Political Threads

[nowhereman 1]

Yesterday I responded to a controversial post via insults & name calling and for that I apologize. There are certain individuals who, because they want to start trouble or have very extreme views that rely on exaggerations & distorted information, generate a negative reaction from the majority of forum posters. However responding to these posts with personal insults isn't the answer and only brings you down to their level.

Most of these individuals thrive on controversy & attention, so I say lets not encourage them! Lets all either ignore these individuals or at least point out why their views are based on ignorance and perhaps even hatred. They probably won't get it, but as long as you keep it clean & point out the flaws in their argument that's all you can do. Now I am not suggesting there is a correct view and a wrong one (I am referring to the extreme right or left), but I am saying lets all try to respect one another.

How can this be an apology when you open by accusing others of doing what you have also been seen as doing? Your very first post to me was that I should not reproduce because that would be a crime. I never heard of you before that. Then, you accused me of being someone with extreme, controversial views and wanting to start trouble, which I am not. It would be easier to take your apology seriously if you didn't continue to judge others thru such a narrow paradigm.

The fact is, all someone has to do here is merely not have the same political views as another person, to be described that way. An extremist on OT is a Republican or a Democrat, a McCain supporter or an Obama supporter, that's all. It goes downhill from there. So, who is to judge who is an extremist, has controversial views, wants attention? Anyone who posts here can be asumed to want attention for their posts. Anyone who supports a candiate is extemist since they have taken sides, and that is seen as unacceptable to the other side.

The issue is how do you conduct yourself on the board, not your views or the other guys views, and you can only control yourself. If you get sucked into the vitriol and hatred, and most of us do, then you're normal, because, frankly, most of the posters here seem to have nothing more to contribute to a political discussion other than hostility, puke and bile. So, if someone gets in your face with nothing other than puke and bile, they have made no attempt to offer analysis or reasonable discourse or you have never had a civil exchange with them, take the hint, that person is trying to bait you. I know who my baiters are, and I have no one to blame but myself if I let them drag me down to their level.

VW First of all this post is 400X more intelligent than the one that started this controversy in the first place, so I commend you on that. With that being said it goes way beyond just having a different view; your original post was at best controversial (I would use a stronger word but I won't here). After other posters violently disagreed with you your tactic was to use gross exaggerations (and flat out inaccuracies) to describe Obama supporters (pretty much saying that all Obama voters were racist blacks, liberals, socialists & radicals... did I miss any stereotypes that you posted)?

Not all McCain supporters are war mongering neo-cons and not all Obama supporters are left wing radicals; in fact many have centrist views. Like I said in a previous post McCain & Obama are fighting over the moderates & independents and whichever candidate wins over this demographic will be our next president.

As for judging you I did so based on one thread... if you normally act this way then you are absolutely one of the troublemakers with extreme views I am talking about. If that thread is not representative of your body of posts then I stand corrected. Either way my apology was sincere.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Most of my posts are intelligent, including the one about White racists voters neutralizing White guilt voters and Black entitlement voters. Anyone's disagreement with it doesn't make it controversial, extremist or posted to cause trouble. I see White guilt as destructive to this country, and posted from that vantage point. Those who are suffering from White guilt will have a viceral reaction to being "targeted", so be it. PC is not me, so don't expect my posts manufactured for popularity.

When we appoint a "post acceptability" committee, I expect to be on it.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Sofiyya 1,687]

After other posters violently disagreed with you your tactic was to use gross exaggerations (and flat out inaccuracies) to describe Obama supporters (pretty much saying that all Obama voters were racist blacks, liberals, socialists & radicals... did I miss any stereotypes that you posted)?

BTW, what is the purpose of "violent disagreement", as refered to in your post? Is that an acceptable way to disagree? And why is a similar response to "violent disagreement" worse than the original "violent disagreement", since each employs self-serving stereotypes, smears, personal attacks and vitriol? The same tactics you are attempting to apologize for here.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Ban Hammer 12,872]

After other posters violently disagreed with you your tactic was to use gross exaggerations (and flat out inaccuracies) to describe Obama supporters (pretty much saying that all Obama voters were racist blacks, liberals, socialists & radicals... did I miss any stereotypes that you posted)?

BTW, what is the purpose of "violent disagreement", as refered to in your post? Is that an acceptable way to disagree? And why is a similar response to "violent disagreement" worse than the original "violent disagreement", since each employs self-serving stereotypes, smears, personal attacks and vitriol? The same tactics you are attempting to apologize for here.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Happy to have you back, Chuck!

