Colin Powell Jus an Uncle Tom
Ranetek
he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
Steven D. Litvintchouk
With this reply, I cross-posted your question to
soc.culture.african.american.
Perhaps someone there can assist you with your questions.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: s...@mitre.org
Disclaimer: As far as I am aware, the opinions expressed
herein
are not those of my employer.
V is for Vincent
"Ranetek" <ran...@home.com> wrote in message
news:x60W5.28311$Y6.83...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
> What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist.
Doesn't
> he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
> doesn't act militant
Maybe it is time for white people to begin "acting militant?" Why is it
only blacks (or feminists or yadda yadda yadda) who are allowed to me
"militant?" If you put the words "white" and "militant" together you would
think that we were talking about an invasion from Mars. I can hear Peter
Jennings on the evening news now: "Circle the wagons, folks. The white
militants have landed and pose the greatest threat to civilization ever
known to humankind!"
> and has put his own political ambition above any
> concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
His people? So, I assume this means that blacks are not really Americans?
They are something else, right? His (black) people against my (white)
people. Interesting. Keep talking. I want to learn more.
Becky Cox
age, especially one professing to care for minorities?
I believe and sincerely hope it is true that Bush is choosing Colin Powell
soley for his expertise, experience, qualifications, and good character; the
fact that he is black (not "A black" which is divisive and not descriptive)
is only a plus as it does exhibit, perhaps too conspicuously, the
inclusiveness of the Republican party. Realisticly, the color of his skin
probably did play some role in his rise within the party. Why should
Democrats have a problem with that, since they believe with all their hearts
that Affirmative Action is still the best way to handle the disparity
between people of different heritages? That the color of one's skin should
be important in deciding who will get a position within a company or the
government, all else being equal? Sorry, your hypocracy is showing again.
Thinking for oneself and coming to the conclusion that the Republican party
better matches your overall view does not make you a traitor to anything,
least of all your "race." Face it, as a retired military general, Colin
Powell fully understands that the needs of our defense are not be met by the
Democrats (there is a reason the military vote disproportionatly
Republican--and I can speak from some experience, being a military brat
myself). On other issues, he has obviously found himself agreeing with the
party lines. He has opinions that don't quite agree with the Republican
stance on certain issues--or didn't you know that? Unlike Lieberman, he has
not shifted his views to match party lines, although for political reasons
he has on occasion muted them. His integrity and heroism should not be
called into question only because of his skin tone and heritage. That is
racism. Because he is black, his personal choices are criticised
unfairly--racism is clearly not dead yet. But this time it is not the
conservative racists like the KKK (there are plenty, I know that--but the
proportion is a lot smaller than is made out on this newsgroup and being
Republican does not automatically make you part of those groups). It is the
Democrats perpetuating racism, trying to divide us further because they feel
their causes are becoming old news quickly. That's the way it was supposed
to happen in the first place, wasn't it? Skin tone, sex, etc--these aren't
supposed to be issues anymore. As soon as we are getting very close to real
equality under the law, if not completely in practice since history takes a
while to overturn, we suddenly get criticism of a great hero who happens to
have darker skin than some of us, just because of his race.
I hope most minorities will be able to see what is happening now, and jump
the Democrat ship. People cannot be equal if their differences are
constantly used to separate them, regardless of the direction the racism is
going. The Democrats, counting on their minority base, are using these
differences to make minorities feel they must stay with the party, and thus
worsening the problem rather than making it better.
--Becky
Ranetek <ran...@home.com> wrote in message
news:x60W5.28311$Y6.83...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Uranus.
Ranetek wrote:
Colon Powell is about as black as (so called) Justice
Clarence Thomas is a replacement for Justice Thurgood
Marshall. Who has put this pubic hair on my Coke
Thomas has more sexual harassment groupies then
Clinton. The only (so called) Justice more fascist then
Thomas is Justice Antonin Scalia. And the only black
more fascist than both of these two clowns is Colon
Powell.
"Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
Colon (the anus) Powell
I guess the people born with both sexes and want to get
married are just out of luck, when Bush get in there, because
the only legal marriage is between a man and a woman,
even if you are both. Maybe they might be able to marry
themselves. If there is no legal same sex marriages then
those born with both sexes cannot legally marry, and are
made second class citizens, (against the 14th Amendment).
Brickner's
and what can you say about Jesse jackson .................???
James Jones
thing yesterday, or is it just that old GOP hypocrisy showing up, whatever
works for you at the moment.
--
"...whatever it takes..."
Jeb Bush, Florida Governor
"Steven D. Litvintchouk" <s...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:3A28915E...@mitre.org...
wav...@my-deja.com
would ber reason enough for Powell to work with G. W. Bush. Of course,
racist morons like you are always looking to start trouble. Too bad for
you that it is miostly trouble for yourself.
-*MORT*-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
wav...@my-deja.com
Brickner's <dave...@bright.net> wrote:
>
>
King Pineapple
Becky Cox <cox...@osu.edu> wrote her usual succinct reply in message
news:90aabb$oee$1...@news.cis.ohio-state.edu...
> What self-respecting person would make such racist comments in this day
and
> age, especially one professing to care for minorities?
ranetek has NO self-respect, as he's a Bubba Butt Boy. A *desperate* BBB
King Pineapple
Ranetek <ran...@home.com> stopped reading his well-worn copy of Little
Black Sambo long enough to allegedly write in message
news:x60W5.28311$Y6.83...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
No, racists like YOU are truly disgusting...
chud...@ix.netcom.com
another House Nigger.
Marksman
<chud...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A28FE...@ix.netcom.com...
> Like Condoleeza and JC Watts and C Thomas and Keyes, Powell is just
> another House Nigger.
>
Another racist demoncrap rears his ugly head.
BballJunky
to get ahead in life works in the Republican party. Because he is not on
victim status at all times, he can't be a "real black man"! Face it, blacks in
the Republican party have a better chance of landing top positions than if they
were in the Democratic party. Freddy
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
castor oil let loose:
> Like Condoleeza and JC Watts and C Thomas and Keyes, Powell is just
> another House Nigger.
> Ranetek wrote:
>>>>
Any Black person who doesn't whine, scream "gimme, gimme", or has
actually made something of his or her life is a "House Nigger" to the
degenerate, racist "left", which depends on stirring up race hatred and
envy to attain power. The real "House Niggers" are losers like Sharpton
and Jackson.
--
"Florida - the nation's wang." H.J.Simpson
"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought,
stays bought." Simon Cameron
"Is ours a government of the people, by the people,
for the people or a kakistocracy rather, for the benefit
of knaves at the cost of fools?" James Russell Lowell
"Democracy is a form of religion, it is the worship of
jackals by jackasses." H.L.Mencken
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
an0...@hotmail.com
The sour grapes bunch just can't stand it!!
And I just LOVE watching all of these libdems taking a big old bite
out of that doggy-doo sandwich!!
It brings a great big smile to my face!
Munch on, libdems!!!
ROTF!!!!!!!
Christopher Morton
I'm sure you'll eventually get around to calling him a "nigger". Your
lot usually eventually does.
---
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any word and
your cynical manipulation of my expression won't ever make me a racist
or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." - Lee Harrison (lha...@amaonlon.com)
Robert Frenchu
>What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
>he realize that he is a token?
What do you think *you're* doing here? You're tpg's token village
idiot.
____
"I find it hideously unfair that the bullet,
meant for that NRA bastard Reagan, landed within
Mr Brady instead."
-Randy Douglas, 4/22/00
The Lone Weasel
chr...@ameritech.net wrote on 12/2/00 8:15 AM:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 05:52:29 GMT, "Ranetek" <ran...@home.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sure you'll eventually get around to calling him a "nigger". Your
> lot usually eventually does.
We know you're just white trash in a pointy-headed sheet, Morton.
Smile from the inside out.
_________________
IS IT TRUE WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT CHRISSY?
http://www.jolson.org/ra/dec/d51dixie.ram
(Based on "Is It True What They Say About Dixie?"
by Irving Caesar, Sammy Lerner & Gerald Marks)
Is it true what they say about CHRISSY?
Does that fool really whine all the time?
Do swastikas get painted on everybody's door?
Do SNORTS keep on cavortin till he can't vort no more?
Is it true what they say about MORTLES?
Is a scheme by that fiend not sublime?
Does he hate, does he prate, like he's lovin every wrong?
If it's true, he's been loose too long!
Christopher Morton: He's the guy on the left...
http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton/hanguk_page/range.htm
The Lone Weasel <lonew...@justice.com>
http://member.newsguy.com/~leehrsn/index.html
Marksman
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@justice.com> wrote in message
news:B64E679F.108C%lonew...@justice.com...
> in article fu0i2toaasr85730v...@4ax.com, Christopher Morton
at
> chr...@ameritech.net wrote on 12/2/00 8:15 AM:
>
> > On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 05:52:29 GMT, "Ranetek" <ran...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > lot usually eventually does.
>
> We know you're just white trash in a pointy-headed sheet, Morton.
>
> Smile from the inside out.
>
Isn't it hard for you to see what he is wearing with that sheet over your
head?
Russ Price
The only disgusting thing here is racist pinheads who trot out
the same old tired imagery in a desperate attempt to prop up
their losing cause.
Bush won. Gore lost. Deal.
Russ Price
Michael
tom's are out there I think you find them in the Democratic party. The
democrats love their affirmative action, so would the true "uncle tom",
sitting there waiting on his lazy ass for the white guy to give him
something free of charge and with no effort on his part.
If Powell got his foot in the door because he was black, more power to him.
One thing is certain, he didn't move up constantly because he was black. In
the door, is in the door. He moved up because he is qualified, as a man.
The Republican Party has room in it for men like Colon Powell. Its time the
democrats learn this. The Republican Party has traditionally been made up of
people wanting a better life and working toward that goal, yes white and
black. The sit on the porch and hand me things, free because I'm white or
black can stay in the Democratic Party with all their government handouts.
Michael
Doug
--
*********************************************************
Lobotomies for LIBERALS are physically impossible...they have NO brain!!!
"Ranetek" <ran...@home.com> wrote in message
news:x60W5.28311$Y6.83...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Doug
LIBERALS ARE UNAMERICAN!!!
--
*********************************************************
Lobotomies for LIBERALS are physically impossible...they have NO brain!!!
