In his usual condescending style in Asia , Pres. Obama called the American people" Lazy" but It is in fact , the representative government in America that is lazy , biased , combative , apathetic and downright incompetent in it's administrative leadership . You Pres. Obama are the greatest disappointment to America in her greatest times and trials . Where you could have been positive , productive and even presidential ,it is actually YOU who fail miserably !
YOU ONCE AS WELL SAID " LET'S MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN " why don't you act it ?
Do you have a link to support what you have said here?
Listen to Imama Obama: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ … %27Lazy%27
Sadly, Obama may have spoke the truth about the state of mind of the below average American who is too lazy to do a Google search to find out what is happening on the other side of the world, but I do not believe that is true for the above average Americans who want to be informed (we are the majority, I hope).
Obama was speaking in Laos, a one-party socialist republic. "It espouses Marxism and is governed by a single party communist politburo dominated by military generals." - Wikiepedia
The only people even more deplorable are those that take blantant ly biased propaganda passing it on as fact, without verifiable sources. That practice has been found here and chastised here more than once.
Hillary Clinton backtracked after calling American voters deplorable. She has no class. What difference does it make...the damage has been done?
Hillary's smearing millions of Americans could very well be her downfall, not cool at all, and totally unpresidential.
Obama stated how deplorable Hillary really is, exposing her. Some times the guy gets it, but some times he doesn't. He got it right in 2008 on this video.
* https://twitter.com/Trump_World/status/ … 99424?s=09
Some of the stuff Obama says, I tell ya'!
Who is Obama’s boss? And why it matters.
by Jon Rappoport - September 6, 2016
* https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016 … t-matters/
I really respect Jon Rappoport, and think that as far as intelligence goes he is right up there. He founded No More Fake News. Anyway, I thought the article might interest you, also.
Oh, com'on, ahorseback...Imama Obama has been a godsend for ISIS.
January 20th 2017 cannot come soon enough if Trump wins the presidential election on November 8th.
God forebide ISIS supporter Hillary Clinton wins.
Giving aid and comfort to the Islamic State as Obama and Clinton have done is called treason in the United States Constitution.
The leader of America would rather divide a mostly united America from his beginning campaign strategy , by race , by ideology , by generation, and then entitle so many of it's citizens until many , many are simply dependent upon government and THEN complain because his followers are too Lazy ?
Now that serves up a perfect lesson in his liberal hypocrisy .
So you think Obama's "lazy." Whatever. But here's what the man ACTUALLY said in the instance you just misquoted (might want to check your souces next time):
WHAT'S TRUE: President Obama said that when environmental destruction occurs, it's usually because we've been "lazy" and not tried hard enough to find creative solutions; in a pitch for greater engagement between the U.S. and Southeast Asia, Obama said sometimes you can feel lazy when you live in a big country and think you don't have to learn about other people.
WHAT'S FALSE: Obama didn't describe Americans as (or accuse Americans of being) "lazy."
Did he then call China lazy ? You know China , the country that can't wait to destroy the entire universe with its massive polluting presence in it's new capitalism and it's economic wars ? Obama loves to use America as the example of his contempt for the free world market yet fails to call China out .
No he calls America lazy . Obama should "man up " ,he'd be a far better leader .
If that is what he said, then he only told the truth. The rotten apple doesn't fall far from the tree. The Founding Fockers and their brethren were too lazy to do the work themselves, and so they had to enslave Indigenous and African people for nearly 400 years to do the work for them. That's pretty damn lazy!
Americans are even too lazy to cook their own food. That is why fast food chains like McDonald's and Burger King have been raking in the dough for years. The American people would rather eat toxic waste than to cook their own meals and carry a lunch box. My advice to Americans: Learn to speak a second language, get rid of that flag, stop living in the past, and find something worthwhile to believe in.
Your hatred of America has always come through plain , clear , your excuses blind , simplified and poorly practiced , your solutions naïve and hate filled . But one thing is for sure and for certain , you wouldn't even understand the real truth of our history if it were something that you actually lived through .
Who isn't a rhetorical slave to this system ? Who hasn't begun at the bottom in America ? Who but you and those of your youthful , naïve , self entitling victimhood seeking brethren can find your own way through your hatred of your homeland ?
You will always be a "victim " if you so chose.
Jesus said in Matthew 6:24:No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon.
According to Jesus, hate is not a four letter word.
You obviously didn't get the message Jesus was preaching.
Now that you have painted yourself into a corner, please share with us your wisdom concerning the message of Jesus, as it was given in Matthew 6:24.
Well I have no idea what mamon is. Any translation I've seen had that word as money. But the question isn't my interpretation it is your claim that Jesus said hate isn't a four letter word.
If we are told what the two greatest commandments are, where does hate factor in when abiding by them? Hate can feel very righteous, but it isn't. It's just hate.
Of course, you danced all around my question. I posted Matthew 6:24, and you originally commented on Matthew 6:24. You commented: "You obviously didn't get the message Jesus was preaching."
I asked a straightforward question, and I will ask it again. If this biblical verse is not instructing us to hate evil, then please give us the proper interpretation.
Evil exists in your mind. Hate that it does.
The problem with picking and choosing scripture in order to use it to hate others is that you can always find a reason to hate. The trick is finding the reason to love. I believe Jesus did that perfectly.
But, to answer your question. The point was that you need to keep things in perspective. Money serves a purpose but God is more important. You should always serve God first. If money is lost in the process it wasn't worth having in the first place. Jesus wasn't telling you to hate anything. He was simply making a point.
And so your answer is that Jesus used the word "hate" but meant something else. What an amazing argument! That reminds me of all the rape victims who said no, but really meant yes. It then follows in Matthew 16:23 that when Jesus turned and said to Peter , "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns," he didn't really mean it. I suppose you will suggest that he really meant to say, "Go ahead and do what you want Peter, but I really don't approve of your attitude."
Your revisionist approach to the Christian Bible is as unbelievable and absurd as the Pollyanna version of American History that has always been popular with the "Founding Fathers" crowd.I am well aware that there are certain verses in the Bible that can be interpreted in various ways, but Matthew 6:24 is not one of them. And we can verify this by comparing the sentiment of this verse with the parable of the rich man, and other verses as well.
