142 Responses to Racial Hypersensitivity

  1. SKOOKUM,
    YES VERY TRUE, I remember being in a group in the COUNTRY
    where one was a friend of the owner of a horse, his friend was away,
    so he try to get the horse to move or do something, I don’t quite remember why,
    the horse was a giant he would not obey this stranger,
    so the person proceeds to beat the horse on his knees with a branch,
    the group where looking, no one move, I was horrified to see that, I was very young maybe 15 ,
    I could not resist, and took the branch and beat the guy on his back,
    he said that’s the way you break a horse, I said he is not your horse, and gave him more beating,
    the party was over, someone try to take the branch from me,he had it on his face,

    ReplyReply
  2. Wordsmith says: 102

    @Skookum: If I were physically intimidating- say I looked like Brock Lesnar- I’d love to go around town wearing a Hello Kitty baseball cap; or an Air Supply t-shirt; maybe blast The Carpenters on my car stereo as I drove through a tough neighborhood….just to mess with people’s minds.

    I did go through a phase in high school where I wore a pink sweater (after reading “A Separate Peace”) just to see if anyone would say anything to me. I think I had a bit of the Napoleon complex and thought too highly of my martial skills (I was delusional) and gymnastics muscles to bail me out. For a couple of months in college, I went through a phase where I wore these ridiculously neon-colored clothes I picked up at the student store: Yellow pants, neon pink, neon green, and powder blue button down shirts, along with a pink belt and an orange belt. I looked like an absolute pansy. One day I was in the dorm cafeteria sitting alone dressed like this and could tell this group over at another table were laughing at me. 2 boys and 2 girls. When I was done eating, I let it be known that I knew what they were laughing about. They seemed partially taken aback (like ashamed) and partially still laughing. It would have been a great experiment for a psych class report.

    ReplyReply
  3. FLOPPING ACES IS SUPER AND THE POSTS ARE SO SMART, AND THE COMMENTS ARE ALWAYS EXTRAORDINARY,
    SUCH BRAIN POWER FROM THE CONSERVATIVES,
    YOU COULD FIX ALL THE PROBLEMS OF THIS NATION,BY FOLLOWING THE MENU
    STEP BY STEP,
    JUST LIKE THE TURKEY DINNER, BEGIN BY KILLING THE TURKEY,

    ReplyReply
  4. George Wells says: 104

    @retire05 #100:

    Thank GOD there aren’t 55 million MORE people crammed into this country! Though I suspect most of them would have been Democrats! LOL.

    ReplyReply
  5. George Wells
    yes sadly democrats.

    ReplyReply
  6. retire05 says: 106

    @George Wells:

    Thank GOD there aren’t 55 million MORE people crammed into this country! Though I suspect most of them would have been Democrats! LOL.

    Thank God? THANK GOD???? You’re thanking God that 55 million babies were slaughtered before they had a chance to realize their full potential as a human being because you think it would be too many people in this country? That is the sickest thing I have ever read here.

    Yeah, they would have probably been Democrats. But instead of wanting normal growth in this country, the Democrats, who see that their numbers are being aborted, want to let in 11 million law breakers, and through the chain migration program, another 20-30 million. With all those aborted babies, they would have to wait 18 years to see them vote. With the illegals, BAM! instant voters provided by La Raza.

    You’re still sick, George.

    ReplyReply
  7. Richard Wheeler says: 107

    @retire05: I am against the inhumane treatment of animals be they 2 legged or four. Question was to Skook–your 2 cents is worth about that. If there is mental disorder among us you’ve certainly been pointed out by many at F.A. to have all the telltale characteristics.
    BTW I’ve stated many times my personal opposition to abortion.
    Would love to see Aye post your picture one more time.We could all use a good laugh.

    ReplyReply
  8. retire05 says: 108

    @Richard Wheeler:

    If there is mental disorder among us you’ve certainly been pointed out by many at F.A. to have all the telltale characteristics.

    You truly are a small man, Richard, and I don’t mean in stature. Thank you for reaffirming that once again.

    ReplyReply
  9. Richard Wheeler says: 109

    @retire05: reto5 You continually are calling people sick, insane etc .You revel in name calling.
    You’ve been consistantly called out by your fellow Conservatives You are truly a sad old frustrated woman.

    ReplyReply
  10. Skookum says: 110

    @Richard Wheeler: The horse culture of the mustang was a glorious culture with many contributing factors. I will write an essay on the issue in the near future, but for now, we should remember: the great grasslands are gone forever, the buffalo herds are gone forever, the American Cossack, the plains Indian is forever gone, the great herds of Spanish horses that roamed the great grasslands by the hundreds of thousands are gone forever. Our horse culture is but a pale imitation of those horses and horsemen of the past. It is gone forever.

    Our so called mustang herds are escapees, abandoned horses, catch colts, and scrub breeders of horses that have never faced the predator or the wild horse men who tested these Spanish horses to the absolute limits of endurance. They are all gone, but still we hang on to this mythical idea of wild Spanish horses roaming free.

    The truth is uglier than slaughtering a few hundred thousand horses every year for foreign markets. We raise horses that people can’t train or ride. It is all a beautiful dream, but like a young boy’s wet dream, we awaken to a mess in the morning that needs to be cleaned up. Too many horses and almost no men to take care of the training.

