3rd world country

[Hugh Lawson]

http://tinyurl.com/cqwf6o6

This is a youtube that is strictly speaking not true.

The US south was not a "third world country". It was considerably less
prosperous than the US north, but despite this was still one of the
richest countries in the world.

But factuality doesn't matter when northerners "talk about the
south". The purpose of their talk, for the most part, is not to convey
information about America, or to bring about desirable change; instead
it is to make themselves feel good about themselves.

HL

[MITO MINISTER]

Yeah, right. The South is blameless. Next.

[Hugh Lawson]

[ snip ]

> Yeah, right. The South is blameless. Next.

Anybody can blame "the South" for whatever they like. Finding fault is
the usual way that non-southerners think about "the South". When they
don't spot something blameworthy at first, they keep looking until they
do. "Eureka!", they say, "here is the real south".

As Kris Kristofferson wrote in one of his songs, "Everybody's got to
have somebody to look down on. . . ."

HL

[Joel Edge]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:21:18 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87r4qh4...@gmail.com>):

I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be nice if he
could make some form of point.

[Hugh Lawson]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:

[ snip ]

> I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be nice if he
> could make some form of point.

HL: IMO he conveyed his point by innuend: "the South" is a place alien
to those he means to address, outside the mainstream and an source of
cultural pollutants that enter into that mainstream--his idea, not
mine--the source of these defects is the culture of the white southern
population. Since many already believe this, he need only speak
indirectly, by innuendo.

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 05:46:55 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Looking down on Republicans works for me.

Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
social democracy the equal of any in Europe.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 6, 8:46 am, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 05:46:55 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>

Damn straight!

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:

[snip]

> Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
> South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
> social democracy the equal of any in Europe.

US states have all the powers they need to build social safety
nets. "The South" has no means to stop states from doing whatever they
like in this area.

HL

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:

[ snip ]

> Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
> South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
> social democracy the equal of any in Europe.

I can see that A.Lurker considers the southern population to be an
optional add-on to the American people. He easily imagines, enjoys
imagining, what things would be like if there were no southern
population, if we were "disappeared".

Well, we were present at the creation of America, white and black. We
are constituent elements of the American people. I don't take seriously
the childish notion of making us disappear.

HL

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:31:15 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

To state the obvious, Hugh, I was not talking about individual states,
whose ability to build safety nets individually is actually somewhat
limited, but the United States of America.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 7, 11:30 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

We can dream!

[Hugh Lawson]

The point is that if states want to create social safety networks, they
have all the power the need to do this. This means that when some things
can't be done at the federal level, due to political conditions, they
can be done at the state level.

States have set up school systems, university systems, automobile
insurance requirements, hospitals for the mentally ill, and on and
on, child welfare regulations, and on and on.

You also failed to explain just how "the South", by everybody's
reckoning a minority, can stop the US from doing anything. You just made
up the accusation.

[Joel Edge]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 16:06:28 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87k3w8x...@gmail.com>):

Ah....so people flying confederate flags up north (Punkin Chunkin and other
places) and the spread of Southern Baptists is a bad thing. Who knew. I
always thought of it as 'bringing the country together'.

[Joel Edge]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:24:17 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<fe792764-3ee4-4331...@v9g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 7, 11:30ï¿œam, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>> Speaking of which, it might be germane to point out that without the
>>> South to hold it back, America would have evolved into an enlightened
>>> social democracy the equal of any in Europe.
>>
>> I can see that A.Lurker considers the southern population to be an

>> optional add-on to the American people. ï¿œHe easily imagines, enjoys

>> imagining, what things would be like if there were no southern
>> population, if we were "disappeared".
>>

>> Well, we were present at the creation of America, white and black. ï¿œWe
>> are constituent elements of the American people. ï¿œI don't take seriously

>> the childish notion of making us disappear.
>>
>> HL
>
> We can dream!

That's all you do.

[Joel Edge]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:46:52 -0400, A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com wrote
(in article <1mof481mfm8ka1lde...@4ax.com>):

> enlightened
> social democracy

Thanks. I needed the laugh.

[Hugh Lawson]

You have to listen to A.Lurker, and see how he thinks. It's the belief
in "the South" as a geographically located community, alien to and
hostile to "True America"--that's what occupies his mind.

Judging from what he writes, he regards this opposition as an actual,
empirical fact, as real as the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes. I mean
the opposition in his mind between "the South" and "True America".

The flaw with this way of thinking is that the populations of the
southern states have always been part of the American people, from the
very foundation of the United States. Would there have been a United
States if the southern colonies had not joined the patriot cause? That's
impossible to know. But, because you can draw a line across a map,
A.Lurker can create this mental image of an unAmerican part of America,
and use it for whatever purpose makes him feel good.

This kind of talk doesn't happen much in the political sphere. The
Southern states are represented in Congress, vote for president, and so
on. Telling them that they are alien, unamerican people seems
inappropriate in that context.

It does go on in the cultural sphere, the realm of formal education,
publishing, the media, and so on, all of whose powerful centers lie
geographically outside the South. That's how A.Lurker picked it up, and
why he thinks of it as "natural". (I owe this political sphere/cultural
sphere distinction to Jennifer Rae Greeson.) The US cultural sphere is
like a very powerful echo chamber that resonates far beyond US borders.

Canadians pick it up easily. See the posts of Mito Minister for an
example. Southerners themselves are powerfully influenced by it.

Now I'm not trying to change A.Lurker; I don't think that's possible.
Some years ago in this newsgroup, I noticed his sectionalism in other,
and began to study it an think about.

HL

[Joel Edge]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:34:03 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <874nnan...@gmail.com>):

Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the orthodoxy.
Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
documented history of not going along.

[Hugh Lawson]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:

[ snip ]

> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the orthodoxy.
> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
> documented history of not going along.

The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that. See the old standard
_Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism by
John Higham.

UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.

The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to the
foundation of the United States. See Jennifer Rae Greeson's book _Our
South_. Another good author on this topic is David Jansson, who writes
about it under the label "internal orientalism." In a nutshell, this
way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign
country, or foreign colony, inside the USA. It's an interesting theme.

This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the
facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940. But the right-wing-nuts have
found HUAC much more useful in their various witch-hunts.

