MSNBC's Thomas Roberts: GOP Wants to Go Back to When No Women Voted, 'Slavery Was Cool'
Openly gay MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts is aggressively using his daily soapbox for gay activism. On Friday morning, Roberts was outraged with the rest of the left that the Republican candidates did not denounce the boos after openly gay soldier Thomas Hill asked on video if the Republicans would "circumvent the progress that has been made" for gays if elected. [Audio available here.]
No one seems to question why Fox News and Megyn Kelly would pluck this question out of thousands of submissions and throw it directly at Rick Santorum. It seems like they were wearing a bracelet asking "What Would CNN Do?" Roberts, speaking very calmly, said something very wild. These Republican candidates would like to build a time machine and go back to when women couldn't vote and slavery was cool:
THOMAS ROBERTS: And the [Santorum] phrase of “social experimentation.” I get out of all of these things that many of these candidates would rather take legislation to build a time machine and go back in time to where, uh, we had, you know, no women voting, slavery was cool. I mean, it's just kind of ridiculous.
CHRIS HAYES: Well -- I also thought was interesting about the response, he seemed to imply there is no sex in the armed forces. Basically saying, this is -- everybody should be --
ROBERTS: Nothing happens on shore leave.
HAYES: Nothing happens in the armed forces. And it was like, really? Have you talked to to any members who served?
ROBERTS: Been to Fleet Week in New York?
Notice how Hayes tried not to agree with the crazy talk and changed the subject. Roberts began the segment by disdaining the trend of "strange crowd reactions and candidate responses" in GOP debates:
ROBERTS: So, boos from the crowd, the debate crowd last night after hearing from a service member protecting our nation, followed by that response. Well, everybody really failing to thank him for serving our country. It’s just the latest in the series of strange crowd reactions and candidate responses in these Republican debates. Let's bring in Chris Hayes....What is your reaction? The audience response, especially last night. We’re on the heels of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Bravely, courageously, this person fighting in Iraq submits that question, publicly asks it of the panelists, you know, the GOP hopefuls, and Santorum -- that’s his response.
Hayes agreed, and then expressed admiration for how the soldier was "jacked." Roberts returned to his point:
ROBERTS: But It was a missed opportunity for a lot of people to stand up because they love to stand and wave their military support all the time and funding for our military. This was a missed opportunity.
Hayes agreed, and said the Republican base is still “very hung up on cultural issues.” As if MSNBC and Thomas Roberts are not.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
One problem: it was the Dem
Submitted by robert108 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:04pm.
One problem: it was the Dem Party that wanted slavery, segregation and the KKK. Liberals always ignore this fact of history.
It's funny what happens when you confront a liberal with that.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:19pm.
Usually, after the foaming at the mouth stops, they tell you that that was long ago. To which I point out didn't a grand klegal of the KKK that was a democratic senator just pass away last year. That usually leads to a second foaming episode but not much by way of a coherent response.
hbnolikeee...Clinton settled that whole "Byrd" thing...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:41pm.
In the bright morning sun, Clinton strode first to the podium and then drew Byrd's mourners into the woods of West Virginia to talk about the scary white guys in big pointy hoods and long robes who burn crosses at family barbeques.
Clinton justified Byrd's involvement in the Knights Party, USA as a logical stepping-stone to elected office. Then the perpetually self-absorbed Clinton used the event to align himself with the 92-year-old senator's fleshly struggle. Bill related from personal experience the deep concepts of repentance, redemption, and the imperfection of man.
According to Clinton, if a person is trying to get elected by beating up innocent black people, that should not disqualify him from the job even if it includes joining a white supremacist group known to kill people based on the color of their skin, religion, or sexual orientation.
"And maybe he did something he shouldn't have done and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that's what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians."
Hey Slick Willey, tell that to Trent Lott... What a pile of macaca.... Funny what enrages liberals, huh?
And I've noticed when it is pointed out that Byrd's KKK
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:58pm.
involvement took place approximately seventy years ago and ended nearly sixty years ago and that he afterwards repeatedly denounced the Klan and apologized for his earlier association with the organization as well as for his segregationist views [something Strom Thurmond never did], generally a lot of blubbering nonsense ensues from conservatives.
Jer
And it still, in the end, is
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:11pm.
And it still, in the end, is the Democrat Party that created the KKK.
And today the Democrat Party embraces La Raza, The New Black Panthers, CPUSA, and other hate groups.
Even the names of these groups is amazing
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:29pm.
Uh Black Panther... what color? why color in group name? Here are your RACISTS
La Raza = The Race... what race? why race in the group name? Here are your RACISTS
Allow me to
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:28pm.
offer you a little history lesson. Apparently, you, uh, forgot about.
A Brief Reminder...
Allow me to remind you, hbnolikeee...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 5:06pm.
that I have been familiar with that little history lesson virtually my entire life. And even if I weren't, we all here at NB are reminded of it over and over again. I don't think there is any chance of it being forgotten.
Let me further remind you that as the influence and power of the Southern conservative segregationist Democrats waned, the record of the Democratic party on civil rights has been quite impressive as well.
