White House War On Fox News

[Jeebus]

ahhhh....yes... I was just waiting for that... "Fox has more viewers than all others..."

Conservatives/wingnuts... need fancy moving pictures on the TV to convey information. They like the TV. And Fox, mostly catering to a white, angry, straight male audience - gives them plenty of blonde T&A to keep them interested. They just eat it up.

But what about all the so-called "liberals" who read papers? Who get their information from news sites on the Internet - some even international? Who listen to the radio, but not talk radio? Who do not even have - nor need - a television?

They're not watching the TV. They have no need for it.

Yet there are more liberal and left leaning shows than you can shake a stick at. Who's watching them??

They're obviously not listening to the radio either considering the dozens of conservative talk radio shows with millions of listeners, compared to the two? (NPR and Air America - which I don't even know if its still on pay-to-listen satellite radio anymore..) liberal talk shows?

...and yet, somehow.... with that huge audience that Fox has... its viewers got slammed in the 2008 elections. Outnumbered by more enlightened people who had no need to be included in the Nielsen ratings to make a difference. God bless those people.

What was the audience share before Obama got elected?

[Jeebus]

Rasmussen? Seriously? Hey, guess what? The Daily Kos poll has 82% of Americans favoring it. Take that, Rasmussen!

B-b-b-b-but Rasmussen says only 42%! Rasmussen! You know, that keenly objective pollster without an agenda?! Surely you've heard of Rasmussen?

Speaking of polls..

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/20/cnn-poll-half-the-country-disagrees-with-obama-on-issues/

[CoolBuddy06]

I havent spent much time on politifact, just the last 2 minutes - but from looking at it, first 2 pages of "facts" they seem to only be picking apart republican lies, and democrat exaggerations....I can tell you 100 Pelosi lies...almost every word that hack speaks is untrue - and they had only a handful of half truths on there. Im not saying its good or bad, I have not spent enough time on it, but from what I see on the first 2 pages I looked at, its definitely cherry picking.

As to fox news being anti-American - no way - The liberals, want to take away all of the things that made this country great in an effort to be "fair" -its sickening. Janeane Garolfo is a scion of evil, not only is she evil, but she is a complete Idiot. - I am 100% behind Fox on that one. Glen Beck is out there - a few people take him very seriously, but he is way out there - the educated who watch know what is true and what is crazy talk. Obama is a socialist - so they have not missed the mark there. Like it or not, Obamas policies of the government controlling everything, and taxing the wealthy disproportionately are socialist policies. The poor masses are simply voting themselves the fruit of everyone elses labor. Its sickening.

True conservatives know what is what...If you let Obama do everything he wanted, we would have government ownership of everything, everybody shares equally in everything, and he would be a life time president. News Flash, thats not what we want.

Conservatism took a slide during the Bush years, no doubt because Bush abandoned conservatism long ago for a heavy military hand, and liberal social hand - but Obama is SO bad for this country, that you are about to witness the biggest slaughter in American politics next election. America has woken up - the liberal left is louder and dominates 90% of the media for sure, but Americans in general have had enough of the steal from your neighbor, blame Bush rhetoric, that is the Democrats now.

People have had enough of the constant degredation of society in the name of being progressive too. Its time to get back to the basics, and do the things that made America great - stop the social programs, and actually make people work for their money. Enough is enough, the people are going to take their country back, and the Democrats are going to hate it. Obama didnt win the election because he was a better choice, he won because the conservatives didnt have a choice. McCain was the worst republican candidate of all time. They ran a liberal candidate to try to suck in some independent swing voters, but they lost their base in doing so. McCain could not fire up a lighter, let alone a voting public.

You think the conservatives are losing ground, I think just the opposite - the democrats are about to be so marginalized its going to be great, and I hope the republicans do to them, what the democrats are doing now. Shut them out of everything and cram it all down your throats. I cant wait to see the media stink when we finally do exactly what your doing now.

You want proof of Democrats failures - look at almost all of the blue states - more violence, more debt, more unemployment - then look at the red states - drastically less. Everything the democrats touch destroys wealth in this country. I honestly think its on purpose - destroy wealth so they rely upon you for everything. It guarantees your continued election.

I hold myself so much on political debates because I can't bring myself to voting along party lines, and I don't know what to think about people who do. But the number of hypocrisy in this post above is astounding.

1. Someone spent the last two minutes on a website and formed an opinion. Then states that the time is not long enough and reached a definite conclusion. All in two sentences.

2. You know what? Forget my take on McCain being the worst R candidate of all time and less crime in red states. I can't bring myself to writing it.