My opinion is that the South is too varied to be easily described as
One-Thing.

HL

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 8, 9:54 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:34:03 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote

> (in article <874nnaneic....@gmail.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 16:06:28 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote

> >> (in article <87k3w8xmij....@gmail.com>):

Would you consider an armed attack against the United States un-
American? if so, the Rebels were traitors. If not, you support Bin
Laden. Gotcha!

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

[ snip ]

> the Rebels were traitors.

So?

[Joel Edge]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87ehmc9...@gmail.com>):

In the case of foreign I think more of Obama as a "foreigner" in his way of
thinking. Of course, I think of all liberal democrats as foreign. So going by
that definition, I think of all liberal democrats as un-American.
But I read a lot of liberal opinion and such.

[Joel Edge]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:38:01 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<5fec66ea-3c11-4620...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>):

Fail, again. The rebels were...SURPRISE: rebels. Secession wasn't exactly
illegal back then. The colonists were rebels also.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 10, 9:17 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:38:01 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <5fec66ea-3c11-4620-bbff-be1114a48...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>):

Victory is a mitigating circumstance for any rebellion. The
revolutionaries won. You lost.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 10, 9:14 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote

> (in article <87ehmc9u1n....@gmail.com>):

Obama is a foreigner? Maybe O'bama, but not Barack. He's more of a
genuine American than you'll ever be!

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 10, 10:25 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > the Rebels were traitors.
>
> So?

So they were un-American. Deservin' nothin' but scorn, but YOU defend
them. You're a snivelling Confederate coward!

[Hugh Lawson]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:

[ snip ]

>

> In the case of foreign I think more of Obama as a "foreigner" in his way of
> thinking. Of course, I think of all liberal democrats as foreign. So going by
> that definition, I think of all liberal democrats as un-American.
> But I read a lot of liberal opinion and such.

That exemplifies my point: the "unAmerican" charge is used more by
right-wingnuts.

[Hugh Lawson]

So what?

[Hugh Lawson]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:


> But I read a lot of liberal opinion

What liberal authors and publications do you read regularly?

[slotrot]

On Sep 10, 10:07 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

You got that one right Hugh. And yet they get to vote??? God Help
America!!!

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:40:38 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>

Hugh, you can't be that politically naive.

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:


> Hugh, you can't be that politically naive.

In that case it should be easy for you to explain:

1. How does "the South" prevent the US from adopting (or protecting) the
safety net?

2. And why rich-state liberals

a. frequently complain about federal programs transferring money to
poorer red-states, and at the same time,

b. insist of making the safety net a federal responsibility, while at
the same time,

c. complaining that "the South" won't let them put federal programs
into effect?

I'm in favor of a strong federal safety net myself, I'm just trying to
understand others.

[Hugh Lawson]

The right-wingnuts will tell you, if you just listen, that they don't
believe in democracy, and they hate universal suffrage. But they do get
to vote.


HL

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:25:10 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<fa91fff7-643e-491b...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 10, 9:14ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>> (in article <87ehmc9u1n....@gmail.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>>> [ snip ]
>>
>>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
>>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
>>>> orthodoxy.
>>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
>>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
>>>> documented history of not going along.
>>

>>> The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that. ï¿œSee the old standard

>>> _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism by
>>> John Higham.
>>
>>> UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
>>> Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.
>>
>>> The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to the

>>> foundation of the United States. ï¿œSee Jennifer Rae Greeson's book _Our
>>> South_. ï¿œAnother good author on this topic is David Jansson, who writes
>>> about it under the label "internal orientalism." ï¿œIn a nutshell, this

>>> way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign

>>> country, or foreign colony, inside the USA. ï¿œIt's an interesting theme.

>>
>>> This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
>>> charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
>>> founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the

>>> facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940. ï¿œBut the right-wing-nuts have

>>> found HUAC much more useful in their various witch-hunts.
>>
>>> My opinion is that the South is too varied to be easily described as
>>> One-Thing.
>>
>>> HL
>>
>> In the case of foreign I think more of Obama as a "foreigner" in his way of
>> thinking. Of course, I think of all liberal democrats as foreign. So going
>> by
>> that definition, I think of all liberal democrats as un-American.
>> But I read a lot of liberal opinion and such.
>
> Obama is a foreigner? Maybe O'bama, but not Barack. He's more of a
> genuine American than you'll ever be!

You're a foreigner. Go read again. Your lack of comprehension is showing
again.

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:07:56 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87r4qar...@gmail.com>):

OK. Let's explain this a little clearer. Un-American, not in it's literal
sense, but in it's foreign belief system. Cradle to grave, laws, big
government, nanny laws, etc. Nuture rather than nature.

[Joel Edge]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:32:01 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <871ui8y...@gmail.com>):

> slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:

Since when?

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:27:58 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87d31u0...@gmail.com>):

> Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
>
>
>> But I read a lot of liberal opinion
>
> What liberal authors and publications do you read regularly?
>
>

I'm a big news addict. Pick your poison, AJC, New York Times, Huffington
Post, etc. I also a lot of conservative opinion, Drudge, Milchelle Malkin,
Anne Coulter, etc. Which I think everyone should make the effort to do.
I also like Real Clear anything. Covers a lot of stuff.

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:23:33 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<7f4d5226-d040-489c...@rq1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 10, 9:17ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:38:01 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>> (in article
>> <5fec66ea-3c11-4620-bbff-be1114a48...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 8, 9:54ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:34:03 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>>>> (in article <874nnaneic....@gmail.com>):
>>
>>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 16:06:28 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>>>>>> (in article <87k3w8xmij....@gmail.com>):
>>
>>>>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>>>>>>> [ snip ]
>>
>>>>>>>> I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be
>>>>>>>> nice
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>> could make some form of point.
>>
>>>>>>> HL: IMO he conveyed his point by innuend: "the South" is a place alien
>>>>>>> to those he means to address, outside the mainstream and an source of
>>>>>>> cultural pollutants that enter into that mainstream--his idea, not
>>>>>>> mine--the source of these defects is the culture of the white southern