    With men and horses, it is the scrub breeders who are the most prolific, and no one wants or needs the off spring of these lesser individuals. To you Rich and many others, the horse is a beautiful animal with intrinsic value, but to horsemen of the past, a horse that is incapable of performing has no value. Horses have become a leisure time activity and the Comanche that would ride a hundred miles a day with limited feed and water to steal slaves and horses in Mexico are no more. It was this horse that had value, whether it was wild or semi-wild, horsemen of the past would have it broke to ride in two hours and be able to run down buffalo or fight Texas Rangers on the horse the next day. This is the Spanish mustang of legend and it has disappeared like the men who rode them.

    We destroyed the home of the mustang with the plow and wire fencing, we slaughtered the greatest horsemen in the world or unhorsed them and put them on reservations to die a painful death. Our dreams of mustang herds running free are nothing more than pipe dreams. We breed these horses every year and people dream of training them to be great horses, it doesn’t happen. What then happens to the tens of thousands of unwanted horses, some of them with good breeding, bur scared the living crap out of their owners and thus were sent away as outlaws. Oh, we are cruel enough, but don’t blame the slaughter houses: without them, we would be overwhelmed with unwanted horses. Our horsemen are pathetic imitations of the horsemen of yesteryear, oh they were cruel, but they weren’t afraid of their damn horses, and therein lies the truth: we don’t have the horsemen with courage. We breed cowering horses and when one of them shows spirit, our people quake in fear or try to appease a tyrant with sugar and kind words. It doesn’t work with horses or men.

    I love horses Rich, but I know that most of them are spoiled by improper handling and fear on the part of humans. They can only be abused and left to disintegrate for a few years before the effort that it would take to make a useful animal isn’t worth the time and energy. There are too many other horses with possibilities to waste time on inferior animals with poor handling. That’s the truth Rich, it isn’t pretty, and once again, humans are the root problem. We just aren’t Comanches and Texas Rangers anymore.

    ReplyReply
  11. Skookum says: 111

    @Wordsmith: I have been a natural dancer. I signed up for dancing lessons as a lad and was hired to teach during my first lesson. So when I was in college it was easy to relate to the ballet dancers, musicians, and artists; as you can imagine, I looked like a fish out of water, but the fine arts students liked having me around. It seemed the athletes were a lot less likely to try and intimidate people when I was with them. I thought it was really funny, but oh man, could those ballet dancers dance. Those were some of my fondest memories, and they were the most shapely girls on campus.

    I was asked by the dance instructor to dance with the ballet troupe, because the regular boys were too small to pick the girls up and walk across the stage, that was easy enough for me, but when my horse jobs came up, I needed the freedom to travel, so I opted out of my opportunity. Boy, would I like a second chance.

    Seeing a guy in Western clothes with effeminate men and beautiful women caused a lot of disgust from the so-called more macho types on campus, but I enjoyed it.

    I am a little bigger than poor Brock, but with a strategic layer of fat around my middle, I would have liked to go a few rounds with him about ten years ago, but my days are long past now, I have come to that realization. He is one of the few fighters I dislike. I was glad to see him defeated unmercifully. I think he is a coward.

    ReplyReply
  12. retire05 says: 112

    @Richard Wheeler:

    reto5 You continually are calling people sick, insane etc .

    If you don’t think that thanking God for the slaughter of 50 million babies is sick, then there’s little hope for you, Richard,.

    You revel in name calling.

    Oh, now that’s funny; coming from you.

    You’ve been consistantly called out by your fellow Conservatives

    You mean by those you have arbitrarily selected to be representative of “conservatives?” Color me not impressed.

    You are truly a sad old frustrated woman.

    add to

    You revel in name calling.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Ricard.

    ReplyReply
  13. retire05 says: 113

    @Skookum:

    To you Rich and many others, the horse is a beautiful animal with intrinsic value, but to horsemen of the past, a horse that is incapable of performing has no value. Horses have become a leisure time activity and the Comanche that would ride a hundred miles a day with limited feed and water to steal slaves and horses in Mexico are no more.

    So true, all. But you forgot to add that when the Comanche rode that horse a hundred miles a day, it the horse was spent and could not go farther, he would steal another one and eat the spent horse.

    we slaughtered the greatest horsemen in the world or unhorsed them and put them on reservations to die a painful death.

    I thank you for that acknowledgement. Very few people realize the plight of the Native American, convicted to the rez that provides nothing but a bleak future. Alcohol proved to be a disaster for The People, but now it’s drugs, brought in by illegals from south of our border who found a lucrative market on the rez. Rape on some of the reservations is a greater problem than in inner cities like Chicago and Detroit. Schools are often 90 miles from where the child lives. Consequently, children of the rez are destined to either not go to school, or wind up at a religious school where they board during the week. Housing, some without even running water, makes the ghettos of New York and the barrios of Los Angeles look like Trump Tower.

    A once great people, defeated, then abused in their defeat, remind us that there are still people in this country that have never realized the dream of equal opportunity.

    Perhaps their ill treatment to this day would be a good thing for you to write about.

