of our benighted sense of racial debt.
At the same time, you argue elsewhere that persons such as ourselves don't really understand the issues of the world; that we don't study them enough, or consider them enough, which is why we liberals react, whereas thoughtful conservatives such as yourself give due consideration to the facts of the matter before coming to a conclusion.
Is this general overview correct? Of course, I suppose I could mention your refusal to admit you most clearly stated there was something called a "West Nile mosquito", then when called on it, denied ever writing such a thing.
How do you manage to swing your legs out of bed each morning without hurting yourself?
"I take pride in being an American for a host of reasons.”
And what have you done to enshrine the “host of reasons” for your pride in America?
Geoffrey,
Your quest for clarification, as opposed to your usual assumption of the negative, is untypical. Kudos to you. Of course, it clearly isn't sincere so let's look at each point one by one:
"You do not care what the actual quote is"
The actual quote does not differ in any substantial way from the manner in which I paraphrased. But the quote accurately presented is not the point of the post. The reaction to it is.
"you do not care about the history of racist comments made by the person whose position you are defending;"
Two problems here: The history of the chick is irrelevant and was not mentioned as a reason for the reaction. Only the tweet was. Secondly, I was not defending her at all, except that she was unjustly banned, and that move, the banning of the athlete by the committee, was the point of the post.
I can't imagine what either you or feo could have done to instill such a wacky sense of guilt or debt.
Your second paragraph is fairly accurate. To be more so, it is the conclusions to which you and most libs come that belie any insistence that you study or consider anything or are capable of doing so properly.
"Of course, I suppose I could mention your refusal to admit you most clearly stated there was something called a "West Nile mosquito","
Of course you could. But then, you'd be as wrong as your twin brother, feo. Note my first response to the idea:
"Accuracy would be required in supposing I believed there existed such a thing as a West Nile mosquito, but for saps like feo, it's enough to make the accusation."
There's nothing in the post that even hints that I believe such an insect exists. Frankly, only a lefty idiot would make the assumption that the broad in question believes it and needs to explain her understanding of the insects of the world in order to make a joke. I'd wager instead that her point was merely to connect the virus with the people from the area for which it is named. But then, like feo, it wouldn't work for your true purpose, which is to find fault with your betters. You'd rather pretend I actually stated somewhere, somehow that I, too, believe there is such a thing as a species of mosquito so named.
So no, you of course do not understand my position at all. This is just another example of the truth of your second paragraph. You certainly didn't study the article to which I linked nor my post regarding it, so naturally your conclusions are based far more on the image of me you want to believe is true, rather than on anything that is true.
feo,
Your last question is unclear and it doesn't answer my last question that precedes it. Answer mine and then re-state yours. In that order.
You're right, Art. I didn't "study" it because I was so freaking stunned by your unabashed defense of racism. The only thing that made it "better" was calling the woman who is the subject of the story "babe", and defending it with the whole "real woman" argument. I've been thinking of linking a post of yours on Facebook because I have friends who refuse to believe such a one as you is serious. If they read you for themselves, they might not sleep any more easy, but at least they will know I'm not joking (and, incidentally, neither are you).
Well if you didn't study it, then your response to it is worthless, isn't it? A cursory look by a more rational individual wouldn't compel the type of drivel you regard as thoughtful commentary. But a real hard and long study is required by those like yourself because of 1) your inability to get the point, and 2) your hatred of those with whom you disagree.
For example, in regard to point 2, you, nor your clone feo, have failed to indicate how my disgust with the edict of the committee constitutes racism on my part. Indeed, you haven't even tried. Rather, with Parkie-like idiocy, you both simply accuse me with the belief that the accusation equals reality.
The "real woman" argument is valid as real women aren't leftist femi-nazis, as Rush so accurately labels them. REAL women understand, as I have already stated, that to be called "a babe" is the same as being called "attractive". Find me a woman that doesn't like being regarded as attractive and I'll show you a lying lib.
Don't think of linking me. Thinking is what gets you in trouble. Just do it. I'd appreciate the free advertising as well as a chance to have people you regard as like minded visit and hopefully provide real answers to questions you so often dodge. And if they actually do agree with you regarding me, perhaps they might be able to prove the accusations you level against me. Heaven knows you can't. Unlike you, they'll find me far more open to deal with observations, objections and criticisms than whiney little boys like you.