>>>>>>> population. ï¿œSince many already believe this, he need only speak

>>>>>>> indirectly, by innuendo.
>>
>>>>>> Ah....so people flying confederate flags up north (Punkin Chunkin and
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> places) and the spread of Southern Baptists is a bad thing. Who knew. I
>>>>>> always thought of it as 'bringing the country together'.
>>

>>>>> You have to listen to A.Lurker, and see how he thinks. ï¿œIt's the belief

>>>>> in "the South" as a geographically located community, alien to and
>>>>> hostile to "True America"--that's what occupies his mind.
>>
>>>>> Judging from what he writes, he regards this opposition as an actual,
>>>>> empirical fact, as real as the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes. I mean
>>>>> the opposition in his mind between "the South" and "True America".
>>
>>>>> The flaw with this way of thinking is that the populations of the
>>>>> southern states have always been part of the American people, from the
>>>>> very foundation of the United States. Would there have been a United
>>>>> States if the southern colonies had not joined the patriot cause? That's

>>>>> impossible to know. ï¿œBut, because you can draw a line across a map,

>>>>> A.Lurker can create this mental image of an unAmerican part of America,
>>>>> and use it for whatever purpose makes him feel good.
>>
>>>>> This kind of talk doesn't happen much in the political sphere. The
>>>>> Southern states are represented in Congress, vote for president, and so
>>>>> on. Telling them that they are alien, unamerican people seems
>>>>> inappropriate in that context.
>>
>>>>> It does go on in the cultural sphere, the realm of formal education,
>>>>> publishing, the media, and so on, all of whose powerful centers lie
>>>>> geographically outside the South. That's how A.Lurker picked it up, and

>>>>> why he thinks of it as "natural". ￜ(I owe this political sphere/cultural
>>>>> sphere distinction to Jennifer Rae Greeson.) ï¿œThe US cultural sphere is

>>>>> like a very powerful echo chamber that resonates far beyond US borders.
>>

>>>>> Canadians pick it up easily. ï¿œSee the posts of Mito Minister for an
>>>>> example. ï¿œSoutherners themselves are powerfully influenced by it.

>>
>>>>> Now I'm not trying to change A.Lurker; I don't think that's possible.
>>>>> Some years ago in this newsgroup, I noticed his sectionalism in other,
>>>>> and began to study it an think about.
>>
>>>>> HL
>>
>>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
>>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
>>>> orthodoxy.
>>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
>>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
>>>> documented history of not going along.
>>
>>> Would you consider an armed attack against the United States un-
>>> American? if so, the Rebels were traitors. If not, you support Bin
>>> Laden. Gotcha!
>>
>> Fail, again. The rebels were...SURPRISE: rebels. Secession wasn't exactly
>> illegal back then. The colonists were rebels also.
>
> Victory is a mitigating circumstance for any rebellion. The
> revolutionaries won. You lost.

Well considering I wasn't alive at the time, I can't see how I lost. But
you've demonstrated that you live about 150 years ago. I can see your
mistake.

[Hugh Lawson]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:


> OK. Let's explain this a little clearer. Un-American, not in it's literal
> sense, but in it's foreign belief system. Cradle to grave, laws, big
> government, nanny laws, etc. Nuture rather than nature.

Piffle.

HL

[Hugh Lawson]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:

>>> You got that one right Hugh. And yet they get to vote??? God Help
>>> America!!!
>>
>> The right-wingnuts will tell you, if you just listen, that they don't
>> believe in democracy, and they hate universal suffrage. But they do get
>> to vote.
>>
>>
>> HL
>
> Since when?

You'll have to ask your question more clearly.

hl

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:17:53 -0400, Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net>
wrote:

The right wing is as un-American as it gets in this country,

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:

[ snip ]

>
> The right wing is as un-American as it gets in this country,

Emotionally I want to agree, but my position is that America is what it
is, a sum of all the things and people that make it up.

It's contrived and artificial to make up a rule separating some
Americans from others, and declaring that those screened out are
unAmerican.

Just as contrived as drawing a line across a map, and devising some way
of saying that those on one side are less American than those on the
other side.

America is a patchwork, imperfectly stitched.

HL

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 11, 8:14 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:25:10 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <fa91fff7-643e-491b-9ade-2ce092edd...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 9:14 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> >> (in article <87ehmc9u1n....@gmail.com>):
>
> >>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >>> [ snip ]
>
> >>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
> >>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
> >>>> orthodoxy.
> >>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
> >>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
> >>>> documented history of not going along.
>

> >>> The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that.  See the old standard

> >>> _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism by
> >>> John Higham.
>
> >>> UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
> >>> Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.
>
> >>> The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to the

> >>> foundation of the United States.  See Jennifer Rae Greeson's book _Our
> >>> South_.  Another good author on this topic is David Jansson, who writes
> >>> about it under the label "internal orientalism."  In a nutshell, this

> >>> way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign

> >>> country, or foreign colony, inside the USA.  It's an interesting theme.

>
> >>> This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
> >>> charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
> >>> founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the

> >>> facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940.  But the right-wing-nuts have

> >>> found HUAC much more useful in their various witch-hunts.
>
> >>> My opinion is that the South is too varied to be easily described as
> >>> One-Thing.
>
> >>> HL
>
> >> In the case of foreign I think more of Obama as a "foreigner" in his way of
> >> thinking. Of course, I think of all liberal democrats as foreign. So going
> >> by
> >> that definition, I think of all liberal democrats as un-American.
> >> But I read a lot of liberal opinion and such.
>
> > Obama is a foreigner? Maybe O'bama, but not Barack. He's more of a
> > genuine American than you'll ever be!
>
> You're a foreigner. Go read again. Your lack of comprehension is showing
> again.

Your statement shows how America-centric and provincial you really
are. You also use the word "foreigner" as an epithet to be hurled at
people you don't like. Frankly, you deserve to be deported back to
Europe. The USA belongs to real people: Latinos, Jews, African-
Americans, women, homosexuals, Unionists and others, not cracker
segregationists.

I can pass as a regular American better than you ever could. One word
out of your mouth and anyone would know you were a White Southern Boy.
Besides, I am NOT a foreigner. I don't believe in the concept.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 11, 8:21 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:27:58 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote

> (in article <87d31u0x75....@gmail.com>):

>
> > Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >> But I read a lot of liberal opinion
>
> > What liberal authors and publications do you read regularly?
>
> I'm a big news addict. Pick your poison, AJC, New York Times, Huffington
> Post, etc. I also a lot of conservative opinion, Drudge, Milchelle Malkin,
> Anne Coulter, etc. Which I think everyone should make the effort to do.
> I also like Real Clear anything. Covers a lot of stuff.

