Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re: Trump to Win?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Trump to Win?

    Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
    There is no there, there. Like Obama in his first term you have assumed you're dealing with, at a minimum, sentient humans when you are dealing with the last vestiges of lizard brained white racism. As white guy privilege finally begins to die off in the US they are going to fight even harder to keep it.

    Happy to discuss issues with you on your thread behind the paywall but I'll also check out of this thread.
    I don't think you give a damn about racism or the lives of black people. Growing up in the American Southeast, I lived hand in glove with black people. We work together, live in the same neighborhoods, send our kids to school together, pray together and manage to do our best each day without calling each other ugly names. You have no interest in racial conciliation or healing. What you want is to weaponize race to deploy it against those you consider your enemies.

    I was in Albuquerque and Santa Fe this spring and I honestly don't remember seeing more than a handful of black people. That's no surprise considering that of the 50 states, New Mexico is 40 in terms of African American residents. That means you get to demonstrate your moral superiority and racial openness by going days without seeing one of the mere 42 thousand black people living in your state.

    As such, you've not had to make any real effort to live with and accommodate people different from you. And until you have as we in the American South do every single day, your virtuous posing impresses no one. I can only imagine the terror someone like you from such a lilly white place as New Mexico would feel walking about neighborhoods in East Atlanta, Miami or Columbia. If you cared about racism more than you did about feeding your immense hate and envy, you would know as we in the Southeast know, that to throw that term around as carelessly as you invites this evil into our lives.

    All humans are racists in some ways and to some degree, but many not-unusually-racist “white” people who perceive Clinton's corruption, now see Trump as the only game in town thanks to HRC and Democrats like you. In refusing to resist the temptation to try and sway the undecided by equating support for Trump with racism full-stop, you and those like you have opened a Pandora's box of horror. In seeking to mainstream the slander that all Trump voters are unrepentant racists, it leaves those who are already committed, those who are unwilling to abandon Trump or to stomach Clinton, little choice but to own what you’ve accused them.

    You and those idiots like you have made "racist" the new "queer." The same daring, transgressional psychology that for gay people converted an insult into a durable token of identity will inevitably persuade a people who otherwise would not have challenged the social taboo surrounding racism to accept the epithet with defiant equanimity or even to embrace it. And all of that is on HRC and folks like you. You will own that until the last days.

    For in so carelessly and maliciously slandering your neighbors and fellow citizens as racists you will realize all that you claim to detest. In and of itself, that will make America’s already deeply ugly racial politics uglier still. It will justify the further pathologization of the white underclass you so despise. It is selfish and self-serving as it does nothing at all to help communities of color except to set us all at one another’s throats.

    Of course, this seems to me to be the plan - divide low status whites and blacks so they cannot make common cause and see their common interests against people like you. This divide and conquer strategy is the preferred tactic of the imperialist, the slave master and the tyrant and you play it as well as anyone. Your efforts and those like you, to set Americans agaist each other will also serve as yet another convenient excuse for beneficiaries of economic stratification based on political largess to blame the victim.

    Your counterfeit virtue comes free and without effort and so is worth nothing. Frankly, you disgust me and I wear your hatred like a badge of honor
    Last edited by Woodsman; October 19, 2016, 12:31 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Trump to Win?

      +1,000

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Trump to Win?

        Originally posted by jk View Post
        got a better phrase i could have used instead of "a broad conspiracy"?
        There are a lot of phrases I could have used.

        "Well that would be quite a scam" . "That would be quite a racket".

        Or you could balance it out to sanitize the loaded word with " I hope not, that would be an outrageous conspiracy."


        I remember the good old days when people came here to make money. Information was presented and a healthy unemotional skepticism on any weakness was followed.

        I guess people are pretty objective with their pocket book.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Trump to Win?

          Originally posted by gwynedd1 View Post
          There are a lot of phrases I could have used.

          "Well that would be quite a scam" . "That would be quite a racket".

          Or you could balance it out to sanitize the loaded word with " I hope not, that would be an outrageous conspiracy."


          I remember the good old days when people came here to make money. Information was presented and a healthy unemotional skepticism on any weakness was followed.