[Ban Hammer 12,872]

Happy to have you back, Chuck!

glad to see you back, it was getting quite dull around here.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I just got off the phone with one of my brothers. He is a man of substance, owns a custom home in the DC area, has Masters degrees in computer science and some other kind of science, has worked in a secure, high paying profession involving advanced mathematics and physics and top security clearances for more than 30 years and is a devoted worshipper of God.

He cursed me out and hung up on me coz I won't vote for Obama!

Democrat dementia knows no race or class.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Peikko 1,575]

Ohohoh, I get a point for trying. Excellent.

Did that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Warm and fuzzy? Hell I was having trouble sleeping at night until I earned those three points. Phew, but it's great, now I have the respect that I feel I deserve.

[nowhereman 1]

After other posters violently disagreed with you your tactic was to use gross exaggerations (and flat out inaccuracies) to describe Obama supporters (pretty much saying that all Obama voters were racist blacks, liberals, socialists & radicals... did I miss any stereotypes that you posted)?

BTW, what is the purpose of "violent disagreement", as refered to in your post? Is that an acceptable way to disagree? And why is a similar response to "violent disagreement" worse than the original "violent disagreement", since each employs self-serving stereotypes, smears, personal attacks and vitriol? The same tactics you are attempting to apologize for here.

You basically said one extremist hate group cancels another out & that you thought this was a good thing... if you honestly thought this wouldn't generate a very strong reaction then I don't know what to tell you. You then made some very innaccurate (perhaps even offensive) generalizations, which just added fuel to the fire.

So basically you created the controversy, made it worse & then cried bloody murder when some individuals reacted strongly (and in some cases inappropriately) to your comments. That's pretty much like smacking a hornets nest with a bat & then crying about getting stung.

Edited September 21, 2008 by nowhereman

[Ban Hammer 12,872]

I just got off the phone with one of my brothers. He is a man of substance, owns a custom home in the DC area, has Masters degrees in computer science and some other kind of science, has worked in a secure, high paying profession involving advanced mathematics and physics and top security clearances for more than 30 years and is a devoted worshipper of God.

He cursed me out and hung up on me coz I won't vote for Obama!

Democrat dementia knows no race or class.

amazing how irrational some get about obama eh?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

After other posters violently disagreed with you your tactic was to use gross exaggerations (and flat out inaccuracies) to describe Obama supporters (pretty much saying that all Obama voters were racist blacks, liberals, socialists & radicals... did I miss any stereotypes that you posted)?

BTW, what is the purpose of "violent disagreement", as refered to in your post? Is that an acceptable way to disagree? And why is a similar response to "violent disagreement" worse than the original "violent disagreement", since each employs self-serving stereotypes, smears, personal attacks and vitriol? The same tactics you are attempting to apologize for here.

You basically said one extremist hate group cancels another out & that you thought this was a good thing... if you honestly thought this wouldn't generate a very strong reaction then I don't know what to tell you. You then made some very innaccurate (perhaps even offensive) generalizations, which just added fuel to the fire.

So basically you created the controversy, made it worse & then cried bloody murder when some individuals reacted strongly (and in some cases inappropriately) to your comments. That's pretty much like smacking a hornets nest with a bat & then crying about getting stung.

What was created was an opportunity for a controversy. Controversy wasn't required, it was manufactured by those who responded to my post.

The fact is, both elements exist; people who won't vote for Obama because he is Black, and people who will vote for Obama because he is Black. I'm realistic enough to acknowledge the reality of BOTH elements, where the responders who "violently" objected are only willing to acknowledge the existance of those who won't vote for Obama because he is Black.

To me, those who will vote on the basis of color are ALL racists, whether they will vote for or against Obama. So, my position, and I haven't backed down from it, is that they can best be used to negate each other out. The fact that the poll was focused on Democrats is of no material merit to me. I know that there are Republicans who would vote on the basis of race, and on the basis of religion, which is probably why Romney didn;t do better.

I have better things to do with my brain than to simply go "Boo!" or "Yay!" on que as threads are posted. I posted how to make lemonade out of TWO bone-headed lemons in the voting population - White guilt and Black entitlement for Obama and White racists against Obama.

The problem with my post isn't what I said, it's the knee-jerk, non-analytical response to it. I make no apologizes for or to them.

[nowhereman 1]

After other posters violently disagreed with you your tactic was to use gross exaggerations (and flat out inaccuracies) to describe Obama supporters (pretty much saying that all Obama voters were racist blacks, liberals, socialists & radicals... did I miss any stereotypes that you posted)?