You are truly pathetic, Art, in so many ways.
Someday, Geoffrey, you'll have to gather the courage and evidence to support statements like that.
I am asking if you had a hand in establishing freedom of speech in this country - a characteristic of the US about which we are all proud.
Get to the point, feo. It isn't likely I was alive in the 1700's, so stop trying to be clever and just get to it.
It’s so much clever as simply common sense.
LIke you, I feel a great deal of pride in the freedoms which the US has demonstrably modeled in world history. Like you, I assume, I also feel a responsibility in upholding my small end of the duties of citizenship that keep liberties alive.
Also, like you, I’ve done nothing to establish those freedoms. I inherited them. My public role - my citizenship - is my social participation in keeping the good moral things about our society going.
So, Marshall, we are members of a group - present and historic - from which we derive a great deal of pride. Yet we did nothing to establish the concrete markers for such pride. But we do have a responsibility to keep the present and living effects of historic liberties going.
With the exact same calling - just on the opposite side of the moral coin - you and I are members of a group with historic crimes that continue to have living consequences. You and I did not establish these crimes, but, as members of the group who did, we have a particular responsibility to keep fighting the present and living effects of historic crimes.
Pride can be a good thing. Guilt - which is simply a signal emotion prompting a sense of responsibility and a call to engage in repentance (group repentance in this case) and repair - can also be a good thing.
You are blind to half of this simple truth because your spiritual sources and your moral reasoning are shot through with half truths.
There is no coin with the two sides you want to believe exists.
I assume the responsibility of upholding real American values because I agree with and see the benefits of doing so.
But I have absolutely no moral obligation to accept responsibility for the crimes of people no longer living against other people also dead. This is the real truth.
My manner of living with and among people of all kinds is all that is necessary for me or anyone else in living according to the ideals imagined by our founders. It is idiotic to feel guilt for something I haven't done. It is even more idiotic to repent for something I haven't done.
You have not established any truths on this issue. In fact, you are lying.
So you are now saying you don't feel pride in American values - having no basis to believe you are involved with the past.
Your new stance is just that you independently, separately agree with American achievements in moral values.
You are not, then, a citizen. You are an independent agent. A self claimed (sic) Christian one.
And that is the increasingly dangerous conscioiusness of rabidly conservative evangelical Christians: "I am not loyal to my government, you know, the one that developed such marvelous freedoms and modeled them for the world. I am no longer loyal unless I agree on each separate line item, because my faith calls me to deny the value of extending freedoms to every citizen. Just the ones I approve, because of my faith.”
This is the bare groundwork, Marshall, by which you are betraying your country and dabbling in treason: this new, slouching, awakening of a rigid, Judaizing Christianist faith that has lost the gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ has gotten hold in your mind because you feel threatened as a small, hard hearted white, middle-aged man for whom young dreams have died. And you want to blame others.
I am NOT involved with the past except where I was alive to BE involved. This isn't a hard concept to understand.
To take pride in American values is not what it used to be considering some immoral Americans have a different and immoral criteria for deciding what constitutes an American value.
MY criteria aligns with those of the founders and God. Yours aligns with something else altogether falsely said to match those of the founders and God.
Righteously conservative Christians are loyal to the nation in which we live, not the gov't per se, as this gov't particularly does not cherish the ideals and Constitution of the founders of this nation. Righteous conservative Christians already extend the same freedoms to all that we claim for ourselves. We do not alter definitions for selfish purposes and see no justifiable reason to accept such behavior of others, especially when doing so conflicts with the will of God and harms the nation.
In this manner, I demonstrate not only firm loyalty to the founder values of this nation, but also concern for the future of this nation and its people. I demonstrate a true understanding of the grace of Jesus Christ, not the grace of an imaginary and fictitious Jesus that is molded into the only type of god self-serving individuals are willing to worship.
"The "real woman" argument is valid as real women aren't leftist femi-nazis, as Rush so accurately labels them. REAL women understand, as I have already stated, that to be called "a babe" is the same as being called "attractive". Find me a woman that doesn't like being regarded as attractive and I'll show you a lying lib."
