I'm a bad American

by Bendrr 113 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DannyBear

  Seeker,

  Just because you assert that Watts, Thomas, Keyes, and other black conservatives, are unpopular does not make it so.

  There are many right here on this board, who think differently. Whether or not you admit to it or not.

  What bother's me about your ardent 'leftist' stands on so many issues, is the fact that you dogmatically write your thoughts, as if because they are your's, everyone must surely accept them as fact.

  I don't know if you realize just how dogmatic you sound?

  I agree totally with Jelly, who by the way, presented his views, without your generalizations, and assumptions.

  Danny
• 

  Tina

  Yanno Jules,
  I'm so glad you mentioned this'glad to see my views aligned w/ those brilliant...'
  I've been remiss in letting Seeker know how much I get from his posts,as many of my views seem to be in synch w/ his.

  Thanks Seeker!!1
  You are so extremely articulate and sharp expressing your views. I find you've said things so well,there is little I can add,but nod my head here at home lol.
  I appreciate the many gifts I get from the variety of posters here. You are a treasure! I don't have the time to let many know this.But tellin ya now hun! luv,tina

  Vive Bene
  Spesso L'amore
  Di Risata Molto!!!
• 

  Seeker

  DannyBear,

  I don't know why you are biased against me, but you are, as I will now try to show:

  Just because you assert that Watts, Thomas, Keyes, and other black conservatives, are unpopular does not make it so.

  I never said otherwise. In fact, that's the nature of opinions, isn't it?

  There are many right here on this board, who think differently. Whether or not you admit to it or not.

  Of course there are! There are some in this very thread. I fully admit it, and always have. Interesting how you twist my thinking.

  What bother's me about your ardent 'leftist' stands on so many issues, is the fact that you dogmatically write your thoughts, as if because they are your's, everyone must surely accept them as fact.

  Firstly, I'm not a leftist. I'm all over the map, including conservative in some areas. The fact that leftists make fatuous statements, but typically out of a misguided desire to help, and conservatives make fatuous statements, but typically out of an ignorant selfishness, means I tend to find the most fault with conservative fatuousness, and comment accordingly. Since you only see this side of me, you extrapolated that I'm nothing but this, but I'm not.

  As for your bias, here it is: You said I wrote what I did "dogmatically."

  I don't know if you realize just how dogmatic you sound?
• 

  rhett

  Such as the large American corporations who are about to get back billions in corporate welfare thanks to the latest economic stimulus package put together by the Bush team.

  People who rail againt the almost mythical crack-addicted welfare recipients never seem to squeak when Ford or GM gets to pocket billions of our tax dollars just because they have a good lobby in Washington.

  Did I say that this was ok? No. I said that I don't mind my tax dollar going to people who need help. Do large corporations need this help? No. That pretty much means that I don't want my tax dollar going to help them now doesn't it? I didn't even mention coporate welfare in any form in any of my posts. All I said is that I don't mind at all if my tax dollar going to those who need help. It doesn't take a genius to be able to guess that since large corporate entities like Ford and GM who make billions of dollars a year that I don't want to support them either.

  I really don't agree with the article called White Men Can't Jump that was posted either. It seems to be saying its ok that 5,000 potentially wonderful white men couldn't take the fire fighter exam. It rationalizes that stance by quoting some statistics about how white men make more money and have more power than anyone else. Excuse me but, what do these two things have in common? Do you know why most of them people who are in senior management are white? Because they've had better education. Any minority at all deserves the chance to have as good of an education as any nonminority. The fact is though, right now white males are better educated than most all minorities. That doesn't mean that we should lower the corporate bar and settle for less just so a minority (in this case I include white males from poor communities who haven't had as good of an education) can get a good job. I do agree that men generally do make more money than women as well. I know for quite some time I made over twice as much money as my wife did. Did I get more money because I am a man? No, I made it because I had a job that required more training and skills than she had. Once again, not saying she couldn't get it or she wasn't smart enough to do it, she just didn't take the time to teach herself the skills like I did. This reporter was very lazy in writing this article and misused statistics. Once again, there is a good reason why men make more money than women; we generally have jobs that pay more. They don't pay more because we're men, they pay more because they're generally higher up the corporate ladder. As this very article stated, most higher management jobs are held by men. That would mean that those men who hold the higher jobs would naturally get more money than the women who don't have the skills that are lower on the ladder and thereby receive less pay. The fact men make more money than women because they hold more positions of responsibility is to be expected then because those same positions, regardless of the person who holds them, will pay more. That doesn't mean that women who hold the same jobs as men make less money. My last two points go to show that there are reasons why white males get more money and power than minorities. Those two points presented I would love to know why those 5,000 white males couldn't take the test. Just because they generally are more highly regarded in our society does not make discrimination against them ok. In fact, there is absolutely no connection between them. What are they complaining about? The same damn thing every minority has ever complained about, being descriminated against due to their race and/or sex. How do you think the NAACP would have acted if tomorrrow the same department would have come right out and said "No, you can't take the test because you're black." The courts would still be tied up from all the equal opportunity lawsuits. Yes, racism does exist today and I wholeheartedly support measures to wipe it out, no matter who is being descriminated against.

