Colorado Congressman (R) Rep. Doug Lamborn Calls Obama "Tar Baby!" The words has officially hit the fan! Post your comments.
Congressman calls Obama a "tar baby"
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the heat of the political debate over the debt ceiling last week, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) may have crossed the line when he said that being associated with President Obama would be similar to touching a “tar baby”...
Not surprised at all to hear one of the western cons has shown his "true colors."
Racist comments by a political figure in public is not 'politically incorrect'. Its vulgar. Not surprisingly he's a Teabagger.
Hope you are having fun with all that's going on here.
Just reading your post, it says to me that the Congressman said associating with Obama would be like touching a tar baby. Apparently you haven't read the story by Uncle Remus. It has nothing to do with being black. It is about touching something you shouldn't and getting caught up in it. The more you struggle, the more you are caught. The fact that tar is black is not relevant to the story or the moral of the story.
You can find whatever you want in any comment. But at least try to be honest about it. It wasn't a racist comment.
Ok, Uncle Remus has now become political!
It makes sense, and not in a racist way. What was the Tar Baby? It was a baby made of tar. When he was hit, the hitter stuck to the baby. Every time he was hit, he drew the Brer Rabbit closer in. He drew him in by being so sticky in his refusal to budge.
Because the Tar Baby was not talking (Mr. Obama does not tell anyone what his wants on Budget, or Health Care Reform are) people keep getting more frustrated, thus hitting him again, each time the hitter is being drawn in, closer and closer, and the mess that he is in, because of the inaction of the Tar Baby, gets deeper and deeper.
I hope no one is trying to make this about race, it is not. It's about inaction by a creature (Tar Baby/Mr. Obama) that is causing frustration in others, yet the inaction continues.
"Term Although the term's provenance arose in African folklore (e.g., the gum doll Anansi created to trap Mmoatia, the dwarf), some Americans now consider "tar baby" to have negative connotations revolving around negative images of African-Americans. 
The Oxford English Dictionary (but not the print version of its American counterpart) lists "tar baby" as a derogatory term for a black or a Maori."
But despite the obvious truth, this was a racist crack, there are Teabaggers who will try to redefine the meaning.... so the Tea Party can use racism at the same time they deny it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Tar baby (disambiguation).
Br'er Rabbit and the Tar-Baby, drawing by E.W. Kemble from The Tar-Baby, by Joel Chandler Harris, 1904
The Tar-Baby is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Br'er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories. The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes. In modern usage according to Random House, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact. The expression tar baby is also used occasionally as a derogatory term for black people (in the U.S. it refers to African-Americans; in New Zealand it refers to Maoris), or among blacks as a term for a particularly dark-skinned person. As a result, some people suggest avoiding the use of the term in any context.  The tar baby is a trap that should be avoided.
Hmmm two opinions on the same site!
No sorry, you just forgot to quote the whole context!
Oh, I see. So if I referred to Sarah Palin as a "hoe" it would mean she was symbolic of a gardening tool used to remove unwanted weeds from the symbolic government garden. Okay, I get it.
It is called context, Randy.
Sarah is out back in the garden hoe-ing.
Sarah is down on the corner hoe-ing.
Sarah is a hoe.
Sarah is using a hoe.
The PC extremism in this country is retarded.
But Sarah is actually a Faux News Ho. It's all a matter of context, Joe.
That wasn't the issue Ralph.
I know you are smart enough to understand that.
Lets look at context. The Teabagger said,
"Now, I don’t even want to have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby and you get it, you’re stuck, and you’re a part of the problem now and you can’t get away."
The comment was pointed at a person, the President of the United States.
Yet conservatives want to claim that unless the quote includes, "and I mean this in a racist way", that they can deny that racism is a factor.
That comment was toward associating with an individual in a certain situation... and the result of being trapped in that association... not the individual.
"It’s like touching a tar baby and you get it, you’re stuck, and you’re a part of the problem now and you can’t get away."
As in your trapped in an association with him and are seen now as part of the problem.
Good try, Doug.
You know I would gladly pay off the entire 14 trillion dollar debt, if they would give my country back its common sense as change.