You're a shut-in without a life. Living on gub'ment handouts.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 11, 8:23 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:23:33 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <7f4d5226-d040-489c-9e71-f834a6fb2...@rq1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 9:17 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:38:01 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <5fec66ea-3c11-4620-bbff-be1114a48...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>> On Sep 8, 9:54 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:34:03 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> >>>> (in article <874nnaneic....@gmail.com>):
>
> >>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 16:06:28 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> >>>>>> (in article <87k3w8xmij....@gmail.com>):
>
> >>>>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >>>>>>> [ snip ]
>
> >>>>>>>> I managed to watch about six and a half minutes of it. It would be
> >>>>>>>> nice
> >>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>> he
> >>>>>>>> could make some form of point.
>
> >>>>>>> HL: IMO he conveyed his point by innuend: "the South" is a place alien
> >>>>>>> to those he means to address, outside the mainstream and an source of
> >>>>>>> cultural pollutants that enter into that mainstream--his idea, not
> >>>>>>> mine--the source of these defects is the culture of the white southern

> >>>>>>> population. Since many already believe this, he need only speak

> >>>>>>> indirectly, by innuendo.
>
> >>>>>> Ah....so people flying confederate flags up north (Punkin Chunkin and
> >>>>>> other
> >>>>>> places) and the spread of Southern Baptists is a bad thing. Who knew. I
> >>>>>> always thought of it as 'bringing the country together'.
>

> >>>>> You have to listen to A.Lurker, and see how he thinks. It's the belief

> >>>>> in "the South" as a geographically located community, alien to and
> >>>>> hostile to "True America"--that's what occupies his mind.
>
> >>>>> Judging from what he writes, he regards this opposition as an actual,
> >>>>> empirical fact, as real as the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes. I mean
> >>>>> the opposition in his mind between "the South" and "True America".
>
> >>>>> The flaw with this way of thinking is that the populations of the
> >>>>> southern states have always been part of the American people, from the
> >>>>> very foundation of the United States. Would there have been a United
> >>>>> States if the southern colonies had not joined the patriot cause? That's

> >>>>> impossible to know. But, because you can draw a line across a map,

> >>>>> A.Lurker can create this mental image of an unAmerican part of America,
> >>>>> and use it for whatever purpose makes him feel good.
>
> >>>>> This kind of talk doesn't happen much in the political sphere. The
> >>>>> Southern states are represented in Congress, vote for president, and so
> >>>>> on. Telling them that they are alien, unamerican people seems
> >>>>> inappropriate in that context.
>
> >>>>> It does go on in the cultural sphere, the realm of formal education,
> >>>>> publishing, the media, and so on, all of whose powerful centers lie
> >>>>> geographically outside the South. That's how A.Lurker picked it up, and

> >>>>> why he thinks of it as "natural". (I owe this political sphere/cultural
> >>>>> sphere distinction to Jennifer Rae Greeson.) The US cultural sphere is

> >>>>> like a very powerful echo chamber that resonates far beyond US borders.
>

> >>>>> Canadians pick it up easily. See the posts of Mito Minister for an
> >>>>> example. Southerners themselves are powerfully influenced by it.

>
> >>>>> Now I'm not trying to change A.Lurker; I don't think that's possible.
> >>>>> Some years ago in this newsgroup, I noticed his sectionalism in other,
> >>>>> and began to study it an think about.
>
> >>>>> HL
>
> >>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
> >>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
> >>>> orthodoxy.
> >>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
> >>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
> >>>> documented history of not going along.
>
> >>> Would you consider an armed attack against the United States un-
> >>> American? if so, the Rebels were traitors. If not, you support Bin
> >>> Laden. Gotcha!
>
> >> Fail, again. The rebels were...SURPRISE: rebels. Secession wasn't exactly
> >> illegal back then. The colonists were rebels also.
>
> > Victory is a mitigating circumstance for any rebellion. The
> > revolutionaries won. You lost.
>
> Well considering I wasn't alive at the time, I can't see how I lost. But
> you've demonstrated that you live about 150 years ago. I can see your
> mistake.

You support the Rebel cause long after it has been totally
discredited. You and Bin Laden - same shit - enemies of the USA..

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 12, 7:35 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

You're starting to make some sense here. Your jail sentence is stayed
until a later date.

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:


> Hugh, you can't be that politically naive.

Now, talking about "politically naive", let's review the primary
candidates in the Republican primaries. After thinking about that a
little, then explain just how it is that it's "the South" that causes
all this conservative stuff. Stir in Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Now how exactly is "the South" answerable for these guys?

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 13, 8:39 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

They voted for them.

[Joel Edge]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 03:50:02 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<0941fb3a-ff21-4f9f...@v9g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>):

I've had a very good life (and still do) and am trying to pass the benefits
on to the next generation. You're a never-was, trekkie, communist on the
public dole.

[Joel Edge]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:35:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87oblcf...@gmail.com>):

If an artificial line is drawn then, yes, it doesn't work. Similar to Mito's
constant insistance on continued southern guilt.

"You support the Rebel cause long after it has been totally
discredited. You and Bin Laden - same shit - enemies of the USA.."

What I'm seeing is a line drawn by society at large. Fortunately; that's one
of the functions of society. Don't know where the line will be in a hundred
years, I'm merely concerned where the line will be in ten to twenty years.

[Joel Edge]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:32:47 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<1c1ee25a-2851-461f...@g7g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 13, 8:39ï¿œam, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>>> Hugh, you can't be that politically naive.
>>
>> Now, talking about "politically naive", let's review the primary

>> candidates in the Republican primaries. ï¿œAfter thinking about that a

>> little, then explain just how it is that it's "the South" that causes

>> all this conservative stuff. ï¿œStir in Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

>>
>> Now how exactly is "the South" answerable for these guys?
>
> They voted for them.

LOL
Thanks.

