We all know that Muslim women will not be subjected to sexual assault by the perverts of the TSA; Political Correctness will protect Muslim Women and their virtue from TSA agents groping their most intimate feminine organs. The Obama/Napolitano wisdom or lack of wisdom is supposed to keep us safe, even if Muslim women are infinitely more likely to be carrying explosives than American women. When your president has a great sympathy for Muslims and especially the modesty of potential female Muslim terrorists, why should we expect less? After all, he has an image to must maintain in the Muslim world.
Unfortunately, many American women have been raped in the past and will surely feel that the pernicious sexual assault by leering pervert TSA agents is more than enough to make them hysterical. A response that may cause them to be shot or tasered by TSA agents who are anxious to assert their authority and power. A hysterical reaction is considered more than enough to be shot by TSA Agents, their power is not to be questioned and your rights against unlawful search and sexual assault are no longer valid, unless of course, you are a Muslim woman. In simple terms resisting the perverts of TSA and their legalized sexual assault is sufficient to be tasered or shot, they now have the right to grope any woman beneath her clothing, excluding Muslims of course, or resort to violence to insure submissiveness.
In the US, 31% of rape victims develop Post Traumatic Shock Syndrome during their lifetime and more than 10% still have PTSD today. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 13% of all American women have been raped. That means that 3.8 million women have PTSD today. They estimate that 683,000 women are raped yearly, approximately 211,000 will develop PTSD annually. Is it not reasonable that some of these women might become hysterical with the TSA perverts sticking their hands down women’s underwear and expecting them to stand perfectly still while following instructions?
Let us not forget how easy it is to get shot by the TSA, if you have a panic attack, excluding Muslims of course. Muslim women have been advised by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relation that because of religious reasons, they have the right to only allow pat downs on the neck and head; presumably, if they were planning on blowing up an airplane, they would either be sporting and hide the explosives on their head or neck: if they are devious and no one would ever accuse a Muslim terrorist of being devious, they would hide the explosives in a no touch area of their body under the bed sheet.
El Al, Israel’s airline has a flawess record ad a real security system with professionals, not political hack and pimps that play Obama’s, Yes Sir, Yes Sir, Three bags full game. Below is a portion of an interview with Isaac Yeffet, retired head of security for El Al; he describes a well disciplined and trained security force that is not from the dregs of society that just happened to be in the right place at the right time to get a job.
CNN: What needs to be done to improve the system?
Yeffet: It’s mandatory that every passenger — I don’t care his religion or whatever he is — every passenger has to be interviewed by security people who are qualified and well-trained, and are being tested all year long. I trained my guys and educated them, that every flight, for them, is the first flight. That every passenger is the first passenger. The fact that you had [safe flights] yesterday and last month means nothing. We are looking for the one who is coming to blow up our aircraft. If you do not look at each passenger, something is wrong with your system.
CNN: What is El Al’s approach to airline security? How does it differ from what’s being done in this country?
Yeffett: We must look at the qualifications of the candidate for security jobs. He must be educated. He must speak two languages. He must be trained for a long time, in classrooms. He must receive on-the-job training with a supervisor for weeks to make sure that the guy understands how to approach a passenger, how to convince him to cooperate with him, because the passenger is taking the flight and we are on the ground. The passengers have to understand that the security is doing it for their benefit.
We are constantly in touch with the Israeli intelligence to find out if there are any suspicious passengers among hundreds of passengers coming to take the flight — by getting the list of passengers for each flight and comparing it with the suspicious list that we have. If one of the passengers is on the list, then we are waiting for him, he will not surprise us.
During the year, we did thousands of tests of our security guys around the world. It cost money, but once you save lives, it’s worth all the money that the government gave us to have the right security system.
Isaac is retired, yet he might be available to replace our bimbo in charge of Homeland Security; at least, if we hired Isaac,
we wouldn’t be counting on the stupidity and incompetence of Muslim terrorists for our security.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
Let’s remember where this all started: Skookum’s racially paranoid rantings in post #5, where he was offended that there were so many Black people working for TSA, causing him some kind of visceral disturbance. I have a theory — Skookum is not alone in his anger and that anger gets carried over into voting patterns, housing patterns and hiring decisions. It explains why Black unemployment has always been higher than White unemployment and wages lower, to boot. Luckily, people with those ideas are dying out; even their own kids think they are troglodytes. Which is why you see such splits in the racial attitudes of younger people of all races and older people: it is simply a different world, and some among us simply don’t like the fact that change is upon us. It that that former lost world that they want to “take us back” to.