Jer
The Democratic Party sucked back then, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 5:12pm.
and it sucks now.
QED
Sorry, no links on that.
Just my opinion from having observed the results foisted on this country by the machinations of liberal Dems running amok.
MD
Matthew Dean
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 5:25pm.
is the Grand Poobah of Suckers for any crackpot claim vilifying Democrats.
QED
Jer
Jer, the Grand Liberal Panjandrum, who---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:03pm.
simply cannot, or will not, accept the validity of this site, or conservatives, who prove over and over that the claims that vilify Democrats are NOT crackpot claims, but instead, truthful statements.
MD
"blubbering nonsense", indeed, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:58pm.
is a perfect description of every post you make in defense of stupid assed liberal Democratic politicians.
What, no links to prove your case; or are you as usual just giving your opinion?
Is that allowed here at NB's?
I thought one absolutely MUST include a link or two in order that their post(s) be deemed believable.
Do as I say, not as I do, eh Jer?
Surely you can provide a link bolstering your strong contention that ol' Strom never apologized for HIS " earlier association with the organization as well as for his segregationist views --."
I bolded 'earlier' in order to demonstrate your liberal hypocrisy - Byrd's KKK involvement took place approximately seventy years ago, and according to you, afterwards he repeatedly denounced the the Klan. (Got any links for that?)
You give the old Kluxer Byrd, a liberal Democrat, either a pass or forgiveness for times past; but in the same paragraph you denigrate Strom Thurmond for any past KKK connection because YOU say he never apologized for it.
Definitely a case of liberal bias; but in your defense, I expect it because -
You funny guy.
MD
You're slipping, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 5:15pm.
How in the world did you allow hbnolikeee and DFTT to beat you to the punch in responding to my comment?
But, I'll make a deal with you. Get someone to explain to you how google works and then link me to a source documenting Thurmond's apology and I'll provide one for you with respect to Byrd.
Jer
As you are the house liberal, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:05pm.
the many conservatives here who will be more than happy to point out your liberal BS, while having me outnumbered, have my full support and agreement.
I understand how google works.
I also don't make deals with liberals.
That said, I never claimed Strom Thurmond apologized; you said he didn't.
You really should try a little harder to keep your argument and your contentions better aligned as they move along; all that weaving and meandering appears to make it hard for you to stay on message.
Furthermore, providing me with endless taped loops of Robert Byrd apologizing for any connections with the Klan only PROVES he was a lying politician.
MD
And I've noticed, Jer
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 5:47pm.
And I've noticed, Jer, that when liberals make claims like "the GOP wants to go back to the days of slavery," they have absolutely no evidence in which to back up that claim. You know, unlike the evidence that exists that tends to validate the claims that Bird really was a member of the KKK, evidence that you dismiss so easily as being "in the past." Where is your indignation at the liberal's unsubstantiated claims, indignation that you so readily display whenever someone mentions the racist past of the Democratic party? Is that indignation only reserved for the GOP, or conservatives in general?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Well, you're noticing the obvious, Cobra...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 5:48pm.
The liberals who make that claim are idiots. And the evidence about Byrd doesn't merely "tend" to validate his membership in the Klan. It conclusively establishes it.
Jer
Here's what's obvious, Jer
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:04pm.
Here's what's obvious, Jer. You continually try to "correct" conservatives for stating the truth while completely avoiding making any "corrections" for the falsities that the liberals continually make in public and here on NB.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example of your hypocrisy. Every time Rush's name is mentioned just about anywhere in an article or in a comment, you make post after post denouncing Rush, many with lists of links, "proving" to people just how wrong Rush is, yet when liberal commentators make statements that are clearly wrong, when they are clearly perpetrating a falsehood, nay a word of protest, nay a shred of "proof" is offered by you contradicting that falsity.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:09pm.
Well I was trying to add to my comment when your response prevented my doing so. But, first, you don't consider my stating "the liberals making such claims are idiots" falls within the category of a correction? Have you EVER made a similar statement about conservatives? I'd like to see it if you have. Otherwise, you're not in a very good position to be criticizing my alleged avoidance--an absolutely untrue allegation by the way. I've made dozens of such corrections. Where the hell have you been?
Jer
It's not a correction, Jer.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:13pm.
"But, first, you don't consider my stating "the liberals making such claims are idiots" falls within the category of a correction?"
That's not a correction, Jer. It's a dismissal. A means to avoid the conversation altogether.
"Have you EVER made a similar statement about conservatives?"
Yes I have, several times, even here. I try to point out hypocrisy and falsity every time I perceive it. I don't limit it to just one side of the political divide, like you tend to do. Where the hell have YOU been?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra: "And I've noticed,
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:24pm.
Cobra:
"And I've noticed, Jer, that when liberals make claims like "the GOP wants to go back to the days of slavery," they have absolutely no evidence in which to back up that claim."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/09/23/msnbcs-thomas-roberts...
Jer:
"And liberals who make that claim are idiots."