    ReplyReply
  14. Ron H.
    THAT IS A GOOD ONE,
    who would ever known,
    and a sure divorce coming for one of them.
    the guy took two bad chances, one to help a thief
    and the other to lose his wife,

    ReplyReply
  15. Richard Wheeler says: 116

    @Ron H.: There it is. Shouldn’t surprise anyone.
    Why is the Black kid accosted and the White kid gets a pass?

    ReplyReply
  16. Skook says: 117

    It was a revealing video experiment; however, an afternoon of passers by is not conclusive or a scientific experiment. There are many contributing factors to consider in a scientific experiment under controlled conditions.

    I have locked myself out of a vehicle on several occasions and felt conspicuous trying to jimmy the lock through the window edge. I wondered f someone might call the police, but no one even asked me if it was my vehicle. Some people offered advice, and I am no way as attractive as the blonde in the video.

    To be conclusive, the experiment would need to be conducted under controlled conditions many times; however, the experiment can only be controlled to a limited extent, since a fresh or different group of people will stroll by at any given moment.

    Chaining a light weight bike to a sign reminded me of walking by the graduate schools and observing the graduate students chaining the frame of their bicycles to parking meters, as if they would be safe, but all a thief had to do was lift the bike above the parking meter and ride away. Now, that was a scientific experiment in human intelligence.

    ReplyReply
  17. George Wells says: 118

    @retire05 #112:

    55 million babies were NOT slaughtered. Fetuses were ABORTED. “Babies” are not the same as “fetuses” and “slaughter” is not the same as “abortion,” thus the need for the two DIFFERENT sets of words. Your intentional, politically motivated confusion of the two DIFFERENT terms may pander to your choir, but it convinces nobody new.

    I’m a pragmatist. You know what it means. 55 million unwanted births would inevitably grow up in how many million broken homes, deprived of the necessary attention to their development as their parent (-) continued to struggle with the same failings that would otherwise have led to an abortion in the first place. 55 million additions (minus a pitifully few lucky ones) to the cycle of poverty and crime. THIS is what I wish to avoid for the greater good of all. This is NOT a “sick” wish. It is a practical solution to what otherwise is a devastating social dilemma. Just off the top of MY head, I’d speculate that about a third of those 55 million would end up in prison at least once, and probably a third of those would make prison a career. Housing and feeding them for life costs a whole lot more than a visit to the abortion clinic. YOU want to save them, YOU pay for them.

    Immigration reform is not relevant to this issue.

    ReplyReply
  18. retire05 says: 119

    Over the Thanksgiving weekend in 2010 in Cleveland, Texas, a girl was taken to an abandoned mobile home and raped. Her rapists told her that if she told anyone, they would make sure she was beaten to death. Over the course of next three months, the rapists would go get her again, and the rape sessions would start all over. It is estimated that the girl was raped at least 100 times in that three months.

    As the Texas Rangers continued to investigate the case, it was clear that the girl wasn’t raped by just four young men, but by 20 TWENTY young men. Of the TWENTY young men who raped this girl, four of them were minors and one was only 14 years old. The girl was eleven years old.

    Where was Obama on this case? After all, the little girl that had been repeatedly raped by twenty young men over the course of three months was only a year younger than his oldest daughter, and only two years older than his youngest daughter. If ever there was a case of horror for Obama to plant his flag over, this was it.

    But unlike the Martin/Zimmerman case, it did not go national, at least not to speak of; Obama did not get involved and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were no where to be found. You see, that little girl is Hispanic, and all TWENTY of the young men that raped her were black.

    So the next time some Obamabot comes on this web site and tells me that Obama was right to get involved in a case that is no different than any other case all across the nation because he must talk about “race relations,” I want to know where the hell he was when an 11 year old girl was raped over 100 times by twenty black men.

    Today it was reported that in Austin, Texas, a young girl of 13 was raped by over a dozen prospective Democrats illegal immigrants. As Obama pushes to legalize this kind of scum, will he address the rape of this child? Don’t hold your breath waiting for him to talk about it.

    ReplyReply
  19. George Wells says: 120

    @Skook #117:

    Cut Ron some slack, Skook. He didn’t SAY it was a scientific experiment, and the video didn’t present itself as ”conclusive.” What it IS is anecdotal evidence that supports the proposition being made that the races are treated differently. Imagine the corollary demonstration, staged in a Black neighborhood. The reactions to the staged theft would likely be more complicated. But when you boil down the basics of the video presented, it DOES suggest that white folks are NOT color-blind, and that they are more suspicious of young Black males than similar white ones. Science aside, do you really think otherwise?

    ReplyReply
  20. retire05 says: 121

    @George Wells:

    55 million babies were NOT slaughtered. Fetuses were ABORTED.

    When a fetus, that has no possibility of becoming anything but a live, breathing human being, is sucked out of its mother’s womb in pieces, what would you call it beside slaughter? Using the politically correct word doesn’t alter the fact that in order to do an abortion, the “fetus” must be slaughtered.

    “Babies” are not the same as “fetuses” and “slaughter” is not the same as “abortion,” thus the need for the two DIFFERENT sets of words

    Yeah, George. When women find out they are pregnant, they always say “I’m having a fetus.”