Whenever I hear 61 year old John Boehner say he wants to take us back to “the America of the 1950s” I wonder — the segregated lunch counters and bus rides of 1950s America? The Little Rock Central High School riots of 1950s America? The embarrassment of Black US soldiers fighting Communism to a draw in Korea, then being treated like dirt in the South . . . that 1950s America? The 1950s America with 80% union membership, regulated airlines and interstate trucking? The 1950s America that was paranoid about Communism and thought it was falling behind technologically, that America? The America with a 90% top income tax rate? That America of the 1950s?
What was so friggin great about the 1950s? And why would anyone want to go back 60 years or 50 years or 30 years to a WORSE, more divisive more patently unfair and inefficient time than we have now? This is that part of conservatism that makes no sense whatsoever.
@ JVerive and ALL:
As long as there are Hyphenated Americans and Not Plain Americans, Racism is Perpetuated, the Divisiveness Continues and America is a Lesser place. The exchange of insults here is just perplexing to me. No call for that, Folk,s and you are falling into the Class/Race warfare trap that some folks built here through not so subtle suggestion in their postings.
I thought that Most of You were smarter than that. Lets deal with basic competencies, not melatonin.
OK?
TSgt Ciz; hi, I always had and will have most respect for you,
what littel I learn earned my admiration for you, and I was realy surprise of your anger, because it never came out before; but I realyze that I too, can explode on a wrong button push by someone I know their intent is negative , best to you SR
LIKE SKOOKUM SAID IN HIS OWN WAY, YOU ARE AMONG THE FAVORITES. BYE
DaNango67; hi, we like you too, and with this group of real genuine people,
you too might explode on a certain day, where you will have more than enough,
and we will understand, the normality of this happening sometimes, bye
OLD TROOPER 2; HI, OKAY, YOU KNOW HOW TO SAY IT BETTER THAN ANY ONE,
AND WE WILL DO IT BECAUSE IT’S COME FROM YOU. BYE
@ ilovebeeswarzone, I am not a Diplomat by trade but I have made it My Business not to fall into the Stupid Trap or watch others fall into it if I can help it. 😛
OLD TROOPER 2; YES, I have always thought that you would be a good DIPLOMAT,
because your attitude is so self controled, where it take a long time to acquire that skill
bye
@Mr. ParaLega2:
You see, that’s a very basic difference between you and I.
You choose to believe this tale while ignoring all of the actual evidence to the contrary.
You say that John Lewis made these claims when, in reality, he isn’t on the record making these accusations.
I choose to dispassionately evaluate the evidence.
In the days following the protests on Capitol Hill an audio visual record of that day was posted on the Internet in the form of dozens, if not scores, of video tapes which were posted by individuals who were indeed present that day.
Those video tapes clearly show the group of CongressCritters walking from one building to another that day. Those tapes clearly show the crowd shouting at these individuals and, yes, the things that were being shouted are very clear.
What none of these tapes show, however, is corroborating evidence of the accounts that these individuals would wish for us to believe.
In fact, those tapes negate the claims.
One of the people in the group, Jesse Jackson, Jr., who was supposedly verbally assaulted was carrying not one, but TWO cameras/camera phones. Where are those tapes?
If what you are so eager to believe happened really happened then where’s the evidence? The proof?
So far, there isn’t any…even though a six figure reward was offered for it.
So, on one side you have people making all sorts of claims and on the other side you have a complete and irrefutable audio/visual record which doesn’t support the claims.
If these individuals were assailed by a “chorus” of racial slurs as they claimed then the video record would reflect that.
I choose to look at the concrete evidence and evaluate it against the allegations.
You, on the other hand, choose to “support [your] own side, right or wrong.”
Of course, we know that there are those who find these false smears helpful and productive:
For someone who claims to be so highly edumakated it’s clear that you’re going to believe what ever fits your desired narrative, facts be damned.
That’s alright though. I’ll be right here pointing out that you’re just pulling stuff out of your azz as you go along.
Aye, you need to quit while you are behind. You wrote the following:
Er, yeah . . . keep telling yourself that.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88041-cbc-member-says-health-bill-protesters-called-rep-lewis-the-n-word
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/20/90772/rep-john-lewis-charges-protesters.html
Hmm . . . what evidence are you evaluating?
A video from “that day”? What do you mean “that day”?
See, this the problem with you cons: honesty to you guys is like Kryptonite to Superman, like sunlight to a vampire. Cynthia Tucker quoting the AP story, explains your mendacity:
Did I read that correctly? Breitbart posted a video from, say 11 a.m., as John Lewis is leaving to prove that he was not called a “n*gger” when he was arriving at 10 a.m? Are you f-ing kidding me? That is the “evidence” you are relying on?