That is a condemnation and a correction, Cobra. It's not a dismissal. Like I said, I've made dozens of such condemnations and corrections. Show me one of yours.
Jer
The majority of the replies to your posts, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:52pm.
by conservatives here, ARE corrections to your weird liberal jeremiad.
MD
But still you give Byrd a pass---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 5:59pm.
because it was soooo long ago, and he, in your opinion, was sooo remorseful.
Strom Thurmond, not so much.
Hope the race card flicking bastards don't swarm all over Trent Lott.
What?
Now ain't that a surprise.
What a bunch of liberal rationalizing and BS.
MD
And I've condemned the race-card flinging bastards
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:15pm.
who swarmed all over Trent Lott.
What?
Now ain't that a surprise. Well, not to those who know me and recall my posts. But, of course it is to Matthew Dean who constantly misrepresents my views and my comments. Now THAT'S bullsh!t.
Jer
Jer, here's the problem you just cannot seem to---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:48pm.
grasp:
You, a liberal, come on this site and argue for, support and defend all things liberal - or items issued by Democratic Party fiat or bluster; all the while bashing conservative think, Rush Limbaugh, or Republican opposition to the dipshit liberal Democrat policies in, or plans for, government -
BUT, because you occasionally call out egregious liberal Democratic statements, actions, or blunders, that even a BLIND man can see; you assume that makes the rest of your liberal posturing around here a wash.
Some conservatives may well give you a pass, but I choose not to.
Those who 'know you and recall your posts' sure don't seem to be falling all over themselves getting to their keyboard to defend you; and neither are they condemning me for 'constantly misrepresenting' your 'views and comments'.
Ever occur to you that your liberal comments represent your liberal views only, and that you are a liberal who has voluntarily pushed himself onto a site that tends to disagree with the majority of what he has to say?
Apparently not, as your actions are equivalent to demanding entrance to a restaurant and then whining and complaining about the fare listed on the menu.
Ridiculous.
Your posts are in plain view; how odd then, that posters here aren't swarming all over that reprehensible matthewdean for 'misrepresenting your views and your comments'.
MD
~Idiots, Jer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:33pm.
are people who throw hot water on their windshields to de-ice them.
People who slander millions of Americans with a despicable lie in order to destroy the reputation of an entire political movement, regardless of the harm to the country as a whole, are lying scum-sucking bottom-feeding dirtbags. To put it nicely.
Wrathful Brunette...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:43pm.
Agreed. Such as patriotic Democrats being slandered as communists, traitors and America-haters. Those who would do so are indeed lying, scum-sucking, bottom-feeding dirtbags. Just as are those who would slander Republicans as racists.
Jer
- as racists. As well as
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:51pm.
homophobic, bigoted terrorist barbarians and mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging nazi.... t**b****ers.
Just helping.
Much obliged, kata...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:30pm.
Jer
sure thing jer
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 8:04pm.
this is just things I've heard from guests on MSNBC. I don't think I'll delve into what I've read on blogs ;)
edit : whoops one of those might have been our current Vice President.
Said "patriotic" Dems actions being noted, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:58pm.
resulting in them being called out for them.
Appropriately.
MD
Matthew....
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:29pm.
Let me know when you have completed your anthology of Matthew Dean's meandering ruminations on this thread and I'll post a closing thought.
Jer
Liberals, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:59pm.
NEVER have a "closing thought.
They do, however, flog a notion continually, thinking that if they can just get one more word in, they can turn a rout into victory.
Doesn't work, though.
Speaking of flogging a notion, Jer, better toss in another allusion to either my lack of supporting linkage or my continuing unauthorized replies to your posts wherein I misrepresent not only everything you say, but everything you stand for.
My mission is to flag liberals whose posts or ideas creep me out; as opposed to your situation, which is that of currently allowing your mission creep to flag.
Flog it, Jer, don't let it flag.
"Damn it all, Matthew, NO more misrepresentation without presenting links in support of your damned falsehoods. Arrgh."
Altogether now, house libs and liberal trolls:
" Attica ! Attica !! Attica !!! " (arcane, possibly obscure, movie reference)
MD
~To what patriotic Democrats do you refer?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:02pm.
Please show me the Republican politicians who have slandered millions of ordinary American democrats.
Allow me
Submitted by Mister Orange on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:17pm.
When Michelle Bachmann conflated gays and lesbians with pedophiles, I'd say that's slandering millions of Americans. But I have no way of confirming the political affiliation of homosexuals in this country (though I have a pretty good idea.).
~Link, please
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:20pm.
.
My pleasure
Submitted by Mister Orange on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:26pm.
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2009/04/bachmann_associ.php
One thing that was mentioned by Mr. Gohmert earlier, that was brought up by Mr. King, that apparently people who are practicing pedophiles would be considered protected under this legislation, but not, I understand, veterans, not, I understand, pregnant women, not, I understand, 85-year-old grandmothers would be protected under this law. But who would be protected? A pedophile, someone who considers themselves gay, someone who considers themselves transgender, someone who considers themselves a cross-dresser? That is who is protected.