[RedScare]

2. You know what? Forget my take on McCain being the worst R candidate of all time and less crime in red states. I can't bring myself to writing it.

No need! It's all been collected and neatly placed into an internet picture show for you! And it's just chock full of GOP strongholds...including Texas! Even with the Obama landslide bringing many normally red states to blue, there were still 11 red crime states to only 9 blue crime states. But, go look at the Bush/Gore vote. Red crime states lead 14-6 over blue crime states!

http://www.walletpop.com/insurance/most-dangerous-states#

[RedScare]

Shall we take this a little further? Sure! Look at the 20 SAFEST states.

http://www.walletpop.com/insurance/safest-states

Yup. 12 blue states to only 8 red states. Those liberals are downright law abiding, aren't they?

[ricco67]

And, because Beck admits he has flaws his every word and the way he argues is acceptable? I'm not buying it.

Hardly, it's because he doesn't take himself as seriously than others. He never claims to be a journalist, but commentator/entertainer, but I don't always agree with his viewpoints.

The skits on his shows are hysterical at times.

...Or even to stay on the original topic.

Like a typical HAIFer, we get distracted by shiny objects.

'scuze me, I need to pick up a penny.

[RedScare]

Hardly, it's because he doesn't take himself as seriously than others. He never claims to be a journalist, but commentator/entertainer, but I don't always agree with his viewpoints.

The skits on his shows are hysterical at times.

Ever notice how they all say that. It is as if Beck and Limbaugh are saying, 'I'M not stupid enough to believe the crap coming out of my mouth, but my listeners certainly are.'

[ricco67]

Ever notice how they all say that. It is as if Beck and Limbaugh are saying, 'I'M not stupid enough to believe the crap coming out of my mouth, but my listeners certainly are.'

Hannity got on my nerves by claiming HE is always right.

Listened to him for all of 2 months, then went to savage.

I always hoped he'd have an on-air aneurysm

[AtticaFlinch]

...different situation altogether. so if you and another archaeologist were up for the same job and the other person got it cause they were latin, i'm sure you'd be upset. that's just the way it is, like it or not.

If that job were in Mexico or some other predominantly Hispanic place where my cultural access would be limited due to the sallow hue of my skin, it wouldn't be unheard of. Why would I get offended if that person had unique qualifications that were better than mine. Obama wanted greater empathy in the Supreme Court. Sotomayor's unique set of qualifications, set apart from those of her judicial peers, were better tailored for the position that Obama sought to fill. Is the fact she's Hispanic, born poor and rose out of her situation a better gauge of her ability to be empathetic, certainly in comparison to the old fuddy-duddy silver spoons crowd who normally fills the judge's seat? Yes. Everybody in every job interview plays up their strengths, regardless of whether or not they were born with those strengths or acquired them through training. She is no different, and calling herself a wise, Latina woman still isn't racism. This is racism:

Stop trying to equate the two. You sound ridiculous when you do.

[Marksmu]

If that job were in Mexico or some other predominantly Hispanic place where my cultural access would be limited due to the sallow hue of my skin, it wouldn't be unheard of. Why would I get offended if that person had unique qualifications that were better than mine. Obama wanted greater empathy in the Supreme Court. Sotomayor's unique set of qualifications, set apart from those of her judicial peers, were better tailored for the position that Obama sought to fill. Is the fact she's Hispanic, born poor and rose out of her situation a better gauge of her ability to be empathetic, certainly in comparison to the old fuddy-duddy silver spoons crowd who normally fills the judge's seat? Yes. Everybody in every job interview plays up their strengths, regardless of whether or not they were born with those strengths or acquired them through training. She is no different, and calling herself a wise, Latina woman still isn't racism. This is racism:

Stop trying to equate the two. You sound ridiculous when you do.

Your posts get more and more offensive and pointless - You are no better than Glen Beck - you think by using offensive images you can get people to come around to your point of view. Newsflash - your argument is terrible - it IS RACIST to use RACE to say that you are better qualified than someone else of a different race.

You don't think a poor white woman with one leg and ambiguous genitalia growing up in an adoptive family, with two gay Mexican dads, and 2 lesbian black mothers all without jobs, living on welfare, picking strawberries for a living and begging on the side of the road to earn enough just to get them through to their next welfare check would be capable of empathy?

Ya - my example is as ridiculous and pointless as yours. Your argument IS a failure - it was a racist statement, made by a racist woman.