Your version of common sense got run out of Washington on a rail with Joe McCarthy and John Birch. The newest incarnation is the Teabaggers and they are becoming exposed, not only for casual racism, but hostility to programs (Medicare and Social Security) that are dear to groups that formed the base of the Tea Party.
What is being exposed is the blatent bias of the left wing media in this country. Americans see the tea party for what they are... regular hard working folk who are not in the mood to be turned into a socialist regime and be drained of all their pay to support generational welfare and BS liberal policies.
The American Left is a joke, and real America, the silent majority, see them as what they are.
So enjoy your leftist socialist govt. while you have it, Doug.
It will all be over soon.
It's hilarious how the teabaggers use the term "Americans" as a substitute for angry,alcoholic, closet transvestites (like the man pictured in your avatar). As if sober, rational people are no longer American. In what universe does .001% of the population represent a nation in it's entirety?
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co … tea-party/
After all the BS character assassination tactics of the M.S. Media, CNN, MSNBC, etc... that's the best you get?
And any article that attempts to link the tea party to the tucson shooting... is BS. That is as funny as the Norway shooter being a Christian. What a joke.
It is telling that you find mass shootings to be a joke. I guess cross burnings and lynchings are funny too? The insane right will always be kept in the margin of society. When you add up the vast number of people their hatred is directed toward, you people are vastly outnumbered.
No one I know of, in the tea party or not, thinks any such event is a joke.
And that is the BS the left has spewed for years now.
It is sickening.
You all call them terrorists... but don't have the guts to call a real terrorist what they are.
What a joke.
"the left" has been spewing for years about events that happened this year? Those crazy, psychic liberals.
The left has been spewing the same BS hate towards the tea party for years. Racist haters out to start violence blah blah etc etc....
What part of that do you not get?
And the joke is that you all try to label them as christians and conservatives.
Yeah, but you say the Tea Party is too liberal for you and that Hitler was a socialist and that Joe McCarthy was a great man and that ________ (fill in the blank with more Mark Levin quotes)
Some of them are... some of them are not.
And NAZIs are Socialists...
Those are just facts. The BS twistings of History by the Leftist Frankfurt School and American Liberal Academia is falling apart.
Do try to keep up.
And yes ole joe was the greatest of American Patriots in the twentieth century.
Those are just the facts? Show a single "fact" contained in that drivel. Of course every "fact" is supported by a cited source and....Oh wait. They're not.
George Reisman, Ph.D., is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics and the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996). His web site is www.capitalism.net. His blog is at georgereismansblog.blogspot.com.
huh... what a laugh.
Here is one with all the sources you need listed right at the end.
But I imagine he is not qualified either to speak on it either.
But they just keep serving up such easy softballs to make the accusation with. Are they really that stupid, or are they that racist? I see no other conclusion.
I've asked you previously not to address me anymore, TM. I made it clear I would do the same for you.
I will answer any comment I want.
If you do not want to answer mine... fine.
But you do not get to dictate which comments I speak to, or not.
If you do not want replies to a comment... don't make comments in an open forum.
Have a good day.
When I originally asked you not to address me you agreed to do so. Now you don't want to keep your word. Harassing fellow members when they are opposed to it is prohibited. But you've been warned twice, so carry on if it's worth it to you.
I am not harrassing you, and I have not harrassed you, Randy.
So get over it.
I responded to a comment in a topic... -rather politely I might add- you don't want to reply to my comments, then don't.
And baiting is again forum rules. When you reply to someone's post, when you both agreed to not converse is baiting.
Simple to understand. So, grasp it already.
I am not baiting, Cags.
And to be honest i didn't even remember talking about such...
So again... you all get over it.
So if I ask Mark not to address me and he ignores me, is he in the wrong?
I don't think so, even if he had agreed to ignore me, I cannot complain that he writes comments on a public forum.
Yes, he would be in the wrong if you both agreed not to converse further. I also have this same agreement with other members here. A Mormon priest and a homophobic fundamentalist. I keep my side of the agreement and I expect them to do likewise.
But then, some people cannot keep their word and I suppose this is fine with you, Aquasilver.