Here is the SECOND video he spliced together, after it was pointed out that his first video was misleading because it was from the wrong time period:
http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/08/03/i-got-my-correction-thanks-to-the-the-new-york-times/
See that they are LEAVING not entering in the first shot? And are you telling me that EVERYTHING said to him was recorded on that video? Uh, no, you can’t say that, can you? Then there is this video:
http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/container/1662/795/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=RLQVJ80HB9BG55SN&widget_type_cid=svp&referrer=
I leave it to Michael Steele, John Boehner and Mike Pence. They (unlike you and unlike Breitbart) were on Capitol Hill that morning. I previously pointed out what Steele said . . . hmm . . . you think he might have heard some of the nastiness and believes, therefore, that John Lewis was called n*gger that morning? Yeah. What was Boehner’s response at the time?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/03/boehner-anti-gay-racial-slurs-reprehensible/1
“Isolated incidents” a perfect way to minimize the importance of an incident while admitting that the unfortunate incident happened. Mike Pence, who was also there and, unlike you and Breitbart, knows John Lewis and his reputation for truthfulness said:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/mike_pence_i_take_john_lewiss.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/21/house-republicans-denounce-racial-slurs-hurled-at-democrats/?fbid=XbKAgA9wIv1
So let’s weigh the evidence:
On the one hand, you have the contemporaneous statements of the people claiming it happened. You have criticism of the comments from their political opponents who were present that morning (and would know what the tone of the protests were . . . hell, they stoked some of it) and who know the players and their reputations for truthfulness. And you have some incomplete, spliced together video of a riled up, all White (I saw no minorities present) crowd after the incidents occurred.
And on the other side, you have a spliced together, heavily edited video from Andrew Breitbart. The video does not follow Lewis the entire time when he arrived and has jumpy, edited video from when he was leaving . . . video that, as my link up top showed, doesn’t exactly portray teabaggers as a bunch of thoughtful protesters, to say the least.
In sum, of all the Congress people who were there, they either said it happened, or condemned what they believe happened. There is a reason, Aye, that Boehner, Pence and Steele condemned what went on — because the facts on the ground lead them to believe it did. So how do you KNOW for a fact that no one in those crowds said what Lewis said they said? You don’t. You would just rather BELIEVE that it did not happen. Of course, incidents like the following tend to undercut your benign vision of the teabaggers as a bunch of nice non-racist guys and ladies:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/07/hannity-no-racist-tea-party-signs/
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/tea_party_gov_candidates_racist_sexually_graphic_e.php
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019924-503544.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38299783/ns/politics/
I especially like Tom Tancredo’s suggestion, mouthed at a teabagger convention in Tennessee, that we reinstate the Jim Crow era literacy tests:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/80005-tancredo-tells-tea-partiers-literacy-test-would-have-stopped-obama
And who comes up behind, okey doking the remarks? Why Breitbart’s site, of course!
http://bigjournalism.com/llyman/2010/02/11/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-no-entiende-ingles/
Son, face it: this is a battle that you cannot win. The NAACP was right: the tea party movement was not per se racists, but was being hijacked by racists. Not sure how, given everything that happened, you can really disagree with that assessment.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Wow Larry.
Have you got any sort of proof to support that statement? Or is that pure supposition?
That brush is awfully broad.
Those are presumptuous assumptions made by the authors of this study.
While the authors were able to state with certainty the breakdown of white/black voters using voter registration data as well as race data recorded at polling places the authors themselves admit that they are simply estimating yes/no voting patterns.
If you think about it, there is no way that anyone could ever know with certainty how someone votes because what happens in the voting booth is, appropriately, shrouded in secrecy and no exit interviews were conducted on the topic.
I’ve read through the linked study three times and have yet to find anything which indicates that the authors had access to actual ballots which could be cross referenced reliably to race records.
Also, the authors themselves admit that there may have been a significant level of confusion on the part of the voter as to what the amendment they were voting on would do. As a person who just finished voting on seven different Amendments during the last election I can tell you that they have to be read closely to be understood.
Ciz, I hear the anger and frustration. Don’t you understand that the left HAVE to believe that conservatism and racism are intricately linked. It is the very anchor that allows them to hate us as “bad people”. They also believe we’re uneducated, unintelligent and greedy and that they are more enlightened, kinder, gentler and concerned about the future of the world. They cling to the meme that we’re stupid racist bastards who are unwilling to give a hand up to the downtrodden because we’re filled with hate and greed. Otherwise, they might have to accept that their core beliefs just might be flawed.
Christianity is not the moral foundation of the left, nor is Judaism. The philosophical foundation of the silly socialist is political correctness and their golden rule is that no-one, especially a member of a “protected group” should ever have their feelings hurt by someone else, especially by a Caucasian of European origins, for they are the root of all evil in the world.
I don’t think we can change many minds with reason, but it’s a better tool than reacting to their sincere beliefs with rage. They really do believe this stuff. They have to in order to avoid seeing that they are surrendering the freedoms and the rule of law that we have fought and bled for in their pursuit of Utopian collectivism.