OJ
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:38pm.
I'm not seeing your point here. She's not calling pedophiles gay, transgender, or cross-dressers. She's listing a protected class of people, not saying they are all the same thing.
Surprising
Submitted by Mister Orange on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:07am.
Only 5 people came to Bachmann's defense. No, I'm obviously wrong here. Hate crimes protect pedophiles from raping little children. Rrrrrrrrrrrrright. Because, you know, those pedophiles who prey on children, well they have rights too, right? In whose sick mind does Bachmann's ridiculous statement make sense?
That was rhetorical, no response needed.
Man, that's a stretch
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:39pm.
Conflated gays and lesbians with pedophiles, and that's your example? Weak.
Additionally, the letter of the law may read that a gay person who attacks a straight person could be guilty of a "hate crime" but it'll never in this world be applied. The reason for adding sexual orientation to the existing ridiculous law was an effort to create another protected class.
Fail, on two levels.
Orange is full of FAIL
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 8:32pm.
Not surprised are you, BK?
After all, what's V.35.0 have that the other 34 didn't have? No there, there. Still and forevermore.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Oh, that's right
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:39pm.
I forgot.
Hi Ted.
"fail" is still a verb, right?
Submitted by Mister Orange on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:09am.
How can a person be full of fail? Failure, perhaps, certainly though not in this instance.
I would had said
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:16am.
"Crap" myself
Protected class of what?
Submitted by Mister Orange on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:08am.
Are you saying gays shouldn't be protected under the law?
More then say,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:15am.
the rest of us,,,,, no
Protection under the law.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 11:34am.
Everybody is protected under the law. Everybody's behavior? We could go on forever. One of these day's it may be a "hate crime" if a conservative argues with a liberal on an internet web forum. Hey, the liberal was born that way. They can't help it. We need to treat them as a special class.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
~She didn't conflate them
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:43pm.
She referred to 'practicing pedophiles' and gays in separate and distinct terms. She refers to earlier statements by two men who are not quoted, I don't know what those statements were so I can't speak to her interpretation of them. Regardless, she was extrapolating a premise based on someone else's statement, hers does not stand alone.
Any law that is based on making distinctions between different classes, races, sexes, whatever, is wrong. Hate crime legislation is essentially thought crime legislation. Ever watch that show about the modern day cop who was transported back to the 70's? He referred to something as a possible "hate crime" and his chief said, "As opposed to what, a "I really, really like you" crime?". I thought that summed it up pretty well.
just listened to all 11 minutes
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:44pm.
and that's not what I got from it at all.
~kata
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:48pm.
If you can find the statements to which she was referring, that would be awesome. That quote by her just starts in the middle of a back and forth, it'd be interesting to see what she was responding to. I'd try to find it but I've got a tired 13 month old to tuck in.
I just went to the cspan archive
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:58pm.
If you click on "House Session" then find Bachmann's name on the timeline (around 21:15) you can get the specific video.
~Thank you!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 8:20pm.
That didn't take as long as I thought, little man was wiped.
WB...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:34pm.
Newt Gingrich for one when he once called Democrats the party of treason.
Jer
~Link, please
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:45pm.
Was he in office at the time? Like all the CBC members currently slandering the TEA party?
W B...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:54pm.
This is one of many Gingrich statements slandering Democrats--from Reason.com:
"Throughout his career, Gingrich has done his best to ingratiate himself with the most rabid ideologues in the GOP. In 1990, he advised fellow House Republicans to refer to Democrats with such words as "sick," "pathetic," "destructive," "anti-family," and "traitors."
I'll link the article in just a sec.
Jer
As much as I adore Reason.com
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:39pm.
I still find myself fact checking blogs. How about you Jer?
kata...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:45pm.
Gingrich lived in the adjacent county. I followed his career very closely, and I vividly recall his making that comment.
Do you remember his also saying Democrats weren't "normal" people? I do.
Jer
well that one was an easy find
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:48pm.
yay for context. I am trying to work with ya here Jer. (at least until my pizza has cooled)
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:45pm.
Please remind me never to ask you for a link. Ever.
;)
~Did they do it, Jer?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:31am.
Did sitting Repub representatives attack millions of fellow Americans wholesale? How about the media? Did the media smear millions of Americans with false allegations? I was 9-10 at the time, you'll have to refresh my memory.
WB...This article from
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:19pm.
Spinsanity documents many instances of pundits equating anti-Iraqi war dissent with treason. [Note that some Dems are criticized too for their rhetoric regarding opposition to stimulus package.]
Also, Limbaugh's attack on Tom Daschle's patriotism is legendary--"Tokyo Tom aligned with the axis of evil." Rush also referred to him as "the devil". Republican Tom Davis said Daschle was giving "aid and comfort to the enemy". Ann Coulter's assault on the loyalty of liberals and Democrats is common knowledge. If you need those links, I can get them for you.
Jer
~Um, Jer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:28am.
So what was this all about?
Wrathful Brunette...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 6:48pm.