Personally I would love to never hear again from all the trolls who only offer repetitious rubbish, often in baby talk language or in words designed to look like a moron spoke them, but it IS a free forum, and when the kiddies get too silly, I simply leave them to play alone for a while, though I do leave the door open so that I can hear if they start getting too boisterous.
I guess it's best not to take these things too seriously, the whole forum stuff is just a laugh, nobody changes their opinion, no change occurs in the world because people blow hot air, it's just a laugh, that's all, just some harmless fun!
Breaking an agreement is harmless fun. Okay, I understand you better now, Aquasilver.
What sort of agreements can anyone have on a forum?
If someone does something outside of forum rules, tell teacher and let them deal with it, meanwhile do not react to whatever is being used to provoke you and ignore those you consider beyond the pale.
Nobody forces anyone to play in this sandpit.
No one ever forces anyone else to keep their word. And I am not really provoked by TM's lack of courtesy. He stated he was glad not to have to converse with me any more the first time I asked him not to address me anymore.
His lack of honoring his own words is nothing new here. But it does indicate he has less control over his emotions than the wacko Mormon priest, or the homophobic divorced fundamentalist who both managed to keep the same agreement with me.
I can impel no one to be true to their word. This doesn't mean I have to pretend they are honorable merely because this is a public forum.
Would that be bait?
So I cannot address you... but you can attack me with personal insults throughout the last dozen posts.
But what? If I respond I am wrong.
I have not attacked you or spoke ill to you at all today Randy.
That would be all you, toward me.
What a laugh.
And as I said earlier, I barely remember anything about a "Stop picking on me with the truth" agreement. So you can talk about my word all you want... it is more BS from a non-entity in my life.
It is to be expected from your ilk.
When I first read the OP that was my reaction, too. A sticky president. Only after reading some of the other posts did I find the racist angle.
I guess I'll never make a politician - I'm just not into spinning, twisting meanings and slinging mud whenever possible.
You are a mindreader, of course. As usual trying to defend the indefensible.
I understand exactly what you are saying, but most people today have no idea how to analyze a literary work by placing the work within the context of history and psychology. (Correction: most people today have no idea how to analyze a literary work at all, because that kind of education went out the door with No Child Left Behind.)
The fact is that Lamborn's comment is unquestionably racist. If he's educated enough to know the symbolism behind Tar Baby, then he's educated enough to know the racist fire his words would spark, and that would be very clever. But if he's not educated enough, then he's a stupid racist, not a clever one.
Thank you, Kerry.
Well I do not like the word and would not use it, the context of the conversation and its use clearly does not intonate any racist connotation.
So to say he was being racist is untrue... to say he poorly chose his words would be more correct.
If I am to understand correctly, I believe the tar baby was a character in a novel, and he was using it in its proper context. As in someone who when dealing with... sucks you in and traps you to them.
Poor choice of words... yes.
Politically incorrect? Well, to begin with political correctness is wrong in the first place.
However, the statement this particular jacka$$ made isn't political or even part of political correctness(or incorrectness).
It was just flat out racist.
Awwwwwwwwwwwww! Come on! I've been told,on HP 'America is soooooooo beyond that after all these years. Are we?
So the maker of the statement had no idea the term was derogatory? Remember the guy who referred to a reporter with a slang term for a monkey? Something like "macawca" or something similar. I wonder where he is today. A simple mistake that time too.
At least the congressman has now humbly apologized and asked for the President's forgiveness. Obama has graciously accepted and agrees that terms like "Tar Baby" and "Nigger in the woodpile" are perfectly acceptable as long as they are used in a subtle, not overtly racist way.
That's the spirit! I love satire.... stops people being anally retentive over stupidities!
Well if it's not satire then I feel sorry for the guy having had a sad exposure to the world as seen by his social grouping, but hey, the worlds a big place and it takes all kinds.
Personally, it never bothered me when folk called me 'honky' or 'right wing fascist bastard' in the 70's and 80's and being told that 'come the revolution you will be up against the wall' was only showing the depth of their idiocy.