    You know what it means. 55 million unwanted births would inevitably grow up in how many million broken homes, deprived of the necessary attention to their development as their parent (-) continued to struggle with the same failings that would otherwise have led to an abortion in the first place.

    Well then, let’s just require all women who are pregnant with a child that could possibly be considered an “at risk” child due to its environment to have an abortion. That was Margaret Sanger’s answer to the “undesirable” to begin with.

    I’d speculate that about a third of those 55 million would end up in prison at least once, and probably a third of those would make prison a career. Housing and feeding them for life costs a whole lot more than a visit to the abortion clinic. YOU want to save them, YOU pay for them.

    And how many of those 11 million illegals, plus another 20-30 more due to chain migration, do you estimate will wind up in prison?

    Immigration reform is not relevant to this issue.

    It damn sure is, along with THIS:

    http://www.examiner.com/article/more-than-a-dozen-illegal-aliens-gang-raped-13-year-old-girl-texas

    ReplyReply
  21. retire05 says: 122

    @George Wells:

    What it IS is anecdotal evidence that supports the proposition being made that the races are treated differently.

    You’re right. When a white/Hispanic/black man kills a young black man in self defense, it is given national attention with the usual race baiting suspects keeping it front page. When twenty young black men rape, repeatedly, an 11 year old Hispanic girl, or over a dozen illegals rape a 13 year old girl, the race baiters and the media yawn.

    ReplyReply
  22. George Wells says: 123

    @retire #119:

    Obama did NOT speak on the Zimmerman case because of the death of Martin. He spoke on the subject to soothe the Black community, which was rising in anger over the verdict in the case, and HE didn’t want that anger to avalanche. He appreciated that there was some mass-hysteria being stoked by some trouble-makers, and HE thought that HE could cool the room. I hope it worked.

    The multiple rape you reported did NOT rise to the same level of national attention (blame the media if you like) and there was no potential for mass-hysteria blossoming as a result. So there was no NEED for calming words from the President. Surely you CAN see the difference?

    ReplyReply
  23. George Wells says: 124

    @retire05 #121:

    “Immigration reform is not relevant to this issue.”
    “It damn sure is.”

    No, it’s not. Well, maybe you are confusing the two, but I was speaking specifically to the subject of abortion. I have read the complete texts of the Roe v. Wade decision and dissent, and I don’t recall seeing the word “immigration” once. Ditto any references to Mexicans, Illegals, Wet-backs, Latinos, Beaners, etc., etc. If you insist that “immigration reform” is relevant to the “abortion” discussion, then why not include “gay marriage” and every other “hot topic” here on Flopping Aces as part of the ABORTION debate? Focus, Dear.

    ReplyReply
  24. Skook says: 125

    @George Wells: Yes, my intention was to head off any conclusive statements by people who viewed the video.

    While watching the video, I was reminded of the black hat versus white hat of the Hollywood Western. Was this a reflection of societal influence that reinforced stereotypes or was it an innocent device used by directors, until it became a tradition. The answer is lost in movie lore. Today, most traditional Western men wear black hats, I wear white or gray, but I like to be different.

    However, if we are to apply the racial stereotypes to hats worn by Hollywood cowboys, we have a problem with the stereotype. Maybe, by discussing these strange quirks of our culture we will understand our racial situation a little better.

    My historical novels and their moral lessons have been a feeble attempt by me to get people to realize that our history is not the skim milk version we were taught in school, and that our culture has been influenced by many racial and ethnic groups. I’ll admit it is apathetic attempt, but I did strike out on my own rather than picking up someone else’s talking points. I have made an effort and will continue to write along these perimeters in the future.

    http://www.floppingaces.net/2012/06/09/sex-love-and-slavery-on-the-mississippi/
    http://floppingaces.net/2011/09/07/three-island-crossing-a-lesson-in-racial-harmony/

    These are typical of my efforts, I am trying to make a difference, testing the waters in a sense. I choose not to grasp on key points of a tragic court case and argue beyond sensibility on points that seem to be preordained along political demarcation. Such arguments accomplish nothing; perhaps, I have accomplished nothing, but I am making the effort and learning as well.

    ReplyReply
  25. retire05 says: 126

    @George Wells:

    The multiple rape you reported did NOT rise to the same level of national attention (blame the media if you like) and there was no potential for mass-hysteria blossoming as a result.

    Really? Do you always make claims without investigating the facts first? Obviously. So let me fill you in:

    Cleveland, Texas is a small town of around 8,000. About 24% are black. Over the years the town has worked hard to eliminate past racial discriminations. But that wasn’t good enough for Quanell X, head of the New Black Panthers Houston. He marched his radical ass into town, riling up the black community, claiming that the “white” folk were just trying to railroad a bunch of black kids before the Texas Rangers had even completed their investigation. He almost tore that town apart.

    When Hoang Nyugen was murdered by black teen thugs playing “Knock Out,” no one talked about it in the lamestreanm media. When Defino Mora, father of 12, and a Hispanic, was killed the same way, the press was moot, along with the race baiters and poverty pimps, including Obama.

    So there was no NEED for calming words from the President.

    You’re right again. But why is that, George? It is because white people don’t riot. They don’t burn down homes in their neighborhood or their neighbors businesses. They don’t set cars on fire, or throw bricks through shop windows. But they do get blamed when blacks act in undesirable ways all in the name of “slavery.”