It's been raised and extensively linked in the past on other NB threads. I don't know the complete story, but it does admittedly raise some serious questions. For that matter, so does Dana Rohrbacher's interaction with the Taliban.
But neither incident should trigger indictments of the patriotism of other politicians or the loyalty and love of country of Democrats or Republicans in general. And frankly even if Ted Kennedy's judgment in this case was poor and his actions indefensible, I don't think the patriotism of the Kennedy siblings can be seriously disputed.
Jer
~Don't have a clue who this Dana person is
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 7:18pm.
Poor judgment is letting a guy with a nose ring watch your purse while you run to the bathroom, corresponding with the KGB was treason. I don't know why you're bringing the Kennedy siblings into it; my point was that Ted Kennedy, a very prominent Democrat, committed treason.
Liberals as a whole have a "It's America's fault" default setting when it comes to international relations, which would be a good reason for someone to refer to them as the 'party of treason'. Regardless, Democrats have never been smeared wholesale by numerous, prominent, sitting GOP politicians or the media.
More from Spinsanity documenting accusations
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:25pm.
made by Zell Miller and Steve Forbes regarding anti-American behavior by Democrats and liberals attempting to bring down the Commander-in-Chief.
Jer
WB: Bachmann accusing Obama of "anti-American"
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:31pm.
views:
But Bachmann sounds determined. She reminded another audience recently of her 2008 comment that Obama might have "anti-American views," declaring, "I said I had very serious concerns that Barack Obama had anti-American views, and now I look like Nostradamus."
Jer
General overview re dissent and loyalty
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:40pm.
from liberal-leaning Salon magazine.
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:47pm.
This administration is using tactics that have us in generational debt to the Chinese. Policies that are designed to destroy or hamper a free market economy. An administration whose ideology is to prosecute anyone who disagrees with them but does not enforce existing laws. The democrats have given billions to countries and groups that openly threaten the destruction of this country. An administration that by passes the legislative process and uses the force and power of the federal govt to destroy or hamper the energy production that keeps us from returning to the dark ages.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/treason
Where is Newt G______ wrong?
Thats not true Jer?
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:50pm.
So why do the dimwit follow lock step with a commie leader like Obama, if'n their such patriots.
Boudin, Jer says---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 8:06pm.
Newt Gingrich FOR ONE.
Well, ok, I added the caps and bolded it.
Still funny.
And still lame.
Maybe he can find a way to add Rush to the list.
That will make TWO.
MD
I am sure that's whats
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 8:10pm.
Keeping him,,,,,, but he will say dinner watch
seriously..
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 8:12pm.
I searched Party of Treason and kept coming up with Tea Party references. It will be gruesome slog through googleland unless he has a specific search context.
But we are the bad guys?
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 8:39pm.
1 single event is supposed to erase hundreds of dimwittedness
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:47pm.
Why don't you add to the discussion instead of diminishing it?
Jer
What, you mean like ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:56pm.
adding to the discussion the way your liberal spiced ruminations do?
You funny guy.
MD
Welp,
Submitted by kilrod on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:13am.
2. Blacks File Racial Discrimination Suit Against Democrats
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Democratic Party on behalf of “the African-American Citizens of the United States” demanding a formal public apology for its treatment of blacks in America.
The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as “Father of Racism,” claim that as an organization the Democratic Party has “consistently refused to apologize for the role it played in slavery and Jim Crow laws and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011,” according to a press release from the Frederick Douglass Foundation.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, Wash., last Monday. It lists as lead plaintiff Wayne Perryman, an African-American minister, author and community activist from Mercer, Wash.
“The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation’s top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrats’ National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excerpts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP,” the press release states.
Perryman said President Obama was also named as a defendant because of his position as the official leader of the Democratic Party, and also due to certain statements he made about his party in his book “Dreams from My Father.”
In 2009, the president was asked to issue an apology to blacks on behalf of his party, but refused, according to the Frederick Douglass Foundation.
The suit seeks a public apology, but no monetary damages.
Perryman stated: “Any organization that has such a racist history and received 97 percent of the African-American vote (after doing all they could do to deny blacks the right to vote) should willingly apologize without being forced to do so through a lawsuit.”
ROFLMAO.~~~>!
(grins) kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
So Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:56pm.
Are you going to critique the substance of every post? If so, then I can now go watch the ball game and when you are done, just send me your summary of this thread. Thank you.
Are you serious, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:35pm.
That HAS to be a sarcastic aside kidding Matthew for his compulsive need to comment on EVERY SINGLE POST I publish at this website. Right?
Boudin has gotten a lot better, but he reverted to his former habits on this particular thread.
Jer
Pay attention and quit whining, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:49pm.
I do NOT comment on EVERY SINGLE POST you publish at this web site.
Only on the ones that exhibit liberally biased bullshit.
Crybaby.
MD
Jer call's me a stalker
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:01am.
When he could/would not answer my inquiries. I didnt mind, he says I diminish threads, when I make funny comments, I dont mind, he calls me Son, when I dont do right, but I dont mind. Wonder why he minds me so much?
Better then what? You maybe?
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:57pm.