<chud...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A28FE...@ix.netcom.com...
> Like Condoleeza and JC Watts and C Thomas and Keyes, Powell is just
> another House Nigger.
>
> Ranetek wrote:
> >
d'geezer
Interesting side note: My spell checker offered as the first replacement
for "Ranetek", "ranted". Just thought you'd appreciate the irony.
Seeing that Powell has studiously avoided jumping aboard the many
political "busses" he's been invited to I think he has considerable
character and a profound respect for his fellow Blacks in taking great
pains about who he affiliates with. He probably has lost millions of
dollars avoiding becoming a "Tom".
I'm prepared to see your support for this "truly disgusting" allegation.
Apparently when a black man stops wearing gang colors, shooting 9's
sideways, and no longer speaks Ebon, you somehow equate that with "Uncle
Tom". Well, I no longer speak Low German, don't wear wooden shoes, don't
believe in "The Little People", and put my kilt away years ago, so am I
turning against my heritage?
How dare you define a man by an externally applied "race" title and then
attempt to demean him for not being what you want him to be. Colin
Powell is ten times the man you'll ever be.
You race baiting dip shits are a pain in the butt. Go soak your head in
Battery Acid and leave decent folks alone, all colors, and all kinds of
them. You are a stink bug.
d'geezer
--
"Wherever is found what is called a paternal government,
there is found state education. It has been discovered
that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to
commence tyranny in the nursery." -- Benjamin Disraeli
d'geezer
> Clarence Thomas is a replacement for Justice Thurgood
> Marshall. Who has put this pubic hair on my Coke
> Thomas has more sexual harassment groupies then
> Clinton. The only (so called) Justice more fascist then
> Thomas is Justice Antonin Scalia. And the only black
> more fascist than both of these two clowns is Colon
> Powell.
>
> "Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
> orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
> characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
> discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
>
> Colon (the anus) Powell
>
> I guess the people born with both sexes and want to get
> married are just out of luck, when Bush get in there, because
> the only legal marriage is between a man and a woman,
> even if you are both. Maybe they might be able to marry
> themselves. If there is no legal same sex marriages then
> those born with both sexes cannot legally marry, and are
> made second class citizens, (against the 14th Amendment).
My Goodness. Is there no one or category you don't hate?
Don Winslow
Becky Cox <cox...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:90aabb$oee$1...@news.cis.ohio-state.edu...
> What self-respecting person would make such racist comments in this day
and
> age, especially one professing to care for minorities?
>
> soley for his expertise, experience, qualifications, and good character;
the
> fact that he is black (not "A black" which is divisive and not
descriptive)
> is only a plus as it does exhibit, perhaps too conspicuously, the
> inclusiveness of the Republican party.
>
thinkof.
> Ranetek <ran...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:x60W5.28311$Y6.83...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Don Winslow
<chud...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A28FE...@ix.netcom.com...
> Like Condoleeza and JC Watts and C Thomas and Keyes, Powell is just
> another House Nigger.
>
Uranus.
Becky Cox wrote:
> What self-respecting person would make such racist comments in this day and
> age, especially one professing to care for minorities?
>
> I believe and sincerely hope it is true that Bush is choosing Colin Powell
> soley for his expertise, experience, qualifications, and good character; the
> fact that he is black (not "A black" which is divisive and not descriptive)
> is only a plus as it does exhibit, perhaps too conspicuously, the
> inclusiveness of the Republican party.
Can you actually say this with a straight face? I guess you feel you
are not a bigot. In spite of saying them Democrats this and them
Democrats that, you can say Republicans are all inclusive. Yet
who is it that made the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to
exclude those born with both sexes from being able to marry
because they are born with both sexes and must marry the same
sex?
> People cannot be equal if their differences are
> constantly used to separate them...
So where in your party is there room for those born
with both sexes, and homosexuals?
Uranus.
wav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> I would wager that Powell's experience working with George H. W. Bush
> would ber reason enough for Powell to work with G. W. Bush. Of course,
> racist morons like you are always looking to start trouble. Too bad for
> you that it is miostly trouble for yourself.
Let's see you are a racist if you point out that someone uses
or is being used for a characteristic they have. Even when that
person uses their characteristic only when it suites them to
point out the inferiority of another group and to belittle that
group for a perceived non-innate characteristic. To say their
struggle and that group of humans are not the same or worthy
of the same treatment as his group, because they are not
the same, (after all they just choose to be what they are, like
religions are chosen). Yet in the same line he also says the
same thing about those born with both sexes, even if
homosexuals choose to be homosexual (which no psychiatrist
of credibility believes) those that are born with both sexes
have no choice, but they are made to fill the same bigotry
as blacks, but do not share the special rights that heterosexuals
have to marry who they choose.
Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
Colin Powell
Uranus.
Marksman wrote:
> <chud...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3A28FE...@ix.netcom.com...
> > Like Condoleeza and JC Watts and C Thomas and Keyes, Powell is just
> > another House Nigger.
> >
>
> Another racist demoncrap rears his ugly head.
Let's see he is a racist for pointing out a person referring
to a group, but when you point out a person referring to
a group you are not a bigot, I see thanks for straightening
that out for me.
Robert D. Baker
Steven D. Litvintchouk wrote in message <3A28915E...@mitre.org>...
>Ranetek wrote:
>>
>> What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist.
Doesn't
>> he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
>> doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
>> concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
>
>soc.culture.african.american.
>Perhaps someone there can assist you with your questions.
Well, that was just plain _mean_. Keep up the good work.
OBTW, is Ms. Rice married? Just wondering.....;)
tt
rdb
Becky Cox
Uranus. <UpUr...@politician.com> wrote in message
news:3A294F5A...@politician.com...
>
>
> Becky Cox wrote:
>
> > What self-respecting person would make such racist comments in this day
and
> > age, especially one professing to care for minorities?
> >
> > I believe and sincerely hope it is true that Bush is choosing Colin
Powell
> > soley for his expertise, experience, qualifications, and good character;
the
> > fact that he is black (not "A black" which is divisive and not
descriptive)
> > is only a plus as it does exhibit, perhaps too conspicuously, the
> > inclusiveness of the Republican party.
>
> Can you actually say this with a straight face? I guess you feel you
> are not a bigot. In spite of saying them Democrats this and them
> Democrats that, you can say Republicans are all inclusive. Yet
> who is it that made the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to
> exclude those born with both sexes from being able to marry
> because they are born with both sexes and must marry the same
> sex?
Well, yes, I can and did say it with a straight face. I was answering to
people who consider Democrats and Republicans distinctly separate groups, so
I think it was fair to say Democrats in general do one thing or the other.
The truth is, of course, a little less clear; party affiliation for most of
us is not an ingrained, permanent thing.
I did not quite say that Republicans are all-inclusive. I said that our
party is no more racist and bigoted than the Democratic party, and perhaps,
at this point in history, less so in many ways.
As for Marriage and bisexual persons, you bring up what on the surface seems
to be a thorny issue. Marriage should be reserved for men and women; it is
as much a private and religious institution as a public one, and by
traditional definition must be between persons of the opposite sex. A person
who is supposedly born with both sexes should see a doctor. In all but a few
rare mutations, like Down's Syndrome (which I am not an expert on but we
studied in Biology class), humans cannot be born with any other combination
of X and Y chromosomes than XX, a female, and XY, a male. Most other
mutations are miscarried very early on when they occur, and do not result in
a human entering the world. My understanding is that bisexual people have a
hormonal imbalance causing them to exhibit features from both sexes;
individuals who have a sex change can be made to exhibit most features of
the opposite sex with hormonal treatments. Modern medical science can
identify which sex a person is based on their DNA, and with hormones, allow
that person to become fully male or fully female. Therefore, I disagree with
your statement that some people are born with both sexes and must therefore
marry a person of their own sex.
> > People cannot be equal if their differences are
> > constantly used to separate them...
>
> So where in your party is there room for those born
> with both sexes, and homosexuals?
>
> http://www.isna.org/faq.html
>
I already discussed "those born with both sexes" and homosexuality is a
different matter altogether. If you could prove, one hundred percent, that
gay and lesbian persons had absolutely no choice in the matter and were
truly born unable to have physical and romantic love with a person of the
opposite sex, I might feel differently. It is the things we do not have a
choice in that should not separate us in the eyes of employers and the law,
such as skin tone and--given what I said above--sex (most do not have reason
to alter these, although it is possible). Homosexuality may not feel like a
choice to those who have it, but I think there are other reasons, including
its current acceptability, why people feel the need to be gay, which have
nothing to do with biology. People have chosen to overcome it, whatever its
reasons, and lived happy lives as heterosexuals afterwards.
As for homosexual marriage, I understand some of the reasons homosexuals
want the rights and privlidges accorded to those who are married. What I
don't understand is why they demand this form of partnership, when the same
rights--visiting loved ones in the hospital, insurance coverage--could be
accorded to them through civil unions. Marriage means Husband and Wife;
civil union can simply be between partners. I think homosexuals are wrong,
but I do not condemn them as people. I question their motives, actions, and
their cause--defining oneself entirely by ones sexuality, which is what a
gay activist automatically does, seems like a stupid idea to me, when there
are so many other dimensions to explore of this world.
If not agreeing with homosexuals makes me a bigot, than I guess I will have
to wear that title in your eyes. If it makes me a homophobe, so be it. But I
am neither; I respect every human for his or her basic humanity, and
homosexuality does not frighten me.
--Becky
Uranus.
d'geezer wrote:
> "Uranus." wrote:
> >
> > Ranetek wrote:
> >
> > > What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
> > > he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
> > > doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
> > > concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
> >
> > Colon Powell is about as black as (so called) Justice
> > Clarence Thomas is a replacement for Justice Thurgood
> > Marshall. Who has put this pubic hair on my Coke
> > Thomas has more sexual harassment groupies then
> > Clinton. The only (so called) Justice more fascist then
> > Thomas is Justice Antonin Scalia. And the only black
> > more fascist than both of these two clowns is Colon
> > Powell.
> >
> > "Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
> > orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
> > characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
> > discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
> >
> > Colon (the anus) Powell
> >
> > I guess the people born with both sexes and want to get
> > married are just out of luck, when Bush get in there, because
> > the only legal marriage is between a man and a woman,
> > even if you are both. Maybe they might be able to marry
> > themselves. If there is no legal same sex marriages then
> > those born with both sexes cannot legally marry, and are
> > made second class citizens, (against the 14th Amendment).