On the other hand, as a somewhat conservative libertarian, I don’t see most of our leftie friends as necessarily evil at all. Stupid, hardly. Wrong, yes. Dangerous, absolutely. But most of them are sincere.
I don’t pity them, even when I see them clutching at straws to support their beliefs. Hell man, all humans have to choose a moral structure at some point in our lives. Most stick with what our parents give us, some rebel and choose whatever would piss the old folks off. Some get more guidance from a book, or a teacher, or a mentor (Frank Marshall Davis?). If you figure it all out before my body temperature takes the big drop, let me know who won.
DaNang67
very good analysis. You make one false assumption. Lefties are not evil. They do not think of themselves as evil, but when the believe that the end justifies any means, that is evil. I had one of those lefty state department pukes put nearly 50 of my soldiers at risk because he wanted to make points with the boss.
I raised holy hell with our whole command up to General Casey. He wanted me Court Martialed! I survived and none of my troops were hurt, but Route Irish was very deadly during that time. We could have lost a very high percentage of these soldiers just because one person wanted to raise his station in life!
Isn’t that evil?
Yep, Randy. Sounds evil to me. As I carefully said… “most of our leftie friends.” I thought Slick Willie was a corrupt glib liar and I saw evil in him. I think the Won is a complete fraud and deeply evil. He’s an obvious “any means to an end” true believer if my take is at all accurate. Those who are politicians tend to have few scruples. Unfortunately these types are abundant in both parties. I personally find the ones who profess to be on the right to be less dangerous.
I don’t think my assumptions were false. Perhaps I was unable to make them clear.
DaNang67,
Re: #181,
While I’ve not met the near 7 billion populating the Earth, I’ve spent enough time in enough countries to state with reasonable confidence that racism is a very natural human tendency, and prejudice is alive and well in every culture, in every country. North American society (U.S. & Canada), because of its open/welcoming/porous legal or otherwise borders, has the most variety. It can, IMHO, brag of being the least racist large population in the world.
Racism has been brought to the fore in the past 2 years, principally because the President seems to have been unable to leave well enough alone, and made some really idiotic statements from the White House. Whether intended, or a result of temporary brain spasms, he made comments which can only seen as racially motivated, throwing fuel and fire out the front door, and onto the streets.
Nevertheless, that has not changed the progress that has been made over the past 50 years, regardless what trolls pretend, and regardless what the MSM slops onto its viewers/readers. With a black/white President in office, it’s pathetic that ideologically based accusations of racism are being flung against the conservative position.
I’d like the opportunity for a do-over. I’d like to re-state what was the original point I was trying to make. I take responsibility for being insufficiently clear, and I apologize for insulting Republicans through my careless choice of words.
Here’s how I wish that I’d phrased my earliest comment regarding racism and Republicanism:
Let’s engage in a thought experiment. I want to take this step by step.
1. Some people choose both a political party association and also individual candidates by their overall positions and/or overall performance. If a person agrees with 85% of GOP positions, but disagrees with 15% of them, then this type of person would identify with the GOP, rather than with the Dems. And vice versa. An example would be Meg Whitman, unsuccessful GOP gubernatorial candidate in California, who advocated effectively for all the GOP economic positions, but who tried to strike a middle of the road position on immigration reform and who was overtly pro-choice.
2. Other people are so-called single issue voters. For example, they’ll support the party which has the stronger pro-life position, regardless of the economic positions. Or they’ll support the party which consistently advocates for the lowest taxes, regardless of its social positions. Or, they’ll side with the party which is most consistently pro-union or most consistently pro-environment. Or whatever.
Now, TSgt claimed, that, in his experience, the most overtly racist people he’d ever met were Democrats. Who might these people be? I have no idea, since TSgt provided no more details, but it is conceivable, for example, that he could be speaking of traditional Southern Dixiecrats, who vote Democratic in local elections but who now tend to vote with the GOP for federal office. Or he could be speaking of union members (including so-called union “thugs”), who vote Democratic for reasons of economic self interest, which trumps everything else, including the traditional Democratic “social justice” agenda, with which they may strongly disagree.
In my own personal experience, largely with the wine and cheese, NPR Democratic crowd, I’ve seldom (actually, never, to my recollection) observed any seriously racist ideation, directed toward blacks, Mexicans, or anyone else. Well, maybe some directed towards Muslims, especially among those who are strongly pro-Israel. In contrast, I have heard quite a few remarks which I would consider to be overtly racist, from friends or associates who consistently vote GOP. But I would be very wrong to generalize from these purely personal (and doubtless highly skewed) anecdotes. Truly — I was not attempting to do this.
What I had in mind was the following (and here’s where the thought experiment came in).