This is brilliant! lol!
"MY criteria aligns with those of the founders…”
Did the founders believe women are citizens enough to vote? No.
Did the founders believe that women were whole persons so that they could own property? No.
Did the founders believe that slaves were citizens enough to vote? No.
Did the founders believe that slaves were whole persons at all? No.
Did the founders believe that workers had rights to a minimum wage? No.
Did the founders believe that workers had rights within the workplace? No.
Did the founders believe that children had a right to an education in order that society could benefit from each and every one? No.
Did the founders believe that children should not have to work so that they could learn? No.
Did the founders believe that Indians were whole persons who had rights? No.
Did the founders institute laws that protected the right of a free press? No. (See Jefferson and the Alien and Sedition Acts.)
I see where your criteria is heading, Marshall. And you say, "I am NOT involved with the past…” You sell yourself quite short.
The past is all you have.
"Righteous conservative Christians already extend the same freedoms to all that we claim for ourselves.”
You did not claim anything. Freedoms are granted you by all the People.
"We do not alter definitions for selfish purposes...”
You just did.
Talk about self-serving Christianity.
Feo,
I’m a bit late here, having been gone all day, but I do want to put in my two cents.
My progenitors were against slavery, and my great-great-grandfather commanded a Union infantry company. So why should I feel guilty about slavery?
Why don’t the blacks accept responsibility for slavery? After all, it was their ancestors’ people who sold them into slavery! I’m sick of the self-flagellation by liberals over the slavery issue. It is history and cannot be changed. Move on and quit perpetrating the victimhood of the black Americans.
The people who perpetrated the crimes are no longer alive. You cannot repent for someone else’s crimes; you can only repent for your own crimes. And just because my ancestors have lighter skin than the slaves, that doesn’t make ME responsible for any of it.
Im not sure which I am more patiently waiting for.. marshas Michel Morganella post or finding out if marsha thinks this young man is considered a "babe".
"Im not sure which I am more patiently waiting for.. marshas Michel Morganella post or finding out if marsha thinks this young man is considered a "babe"."
What YOU'RE waiting for is irrelevant and of no interest to me, especially since you're too cowardly to provide me with what I've been waiting for since you first fouled this blog with your presence.
As for Morganella, who cares? In the meantime, no one would make the mistake of calling YOU a babe, though "infantile" fits perfectly.
feo,
Reading over your list I am certain you are flailing for anything to make your point. You have not listed values of the founders at all. It was values,virtue, honor and wisdom, together with their deep concern for the fledgling nation that led to most, if not all of the situations you listed. You are doing no more than is fashionable for the faux-intellectual lefty in trashing the founders for the lack of perfection that is viewed through the perverted lens of modern liberal ideologies. In other words, as the lefty christian pretends those like me disregard the context of the times in holding fast to Old Testament lessons, you totally throw out any consideration of the times in which the founders lived. What kind of dope was your favorite in your university years? I'd love to get some.
Sorry, can't parse gobbledygook. This is drug addled if anything is.
You haven't answered why you can't agree with the historical extension of rights that is the great American legacy - greater even than the "Founder's" conception.
And by the way, let me bring closure to the earlier, now settled point that you don't feel pride in what's good about America nor feel that you are a member - but can only agree or disagree line by line with laws:
I feel very sorry for you.
"Gobbledygook" is an accurate description of your average post, feo. You are obviously projecting. My comment is clear, but I'll make it more so just for you. What you list are results of honorable intentions that reflect the state of things at the time. For example, this particular point...
"Did the founders believe that slaves were whole persons at all?"
...is the usual ignorance of what led to the "3/5" provision. As honest people are aware, southern slave states wished to count every slave as they would free men in order to acquire more leverage in Congressional representation. Northern states insisted a slave could not be both property and a citizen at the same time. It would be like counting one's chair in order to gain more clout. This would also result in slavery being even more difficult to eliminate since votes on this issue would be harder to match.
Despite the fact that all men are flawed and our founders were imperfect, you have not shown they were void of the values and virtues upon which they hoped to base the new nation. Virtues and values that led to extensions of which you speak. I have not disagreed with this at all, but rather disagree with what YOU wrongly, if not dishonestly, pretend is the natural progression of these attributes.