>
> My Goodness. Is there no one or category you don't hate?
I am a product of my environment, if you want to change
the varibles of society you have to change the environment.
Teach respect for self and others and give equality to
everyone then none of us will have an excuse to be bigots
Steven D. Litvintchouk
>
> You suddenly got sensitive. Didn't somebody flame you for the same kind of
> thing yesterday, or is it just that old GOP hypocrisy showing up, whatever
> works for you at the moment.
Not at all. I believe strongly in Martin Luther King's statement that
someone should be judged not on the color of their skin but on the
content of their character. It's just as true today as it was then.
Al Sharpton has no character whatsoever. The fact that he is black
should not serve to insulate him from criticism; these days it appears
to be politically incorrect to accuse any African-American of immoral or
nefarious actions.
Colin Powell is a great American. The fact that he is black, and has
chosen to disagree with many of his fellow blacks, is not a reason to
call him an "Uncle Tom." Independent thinking is not being an "Uncle
Tom."
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: s...@mitre.org
Disclaimer: As far as I am aware, the opinions expressed
herein
are not those of my employer.
Uranus.
d'geezer wrote:
> Ranetek wrote:
>
> Interesting side note: My spell checker offered as the first replacement
> for "Ranetek", "ranted". Just thought you'd appreciate the irony.
>
> >
> > What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
> > he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
> > doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
> > concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
>
> Seeing that Powell has studiously avoided jumping aboard the many
> political "busses" he's been invited to I think he has considerable
> character and a profound respect for his fellow Blacks in taking great
> pains about who he affiliates with. He probably has lost millions of
> dollars avoiding becoming a "Tom".
>
> I'm prepared to see your support for this "truly disgusting" allegation.
> Apparently when a black man stops wearing gang colors, shooting 9's
> sideways, and no longer speaks Ebon, you somehow equate that with "Uncle
> Tom". Well, I no longer speak Low German, don't wear wooden shoes, don't
> believe in "The Little People", and put my kilt away years ago, so am I
> turning against my heritage?
Let's see if you can follow this, he is a racist because he is
pointing out a person uses and is being used for a characteristic,
that he then uses as his superiority over another group, but
you pointing out that this characteristis of that group as they
all wear gang colors, shooting 9's sideways, and speak Ebon,
is not racist, is that about right? Can you see the flaw in your logic?
> How dare you define a man by an externally applied "race" title and then
> attempt to demean him for not being what you want him to be. Colin
> Powell is ten times the man you'll ever be.
Ok heterosexuals have a special right to marry who they
choose and deny this right to those born with both sexes
and homosexual, then they demean them after putting all
these barriers in front of them, as no right to marry, they
kick them out of their apartments if they live monogamously
together, and fire them from their jobs if they put their mate
picture on their desk, then after putting all these barriers in front
of them to not allow monogamous relations say to them you
are all promiscuous perverts with AIDS.
>
>
> You race baiting dip shits are a pain in the butt. Go soak your head in
> Battery Acid and leave decent folks alone, all colors, and all kinds of
> them. You are a stink bug.
But you are not a bigot?
Steven D. Litvintchouk
>
> What self-respecting person would make such racist comments in this day and
> age, especially one professing to care for minorities?
Becky,
I'm also worried about what Ranetek and his fellow Dems will say about
Condoleeza Rice (if she becomes National Security Advisor or other
important job).
The personal attacks against Katherine Harris's appearance and clothing
have been shameful. Even more shameful has been the total silence of
feminists like NOW about how Harris (a career woman) is being shafted by
innuendo--I thought that feminists always demanded that women not be
judged by their appearance!
In the case of Condoleeza Rice, she can expect no support from
feminists--or from African-American politicians either.
Kent Finnell
news:3A28FE...@ix.netcom.com...
> Like Condoleeza and JC Watts and C Thomas and Keyes, Powell is just
> another House Nigger.
>
> >
> > What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist.
Doesn't
> > he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black
that
> > doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
> > concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
I dare either one of you to call any of the above named "Uncle Tom/Aunt
Jemima" or "House Nigger" to their faces.
They don't follow your orders, so they get dissed? How "liberal" of you.
Let's see you and Simon LeGore get them back on the liberal plantation.
--
From Music City USA
Kent Finnell
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate
a menace to society. -- Theodore Roosevelt
Teddy, meet Bill.
In the final 7 weeks of the reign of William the Prevaricator
"I'm not at all sure that even a callous, irresponsible
drug dealer with a 6-year-old in the house wouldn't
leave a child trigger lock on a gun."
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton
chud...@ix.netcom.com
Don Winslow wrote:
cor...@newsguy.com
>
>
><chud...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:3A28FE...@ix.netcom.com...
>> Like Condoleeza and JC Watts and C Thomas and Keyes, Powell is just
>> another House Nigger.
>>
I think the implication was that Bush and the Republicans
are racists, who view blacks like Powell as "House Niggers".
But this charge is nothing more than the usual Democrat
mud-slinging propaganda.
The truth is that it is *Democrats* who are acutely conscious
of a person's race or gender or sexual preference, and who
discriminate for or against people on these terms.
Republicans take seriously the notion that people should be
judged according to their character and actions, not on the
accidental attributes they owe to their genes or the circumstances
into which they were born.
Colin Powell is a man of good, honorable character and
accomplishments. If he is named Secretary of State, it won't be
because there's a desire to have a Cabinet that "looks like America"
--- i.e., one that meets racial and ethnic quotas --- but because
his experience and character makes him the best man for the job.
Uranus.
Becky Cox wrote:
> Uranus. <UpUr...@politician.com> wrote in message
>
> > Can you actually say this with a straight face? I guess you feel you
> > are not a bigot. In spite of saying them Democrats this and them
> > Democrats that, you can say Republicans are all inclusive. Yet
> > who is it that made the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to
> > exclude those born with both sexes from being able to marry
> > because they are born with both sexes and must marry the same
> > sex?
>
> Well, yes, I can and did say it with a straight face. I was answering to
> people who consider Democrats and Republicans distinctly separate groups, so
> I think it was fair to say Democrats in general do one thing or the other.
> The truth is, of course, a little less clear; party affiliation for most of
> us is not an ingrained, permanent thing.
>
> I did not quite say that Republicans are all-inclusive. I said that our
> party is no more racist and bigoted than the Democratic party, and perhaps,
> at this point in history, less so in many ways.
>
> As for Marriage and bisexual persons
No I did not say bisexual persons, which is a sexual orientation
(predisposition) I said born with both sexes as in hermaphrodite
there is a difference.
http://www.isna.org/faq.html
Pictures for adults:
http://www.hermaphrodite.com/
> , you bring up what on the surface seems
> to be a thorny issue. Marriage should be reserved for men and women; it is
> as much a private and religious institution as a public one, and by
> traditional definition must be between persons of the opposite sex. A person
> who is supposedly born with both sexes should see a doctor.
Oh so if a person does not fit "your" idea of normal let's
fix them? If they are black, let's fix them, and bleach their
skin. If they are homosexual, let's fix them, and repair their
sexual orientation (just turn them into the other direction).
http://www.isna.org/
So do you think when they mutilate females because they
think they should be fixed, there is no problem with that?
> In all but a few
> rare mutations, like Down's Syndrome (which I am not an expert on but we
> studied in Biology class), humans cannot be born with any other combination
> of X and Y chromosomes than XX, a female, and XY, a male.
You are vastly misinformed:
http://www.isna.org/faq.html#anchor113318
> Most other
> mutations are miscarried very early on when they occur, and do not result in
> a human entering the world. My understanding is that bisexual people have a
> hormonal imbalance causing them to exhibit features from both sexes;
> individuals who have a sex change can be made to exhibit most features of
> the opposite sex with hormonal treatments. Modern medical science can
> identify which sex a person is based on their DNA, and with hormones, allow
> that person to become fully male or fully female.
And who decides who they are a boy or a girl and later on
if the individual is predisposed to be the other sex than who
you chose for them should they get another fix, and deny a
life time of living the other sex? How easy the world is for you,
poof I will put you in this box, poof I will fix you, poof you
are a boy you will marry girls, poof you are a girl you will
marry boys. The problem is again not everyone is born a
boy or a girl, it even goes down to the DNA level, will you
fix that too? How about a test for homosexuality, red hair,
what characteristic will you allow, and who chooses.
> Therefore, I disagree with
> your statement that some people are born with both sexes and must therefore
> marry a person of their own sex.
So when they are fixed they will be all better now.
>
>
> > > People cannot be equal if their differences are
> > > constantly used to separate them...
> >
> > So where in your party is there room for those born
> > with both sexes, and homosexuals?
> >
> > http://www.isna.org/faq.html
> >
>
> I already discussed "those born with both sexes" and homosexuality is a
> different matter altogether. If you could prove, one hundred percent, that
> gay and lesbian persons had absolutely no choice in the matter and were
> truly born unable to have physical and romantic love with a person of the
> opposite sex, I might feel differently.
So if they have a choice when did you stop being homosexual?
Because we all know little girls don't like little boys.
> It is the things we do not have a
> choice in that should not separate us in the eyes of employers and the law,
> such as skin tone and--given what I said above--sex (most do not have reason
> to alter these, although it is possible).
That brings us back to being "born" with both sexes, in Texas
the only people allowed to marry are those that are genetically
a man and a woman (and as I have shown not everyone is born
a man or woman genetically). So there is a homosexual couple
legally married in Texas, the only legally married homosexual
couple in the USA, a woman, and a surgically altered man,
who had his birth certificate altered (to say he is a woman),
but Texas rejected this birth certificate, so now it is genetically
a man and a woman but legally they are a woman and a woman
married.
> Homosexuality may not feel like a
> choice to those who have it, but I think there are other reasons, including
> its current acceptability, why people feel the need to be gay, which have
> nothing to do with biology. People have chosen to overcome it, whatever its
> reasons, and lived happy lives as heterosexuals afterwards.
And they were not homosexual, they were bisexual (orientation)
no one has yet been homosexual and lived happily and comfortably
as the opposite orientation.