What if I were a single issue voter and that single issue was resentment of the fact that Agent Gibbs now has a black boss on NCIS? Or, more broadly, the fact that black people are increasingly shown as being the supervisors of white people, on TV and in the movies. And if I were so disgusted by rap music and African American crime statistics that I just couldn’t accept the possibility that any black people were as “good” as white people. And, if this point of view trumped all others, with which party would I be more likely to affiliate?
The other example I first offered (to balance out the racism example) were socialists. With which party would they be most likely to affiliate? But I now see that this was an insufficiently strong example. Why don’t I instead use Communists? Or environmental extremists (e.g. those who would scratch the paint of Hummers and Escalades with their keys, while walking past)? Or overt eco-terrorists? Could I not say that such people would more likely affiliate with the Democratic Party, be correct in offering this as an opinion, and yet not imply that all or most Democrats are Communists or eco-terrorists?
Now, my original comment on this was in support of T-Rob’s more thoughtful observation along the following lines:
T-Rob made the — I believe — correct observation that, whether or not there is any truth in the assertion, there have been serious (if spurious) attempts to portray the GOP as a party of racists, by some Democrats. Bill Maher, for example. But I think that everyone knows what I mean. There has been an attempt to conflate Republicanism with racism, for very unfair reasons, such as opposition to affirmative reason (for entirely principled, as opposed to racist reasons).
T-Rob then offered his opinion (with which I agree) that certain of the earlier comments on this thread made by conservatives had overtly racist undertones, and that such comments played right into the hands of those who would smear the GOP as being a generally racist party.
So, my original intent was simply to agree with T-Rob — it’s not a wise thing on a prominent political blog to make remarks which reinforce unfortunate stereotypes.
I think that, originally, most people did understand the point which I was trying to make. TSgt, however, did not understand this point (my fault, again, I was careless in how I expressed this). He took the position that I was saying that most Republicans are racists and called me out on it.
Rather than apologizing for being careless in implying something which I truly didn’t mean to imply, my competitive, pissing contest juices kicked in, and I cited data which has long implied to me, correctly or incorrectly, that, specifically in the Southeastern states, there is a numerically important subset of the GOP electorate which has an overtly racist point of view (as, for example, manifest by support for continuation for mixed marriage bans by a substantial portion of the white electorate, in South Carolina and Alabama). Combined with the lopsided GOP voting advantage in these states, relative to the rest of the country, despite the presence of large numbers of black voters, who vote 90% Democratic, I felt that these data offered some objective support for for what I thought was the obvious conclusion that, for a single issue type of voter who’s issue was resentment over the increasingly prominent role of blacks in American life, it was unlikely that many of these voters would support Democratic candidates at the national level.
Mata and I got into a side debate over the implications of an academic study on the 2000 Alabama anti-miscegenation law, which further muddied the waters. She and I continue to disagree about this. I’ll give her the last public word on this. I also got into a bit of a snit over political advertising, such as the Willie Horton advertisement and the Angle illegal immigrant ad. I’ll give my debate opponents the last word on these, as well.
And, once again, I do want to apologize formally for not being clear and, in so doing, carelessly implying to anyone that I consider the GOP to be an inherently racist political party. To the extent that I might have ever felt this way, these thoughts have now been purged by the — as always — informative discourse on Curt’s blog.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@ Randy, If I could remember every time that I bumped heads with overly ambitious Folks that wanted something very stupid to be undertaken or every threat of Courts Martial for telling some Clown that there were more immediate Priorities to be met, I’d be in the old wayback machine.
Gen. Casey was not one of our sharpest knives in the drawer. State Department Clowns always wanted to break out the Milk & Cookies mode when there were more Spankings to be administeredin Iraq. They had ambitions. I had Missions and Troopers not to be placed at unnecessary risks for frivolous reasons. State Dept. & Military need coordination of effort from Higher, not a Commander that wants to play Diplomat or Diplomats that want to ‘play Soldier’.
Wes Clark is my prime example of that.
Back to the original topic — TSA screening. People here have called for racial/ethnic profiling instead of “assaulting White grandmas.” Let’s skip the fact that terrorists Omar Hammami, Adam Gadhan, John Walker Lindh, Jihad Jane and the entire Hutaree militia would pass through security under this rule, while all the male Muslim residents at The Cleveland Clinic would get probed and prodded. Even more outrageous, you would put your attention on this guy and would pay no attention, because of race, to this guy or <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_F._Hale”>this guy or this guy or this woman — all White, all terrorists, and all dangerous.
To quote Tom, I can walk you through the woods, but I can’t force you to see the trees. If you don’t understand the uselessness of racial and ethnic profiling where terrorism is considered, then there is nothing I can say or do to explain it to you.