The United States government is in the business of war, the theft of land and resources, and the killing of non-combatants as well as so-called "enemy soldiers" and "terrorists". Yet, you have the nerve to say that I am evil, not because I have dispossessed, or killed one single human being, but because I hate evil, and the human suffering that continues to multiply because of it. There is an old movie called the Stepford Wives. I am often reminded of that movie as I read through the commentary here on Hubpages.
I have never called you evil. That one is on you.
As I said. You can cherry pick the Bible. Most do. It's very handy in supporting self righteousness. But, to follow Jesus? That's a different path. Not one that loves hatred.
People like those above today cherry pick the bible , they cherry pick the law , their education , their history , their traditions ,styles and entitlements ! They Cherry pick their causes and judge themselves by face-book , Snapchat and Skype realities .It is opinions and ideologies like W.B'S above that are by definition that of far too much of the entitled part of America today.
This is an entire sub- culture of Pseudo-intellectual elitist's which consists simply of half educated , half witted self invented political opinions belongs in the museum of tomorrow , so that we can illustrate properly the demise the entitlement driven ultra- liberal left.
I will admit that some opinions expressed in these forums do appear to have been formed with cherry picked information by an uneducated and immature mind. All are entitled to express an opinion but when I run across opinions such as those coupled with attempts to haughtiIy insist they are 'well educated' opinions and we are fools or some type of lizard people for not agreeing I do wonder who (other than themselves) they believe they are fooling.
To be honest with you , I wonder how so MANY people can assume that because one is white then one certainly must be racist , because one is conservative or even independent , which I consider myself , then that same person is racist , bigoted and biased . We then HAVE to assume then do we not ? .
Who the real racist's are ?
Who the real bigots are ?
Who the real intellectuals are ?
Because they sure as hell aren't coming to the debate educated , That is one thing I do know !
The fool is not defined by what he or she may or may not agree with. Fools are defined by that which is disagreeable even unto themselves, but what they cling to dearly. America has defined herself, and so those who follow after. My words are strong and full of meaning, but the best that the rest can deliver is only vitriol. Even the attack dogs the squatters have sent to Standing Rock can deliver as much, as the barking of dogs is a universal language.
The wise cling to positivity. They see the best in their situations and not the worst. They see what IS and not what OUGHT to be. They see what is working and know why it is working. They are not victims and they carry on … despite all.
And they help others do the same.
They do not tear down a system which is in place, which they know: a system designed to benefit posterity if we would ...
JUST GIVE IT A CHANCE!
The only way we can give it a chance is to elect out the bad guys by recognizing who and what is bad.
Bad for what? Life.
Only freedom and independence for the individual provides life.
The Constitution provides the boundaries for freedom.
Freedom and Boundaries. Two sides of the same coin.
Another Valiant Attempt Goes Down In Flames as wrenchBiscuit Prevails
Very well said Katherine. But the people of the United States have been voting for 250 years. How many more years do you think it will take to "vote out the bad guys"? Another 250 perhaps?
You commented: "...The wise cling to positivity. They see the best in their situations and not the worst. They see what IS and not what OUGHT to be. They see what is working and know why it is working. They are not victims and they carry on … despite all..."
Here we see the good ol' American double standard. If we apply your philosophy to "your" Founding Fathers, then we can see that they too were "playing the victim". A nation does not decalre war unless they feel they have been victimized, or are about to be victimized. We also see that George Washington could "not" see what is, but only "what ought to be". If I am expected to carry the burden of your criticism, then your heroes necessarily have to carry the same burden, and so your argument falls down.
There is a small problem here. George Washington, for the most part, lived a life reasonably consistent with what he thought of as "right", or "moral". He kept slaves - which was the natural order of things. He was rich - which was the result of his own hard work and again it was right and proper that he be rewarded for his efforts. He led the revolution and country - it was right that he do so as he was of the aristocracy and better equipped to do those things than the common man.
But if we look at some others today, we see that they promotes racism and discrimination even though they know it is "wrong" and "evil". That they rationalizes their way out of it is irrelevant - they still know better. They finds materialism and ownership wrong...as they own a computer, while others go hungry, and uses electricity to play with it, while others are cold. They most likely lives in a home at least 5 times what is needed, while others are homeless, and requires 5 times the maintenance, while others cannot fix a broken window. They likely drive a car wherever he wants to go, while others walk because they cannot afford a bus ticket. They sells their labor and exclaim that capitalism is wrong, while others are forced to beg for alms to feed their children, unable to buy or sell anything. They will require that the sins of long past ancestors be transferred to current people, and require they pay for those sins...as long as they don't have to pay themselves.
Who deserves the criticism, then? The one that lived a life according to his own beliefs or the one that lives a life very different from what they espouse as right and proper? Times and morality change; accept that a good person could do wrong things...as defined by a change in what is considered good and evil long after their life is over.
I have heard the same arrogant remarks before. And what crystal ball has revealed to you how I live my life? Either against or according to my beliefs? As far as you know, I could be Donald Trump, Jesse Jackson, Angelina Jolie, or a sock-puppet for the NSA,CIA, or FBI. There is nothing in the Hubpages terms that prohibits celebrities, or government agents from participating in Forums using psuedonyms. And so that half of your argument has just exploded into a million fragments of vitriolic nonsense.
And the rest of your argument is equally nonsensical. Keeping slaves was not the "natural order of things". Such a comment is very demeaning to the white race. Every white person did not own slaves, and there were many abolitionists from the very beginning who were also white Euro-American. And so, the "he was just a man of his times " B.S. doesn't fly; it doesn't even have wings! But you wouldn't know much about that because instead of studying history, you, and many other Americans, tend to make it up as you go along.
George Washington had just as much of a "victim mentality" as the white racist today claims his adversaries possess. Even more so, since Washington started a bloody war as a remedy for his "victimhood". He was a wealthy land-owner who dealt in human-trafficking. But the greedy miscreant and his evil cabal of wealthy Europeans wanted more, and so, just like today, they gathered up a bunch of poor uneducated whites, many of whom were children, and forced them to go fight the British for "God and Country", and for the further enrichment of a ruling elite. Never mind that after the war, the ones who were still alive, with all four limbs intact, were no better off under the rule of the new tyrants.