[BryanS]

Fox News Profit Soars As GOP Implodes

The birther movement and town hall protests against health care reform have dominated news coverage in the early days of August. But as the GOP is increasingly seen as a fringe party with falling national support, viewership and profit for the right-leaning Fox News has exploded. The channel reported a 50 percent increase in profit last quarter, and as Gawker discovers, the relationship between GOP support and Fox News is something like a see-saw. The lower the GOP dips, the higher the FNC rises.

The GOP recently notched its lowest approval rating in half a century, notes John Cook, who also compiled this graph.

It's interesting to compare this figure to the evidence I recently found that CNBC's viewership declined as market volatility eased. It's best to think of channels like Fox News and CNBC as more like the Weather Channel and less like NBC. National disasters bring viewers in torrents, which means their fortunes rise and fall with a sense of crisis -- and for Fox News' core viewership, it's clear their party is crisis-mode. I'm sure that if you looked at profit margins for mags like National Review and the Weekly Standard, you'd find a similar profit bump.

"The more viewers Fox attracts, the more voters the GOP repels," Cook writes. I suppose that's technically true-ish, but I'd reverse the clauses. As the GOP collapses into itself, it's core self-identifiers are grasping for the outlets that unfailingly keep the faith. You know what they say about Fox holes.

http://business.thea...op_implodes.php

[AtticaFlinch]

Your posts get more and more offensive and pointless

If you find that photo offensive, then take a look in the mirror. Your rhetoric is offensive. It's dangerous. It's untruthful. It's unAmerican. If you continue to try and tell me there is in any way any correllation between Sotomayor and real racism, you've become the biggest single joke on the web. That photo depicts racism. You want more pictures of racism? You want to see what racism really is? You want to understand what real racism is? You want to see how racism really affects people? Stop throwing out words you don't understand. Every time you call someone who's proud of their heritage a racist for their pride, you devalue the term. You gloss over the fact this country had a real racist agenda and that we really did at one time practice real racism.

I'm glad that photo offends you. I hope it actually causes you to think before your fingers start applying text to the net next time.

[Marksmu]

You gloss over the fact this country had a real racist agenda and that we really did at one time practice real racism.

PAST TENSE - GET OVER IT - we cant undo the past! I had nothing to do with the past, I was not even alive.

My rhetoric is not offensive at all. I have said absolutely NOTHING that is offensive to a single ethnic group. I continue to say that Sotomayer is Racist, because she used her RACE to gain a perceived advantage. There are varying degrees of racism. Thinking you are wiser than someone else because of your race, is racism. Hanging a person because of their race is Extreme racism. They are differences in degree, not differences in kind.

That photo is offensive to 99% of America - You used it to ATTEMPT to distract from the fact that Sotomayer is a racist...somehow by showing Extreme racism you think you proved your point. You did not. You only showed you will stoop to any level to try to prove your point. You will be hard up to find a person who does not find that photo offensive.

I LOVE how you use the word pride too - it now seems to me that the ONLY group in America not allowed to have any pride in their heritage is White people. How incredibly convenient for your argument.

[BryanS]

My rhetoric is not offensive at all. I have said absolutely NOTHING that is offensive to a single ethnic group. I continue to say that Sotomayer is Racist, because she used her RACE to gain a perceived advantage. There are varying degrees of racism. Thinking you are wiser than someone else because of your race, is racism. Hanging a person because of their race is Extreme racism. They are differences in degree, not differences in kind.

That's what you say.

But let's hear what Sotomayor says... in her own words:

Sotomayor said her “wise Latina’’ remark was an attempt to play off a famous observation by former justice Sandra Day O’Connor and others that, all other things being equal, a wise old man should reach the same decision as a wise old woman.

“I knew that Justice O’Connor couldn’t have meant that if judges reached different conclusions - legal conclusions - that one of them wasn’t wise,’’ Sotomayor said. “That couldn’t have been her meaning, because reasonable judges disagree on legal conclusions in some cases.’’

At the same time, Sotomayor acknowledged, her own comment in a 2001 speech “was bad, because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case.’’

Sotomayor, 55, said she was trying “to inspire young Hispanics, Latino students, and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/15/sotomayor_backs_off_wise_Latina_quote/

Life experiences add value. No where does she indicate, or has she ever intended, that being of one race makes you "wiser" than someone of another race. A wise latina woman = a woman who has "been there" in terms her life experience. And nothing more. That is not racism. Therefore, you cannot equate this matter as something that is "differing in degree, not differing in kind." Because it is different, in kind. You're mixing apples and oranges. And, as such, your argument fails miserably.