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/orient.html
>
>
> As for homosexual marriage, I understand some of the reasons homosexuals
> want the rights and privlidges accorded to those who are married. What I
> don't understand is why they demand this form of partnership, when the same
> rights--visiting loved ones in the hospital, insurance coverage--could be
> accorded to them through civil unions.
They want equal rights to the special rights given to those that
happen to be heterosexual. If one is heterosexual they have the
special right to marry who they choose, but deny this right to
those born with both sexes, or have odd chromosomes, and
homosexuals. With a simple piece of paper they have the rights
and privileges accorded to those who are married, that would take
thousands and thousands of dollars to draw up contracts for
otherwise, and still would not allow them same rights. This is
making them second class citizens. What I do not understand
is why you wish to keep a special right for your self and deny
this right to others?
> Marriage means Husband and Wife;
Not until recent times, up until the 17th century the church
had same sex marriages.
> civil union can simply be between partners. I think homosexuals are wrong,
> but I do not condemn them as people. I question their motives, actions, and
> their cause--defining oneself entirely by ones sexuality,
And when do you not, when you go into a store do you not
define yourself entirely by your sexuality, you buy a dress
why not just pants overalls and a hammer. When you look for
a mate you define yourself entirely by your sexuality. Why do
you want special rights?
> which is what a
> gay activist automatically does, seems like a stupid idea to me, when there
> are so many other dimensions to explore of this world.
>
> If not agreeing with homosexuals makes me a bigot, than I guess I will have
> to wear that title in your eyes. If it makes me a homophobe, so be it. But I
> am neither; I respect every human for his or her basic humanity, and
> homosexuality does not frighten me.
You may feel you respect every human for his or her basic humanity,
but you do not respect them by giving them the same informed consent
you enjoy as a special right given you as a heterosexual, and denied
to those born with both sexes (hermaphrodite) or have odd chromosomes,
and homosexuals. 1 out of every 500 people are born with both sexes,
1-10 percent of the population are born with a predisposition of being
homosexual, how many people does it take before you will give
them equal rights?
Uranus.
Steven D. Litvintchouk wrote:
> James Jones wrote:
> >
> > You suddenly got sensitive. Didn't somebody flame you for the same kind of
> > thing yesterday, or is it just that old GOP hypocrisy showing up, whatever
> > works for you at the moment.
>
> Not at all. I believe strongly in Martin Luther King's statement that
> someone should be judged not on the color of their skin but on the
> content of their character. It's just as true today as it was then.
>
> Al Sharpton has no character whatsoever. The fact that he is black
> should not serve to insulate him from criticism; these days it appears
> to be politically incorrect to accuse any African-American of immoral or
> nefarious actions.
>
> Colin Powell is a great American. The fact that he is black, and has
> chosen to disagree with many of his fellow blacks, is not a reason to
> call him an "Uncle Tom." Independent thinking is not being an "Uncle
> Tom."
Would you feel the same if he was homosexual?
Marksman
>
>
> Marksman wrote:
>
> > <chud...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A28FE...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > Like Condoleeza and JC Watts and C Thomas and Keyes, Powell is just
> > > another House Nigger.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> Let's see he is a racist for pointing out a person referring
> to a group, but when you point out a person referring to
> a group you are not a bigot, I see thanks for straightening
> that out for me.
>
>
You are easily confused.
Uranus.
Steven D. Litvintchouk wrote:
> Becky Cox wrote:
> >
> > What self-respecting person would make such racist comments in this day and
> > age, especially one professing to care for minorities?
>
> Becky,
>
> I'm also worried about what Ranetek and his fellow Dems will say about
> Condoleeza Rice (if she becomes National Security Advisor or other
> important job).
>
> The personal attacks against Katherine Harris's appearance and clothing
> have been shameful. Even more shameful has been the total silence of
> feminists like NOW about how Harris (a career woman) is being shafted by
> innuendo--I thought that feminists always demanded that women not be
> judged by their appearance!
>
> In the case of Condoleeza Rice, she can expect no support from
> feminists--or from African-American politicians either.
What people expect (or should) is that those in the government
would be just and as justice keep her blindfold on to judge
equally for everyone. The probable reason why Harris is being
judged harshly is the perception of her unjust dealing out of
her judgments. I have said before if they just would have let the
process naturally and normally take its path, without all the court
battles as delays this country would not be so divided right
now. The country has drawn a line in the sand and have picked
side to do battle for the next at least four years. We already had
this for eight years. It makes me wish little green men would
come and say to us, here is the human monkey species, they
are not long out of the trees and still have not evolved yet.
John A. Stovall
wrote:
Yes. Accomplishments and Character are more important than sexual
orientation.
*******************************************
".......................I believe in my tusks.
Long live freedom and damn the the ideologies,"
Said the gamey black-maned wild boar
Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain.
"Stars Go Over The Lonely Ocean"
Robinson Jeffers
John A. Stovall
wrote:
snipped
>As for homosexual marriage, I understand some of the reasons homosexuals
>want the rights and privlidges accorded to those who are married. What I
>don't understand is why they demand this form of partnership, when the same
>rights--visiting loved ones in the hospital, insurance coverage--could be
>accorded to them through civil unions. Marriage means Husband and Wife;
>civil union can simply be between partners. I think homosexuals are wrong,
>but I do not condemn them as people. I question their motives, actions, and
>their cause--defining oneself entirely by ones sexuality, which is what a
>gay activist automatically does, seems like a stupid idea to me, when there
>are so many other dimensions to explore of this world.
Marriage is not the business of the state and the state should get out
of the Marriage business.
Uranus.
cor...@newsguy.com wrote:
> In article <YEbW5.23834$yP6.1...@news2.atl>, "Don says...
> >
> >
> ><chud...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:3A28FE...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> Like Condoleeza and JC Watts and C Thomas and Keyes, Powell is just
> >> another House Nigger.
> >>
> >You are a disgusting racist!
>
> I think the implication was that Bush and the Republicans
> are racists, who view blacks like Powell as "House Niggers".
>
> But this charge is nothing more than the usual Democrat
> mud-slinging propaganda.
>
> The truth is that it is *Democrats* who are acutely conscious
> of a person's race or gender or sexual preference, and who
> discriminate for or against people on these terms.
>
> Republicans take seriously the notion that people should be
> judged according to their character and actions, not on the
> accidental attributes they owe to their genes or the circumstances
> into which they were born.
Translation (I'm guessing) if only homosexuals had a
good caring strong father they would not have "chosen"
to be queers.
John A. Stovall
>Like Condoleeza and JC Watts and C Thomas and Keyes, Powell is just
>another House Nigger.
>
Gee, what do you think about Dr. Walter Williams and Dr. Thomas
Sowell?
We would like to compare your Vita to theirs.
Care to post it?
-JM-
"Ranetek" <ran...@home.com> wrote:
> What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist.
Doesn't
> he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black
that
> doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
> concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
>
>
role model for all young black men. As for him being an uncle
Tom for Bush that I don't know and don't care about.
-JM-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John A. Stovall
>What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
>he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
>doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
>concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
I'm wanting GWB to make Walter Williams Secretary of the Treasury.
Now that would be sweet.
David Lentz
"Steven D. Litvintchouk" wrote:
>
> James Jones wrote:
> >
> > You suddenly got sensitive. Didn't somebody flame you for the same kind of
> > thing yesterday, or is it just that old GOP hypocrisy showing up, whatever
> > works for you at the moment.
>
> Not at all. I believe strongly in Martin Luther King's statement that
> someone should be judged not on the color of their skin but on the
> content of their character. It's just as true today as it was then.
You can quote Martin Luther King's ideal I have a dream vision,
but be prepared to be denounced as a racist. It has become
politically incorrect to be color blind.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Steven D. Litvintchouk
>
> What people expect (or should) is that those in the government
> would be just and as justice keep her blindfold on to judge
> equally for everyone. The probable reason why Harris is being
> judged harshly is the perception of her unjust dealing out of
> her judgments.
But they are not satisfied to denounce her judgments; they are
attempting to smear her personally as a way to discredit her actions.
Even to the point of hinting at a love affair with Jeb Bush. And
criticizing her makeup, her clothing, her mannerisms. What does any of
that have to do with her decisions in the election dispute?
Steven D. Litvintchouk
>
> "Steven D. Litvintchouk" wrote:
> >
> > someone should be judged not on the color of their skin but on the
> > content of their character. It's just as true today as it was then.
>
> You can quote Martin Luther King's ideal I have a dream vision,
> but be prepared to be denounced as a racist. It has become
> politically incorrect to be color blind.
I've already been variously denounced as:
racist (by anonymous posters)
fascist (by Zepp the weasel)
Nazi (by Wanda Hodge)
Being of Jewish descent, I find this all amusing. To the Dems, I'm a
racist fascist Nazi Jew, I guess.
Uranus.
John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 21:43:52 GMT, "Uranus." <UpUr...@politician.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Steven D. Litvintchouk wrote:
> >
> >> James Jones wrote:
> >> >
> >> > You suddenly got sensitive. Didn't somebody flame you for the same kind of
> >> > thing yesterday, or is it just that old GOP hypocrisy showing up, whatever
> >> > works for you at the moment.
> >>
> >> Not at all. I believe strongly in Martin Luther King's statement that
> >> someone should be judged not on the color of their skin but on the
> >> content of their character. It's just as true today as it was then.
> >>
> >> Al Sharpton has no character whatsoever. The fact that he is black
> >> should not serve to insulate him from criticism; these days it appears
> >> to be politically incorrect to accuse any African-American of immoral or
> >> nefarious actions.
> >>
> >> Colin Powell is a great American. The fact that he is black, and has
> >> chosen to disagree with many of his fellow blacks, is not a reason to
> >> call him an "Uncle Tom." Independent thinking is not being an "Uncle
> >> Tom."
> >
> >Would you feel the same if he was homosexual?
>
> Yes. Accomplishments and Character are more important than sexual
> orientation.
Is this the character you would like him to promote?
Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
Colin Powell
Randy Sweeney
Ranetek wrote in message ...
>What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
>he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
>doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
>concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
Absolutely, the idea that black person could provide leadership for the
entire country and not just "his people" is preposterous.
Doesn't he know that all blacks are only allowed to be are noble victims?
Whining victim is also open. Militant racist is also approved for black men
if I read your post correctly.