Men like Washington and Jefferson were rapists, pedophiles, murderers, and slaveowners. They both encouraged the outright extermination of Indigenous people. Yet you continue to honor and make excuses for them. And it is humorous as well as very sad, that you do not understand that these men were more evil, and more repulsive than Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy, who also happened to be white men.
They were wealthy men from wealthy families, except for Hamilton who absolutely abhorred slavery. The rest actually did not like the realities of the institution much either and sought to be fair with the men, women and families. There were laws regarding freeing slaves and at the end of his life, Washington freed as many as he was legally allowed to free. You are right they could have resisted the current trend to rely on slaves, but they had been indoctrinated with certain standards of success.
As far as the rest of their sins, I am stumped by the primal instinct is some men, especially them, so yeah, no excuse. Still they came up with a valid way to run a nation.
If only we could reign it in. This govt. was an experiment. Who is to say that Anarchy will be any better judging from human nature.
PS that is a rude photo submission. Why did you?
Thanks for nothing.
I think killing people and then celebrating the slaughter with holidays like Columbus Day is very "rude". I think running an oil pipeline beneath the Missouri River and sacred lands is also very rude.What is so rude about a woman wrapped in an American flag holding a hamburger? Isn't that what people do with hamburgers? Eat them? What do you see in the picture that I apparently missed?
Who's idea was it to bail out? Why was that even done? I'll tell you. The one who believes in bailing out: George Soros.
http://spectator.org/37242_fatal-flaws- … economics/
If you are a celebrity then what I said goes double.
Yes, slavery certainly WAS the "natural order of things". All you had to do was ask any owner, or a great chunk of the rest of the population. That there were a handful of abolitionists as well doesn't change that, however much you would like to make it so.
Yes, GW did all that, albeit without the loaded words and insinuations. They did what ALL the "highborn" of the time did, what had been done long before and, to a lesser extent, what is done today.
"“Indians were part of Washington’s life from the time he was 16 years old until he retired from the presidency,” said Mary Thompson, a research historian at Mount Vernon. “He was the first president to worry about boundaries, about white people encroaching on Indian land, about the treaty-making process.”
"Near the beginning of his first term, Washington declared that one of his highest priorities was an Indian policy “directed entirely by the great principles of justice and humanity.” The first federal Indian policy was enunciated in June 1789, two months after Washington took office."
"Yet he also worked tirelessly with Secretary of War Henry Knox to create sovereign “homelands” for Indians, believing that Indians were “prior occupants” and should be considered as foreign nations rather than subjects of the state.
"In July 1790, Congress passed the first Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, which “articulated a sharp divide between settlers’ lands and Indian country, and restricted access to Indian country only to federal agents and licensed Indian traders,” states the 2004 “Encyclopedia of United States Indian Policy and Law.”
"Washington’s Indian policies were pragmatic, supporting limited contact between Indians and settlers. But the President also pushed to change Indian behavior, believing that the federal government could not hold back the avalanche of white settlers."
"In 1796, Washington concluded that settlers, not the government, controlled the national agenda regarding Indians. “I believe scarcely anything short of a Chinese wall or a line of troops will restrain land jobbers and the encroachment of settlers upon the Indian territory,” he wrote.
Washington knew the government didn’t have a strong enough army to keep the settlers out, Thompson said. Instead, he initiated treaties with individual tribes and sought audiences with others, recommending they “settle down and live like white people.” This “civilization policy” became an essential part of Indian policy into the 19th and 20th centuries."
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c … icy-162914
I'm sorry, but this does NOT sound like a genocidal maniac, out to kill all Indians. Instead it was a leader of the country, trying to do the best he could under severely limiting circumstances. Your portrayal is about as far from reality as it is possible to get. Dollars to doughnut holes you can't support Washington being a pedophile, either.
Once again, I have been forced to give another lesson in English, and the proper definitions of words.
Natural Law : "Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and can be universally understood through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, as it is determined by nature, is universal."
Natural Order: "In philosophy, the natural order is the moral source from which natural law seeks to derive its authority. It encompasses the natural relations of beings to one another, in the absence of law, which natural law attempts to reinforce".
What this all means is that the "natural order" is essentially the same as "The Golden Rule". The moral source from which the natural law derives it's authority is within each and every man, woman, and child. Unless they are afflicted with masochistic tendencies, no human being wants to be enslaved, and every human being desires the freedom to live their life as they so choose. And this understanding provides us with empirical evidence that slavery goes against the natural order. It is grammatically incorrect to suggest that sheer numbers alone are an indication of the "natural order". Even the tens of thousands of white Americans who traveled great distances during Jim Crow to enjoy the spectacle of Black people being tortured, burned to death, and lynched, were not demonstrating the natural order. Not one of those white people would have wanted to suffer the same fate. Why? Because torture and murder, just like slavery, goes against the natural order. I suggest that many of you should study these words just a little before attempting to use them in a debate, as such misuse places you in a very awkward position.
Moving along: In another recent Forum, when I made the comment that a majority of Americans had always been either indifferent to the plight of the African slaves or racist, I believe you were one of those who labeled me a racist (which is impossible considering I am a minority) for making such a comment. Now I see you are agreeing with me! In spite of your misuse of the term "natural order", you did admit the truth when you suggested that a majority of white Americans accepted slavery. I understand that many of you will often do a quick search in order to find a "smoking gun" to prop up your false narratives. But you apparently haven't been paying attention. I have been seriously studying American History since before the age of puberty, and I know a lot of this by heart:
George Washington was not only a criminal, but he was also a politician. And of course, the two have always worked well together. He said what needed to be said when it was convenient to do so. By the year 1790 George had already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Indigenous men,women, and children. Whatever concessions he made to native people, he most certainly had something to gain. And yes, George ultimately freed his slaves. But that was only after he had robbed many of them of the best years of their lives. Whatever provisions he made for his slaves was too little too late. I have included here some other facts about George you selectively omitted.
