|
45604. thoughtful - 12/31/2012 6:40:32 PM PP, if you read what I wrote, I specifically discussed the statement. I did not say J@h was a racist...and I specifically said I didn't think her intent was to denigrate a specific race...I said the comment she made was....
I don't view this any differently than, if someone makes a statement that may be interpreted as rude and you point that out, that is not the same thing as saying someone is rude....only that in this instance a statement made may be interpreted that way. This would be especially noticeable in someone who isn't normally rude at all. If someone were rude all the time, then another rude comment wouldn't be remarkable at all.
That is in no way a personal attack. Perhaps, pp, if you view it so, it says more about you than it does about me.
J@h, you evidently think I have said racist things in the past, just not AS racist as this....
Quite the contrary. I don't associate you with racism at all, and that's why I found this statement so surprising. 45605. PsychProf - 12/31/2012 7:07:39 PM Sorry if I was wrong Thoughtful. 45606. arkymalarky - 12/31/2012 7:50:33 PM "Whether you're delighted or not at being called out as a racist, it did seem that way to me.'"
Beyond that, however, it is not racist to want one's ethnicity represented. No one suggested non-Hawaiians shouldn't represent Hawaii. Imbue's request would have made Hawaii's representation more inclusive rather than less so.
Here in the South it was standard, and still is in some places, to have an all black school with an all white school board. Wanting black representation on those boards was not and is not racist, and neither is native Hawaiuans wanting representation from their ethnic group. 45607. arkymalarky - 12/31/2012 7:53:03 PM I HATE autocorrect. Thank you Daddy Jobs (RIP), but when I typed Inouye, it is what I meant to type. 45608. iiibbb - 1/8/2013 6:12:07 AM I am immensely stressed out about this economy BS concerning the debt limit.
WTF.
I know I am not much of an economist it ain't my bag... but if the NYT can condense the decisions that can be made into a simple linear problem like this, why can't the freaking idiots in congress do the same, then sit the fuck down around a table and game it until they fucking get to something.
Just give each side equal points and they can come up with a scenario, then whichever selections they have in common they each get half those chips back and take whacks at it until everything is done in a fucking weekend. 45609. judithathome - 1/8/2013 6:07:42 PM But if they did that, where would the drama be? How could they go on the Sunday Gas Bag shows and crow about how wonderful they are for being brave in the face of disaster?
The Republiacans, many of them, have a stated goal of destroying government as we know it...they've bragged about it often enough...and if the little guy gets stung in his mutual funds when the stock market goes pffft, too effin' bad...all of them, from both parties, make obscene amounts of money FOR LIFE...not dependent on the vagaries of the national econmomy.
They don't give a rip about any of us...none of them.
If the country had any self-respect, we'd storm DC with pitchforks, tar, and feathers and demand these jerks do their jobs. I know where they can save a ton of money: cut their salaries and retirements and make their pay on "merit basis".
Instead, we watch football, American Idol, text, and play games on our cell phones...it's pitiful.
45610. robertjayb - 1/8/2013 7:24:10 PM WTF indeed.
I am tired, tired, tired of hearing about current runaway spending as a source of the debt. Shrub Bush's foolish and tragic wars of reelection and Medicare Advantage, the drug company entitlement program, ballooned the debt. Paying off a debt is not, IMHO, spending. Spending happens when the debt is incurred. It is a distinction with an important difference. 45611. robertjayb - 1/8/2013 7:58:06 PM WTF indeed.
I am tired, tired, tired of hearing about current runaway spending as a source of the debt. Shrub Bush's foolish and tragic wars of reelection and Medicare Advantage, the drug company entitlement program, ballooned the debt. Paying off a debt is not, IMHO, spending. Spending happens when the debt is incurred. It is a distinction with an important difference. 45612. robertjayb - 1/8/2013 8:02:15 PM How, he wonders, did he manage a dupe 34 minutes apart? 45613. judithathome - 1/9/2013 9:01:17 PM Ghost in the machine! 45614. arkymalarky - 1/9/2013 9:19:00 PM Refreshing 45615. iiibbb - 2/9/2013 10:07:25 AM I've been spending more time in the Democratic Underground... progressives have no less proclivity for douschbaggery in spite of what I have in common with them. 45616. arkymalarky - 2/9/2013 6:46:24 PM I've looked bin a time or two but generally don't go to discussion groups even to read anymore for the same reason I got off Facebook. Too much crap to wade through to get to a few gems. 45617. arkymalarky - 2/9/2013 6:47:13 PM In 45618. alistairconnor - 2/13/2013 6:58:13 PM
Saturday Night Live on Hagel's confirmation hearings. This segment was never broadcast. I have no idea why. (Skip to 4 min 10 for a clue though) 45619. Ms. No - 2/13/2013 7:26:01 PM This got me fired up yesterday. Thoughts?
Dave Johnson: Save Our Postal System! 45620. robertjayb - 2/17/2013 6:04:04 AM Must see TV...“Hubris: Selling the Iraq War”
...premiering Feb. 18 at 9pm ET on MSNBC.
...based on the book Hubris, co-written by NBC News National Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and MSNBC contributor and Mother Jones Washington Bureau Chief David Corn. In the documentary, Rachel Maddow takes viewers through the decisions that led the nation into the conflict, and asks questions about whether the same kind of national deception could happen again.
Is it too late for impeachments? War crimes trials?
45621. judithathome - 2/17/2013 7:46:11 PM The people who really need to see that show will not tune in for two reasons: Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. 45622. judithathome - 2/17/2013 7:59:09 PM 5.Require them to pre-fund 75 years of health benefits.
This is outrageous...no other government or any pivate enterprise has to do this.
I've known about this for a long time; I'm just resigned to the fact...if Republicans can force the PO out of business, then they can award fat cat contracts to their supporters who will run less efficiently and cost us more to send things.
It chaps me the way people denigrate the Post Office...it's probably the ONLY government service that actually works efficiently and accomplishes what it's supposed to do. 45623. robertjayb - 2/17/2013 9:11:09 PM Agreed. Left alone and free from greedy privatizers, I believe FedEx, UPS and the USPS could coexist quite well. One of the commercial carriers, I forget which (surprise), now uses USPS for terminal delivery.
In many years from a dirt road rural route to town living I've had one misshap. A bill payment sent from our Wisconsin place to Texas vanished without a trace. As far as I know there was never an attempt to cash the check. Of course our longtime bank (the bastards) extracted a $30 plus stop-payment fee.
I don't know if USPS still delivers baby chicks but they do have useful services. Forever Stamps ended the annoyance of piecing together various demoninations to get the correct postage. Priority mail is cheap and useful and if you have an item to ship the offices have all manner of packageing paraphernalia.
It works.
|