Does it bother you that just maybe the content of Powell's character means
more than the color of his skin and that THIS is why Bush has sought him
out?
Saddam Hussein is going to test Bush and the nation, as is every other
two-bit punk in a dictator's uniform.
Wouldn't you rather have Colin Powell as the nation's top diplomat when its
face to face? I know I would take him over the current occupant anyday...
and he's even better looking.
Besides, he needs more public experience if he's going to run for President
in 2008.
Wm. (Wild Bill) Stone
Folks, you really ARE out of the loop.
The game plan is as follows:
1. Dick Chaney dies in office - Yes, it will happen -
2. Colin Powell is named Vice President in his place.
3. Bush does not run for another term - Powell does!
4. Powell becomes the first Black President!
Minor variations are authorized, but this is how it will work out in the
end. That, you can take to the bank.
-------
- Wm. (Wild Bill) Stone -
- (Lifetime Democrat) -
- (Democrats Who Support the 2nd Amendment) - http://www.d2a.org -
- (Defender) Woman's Right to Choose -
- (Defender) Homosexual/Gay Rights -
- (Member/Supporter) NRA, GOA, SAS -
Kent Finnell
Asked and answered.
>
>
> Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
> orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
> characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
> discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
> Colin Powell
Works for me.
Up uranus, your own bigoted self.
Kent Finnell
Steven D. Litvintchouk <s...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:3A297AAA...@mitre.org...
> David Lentz wrote:
> >
> > "Steven D. Litvintchouk" wrote:
> > >
> > > Not at all. I believe strongly in Martin Luther King's statement that
> > > someone should be judged not on the color of their skin but on the
> > > content of their character. It's just as true today as it was then.
> >
> > but be prepared to be denounced as a racist. It has become
> > politically incorrect to be color blind.
>
> I've already been variously denounced as:
>
> racist (by anonymous posters)
> fascist (by Zepp the weasel)
> Nazi (by Wanda Hodge)
>
> Being of Jewish descent, I find this all amusing. To the Dems, I'm a
> racist fascist Nazi Jew, I guess.
>
>
> --
a Nazi. She's called me a fascist because I dared to call her to task over
her abject ignorance about Al Gore and his defeat in Tennessee. Since my
father was killed at the Battle of the Bulge by Nazis, I told her that was
highly unlikely.
It's the Clinton / Gore Democrats who are acting more like racists,
fascists, and Nazis.
Insane Ranter
> What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
> he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
> doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
> concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
Can you tell us which party ran candidates against Lincoln?
Kevin L. Kitchens
*might* have a point. But since he is well-qualified for the job...it
should go to him.
And you know, darn well, that you'd say any black was a token.
And if Bush appointed no blacks, you'd say he was a racist.
So look elsewhere for your race-baiting.
--
Bush/Cheney 2000 -- The Revival of America begins November 7, 2000!!!
"Ranetek" <ran...@home.com> wrote in message
news:x60W5.28311$Y6.83...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Kevin L. Kitchens
--
Bush/Cheney 2000 -- The Revival of America begins November 7, 2000!!!
"Steven D. Litvintchouk" <s...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:3A2957EC...@mitre.org...
> James Jones wrote:
> >
> > You suddenly got sensitive. Didn't somebody flame you for the same kind
of
> > thing yesterday, or is it just that old GOP hypocrisy showing up,
whatever
> > works for you at the moment.
>
> Not at all. I believe strongly in Martin Luther King's statement that
> someone should be judged not on the color of their skin but on the
> content of their character. It's just as true today as it was then.
>
> Al Sharpton has no character whatsoever. The fact that he is black
> should not serve to insulate him from criticism; these days it appears
> to be politically incorrect to accuse any African-American of immoral or
> nefarious actions.
>
> Colin Powell is a great American. The fact that he is black, and has
> chosen to disagree with many of his fellow blacks, is not a reason to
> call him an "Uncle Tom." Independent thinking is not being an "Uncle
> Tom."
>
>
Kevin L. Kitchens
contrary -- no matter what "studies" you think exist.
There is a big difference in the two.
--
Bush/Cheney 2000 -- The Revival of America begins November 7, 2000!!!
"Uranus." <UpUr...@politician.com> wrote in message
news:3A297291...@politician.com...
>
>
> Steven D. Litvintchouk wrote:
>
> > James Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > You suddenly got sensitive. Didn't somebody flame you for the same
kind of
> > > thing yesterday, or is it just that old GOP hypocrisy showing up,
whatever
> > > works for you at the moment.
> >
> > Not at all. I believe strongly in Martin Luther King's statement that
> > someone should be judged not on the color of their skin but on the
> > content of their character. It's just as true today as it was then.
> >
> > Al Sharpton has no character whatsoever. The fact that he is black
> > should not serve to insulate him from criticism; these days it appears
> > to be politically incorrect to accuse any African-American of immoral or
> > nefarious actions.
> >
> > Colin Powell is a great American. The fact that he is black, and has
> > chosen to disagree with many of his fellow blacks, is not a reason to
> > call him an "Uncle Tom." Independent thinking is not being an "Uncle
> > Tom."
>
Kevin L. Kitchens
We are ALL BROWN.
--
Bush/Cheney 2000 -- The Revival of America begins November 7, 2000!!!
"David Lentz" <Ro...@signfile.net> wrote in message
news:3A2973BA...@signfile.net...
>
>
> "Steven D. Litvintchouk" wrote:
> >
> > James Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > You suddenly got sensitive. Didn't somebody flame you for the same
kind of
> > > thing yesterday, or is it just that old GOP hypocrisy showing up,
whatever
> > > works for you at the moment.
> >
> > Not at all. I believe strongly in Martin Luther King's statement that
> > someone should be judged not on the color of their skin but on the
> > content of their character. It's just as true today as it was then.
>
> You can quote Martin Luther King's ideal I have a dream vision,
> but be prepared to be denounced as a racist. It has become
> politically incorrect to be color blind.
>
> David
>
> --
> qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Steve Lajoie
Kevin L. Kitchens <newsg...@peidev.com> wrote in message
news:0bfW5.17188$88.31...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and there is NO evidence to the
> contrary -- no matter what "studies" you think exist.
>
> There is a big difference in the two.
Then why are there physical differences in the brains of homosexual
men? There was an article in Scientific American where this was
pointed out.
Oh well. I suppose you can dismiss studies the way the Creationist
dismiss evolution, with wishful thinking.
Not that I give a rats ass what you do politically, but backing it up
with bogus science pisses me off.
Corky51
"Uranus." <UpUr...@politician.com> wrote in message news:3A2977CA...@politician.com...
>
>
> cor...@newsguy.com wrote:
>
> > In article <YEbW5.23834$yP6.1...@news2.atl>, "Don says...
> > >
> > >
> > ><chud...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > >news:3A28FE...@ix.netcom.com...
> > >> another House Nigger.
> > >>
> >
> > I think the implication was that Bush and the Republicans
> > are racists, who view blacks like Powell as "House Niggers".
> >
> > But this charge is nothing more than the usual Democrat
> > mud-slinging propaganda.
> >
> > The truth is that it is *Democrats* who are acutely conscious
> > of a person's race or gender or sexual preference, and who
> > discriminate for or against people on these terms.
> >
> > Republicans take seriously the notion that people should be
> > judged according to their character and actions, not on the
> > accidental attributes they owe to their genes or the circumstances
> > into which they were born.
>
> Translation (I'm guessing) if only homosexuals had a
> good caring strong father they would not have "chosen"
> to be queers.
...and your guess is wrong. That's not what I was saying at all.
(Of course, using standard Democrat practices, you can read
whatever you want into anything, no matter how much it violates
the original text, if it suits your interests.)
H H
Randy Sweeney <rswe...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:65gW5.150971$j6.16...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
>
> Steve Lajoie wrote in message <90c1rq$26g$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
> >
> >Kevin L. Kitchens <newsg...@peidev.com> wrote in message
> >news:0bfW5.17188$88.31...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> >> Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and there is NO evidence to the
> >> contrary -- no matter what "studies" you think exist.
> >>
> >> There is a big difference in the two.
> >
> >Then why are there physical differences in the brains of homosexual
> >men?
>
Like their partners' feces, for instance?
H H
news:90c1rq$26g$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
>
> Kevin L. Kitchens <newsg...@peidev.com> wrote in message
> news:0bfW5.17188$88.31...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> > Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and there is NO evidence to the
> > contrary -- no matter what "studies" you think exist.
> >
> > There is a big difference in the two.
>
> Then why are there physical differences in the brains of homosexual
> pointed out.
So in other words, once a fag, always a fag. Good. That way it'll be more
justifiable to purge the U.S. of their perverted presence.
Dave A
say to my children that all are equal. In what sense are all equal? Are
all of equal intelligence, honesty, courage, strength? Of course not. What
about a person's value? Is a criminal equal to a law abiding citizen in
value? Some will appeal to religion to justify the absurd notion that
everyone is equal. Religion doesn't teach this. Christianity makes a huge
distinction between the "saint" and the "sinner".
I suppose there is some sense in which all are "created" equal. All begin
life with a clean slate.
More to the point, teaching children that homosexuality is not a normal or
permissable lifestyle is the right of the parent. There are some that would
insist that homosexual behavior be considered a normal lifestyle and insist
that parents teach the same to their children just as there are those who
want to legislate how other parents discipline their children. Laws like
this are a waste of time as they are almost completely unenforceable and are
bound to be found illegal down the road.
Homosexuality is just another reason why liberals do not get my vote. I am
tired of having to pander to the fringe groups who feel entitled to
something. If you want to be a homosexual, go ahead. If you want to flaunt
it in front of my children I would encourage you to think carefully about
the consequences first. If you want to persuade our lawmakers to
criminalize the dislike of homosexuality, go ahead it helps me determine who
not to vote for. If you want to force acceptance of homosexuality in the
public schools, go ahead my kids will be in private schools that don't waste
time teaching non academic crap while yours graduate only understanding one
point of view on social issues, but incompetent to hold a position in a
lucrative, rewarding career.
How do you teach children to accept something that is naturally repulsive?
Dave A
> When you say to children in the USA that everyone is
> equal yet it is perfectly clear they are not you harm your
> children. In Brown v Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483
> (1954) Dr. Kenneth B. Clark showed that:
> Prejudice not only hurts those that are prejudged, but those
> that do the prejudging as well. It leads to disturbances in the
> individual's sense of reality and the relation of the individual
> to the world around them. Results in inner conflicts and guilt
> feelings among members of the group enforcing this prejudice.