"In North America, during the war against the French, the Iroquois tribes (Haudenosuanee) sided with England and were rewarded with a status that allowed them to have land and commercial rights as well as protection against the expansion of colonists. When the war of independence broke out, the settled Iroquois tribes of the State of New York supported the English soldiers and participated in the actions against the rebel colonists.
On June 4, 1779, the General of the Revolutionary Army, George Washington, violated the treaty and ordered the invasion of the territory of the Iroquois confederation. He insisted in killing as many Indians as possible without taking into account age or sex. The survivors were to be given as agricultural slaves to the colonists who deserved them “Destroying not only the men but the settlements and the plantations is very important. All sown fields must be destroyed and new plantations and harvests must be prevented. What lead can not do will be done by hunger and winter.” From June to December, 40 Indian settlements were massacred and thousands of their plantations were devastated."
Here we see that the African slaves were not enough for Washington and the evil colonizers, as he also made slaves of the Indigenous. These people had to be some of the laziest people who had ever walked the face of the Earth. I can't imagine what would have happened if the lazy American slaveowners would have had to do their own work, or actually pay someone to do it.
Definition of natural order
: the orderly system comprising the physical universe and functioning according to natural as distinguished from human or supernatural laws
Unfortunately for your rant, it was not a philosophical concept I referred to: it was the laws of nature. While we both disagree today, hundreds of years ago it was "known" that the Negro was a subhuman class of of the species, and neither deserved nor received the rights that true humans did. They were a funny looking animal but little more.
But I would go on to say that even philosophically, they had "right" on their side as the golden rule was no more practiced than it is today. While most of us pay lip service to that most important of morality laws, very few actually try to follow it when the results fall outside of desires. One has only to look at the racists rants present on HP to see this: that handful that practice the disgusting habit would surely not like to see their own race at the butt end of those rants, but are more than happy to blame another race for all of the country's ills and evils.
But Washington's evils - what happened to the pedophile claim? Disappear into thin air, did it? And what thousands did Washing illegally kill (that IS the definition of murder, you know)?
That's nice that the Iroquois were awarded land grants...by someone other than the country that "violated" those grants. But that's irrelevant, isn't it? Or can I give your home to a third party and you'll consider it right and proper?
It doesn't matter what you were referring to. Man and nature are inseparable. And the fact that anyone who reads this would fight to preserve their own freedom is empirical evidence that the natural order is against human bondage. Your spin doesn't change a thing. And the dead, rotting corpses, at Gettysburg, Shiloh, and Antietam are further evidence that slavery went against the natural order. But I would not expect a racist, or a Nazi, to agree with me.
And your commentary is quite revealing. Here you are making excuses for pedophiles and sexual deviates. I'm sorry, but I must inform you that civilized men do not have such "desires". We do not need a man-made law to prevent us from raping a woman or a child, or enslaving someone for an entire lifetime. The law is written in our hearts, but most importantly, we never have such desires in the first place. We don't pay lip service to anything, nor do we "try to follow" the Golden Rule. A man who must "try to follow" something is working against his own true nature, and thus you have revealed even more about yourself.
I was born an artist. I don't try to follow a muse, as I am bound by it, and it is a natural part of my life. In the same respect, I do not try to follow the natural laws, as this is my natural state. I have no desire to harm or mistreat anyone. The evil squatters had no "right" to commit any of their crimes against humanity. It doesn't matter how many walk down a crooked path, the path still remains crooked. And these are my words, and this is a great teaching.
Concerning Washington: Yes, he was a murderer, a rapist, and a pedophile, just like Thomas Jefferson. I have already given you specifics. If you want more then look it up yourself. It appears that you do not understand that a man who is willing to cut off your left arm would be just as willing to cut off your right. When a free man , women, or child is the victim of a sexual assault, there is a good chance that they can recover, and continue living a happy and productive life. But to steal an individuals freedom, and then commit them to a lifetime of bondage, with no legal rights whatsoever, is the most extreme act of evil. It is an evil that has no end, except for the grave. Consequently, aside from the historical evidence that supports my claims, common sense should tell us that a slaveowner, a man who is willing to commit the most egregious crime against another human being, unto perpetuity, would not hesitate to indulge himself in the lesser of two evils.
NOTHING takes away from the fact that The Constitution, which establishes our democratic republic, is a good thing to have and maintain in this world, on this planet. Unless some people within its system misuse and abuse it to hurt the world. The abuse is what must stop. Who or what is behind the abuse? Soros, the globalists and their E X T R E M E Profit Motive, I would say.
(EPM for short.)
England saw what THEY thought ought to be and America resisted by insisting on the way it was for them: an independent entity that did not benefit in the least from British rule. It was hard for many to cut ties with the mother land and give up loyalty to the crown, but they knew they needed to embrace ACTUAL reality: Their independence from Britain. It was the only way to make it work. This Constitution was created to guarantee our natural rights. Its IS the way it is. It OUGHT to be no other way.
But the government you love continues to steal your money Katherine. Everybody wants to dump on poor old "Biscuit, but I don't have my hand down in anybody's pocket. Not even once, and certainly not on a regular basis. As an example I posted a link to a video earlier. The 2009 video clearly shows Bernie Sanders questioning the Fed about 2.2 trillion dollars of American taxpayer money that is unaccounted for. In the video the Fed refuses to disclose to a U.S. Senator in a congressional hearing who they gave the taxpayer money to.
Not surprisingly, no one commented on the video, and I suspect no one watched. Here is the link again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWXrMCGJT4
I can't bear to watch him. Not because I am lazy. The fact remains: In this country the people are to say what takes place. We have lost touch with the reality of OUR POWER. Why/How have we lost touch? Education is dismal and nefarious forces are running amok. These forces have more to do with the sins of excessiveness and blind commercialism resulting from IGNORANCE and unchecked HUMAN NATURE.
Pure and simple.
I will watch him if you insist.
One of the things I regret (not terribly and not overly often. Just at moments such as these) is the absence of a really good yawning emoticon. Don't you wonder why Hub Pages didn't provide one in the formatting section? I mean, they give us a good laughing face but sometimes even that doesn't do justice to one's reaction to other people's posts.
To use the word of God without the blessing of knowing the word, I mean really knowing their meaning , is the truest form of hypocrisy known to humankind. You spew such hatred that your understanding of either hate or God is non-existent , But we would expect nothing else from hypocrisy than just that do , would we Wrench ?