          I guess people are pretty objective with their pocket book.
          i hear you, but my point had to do with the large number of people - "broad"- who'd be in on the scheme, and the unlikelihood of having so many people keep a secret- "conspiracy." the polling at the moment shows a blowout, anyway, so hopefully the result won't be in doubt. it doesn't look like bush v gore, with people needing to worry about whether to count pregnant chads. ultimately even there the result was clear: 5 to 4.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Trump to Win?

            The 9 basic forms of a modern, leftist argument:

            {hateful} , {sexist} , {racist}
            {sexist} , {racist} , {hateful}
            ...



            I don't know how else to explain it other than a dimensional deficiency. To liberals, the more angry cats you stuff into a bag, the more you love cats.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Trump to Win?

              Julian Assange is no Daniel Ellsberg

              http://billmoyers.com/story/writing-over-wikileaks/

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Trump to Win?

                Originally posted by jk View Post
                i hear you, but my point had to do with the large number of people - "broad"- who'd be in on the scheme, and the unlikelihood of having so many people keep a secret- "conspiracy." the polling at the moment shows a blowout, anyway, so hopefully the result won't be in doubt. it doesn't look like bush v gore, with people needing to worry about whether to count pregnant chads. ultimately even there the result was clear: 5 to 4.
                Has anyone been convicted for war crimes after invading Iraq based on fabricated reasons ?
                What would you call that?

                Why are there so few leaks on new Apple devices, and if they do leak, it's usually through third party suppliers? There must be hundreds of people at Apple working on these products.

                The number of people who are 'in' on a secret doesn't seem to pose much of a problem, if your control mechanisms are sufficiently good (probably a combination of repression/fear and money/incentives).
                Also, what good does knowing and exposing a secret do you, if you can make a reasonable safe assumption that neither media nor prosecutors will take action?

                Society basically stops functioning in a healthy way, when media and doj don't do their jobs. US society today seems to be awfully close that that breaking point.
                Last edited by FrankL; October 20, 2016, 12:27 AM.
                engineer with little (or even no) economic insight

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Trump to Win?

                  Originally posted by Thailandnotes View Post
                  Julian Assange is no Daniel Ellsberg

                  http://billmoyers.com/story/writing-over-wikileaks/
                  That's funny, since Daniel Ellsberg is no "Daniel Ellsberg."

                  http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/03/...ease-stand-up/

                  And Bill Moyers is far from the saint he portrays himself.

                  "Bill Moyers just began handling the press for Lyndon at that time. Moyers, who'd graduated from Southwest Theological Institute in Fort Worth, had been brought to Washington because of another rumor: there had been speculation that LBJ's relationship with his top secretary Mary Margaret Wiley had become an intimate as well as a professional one. Concerned, Lyndon had asked his good friend Harry Provence of the Waco Tribune and several other Texas editors to look for someone to prevent that kind of talk. And who better to give the Vice Presidential staff a more "sanctified" appearance than a young man headed for the ministry? So Moyers was hired on, ostensibly to deal with policy concerning religion and to answer letters that had a religious tone. In actuality, he was a chaperone who would travel with Lyndon and Mary Margaret to show that all was on the up-and-up."
                  He helped LBJ hunt for gays in the White House and was lead in disseminating information to the press that discredited Martin Luther King. The guy is a hypocrite of the highest order and is the keeper of LBJ's skeleton closet. Once a Democrat hatchet man, always a Democrat hatchet man.
                  Last edited by Woodsman; October 20, 2016, 07:32 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Trump to Win?

                    Originally posted by FrankL View Post
                    Has anyone been convicted for war crimes after invading Iraq based on fabricated reasons ?
                    What would you call that?

                    Why are there so few leaks on new Apple devices, and if they do leak, it's usually through third party suppliers? There must be hundreds of people at Apple working on these products.

                    The number of people who are 'in' on a secret doesn't seem to pose much of a problem, if your control mechanisms are sufficiently good (probably a combination of repression/fear and money/incentives).
                    Also, what good does knowing and exposing a secret do you, if you can make a reasonable safe assumption that neither media nor prosecutors will take action?

                    Society basically stops functioning in a healthy way, when media and doj don't do their jobs. US society today seems to be awfully close that that breaking point.
                    all good points

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Trump to Win?