    ReplyReply
  26. retire05 says: 127

    @George Wells:

    No, it’s not. Well, maybe you are confusing the two, but I was speaking specifically to the subject of abortion. I have read the complete texts of the Roe v. Wade decision and dissent, and I don’t recall seeing the word “immigration” once.

    Perhaps you would be better served reading the writings of Margaret Sanger. Why did she, and the rest of the eugenists support abortion? It was to rid the United States of “undesirables”, such as

    Mexicans, Illegals, Wet-backs, Latinos, Beaners

    , including blacks and any other uneducated immigrants.

    If you cannot make the connection between abortion, where millions of Americans are slaughtered, only to let in millions of illegals who will also commit the crimes you so want to avoid, then you are lacking a certain mental skill.

    And let’s go back to my original comment. How dare you invoke the name of God when giving abortion your stamp of approval.

    ReplyReply
  27. George WELLS
    YOU HAVE YOUR OPINION WELL EXPRESS TO,
    BUT WHAT IS NOT RIGHT IS YOU TRAMPEL ON OTHERS OPINIONS,
    MINE ALSO.
    yes the millions of illegals entry are connection in the misery of the black community,
    you never watch the line of unemployed WHITES AND BLACKS,
    AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY ON THIS BIG TIME,
    HE HAS SUCCEEDED TO STAGNATE THE JOB MARKET IN ONLY HIS TIME OF OFFICE,
    HE MADE SO MANY NEGATIVES ACTIONS TO RENDER THE BLACKS AND WHITE IMPOTENT
    LIKE DISABLE PEOPLE RUN DOWN AND DEPRESS, MANY SO DEPRESS THEY DON’T TAKE CARE OF THEIR CHILDREN WHO ROAM THE STREETS SCARING EVERYONE EVERY FAMILY CLOSER BY,
    NO LEADERSHIP NO GUTS TO TELL THE TRUTH, NO TIME TO THINK PASS HIS NOSE TO FIGURE OUT
    HOW TO HELP THE WHOLE NATION, HE GOES FLASHING MONEY ABROAD TO HATER WHILE THIS NATION IS ON THE VERGE OF REVOLUTION AMONG THEIR OWN,
    HE IS HAVING FUN ALONE WHILE THE PEOPLE SUFFER,
    SO GIVE YOUR OPINION BUT DON’T GIVE LESSON TO THESES CONSERVATIVES WHO SAW IT COME IN FROM THE BEGINNING OF HIS FIRST PRESIDENCY,

    ReplyReply
  28. retire05
    55 million baby aborted,in the black community, is UNGODLY,
    THOU SHALL NOT KILL, THOSE WOMAN WHERE INFLUENCE TO ABORT
    AND THE GOSWELL FROM HELL ACCOMMODATE,
    MAKE IT SO THAT THEY DELIVER BEFORE AND NO GUILT WHATSOEVER,
    THOSE ARE AMERICANS,DON’T YOU SEE THEY WANT TO KILL AMERICAN AND MAKE ROOM FOR ILLEGALS,

    ReplyReply
  29. George Wells says: 130

    @retire05 #127:
    “If you cannot make the connection between abortion, where millions of Americans are slaughtered, only to let in millions of illegals who will also commit the crimes you so want to avoid, then you are lacking a certain mental skill.”

    As a constitutionalist, I consider first and foremost the INDIVIDUAL right of the woman. Unlike yourself, I extend to each woman a right of reproductive self-determination right up to the point that BIRTH is given to what was previously a “fetus” and which, upon “birth,” becomes a citizen human being. While such a specific “right” is not directly articulated in the Constitution, I believe that such a right is at least implied there-in, and the SCOTUS’ Roe v. Wade decision would seem to have agreed with me.
    Your attempt to lump the abortion issue together with the immigration issue may work in your limited context that both accomplish a degree of social engineering, but as I tried to make the point earlier, when you consider issues in this particular light, nearly every issue qualifies. For example, the gay marriage issue: in court, this issue gets decided on constitutional grounds (are an individual’s constitutionally guaranteed rights being infringed upon or not), and the decisions are not influenced by fears of social engineering (does “redefining marriage” constitutes a form of “social engineering” or does it not.)

    Indeed I DID discuss the social engineering aspects of abortion, but I did so not as a justification for abortion in general, but to demonstrate a rational basis for what you were otherwise characterizing as “sick.” On that subject, why is it that you perpetually fail to distinguish the difference between legitimate argument and personal attack? Do you lack confidence that your argument can stand alone? Do you find your position boring and in need of “spice”? I know you can do better, because your #89 on this thread was well-composed, thoroughly rational and while there WAS a condescending tone, the ugly personal attacks were absent. I will remind you that when you sink to that tactic, readers lose interest and the thread dies.

    Finally, “How dare I invoke the name of GOD?”
    Simple. Your GOD is not the same as my GOD. I invoked the name of my GOD, not yours. (Surely you don’t think that all 7 billion people here on Earth believe in the SAME GOD?) I cannot speak for your GOD, and you can’t speak for mine. That’s just a constitutionalist’s view on the subject of Freedom of Religion. You have a problem with that?