Thus, I not only do feel pride in what this country is about, but pride that there still exists people who truly understand it, while feeling shame and utter sadness that there exists people like you who would pervert it to support the very attitudes and behaviors that the founders felt a truly moral people would never tolerate.
"Thus, I not only do feel pride in what this country is about, but pride that there still exists people who truly understand it…”
In what way can you feel pride in something you did not do?
"It is idiotic to feel guilt for something I haven't done…"
“… while feeling shame and utter sadness that there exists people like you”
You’ve lost all sense in your thoughts and can only contradict yourself now. You can’t put together an argument to get out of your corner. All you’re doing is going in circles.
I feel pride not in what I haven't done, but in what I've done. I live in this country and am proud to do so BECAUSE of the values in which our founders believed because I share those values.
The shame I feel for there being people like you is a result of the inability to instill reason where none exists. Of course, such shame is unjustified as I consider the poor quality of people like you. It is illogical to continue hoping that reprobates will discard their twisted ideologies in favor of truth and logic. For example, how can I be in a corner while going in circles? Circles don't have corners.
Besides, when your attempts to justify your inanity runs in a particular direction, it is not ME who is going in circles. I am merely trying to keep up with your lame attempts to make good what is not. I've remained consistent in my positions and reasoning. You fail to find holes and project that I'm going in circles. Gosh, you're desperate!
[While you’re getting your circular digressions ready, I thought I’d give you a reason why the rest of us believe you did make it past middle school and why educators make a big deal of teaching children to have critical reasoning skills of their own:
The 3/5 compromise was for Congressional apportionment as you have parroted. But if we get beyond middle school lessons, we can easily bring additional truths into our heads when considering if the founders truly saw slaves as whole persons. The middle school answer, inferred by your approach, is that they counted as 3/5 persons. But clearly this is wrong on its face because no slave got a 3/5 vote. White Southerners got more votes in Congress.
But slaves got 0 votes. 0 votes means no citizenship. Being counted 3/5 for white power and then denied even partial citizenship thus means not a whole person. Not even 3/5 of a person.
So, no, the Founders did not find slaves to be whole persons. Neither did they find them to 3/5 of a person. It was only about white male voting power and never about a slave because a male slave - much less a female slave - counted 0 as a person. Just like white women.
Your middle school teacher was good when you were 12. At your current age, we keep expecting you to have increased your capacity. Don’t know why, since your stubborn stupidity is a constant clarion that it’s not to be.]
[And another of your lies: I never said the Founders were devoid of value. In fact, I am clearly saying that I take pride - something you cannot do since you claim that one has to be involved to feel emotions that carry responsibility (like guilt and pride) - I take pride in their accomplishments. I also take great pride in how their accomplishments were naturally built upon in our history.
I say “natural,” to which you object, because it seems to me that once you begin, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” you will have to follow nature’s logic - as endowed by the Creator - to the fact that every person belongs in the phrase, “all men.” For the Founders, nature echoed God’s truth and brought them to these new conceptions of liberty at the right time in history. The extension of liberty has been progressing for exactly the same reasons.]
Whew, you’re blind to your own words:
""Thus, I not only do feel pride in what this country is about, but pride that there still exists people who truly understand it…”
If there still exist people who understand what the country is about, then what the country is about exists in the past.
And you said you feel pride about that past. Now you say only feel pride about what you’ve done: which is passively to merely agree.
Circular, nonsensical, stubbornly blind to your own stupidity.
"For example, how can I be in a corner while going in circles? Circles don't have corners. “
Have you ever seen a roach trapped in a corner? Or a rat?
I know, Marshall, I make too many points, argue too many lines of thought too close together for you to follow.
That’s why you need to get beyond your middle school capacity, boy.
"Have you ever seen a roach trapped in a corner? Or a rat?"
Yes I have, but I prefer to call you a false priest as it is more descriptive of the real you. However, roach and/or rat will do, if it's not too troubling for roaches and rats.
What this country is about exists in the present and does so in spite of the perversions of people like yourself. You struggle mightily to portray me dishonestly, but fail reach your goal. Your desperation again appears in the firs of your last four blubbering comments:
"...no slave got a 3/5 vote."