See Jer, not my fault you dont get "it". Or have no sense of humor.
Yeah, Boudin, that's it...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:04am.
You're right on all three counts. You're better than me, I don't get it, and I'm humorless.
Jer
Yea I know,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:10am.
But dont sweat it, just relax, you will get it soon enough?
Although after 5 years, maybe not?
Well, I've got a few months to go before hitting the five-year
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:16am.
mark. So, there's still hope.
Jer
Great,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:20am.
As always, we will be pulling for ya!
I think you're funny.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:19am.
-
Funny
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:29am.
Ha, ha?
Or funny looking?
You think I'm "funny"?
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:42am.
What do ya mean, funny? Let me understand this 'cause, I don't know, maybe it's me, I'm a little f**ked up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh... I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? What the f**k is so funny about me? Tell me.
Jer
What's a yute?
Submitted by kata on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 1:36am.
My Cousin Vinny... now that was funny. Of course, Marisa Tomei pretty much stole it from him.
From the best gangster
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 8:32pm.
movie ever made, IMHO.
Ditto...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:03pm.
Miller's Crossing up there, too--along with The Godfather trilogy of course.
Jer
Yes Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:40am.
Braves win, Cards lose. And I'm serious!
And today is another day...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 6:52pm.
Braves lose....Cards win. [Cubs reliever walked three in the ninth, and then threw a wild pitch blowing a 1-0 lead.]
Jer
So Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 7:25pm.
You and I had this same conversation back in April..predicting this duel...Do we know our baseball?...LOL
And I've noticed too Jer, that you...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:18pm.
have dropped the "k" from your name.
Webster, haven't we gone over this before?
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:14am.
Are you just not clever enough to come up with a more resourceful insult other than the tiresome and juvenile missing "K" nonsense which has been sprung on me by about a dozen trolls over the years, and who, back when NB had more active mods, were frequently admonished for the embarrassing immaturity they displayed.
Jer
Welfare is a form of slavery
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 4:00am.
Welfare is a form of slavery and the democrats are the slave masters. Everything the left does is directed toward holding minorites down.
Sure they do.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:05pm.
You keep saying that and perhaps you can hypnotize enough drones to believe your nonsense. That's the usual approach when you've nothing of your own that's positive to point to.
It's beyond getting old. It only marginalizes YOU. But you're to dumb to figure that out.
So I say: KEEP IT COMING YOU BUFFOON.
You really don't know too much about history, do you
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 5:37pm.
hbnolikeee? But you're too intellectually challenged to realize it. In fact, you're not exactly a whiz in English either--too mentally deficient to even spell "too" correctly.
But, please continue with your magnificent display of ignorance. I do enjoy the humorous interludes.
Jer
Your ripostes, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 5:50pm.
have become so---
repetitive.
Yeah, that's a good word.
Also 'ho hum', banal, trite, and saddest of all, expected.
As are all your forays into liberal, Democrat oriented dogma.
MD
I just posted at Amazon discussing the anti-Palin book...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:14pm.
by McGinniss. I was one of the few "good guys" posting there. I felt like I was surrounded by a bunch of Jers. (Or Jerks...either name applies.)
If anyone cares to see what other Liberals think, I suggest you visit there. On second thought, don't bother, they all think like Jer, which is to say, they don't think.
You don't even know what my views are about Palin or
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 7:07pm.
McGinniss' book. You just make up stuff, which is what those with tiny intellects are prone to do. You represent and flaunt everything this website should not--an utter lack of integrity, a rejection of honest analysis, an inability to engage in critical thinking, and a simple-minded reliance on stereotypical presumptions. You also exhibit the emotional maturity of a toddler.
Jer
~Hey!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 7:21pm.
I'll have you know, my toddler is very emotionally mature.
I don't doubt it W B...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 7:29pm.
Your children are very advanced in many respects. Alas, poor Webster fits the mold of the more typical two-year old.
Jer
From the party of Jim Crow
Submitted by pockets64 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:06pm.
These guys are getting really desperate. It's hard to believe how history has turned around to say that the party that fought for and won equal rights in the first place is now considered the party against equal rights.
Oh, and I forgot to mention...
Submitted by pockets64 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:10pm.
The party that shamelessly cruelly attacked Condi, Sarah, Michelle and any other predominant female GOPer in such a painfully sexist manner has the nerve to complain about the GOP???
I want us to go back when
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:27pm.
I want us to go back when sane people voted Democrat.
What would Bob KKK Byrd do?...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:31pm.
It is possible to support the military AND be against the homosexual agenda experimentation within the military.
Why is it accepted that heterosexuals have to be made to feel uncomfortable because military members "feel" the need to broadcast their homosexuality?
They now have the right. We should expect the military recruiting offices to be flooded with homosexual patriots lining up to show heterosexuals their newly unrestricted patriotism as homosexuals, right?
I say, having served and not knowing or caring who was what, shut your mouth and do your damn job because if you screw up... heterosexual/homosexual, black/white, male/female, you will be gone...