Here, we see you have created a Forum Topic bemoaning the "alleged" fact that Obama made the remark that Americans are lazy. Speaking of hypocrisy! You are the one who has been most vocal about why people like me should "get over the past", and stop being offended by holidays such as Columbus Day,U.S. currency that bears the likeness of slaveowners and murderers, and grotesque statues that honor the same, as well as patriotic songs that honor evil.
And the litany of evil I have just described is what the educated mind sees everyday here in America. And this moves across the color line. Any educated person with a conscience could not possibly be comfortable with the incessant glorification of rapists and murderers, especially in a nation that continues it's legacy of Imperialist aggression throughout the world. But we are supposed to be kind and forgiving, and just forget, not only about the past, but also about the evil of racism and perpetual war that continues unto this very day.
And so, have a taste of your own medicine! I suggest any American who is offended by what Obama "allegedly" said should grow up and get over it. If the American sensibilities are so frail that they can't even stand up to a little verbal abuse. How on Earth could they stand to live in a country where everywhere they turned, they would see images and glorification of men who became famous for killing white people, raping white women, enslaving the white European, and forcing them onto reservations. Based on how angry many of you get when a Black man dares to call you lazy, or someone else above your station dares to call a spade a spade, and condemn the evil European Colonizers, and the evil progeny that have followed in their footsteps, it is safe to say that many white Americans could not have endured over 500 years of oppression as well as the African and the Indigenous have endured.
My advice to patriotic Americans: Grow up, find better role models, get a little color in your life, and stop encouraging your daughters to date white men who commonly use terms such a "Founding Fathers", or "Let's Make America Great Again". It is impossible to make something "Great Again" when it was never great in the first place.
Haven't you noticed? It's fun to be the victim. You get to spew hate filled epithets all day long and chastise those who actually do something for not agreeing with you.
Newsflash. I'm sure you consider being a musician work. I call it lazy. I work 10 hours a day seven days a week. Most people I know work over 40 hours. I feed many of them in our restaurant. They aren't too lazy to cook. They are too busy.
Trashing others without the benefit of fact simply shows what little one knows about the group they are trashing.
To be any artist to the point where you able to support yourself takes work. Often, many times with more creativity and resourcefulness than found in a typical 40 hour workweek job. They are self employed and to survive they have to work harder than anyone else.
BS. I'd need proof that any artist works harder than I do. Being a successful artist is usually more about selling out than working.
Per our previous discussions, it has been established that NOBODY works harder than you do. Even if I had an example with which to prove, I doubt that you would accept it as such. You would only see hard work as valid within your OWN standard as to what that would be. But actual definition as to what hard work is is much broader.
My sister was musician of alternative music for many years, she had to finely hone her craft or she did not make any money. Creating new songs, feeling out audiences, arranging venues, working with sponsors, etc. I think that that is work, you can never live on your laurels and do not have certain assurances provided within the structure a regular job.
Thank You! Musicians get paid less today than they did 30 years ago. And of course, there are no benefits. The average 3 piece band could easily make $500.00 for a Saturday Night gig during the Disco Era. Today, they are lucky to get paid half that amount. But even $500.00 split 3 ways, 2-3 nights a week isn't going to get you on the cover of Forbes. Being a musician, or an artist, is in many ways like being Gay. It is not a lifestyle choice, as many mistakenly believe. We are are born to be what we are, and for an artist, money is not the measure of success. Yes, I could have become a doctor, or a lawyer, or enjoyed the benefits of any number of lucrative professions. And then I would have had lots of money, but because of who I am, that would have made me a coward, and a total failure, because that was not my path to follow.
As I believe I have commented in the other thread, my father , like many men of color, served with honor during World War II, only to come back to his homeland, suffer racial epithets, and have to fight white racist Americans for the right to live on the farm he and my mother had purchased with their own money! This did not happen in 1492, but in my lifetime. And for me, there can be no forgetting, and no forgiveness for such a crime against humanity, and the people I loved.
It really doesn't matter to me what Obama says about Americans. Because there is nothing he could say that could exceed what I already feel, and know to be true. In my opinion, Obama hasn't said enough.
Wow. All that talk of money. It appears we know what you worship. Most people are just like artists. They do what they feel drawn to do. Not everyone has an inner muse. It does not mean they work less than someone who does.
You are welcome.
You know WB, on the subject of just how hard it to stand out in your business, you explain to people that there is a vast gulf between people who only play piano on Christmas for the family and someone like Elton John or Mick Jagger. There is the vast gulf inbetween, with the majority of it skewing toward the former over the latter. Sis had cut three albums, and she always complained about how big a take producers and promoters wanted from the proceeds of your talent, especially if you are new. You don't have a lot of leverage. There have been plenty of big name musicians that have beenexploited to the point where they were busted flat, after everbody took their 'cut'.
My Pop was too young for WWII, but served during Korea, during the period just after the armed forces were officially integrated. I have not been oblivious to the 'welcome home' stories by many Black GIs, that risked life in limb just appearing in Southern towns in military uniform at war's end. Consistent with scripture, I am compelled to forgive, but I am a fool to allow myself to forget and let others co-op and equivocate what in fact happened and how we all find ourselves where we are, as if it never occurred.
Talk about turning things around in your head and getting them screwed up right into the belief you want to hold. No one on these forums, whose comments I have read, has suggested anything of the sort. Sounds to me as if you aren't as willing to forgive as you claim. You weren't hurt by this. Your father was. You have no right to think you are in a position to offer forgiveness.
If you seriously considered my comments in past forums, you would have easily picked up on my point of view.
I never said anything about my father being hurt, it was the experience of WB. Things were simply not as bad for Black vets in 1953 as compared with 1946.
To think that I was not subjected to race prejudice during my life and career is naive. That was enough to PO me right there. But I won and they lost.... Diane spoke to you of much of that, were you listening? A lot of it was subtle, did you pick it up? We all have reasons to forgive rather than hold grudges.
To simply deny and ignore America's sordid record in regard to racial matters, would that constitute true forgiveness by me from your perspective?