It’s a shame that time spent typing here is stolen time because we’re close to having having a serious discussion on race here. That discussion is overdue and could be cathartic… even if done between mostly white folks. I think that if truth were ever found by all people, the majority of “minorities” would switch parties. The only caveat is that everyone would need to agree to some hypothetical common ground on affirmative action and that is, I fear, impossible.
Pick a social issue and most blacks and Hispanics fall in the conservative column. Those who are poor unfortunately can be swayed by “soak the rich” politics, but that is true of all races and ethnicities. Jealousy is a universal vice. I’m always amused by how bitter successful Hispanic tradesmen can be when discussing illegal immigrants and the effect they have on business and on American culture.
James Raider was right in #184 in describing racism as a somewhat natural state of affairs, but the key there is defining racism. Is it racist to feel more comfortable around people similar to yourself? Is it racist to harbor a sincere belief that there are genetic racial differences beyond skin color? Is it racist to actively dislike behavioral characteristics most commonly found in certain ethnicities? Is it only racism if you would actively or passively do harm to another solely based on race?
Agreement on those definitions won’t be found here because we each have our own axes to grind. It’s funny that this thread has evolved this way because the marvelous Skookum managed to uncharacteristically stub his verbal toe. It would be nice if actual good came of it somehow.
Silly Rob: The objective of the terrorists are to do just what we are doing, patting down all the grandmas and children. This uses resources and disrupts the lives of the population while spreading anti-terror (TSA) personnel very thin. They use our PC against us. We should be concerned with profiles and subjecting people who meet that profile to extensive screening. That is what the Israelies do! OT2 and I have security clearances that exceed all but a few of the TSA people. Why are we a threat? The time they waste patting me down could be dedicated to looking for real terrorists! The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber both fit a profile, but passed security. That is where the concentration of effort should be.
B- Rob; I am just pointing that you bring the RACE ISSUE HERE, to get a response, or trigger
anger with the FA PEOPLE, WHEN YOUR SIDE ARE NOT HERE, NOBODY BRING AN ISSUE
ABOUT RACE; WHAT WE DEBATE ON THIS POST HAPPEN TO BE ABUSES MADE BY TSA
MEMBERS MAJORITY BLACKS, THAT IS NOT ABOUT RACE BEATING LIKE YOU DEMS ALWAYS BRING OUT TO DIVIDE PEOPLES AND SCARE THEM OF THIS CONSERVATIVE FA AND OTHERS
CONSERVATIVES BLOGS,
NOTE THAT THE PROOF AND LINKS FOLLOW THE POSTS AND COMMENTS MOST OF THE TIMES,
THAT IS MORE THAN YOU GUYS EVER DONE.
Randy, you say it far better than me; yesterday when I read Plain JANE’S comment it came to me that waisted time and money, she mentionned how where is the lane of people who have met before all security should suppose to be there, as was declared at the beginning of
those searchs,
bye
. . . Suggestion:
Implement a system similar to The NEXUS system which is designed to expedite the border clearance process for pre-approved travellers who are “low risk,” moving between the United States and Canada, and make it available to all flyers. That would be a giant step toward reducing line-ups, and addressing the negative reaction to perpetual personal invasion.
@danang (#188). I’d like to talk about when I think AA is actually good, though I suspect it will be one of the “almost all” issues on which we disagree. Too big a topic for stolen time. Will have to wait until my next attack of insomnia. – LW/HB
@Mr. ParaLegal2:
Once again you’re demonstrating either ignorance, stupidity, or both.
Stay focused as I run through this again slowly for you:
1) Where is Cong. Lewis quoted? What are his words?
2) Did he appear in a televised interview in which he made these claims? Where is the tape?
The two articles that you linked to do not quote Lewis saying that racial slurs were hurled at him. In the McClatchy piece he states:
Hmmm….no accusation of racial epithets from Lewis there.
Strange isn’t it? The source that you posted as proof of supposed claims by Lewis is, oddly enough, devoid of the claims you’re looking for.
So, where is the story in Mr. Lewis’ own words?
What evidence?
1) Statements directly from those who made the claims.
2) Multiple video tapes of the time frame in question.
3) Comparison of the statements to the video evidence. (More on that in a moment.)
Are you being deliberately obtuse here or what?
My reference to “that day” is obviously referring to the day of the health care protests outside of the Capitol.
I know it’s difficult, but don’t be a dullard.
You see, here’s the problem with you guys who “support [your] own side, right or wrong”: you conveniently ignore the facts when they don’t support your claims.
Since you unwisely brought Cynthia Tucker and AP into this as supporting voices, let’s see what’s there shall we?
OK…focus on the part that I emphasized…. Notice the words “leaving the Capitol”?
Yep…that’s where the AP directly, and Tucker by extension, got it wrong.