If 'the revolution' had ever happened, or looked likely to succeed, I would have morphed into the epitome of a Marxist Leninist troll and shot a few bloated capitalists myself.
I was born just as poor as anyone else, and I'll take nothing with me in the coffin, but you can chose whether to have fun in between or get all riled up about how stupid folk are.
I choose to enjoy the ride.
I am sure great literary study of metaphors and great knowledge of the subject and context went into his statement...
I also believe in the Tooth Fairy...
Wasn't he running against that, Aucaca, guy? (or his name is something like that?)
Seems a simple mistake to me. Another BS manufactured incident via the mass media.
That's not even close, Mason.
Allen was on the stump at a campaign stop in Virginia when he was running for the senate with an eye on a presidential run. A young dark skinned Indian man was videoing it and was not a supporter, but rather a tracker for the competing Jim Webb campaign. Allen turned on him and used an epithet, macaca, that was a well known racist slur
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=geo … ;FORM=LKVR
I am amazed you have no memory of this. It unwound his presidential hopes and lost him the campaign to Webb. He is running for the same seat now as Webb has decided to leave the Senate.
Not only do you have no memory of it, you make up some kind of story to excuse it from the pit of your imagination.
At long last, sir, have you no shame?
Not usually my place to be the voice of reason, but the Congressman's words, when taken in context, DO seem to be a reference to the old folk tale. However, for him to be that out of touch with the inflammatory nature of the phrase is ignorance of an order I have a hard time understanding. If he isn't an outright racist, he is an uncompromising moron.
I see no third option.
wow, a whole bunch of white people getting worked up because another white person said something that could be racist.
Seriously, I brought my son in to ask him his opinion. He's a rather well-read young black man. I asked him what he thought and he said (and I quote) "Actually, its a rather apt comparison" I do so love him
That's what I felt too, btw. And I am about as liberal as you can get without becoming incapacitated by it.
Are we also not allowed to say that the president "black listed" something or that he used "colorful" phrasing? Dear lord help the press if he has to go to Nigeria. They'll have to rename the country.
Not remotely similar references that you use for comparison. Those do not have a racially charged history, and "tar baby" for the vast majority of the country has only a racist connotation, as the literary reference has long gone out of popularity.
He may not be a racist, but he is profoundly ignorant if he's not.
How about he, as many Americans are, is just sick of bowing to PC.
That's fine, but he does so at his own peril, as George Allen discovered.
I for one hope he revs up his idiocy.
You sure you're thinking this through, Mason?
Have you read my replies?
I stated clearly I would not have used the term. But I won't just jump to ascribing a racist motive to the use of an analogy by someone. As you yourself agreed to the fact that he used it in its proper context... so.
Just that, bruce.
I would think from here on he would think a lil more carefully about his choice of words. But many Americans are tired of not being able to speak plainly and in the words we want to use, for fear of offending some thin skinned sissy who wants to twist the intent of said vernacular into racism.
And others are sick of angry, vitriolic people who twist stories to excuse their use of charged and disrespectful language toward others.
Why did you make up the story to protect George Allen? Why not call him out and show that you have no tolerance toward that kind of behavior either? Why defend him with a total bs story that whitewashes the truth? If you did call him out,then we could take your stand seriously. As it is, it comes across as a defense of those who wish to denigrate others verbally and have no cost for their actions.
All I stated was that the guy he was running against was named Aucaca... and Allen called him macawca... pretty simple mistake to make if you are not familiar with the name, or the word macawca.
And that is not BS... there is an Aucaca in the senate? right now... that is who he ran against. is it not?
Myself I did not know untill then that there was a word macawca that meant something derogatory toward blacks. As i am sure many others did not.
And your personal attacks are uncalled for bruce. i have not attacked you in the least here today... so get over yourself.
SO HE WAS RUNNING AGAINST A GUY NAMED JIM WEBB!!!!!!!!!!
The rest you made up out of your pathetic need to give this guy an excuse for his pathetic behavior that cost him the election against JIM WEBB and any hope of a presidential run.
Did you not read my post of what happened, that you would repeat this garbage ten posts later?
Get it together, Mason.