> It leads them to pervasive and elusive harmful effects on the
> members of the majority, as increased hostility, deterioration
> of moral values, the hardening of social sensitivity, conflict
> between ideology and practice of rights, the development of
> rationalizations and other techniques for protecting one's self.
>
> You are harming your children even if you do not know it,
> and even if you do not know you are lying to them.
>
>
>
Kent Finnell
> > >
> > >
> > > John A. Stovall wrote:
> >
> > > > Yes. Accomplishments and Character are more important than sexual
> > > > orientation.
> > >
> > > Is this the character you would like him to promote?
> >
> > Asked and answered.
> > >
> > >
> > > Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
> > > orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
> > > characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
> > > discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
> > > Colin Powell
> >
> > Works for me.
>
> that means we are born bisexual and since we all know
> little boys don't like little girls that means you are/were
> homosexual. Thank for coming out of the closet, your
> pink boa is on the way. And here is the URL for
> the official homosexual agenda.
>
Send the pink boa to Jesse Ventura, anus. I confess, however, that I am an
avowed, dyed in the wool, no doubt about it, screamin', double dipped,
heterosexual. In the almost 50 years since I've known the differences
between the two sexes, I've know a few homosexuals (male and female) and
even a couple of bi-sexuals. Their problem/choice/whatever, not mine. I
prefer women, 100 to zero. But like d'geezer said, what does that have to
do with this particular thread?
--
From Music City USA
Kent Finnell
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate
a menace to society. -- Theodore Roosevelt
Teddy, meet Bill.
In the final 6 weeks of the reign of William the Prevaricator
Dave Thompson
<z8tw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:90ch99$a23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A295F...@ix.netcom.com>,
> chud...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > He has more clout than JC Watts. And he pays his child support.
> >
> > Don Winslow wrote:
> >
> Just goes to show, there a lot of Democrats who are racists. Probably
> more than Repubs.
Yes. Sort of like the Miami local Democrap talking head who said the much
of the Cuban/American vote in Dade County was unimportant because, as
Republicans, they were not minorities!!
Randy Sweeney
>news:0bfW5.17188$88.31...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>> Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and there is NO evidence to the
>> contrary -- no matter what "studies" you think exist.
>>
>> There is a big difference in the two.
>
>Then why are there physical differences in the brains of homosexual
>men?
Could it be something they're eating?
Robb
>What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
>he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
>doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
>concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
>
Or maybe... JUST maybe he's the best man for the job. But you racist
lberals wouldn't understand that.
Robb
d'geezer
>
> Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and there is NO evidence to the
> contrary -- no matter what "studies" you think exist.
>
> There is a big difference in the two.
Liar. Homosexuality is nothing of the sort. You don't really believe
that with all its attacks, humiliation, rudeness, danger, and exclusion
that someone would choose the "lifestyle" do you? Well, one or two
idiots like yourself (I think you are projecting big time) might do so,
but millions of people? Not likely.
Small children exhibit signs of same sex interest early on. Some go one
way, some go the other. What makes them go either way is still a
mystery, but it's being worked on, and so far there is little evidence
for "choice" in the matter. There is a great deal of evidence for a
predisposition.
Now on the other hand if you are talking about the actual behavior of a
sex act, yes there is a choice. You prepared to become celibate?
d'geezer
--
"Wherever is found what is called a paternal government,
there is found state education. It has been discovered
that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to
commence tyranny in the nursery." -- Benjamin Disraeli
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>
>
>John A. Stovall wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 21:43:52 GMT, "Uranus." <UpUr...@politician.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Steven D. Litvintchouk wrote:
>> >
>> >> James Jones wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > You suddenly got sensitive. Didn't somebody flame you for the same kind of
>> >> > thing yesterday, or is it just that old GOP hypocrisy showing up, whatever
>> >> > works for you at the moment.
>> >>
>> >> Not at all. I believe strongly in Martin Luther King's statement that
>> >> someone should be judged not on the color of their skin but on the
>> >> content of their character. It's just as true today as it was then.
>> >>
>> >> Al Sharpton has no character whatsoever. The fact that he is black
>> >> should not serve to insulate him from criticism; these days it appears
>> >> to be politically incorrect to accuse any African-American of immoral or
>> >> nefarious actions.
>> >>
>> >> Colin Powell is a great American. The fact that he is black, and has
>> >> chosen to disagree with many of his fellow blacks, is not a reason to
>> >> call him an "Uncle Tom." Independent thinking is not being an "Uncle
>> >> Tom."
>> >
>> >Would you feel the same if he was homosexual?
>>
>> Yes. Accomplishments and Character are more important than sexual
>> orientation.
>
>Is this the character you would like him to promote?
>
>
>Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
>orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
>characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
>discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
>Colin Powell
He can learn. I profoundly disagree with this views on the Second
Amendment but respect his Character as combat leader.
Sexuality does not define an individual any more than skin color.
Rather you should ask the question, "Why have we given the State power
to make these things issues?".
John A. Stovall
<newsg...@peidev.com> wrote:
>Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and there is NO evidence to the
>contrary -- no matter what "studies" you think exist.
>
>There is a big difference in the two.
Freedom is about choices both good and bad and living with the
consequences. Just take the State/Government out of it.
John A. Stovall
<willar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks, you really ARE out of the loop.
>
> The game plan is as follows:
>
> 1. Dick Chaney dies in office - Yes, it will happen -
>
> 2. Colin Powell is named Vice President in his place.
>
> 3. Bush does not run for another term - Powell does!
>
> 4. Powell becomes the first Black President!
>
Dream on. I would rather it be Dr. Walter Williams or Dr. Thomas
Sowell. Powell is too much of a statist.
d'geezer
>
> d'geezer wrote:
>
> > "Uranus." wrote:
> > >
> > > Ranetek wrote:
> > >
> > > > What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
> > > > he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
> > > > doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
> > > > concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
> > >
> > > Clarence Thomas is a replacement for Justice Thurgood
> > > Marshall. Who has put this pubic hair on my Coke
> > > Thomas has more sexual harassment groupies then
> > > Clinton. The only (so called) Justice more fascist then
> > > Thomas is Justice Antonin Scalia. And the only black
> > > more fascist than both of these two clowns is Colon
> > > Powell.
> > >
> > > "Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
> > > orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
> > > characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
> > > discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess the people born with both sexes and want to get
> > > married are just out of luck, when Bush get in there, because
> > > the only legal marriage is between a man and a woman,
> > > even if you are both. Maybe they might be able to marry
> > > themselves. If there is no legal same sex marriages then
> > > those born with both sexes cannot legally marry, and are
> > > made second class citizens, (against the 14th Amendment).
> >
> > My Goodness. Is there no one or category you don't hate?
>
> I am a product of my environment, if you want to change
> the varibles of society you have to change the environment.
> Teach respect for self and others and give equality to
> everyone then none of us will have an excuse to be bigots
You then are advocating that you are a helpless victim in your bigotry
and if only we'd all do our job (the one you want from us) you might not
be? Odd, I thought, and have practiced, that the entire question is up
to me. I can be a mindless bigot, or I can be a mindful bigot (because
we are manipulated and indoctrinated from birth) and refuse to let my
normal xenophobia and brainwashing run my life. I can refuse to act
against others unfairly and unjustly no matter what the little nattering
bigot in my head says.
I once asked a class of mine of mixed race/ethnicity (I do adult
education) as part of an exercise what they first thought of if they
were to see a young black man, driving down the street toward them in a
Rolls Silver Cloud, wearing an Armani suit, gold on both hands and
around his neck. All, including the Black participants, said it: "Pimp".
I pointed out that just a few weeks before I had seen a well known local
entrepreneur in real estate, who happened to be a successful young black
man, in just such circumstances, and until he got close enough for me to
make out who he was I thought the same thing.
Bigotry is built in to us and taken advantage of my thugs and despots.
Letting one's self be exploited is not the thugs fault...it's our own
fault for letting it happen.
Now, take responsibility for yourself and stop blaming the "I am a
product of my environment" bullshit. It will get you no where except in
to the line with with all the whining "victims".
d'geezer
>
> Becky Cox wrote:
>
> > What self-respecting person would make such racist comments in this day and
> > age, especially one professing to care for minorities?
> >
> > I believe and sincerely hope it is true that Bush is choosing Colin Powell
> > soley for his expertise, experience, qualifications, and good character; the
> > fact that he is black (not "A black" which is divisive and not descriptive)
> > is only a plus as it does exhibit, perhaps too conspicuously, the
> > inclusiveness of the Republican party.
>
> Can you actually say this with a straight face? I guess you feel you
> are not a bigot. In spite of saying them Democrats this and them
> Democrats that, you can say Republicans are all inclusive. Yet
> who is it that made the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to
> exclude those born with both sexes from being able to marry
> because they are born with both sexes and must marry the same
> sex?
>
> > People cannot be equal if their differences are
> > constantly used to separate them...
>
> So where in your party is there room for those born
> with both sexes, and homosexuals?
Do I detect a little attempt to move the thread to your own agenda? Why
not have some real guts and just start a new thread...? Because you know
it isn't' of any point here? Neither is this subject of race. The
problem is, Colin Powell, for all his qualities is not the person gun
rights advocates should be pulling for. If he does get appointed we are
going to have to strongly remind Bush and company that they best pay
attention to the BOR and our vote, or it's "don't let the door hit you
in the ass on your way out" four years from now.
I'm looking forward to educating Colin Powell on many issues. My hunch
is, he will operate both within the confines of the party mandate and
maintain an open mind. No paradox there as party platforms can and do
change. This party, the 'pubs' had best learn we are here and we are
strong and we are coming at them with even more force than in the past.
Uranus.
Wm. (Wild Bill) Stone wrote:
> Folks, you really ARE out of the loop.
>
> The game plan is as follows:
>
> 1. Dick Chaney dies in office - Yes, it will happen -
>
> 2. Colin Powell is named Vice President in his place.
>
> 3. Bush does not run for another term - Powell does!
>
> 4. Powell becomes the first Black President!
Then he signs into law Don't ask Don't tell as law of the land
and they live happily ever after, except of course those born
with both sexes and homosexuals.
Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
Colin Powell
d'geezer
> >
> >
> > Becky Cox wrote:
> >
> > > What self-respecting person would make such racist comments in this day
> and
> > > age, especially one professing to care for minorities?
> > >
> > > I believe and sincerely hope it is true that Bush is choosing Colin
> Powell
> > > soley for his expertise, experience, qualifications, and good character;
> the
> > > fact that he is black (not "A black" which is divisive and not
> descriptive)
> > > is only a plus as it does exhibit, perhaps too conspicuously, the
> > > inclusiveness of the Republican party.
> >
> > Can you actually say this with a straight face? I guess you feel you
> > are not a bigot. In spite of saying them Democrats this and them
> > Democrats that, you can say Republicans are all inclusive. Yet
> > who is it that made the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to
> > exclude those born with both sexes from being able to marry
> > because they are born with both sexes and must marry the same
> > sex?
>
> people who consider Democrats and Republicans distinctly separate groups, so
> I think it was fair to say Democrats in general do one thing or the other.
> The truth is, of course, a little less clear; party affiliation for most of
> us is not an ingrained, permanent thing.
>
> I did not quite say that Republicans are all-inclusive. I said that our
> party is no more racist and bigoted than the Democratic party, and perhaps,
> at this point in history, less so in many ways.
>
> As for Marriage and bisexual persons, you bring up what on the surface seems
> to be a thorny issue. Marriage should be reserved for men and women; it is
> as much a private and religious institution as a public one, and by
> traditional definition must be between persons of the opposite sex. A person
> who is supposedly born with both sexes should see a doctor. In all but a few
> rare mutations, like Down's Syndrome (which I am not an expert on but we
> studied in Biology class), humans cannot be born with any other combination
> of X and Y chromosomes than XX, a female, and XY, a male. Most other
> mutations are miscarried very early on when they occur, and do not result in
> a human entering the world. My understanding is that bisexual people have a
> hormonal imbalance causing them to exhibit features from both sexes;
> individuals who have a sex change can be made to exhibit most features of
> the opposite sex with hormonal treatments. Modern medical science can
> identify which sex a person is based on their DNA, and with hormones, allow
> that person to become fully male or fully female. Therefore, I disagree with
> your statement that some people are born with both sexes and must therefore
> marry a person of their own sex.
>
> > > People cannot be equal if their differences are
> > > constantly used to separate them...
> >
> > So where in your party is there room for those born
> > with both sexes, and homosexuals?
> >
> >
>
> I already discussed "those born with both sexes" and homosexuality is a
> different matter altogether. If you could prove, one hundred percent, that
> gay and lesbian persons had absolutely no choice in the matter and were
> truly born unable to have physical and romantic love with a person of the
> opposite sex, I might feel differently. It is the things we do not have a
> choice in that should not separate us in the eyes of employers and the law,
> such as skin tone and--given what I said above--sex (most do not have reason
> to alter these, although it is possible). Homosexuality may not feel like a
> choice to those who have it, but I think there are other reasons, including
> its current acceptability, why people feel the need to be gay, which have
> nothing to do with biology. People have chosen to overcome it, whatever its
> reasons, and lived happy lives as heterosexuals afterwards.
>
> As for homosexual marriage, I understand some of the reasons homosexuals
> want the rights and privlidges accorded to those who are married. What I
> don't understand is why they demand this form of partnership, when the same
> rights--visiting loved ones in the hospital, insurance coverage--could be
> accorded to them through civil unions. Marriage means Husband and Wife;
> civil union can simply be between partners. I think homosexuals are wrong,
> but I do not condemn them as people. I question their motives, actions, and
> their cause--defining oneself entirely by ones sexuality, which is what a
> gay activist automatically does, seems like a stupid idea to me, when there
> are so many other dimensions to explore of this world.
>
> If not agreeing with homosexuals makes me a bigot, than I guess I will have
> to wear that title in your eyes. If it makes me a homophobe, so be it. But I
> am neither; I respect every human for his or her basic humanity, and
> homosexuality does not frighten me.
>
> --Becky
Guess you are a bigot then Becky. And you lie about your fright. YOu
have simply sublimated it into the "tolerant" "superior" attitude you
project. And you seem unaware that in some states "civil unions" do not
exist as an option. Hence you force them into fag ghettos, states or
municipalities they must live in for a bit of acceptance and possibly a
bit more legal safety. You have no idea what it is to live as gay or
lesbian and until you sit down with them, watch them live there very
normal lives (out of the light of bigots such as you) you know nothing
and spout too much.
How do you explain your stand in the light of all the centuries and
millennia of homosexuality, the notion that homosexuality is "natural"?
Ever lived on a livestock farm Becky? You'll see how natural a whole lot
of "sexual attraction" is.
By the by, Gays don't define themselves by their sexuality...you do.
Many of "you" do, hence they have little choice in how they behave when
around you: you'll see it as "homosexual" no matter what they do. I see
homosexuals doing all kinds of things, most things, everything for that
matter, that heterosexuals do with their lives. Care to explain that
away? Or is everything they do tinged with their sexuality in your
eyes? You can go anywhere and flirt with anyone you wish of the opposite
sex, the sex you are attracted to. If a homosexual does that they are
being "homosexual" instead of being called a "flirt". You are a victim
of your own ignorant acceptance of your indoctrination. I see it in your
"Marriage means Husband and Wife" statement.
Marriage means a creation of family, where love, intimacy, emotional
support, economic support, social support, should all be present. You'd
rather it were a state sanctioned business transaction. So much for your
acceptance. And don't give me, "the bible tells me so". That diminishes
your faith.
DrNybble
>What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
>he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
>doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
>concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
>
Can you imagine the impact if you were right and Bush did not consider
a black for any position? Not only would that limit consideration of
some very capable people but subsequent charges of racism would abound
for NOT choosing any
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Uranus.
Kent Finnell wrote:
> Uranus. <UpUr...@politician.com> wrote in message
> news:3A297FD4...@politician.com...
> >
> >
> > John A. Stovall wrote:
>
> > > Yes. Accomplishments and Character are more important than sexual
> > > orientation.
> >
> > Is this the character you would like him to promote?
>
> Asked and answered.
> >
> >
> > Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
> > orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
> > characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
> > discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
> > Colin Powell
>
> Works for me.
So you admit you are homosexual? If we choose
that means we are born bisexual and since we all know
little boys don't like little girls that means you are/were
homosexual. Thank for coming out of the closet, your
pink boa is on the way. And here is the URL for
the official homosexual agenda.
http://www.sphi.com/the_gay_agenda.htm
Funny thing the only place I have ever found one is on a
anti-homosexual site, humm make you wonder.
d'geezer
>
> d'geezer wrote:
>
> >
> > Interesting side note: My spell checker offered as the first replacement
> > for "Ranetek", "ranted". Just thought you'd appreciate the irony.
> >
> > >
> > > What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
> > > he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
> > > doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
> > > concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
> >
> > political "busses" he's been invited to I think he has considerable
> > character and a profound respect for his fellow Blacks in taking great
> > pains about who he affiliates with. He probably has lost millions of
> > dollars avoiding becoming a "Tom".
> >
> > I'm prepared to see your support for this "truly disgusting" allegation.
> > Apparently when a black man stops wearing gang colors, shooting 9's
> > sideways, and no longer speaks Ebon, you somehow equate that with "Uncle
> > Tom". Well, I no longer speak Low German, don't wear wooden shoes, don't
> > believe in "The Little People", and put my kilt away years ago, so am I
> > turning against my heritage?
>
> Let's see if you can follow this, he is a racist because he is
> pointing out a person uses and is being used for a characteristic,
Yes. He is relating the man to the race and claiming characteristics for
the man based on his race. And accusing others of using his race.
"Racist". Get it yet?
> that he then uses as his superiority over another group,
I am claiming Powell does not use his superiority as a way to denigrate
(hehehehehe) other Blacks. The poster was, now you seem to be, but your
babble is hard to follow. I might be accusing you unfairly. Do let me
know if that is the case.
> but
> you pointing out that this characteristis of that group as they
> all wear gang colors, shooting 9's sideways, and speak Ebon,
> is not racist, is that about right? Can you see the flaw in your logic?
I am suggesting that the use of the term "Uncle Tom" is on a par with
the metaphors I chose to illustrate the point. I do not believe that all
blacks who don't act white (as Powell can certainly do and does) speak
Ebon, wear gang colors and shoot 9mm firearms sideways. Where do you get
your notions kiddo?
> > How dare you define a man by an externally applied "race" title and then
> > attempt to demean him for not being what you want him to be. Colin
> > Powell is ten times the man you'll ever be.
>
> Ok heterosexuals have a special right to marry who they
> choose and deny this right to those born with both sexes
> and homosexual,
Whoop whoop, hold on there kiddo. I do not recall anyone mentioning
homosexuals except you. Now are you just making your point and using a
colorful metaphor to do so, or are you wishing to start a new thread? If
so, have the balls to do so with a new message instead of a reply to
this thread...which is on Powell and the allegation that his is an
"Uncle Tom".
> then they demean them after putting all
> these barriers in front of them, as no right to marry, they
> kick them out of their apartments if they live monogamously
> together, and fire them from their jobs if they put their mate
> picture on their desk, then after putting all these barriers in front
> of them to not allow monogamous relations say to them you
> are all promiscuous perverts with AIDS.
Yep! Seems you wish a new thread. Me, I'll stick to this one and see how
it plays out.
> >
> >
> > You race baiting dip shits are a pain in the butt. Go soak your head in
> > Battery Acid and leave decent folks alone, all colors, and all kinds of
> > them. You are a stink bug.
>
> But you are not a bigot?
Of course I am a bigot. Everyone is a bigot you dip shit. We are
manipulated and indoctrinated from birth. What we choose to do about it
when we discover it is the mark of character or lack of same. I choose
to not bury my head in the sand, to admit to my indoctrination, to learn
by listening to any and all folks who are defined as "less" in some way,
and learn from them. You just babble. See my sig for one of the
problems.
Try thinking instead of "emoting" all over us. It's rude and messy.
d'geezer
>
> In article <x60W5.28311$Y6.83...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>,
> "Ranetek" <ran...@home.com> wrote:
> > What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist.
