well I made a typo and I'm honest and man enough to admit it.. you still think Indian Americans or any other minority be offended when they are ridiculed and called macaca in public?
Would it be possible for you to leave out the insulting innuendo? I guess it makes you feel like a BIG MAN... My searching out of the Tammy Bruce blog piece was to find out if Clinton had done as much as he claimed. Apparently there is a difference of opinion. He got the same kind of memo and did what.... CALL A FREAKING MEETING AND PUT ON SOME ALERT... NONE OF WHICH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING DOWN THAT CUR BIN LADEN.
You are not obliged to agree with the military strategy nor are they obliged to author one that satisfies you. I guess we should just put every soldier in the US military on bin Laden's tail? Is that what you want? It has everything to do with why he may not possible be gotten yet. Getting bin Laden is about revenge. A war prosecution is way beyond revenge as the chief motivation. In my initial response, i was referring to the statement Bush made in the first days after 9/11. I was not even aware that he had said it subsequently... but it doesn't really matter. They have kept pressure on bin Laden. I'm sure they'd rather have him die a miserable death due to ailment than to martyr him in a gunfight or with a bomb. Getting OBL is over-rated. The US military is actively searching for bin Laden. They could do more; they could do less.
That's a baseless cheap shot. I hear they have dial-up internet access in Crawford.... and flush toilets, too.
ok . . ok . .. let me get this straight It is Not Offensive . . .to call a man a MONKEY . . .if you do it in a language he may not know??? To me. . that is the ULTIMATE PC I see . . . .you are a EUPHEMISM PERSON It is ok not ok to say F*CK . . but Screw is fine It is not ok to say b*tch . . but Calling a woman a Female Dog is fine Saying Gun on Tv is wrong for lkids. . . but .. FIRE STICK or TORCH or some other euphemism is fine Check this out son Calling a Man a Monkey is Offensive. . no matter the language Just because the person doesn't know what it means. . .does not make it less so . . . So tell me. . once you told your 'family' that he called the man a monkey what did they say? Rocket River
No it does. No assessment of the war offered by Bush is of any value to me. Doesn't matter what he says, I just don't believe him. Another case: if you read a piece in the newspaper that claims geopolitical risk has really raised the risk of oil business thus higher profit is justified. Wouldn't knowing that he has huge investment in oil companies affect your opinion about that article? Pentagon claimed that they had information on Saddam's WMD program. Guess who provided those info? Iraqi exiles who want to go back to power! Of course they'd say anything to get it done! You see, knowing one's background matters! You were caught lieing about it, so you'd understand people don't take your opinion without discount. You seems to be unhappy with Bush as much as I am. I am not arguing against you on that. But this "who care if I was dishonest or not" attitude is ridiculous.
It is my observation that Giddyup never directly argue with any opposing opinion. He either ask a short meaningless question, or keeps talking about his own opinion pretending he didn't read others posts, or quoting articles from right wring sources. I remember he chanlenged me to give an example of what US has done that can be regarded as "evil". I answer his question with a few things on top of my head. Then he just disppeared. Come on, if you are gonna engage in a debate, don't run away in the middle. Is this what you neocon always do? Sticking to your cliche and ignoring critics?
There's no difference of opinion. There's misstating and deliberately obfuscating the facts as Miss Tammy did in such a smarmy manner. If you had read the rest of the thread you started and the other Clinton one, you would have found out that Clinton did authorize the killing of OBL and that Clinton did have a plan that he left the Bushies and that the plan included a strategy on Pakistan and yet Clarke was left screaming to the heavens because nobody in W's administration would pay attention to him, even after the Cole was verified to have been done by OBL and AL-Q. As to your screaming section, if you read the 9-11 Commission and Clarke and numerous other sources, you would see that the meeting, alerts, etc. were in direct response to a direct threat to the east coast. That response did not mean that OBL wasn't targeted somewhere else at the same time or that the hunt for him immediately stopped to deal with the specific threat. Fact is, they could do both and did. Even though we (we meaning Americans, not Clintonites) never got OBL, there was a concerted effort at the time... again, read the source material. It wasn't an either/or deal. The post I referenced showed the Commission did draw a distinction between Clinton and Bush in how they responded to direct threats... Clinton took action, Bush not so much. Clarke draws the distinction between the two in how they pursued OBL before 9-11... Clinton active, Bush not so much. For the record, I do not feel like a BIG MAN pointing out the idiocy of the Bush Administration and their cheering section. It's downright depressing sometimes.