[Joel Edge]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 03:49:00 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<803ab87b-f660-4ced...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 11, 8:14ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:25:10 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>> (in article
>> <fa91fff7-643e-491b-9ade-2ce092edd...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 10, 9:14ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>>>> (in article <87ehmc9u1n....@gmail.com>):
>>
>>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>>>>> [ snip ]
>>
>>>>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
>>>>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
>>>>>> orthodoxy.
>>>>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
>>>>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
>>>>>> documented history of not going along.
>>

>>>>> The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that. ï¿œSee the old standard

>>>>> _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism by
>>>>> John Higham.
>>
>>>>> UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
>>>>> Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.
>>
>>>>> The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to the

>>>>> foundation of the United States. ï¿œSee Jennifer Rae Greeson's book _Our
>>>>> South_. ï¿œAnother good author on this topic is David Jansson, who writes
>>>>> about it under the label "internal orientalism." ï¿œIn a nutshell, this

>>>>> way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign

>>>>> country, or foreign colony, inside the USA. ï¿œIt's an interesting theme.

>>
>>>>> This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
>>>>> charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
>>>>> founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the

>>>>> facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940. ï¿œBut the right-wing-nuts have

>>>>> found HUAC much more useful in their various witch-hunts.
>>
>>>>> My opinion is that the South is too varied to be easily described as
>>>>> One-Thing.
>>
>>>>> HL
>>
>>>> In the case of foreign I think more of Obama as a "foreigner" in his way
>>>> of
>>>> thinking. Of course, I think of all liberal democrats as foreign. So going
>>>> by
>>>> that definition, I think of all liberal democrats as un-American.
>>>> But I read a lot of liberal opinion and such.
>>
>>> Obama is a foreigner? Maybe O'bama, but not Barack. He's more of a
>>> genuine American than you'll ever be!
>>
>> You're a foreigner. Go read again. Your lack of comprehension is showing
>> again.
>
> Your statement shows how America-centric and provincial you really
> are. You also use the word "foreigner" as an epithet to be hurled at
> people you don't like. Frankly, you deserve to be deported back to
> Europe. The USA belongs to real people: Latinos, Jews, African-
> Americans, women, homosexuals, Unionists and others, not cracker
> segregationists.
>
> I can pass as a regular American better than you ever could. One word
> out of your mouth and anyone would know you were a White Southern Boy.
> Besides, I am NOT a foreigner. I don't believe in the concept.

You've admitted to being a Canadian, South African, and various made up
personas. You're about as foreign as they come. Mentally, ideologically, and
character wise. Not an epithet, merely a statement of fact. How's that high
level job at the UN coming?
Oh wait....

[Joel Edge]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:24:46 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87k3w0x...@gmail.com>):

I say that's plenty clear.

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:39:02 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Without the South, Romney wouldn't have a prayer of winning. Nor would
George W. Bush have won twice. Nor would the House now being under
Republican control.

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:05:39 -0500, A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
wrote:

"...now BE under..."

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 13, 9:03 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 03:49:00 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <803ab87b-f660-4ced-a12f-d1871a4fc...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 8:14 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:25:10 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <fa91fff7-643e-491b-9ade-2ce092edd...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>> On Sep 10, 9:14 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> >>>> (in article <87ehmc9u1n....@gmail.com>):
>
> >>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >>>>> [ snip ]
>
> >>>>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
> >>>>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
> >>>>>> orthodoxy.
> >>>>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started really
> >>>>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
> >>>>>> documented history of not going along.
>

> >>>>> The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that.  See the old standard

> >>>>> _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism by
> >>>>> John Higham.
>
> >>>>> UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
> >>>>> Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.
>
> >>>>> The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to the

> >>>>> foundation of the United States.  See Jennifer Rae Greeson's book _Our
> >>>>> South_.  Another good author on this topic is David Jansson, who writes
> >>>>> about it under the label "internal orientalism."  In a nutshell, this

> >>>>> way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign

> >>>>> country, or foreign colony, inside the USA.  It's an interesting theme.

>
> >>>>> This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
> >>>>> charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
> >>>>> founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the

> >>>>> facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940.  But the right-wing-nuts have

The UN thing was someone else's guess. Never claimed that one. The SA
thing was a test of your gullibility. You failed that one.

[Joel Edge]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 04:25:18 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<42018b9a-9410-4b77...@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 13, 9:03ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 03:49:00 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>> (in article
>> <803ab87b-f660-4ced-a12f-d1871a4fc...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 11, 8:14ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:25:10 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <fa91fff7-643e-491b-9ade-2ce092edd...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>):
>>

>>>>> On Sep 10, 9:14ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>>>>>> (in article <87ehmc9u1n....@gmail.com>):
>>
>>>>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>>>>>>> [ snip ]
>>
>>>>>>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
>>>>>>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
>>>>>>>> orthodoxy.
>>>>>>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
>>>>>>>> documented history of not going along.
>>

>>>>>>> The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that. ï¿œSee the old standard

>>>>>>> _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism by
>>>>>>> John Higham.
>>
>>>>>>> UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
>>>>>>> Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.
>>
>>>>>>> The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to
>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>> foundation of the United States. ï¿œSee Jennifer Rae Greeson's book _Our
>>>>>>> South_. ï¿œAnother good author on this topic is David Jansson, who writes
>>>>>>> about it under the label "internal orientalism." ï¿œIn a nutshell, this

>>>>>>> way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign

>>>>>>> country, or foreign colony, inside the USA. ï¿œIt's an interesting theme.