> Doesn't
> > he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black
> that
> > doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
> > concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
> >
> >
> role model for all young black men. As for him being an uncle
> Tom for Bush that I don't know and don't care about.
>
> -JM-
And idiot your are replying to doesn't get the "self respecting black
person"s make up their own mind and have more than one opinion, but then
he's a non recovering bigot and pretty useless to the human race.
d'geezer, recovering life long bigot and proud of it.
Steve
> What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
> he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
> doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
> concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
Shame they don't allow dueling any more. I would pay cash money
to see Mr. Powell 'dump' your disrespectful, dumb ass.
Cheers
Steve
Uranus.
Kevin L. Kitchens wrote:
> Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and there is NO evidence to the
> contrary -- no matter what "studies" you think exist.
Translation I don't want to believe they are born that way
it is just to icky to think about, god making homosexuals,
no way. But does god make mistakes when he makes
hemaphrodites? After all if you have both sexes and you
marry or have sex you are homosexual either way. And if
we choose what sex we are to be that means we are born
bisexual and since we all know little boys don't like little
girls that makes you a homosexual. Thanks for choosing
Homo Airways.
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/orient.html
Uranus.
Randy Sweeney wrote:
> Ranetek wrote in message ...
> >What self respecting black person would work for this sham artist. Doesn't
> >he realize that he is a token? Bush needs him because he is a black that
> >doesn't act militant and has put his own political ambition above any
> >concern for his people. It is truly disgusting.....
>
> Absolutely, the idea that black person could provide leadership for the
> entire country and not just "his people" is preposterous.
>
> Doesn't he know that all blacks are only allowed to be are noble victims?
> Whining victim is also open. Militant racist is also approved for black men
> if I read your post correctly.
>
> Does it bother you that just maybe the content of Powell's character means
> more than the color of his skin and that THIS is why Bush has sought him
> out?
>
> Saddam Hussein is going to test Bush and the nation, as is every other
> two-bit punk in a dictator's uniform.
> Wouldn't you rather have Colin Powell as the nation's top diplomat when its
> face to face?
Oh yeah I can see it all now Colin Powell as diplomatic Rambo,
"I coming after you" gears up Globo Cop to the rescue
> I know I would take him over the current occupant anyday...
> and he's even better looking.
No wonder we as a species have a word for warring but
there is no word for peacing. Maybe it is time we start
peacing in the world instead of trying to force people to
become our image. Like Globo God.
>
>
> Besides, he needs more public experience if he's going to run for President
> in 2008.
Randy Sweeney
Uranus. wrote in message <3A29AC61...@politician.com>...
>Oh yeah I can see it all now Colin Powell as diplomatic Rambo,
>"I coming after you" gears up Globo Cop to the rescue
If you have to "make" a threat. You have lost the respect of the enemy.
Perceived weakness leads leads to war.
>> I know I would take him over the current occupant anyday...
>> and he's even better looking.
>
>No wonder we as a species have a word for warring but
>there is no word for peacing. Maybe it is time we start
>peacing in the world instead of trying to force people to
>become our image. Like Globo God.
Maybe it's time that we stop pretending that evil doesn't exist.
Uranus.
d'geezer wrote:
> "Uranus." wrote:
> >
> > d'geezer wrote:
>
> > that he then uses as his superiority over another group,
>
> I am claiming Powell does not use his superiority as a way to denigrate
> (hehehehehe) other Blacks. The poster was, now you seem to be, but your
> babble is hard to follow. I might be accusing you unfairly. Do let me
> know if that is the case.
Huh and I am babbling?
> Try thinking instead of "emoting" all over us. It's rude and messy.
I would be nice if people practice what they preach.
Uranus.
Corky51 wrote:
> "Uranus." <UpUr...@politician.com> wrote in message
> > > Republicans take seriously the notion that people should be
> > > judged according to their character and actions, not on the
> > > accidental attributes they owe to their genes or the circumstances
> > > into which they were born.
> >
> > Translation (I'm guessing) if only homosexuals had a
> > good caring strong father they would not have "chosen"
> > to be queers.
>
> ...and your guess is wrong. That's not what I was saying at all.
>
> (Of course, using standard Democrat practices, you can read
> whatever you want into anything, no matter how much it violates
> the original text, if it suits your interests.)
But you're not a bigot? Them Democrates this, and them
Democrats that. I am not afflilated with any party I dislike
them pretty much eqaully, it is very hard to deside which
one would scare me worse getting into office. But if
Bush is like his father (and there are signs) he would win
hands down.
http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/contracoke.html?pid=2765&cob=home
Uranus.
John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 22:40:26 GMT, "Uranus." <UpUr...@politician.com>
>
> >Is this the character you would like him to promote?
> >
> >
> >Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
> >orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
> >characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
> >discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
> >Colin Powell
>
> He can learn. I profoundly disagree with this views on the Second
> Amendment but respect his Character as combat leader.
>
> Sexuality does not define an individual any more than skin color.
> Rather you should ask the question, "Why have we given the State power
> to make these things issues?".
Well that is pretty easy to answer, because the Supreme Court
said so. See:
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
"None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's
prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or
procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in
this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the
proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct
between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from
state proscription is unsupportable"
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=hardwick/doc/{@99530}?
But then if you read:
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)
SCALIA, J., Dissenting Opinion
Scalia gets all bent out of shape and says:
"In holding that homosexuality cannot be singled out for disfavorable
treatment, the Court contradicts a decision, unchallenged here,
pronounced only 10 years ago, see Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S.
186 (1986), and places the prestige of this institution behind the
proposition that opposition to homosexuality is as reprehensible as
racial or religious bias. Whether it is or not is precisely the
cultural debate that gave rise to the Colorado constitutional
amendment (and to the preferential laws against which the amendment
was directed). Since the Constitution of the United States says
nothing about this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal
democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions
in state constitutions. This Court has no business imposing upon
all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which
the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that
animosity toward homosexuality, ante, at 13, is evil.
I vigorously dissent."
Elite class really means Suspect Class.
A suspect class is one "saddled with such disabilities, or
subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment,
or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness
as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian
political process." San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 1@28 (1973).
Uranus.
H H wrote:
> Steve Lajoie <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
> news:90c1rq$26g$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> >
> > Kevin L. Kitchens <newsg...@peidev.com> wrote in message
> > news:0bfW5.17188$88.31...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> > > Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and there is NO evidence to the
> > > contrary -- no matter what "studies" you think exist.
> > >
> > > There is a big difference in the two.
> >
> > Then why are there physical differences in the brains of homosexual
> > men? There was an article in Scientific American where this was
> > pointed out.
>
> So in other words, once a fag, always a fag. Good. That way it'll be more
> justifiable to purge the U.S. of their perverted presence.
Uranus.
H H wrote:
> Randy Sweeney <rswe...@Home.com> wrote in message
> news:65gW5.150971$j6.16...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
> Like their partners' feces, for instance?
Your coprophilia is noted:
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>
>
>John A. Stovall wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 22:40:26 GMT, "Uranus." <UpUr...@politician.com>
>>
>> >Is this the character you would like him to promote?
>> >
>> >
>> >Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
>> >orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
>> >characteristics. Comparison of the two, racial and sexual
>> >discrimination, is a convenient but invalid argument."
>> >Colin Powell
>>
>> He can learn. I profoundly disagree with this views on the Second
>> Amendment but respect his Character as combat leader.
>>
>> Sexuality does not define an individual any more than skin color.
>> Rather you should ask the question, "Why have we given the State power
>> to make these things issues?".
>
>Well that is pretty easy to answer, because the Supreme Court
>said so. See:
Then Smash the State.
*****************************************************
"Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy
And the dogs that talk revolution,
Drunk with talk, liars and belivers.
I believe in my tusks..........."
"Stars Go over the Lonely Ocean"
Robinson Jeffers
Uranus.
d'geezer wrote:
> "Uranus." wrote:
>
Geez you are the cheery lot I sure want you teaching our
children. Let's review, I say:
"I guess the people born with both sexes and want to get
married are just out of luck, when Bush get in there, because
the only legal marriage is between a man and a woman,
even if you are both. Maybe they might be able to marry
themselves. If there is no legal same sex marriages then
those born with both sexes cannot legally marry, and are
made second class citizens, (against the 14th Amendment)."
You reply with:
"My Goodness. Is there no one or category you don't hate?"
Which made no sense what so ever in this context, so I replied
"I am a product of my environment, if you want to change
the variables of society you have to change the environment.
Teach respect for self and others and give equality to
everyone then none of us will have an excuse to be bigots"
To which you say despite of the manipulation and indoctrination
from birth we (as I guess homosexuals) can self administer
reparative therapy. And that we despite the environment around
us to which we gain our cues somehow can overcome this
facade of reality and know by some divine inspiration a
proper conduct of behavior outside of our reality.
To which you conclude as:
"Now, take responsibility for yourself and stop blaming the "I am a
product of my environment" bullshit. It will get you no where except in
to the line with with all the whining "victims"."
To this elitis condesending answer I reply with the quip.
What do you teach, Shop? How many finger can you hold up?
d'geezer
Why not give it up and stop cross posting from
alt.politics.democrats.d
YOu can only engage us on this subject for so long. I do admire your
persistence in trying to sew using thread from another subject, calling
Colin Powell an Uncle Tom.
by,
d'geezer
d'geezer
I know. Too many Doofuses running around with to little to do and not
much to do it with.
d'geezer
>
> *******************************************
>
> ".......................I believe in my tusks.
> Long live freedom and damn the the ideologies,"
> Said the gamey black-maned wild boar
> Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain.
> "Stars Go Over The Lonely Ocean"
> Robinson Jeffers
d'geezer
Silence....................................................................
d'geezer
>
> Steve Lajoie <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
> news:90c1rq$26g$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> >
> > news:0bfW5.17188$88.31...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> > > Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and there is NO evidence to the
> > > contrary -- no matter what "studies" you think exist.
> > >
> > > There is a big difference in the two.
> >
> > Then why are there physical differences in the brains of homosexual
> > pointed out.
>
> So in other words, once a fag, always a fag. Good. That way it'll be more
> justifiable to purge the U.S. of their perverted presence.
Unfortunately the "social disease" of homophobia is catching. Go get a
shot.
d'geezer
d'geezer
Silence................................................................................