That's the point, racism isn't about words, it's about acts. PC is about words. PC is the illusion of creating equality because people talk the talk. But actions are action 10 times of more value in my book. I don't give two bleeps about what someone says....it's about what they do. Why doesn't anyone decry the protrayal of Indian Americans in media versus the quip of some guy in Virgina? I'll tell you why...because to liberals it's ok to stereotype and judge so long as you can cover your tracks. You can never put an interracial couple on tv commercials or ads (and I do work in marketing), but still complain that some guy a 1000 miles away is a racist for saying macaca. What hypocrisy! I think racism is far more prevalent amongst the left then the right...and it's PC that covers it all up.
A black guy on a basketball court can call me the n-word...and that's fine...but I can't say it back. And a white guy can't even say it for sure. Hmmmm....what does that tell you? Frankly, I don't think words should be offensive. Calling someone an fish should be more offensive then calling someone a monkey. But no one would take offense if they called someone a fish. Hey, you are a fish! Are you offended? Ok...so if instead I say you're a monkey, you're offended? Don't you see how much nonsense that is? Why not protest racist POLICY and ACTIONS instead? Well...that's because it's much easier to get on people for what they say then what they do....
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/US/resources/9.11.report/911Report_Ch11.pdf Page 10 - 12 "Early in 2001....Bush asked whether killing bin Laden would end the problem..." "Clark admist that even if his policy advice had been accepted immediately and turned into action, would not have prevented 9/11" "We must ask then when the US government had reasonable opportunities to mobilize the country for major acton against al-Qaeda and its Afghan sanctuary. The main opportunties came in ... 1996...1997...1998... 1999... and after the attack on the USS Cole in October of 2000." "The US had warned the Taliban that they would be held accountable for further attacks by Bin Laden against Afghanistan's US interests. The warning had been given in 1998, again in late 1999, once more in the Fall of 2000, and again in the summer of 2001. Delivering it repeatedly did not make it more effective." "But Clarke's plan (to bomb the Taliban) did not advance to formal consideration... We have found no indication that the idea was briefed to the new (Bush) administration or that Clarke passed his paper to them, although the same team of career officials spanned both administrations." ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] So how does this work. Can one just find what one wants in the 9/11 Commission Report to prop up one's positions?
Because racism is more than law and action. Racism rears its ugly head in society by the way in which we think, speak, and frame issues. Simply erasing references to race in law and policy isn't the end all be all. This type of colorblind thinking only serves to hide and stow away real issues that escape our attention. If this was a racist comment, it better damn well be protested. And don't give me this nonsense about the "N-Word." It's all about connotation. For centuries, white people used the word as a symbol of power and spite over African Americans. It represents a dirty past and shouldn't be used in reference to African Americans. Now if two Black people choose to use the word in reference to themselves, that's a choice between them. You're attitude represents a larger problem, namely that we understand or even can grip the totality of racism. I'm a minority but by no means do I claim to be hampered in anyway. I am PRIVILEGED and so are you and most people on this board and until we acknowledge that and acknowledge that our social position allows us to have access to things that many others don't have, it's impossible to critique things like speech and other personal actions with any credibility. You haven't been a target of racism or discrimination. You haven't gone to urban schools that have massive dropout rates, teachers that don't care, crime and murder rates off the charts. You haven't experienced the type of discrimination that still occurs in the business world. I hate to break it to you, but we still hold many terrible stereotypes to be true. People still subconciously discriminate. They've done plenty of psychological studies in regards to names and color to understand that we still haven't moved beyond race, and to act like policy is the only thing to critique is foolish and ignorant. Whether or not you think "macaca" is offensive is entirely irrelevant. To many people it is a racist term and as a result Allen should know better than to use it. You'll say that we don't know his intent but he has a history attached to him and has said and done things that have made these calls of racism sound more credible. Use history as a filter to judge intent and in this case, I find it hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.
