Go to Bush's War, or The War Of The Gulf
- Add a comment
- Go to Dubya The Hypocrite
It's just me and Timothy Leary, Gramsci, outside, looking in...
posted by
saul_relative
on April 30, 2007 at 9:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Wow
That was trippy!
posted by
Antipodean
on April 30, 2007 at 6:32 AM
| link to this | reply
You don't owe me an apology, Glennb. I have no problem with being called
a black man; it isn't the first, nor probably the last, time, either. It doesn't offend me. Your assumption -- and if I had allowed that assumption to continue -- was an untruth, not on your part, but one that would have been mine if I'd allowed you to be misled. I want change as well -- for us all. And I do not even pretend to know the cultural idiosyncracies that drive the black man, the brown man, or any of the other ethnicities that have been offered offense by Caucausian dominance. Since my Cherokee blood is so diluted, I haven't even had to suffer the slight offered my American Indian cousins. But I do not believe reactionary methodology and angry rhetoric will do much good. It never has in the past. It simply polarizes and entreches -- period.
posted by
saul_relative
on April 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
Not a Black man? Then I do owe you an apology for making that assumption. You should not be expected to know the difference between anger and demanding change. As Bush has demonstrated Whitey does not change course when he is wrong. No apologies, the "real" facts will not change the, "my way or shock and awe" doctrine.
I can now read you with a clearer picture of "where you are coming from"! Thanks for clearing the confusion on my part.
posted by
Glennb
on April 27, 2007 at 7:55 AM
| link to this | reply
No, I live rather close to you, Glennb. You are a rather angry individual.
And I think I should point this out to you, Glennb, finished with me or not, that I am not a black man, nor am I of the brown ethnicities, unless you count that small part of me that traces its lineage back to Cherokee. Regardless, I still feel your vitriole misguided and ineffective, if not pathetic.
posted by
saul_relative
on April 26, 2007 at 10:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
What are you talking about? For a man who scoffs at the "Notion of God", you seem very forgiving and holy? Or is it just the absence of a pair that makes you so timid! "Level Playing field" is Whitey speak for keep kicking your ass and watch you squirm! I am talking about "ripping up the damn goal post" and sticking it where the sun is pressed to shine! Grow a pair Black man and stop making excuses for not having Balls!
I am finished with you! Where do you live anyway? In lala land??
posted by
Glennb
on April 26, 2007 at 10:09 PM
| link to this | reply
I understand the ability of propaganda and buzz words, jingoism and
accusatory remarks to incite, Glennb. I've spent half my life studying it. But I'll not preach revolution just because my fellow man is ignorant. I can't stand Bush and the Bobbleheads, their dimwitted and narrow-minded views of the world. But I choose a more diplomatic approach to change. Railing against "the man" and the like is cliched finger-pointing. White Europeans became the dominant "race" on the planet because they were more aggressive first, with several contingency factors such as religion, technology, and diseases to help. We have the ability to level the playing field for all. And I'm realistic. It is hardfought and may never be level. Ever. But that doesn't mean I have to be despondent, resentful, or pugilistic. Look at the movements sponsored by Ghandi and MLK. Even Al Sharpton has toned down his fiery rhetoric for more diplomatic phrasing (although he can still hold forth if the issue strikes him right). Yet, they've all done great things to help level the playing field around the world. It's the foundation we work on.
posted by
saul_relative
on April 26, 2007 at 11:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
Because those are "Whitey's" words used to define us. Don't you get it? These words are in their "being" whether they utter them aloud or not. They depend on others feeling guilty about our value to society for their survival. It is a lot deeper than the surface bullshit, and talking point government. Where and why do you think words like "Islamic Terrorist, WMD, Radical Islam, War on Terror, Nigger, etc incite revulsion in any man? Think about it Black man and avoid trying to group me with "Haters and Racist"!
posted by
Glennb
on April 26, 2007 at 4:52 AM
| link to this | reply
Then why the "negro" reference? Why the "Uncle Tom" reference? If you're
not a racist, why bother with such labels? And if you're not angry, why all the inflammatory language? I get history, economics, politics, race relations, etc. What I don't get, Glennb, is your constant beration of anyone in opposition. Hell, you even berate people in agreement with you because there's a variance in their agreement. Looks like frustrated anger to me...
posted by
saul_relative
on April 26, 2007 at 12:57 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
You obviously don't get it! Have you a clue about the people who "stood" so you could sit on your ass? Black man! Whitey did not take you out of the Jungle and teach you how to grow cotton! And if he did it is not a history I would either embrace or acknowledge. Trust me, I am neither a racist nor angry! So lose the reference!