    By the way, I don’t get the point of your #126. I have no argument with the details you elaborated upon, but I cannot see that they refuted the quotation that you opened with. I DO see that we are in agreement on the effectiveness of the media tail wagging the public dog.

    ReplyReply
  30. Nan G says: 131

    Going all the way back to Word’s original post, racial profiling is bad.
    It would have been bad had George Zimmerman done it……although George Zimmerman did NOT do it.
    George Zimmerman did behavioral profiling: a person lurking near a patio sliding door, not moving with any purpose, seemingly eyeing him for simply looking at him.
    But Obama is doing RACIAL profiling with his latest scheme to equalize the neighborhoods racial balance based on how many are on HOUSING in each neighborhood!
    Rich people come in all colors!
    To imply a zip code is not racially balanced because not many on HOUSING live there is RACIST!
    But Obama wants to put more people on HOUSING into zip codes with low numbers on HOUSING.
    He is saying POOR people are BLACK people!
    What a racist!

    ReplyReply
  31. George WELLS
    YET AGAIN YOU ARE PLANTING MOTIVES AND THOUGHTS TO ANOTHER
    TO SUPPORT YOUR VIEWS,
    is in there a better way for you to give your opinion and be the one owning that opinion instead of
    trying to give a guilt to another who is right on the point and annoy your own points,
    like saying , you are wrong and I’m right, AND 50 MILLION ABORTIONS IS NORMAL FROM YOUR DEVIOUS MINDSET, AND ADDING TO IT, THE BABY WOULD HAVE BECOME BAD HUMAN, NO YOU ARE THE BAD HUMAN
    AND DEGENARATE HUMAN, THOSE BABY WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A CHANCE THEY DESERVED AND LIKE MARTIN LUTHER KING, SOME WOULD HAVE HAD A HEALING SOLUTION FOR THE OTHER
    you are the wrong one, you know that other point of enforcing the marriage between two same sex
    humans is wrong, it’s enforcing the right to perversion of any kind, is that a model to show publicly?
    no that is a condition to hide in your bedroom. it’s a selfish action to have it legalize and only in the history of this nation is this administration corrupt enough to accept it to be publicize AND LEGALIZE, BECAUSE THEY ARE CORRUPT AND DESPERATELY LOOKING FOR YOUR VOTES AT THE PRICE OF BEING DAMNED
    did you ever heard a family cut a conversation to say: PLEASE NOT IN FRONT OF MY CHILDREN.
    BUT YOU ARE CARRYING THE CONVERSATION NO MATTER WHAT YOU PLANT IN THE CHILDREN’S MIND, THAT IS THE PERVERTS ARE NORMAL,
    ADDING TO IT, IF WE COUNT 50 MILLION BABY ABORTED,
    THAT IS A WHOLE CHUNK OF HUMAN AMERICANS DUMP IN THE TRASH,
    AND REPLACE BY FOREIGNERS,
    THAT IS AN ABOMINATION

    ReplyReply
  32. retire05 says: 133

    @George Wells:

    As a constitutionalist, I consider first and foremost the INDIVIDUAL right of the woman. Unlike yourself, I extend to each woman a right of reproductive self-determination right up to the point that BIRTH is given to what was previously a “fetus” and which, upon “birth,” becomes a citizen human being.

    There is not ONE thing mentioned in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers or the Anti-Federalist papers about the right of a woman to pay a physician to murder her unborn child. Her rights began with the decision to participate in an activity which resulted in pregnancy. At that point, responsibility for those actions kick in. Rights and responsibilities. If you were a true Constitutionalist, you would know that they go hand in hand. Pregnancy is to sexual activity as a hangover is to excessive drinking of alcohol. It is an effect of previously exercised rights.

    You also seem to think that a “fetus” doesn’t really become a human being until the accidental date of its birth. So a “fetus” that is only 8 months into term is a human only when it has naturally traveled the birth canal, but not for the purpose of abortion. How convoluted is that?

    I believe that such a right is at least implied there-in, and the SCOTUS’ Roe v. Wade decision would seem to have agreed with me.

    Roe was bad law. Even Constitutional experts who support abortion have been clear that Roe was based on bad law. We do not base our laws on “penumbras” but on the Constitution. The SCOTUS has been guilty of other bad laws, such as Jim Crow, and prayer in school that was determined for no other reason than the Chief Justice hated Catholics.

    Indeed I DID discuss the social engineering aspects of abortion, but I did so not as a justification for abortion in general, but to demonstrate a rational basis for what you were otherwise characterizing as “sick.”

    Do you not understand how dangerous “social” engineering is? Again, I would point you to the writings of Margaret Sanger, who wanted to use “social” engineering for the purpose of eliminating “undesirables.” In 1969, when population “control” became a cause de jour for the left, Planned Parenthood started promoting abortions and homosexuality as a method of population “control,” something you seem to support. A clear plan for “social” engineering. And every dictator in the history of the world has subscribed to the philosophy of “social” engineering.

    Your GOD is not the same as my GOD. I invoked the name of my GOD, not yours. (Surely you don’t think that all 7 billion people here on Earth believe in the SAME GOD?)