You remind me of "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" on Saturday Night Live, back in the early 1990's. You were alive then? For someone aspiring to become, or is, a lawyer you never seem to back up your points with evidence, facts, or a careful analysis thereof.

[Marksmu]

Shall we take this a little further? Sure! Look at the 20 SAFEST states.

http://www.walletpop...e/safest-states

Yup. 12 blue states to only 8 red states. Those liberals are downright law abiding, aren't they?

I actually took about 30 minutes to compile this data - entirely from Wikipedia (so take it at its perceived value)

My argument throughout in THIS post is that politics have nothing to do with the safety of a state.....Quick recap for all of the progression this has taken....

this all started when Attica argued the US judicial system targets minorities. I argued it is color blind, and unfortunately minorities commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes (uncontested fact). Then I argue that race is not the determining factor in a judicial setting...money, and access to good attorneys is (no counterargument made). Continuing throughout the thread is the argument Sotomayer is racist because she used her race to say she would make a better decision..Attica argues a tall person can design a better door and Glen Beck killed someone....Oh lets not forget the powerful argument that a person can not be a good archeologist or expert on a culture if they are not a part of that culture...Then Red chimes in with the Argument that RED states commit more Crimes than Blue states...

So here we are....the data is compiled from Wikipedia and Reds link for safest/most dangerous states.

Red tried to state that Republican states are more dangerous than Democrat States -

The data shows that out of the 10 worst states its 50/50 with Democrat controlled states taking 3 of the top 5.

The data also shows that out of the 10 BEST states its 60/40 with Democrat controlled states taking the top 4 out of 5.

HOWEVER, and congruent with my argument that the law is color blind, AND that minorities commit the majority of the crimes - the 10 safest states, also happen to have a disproportionately LOW percentage of minorities.

In fact, of the 5 safest states, all 5 have minority populations below 1%. The statistics are consistent with my statements that the more minorities the more crime. The law is not targeting a group, a group is committing more crimes!

Im sure that it is somehow racist to state a statistical fact - that minorities commit more crimes, so Ill sit and wait to be enlightened as to that matter.

My first point - voting republican or democrat does not make a state safer. Voter choice is not a sign of enlightenment, it is apparently a sign of lack of diversity.

My Second point - it is racist to use race to gain an advantage, whether that advantage is putting down another race, or propping up your own.

10 WOST STATES - BOLD went Democrat

STATE % WHITE % BLACK % Republican % Democrat

1. Nevada - 86.11% White, 7.67% Black 36.1% 43.8%

2. Lousiana -65.39% White, 32.94% Black 73% 37%

3. South Car. 68.8% White, 30.01% Black 58% 41%

4. New Mex 43% White, 45% Hispanic 42.3 57.7%

5. Florida 82.45% White, 15.6% Black 48.2% 50.9%

6. Tenn 82.0% White, 16.8% Black 56% 41.7%

7. Alaska 75.4% White 4.46 Black 61% 39%

8. Arizona 59.6% White 29.0 Hispanic 53.6% 45.1%

9. Maryland 66.9% White 29.0% Black 36.5% 61.9%

10. Michigan 83.05% White 14.9% Black 43% 57%

10 BEST STATES

STATE % WHITE % BLACK % REPUBLICAN % DEMOCRAT

1. New Hamp 97% 1% 46% 54%

2. Vermont 98.12% 0.76% 31% 69%

3. Maine 98.08% 0.77% 41% 59%

4. N.D. 93.8% 0.85% 49% 51%

5. S.D. 87.4% 1.0% 54% 46%

6. Montana 92.8% 0.5% 51% 49%

7. Wyoming 96.14% 1.0% 66% 34%

8. Iowa 96% 2.5% 46% 54%

9. R.I. 90.96% 6.45% 35% 65%

10. Conn 87.09% 10.46% 38% 62%

[Marksmu]

That's what you say.

But let's hear what Sotomayor says... in her own words:

Sotomayor said her “wise Latina’’ remark was an attempt to play off a famous observation by former justice Sandra Day O’Connor and others that, all other things being equal, a wise old man should reach the same decision as a wise old woman.

“I knew that Justice O’Connor couldn’t have meant that if judges reached different conclusions - legal conclusions - that one of them wasn’t wise,’’ Sotomayor said. “That couldn’t have been her meaning, because reasonable judges disagree on legal conclusions in some cases.’’

At the same time, Sotomayor acknowledged, her own comment in a 2001 speech “was bad, because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case.’’