posted by
Glennb
on April 25, 2007 at 9:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Fine, Glennb. You sit and pontificate, criticize and denigrate anyone and
everyone with a varying or opposing view -- and where does it get you? Sitting at your little computer bemoaning and bitching about what is and was. Well, I'm shooting for what might be given what we have now, using the information of how and why we arrived here in the now. The only way your method of change works is if you somehow eliminate the opposition completely. You can't; it's impossible. So, instead of attacking everything and everyone, why don't you try to effect a little change? Maybe you'll start a grass-roots movement that will encircle the globe some day. But, as things stand and extrapolating from what you contribute, you'll start nor leave anything positive, effecting no alterations, barricaded as you are in your isolated kingdom of hatred.
By the way, I appreciate your restraint and dicontinuing the insulting labels. Thanks.
posted by
saul_relative
on April 25, 2007 at 10:37 AM
| link to this | reply
You Really Sound Both Stupid and Confused!
When a man says the "Brown Race cannot government themselves" that is a result of learned ignorance based on racist perceptions. You continue to tetter on the notion of "White supremacy". That is a pre-Colonialist notion! When the European discovered there was life outside the cold and barren landscape he occupied his only recourse was conquest. He did it very well and continues to "control" most of the resources (human and natural) on this Planet! Why it works so effectively for them is the "mystery" I would like to solve.
You keep your head in the sand, but remember your "ass" is out!
posted by
Glennb
on April 25, 2007 at 5:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Is there any other tone you can use other than racist-tinged outrage,
Glennb? I mean, really. Get a grip, man. And if you think I'm as good as the "garbage" that write for the Times, well, then, that isn't too bad. I'll take it as an unintended compliment.
But here's the deal, Glennb. The difference between you and me, I believe, is that I am not a reactionary. I don't hate for the sake of hating, dislike simply because something doesn't agree with my stance. I can see both sides of an issue, even when the logic of the opposite side isn't so logical, or, even if it is, does not jibe with my view of things. I do not always agree with sarooster and Corbin Dallas but I give them their due -- their absolute right to say what they believe, regardless of what I believe. And I am also a person who can agree with those same people on occasion, because I believe that a man who closes his mind to opposing arguments is a fear-crippled coward.
And lighten up on the racist remarks, dude. They're so... pre-twentieth century...
posted by
saul_relative
on April 24, 2007 at 9:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Boy!
Are you crazy! You are talking out of your other mouth. Where did you get all this nonsense? Still trying to be a "journalist"? Well put in a resume' to the Times! You can't be any worst than the garbage they have!
Have you ever had an intelligible thought that was not "Uncle Tom" driven? How can you give "Whitey" so much credit for knowing what he/she are doing? You "Negroes" just don't want to face the "real" fact! Do you think Bush, Cheney, Rice, that General fellow have any idea what they are doing, at all? The carnage simply does not touch enough people "intimately" to make a difference!
posted by
Glennb
on April 24, 2007 at 8:57 PM
| link to this | reply
And that's where you're wrong, MandaLee. Bush ignored his best people
and the people who are paid to collect intelligence. He listened to his "yes" men (and woman). He's an authoritarian. He got the idea stuck in his head that he could change a backward nation and finish the job his father started. There are hundreds of CIA reports, and remember that there are something like 20 separate intelligence agencies in Washington, that contradicted the information that Bush was feeding the nation. People who had been on the ground in Iraq for three or four decades were ignored. I'm sorry, MandaLee, but after all the information that we've gathered, from ex-diplomats, ex- and current intelligence people, state department people, military analysts and generals, there is no way Bush could have justified invading Iraq. He wanted to and he did. Besides, he already knew how easy it would be. His father had already done it. But if you want to know why, ask Haliburton. They've been in Iraq since Bush I.
Iran, however, is another story. But he didn't invade Iran. Maybe he should, so his legacy will read that even though he took a wrong turn north of Kuwait, he eventually made the world a safer place by invading Iran.
posted by
saul_relative
on April 24, 2007 at 9:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Oh, they're going alright, Gramsci. And I think they'll keep going until
we're long gone.
posted by
saul_relative
on April 24, 2007 at 9:36 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul, I think President Bush did the best he could with the info
he had at the time.
posted by
Amanda__
on April 24, 2007 at 8:59 AM
| link to this | reply
Go Iraq!
posted by
Antipodean
on April 24, 2007 at 2:55 AM
| link to this | reply