You know what? Everyone gets discriminated against. So you can identify the reason? Good for you. I've been discriminated against many times. Sometimes I think it was because I'm a woman. Sometimes I think it might be because I am a woman who isn't interested in using my 'wiles'. Sometimes, I think maybe because I wasn't considered 'pretty' by the person interviewing me. Sometimes...well maybe I was just looking for a reason for my disappointment and I assumed I was discriminated against.
Blacks get discriminated against. Latinos get discriminated against. Women get discriminated against. Gays and Lesbians get discriminated against (and maybe lumping the two groups together in that sentence is a form of discrimination. I don't know.) There is age discrimination and there is discrimination against people perceived to be of poor health and there is discrimination against the handicapped. The list goes on and on and on.
What was the point of the last paragraph? To say that everyone, everywhere, at any time, could be the victim of discrimination or could perceive themselves to be. I realize that won't sit well with some such as yourself and Wrenchbiscuit because then you wouldn't be able to claim to be special in your poor, poor little world that is against you, unfairly, unrighteously. It makes being self righteous look a little silly.
I understand your point, but you missed it when I told you that Japanese internment was more race based than hysteria, you said that I was crazy. I presented evidence to show that racial friction between whites and Asians have been ongoing long before Pearl Harbor. My point was to demonstrate that racism and discrimination was systemic and structural, not just incidental. You say that all of the outrageous things happened in the past, when you read up on it, who else went through it? Whatever forces that allowed people to be so savage toward people of color not so terribly long ago, needs to remain in the past. With all the current controversies, I always wonder if it will.
And, yes, things are better than they were....
It is up to all good people to ensure that it does remain in the past.
There are always those who would use any reason they can to force some of us down in order to raise themselves up. A victim is a victim.
FDR , the great DEMOCRATIC president responsible for WWII Japanese internments .
America needs to realize who the real racists are !
Yeah, FDR gave in to the racist hysteria of so many people during time. But. FDR was progressive compared to all that came before him, speaks volumes doesn't it?
But what do we learn when Trump does not acknowledge that as a national error and would easily slight the Constitution to do the same thing with Muslims in 2016?
Yes , and as Trump says , "We should and we will adhere to present immigration laws instead of totally ignoring them like the Obama administration has done from the beginning !"..........and you know they have . Hillary will do worse with her trying to build up the ranks of the democratic voter base . Immigration control is not a crime ----------it's actually the law NOW and has been for years !
For those of you uninformed .
Horse, the voter base of the Democrats is already built and building up and immigration is not the cause. It is going to be a long shot for Trump either way.
The problem is emigration, all the old red necks are heading off to the cemeteries at record rates.
"And for me, there can be no forgetting, and no forgiveness for such a crime against humanity, and the people I loved."
A not unreasonable attitude, and quite common although it is far healthier to forgive rather than live a life of hate.
But if one is going to live that life of hate and anger, should you not at least be demonizing those people that used the epithets at your father, the racists that he fought against? Or are they all dead so the burden is shifted (at least in your mind) to anyone with a white skin? That's what hate does, you know - grow and grow until it it is overwhelming and without any reason behind it.
Would your rants and actions both be far more effective against overt racism today - to take up the fight against the evil white men that discriminate against you or the people you identify with? After all, dredging up long lost culture norms that are unacceptable today don't do much towards stopping such things - court action does.
I see you know nothing about the difficult life of a professional musician. But for the sake of argument,it has often been said that a man should learn to work smarter, not harder. However, that requires the man to be smart in the first place, which naturally precludes many Americans from following the path of least resistance. Furthermore, it is quite remarkable that you work such long hours, yet still have enough time to contribute to the conversation here on Hubpages. Quite remarkable indeed!
I own my own business. We aren't busy 24-7.
I would also like to point out that a 'professional' artist is simply an individual hoping to make money doing what they enjoy doing. So, it's more like a hobby, really. Almost being retired. If I tallied the amount of hours I put in at the businesses and the amount of time I spend being creative then, damn, I work 16 hours a day 7 days a week.
I didn't realize how industrious I was until I realized I could count the 'art' time as real work.
My advice for those who don't like it: M O V E O U T!
The Return of the Antibody
After all of my commentary, you should have figured out by now that I "Moved Out" long ago. There are some things in life that are more "real" than others. For instance, we can all be certain that without food and water a man will surely die. There can simply be no argument made to the contrary. And so, we can say with as much certainty as humanly possible, that the human need for food and water is "real". However, nationalism and borders are imaginary constructs that only exist in the mind of the believer. Outside of the human mind there is no such thing as America, or Europa. There is only the Earth, and the natural borders in the Earth; the mountains, the rivers, tributaries, and the oceans. That is all. I left the imaginary world of America when I freed my mind from mental slavery many year ago. We are here to reclaim the Earth; to reclaim our right to live as free men in the real world. And the real world has always been a free world.
Based on Sumerian Cuneiform script,scientists have estimated that recorded human history dates back only 5,000 years. Keeping this in mind, the Earth has been estimated to be 4.54 "billion" years old! It is simply not reasonable to suggest that the fact that tyrants have subjugated one nation after another during this span of only 5,000 years is indicative of an inescapable aspect of human nature, as many would have us believe. In truth, it is only indicative of the last 5,000 years; a very short span of time. I am confident that there was a time when this evil did not exist, and I am also confident that it will not last much longer. Antibodies exist in the human blood stream to fight infection and disease. And what happens inside the human body is simply a microcosm of the greater universe. I am right where I am supposed to be.
Yes, there was a time it did not exist. Before man arrived.
Although, come to think of it, most animals are quite territorial as well and more than willing to protect their "nation" from interlopers. Walk up to a goose's nest if you don't believe me.
Ya ! What we need in America is equal rights , equal pay for musicians , abstract artists , rap artists , side walk artists , mural painters , after all . No one , especially the rich , know what it's like to have to try to sell your talents for a buck or two in tips !
What we really need is wealth re-distribution for the liberal artist ! We need a minimum pay of say
$ 45.00 per hour for a musician , thirty for a graffiti artist , twenty five for a sidewalk chalk painter .Maybe some free health care and a food allowance .