    I don’t care if you worship a pet rock. There is but ONE God and your pet rock is not God. A Supreme Being. And while God may be called by many names, He is but One.

    That’s just a constitutionalist’s view on the subject of Freedom of Religion.

    How little you seem to understand of the Constitution you claim to adhere to. You have a right to worship God, by any name, or not. That is the freedom. The Founders were not divided by different Gods, just different methods of worshipping the same God.

    Sorry, but you don’t fit the mold of Constitutionalist. You’re more in the category of statist.

    ReplyReply
  33. George Wells says: 134

    @retire05:

    “You also seem to think that a “fetus” doesn’t really become a human being until the accidental date of its birth. So a “fetus” that is only 8 months into term is a human only when it has naturally traveled the birth canal, but not for the purpose of abortion. How convoluted is that?”

    It is EXACTLY as convoluted as the proposition that an egg cell, once fertilized by a sperm cell, is a human being WHO enjoys every right conveyed by GOD and Country.

    Regardless of whether you LIKE Roe v. Wade or not, it is PRESENTLY the Law of the Land, and its application to the conduct of doctors and pregnant women requires some degree of consensus regarding the meaning of the words that are used to articulate the Law. Thus all of the gnashing of teeth over the question of “When does Life start?” We can engage in an argument to the absurd and decry the “loss of life” that occurs when LIVING sperm cells die during the aftermath of a “wet dream,” or even when they expire in situ, but to what end?

    As a concession to the fact that a host of differing opinions on the subject of abortion are held by the varying constituencies across the nation, a “compromise” was fashioned that pleased neither side. The precise provisions of the Roe v. Wade decision were almost immediately abandoned (unfortunate, I think), and the limits on abortion that DID become “in effect” are what everyone continues to fight about today. I am smart enough (are you?) to appreciate that there are legitimate arguments on BOTH sides, positions that are held by intellectually brilliant individuals who simply place greater or lesser importance on one particular concept or another that they find expressed in the Constitution.

    The very nature of our government is complex and internally conflicted. We are set up as a Constitutional Republic of States, with powers shared by both States AND the Federal Government. There are some people who THINK that it is a “democracy” and who THINK that whatever the people want today is what they should have, Constitutional protections be damned. But the Constitution elaborates on a number of rights of individual citizens – broad notions like “equal protection” and “due process” – that are sometimes in conflict with the powers enjoyed by the States and/or the Federal Government and/or the voting public who think that they should have ALL of the power in this arrangement. I will stipulate that the arrangement is messy and that its results are not always wise OR durable. But that’s the strength of it. It evolves. Corrections CAN be made.

    For PRACTICAL reasons, it has been the custom in Western Civilization to refer to an individual human being’s age as the number of years since he or she was BORN. The date of “birth” is the point in time where the counting began, not the date of “conception.” The full rights of citizenship are not conveyed until adulthood is reached. An 18-year-old can fight and die for his country, but cannot legally consume alcohol. Children can’t vote, have virtually no first amendment rights, and may not enter into lawful contracts. In progressing back in age, at some point it is reasonable to conclude that no rights at all obtain, and for a large part of history, that point has been conveniently designated as the date of birth.

    Technically, a sperm cell and/or an egg cell are what are referred to as “gametes.” When one of each join successfully, a “zygote” is formed. As cell divisions proceed, the zygote takes on more and more recognizable characteristics of the specie it belongs to, and is at a point (that varies according to who you ask) it becomes correctly referred to as a “fetus.” When it is born, it becomes a “new-born” calf, or “puppy” or “baby human being.” But you know all of this. The only issue you really have is that you cannot abide termination of pregnancy – the abortion of fetuses – because you equate the unborn exactly with the born. From both the historical perspective AND the biological perspective, I cannot agree with that equation.

    ReplyReply
  34. retire05 says: 135

    @George Wells:

    It is EXACTLY as convoluted as the proposition that an egg cell, once fertilized by a sperm cell, is a human being WHO enjoys every right conveyed by GOD and Country.

    And the possibility to become anything other than a human being is what percent? You could also say that a baby is not a toddler, a toddler is not a teen ager, a teen ager is not an adult. But in each step of the way, that life form has no possibility of being any thing other than what it is. Cycle of life, George.

    We can engage in an argument to the absurd and decry the “loss of life” that occurs when LIVING sperm cells die during the aftermath of a “wet dream,” or even when they expire in situ, but to what end?

    That is taking absurdity to the extreme. There is no life until that sperm cell fertilizes an egg. That is when the life form, that has no possibility to evolve into anything other than a human being, begins.

    The full rights of citizenship are not conveyed until adulthood is reached.

    You want to equate governmental privileges with natural rights. They are not one and the same.

    An 18-year-old can fight and die for his country, but cannot legally consume alcohol.

    Factually wrong.

    Children can’t vote,

    What part of the U.S. Constitution prevents the Congress from reducing the voting age to 12?

    have virtually no first amendment rights,

    How so?

    and may not enter into lawful contracts.

    Not necessarily true.

    In spite of your arrogance thinking I needed a refresher course in Biology, you are still wrong. The law permits for someone to be prosecuted for murder TWICE, if someone kills a pregnant woman (see Scott Peterson) no matter the stage of the pregnancy. How is that murder, yet a woman deciding to have it done by a physician who violates the Hippocratic Oath which states:

    I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

    not murder?