I clearly and plainly did not say anything like this. I spoke only of representation derived from counting what was considered property as equal to those who were not. Had they gotten their way, the slaves who could not vote would have been counted as equal to those people who could for the purpose of stacking Congress in favor of those who enslaved them. By forcing the compromise, the founders in favor of limiting or eliminating slavery put in place the first steps towards its eradication. Their values were at the core of this first step.
"And another of your lies: I never said the Founders were devoid of value."
Please provide the date and time of the comment where I supposedly lodged this lie. If you cannot, or will not, then it is clear that you have lied about me lying, for I don't believe I made any such statement about you.
As for your last paragraph of that first comment, the few people perceived "all men" as anything less than all of mankind/human beings. As regards women and non-property owners, the equality of everyone didn't necessarily translate as having a right to vote.
Worse, you continue to insist that what they DID believe about equality and and the equal application of law would include calling rights what isn't a right, especially as regards deviant sexual behavior and the demands of those compelled to engage in it.
You’re not clarifying the corner you put yourself in, Marshall. But you’re still circling like mad.
It really has to be either:
A) You take pride in what the Founding Fathers accomplished? You’ve said as much, but not literally.
- “… is all that is necessary for me or anyone else in living according to the ideals imagined by our founders.”
- "MY criteria aligns with those of the founders…”
- "Righteously conservative Christians are loyal to the nation in which we live, not the gov't per se, as this gov't particularly does not cherish the ideals and Constitution of the founders of this nation.”
- "You are doing no more than is fashionable for the faux-intellectual lefty in trashing the founders for the lack of perfection…”
- "to support the very attitudes and behaviors that the founders felt a truly moral people would never tolerate.”
It very much sounds, Marshall, as if you take great pride in “the Founders,” as indeed you should. I would agree with you 100% if you are.
OR is it B):
BUT, you also have said you only take pride in what you’ve done: "I feel pride not in what I haven't done, but in what I've done.”
Though you have blindly complicated this by naming two conflicting causes:
"I live in this country and am proud to do so…” either:
1) “BECAUSE of the values in which our founders believed…"
Or
2) "because I share those values.”
If you only take pride in what YOU do, Marshall, then the real because must be 2).
In which case you do not take pride in what the Founders established.
Sooo, Marshall, can you simply clarify for us your trapped roach-like confusion?
Or not?
Feo: "And another of your lies: I never said the Founders were devoid of value."
Marsha: "Please provide the date and time of the comment where I supposedly lodged this lie. If you cannot, or will not, then it is clear that you have lied about me lying, for I don't believe I made any such statement about you.”
________________
How lost are you?
Marsha: "Despite the fact that all men are flawed and our founders were imperfect, you have not shown they were void of the values and virtues upon which they hoped to base the new nation…”
July 31, 2012 12:10 PM
Why that would be today, wouldn’t it?
"By forcing the compromise, the founders in favor of limiting or eliminating slavery put in place the first steps towards its eradication. Their values were at the core of this first step.”
The first steps, Marshall?
Pray tell, what steps after the first ones did the founders have in mind? If it was Civil War seventy years into the future, then, I guess, yes, they laid down some first steps. Unrelated, nonsensical, meaningless first steps, sure.
Your’e way out of your league, Marshall. Even a middle school textbook has a better mind.
The sole goal of the 3/5 compromise was to get a Constitution passed. The sole effect was the same. The intention was solely the same.
Yours is the cheap kind of revisionist history that you ought to despise. Because this reasoning of yours is indeed made up of thin air.
“… you continue to insist that what they DID believe about equality and and the equal application of law would include calling rights what isn't a right, especially as regards deviant sexual behavior and the demands of those compelled to engage in it.”
Nope, you’re wrong there. I never - much less continued to - “insist that what they DID believe about equality… would include calling rights what isn’t a right….”
Just the opposite point which you commented upon when I made it: lots of rights they did conceive of as rights and only as thinking, rational Americans continued to live out the founding principles did we come to conceive of and extend rights to former slave men, then men of all backgrounds, then women, then workers, then children, then the destitute, then people with disabilities.