>>
>>>>>>> This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
>>>>>>> charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
>>>>>>> founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the

>>>>>>> facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940. ï¿œBut the right-wing-nuts

Wrong answer. That was no guess. It was another of Mito's failed attempts at
inflating his ego.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 15, 8:23 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 04:25:18 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <42018b9a-9410-4b77-a39a-8dad9d5fe...@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 9:03 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 03:49:00 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <803ab87b-f660-4ced-a12f-d1871a4fc...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>> On Sep 11, 8:14 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:25:10 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >>>> (in article
> >>>> <fa91fff7-643e-491b-9ade-2ce092edd...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>>>> On Sep 10, 9:14 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> >>>>>> (in article <87ehmc9u1n....@gmail.com>):
>
> >>>>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >>>>>>> [ snip ]
>
> >>>>>>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
> >>>>>>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
> >>>>>>>> orthodoxy.
> >>>>>>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started
> >>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a long
> >>>>>>>> documented history of not going along.
>

> >>>>>>> The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that.  See the old standard

> >>>>>>> _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism by
> >>>>>>> John Higham.
>
> >>>>>>> UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
> >>>>>>> Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.
>
> >>>>>>> The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to
> >>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>> foundation of the United States.  See Jennifer Rae Greeson's book _Our
> >>>>>>> South_.  Another good author on this topic is David Jansson, who writes
> >>>>>>> about it under the label "internal orientalism."  In a nutshell, this

> >>>>>>> way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign

> >>>>>>> country, or foreign colony, inside the USA.  It's an interesting theme.

>
> >>>>>>> This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
> >>>>>>> charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
> >>>>>>> founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the

> >>>>>>> facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940.  But the right-wing-nuts

You should get out of your room more. Live a little. You do realise
that this chat-room is just bullshit, don't you? I come here for a
laugh, a break between assignments. For you, it's your whole life. You
belong in jail for treason.

[Joel Edge]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:39:46 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<c3806147-2221-4dcf...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 15, 8:23ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 04:25:18 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>> (in article
>> <42018b9a-9410-4b77-a39a-8dad9d5fe...@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 13, 9:03ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 03:49:00 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <803ab87b-f660-4ced-a12f-d1871a4fc...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>>

>>>>> On Sep 11, 8:14ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:25:10 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>> <fa91fff7-643e-491b-9ade-2ce092edd...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>):
>>

>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 9:14ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article <87ehmc9u1n....@gmail.com>):
>>
>>>>>>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>>>>>>>>> [ snip ]
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
>>>>>>>>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
>>>>>>>>>> orthodoxy.
>>>>>>>>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started
>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a
>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>> documented history of not going along.
>>

>>>>>>>>> The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that. ï¿œSee the old

>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>> _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> John Higham.
>>
>>>>>>>>> UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
>>>>>>>>> Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.
>>
>>>>>>>>> The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to
>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>> foundation of the United States. ï¿œSee Jennifer Rae Greeson's book
>>>>>>>>> _Our
>>>>>>>>> South_. ï¿œAnother good author on this topic is David Jansson, who
>>>>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>>> about it under the label "internal orientalism." ï¿œIn a nutshell, this

>>>>>>>>> way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign

>>>>>>>>> country, or foreign colony, inside the USA. ï¿œIt's an interesting

>>>>>>>>> theme.
>>
>>>>>>>>> This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
>>>>>>>>> charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
>>>>>>>>> founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the

>>>>>>>>> facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940. ï¿œBut the right-wing-nuts

What assignments? Undermining freedom? You do understand I don't exclusively
post here? It's up to you, keep pleading.

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:


>>>Now how exactly is "the South" answerable for these guys?
>>
>>Without the South, Romney wouldn't have a prayer of winning. Nor would
>>George W. Bush have won twice. Nor would the House now being under
>>Republican control.
>
> "...now BE under..."

This is mere speculation, A.L. You don't know this.

It's just talk.,

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:

[ snip ]

>>Without the South, Romney wouldn't have a prayer of winning. Nor would
>>George W. Bush have won twice. Nor would the House now being under
>>Republican control.
>
> "...now BE under..."

None of this matters. "The South", whatever it may be,
however it may be defined, is part of America. This means that it is
American. Period.

So conservatives are stronger in states labelled "southern states"? So
what? We have conservatives in the US. They are just as American as
black Americans.

HL

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:17:49 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hugh, you can't be serious. Just count up the electoral votes as
protected by recent polls without counting the South and the numbers
speak for themselves. Similarly with House seats.

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:20:52 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I guess you thought it over and realized how weak your previous
response was.

No one said the South isn't part of America. But if it weren't,
America would be a more progressive and enlightened nation.

Similarly with conservatives: without them America would be a more
progressive and enlightened nation.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 17, 8:39 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:39:46 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <c3806147-2221-4dcf-8beb-e57242da3...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 8:23 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 04:25:18 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <42018b9a-9410-4b77-a39a-8dad9d5fe...@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>> On Sep 13, 9:03 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 03:49:00 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >>>> (in article
> >>>> <803ab87b-f660-4ced-a12f-d1871a4fc...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>>>> On Sep 11, 8:14 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:25:10 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >>>>>> (in article
> >>>>>> <fa91fff7-643e-491b-9ade-2ce092edd...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>>>>>> On Sep 10, 9:14 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> >>>>>>>> (in article <87ehmc9u1n....@gmail.com>):
>
> >>>>>>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>> [ snip ]
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
> >>>>>>>>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
> >>>>>>>>>> orthodoxy.
> >>>>>>>>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started
> >>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a
> >>>>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>>> documented history of not going along.
>

> >>>>>>>>> The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that.  See the old

> >>>>>>>>> standard
> >>>>>>>>> _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American nativism
> >>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>> John Higham.
>
> >>>>>>>>> UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
> >>>>>>>>> Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on Obama.
>
> >>>>>>>>> The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back to
> >>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>> foundation of the United States.  See Jennifer Rae Greeson's book
> >>>>>>>>> _Our
> >>>>>>>>> South_.  Another good author on this topic is David Jansson, who
> >>>>>>>>> writes
> >>>>>>>>> about it under the label "internal orientalism."  In a nutshell, this

> >>>>>>>>> way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of foreign

> >>>>>>>>> country, or foreign colony, inside the USA.  It's an interesting

> >>>>>>>>> theme.
>
> >>>>>>>>> This is not to say that the liberals have never used the "unamerican"
> >>>>>>>>> charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities was
> >>>>>>>>> founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the

> >>>>>>>>> facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940.  But the right-wing-nuts

You defend your posting on THIS group by bragging about your postings
on other groups?

All of Usenet is bullshit. Worthless arguments. Like I said: This
group is a laugh. For you, it's life itself. Now get out of your
trailer and go outside.

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:

> No one said the South isn't part of America. But if it weren't,
> America would be a more progressive and enlightened nation.

This is not a fact; it is just speculation. So it can't be known.