Roll the tape:
Now, what building were these CongressCritters leaving? Not the Capitol because that building is in the distance (see :59 in the video).
Based on the statements of Rep. Carson, the epithets were supposedly thrown while the group was on their way down the steps of the Cannon Office Bldg:
TRANSCRIPT:
[Carson interview audio]
So, there you have a first hand account of what supposedly happened on the way down the steps of the Cannon Office Bldg.
The numerous video tapes do not support the claims that racial insults were shouted.
What else did Carson say in that interview?
He said:
Now, let’s go back to the video tape:
Hmmm…no Capitol Police surrounding them at all, eh?
Strange isn’t it…the guy who is telling this tale has just been demonstrated to be a blatant liar.
Yet, we should believe him when he claims he heard something that’s not on the tape?
No, not so much.
Once a liar, always a liar.
Now, let’s go back to the McClatchy piece to see what else we can find:
Now, how does that compare to the video tape?
Oddly enough, there’s no Cleaver following along “a few yards behind Lewis.” In fact, there’s no Cleaver there at all.
Another liar in the mix.
What else do we learn from the McClatchy piece?
Oddly enough, the Capitol Police state that no one was arrested:
So let’s weigh the evidence:
1) Carson claims that this event happened as they descended the steps of the Cannon Office Bldg.
2) Carson claims the n-word was hurled 15 times yet the claim is not corroborated by any of the multiple video tapes.
3) Carson claims the Capitol Police were “surrounding them” yet there are no Capitol Police in the video. (Proven to be a blatant LIE.)
3) Cleaver claims that he was “a few yards behind Lewis” and heard a “chorus” of racial epithets yet the video clearly shows that Cleaver wasn’t present. (Proven to be a blatant LIE.)
4) Cleaver’s office claimed that a protester was arrested but the Capitol Police state that no arrests occurred. (Proven to be a blatant LIE.)
5) Carson and Cleaver, two out of three of the people who were supposedly involved with this have been proven to be blatant liars.
6) The third person, Lewis, has not, as of yet, been directly quoted making the accusations.
Your basic inability to examine and evaluate evidence is striking.
As I said, when you dash around these pages pulling stuff out of your azz I’ll be right here to call you out on it and show everyone what the truth is.
Oh, and if you didn’t see any minority faces in the crowd, then I’d suggest you watch the tapes again and really concentrate this time.
AYE CHIHUAHUA; HI, you seem quite close to another 200,
It could be between you and me, may the best win
I think, I should have not said that.
bye
anticsrocks; 196 come and get this one
Hey ilovebees, I’m a-tryin! 😀
BTW, @runnswimm/Larry – While I don’t agree with all you assert in post #185, I applaud your mea culpa to redress your previously (unintended) inflammatory comments.
Then I guess I’ll open the door to those who like the “I’m commenter # “x”!!!”, here.
Larry, *there’s* the guy I know. I knew you were in there, somewhere. LOL
Thanks for the clarification. And yes, while I understand your parsing of statistics, sometimes you just need to remember that people are individuals, and not a percentile. History has been “liberally cleansed” of Democrat party involvement in oppression of minorities/blacks. Or would the better word be “white washed”, considering the thrust. It still comes down to the simply reality that the US is, as @James Raider expounded above, really one of the least racist in modern times. Yet we still become paranoid, and continue to pigeon hole each other as a political tactic.
However I think your last paragraph is probably the icing on the cake for culinary delight…
Now since we do have our fair share of those who do exhibit those tendancies on occasions, I consider this a high compliment to Curt and FA – that you not only notice that conservatives are very individual, and not a “one size fits all” brand, but that you actually came to that conclusion after hanging around here.
YAY! Three Cheers fer Diversity! 😉 It werks here at FA. 😉
Now can we leave off the Hyphenated-Amerikan stuff fer now? I’m just a Kulak from Montana but an Amerikan one.
Nevah mind da accent. I had dinner with sum Russians today.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Just a quick note while I am cramming for a VoIP and Physics exam to say that though I haven’t had time to respond in detail I have noted the attempt at what I will consider a sincere reach across the bulwarks.
I consider this as reasonable terms to begin again and suspend and withdraw any derogatory assertions toward you genetics, ancestry, IQ, or current state of being cogent or matured.
Back to the books for me.
Maybe I’ll get lucky and they’ll cancel classes due to the pending ice and snow storm.
lol — literally — thanks.