  I don't need to fight
  To prove I'm right
  I don't need to be forgiven.
• 

  Seeker

  Oops, my reply got cut off. Here is the rest of it:

  You said I wrote what I did "dogmatically." Here is what I actually wrote about Watts and Thomas:

  I seem to have missed something. As far as I have ever known, Watts and Thomas are very much considered uncle toms.

  That is as undogmatic as it gets. I acknowledge in the first sentence that I may have missed something. Then I say, "as far as I have ever known," thereby acknowledging there may be stuff I don't know or haven't heard. You read this as dogmatic. So be it. To the idealogue, isn't it often the case that what doesn't agree with them is seen as dogmatically extreme?

  Now, at times I do speak dogmatically. Sometimes I do it because I know the facts and I know I'm right and can back it up. Other times I do it make a point stand out. And sometimes I do it to cause idealogues to get upset and write back.

  So yes, I do realize I sometimes speak dogmatically. On purpose. Don't like it? Don't read my posts.
• 

  DannyBear

  Seeker,

  Here is what you said;

  ***I seem to have missed something. As far as I have ever known, Watts and Thomas are very much considered uncle toms. It's not just their stand that makes them such, but the reasoning they use to reach that stand that makes them unpopular.***

  If you can't spot your bias, in these two blatantly dogmatic sentences, I really can't help you.

  Even if I give you the fact, that you were responding to a quote from another poster on the subject matter, your words resonate with unqualified, unsubstantiated dogmatisim.

  First of all you are not qualified to tell black people, who is or is not considered an uncle tom. I know one balck man who would laugh at your assertion...Ken Hamblin one of the most listened to black radio talk show hosts in the country...and many others.

  The reasoning you so off-handly reject in a broad sweep generalization "makes them unpopular" with whom? The blacks, muslims, whites, reds,.....in other words Seeker said they were unpopular so it must be so.

  Danny
• 

  DannyBear

  ***So yes, I do realize I sometimes speak dogmatically. On purpose. Don't like it? Don't read my posts.***

  If you want to dismiss this "idealouges" comments so cavalierly, then I would like to remind you, that you yourself admitted to writing often for such responses. What do you want Seeker unqualified acceptance like you get from your 'groupies'?

  DB
• 

  Seeker

  Danny,

  You're right, I can't speak for the black community. That's why I specifically said I had "heard" the conclusion I stated. I can only report what I have heard representatives of the black community say on the matter, and more have said that about Thomas than have said the opposite. I therefore reported the majority view I have heard expressed.

  The fact that you can find one commentator who would laugh at my conclusion is insignificant. There isn't any statement you or I could make, not one statement, that we couldn't find at least one person on the planet who would laugh at that statement. That's the nature of expressing opinions. Heck, even stating the earth is round would get me laughed at in some quarters. So your point is?

  This is an opinion board. Deal with it.
• 

  Seeker

  What do you want Seeker unqualified acceptance like you get from your 'groupies'?

  I merely want to express my opinions, which I do, as do you. As for groupies, that insulting and sexist. I have no groupies. The fact that you sunk to that argument puts you in an unflattering class. You owe some people an apology, in my opinion.
• 

  rhett

  As for groupies, that insulting and sexist.

  How is that sexist? I'm a heterosexual man yet I consider myself a groupie of numerous bands. I don't want to have sex with them but am a huge fan and always try to meet them. I think its safe to say bands like the Dead, Phish, and Dave Mathews Band have many many groupies who will follow them. I wouldn't really call that sexist. I would call that rabid fandom.

  I don't need to fight
  To prove I'm right
  I don't need to be forgiven.