Or , we could just pick a real line of work , you know , one that would actually contribute to something !
He doesn't mind the location, just the way its run. He wants Anarchy, (whatever that actually is, he can't say,) not the Democratic Republic stuff going on now. He thinks it was set up by evil white money grubbers with zero regard for the blacks and the oai people who they mistreated and stole the land from. I wouldn't mind all this "reality" pinpointing, if he would just tell us the antidote (for evil).
… and don't say, "love."
This comment you have made is very important, as it goes to the very heart of what this Forum topic is all about. And your comment, based on your history in these Forums, only further verifies Obama's assertion. Bravo! Now it appears we are working together at last.
You commented: "...He wants Anarchy, (whatever that actually is, he can't say,) ..."
Au contraire! I have explained at length in more than one thread here on Hubpages the true meaning of Anarchy. I have also explained that tyrants and their mindless subjects have perverted the term to suggest that Anarchy is synonymous with chaos, which it is not. Anarchy, from the original Greek, simply means without government, and just like democracies and socialist states, there is more than one flavor. I have also previously provided links to videos that explain Anarchy, as well as an audio book I have published on the subject. Yet, in spite of all the information I have freely offered, you have been unable to simply click on a link and educate yourself. On top of that you continue to make false statements about me. Did Obama really say Americans were lazy? Based on how many here have purposely distorted, and taken my commentary out of context, I am skeptical of the OP's claim. But even if Obama did say it, much of the commentary here adds validity to such a claim.
The problem with Anarchy is there is no example that I know of where any society functioned effectively in anarchy. Could you share one? Without that, it is just as dangerous a concept as communism was when it was first put into place in a society.
I can see anarchy working within a community on a limited basis for a limited time but sooner or later some semblance of a governing body is going to form. Out of curiosity, how would a society in anarchy maintain infrastructure? Who determines who is responsible for what? Who determines what percentage of responsibility each should be held accountable for? And who would enforce it?
The stupidity of those believing Anarchy can work , is MOST evident in the middle astern countries of TODAY where people are ruled by tenth century tribalism ! Where heads are removed as punishments for certain crimes , where women are half buried in the ground and stoned to death . Now someone please educate us on how NO government can be a solution to our problems and not a recipe for the total annihilation of the human race .
This should be interesting !
The general lack of understanding concerning Anarchist society stems from the fact that many falsely equate government with civilization. There would still be a rule of Law in an Anarchist society. But the fundamental difference would be that, except for crimes involving, theft, murder, robbery, or anything else that affected the well being of the community, there would be no laws that would threaten punitive action against the free citizen who chose not to follow the majority. For instance, punitive laws such as "seat belt" laws would be non-existent. And any taxes paid would be voluntary. Thus, we would witness communities based on trust as opposed to suspicion and distrust. Another example: at a fast food drive up window, the food wood be given to the customer before any exchange of money. Such seemingly innocent actions,such as demanding payment in advance, along with the extensive use of surveillance cameras, are insidious actions that only serve to fracture the community.
But the most recent example of the evils of a so-called Democratic Republic, where the money actually decides policy, as opposed to the will of the people, is the tragedy in Flint Michigan. Such a tragedy could not have occured in a free Anarchist society. According to Micheal Moore: http://michaelmoore.com/10FactsOnFlint/
"News of the poisoned water crisis in Flint has reached a wide audience around the world. The basics are now known: the Republican governor, Rick Snyder, nullified the free elections in Flint, deposed the mayor and city council, then appointed his own man to run the city. To save money, they decided to unhook the people of Flint from their fresh water drinking source, Lake Huron, and instead, make the public drink from the toxic Flint River. When the governor’s office discovered just how toxic the water was, they decided to keep quiet about it and covered up the extent of the damage being done to Flint’s residents, most notably the lead affecting the children, causing irreversible and permanent brain damage. Citizen activists uncovered these actions, and the governor now faces growing cries to resign or be arrested."
Your challenge, that I provide proof of a successful Anarchist society, is like asking a 19th century woman how many professional business women, women scientists,doctors, and lawyers she knows of during an argument over womens rights. With the point being that women have never proven themselves of being useful for anything other than prostitution, housekeeping, and making babies. Of course such a question would be unfair considering the majority of women at that time had only been allowed to work at menial professions. Your question is equally unfair since the current oppressive system, which followed the previous oppressive world systems, has control of the entire world. And if you haven't noticed, the United States continues to be actively engaged in their Imperialistic pursuit of world domination. Only in the absence of such an oppressive and totalitarian world system would an Anarchist society be able to spread throughout the Earth and become the norm. How could this be done? First we need to understand how it "cannot" be done. It is not possible to violently overthrow such a powerful and evil force. Such an attempt could only have four possible outcomes, and all being undesirable.
If a violent overthrow of this evil system were to be undertaken by anything less than an equally powerful force or nation, then two of the possible outcomes would be :
2. a perpetual terrorist action that would only result in more needless death and suffering, and a tightening of the noose by the oppressive authority, as we have seen played out during the last 20 years.
If a violent overthrow were to be attempted by an equally powerful force or nation, here are the third and fourth possible outcomes:
3. the replacing of an old tyrannical regime with a new tyrannical regime
4. the total destruction of world civilization, and the possible annihilation of the entire human race.
None of these possible outcomes is desirable. But we must still move away from tyranny and toward a more just, peaceful, and harmonious Anarchist society. How? In order to walk one needs only to put one foot in front of the other. The first step is education; an education that would serve to de-program and de-colonize. Without the proper education, nothing else can follow. But a lazy man will not seek an education beyond what is needed for him to satisfy his basic need for food and shelter, and his carnal desires. Consequently, I suspect a total destruction of mankind is imminent, as we are currently headed toward the fourth possible outcome, as I have indicated above. The only question is the day and the hour.
You didn't really answer my question. The first one, but we all know there are no examples of a functioning anarchistic society. I still don't see how we could get people to 'voluntarily' contribute to things such as roads, the building of schools, maintenance and upkeep of either, etc. etc. .etc. It all sounds utopian but the devil is in the details. This is the primary reason that I think one wouldn't work.