That wasn't a typo. Why don't you be man enough to admit there might be some confusion in you about terminology? Ya know what's really funny....the Indian community didn't make a big fuss about the macaca comment. The liberals did though. Frankly, George Allen has supported Indians on getting visas into the U.S. and has a very pro-India stance (in terms of supporting sharing of nuclear technology in India). Many Indians DID NOT take offense but thought what he said was stupid. There wasn't the outrage in the Indian community in virginia that there was by the media. Strange huh? The guy actually had really good relations with the Indian community, and most Indians thought he said something stupid.... and more... http://www.timesdispatch.com/servle...TD_BasicArticle&cid=1149190019425&c=MGArticle So here, we see that Indian leaders withheld judgement...not saying he was racist....and yet, the liberal press was much harsher. So you ask why, I am not so hard on George Allen and quick to call him a racist while others are....well frankly, not many Indians are either....and here's why: As Indians, we're used to much worse...and we usually are more upset by the way we are protrayed in media then anything else. We're not as PC obsessed as other minority groups. And finally, the guy does more for Indian Americans then 99% of democrats...who also come up with many of those doctor shows that suspiciously lack Indians, but don't seem to mind portraying us as cab drivers or 7-11 workers. So maybe it's worthwhile to see some other perspectives before deciding what really is racism or not.
That's the point...people still discriminate without even thinking they are racists. In fact, it's usually the same people who protest the comments that are the biggest racists. They don't even know it. Just look at corporate America? Does race play a factor in my job? Absolutely! I'm keenly aware of the racial stereotypes both positive and negative and work to protray a perception against that? Why? because my success in my career depends upon it. And I have gone to urban schools with massive drop out rates...and I have also gone back to teach at those schools in my spare time. So really, you should take a second before jumping to conclusions, because you really don't know what you're talking about. Yes, words are hurtful. Yes, they don't make people feel good. But ya know, in the end, Mr George Allen will have to make his peace with the Indian American community, and he's done that. But you know what? There's a bunch of people who pat themselves on their back who would never utter a racist comment but in fact are the same people who would protray a black guy as a gangster on TV and not think twice about how that may be falsely shaping perceptions. Which disturbs you more?
That is correct. None of that has to do with the commander in chief following through with his word. He is, after all, the commander in chief I want justice brought to those who committed the attacks of 9/11. The chief of those is OBL. I want the President to live up to his word. If the President was really 'focused' on justice for 9/11 he wouldn't 'focus' seven times as many troops in a country that was never a terrorist problem for the U.S., and that was already contained. Getting Bin Laden is about justice, and holding those responsible who brought down 9/11. Is it your contention that we shouldn't try and bring him to justice. That is what it sounds like. I am all for the war on terror. Iraq had next to nothing to do with that. Well now that you know that Bush made the pledge after his initial statement as well as the circumstance around the initial statement, I hope that we can agree that the remark was not off the cuff. They would rather him die of ailment than capture him, interrogate him, or kill him and search his compound for useful information in fighting the war on terror? I doubt that. By that philosophy then we shouldn't go after any terrorists because they might become martyrs. Let's just sit back and wait for them to die. Are you suggesting it is unwise to capture or kill bin laden? They are barely searching for him. They are trying to keep tabs, and wait for a chance, more than actually searching. But that operation was botched by Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Rice long ago.
How does that prop up the position that the Bush administration did at least as much as the Clinton administration. Giddy, it isn't in contention whether Clinton did enough. He admits that he did not do enough. Actually it isn't contention that the Bush administration did even less before 9/11 except by those who are lying or won't look at the facts and the record. How much Clinton did is in contention, and we know that Rice lied about that, thanks to the documents provided by rimrocker.
I know what a native american indian is what an indian from south asia is.. whats your point? well the guy was embarassed in front of a lot people laughing around him and he felt offended because of the color of his skin.. so you're saying he or any other minority in his shoes shouldn't be offended?