BTW, what is the purpose of "violent disagreement", as refered to in your post? Is that an acceptable way to disagree? And why is a similar response to "violent disagreement" worse than the original "violent disagreement", since each employs self-serving stereotypes, smears, personal attacks and vitriol? The same tactics you are attempting to apologize for here.

You basically said one extremist hate group cancels another out & that you thought this was a good thing... if you honestly thought this wouldn't generate a very strong reaction then I don't know what to tell you. You then made some very innaccurate (perhaps even offensive) generalizations, which just added fuel to the fire.

So basically you created the controversy, made it worse & then cried bloody murder when some individuals reacted strongly (and in some cases inappropriately) to your comments. That's pretty much like smacking a hornets nest with a bat & then crying about getting stung.

What was created was an opportunity for a controversy. Controversy wasn't required, it was manufactured by those who responded to my post.

The fact is, both elements exist; people who won't vote for Obama because he is Black, and people who will vote for Obama because he is Black. I'm realistic enough to acknowledge the reality of BOTH elements, where the responders who "violently" objected are only willing to acknowledge the existance of those who won't vote for Obama because he is Black.

To me, those who will vote on the basis of color are ALL racists, whether they will vote for or against Obama. So, my position, and I haven't backed down from it, is that they can best be used to negate each other out. The fact that the poll was focused on Democrats is of no material merit to me. I know that there are Republicans who would vote on the basis of race, and on the basis of religion, which is probably why Romney didn;t do better.

I have better things to do with my brain than to simply go "Boo!" or "Yay!" on que as threads are posted. I posted how to make lemonade out of TWO bone-headed lemons in the voting population - White guilt and Black entitlement for Obama and White racists against Obama.

The problem with my post isn't what I said, it's the knee-jerk, non-analytical response to it. I make no apologizes for or to them.

You are a piece of work... you refuse to admit that you started this whole mess, "controversy wasn't required, it was manufactured by those who responded to my post". Nobody arbitrarily picked your post out & created a controversy out of the blue, YOU created the controversy (take some ownership for your actions). Furthermore you are now changing what the point was in your original post... "the fact is, both elements exist; people who won't vote for Obama because he is Black, and people who will vote for Obama because he is Black." This is entirely different from your original theme, which is that extreme groups on both ends of the spectrum cancel each other & you condone this (how about condoning the extremist views based on ignorance & bias?). You then attempted to paint every poster who disagreed with you as liberals, socialists & radicals, which is just ridiculous (you totally omitted this fact).

So basically you are in denial about who created the controversy, you're trying to back pedal & change the point of your original message & you are completely omitting the fact that you stereotyped and grossly misrepresented the views of pretty much anyone who disagreed with you. As for your point about two extremes canceling each other out think about what happens when you mix a strong acid with a strong base.... you may get a perfectly balanced Ph of 0, but you will also get a very nasty reaction (possibly even an explosion).

[rebeccajo 14]

nowhereman,

Are you sorry yet that you tried to be gracious and apologize?

Edited September 21, 2008 by rebeccajo

[IAMX 3,055]

After other posters violently disagreed with you your tactic was to use gross exaggerations (and flat out inaccuracies) to describe Obama supporters (pretty much saying that all Obama voters were racist blacks, liberals, socialists & radicals... did I miss any stereotypes that you posted)?

BTW, what is the purpose of "violent disagreement", as refered to in your post? Is that an acceptable way to disagree? And why is a similar response to "violent disagreement" worse than the original "violent disagreement", since each employs self-serving stereotypes, smears, personal attacks and vitriol? The same tactics you are attempting to apologize for here.

You basically said one extremist hate group cancels another out & that you thought this was a good thing... if you honestly thought this wouldn't generate a very strong reaction then I don't know what to tell you. You then made some very innaccurate (perhaps even offensive) generalizations, which just added fuel to the fire.

So basically you created the controversy, made it worse & then cried bloody murder when some individuals reacted strongly (and in some cases inappropriately) to your comments. That's pretty much like smacking a hornets nest with a bat & then crying about getting stung.

What was created was an opportunity for a controversy. Controversy wasn't required, it was manufactured by those who responded to my post.

The fact is, both elements exist; people who won't vote for Obama because he is Black, and people who will vote for Obama because he is Black. I'm realistic enough to acknowledge the reality of BOTH elements, where the responders who "violently" objected are only willing to acknowledge the existance of those who won't vote for Obama because he is Black.