You don't even know that there would be a United States without "the
South".

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:


> Hugh, you can't be serious. Just count up the electoral votes as
> protected by recent polls without counting the South and the numbers
> speak for themselves. Similarly with House seats.

What they say is that the South doesn't control Congress, doesn't
control the election of presidents.

[Joel Edge]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:57:46 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<0148bd87-e86c-4bc7...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 17, 8:39ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:39:46 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>> (in article
>> <c3806147-2221-4dcf-8beb-e57242da3...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 15, 8:23ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 04:25:18 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <42018b9a-9410-4b77-a39a-8dad9d5fe...@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>>

>>>>> On Sep 13, 9:03ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 03:49:00 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>> <803ab87b-f660-4ced-a12f-d1871a4fc...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>>

>>>>>>> On Sep 11, 8:14ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:25:10 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>> <fa91fff7-643e-491b-9ade-2ce092edd...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>):
>>

>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 9:14ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
>>>>>>>>>> (in article <87ehmc9u1n....@gmail.com>):
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [ snip ]
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> orthodoxy.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started
>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>> documented history of not going along.
>>

>>>>>>>>>>> The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that. ï¿œSee the old

>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>> _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American
>>>>>>>>>>> nativism
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> John Higham.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
>>>>>>>>>>> Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on
>>>>>>>>>>> Obama.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of the United States. ï¿œSee Jennifer Rae Greeson's book
>>>>>>>>>>> _Our
>>>>>>>>>>> South_. ï¿œAnother good author on this topic is David Jansson, who
>>>>>>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>>>>> about it under the label "internal orientalism." ï¿œIn a nutshell,

>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of
>>>>>>>>>>> foreign

>>>>>>>>>>> country, or foreign colony, inside the USA. ï¿œIt's an interesting

>>>>>>>>>>> theme.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is not to say that the liberals have never used the
>>>>>>>>>>> "unamerican"
>>>>>>>>>>> charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the

>>>>>>>>>>> facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940. ï¿œBut the right-wing-nuts

So all of usenet is bullshit. And this group is "a laugh". I'm sure these
people are glad to know what you think of them.
That was a pretty bigoted statement. Oh wait....it's from you.

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:15:48 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hugh, you can't be that dense. Count add up the electoral votes of
states outside the South where Romney is leading, do the same for
states where Obama is leading, and note that Obama is well ahead.

Similarly with seats in the House of Representatives.

Hugh, I cannot help but think you're being deliberately obtuse here.

[Hugh Lawson]

Stop worrying about my mind, and start paying attention to the facts.

The South cannot control the presidential election. Most so-called
southern states gave their votes to the Republican in 2008, and Obama
still won. It will (IMO) happen again in 2012. There have been many
presidential elections where the winner lost most of the states
accounted "southern".

Consider the absolute impossibility that in Congress "the South" could
pass a law opposed by nearly all northern (i.e. non-southern)
Representatives and Senators. But reverse the sections and you know
this has happened: that Congress has passed laws opposed by nearly all
southern Senators and Representatives.

If what you mean is that conservatives are somewhat more powerful in
southern states, on the average, than in many northern states--well that
is a fact.

[Hugh Lawson]

Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:

[ snip ]

I said:

> If what you mean is that conservatives are somewhat more powerful in
> southern states, on the average, than in many northern states--well that
> is a fact.

Those interested in ideas about the South should read Edward
Ayers's essay, "What we talk about when we talk about the South". It is
a profound reflection on this topic. You can find it for yourself.

Particularly a propos here is his observation that percentage
differences, South v. Non-South, are often converted into categorical
differences.

This tendency of thought is intensified by the winner-take-all, by
state, electoral-college system, and the habit of defining "the South"
as a list of states.

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:


> Hugh, you can't be that dense. Count add up the electoral votes of
> states outside the South where Romney is leading, do the same for
> states where Obama is leading, and note that Obama is well ahead.

Facts about the United States as it is prove nothing about what it would
be like if it were a different country.

The United States might not even exist without the southern states
having taken part in its creation and expansion. The area occupied by
it might be under the control of several different nations, as is the
case south of the Rio Grande. If Britain hadn't established strong
local communities south of the Potomac, the region might have been
dominated by Spanish. Without southern expansionism (Louisiana
Purchase, Texas annexation, the Mexican war), the United States if it
had existed at all might have been a much smaller place.

Making a comparison of the real with the imaginary, and then using it
in the self-praise of your own region seems natural to you, because it
has been a habit in the north for so long. But the imaginary is not the
real. What might-have-been is not what-is.

The northern focus on "the South" is on fault-finding, blaming, and
invidious comparisons. Why do they do this? Because it makes them feel
good about themselves.

HL

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 18, 8:49 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:57:46 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <0148bd87-e86c-4bc7-a5a4-7e001231e...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 8:39 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:39:46 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <c3806147-2221-4dcf-8beb-e57242da3...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>> On Sep 15, 8:23 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 04:25:18 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >>>> (in article
> >>>> <42018b9a-9410-4b77-a39a-8dad9d5fe...@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>>>> On Sep 13, 9:03 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 03:49:00 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >>>>>> (in article
> >>>>>> <803ab87b-f660-4ced-a12f-d1871a4fc...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>>>>>> On Sep 11, 8:14 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:25:10 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> >>>>>>>> (in article
> >>>>>>>> <fa91fff7-643e-491b-9ade-2ce092edd...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 9:14 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:46:44 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> (in article <87ehmc9u1n....@gmail.com>):
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [ snip ]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Preaching to the choir, so to speak.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Un-American these days comes to whether or not you agree with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> orthodoxy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Seems to have gotten started about the time the Democrats started
> >>>>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>> losing support in the south at about the 80's. Southerners have a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>>>>> documented history of not going along.
>

> >>>>>>>>>>> The "unamerican" thingo is much older than that. See the old

> >>>>>>>>>>> standard
> >>>>>>>>>>> _Stranger in the Land_, an intellectual history of American
> >>>>>>>>>>> nativism
> >>>>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>>> John Higham.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> UnAmerican has been more often used by conservatives than liberals.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Notice the "foreigner" accusations in conservative attacks on
> >>>>>>>>>>> Obama.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The idea of "the South" as somewhat foreign goes all the way back
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>> foundation of the United States. See Jennifer Rae Greeson's book
> >>>>>>>>>>> _Our
> >>>>>>>>>>> South_. Another good author on this topic is David Jansson, who
> >>>>>>>>>>> writes
> >>>>>>>>>>> about it under the label "internal orientalism." In a nutshell,