No bruce... I really thought he ran against that Aucaca guy. I even asked if that was correct in each post... so whatever.
No I didn't read that post i missed it... shit happens.
So get over yourself.
Quite the mea culpa.
By the way, there is no Senator Aucaca. Never has been. Dang, dude, how long would it have taken you to look that up?
Yes there is...
How long would it have taken you to figure that out, Bruce. And yes I even ?'d my spelling of the name in my coment.... so.
I apologize. (See how easy that is?) I used your spelling. Should have known better.
What state is he from? Not Virginia.
I wasn't sure where he was from. I had simply heard him called on C-SPAN a million times... but I had really thought that maybe it was just a mispoken word, Bruce.
I apologize for the confusion... but it was not intentional.
Fair enough, Mason.
But try to understand, your knee jerk reaction was to give the man an excuse, and that is what people react to in you. There is racism in the world and it exists in the Tea Party with a good deal of evidence for it. Why not confront it and try to chase it out, rather than excuse it and give it free reign?
There is racism in all races, Bruce.
And I have not seen evidence that the tea party is racist. I have seen an odd sign here or there... two to be exact.... and I am sure someone along the way has said something stupid... but that doesn't paint the whole as racists.
And if you go back and read my original comment it was in the form of a question... could it have been merely a mispoken word? thus the reason I was trying to find out if it was akaka who he was running against.
My comment about the media was in general to all the bs they manufacture regarding the TP. I probrably should have delineated that more clearly.
If you Google "Tea party racist signs" you will multiply your exposure ten fold.
This was clearly not a mispoken word, as he clearly elaborated on the reference, which I acknowledged. But it couldn't have been more ignorant at the least, or veiled at the worst. Either option would make him someone I couldn't vote for.
I have been through the google thing before bruce and I have seen mostly signs with hitler stashes on them... and that is not racist. As I said I have seen a couple... and I have seen many videos of tea partiers shutting down racists, NAZIs, KKK etc at their events.
And I have seen many people who infiltrate the tea party events just to do some racist shit and get it on video so as to set the situation up.
So are there some racists in the tea party probrably... there are racist in most all orgs. Does that represent the whole... not in any way.
To see the many signs one must be willing to look and confront them. You don't wish to. No one can force you. I listen to Rush, Hannity and Savage daily so I can't be duped by not knowing the truth. But you have to be willing.
The accusations of infiltration I have heard before, but have never seen any evidence. Can you provide any, or simply the accusation?
I will look for the vids, Bruce.
But yes I have seen them.
Your going to have give me few though.
And you do understand that not all groups that call them selves tea party, are actually the tea party... don't you?
Here is one to begin with.
http://www.breitbart.tv/tea-party-atten … ika-shirt/
and it is by no means the only time they have confronted them. And what part of the tea party do you think embrace national socialism? or any type of Socialism?
Not the tea party... they are anti-thetical to Socialism in all its forms.
The people commenting on that video are not in agreement regarding who this guy is. I don't see this as compelling evidence.
As for socialism, you are the only person I know who conflates it with Nazi-ism. That is your own misconception. I'm sure you will point me to sites that support it, but historians will not.
The conflation of socialism with Nazi-ism has become common among the pseudo-intellectual right wing punditry. I believe it started with this book:
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
A truly stupid book written by a spoiled rich kid who was a major cheerleader for the Iraq War, from the comfort of his keyboard, of course.
Then you must lead a very sheltered life, Bruce.
Many today recognize NAZIs for what they were.
True, the Leftist Frankfurt School Agenda has cast them as facist conservatives, mostly because Hitler ran them out of Germany and they have hated him since, but that twisting of history is crumbling along with much of the rest of their agenda.
To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism.
But! The Nazis and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy
I’ve read Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and he was a "natural" Socialist. Statism is a form of collectivism, Central Authority and owner-ship of the person, and by extention all an individual's property and holdings, etc...
A quote or few from ole Adolf...
"The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are."
Hitler, said to Otto Strasser in Berlin, May 21, 1930: "I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism."