Sotomayor, 55, said she was trying “to inspire young Hispanics, Latino students, and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process.’’

http://www.boston.co...e_Latina_quote/

Life experiences add value. No where does she indicate, or has she ever intended, that being of one race makes you "wiser" than someone of another race. A wise latina woman = a woman who has "been there" in terms her life experience. And nothing more. That is not racism. Therefore, you cannot equate this matter as something that is "differing in degree, not differing in kind." Because it is different, in kind. You're mixing apples and oranges. And, as such, your argument fails miserably.

You remind me of "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" on Saturday Night Live, back in the early 1990's. You were alive then? For someone aspiring to become, or is, a lawyer you never seem to back up your points with evidence, facts, or a careful analysis thereof.

Actually you are the one cherry picking here without facts - the fact is that the real quote is this, emphasis on the BOLD PART :

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

There is only one way to interpret that, its not ambiguous...a person can go back and say that is not what she meant, but the statement is not only clear, it was repeated multiple times.

Lets flip the quote - say that George Bush Stated - I would hope that a wise White Man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black woman, who has not lived that life.

Sounds pretty racist when its reversed. I can see the Reverends, exploding, I can see the tingling legs on CNN and MSNBC, and around the clock news coverage and political shake downs...I can see it all...but hey it was said by a minority, its a distinction, not a racist point.

Racism works both ways like it or not.

[AtticaFlinch]

PAST TENSE - GET OVER IT - we cant undo the past! I had nothing to do with the past, I was not even alive.

My rhetoric is not offensive at all. I have said absolutely NOTHING that is offensive to a single ethnic group. I continue to say that Sotomayer is Racist, because she used her RACE to gain a perceived advantage. There are varying degrees of racism. Thinking you are wiser than someone else because of your race, is racism. Hanging a person because of their race is Extreme racism. They are differences in degree, not differences in kind.

That photo is offensive to 99% of America - You used it to ATTEMPT to distract from the fact that Sotomayer is a racist...somehow by showing Extreme racism you think you proved your point. You did not. You only showed you will stoop to any level to try to prove your point. You will be hard up to find a person who does not find that photo offensive.

I LOVE how you use the word pride too - it now seems to me that the ONLY group in America not allowed to have any pride in their heritage is White people. How incredibly convenient for your argument.

The idea of white pride is born of racist ideologies, not pride in who you are. White isn't culture, it isn't heritage, it's a skin tone. It's an us vs them mentality, plus it's been commonly associated with the likes of neo-Nazis and the KKK for decades, and that's why it's racist. Having pride in your heritage though, be that Irish or English or German or even just European is a vastly different concept and is not racist. I don't expect you to be capable of grasping the difference, as subtlety has proven to be a characteristic that's thus far eluded you.

And again, I ask that you actually read the definition of racism. Dictionaries are in no short supply on the ol' interwebs, so it shouldn't be too difficult to locate the definition. Belief that certain qualities of race predispose abilities and behaviors is racism, not the belief that a person's race has the inherent ability to enable or limit them based on experiences. Latinas, wise or otherwise, aren't raised in a colorless perfect pitch vacuum where racism doesn't exist and everybody has equal acces to opportunities. To say she's said her Latin genetics (or whatever) predisposed her to being a better judge is to ignore the context of what she said. Her experiences make her better. Her experiences are colored by her color. Her experiences are influenced by her genetics. Her judgment is not predisposed because of her genetic makeup though. Do you really not get that, or are you just ignoring that simple fact to further your ignominious argument?

[AtticaFlinch]

this all started when Attica argued the US judicial system targets minorities. I argued it is color blind, and unfortunately minorities commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes (uncontested fact). Then I argue that race is not the determining factor in a judicial setting...money, and access to good attorneys is (no counterargument made). Continuing throughout the thread is the argument Sotomayer is racist because she used her race to say she would make a better decision..Attica argues a tall person can design a better door and Glen Beck killed someone....Oh lets not forget the powerful argument that a person can not be a good archeologist or expert on a culture if they are not a part of that culture...Then Red chimes in with the Argument that RED states commit more Crimes than Blue states...

Nice reduction. Is that all you gleaned from the discussion? Your reading comprehension levels are below average at best.

[BryanS]

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

It's not about skin color. It's about life experience. Your brain conveniently shuts off after the words "white male." Are you disputing the fact that she did not say the last 5 words of that sentence?