The founders never believed in these extensions of rights. But they did better than they believed. The grasped many of the principles which still live in brighter, deeper, more moral form.
And today we are simply doing the same damn thing.
I have limited time, so I will only comment on the post logged in on July 31, 2012 3:15 PM.
First, do you really find it clever to refer to me as "Marsha"? How very Parkie-like. (I don't regard that as a good thing.) One would hope an "educated" man would have more imagination than the resident troll.
Secondly, if you're going to try to prove I said something I didn't, shouldn't you at least come up with something that suggests I did?
Note the difference. You accused me in the following manner:
"And another of your lies: I never said the Founders were devoid of value."
But the "proof" you hoped would convict me said:
"...you have not shown they were void of the values and virtues..."
The distinction is between no values at all, which is what you accused me of falsely saying in reference to you, and "the" values, meaning specific values held by the founders of which you seem woefully ignorant or willing to distort to justify that which is in stark contradiction to those values they held.
More sometime later...
Weak sauce, Marsh.
“you have not shown…” suggests intent where there was none. You’re making things up again.
Talk about weak sauce. There was no intent to malign Ride, either, in the other post's comments section. Here, you definitely intended to malign the founders by your little list of "facts" that imply negative assumptions about their values.
Any “Negative assumptions” are yours - and they’re wrong. The values of the Founders were revolutionary… in many ways. And latent in others. They were insightful political theorists and activists. But - and here I expect you to fully understand - they were sinners and fell short of the glory of God. Brilliant at conceiving liberty, sinners at putting it into play. For some, they were mild sinners to the extent that personal consciences were clearly bothered by enslaving people, but they compromised their consciences when it came to power and politics.
_____________________
So, on the heart of the comment thread you’re going to let your contradictions stand? Just circling in corners.
Talk about contradictions and circling wagons! I began with this...
"MY criteria aligns with those of the founders and God. Yours aligns with something else altogether falsely said to match those of the founders and God."
After which you asked your series of questions that imply negative assumptions about the values of the founders. YOU asked the questions that imply the assumptions. I deny that your list assumes the failings you presume they do. What's more, I find it less than surprising to find that now, when it suits you, you would take the position that compromise is a bad thing when not doing so insures the status quo. To insist that they were lacking by compromising on the "3/5" point in order to insure agreement by all colonial reps is ludicrous.
Imagine if they "stuck to their guns" and refused to go forward until the slave states came around. What result would have been provoked? No nation and slavery as an institution unchanged and likely to spread into new territories. OR, at best, a much smaller (and weaker) nation separate from the slave colonies or the nation they might combine to create that continues slavery.
What they did instead was the best solution for the time and it was indeed a first step toward the emancipation of slaves and the elimination of slavery as an institution in this country.
AS to pride, you have not established a contradiction from me on that score either. I take pride in MY decision to call myself a citizen of this country BECAUSE of the values of the founders, that they are still present in the hearts of many (mostly, if not entirely on the right). I take pride that I am a part of a great nation.
I have to say, with my limited time it is easy for me to lose sight of any number of things that get posted in between my limited opportunities. But I just noticed again something that caught my eye earlier and I must comment before I forget yet again. From the comment from July 31, 2012 3:28 PM, you said this:
"The(sic) grasped many of the principles which still live in brighter, deeper, more moral form."
"More" moral form? What does this mean? There is either moral or not moral.
States that allow capital punishment have turned to lethal injection and away from electrocution. Electrocution was shown to be mor inhumane than thought. Electrocution, of course, replaced hanging, which replaced being drawn and quartered.
Each step was more moral.
I'll say again how sad it is that you cannot take pride in the birth of the American experiment.
As for citizenship, you had no choice so it hardly seems right to take pride in something that the government of this country bestowed on you at birth. You've had no action to take for which to feel pride.
The only choice you do have is whether to reject it by moving and choosing some other citizenship.
I don't believe that we've drawn and quartered in this country, certainly not since it became a separate nation, though I could be wrong. Aside from that practice, all other forms of CP are merely subjective in terms of which might be regarded as "more moral" than the next.
To speak of "more moral" in any legitimate manner would require thinking in terms of acting more in line with the will of God than was done before. Pretending there is no difference morally between God's will regarding human sexuality and the practices YOU'RE willing to "tolerate" and promote is not acting in line with God's will whatsoever.