And thus the BS you all spout about your ideaas of Socialism, as if it is somehow restricted to Marx' Ideology in a puristic form. When Marx and Engal both stated plainly in their writings that there would be many different strands, blends of Socialism, on the road to, "Pure Communism". So you all need to grasp that Socialism is not a single degree of that ideology, but a full spectrum of blends and strains.
Gregor Strasser a National Socialist theologian, said: "We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system."
F.A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom said: "The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. …. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine."
Ludwig Von Mises in his Human Action said: "There are two patterns for the realization of socialism. The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or Russian pattern) . . . . the second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German Pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers … bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by government."
So I would advise you re-think what you think you know of the NAZIs, Bruce. They were Socialists... period.
It is a matter of historic fact.
And John Ray's work is thorough and well sourced for any who wish to learn.
And lets not forget the NAZI platform... what does this sound likt to you?
The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party
10- The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
11 That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12 Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13 We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14 We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15 We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16 We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalisation of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small trades people, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
25 In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScr … oints.html
Wow... yeah.. ain't no Socialist here.
What a joke.
I know you think socialism and fascism are one in the same. I've seen all your stuff before. I am amazed at you listing some of the differences at the beginning of this cut and paste diatribe.
That was a start.
Does it matter that I paste quotes?
I should what? Type them out of the book when they are online and available to all.
And I notice your retort is nothing of substance... just a general denial and attack on my writing.
That doesn't dis-prove anything, Bruce.
Actually you missed the part of my post praising you for recognizing some of the differences.
Why are your links always to fringe sites? Why don't mainstream academics share your views?
Wait, don't tell me. Liberal commies, right?
Gotta drive home. I'm out for an hour or two.
You mean the Academic Establishment, yes, the Leftists/Socialists do control the places of higher education in America, and do bend their teachings to the Left.
That is a fact all Americans know in this day, Bruce.
And I did not miss the praise, thank you for that.
Have you really never heard of the Frankfurt School? Do you really not know that the universities and colleges are infested with Socialists and Marxists in general? Have you never read the Agenda that was implimented for the capturing of social institutions and peer review, etc?
But the point of the post was the core similarities, centralized authority, collective ownership of means of production and product, collective ownership of private property, etc...
It is the similarities which show its true nature, Bruce.
There are many different strains of Socialism, Marx himself said Socialism was nothing more than another phase on the way to pure communism, and would have many mixs in its time.
I know you have read Marx... haven't you? Then you should know that these cross breeds and differing strains were not un-expected.
And my links are not fringe sites. Well, maybe to you they are, but not in reality. Why would you think Von Mises is fringe? I would consider huffington post fringe though... so.
What does HuffPost have to do with anything? It's a collection of blogs.
I hear this same old mantra about the higher learning in this country being wildly liberal, and you state it like it is conventional wisdom, but I never see any data to support that talking point. It is true that liberal ideas are talked about in colleges and universities, as it is a place where ideas are not to be feared, but rather explored. But conservatism gets its due as well.
Perhaps it's just that the old saw is true. Reality has a liberal bias.
If only similarities matter when discussing political theories, do you believe that men are actually apes, because their shared DNA is well over 98%? Why would the differences be important? As someone you probably had great respect for, Ross Perot, once said, the devil's in the details.
I don't consider your citations to be mainstream, no.
The Huff post was just an example of what I consider a fringe site. You did mention that term.
And there is plenty of data to show the truth of higher education institutions being dominated by Liberals and Socialists, even the Commies, and it also shows a suppression of Conservative ideologies on college campuses around the country. But I don't imagine you would accept the data and facts as true... so.
Do I believe we are monkeys cause we share DNA... we share DNA with everything... we are all made from the same materials... so what's your point. DNA does not prove Evolution in any way. We have established that in many other threads, Bruce.
I had thought you were there?
And as to Ross Perot... I do not now, nor have I ever, liked the man. I saw him, and still do see him, as a weasil.
And yes similarities do matter... along with differences.
So you say NAZIs are not Socialist but they share the same DNA so to speak with Marx and all his ilk... so then you do not believe in Evolution by your standards.
That lil trick doesn't work... see.
That was one of the most logically confused posts you've ever made.