                      Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
                      That's funny, since Daniel Ellsberg is no "Daniel Ellsberg."

                      http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/03/...ease-stand-up/

                      And Bill Moyers is far from the saint he portrays himself.



                      He helped LBJ hunt for gays in the White House and was lead in disseminating information to the press that discredited Martin Luther King. The guy is a hypocrite of the highest order and is the keeper of LBJ's skeleton closet. Once a Democrat hatchet man, always a Democrat hatchet man.
                      "The mass murderer Graham Greene used as the model for Alden Pyle in “The Quiet American,” Lansdale was the architect of the CIA’s anti-terror strategy for winning the Vietnam War." I stopped reading. The myth that Lansdale was the Quiet American was debunked before Lansdale died. And why slime Moyers? Because the article appeared on his site?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Trump to Win?

                        http://harpers.org/archive/2016/11/i...ow-2/?single=1

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Trump to Win?

                          Originally posted by Thailandnotes View Post
                          "The mass murderer Graham Greene used as the model for Alden Pyle in “The Quiet American,” Lansdale was the architect of the CIA’s anti-terror strategy for winning the Vietnam War." I stopped reading. The myth that Lansdale was the Quiet American was debunked before Lansdale died. And why slime Moyers? Because the article appeared on his site?
                          It's history, it happened, he did it and never denied it. Moyers slimed himself. He's the secular televangelist of liberalism. Jimmy Swaggart with gravitas and better PR.

                          You stopped reading? Too bad. Orwell called that "crimestop." He considered it a form of "protective stupidity." But tell me more about this Graham Greene myth debunking. I'm curious.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Trump to Win?

                            So - the one player that has been really quiet in the news of late (well, really always), is the CIA. How are their interests impacted in the event of a Hillary Clinton presidency? Is she a fan of the CIA? I doubt it.
                            This is an angle that I haven't heard.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Trump to Win?

                              a good read. thanks for posting

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Trump to Win?

                                Originally posted by jk View Post
                                a good read. thanks for posting
                                Hey, they found a liberal J.D. Vance and this dude really hates the GOP, Trump and WORMs (White Old Rich Men). Still it's a good read and I especially liked where it aligned so well with the Woodsman strategery.

                                But Thai, what about this Lansdale "Quiet American" myth you say has been debunked? You have a source published before February 23, 1987 (RIP)?

                                Greene denied that Lansdale was his inspiration, but I have to speculate he simply didn't want to give the bastard the satisfaction. Certainly the "Air Force officer" himself seemed to think he was the model. Jonathan Nashel's "Edward Lansdale's Cold War" (2005) is still the canonical biography and in reading it again, two things seem clear. They hated each other and Lansdale knew Greene would stick it to him in print.

                                “Lansdale was not pleased by Greene’s portrayal of him, and consequently his own view of the British author was an unflattering one…. It was 1954 and two of Lansdale’s friends… had just returned to Saigon from an interview with Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi…. the Dardins invited him to dine with them at the Continental Hotel…. Lansdale arrives, he saw a large group of French offices at the sidewalk terrace and Greene sitting with them. Later… Greene said something in French to his companions and the men began booing Lansdale. The Durdins knew Greene, and Peg stuck out her tongue at him, turned and gave Lansdale a hug…. For some reason Greene banged the table at which he sat. Lansdale smirked and thought, ‘I’m going to get written up someplace as a dirty dog.’
                                But in the ensuing years the old advertising man instincts kicked in and Lansdale tacked. By the time the pre-production started on the film version of the book, we have Lansdale and the Agency reworking the script with Hollywood screenwriter Joseph Mankiewicz into what Greene called a pro-American travesty. Lansdale seems to be actually encouraging the idea in his correspondence with Mankiewicz.

                                Writing in the period of the Hollywood Blacklist, Mankiewicz began his adaptation with the same concern to appease the patriotic sensitivities of the Production Code Administration (PCA) censors - who fancied themselves protectors of our “National Feeling” and virtue. So by the time Lansdale/CIA's editorial efforts were through, Graham's narrative essentially was turned inside out with the bad guy becoming a good guy (played by World War II hero Audie Murphy, no less).

                                And then there's the matter of "Colonel Edwin B. Hillandale."
                                Last edited by Woodsman; October 20, 2016, 09:19 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X