[Marksmu]

The idea of white pride is born of racist ideologies, not pride in who you are. White isn't culture, it isn't heritage, it's a skin tone. It's an us vs them mentality, plus it's been commonly associated with the likes of neo-Nazis and the KKK for decades, and that's why it's racist. Having pride in your heritage though, be that Irish or English or German or even just European is a vastly different concept and is not racist. I don't expect you to be capable of grasping the difference, as subtlety has proven to be a characteristic that's thus far eluded you.

And again, I ask that you actually read the definition of racism. Dictionaries are in no short supply on the ol' interwebs, so it shouldn't be too difficult to locate the definition. Belief that certain qualities of race predispose abilities and behaviors is racism, not the belief that a person's race has the inherent ability to enable or limit them based on experiences. Latinas, wise or otherwise, aren't raised in a colorless perfect pitch vacuum where racism doesn't exist and everybody has equal acces to opportunities. To say she's said her Latin genetics (or whatever) predisposed her to being a better judge is to ignore the context of what she said. Her experiences make her better. Her experiences are colored by her color. Her experiences are influenced by her genetics. Her judgment is not predisposed because of her genetic makeup though. Do you really not get that, or are you just ignoring that simple fact to further your ignominious argument?

Lets assume for the sake of argument then you are correct, white is just a color, not a race or a heritage, and that by being proud of white it is an US versus them mentality.

There is a Black Panther Party, A Black Congressional Caucus, a Black Airline pilots association, if it is a profession there is a group that promotes BLACK ONLY for all of them...

here is a link for you http://www.littleafr...ganizations.htm

They call themselves African Americans, yet Africa is a continent - not a country....Using your OWN logic, that is stupid and pointless...the NAACP should be the National Association for the Advancement of Kenyan People then, and not the Advancement of Colored People. Colored people (Black for instance) is a color not a race or a heritage.

For every race, there is a litany of groups that advocate SOLELY for that race - yet, there can not be a group that advocates for white people because it is racist to have groups for White people. The double standard is sickening.

I for one am Proud of being white...nobody in my family had slaves, nobody in my family has ever been a member of the KKK or the Nazis, and I am proud of being white. - I am not apologetic for it, my heritage is from a multitude of countries, my dad side is German and Polish, my mom side is English and Irish - I have no "heritage" to say that I come from, I can not be proud of being German/Polish/Irish/English...what I am proud of is the hard work in my families past. I am proud that my family, and my past has not needed the Government do everything for them, we dont have to wait for someone to give us something because we deserve it. We are not on welfare, we contribute to the US we do not detract from it. We are proud that we continue to prosper b/c we continue to work hard, despite the mounting difficulty to get into colleges & graduate schools because of the various race groups that shake down universities for not having large enough quotas, despite the total lack of qualifications from many of the applicants.

It seems that being WHITE in America is becoming a crime. White is the only group that cannot stick together like the other groups for their own advancement without being racist. A little quote here from a recent article....I wont even present the source because you will just beat it down...read the statement for what it says, not who wrote it....if you are capable of doing that.

BEGIN QUOTE:

Referring to the white working-class voters in the industrial towns decimated by job losses, Obama said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

In their lifetimes, they have seen their Christian faith purged from schools their taxes paid for, and mocked in movies and on TV. They have seen their factories shuttered in the thousands and their jobs outsourced in the millions to Mexico and China. They have seen trillions of tax dollars go for Great Society programs, but have seen no Great Society, only rising crime, illegitimacy, drug use and dropout rates.

They watch on cable TV as illegal aliens walk into their country, are rewarded with free educations and health care and take jobs at lower pay than American families can live on – then carry Mexican flags in American cities and demand U.S. citizenship.

They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their next paycheck, then read that bank profits are soaring, and the big bonuses for the brilliant bankers are back. Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.

They see a government in Washington that cannot balance its books, win our wars or protect our borders. The government shovels out trillions to Fortune 500 corporations and banks to rescue the country from a crisis created by the government and Fortune 500 corporations and banks.

America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.

END QUOTE

Whites have become the only group without a voice - because if they band together to have a stronger voice - its racist. Im sick of it. Im sick of not being able to call a spade a spade.

[Marksmu]

It's not about skin color. It's about life experience. Your brain conveniently shuts off after the words "white male." Are you disputing the fact that she did not say the last 5 words of that sentence?

I WILL CALL BS ON THAT ONE - if it was not about SKIN COLOR - she would have left out the "WHITE MALE" part of that sentence. SHE made about it skin color - nobody else. The white male has become the popular target.