How selfish, and biased of that soldier too, insinuating that a republican president would over-turn the new standard. It was Bill Clinton that instituted DADT. But like the slavery point, liberals ignore that too.
Yeah, I bet Tommy Bobby really loves Fleet Week.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:28pm.
We all know the first thing sailors want to do when they get liberty in NYC is to make a beeline to The Ramrod Club to meet the local talent.
/s
Democrats: the Party Built on Slander.
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:46pm.
.
What a moron
Submitted by Sefton on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:53pm.
"I get out of all of these things that many of these candidates would rather take legislation to build a time machine and go back in time to where, uh, we had, you know, no women voting, slavery was cool."
Put your tin foil dunce cap back on and go sit in the corner with the rest of the losers.
I am a women and I am in the tea party
Submitted by Lipton on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:23pm.
Does this guy seriously think he can get away with this. It is ALMOST to absurd to even pay any attention too. I feel like I am in grade school.
hey mr. newscaster, we are
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:28pm.
hey mr. newscaster, we are already enslaved by the feds. Democrat policies since FDR have done the trick
I just want to build a time
Submitted by TN Mom on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:45pm.
I just want to build a time machine and go back to 5% unemployment. The 2012 election is a portal; make it count!
TN Mom*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:01pm.
Finally, someone is realistically talking about Hope and Change!
Thank you.
Slavery is still cool
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:46pm.
Slavery has evolved over time, much like other social institutions. Today, the Democrats are, by far, the biggest supporters of the system of Economic Slavery. Under this system, a huge portion of the population is provided a subsistence living and for that subsistence, all that is required in return is the political power reciprocated by that group. This system of Economic Slavery has such a strong hold on some segments of the population, that it entraps generation after generation.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Wow
Submitted by Brad90956 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:48pm.
I posted on an earlier thread (about an hour ago) that liberals will become more unhinged and make outrageous racist remarks about the GOP to try and save Obama's re-election. Again, expect more of this factless, baseless nonsense from the left in the coming months...it's all they have and it's pretty pathetic.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 5:32pm.
Seriously, they really are funny.
Elections have consequences.
nice
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:01pm.
I wonder if this guy was parked outside New London Sub Base making the same lecture to people who spit on my car when I went on base.
Soldiers were brave and cherished before the Gay Agenda ever got them into their sights. Nothing has changed for us.
Two words: Abraham Lincoln.
Submitted by jawebster1 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:01pm.
Some people are so stupid it takes your breath away.
Grow up
Submitted by grammajane on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:27pm.
and act like a man.
Pretty darn sure it wasn't
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:40pm.
Pretty darn sure it wasn't the Republican's that forced people into slavery. It was Southern Democrats. As for women, we are not the party that threw Hillary Clinton under the bus in our rush to get the first completely unexperienced, ineffective half-African senator to become President. Look how great that turned out. As much as I despise the Clinton's, it still disgusted me how her own party turned against her for no reason other than to ride the race-baiting bandwagon we know as Obama. I am certain even a Clinton couldn't screw up the country as bad as Obama.
Face it. Democrats and liberals don't like women in power unless they look like Janet Reno.
No we don't
Submitted by djwolf12 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:57pm.
We would just with that these Godless Bastards (liberals) would actually start acting like Human Beings for once, not like Robots that only say things like ...............Racists..............Bigots..............Homophobes................
I wish radicals would stop selling us short!
Submitted by stage9 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:54pm.
We would prefer to return to a day when liberal radicalism never existed! Now THAT would be progress!
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
Actually...
Submitted by needle on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:08pm.
... the GOP just wants to go back to when the news was objective and not interlaced with bias and demagoguery.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Almost funny how these guys
Submitted by Darasen on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:49pm.
Almost funny how these guys that typically hate soldiers are suddenly behind them if they are gay. (figuratively speaking)
Slavery was never cool. Even
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 1:55pm.
Slavery was never cool. Even Southerners (and racists) like Calhoun only defended slavery as "an evil, like war, but a fact of nature".
People often refer to the abolition of slavery as an example of how "society's morality changes", and they're off base. Slavery was always considered an evil.
Sounds like lip service to me
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 2:07pm.
Since I can't crawl in anyone's brain, particularly in an historical context, it's impossible to tell. It's hard to believe that slave owners of the old South, or other bygone eras, or even today in certain parts of the world, do not think that they are "cool" because of the amount of power that the "ownership"of slaves brought, (or still brings).
It's easy to rationalize the ownership of other humans as slaves when there is a moral superiority, and a subsequent attitude of "helping out" the unfortunate person that is being enslaved, because of the slaves perceived inferiority to the slave owner. "Hey, my slaves are better off being my slaves instead of running around in an uncivilized state. I'm providing my slaves with food and shelter, and all I ask in return is the power or wealth that their labor and support provide to me."
I think that same attitude exists to this very day, even in the United States, with regards to keeping entire segments of our population in perpetual poverty, or near poverty, by providing that group with a barely subsistence lifestyle in return for political power. It's disgusting.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Ultimately the point is that
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 2:37pm.