> >>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>> way of looking at the South paints it as "exotic", a sort of
> >>>>>>>>>>> foreign

> >>>>>>>>>>> country, or foreign colony, inside the USA. It's an interesting

> >>>>>>>>>>> theme.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is not to say that the liberals have never used the
> >>>>>>>>>>> "unamerican"
> >>>>>>>>>>> charge; in fact IIRC the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities
> >>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>> founded with liberal cooperation; the hope being to get after the

> >>>>>>>>>>> facist- and nazi-sympathizers, about 1940. But the right-wing-nuts

This is the internet. No apologies. No explanations.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 19, 7:49 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

"They" do this because you deserve to catch hell for your evil history
and present-day bullshit ignorance and continued inhumanity, racism
and in-bred stupidity.

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:


> "They" do this because you deserve to catch hell for your evil history
> and present-day bullshit ignorance and continued inhumanity, racism
> and in-bred stupidity.

I'm sure you believe that.

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

[ snip ]

>> The northern focus on "the South" is on fault-finding, blaming, and
>> invidious comparisons.  Why do they do this?  Because it makes them feel
>> good about themselves.
>>
>> HL
>
> "They" do this because you deserve to catch hell for your evil history
> and present-day bullshit ignorance and continued inhumanity, racism
> and in-bred stupidity.

M&M attributes to the South-bashers a hate-filled desire to punish me.

But it doesn't punish me.

I live happily in retirement, in North Carolina, after a privileged
career in college teaching. Northern fault-finding about "the South"
provides me with an interesting subject of study.

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

You raise interesting question in my mind there: Is the inhumanity
Southern politicians have always shown toward the poor and
downtrodden, and now even to people on Social Security and others
among the 47% that Romney doesn't deem worthy of his concern, somehow
the result of the South having been, not just a slave owning society
-- Northern states originally had slaves too -- but a society built on
slavery, a society willing to go war to preserve slavery, and a
society where violence against the helpless was a way of life? Can
such callousness to human suffering be passed down from generation to
generation and thus inherited in a societal sense? Admittedly, all
Republicans have it regardless of their region, but their bastion and
their base is the South.

[Hugh Lawson]

So, let's see. Will this be the beginning of an interesting and
insightful conversation between two sock-puppets?

Don't count on it.

HL

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 23, 9:50 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is not a "hate-filled" desire. It is a desire for justice.
Segregationists, bible thumpers and Creationists are keeping America
down and deserve nothing but opprobrium and scathing contempt, not to
mention jail-time at Leavenworth.

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sep 23, 9:50 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>> >> The northern focus on "the South" is on fault-finding, blaming, and
>> >> invidious comparisons.  Why do they do this?  Because it makes them feel
>> >> good about themselves.
>>
>> >> HL
>>
>> > "They" do this because you deserve to catch hell for your evil history
>> > and present-day bullshit ignorance and continued inhumanity, racism
>> > and in-bred stupidity.
>>
>> M&M attributes to the South-bashers a hate-filled desire to punish me.
>>
>> But it doesn't punish me.
>>
>> I live happily in retirement, in North Carolina, after a privileged
>> career in college teaching.  Northern fault-finding about "the South"
>> provides me with an interesting subject of study.
>
> It is not a "hate-filled" desire. It is a desire for justice.

[ snip ]

Your hatred is something that is in yourself, M & M. It doesn't have
anything to do with me. It is entirely your affair.

hl

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 06:11:30 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<6737943a-70da-4cfe...@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 23, 9:50ï¿œpm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>>> The northern focus on "the South" is on fault-finding, blaming, and

>>>> invidious comparisons. ï¿œWhy do they do this? ï¿œBecause it makes them feel

>>>> good about themselves.
>>
>>>> HL
>>
>>> "They" do this because you deserve to catch hell for your evil history
>>> and present-day bullshit ignorance and continued inhumanity, racism
>>> and in-bred stupidity.
>>
>> M&M attributes to the South-bashers a hate-filled desire to punish me.
>>
>> But it doesn't punish me.
>>
>> I live happily in retirement, in North Carolina, after a privileged

>> career in college teaching. ï¿œNorthern fault-finding about "the South"

>> provides me with an interesting subject of study.
>
> It is not a "hate-filled" desire. It is a desire for justice.
> Segregationists, bible thumpers and Creationists are keeping America
> down and deserve nothing but opprobrium and scathing contempt, not to
> mention jail-time at Leavenworth.

Oh yes it is. You really need to read your posts. You're the poster child for
the word 'bigot'.

[Joel Edge]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 03:28:46 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<b2203b6f-1663-4b8b...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

Trying to back up now?

[MITO MINISTER]

You are an apologist for the White South. I do hate that, because I
hate slavery and Jim Crow.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Sep 24, 8:28 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 03:28:46 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <b2203b6f-1663-4b8b-a952-06795ac8d...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

I refuse to apologize, and you call that "backing down"?

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

> I do hate



Your hatred is transparent and obvious to the world, M & M. You express
it in genocidal metaphors. This hatred is something inside you, but
uttering it, you reveal yourself.

[Joel Edge]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:08:23 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<d47625ee-6fd2-44e6...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>):

Yeah, pretty much. You've never "explained" anything so that's no big
surprise.

[slotrot]

I would say they think they are "more" American.

[Hugh Lawson]

slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:

HL:

>> So conservatives are stronger in states labelled "southern states"? So
>>
>> what? We have conservatives in the US. They are just as American as
>>
>> black Americans.

Slo:

> I would say they think they are "more" American.

HL: I agree with you on that, ST.

Pretending to be "more American" is a widespread form of intellectual
dishonesty in the US. Whenever you meet somebody who claims to be "more
Americnan", check your wallet to make sure it's still there.

hl

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

They think they're the only "real" Americans. That so many of them
are from the South is ironic, to put it mildly.

[Hugh Lawson]

What would put it medium-ly? LOL