    The only issue you really have is that you cannot abide termination of pregnancy – the abortion of fetuses – because you equate the unborn exactly with the born.

    No, I equate a human, while not fully formed, as a human, just as I equate a sapling, not yet 12″ tall as a not fully formed tree.

    ReplyReply
  35. retire05 says: 136

    @George Wells:

    Of course, I may change my mind on abortion if the gay gene is ever discovered.

    ReplyReply
  36. retire05,
    very true all the way,
    and what about the ANIMA, DOES ANYONE PRETEND TO SEE
    WHEN IT CONNECT WITH THE HUMAN TO BECOME SELF VISIBLE,
    yes but we don’t know when, so is that an excuse to proceed with an un-need abortion,
    the first generations where many where poor like JOB, DID HAVE THEIR BABY JUST THE SAME,
    NO TV, NO TEX CARD, NO CHOICE OF FOOD, NO NEWSPAPERS, NO MONEY NO VACATIONS,
    BUT GOD WAS THEIR POWER, IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM,
    THEY LOVE EACH OTHER AND THEIR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WHERE FULL OF LOVE,
    THE LIFE BEING CREATED WAS A GIFT OF GOD,
    no, they did not see the ANIMA CONNECTION, BUT THEY KNEW OF IT THEY FELT IT
    WITHIN, TODAY THE WOMAN ,NOT ALL OF THEM, WANT ONLY SEX NO BABIES,
    THEY ABORT AND THE GUILT IS INSIDE OF THEM ALL THEIR LIVES,
    THE QUESTIONS IN THEIR SOUL ASK
    WHAT DID YOU DO WITH MY BODY, YOU LEFT ME WITH MY ANIMA ALONE, TO WANDER FOREVER IN THE ETERNITY,
    HEY GOD WHERE ARE YOU? THIS IS YOUR AMERICA UNDER GOD,
    WHY DID YOU FORSAKEN HER?

    ReplyReply
  37. George Wells says: 138

    @retire05:
    “You want to equate governmental privileges with natural rights.”

    No, I said absolutely nothing about “natural rights”. (Or if I DID, please point out where that was?)
    I’m talking about the LAW, which, the last time I looked, was the business of the government. Some laws may have origins in religious dogma, but when there are disputes between people who have differing opinions of what is right, the dispute is taken to a COURT – not a priest – for resolution. Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court, not the Pope, not GOD. The police enforce the GOVERNMENT’s laws, not the Bible’s. That’s why the cops aren’t going around stoning women who cut their hair and kids who talk back to their parents.

    “Natural rights?” Survival of the fittest? Kill your enemy before he kills you? Or are you talking about the so-called “God-given” rights that differ around the world as they are articulated by all of the different peoples of different religions who profess to have first-hand “Information” from the “GOD” they happen to be talking to? That’s a real mixed bag there, and one I’d hate to try to base a set of laws upon. That’s why we write our own and why our government is not called a theocracy. Worship “natural rights” in church if you like, but keep them out of government.

    ReplyReply
  38. George Wells
    you AND OTHER, are working so hard to get the GAY marriage in CHURCH,
    AND YOU DENY IT ON YOUR COMMENT, AND GIVE A BEATING TO GOD
    THAT’S A TRUSTWORTHY PERSON, YES?

    ReplyReply
  39. retire05 says: 140

    @George Wells:

    “Natural rights?” Survival of the fittest?

    The rights bestowed upon every human being by Nature’s God. But I thought you said you have a god. Must be one of the atheist kind.

    That’s why we write our own and why our government is not called a theocracy.

    A theocracy? You mean like one denomination because that is what a theocracy is, George.

    Worship “natural rights” in church if you like, but keep them out of government.

    News flash; that Constitution you claim to know so much about was written based on “natural rights” bestowed upon each human being by Nature’s God. Obviously, you don’t know as much as you profess.

    Now, if you’re looking for a atheist nation, I’m sure you can find one. Planes depart from every major city in the U.S. with regularity.

    Thou shalt not kill.

    Oh, wait, isn’t that one of the laws of Nature’s God? Wasn’t that incorporated into our legal system, one of our government’s laws, that

    The police enforce the GOVERNMENT’s laws,

    How about

    Thou shalt not steal? Another of those pesky laws of Nature’s God that was written into our legal system. How about Thou shall not bear false witness? Perjury, anyone? also against the law.

    So which came first, George? Our laws or the dictates of the Ten Commandments?

    Frankly, you sound more and more like a Marxist with each passing post.

    Worship “natural rights” in church if you like, but keep them out of government.

    Like it or not (and I know you don’t) our government is full of the laws of Nature’s God. Our Constitution was based on the rights of man given by God. It was written by men of faith, all who believed in the teachings of the Christian Bible. I realize that you would like to mold this nation into some Marxist utopian dream, but it will never happen.

    ReplyReply
  40. retire05 says: 141

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    THAT’S A TRUSTWORTHY PERSON, YES?

    No, Bees, it’s someone who wants his own degeneration to be acceptable in our society.

    ReplyReply
  41. retire05
    yes, he was confuse with his own comment.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>