Ultimately the point is that slavery didn't evolve to what it was because people felt that black people should be slaves, and made them slaves for that, but because of the economics of the situation. There were arguments that black people had lower intelligence, but nobody thought they were too stupid to clothe, feed themselves, and provide themselves with shelter, like you're implying. When the institution was challenged, it continued to be rationalized for primarily economic reasons. Thomas Jefferson is a good example of a man who was deeply conflicted by the issue.
Then, suffice it to say, slavery also always had its opponents, even if you don't agree about the mindset of slaveowners. Abolitionist sentiment started early on. So just with that, its hard to say "slavery was cool".
~Slavery has been a fact of life
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 3:02pm.
for the entire course of human history, and still is. There are thriving slave markets all over the world, so the liberals who want to keep whining about America's brief history of it need to grow the hell up. If they put half as much time into working to end current-day slavery as they do into whining about the past, they might have some credibility.
They complain about America's
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 3:53pm.
They complain about America's past, not because they care about the past, but because they want to inject it into discussions of contemporary political issues.
Better off as slaves
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 6:51pm.
Economics was the driving force, as always, for slavery. Rationalizing that the slaves were being treated "fairly" and that they were better off as slaves was a factor, for those doing the rationalization. Same thing is going on today. There is a rationalization that a certain segment of society is better off being given a subsistence living, as opposed to being afforded the opportunity to succeed or fail. All that's asked in return is political power.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Um, actually the Founders never wanted slavery...
Submitted by stage9 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 8:19pm.
to begin with.
Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained:
I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule ["do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12].
Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:
Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it.
The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:
He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade].
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=122
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
I never suggested otherwise
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 10:21pm.
I never suggested otherwise about the founders.
I am specifically speaking of attitudes of slavery since the revolutionary era, though. If we're speaking about pre-revolutionary America, you'd need to place it in a context that was contemporary with European serfdom, a type of slavery in itself. Movements to abolish both slavery and serfdom in Europe happened around the same time as abolitionism began in America. Though John Jay in the quote cited credits the shift in attitude to the Revolutionary war, you saw the same thing happening across the Atlantic. The legal restrictions for slaves and the cruel practices towards them also grew over time.
The main point of what I'm trying to say is it was a series of radical social changes that brought about abolition more than just people of one generation saying slavery is cool, and the next generation deciding its bad.
Some people want to portray history as if black people were slaves just because white people hated blacks, and women didn't have the vote just because men wanted to oppress women. And that things have only changed because today people are better than that. But there's a continuity about ethical beliefs from generation to generation , what happens is social institutions and facts of existence change more than people do.
~Human nature never changes
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:40pm.
People accept the conditions they grow up in, and resist change. A girl growing up in a Muslim household accepts her horrible fate unquestioningly as long as she is not exposed to other ideas, for example. This is why liberals have been so dead-set on getting children into the system at younger and younger ages, where they can be formed and molded according to 'progressive' principles.
I said that to say, we do what we know. Slavery is unthinkable today, to most Americans, because it's the antithesis of a culture based on individual liberty, not because we're in some way 'better' than those who went before.
I don't believe people at
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 11:35pm.
I don't believe people at large are as irrational as you're portraying them, that we're instinctively against change. Whenever there is social change though , there are radicals who go overboard and reactionaries who respond to them. A lot of slaveholders dug their heels in on slavery in response to challenges to states rights, the hypocrisy of many Northerners, and threats of violence from abolitionists like John Brown. A lot of Muslims today are practicing a reactionary version of their religion, no doubt in response to what they'd consider the "corruption" of the West, that both conservatives and liberals here have plenty to say about ourselves. When unscrupulous men have positions of power they have to defend, it deepens the reactionary response.
~Oh, the irony
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 10:07am.
You interpret my comment as portraying people as "irrational" and follow up with a screed about reactionary responses.
That's funny.
I didn't know my response was
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 12:06pm.
I didn't know my response was a screed, I was just replying with view.
Anyway no my point is that being rational wouldn't mean people are perfect. Southern slaveholders believed their rights were protected, and also that they weren't villains, so they put more of their energy into fighting these political battles than finding ways to end slavery. Rationalizations turned into defensiveness. It was also driven by emotion as much as reason, which I don't think takes away from them being rational.
Where I disagree is I don't believe there is any innate drive in people to be against change, rather than for it, though. People are just as likely to seek change. Some people embrace new technology and new social changes without thinking much about the consequences, while other people are skeptical.
~I don't know why you're making a big deal
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 12:20pm.
out of one point in my comment, that people 'resist change'. This is self-evident, look at the outcry every single time Facebook tweaks their site.
You can use outliers like anarchists to try to put the lie to a general statement about human nature as a whole, but why bother? It's like arguing that water isn't really wet because sometimes it's frozen.
lol
Submitted by kata on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 12:24pm.
ok I have to laugh here. My FB newsfeed EXPLODED with f-bombs because of that. I thought it was hilarious and in my opinion it was no big deal. It's FREE for goshsakes.
Ok I'll return you to your regularly scheduled program.