Her point could just have easily have been made by stating: "I would hope that with the richness of MY experiences I would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a person who hasn’t lived that life"

Thats not what she said though, she said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,"

[AtticaFlinch]

There is a Black Panther Party, A Black Congressional Caucus, a Black Airline pilots association, if it is a profession there is a group that promotes BLACK ONLY for all of them...

here is a link for you http://www.littleafr...ganizations.htm

They call themselves African Americans, yet Africa is a continent - not a country....Using your OWN logic, that is stupid and pointless...the NAACP should be the National Association for the Advancement of Kenyan People then, and not the Advancement of Colored People. Colored people (Black for instance) is a color not a race or a heritage.

I might tend to agree with you on this had black American culture not been forcibly homogenized, and if individual black Americans were actually able to trace their heritage back to their origin culture on the dark continent. As it stands, they don't. With the exception of a minute handful of recent immigrants, there is only one black culture in America. There is no such thing with the whites. For instance, I'm white, but that doesn't describe my heritage nor my culture. I'm mostly of English and German stock, with a touch of Scotch-Irish and and some of the five civilized tribes from the American Southeast by way of Oklahoma. My family has been on this continent since the arrival of the Mayflower, and I have less in common with a Pole, a Czech or a Frenchman than I do with an Englishman or simply a longstanding American mutt like myself, even the black ones. I don't identify myself as white. I identify myself as an American. If pressed further, I describe it the way I did above. There is no such thing as "white" heritage other than that existing in racist circles.

Whites have become the only group without a voice - because if they band together to have a stronger voice - its racist. Im sick of it. Im sick of not being able to call a spade a spade.

Boo-effing-hoo. Whites still effectively run the country. I'd say our voice is booming. What you're upset about is that other groups have worked up the nerve to make their voices heard too. You're an ineffective martyr. You need to actually be persecuted before you can whine about being persecuted.

So what? People make jokes at the poor widdle white people's expense now? How many racist jokes do you know and use on a regular basis?

Edit: There's a tiny part of me smirking inside about the unintentional irony dripping in the bolded sentence above. Calling Dr Freud! Calling Dr Freud!

[AtticaFlinch]

I WILL CALL BS ON THAT ONE - if it was not about SKIN COLOR - she would have left out the "WHITE MALE" part of that sentence. SHE made about it skin color - nobody else. The white male has become the popular target.

Her point could just have easily have been made by stating: "I would hope that with the richness of MY experiences I would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a person who hasn’t lived that life"

Thats not what she said though, she said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,"

Since you missed it...

[Marksmu]

Since you missed it...

I did not miss it...you see "who has not lived that life" is referring to "White Male" in that sentence, NOT wise Latina Woman.

Her entire sentence makes no sense at all without the two operative words "WHITE MALE"

She made it about race, nobody else.

[BryanS]

I WILL CALL BS ON THAT ONE - if it was not about SKIN COLOR - she would have left out the "WHITE MALE" part of that sentence. SHE made about it skin color - nobody else. The white male has become the popular target.

Her point could just have easily have been made by stating: "I would hope that with the richness of MY experiences I would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a person who hasn’t lived that life"

Thats not what she said though, she said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,"

She has explained her comment, yet you continue to dismiss her explanation. As she has indicated, it has left people like you with the impression, that race is a factor, but it isn't. You're trying, incorrectly, to argue the perceived racial overtones/bias of a single sentence in a complete vaccum... And once again, your bolded emphasis ends at "white male." You just can't bring it to yourself to read and reason further, can you?

One hundred thousand years ago, a caveman was out hunting in the plains, when he slipped and fell into a crevasse, where he was frozen solid. In 1988, he was discovered by scientists and was thawed out. He then attended law school and became...The Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer!

[AtticaFlinch]

I did not miss it...you see "who has not lived that life" is referring to "White Male" in that sentence, NOT wise Latina Woman.

Her entire sentence makes no sense at all without the two operative words "WHITE MALE"

She made it about race, nobody else.

Well let's see what fun we can also have taking words out of context to imply meaning where it wasn't intended. Where can we start... Oh, I don't know... How about here:

Im sick of not being able to call a spade a spade

My goodness, Marksmoo, we are talking about race here, and considering spade is a derogatory racist term for black person, I'm left with only one single solitary possible conclusion for your words. You must mean you want the ability to call black people spades. That must be it. You wrote it. It's in black and white. That must be it! There's no other possible interpretation. Marksmoo is a racist.

Edit: You did make it about race, after all, nobody else.