The evidence for the great academic conspiracy is so enormous....you provide none.
You do realize we share more DNA with apes than chickens, right? I'm not talking about evolution Mason. I'm talking about the importance of differences. You really couldn't follow that?
I understand we share DNA yes.... other than evolution, what could be the importance of speaking to it. That we are so different, not the same... DNA and ideologies are two different animals, Bruce.
Apples and oranges.
As I said, you would not accept them.... do you want some?
And if I get them, I would expect you would read them? I think you would say ... "oh those are not valid and dismiss them without even reviewing them".
But let me know.
The point is that the differences are important in both.
As for your sources and whether I would buy them, it all depends on how the data was gathered and validated. If you have the goods, bring it.
I will tell you what, Bruce.
You can go here and rumage through their articles and sources, then if your not satified, which you won't be, I will supply more.
Now, I have not been through this entire site, but they usually source pretty thoroughly and with miltiple citations.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guid … p?type=aca
They should have plenty of source and reference material to occupy you for a few.
You tell me that I won't read this citation, accusing me of being unwilling to examine the evidence, and then tell me you haven't read it either!
I said I have not been through that entire "site"... have you looked at it. Many many links upon links to go through. I have spent a lot of time on there... and have been through many of the sources... I said not all.
As in every last one.
I mean you do read the sources, don't you? You reference the material to verify it right? I have trailed links and sources out of that site for days... and still not through all.
And I doubt you will read a tenth of the ones I have... maybe you will read 1% of them.
Of course you may not verify sources? I know a lot of Leftists who simply parrot back the talking point and have no clue about what really occrred, or who really has done what, because they simply take some other's word for it. Thus the lack of knowledge today regarding American History among other topics. Too many simply read some Leftist bias liberla BS history book and never verify the source texts, and sometimes those sources are other leftist liberal tards themselves, (see a circle jerk there), and many never think to go all the way back and look at the texts and records from the actual time or situations to see the real truth.
No, too many just consume the processed pre-packaged BS that they are spoon-fed in the places of education in this country and remain deluded by myths and fabrications.
I can pick this apart for you and show you how the bias is enforced to come to the conclusions, but you won't care. It supports your agenda. There is so much there we can ping pong from one to the other forever.
If you pick one article you want me to address, I will. Choosing a site with dozens of articles and then saying "Here, refute this" is a little bit silly, don't you think?
I didn't tell you to refute anything.
You said I had nothing to back up the left wing bias in education with. I said here. It is up to you to do what-ever you want from there.
I did not say here refute this. I said look here... period. I didn't expect you would ever agree to the facts.... just that you would dismiss it all out of hand... as you have just done.
You can look at what you want when you want. It was not a contest, Bruce. I just gave a you a site which supplied some sources for info. Read it at your lesure and do what you want.
You'r the one who turned it to a competition... I was just giving you info on a point.
Your funny man.
How about you pick one instead, and you may learn how the bias is infused in the work. You might learn something, like how you're being duped.
I see the bias just fine... that is how I can see the Socialist Liberal/Progressive agenda throughout American society as we speak.
And besides I could use the same reasoning and logic about your side... oh I just did.
We won't convince each other, Bruce. Pretty simple. I know if I have a chance at opening someone's mind to the truth, and those whose minds I do not.
But do you listen to the best voice of all, your own?
I listen to NPR, MSNBC, even FOX. I see them all for what they are: purveyors of news, news with a slant.
It's up to me to weed through what's delivered to get at my own truth.
Yes, you can be duped if you think that listening to Rush, Hannity and Savage is enough.
Clearly you don't know me. LOL!
I lean to the liberal side and listen to NPR, CNN and MSNBC at night. I listen to the right wingers so I know what they're up to, and trust me, it's ugly!
I'm sure I don't. What I was asking was, do you know you?
Why not go read a couple of my hubs and. See what you think.
I think I do.
Yes, there is. Racism is a manifestation of fear. Like, today, losing a business in a changing community to the next ethnic group that follows you. Like, long ago, facing the collapse of your empire and blaming it on Christians (Nero, if you need the clue).