As to the birth of the American experiment, I take great joy in it, but take pride in knowing the difference between what it means to you versus what it means.
As for citizenship, I indeed have a choice to remain a citizen as opposed to rejecting it. I take pride in knowing my choice is correct based on the unique and exceptional nature of this nation. Remaining a citizen is indeed a choice based on my participation in national elections.
Marshall, as always, no one can teach you logic or moral reasoning. You’re locked in a cupboard and simply will not see any light.
(For instance - and this just between you and me - if you don’t ever participate in an election… you’ll still be a citizen. So, logic dictates that voting cannot be the basis of citizenship. Therefore - shhh now, someone will hear - you still are not “choosing you citizenship. You are acting in the right that you’re already given citizenship awards you. So, softly now, it’s rather that your citizenship is the basis for being able to vote. Much like your given male gender is the basis for your being to father children. But you did not choose being male. But you can choose to reject your male gender if you wish. Now let’s not make a fuss so the others don’t laugh at you.)
[Feo. This is just between you and me and anyone who is reading this. If you ever want to breath fresh air, just pull your head from your ass. I am not a citizen by birth alone, but by choice, just as anyone in this country is (who is a legal citizen, that is). I don't have to move to reject my citizenship status, but only need do what gets me by without gov't interference. I don't have to vote, give a shit about crime or deviants wanting to force their immoral attitudes down the throat of America or anything. Being a citizen is more than being born here. It is a decision to act in accordance with the laws of the land, live in accordance with the values and traditions of the land, actively participate in the duties that citizenship dictates and support those activities and proposals that improve and benefit the nation. Just so you know, many laugh at you. But that's just between you and me and everyone who reads your drivel.)
Oh, and by the way, when you learn about logic and moral reasoning, feel free to present some of it here.
"I don't have to move to reject my citizenship status, but only need do what gets me by without gov't interference.”
A lot of people have tried this with the IRS and it just doesn’t work.
The only way to avoid your duties as a citizen is to move to another country and obtain citizenship there. Otherwise, you’ll have to pay taxes or reside in prison - where, by the way, you retain your legal rights as a US citizen except those pertaining to your punishment.
And you’ve avoided facing the bad logic of this:
"Remaining a citizen is indeed a choice based on my participation in national elections.”
Which is due to your prevaricating nature.
"A lot of people have tried this with the IRS and it just doesn’t work."
Well then they weren't doing what avoids gov't interference, then, were they? You still, lacking logic and reason, miss the point of what it means to be a citizen. Must be your prevaricating nature.
You still, lacking logic and reason, miss the point of what it means to be a citizen.
A person is either born here, or goes through the process of naturalization. Then that person is a citizen.
There is no other "meaning", Art, unless your copy of the Constitution has secret parts only revealed by squirting lemon juice on them.
I swear, I have more fun than should be allowed by law.
"I swear, I have more fun than should be allowed by law."
First of all, you shouldn't be swearing. A seminary student should be aware of this.
Secondly, you'd have a lot more fun if you were a conservative Christian reading your weak scoldings.
It is a technical truth that you are a man (work with me here). But if you fail to act as a man, then it can be said that you aren't a man. You have indeed chosen to reject your manhood and act like a loser, coward, lazy-ass, inconsiderate boob, etc, but not like a responsible and mature male adult, otherwise known as "a man".
In this same way, it is more than true that many do not act like citizens and for some, this is a purposeful thing. I'm sure you know one or two people who have never voted (I've never met one who didn't crap on right-wing people and ideology---strange, isn't it?). These same people might not even pay every legitimate cent in taxes at the end of the fiscal year or lift a finger to help their fellow man. Are these truly citizens, or just people who are technically, due to the place of their birth "citizens"?
Is this explanation still too "nuanced" for you? Too complicated? Too sensible for the leftist mind? If so, I don't know how better to explain it. My citizenship is inherent due to my being born here. But it is my choice to act in a manner that proves I take being a citizen seriously and therefor, I do indeed choose to be a citizen. It is indeed a conscious decision on my part, just as I assume you do the same in your foolish lefty manner.
Post a Comment