– LW/HB
OLD TROOPER 2;;CONGRATULATION, AND I MUST ADD TO YOUR TOUCH DOWN,
IT’S ALWAYS THE SAME ONE WHO WIN HERE, IS IT FAIR? WE WILL HAVE TO INVESTIGATE,
FURTHER, THERE MIGHT BE AN ERROR, AND IF SO, WE WILL TAKE YOUR WIN AWAY FROM YOU,
ALSO, YOU MIGHT HAVE PREMEDITATE YOUR WIN, THAT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
YOU WILL HAVE TO REMAIN AT FA UNTIL WE CONTACT YOU IN THE NEAR FUTURE,
BYE
OLD TROOPER 2; HOW IS MR PUTIN ?
James Raider, hi, you put your finger on a universal truth, maybe because you have travel a lot and observe a lot, jus like some other like OLD TROOPER , MAY I POINT OUT, that what we call racist is not always racist, in certain circonstances of the begining of humanity and animals of all sorts, the concept of preserving the genetic factor was inscribe deep in the living world, and to make sure to preserve each identity,there was many ways, some by waging war and tryal to exterminate one dominant race that where view as potential danger on the opponants less numerous or more vulnerable, and they felt legitimate to do it, even among animal it has been notice, so we would call that racist actions but it was just a normal reaction to save whoever
IT’S OWN RACE TO MULTIPLY ON THIS NEW WORLD AT THE TIME, AND CARRYED ON
STILL TODAY IN MANY WORLD PLACES THAT ARE KEPT INGNORANT OF THE UPGRADING
OTHER FREEDOM COUNTRY LIKE THIS BEAUTIFUL AMERICA WHO PASS BEYONG THAT TRAUMATISE WAY OF DESTROYING ANY ONE WHO UPGRADE THEIR WAY OF LIFE,
BUT NO ONE WILL EVER SILENCE THAT DEEP INSHRINE GUTT FEELING THAT TELL YOU IF YOU ARE IN DANGER OF LOOSING YOUR IDENTITY AND THE WILL TO FIGHT IT THE BEST WAY YOU CAN,
BYE
ilovebeeswarzone,
You are quite right to address the necessity for proper definition of terms, though even that, can stimulate debate.
The cultivation of an identity by any culture is easy when that culture is isolated, but everything changes when another culture with different language, race, religion, colour, or other element of differentiation is introduced, and voila, the conflict begins. All of humanity feels aversion to change. It starts with the attitude of prejudice, but when actions enter the fray, that becomes racism. As is so often the case with many ‘isms, education is a big part of the solution.
ilovebeeswarzone,
I should also note that from the not-so-far socialist/communist thinking comes a different “solution,” – in a socialist society, everyone is forced to be treated socially and economically equally.
That of course, would not include those who would “rule” such a society, since they would live high above the madding crowd in their country dashas pondering their subjects.
James Raider; I find that if a person is ,has been weeken moraly by his upbrigning
where racist was on every day conversation at home and out, it attitude would show that weekness,and his decisisions in his carreer would reflect his fears and stop him from advancing in his task, as a leader specialy where other depend on straith forward decisions,
he will be to scare to solve big problems making his people who beleive he was the top untouchable know it all go getter, they will be decived and drop their support radicaly,
bye
TSgt Ciz; hi, did they cancel or you had to go trough wit it, bye
SKOOKUM
SKOOK
WOW what a POST YOU CREATED, and no one was hurt, but the brains waves where flying all around,
and the electricity was making the keys hot burning the fingers,
things have not change except for the worse, from OBAMA NOW DECIDED TO SHOW UP ON EVERY PUBLIC STAGE TO SELL HIS RHETORIC AND ASK FOR MONEY TO SPEND ON HIS ELECTION HE WANT SO MUCH TO WIN AGAIN, BUT THE PEOPLE ARE DISGUSTED OF HIS FAILED DECISIONS TO SPEND MONEY ON ANYTHING BUT THE RIGHT WAY FOR THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF HIMSELF,
AND the TSA is still on and the MUSLIMS STILL HAVE A PASS, AND OBAMA IS STILL USING
HIS RACIST CARD ON THE WHITE AND ALSO BLAMING THE REPUBLICANS, THE CONGRESS, THE TEAPARTY, THE MEN AGAINST THE WOMAN NOW, TELLING THE CATHOLIC TO SELL THE PILL TO PREVENT WOMAN FROM CREATE BABIES, HE WANT TO PUT ALGIA IN YOUR CAR,
NOTHING CHANGE EXCEPT THERE IS ALL THOSE CONFLICTS HE IS GIVING THE PEOPLE
all kinds of problems to solve for themselves
and when the people think they have a solution he reject it all as not good for him and the people are suffering so bad now, while OBAMA IS HAVING A BALL TELLING THE CROWD JOKES
HE ALONE LAUGH AT.
edit I think I found the problem and the solution here,
that is; the PEOPLE don’t want to get together
to GET RID OF THE TSA, and if they would they have the power together to get free of this imposing law to humiliate them on and on except to be use on foreigners and the one which fit the profile only.
BYE