Racism is a characteristic of humans that's been around for as long as we've understood what it is to be human.
Neither political correctness nor incorrectness faces racism head-on. Racism is deeply embedded in our psyche, and yes, the tea party is racist. And so is the democratic party, and the republican, and most of your neighbors.
"I stated clearly I would not have used the term. But I won't just jump to ascribing a racist motive to the use of an analogy by someone."
There's no need to speculate about the motivations of the speaker. I don't know (and neither do the rest of us) if he's a racist or not. We can't see into his heart and know whether he is racist or not, and we don't need to. We don't know what he is. And that's not the conversation we ought to be having.
We do know what he said, and what he said was:
"Now, I don’t even want to have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby and you get it, you’re stuck, and you’re a part of the problem now and you can’t get away."
Is that a racial crack? Thinking about it, I don't think so, but I can understand why people reach a different conclusion.
Thinking further about it, there are more important things to spend my time on.
Your son's comment says everything. I don't think the esteemed Congressman is as intelligent or well-informed as you and your son and Kate.
Change the tar baby subject for a minute. Does anybody remember what a real reporter does? Here's one that let's us know we are being held hostage by big oil and the puppets they put into congress to rape and rob and destroy this country as fast as they can. I always knew what they were up to and I would try tell everybody in a Friendly manner.
Now listen to the plain truth from a real reporter. And be glad we have at least one still left in this country to tell us the truth!
http://current.com/shows/countdown/vide … -debt-deal
Well, although Uncle Remus did use the term tar baby to describe involving yourself in a situation that you have no business in, the term inherited a derogatory connotation, we all know that. My issue is, if you want to make an Uncle Remus comparison, and you are in fact calling President Obama a tar baby, then that would in fact make you either the Br'er Rabbit or the Br'er Fox. Now if you are the Br'er Fox, then you are just a conniving and manipulative person whose only interest is to benefit himself. If you are the Br'er Rabbit, then you are a self-centered bully, who will forego the use of perception and intellect to solve a problem, and instead elect to use agression and viciousness to forcably coerce a solution. In addition, tar baby is being used as I stated earlier to describe a situation that a person shouldn't get involved in. As a congressman, you need to get involved in the situation. In all, Uncle Remus was a terrible way to parallel the current state of affairs.
It's just a freakin story. There was no hidden meanings except for what people dream up. It was a sweet ol guy telling stories to kids. He was telling stories as it relates to life. Pretty sure he did not intend to psychoanalyze the characters the way you have.
I've read them lots of times cause they are fun to read. They also make you think about right and wrong but in no case did I ever read anything about racism it them.
I love how threads go on and on because someone has to get the last word in...
by John Sarkis 6 years ago
What does it really mean to be politically incorrect?...Question mark with ellipsis. I hear people saying they're politically incorrect individuals - they are rude, inpolite, pugnacious and disrespectful. 400 years ago, most people were polite and respectful, so if you were the opposite...
by Oztinato 18 months ago
Why Can't Obama act "politically incorrect"?We've seen "the Donald's" lowering of the politically incorrect bar down to the gutter. For this Donald has been praised by many. Yet if Obama acts even slightly politically incorrectly he is viciously verbally abused by the same...
by Dean Traylor 22 months ago
Has Anyone Noticed that those that proclaim they're Politically Incorrect are easily offended?They pound their chests, call other people names, and pester others with accusations of Political Correctness. And through it all, they're gloating over first amendment rights while screaming with pride...
by CaravanHolidays 7 years ago
Why is it that politicians simply cannot help but look after themselves and not the voters, is this part of 'human nature'?
by Schandee Decker 3 years ago
Is anyone else sick of the words "politically correct"?Who thought this up, a politician and why are so many people going along with it. We keep changing in America to accommodate more people we don't need. Who else is sick of being told what to say and how to, isn't this going against...
by aka-dj 4 years ago
I dislike PC.It stifles free speech, and free thought.It turns people agains each other, through altered forms of communication, and creates confusion through altering the meaning of words, and phrases.What are your thoughts on it?http://www.truenews.org/Liberalism/poli … ntrol.html
Copyright © 2018 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|