A small example. We live on a private drive that has two other houses below us and one across our pond. When one of them was sold they demanded we sign a road maintenance agreement. We found that odd since my husband is the only one who has ever done any maintenance on the road, the only one who ensures everyone can drive out after snow storms, we are the only ones who had paid for gravel etc. When the time came to do some work on the road we tested out the agreement by texting all parties that a few loads of gravel were needed. What happened? Nothing. We proceeded as we always have because no one was willing to contribute. That's how your ideal would work out. Some would foot the bill or all would do without.
I'm not certain what your beef is with paying for a meal at a drive up window before the food is sent out. You would pay for it anyway. Right? You wouldn't simply drive off. Right? So whether before or after, you would pay. That's like complaining that you have to run the water before you can take a bath.
I don't see how a surveillance camera can be accused of fracturing the community. You aren't doing anything you don't want to be seen, are you?
But, I do agree that many laws, such as seat belt laws, are over the top. I see them more as grasping for more revenue no matter what justification they give.
No, it's not like "complaining you have to run the bathwater before you take a bath". That analogy would serve you better somewhere else. Running the bathwater is a private affair. What I am talking about is social interaction on a daily basis. It is a matter of respect. It is disrespectful to conduct business in such a way that the customer is assumed guilty until proven innocent. And someone doesn't have to be doing something wrong to be offended by constant surveillance, as this implies that every customer is a potential thief, and that every citizen walking down the sidewalk is a potential criminal. You obviously don't seem to mind Big Brother, but many of us do.
A society where the majority rules is not a free society. A society where a ruling elite rule over the majority is even less. Freedom is more important than comfort or convenience. When a government puts the gun to a man's head and demands that he pay tribute, or else face punitive action, then that man is not living in a free country.
The hypothetical presented here that some would willingly pay for public services in a system of Anarchy, while others would not, is a fiction that has been promoted by tyrants seeking to perpetuate the status quo and remain in power. Even in this Grand Oligarchy that continues to masquerade as a Democratic Republic, there are citizens who do not participate and pay their share of taxes. And this is old news. Many of these are the very rich who use tax loop holes. Others who do not pay are the very poor. This link illustrates how legal tax evasion has been elevated to an art form. http://www.topaccountingdegrees.org/taxes/
We can expect that there would be more, not less people willing to contribute to the public infrastructure in a free system of Anarchy. This is because it has been shown that people take more interest, and have a greater sense of responsibility when they feel a sense of openness, inclusiveness, and solidarity in their communities, as opposed to the current situation where government has placed the citizen in an adversarial position. A man who is forced to pay tribute in the form of taxes, will at best only pay 100% of what has been demanded. But a man living in a free Anarchistic Society is likely to give 150%, or more, when given the freedom to choose. Anyone who has ever worked for a living understands that a man will always work harder, and take more pride in his work, when the man standing over him carries a smile instead of a whip.
But aside from the rich using tax loopholes, millions of taxpayer dollars are literally stolen from taxpayers every year through the Federal Reserve and other corrupt government agencies. These bottom feeders would not be able to function in a system of Anarchy, as every man would be accountable. Money would no longer be the measure, and justice would not be determined by a small penis and a very large bank account.
In this 2009 video, Bernie Sanders asks the Fed who they gave "2.2 trillion of dollars" in taxpayer money to. Ben Bernanke refused to answer the question. In other words, the Fed is above the law and not accountable to the American taxpayer. This is what government does. Here a U.S. Senator exposes the evil, but 7 years later nothing has changed, and it's business as usual. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWXrMCGJT4
Hillary Clinton backtracked after calling American voters deplorable.
Yet , when someone like Hillary speaks THIER version of a truth , WITH ALL OF HER SPEAKING HISTORY . There is no backing away from such a statement , maybe it's the Parkinson's , maybe it was a Freudian Slip , much like many of her lies and tales , she can't deny that she fully meant what she said !
… perhaps you are ahead of your time, wB. I for one hope the system we have in place will be recognized for what it is. Good. I believe the only thing that could ruin this nation is the majority not appreciating/violating The Constitution. This system has benefitted many souls here in America and the majority of citizens are living like queens and kings compared to most of rest of the world. Eventually, more and more people will realize they must live more simply in order to follow the laws of nature. Perhaps the Indigenous who are still here can assist us in this quest.
Right now, the system is being abused. The politicians have become corrupt. The citizens have become expecting and coddled and welfare has perhaps contributed to this. The youth are pretty much being left to the state to raise, and pets are sneaking out to join those who rebel against cold hearted humans, out of sheer boredom. Yep, human and animal nature have put us in the situation we find ourselves in. Perhaps anarchy will be a better way as we advance in consciousness. But, at present time, it is my belief that this system is a good one if we just work with its basic tenets ... without over doing it, of course such as overburdensome taxation, arbitrary government regulations, punitive fines, and revenue collecting traffic violations, etc. We have freedom within boundaries based on the law and the need to maintain appropriate infrastructures.
Q. Isn't it is possible that anarchy in the future will have the exact same problems we have today, based on ever fallible human nature?
"… the real world has always been a free world."
~ what is a "free world?" A world where everyone lives according to The Golden Rule.
R E A L L Y ? ? ?
by Susan Reid4 years ago
I read this in my local paper yesterday. What do you think?Is "exceptionalism" a good word or a bad word?Does it describe what America was? What America is today?By Kathleen ParkerSunday, January 30, 2011 He...
by tobey1006 years ago
Glad you asked but, the loss of confidence and associated distrust is not only in Obama but in many of our national and cultural entities such as the media, colleges and universities, and numerous, if not all,...
by Thomas Byers4 years ago
Rev. Jackson pointed out that their is no debate in the Presidential Debates about the Poor, the Homeless, and the Hungry. Are both of our Presidential Candidates ducking the important issues? What do you think?He also...
by zzron5 years ago
Maybe the word hate is a little strong. So why do people dislike President Obama and the way he is running the country? Are you an Obama fan? Yes, no, what is your opinion of Obama and his policies?
by Dr Billy Kidd5 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on...
by Sophia Angelique4 years ago
Here are some quotes from the article below:"“America is in danger, I think, of becoming something of a legal backwater,” Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia said in a 2001 interview. He said...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.