To me, those who will vote on the basis of color are ALL racists, whether they will vote for or against Obama. So, my position, and I haven't backed down from it, is that they can best be used to negate each other out. The fact that the poll was focused on Democrats is of no material merit to me. I know that there are Republicans who would vote on the basis of race, and on the basis of religion, which is probably why Romney didn;t do better.

I have better things to do with my brain than to simply go "Boo!" or "Yay!" on que as threads are posted. I posted how to make lemonade out of TWO bone-headed lemons in the voting population - White guilt and Black entitlement for Obama and White racists against Obama.

The problem with my post isn't what I said, it's the knee-jerk, non-analytical response to it. I make no apologizes for or to them.

You are a piece of work... you refuse to admit that you started this whole mess, "controversy wasn't required, it was manufactured by those who responded to my post". Nobody arbitrarily picked your post out & created a controversy out of the blue, YOU created the controversy (take some ownership for your actions). Furthermore you are now changing what the point was in your original post... "the fact is, both elements exist; people who won't vote for Obama because he is Black, and people who will vote for Obama because he is Black." This is entirely different from your original theme, which is that extreme groups on both ends of the spectrum cancel each other & you condone this (how about condoning the extremist views based on ignorance & bias?). You then attempted to paint every poster who disagreed with you as liberals, socialists & radicals, which is just ridiculous (you totally omitted this fact).

So basically you are in denial about who created the controversy, you're trying to back pedal & change the point of your original message & you are completely omitting the fact that you stereotyped and grossly misrepresented the views of pretty much anyone who disagreed with you. As for your point about two extremes canceling each other out think about what happens when you mix a strong acid with a strong base.... you may get a perfectly balanced Ph of 0, but you will also get a very nasty reaction (possibly even an explosion).

nowhereman,

Are you sorry yet that you tried to be gracious and apologize?

I'm surprised he apologized. I wouldn't have.

I'm sure he's truly sorry now. Sorry for apologizing.

Edited September 21, 2008 by SRVT

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You appear to be baiting me, as you did last night. First time, shame on you, second time, shame on me. I know I didn't cause a controversy. What I did was read the OP, respond to it in a way that didn't mimic the pc thought expected here. Nor did I backpedal or change my original point in my explanation given here.

This is my original post in response to a post citing a poll that concluded that 1/3 of white Dems won't vote for Obama because he is black.

Good for them! We need White bigots to counter the effect of White guilt and Black entitlement among liberals that's driving Obama's popularity. Without those, the man with the thin resume wouldn't have a chance to win if he weren't Black. He hasn't earned the presidency, but if you have the tenacity to hold to that view, you must be a racist.

Where's the poll re how pro-Black racial bigotry has Helped Obama?

Racial bigotry in favor of Obama has gotten him farther than it would in a truly color-blind society. Being (half) Black has given Obama a great advantage among the left and the majority of the media who cry racism at every criticism and bend over backwards to show they're not bigoted. Their obsession with protecting Obama's record from critical examination in the media, and their inability to be objective and honest between Obama and McCain proves just how bigoted they are.

I'm not white and I still won't vote for Obama beause he's not qualified to be president, no matter what race he is.

Then, the pc crowd came along . . . Their rules are: Their insults, no matter how nasty, are justified. My defense of myself and my position is not allowed. So, I broke the rules to give as good as I got, and, therein, lies the fake "controversy". I fought back when I was to slink away, intimidated and destroyed.

I am not White nor Christian. I lived thru Jim Crow segregation in Virginia when racists had the power to shut a non-white up. I'm not afraid of racists of any color, nor do I find them scary like the boogeyman. They just are. Are there racists who won't vote for Obama bacause he's Black? Yes, Are there racists who will vote for Obama just because he is Black? Yes. Is Obama taking advantage of people voting for him because he is Black? Yes. Will he have to also bear the rejection of those who won't vote for him because he is Black? Yes. Do I believe that he wouldn't be the Democratic presidential nominee if he weren't Black and the beneficiary of White Guilt and Black entitlement? Yes. I said that yesterday, I say it today. I mean it.

You continue to make a big a$$ deal out of someone exercising their Constitutional right to have a different point of view than you have. I may be outnumbered by Whites who are out to prove how open-minded they are in voting for a Black man, but I still have every right to post my views here, even if they are deemed "controversial" or "extremist" because few want to admit that supporting Obama due to his race is as relevent as rejecting him due to his race. Yet, how you behave after you read something is not my responsibility and all your indignity won't change that. Not everyone agrees with you, not everyone agrees with me. Get over it. This "piece of work" has.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Virtual wife