[Marksmu]

She has explained her comment, yet you continue to dismiss her explanation. As she has indicated, it has left people like you with the impression, that race is a factor, but it isn't. You're trying, incorrectly, to argue the perceived racial overtones/bias of a single sentence in a complete vaccum... And once again, your bolded emphasis ends at "white male." You just can't bring it to yourself to read and reason further, can you?

Isnt this exactly what the mainstream media does every day? If she is not racist, then neither is Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh explained ALL of his statements that he actually made (cant explain the ones the left made up to smear him). Yet there was perceived racial overtones/bias even though it was not there. There was a virtual lynch mob against him, even though he never uttered a single derogatory statement.

I am doing to the left exactly what they are doing to the right - the difference is the left is ALLOWED to yell racism when they dont like what is being said, the right is not. Its a double standard, and I am going to call it out every time I see it because the only other place calling it out is FOX news, and you cant trust what they say, they are just a branch of the republican party, nothing but right wing propaganda.

[Marksmu]

Well let's see what fun we can also have taking words out of context to imply meaning where it wasn't intended. Where can we start... Oh, I don't know... How about here:

My goodness, Marksmoo, we are talking about race here, and considering spade is a derogatory racist term for black person, I'm left with only one single solitary possible conclusion for your words. You must mean you want the ability to call black people spades. That must be it. You wrote it. It's in black and white. That must be it! There's no other possible interpretation. Marksmoo is a racist.

Edit: You did make it about race, after all, nobody else.

I may be naive here because I am completely unaware of any racial tone at all at the statement call a spade a spade. A google search shows that its origins were not in race either

is NOT an ethnic slur.

It derives from an ancient Greek expression: "ta syka syka, te:n

skaphe:n de skaphe:n onomasein" = "to call a fig a fig, a trough a

trough". This is first recorded in Aristophanes' play "The Clouds"

(423 B.C.), was used by Menander and Plutarch, and is still current

in modern Greek. There has been a slight shift in meaning: in

ancient times the phrase was often used pejoratively, to denote a

rude person who spoke his mind tactlessly; but it now, like the

English phrase, has an exclusively positive connotation. It is

possible that both the fig and the trough were originally sexual

symbols.

In the Renaissance, Erasmus confused Plutarch's "trough"

("skaphe:") with the Greek word for "digging tool" ("skapheion";

the two words are etymologically connected, a trough being

something that is hollowed out) and rendered it in Latin as "ligo".

Thence it was translated into English in 1542 by Nicholas Udall in

his translation of Erasmus's version as "to call a spade [...] a

spade". ("Bartlett's Familiar Quotations" perpetuates Erasmus'

error by mistranslating "skaphe:" as "spade" three times under

Menander.)

"To call a spade a bloody shovel" is not recorded until 1919.

"Spade" in the sense of "Negro" is not recorded until 1928. (It

comes from the colour of the playing card symbol, via the phrase

"black as the ace of spades".)

[AtticaFlinch]

Isnt this exactly what the mainstream media does every day? If she is not racist, then neither is Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh explained ALL of his statements that he actually made (cant explain the ones the left made up to smear him). Yet there was perceived racial overtones/bias even though it was not there. There was a virtual lynch mob against him, even though he never uttered a single derogatory statement.

I am doing to the left exactly what they are doing to the right - the difference is the left is ALLOWED to yell racism when they dont like what is being said, the right is not. Its a double standard, and I am going to call it out every time I see it because the only other place calling it out is FOX news, and you cant trust what they say, they are just a branch of the republican party, nothing but right wing propaganda.

You and Fox, destroying that vast left-wing conspiracy one non-issue at a time. I smell a buddy cop comedy... set in Mississippi.

Again...

Whites have become the only group without a voice - because if they band together to have a stronger voice - its racist. Im sick of it. Im sick of not being able to call a spade a spade.

[AtticaFlinch]

I may be naive here because I am completely unaware of any racial tone at all at the statement call a spade a spade. A google search shows that its origins were not in race either

is NOT an ethnic slur.

"Spade" in the sense of "Negro" is not recorded until 1928. (It

comes from the colour of the playing card symbol, via the phrase

"black as the ace of spades".)

No, not an ethnic slur, you're right. I'd make an attempt to explain to you the difference between ethnicity and race and skin color if I thought it would do any good, but...

I don't get what you're saying with this though. Are you saying that since people didn't start using the term to describe a "Negro" (more than enough ammo with that alone!) until 1938, it's usage is harmless? I believe there might be a few fellas in the Fifth Ward who might tend to disagree with you. However, if you feel the need to use the word in a crowd of black people to describe a black person, be my guest. That's a good way to test your hypothesis.