| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
15 Feb 2005 03:31:19 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Orin Hatch |
The Senate Confirms Our Country's Errant Path
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb05/Doerner0204.htm
by Carl Doerner
www.dissidentvoice.org
February 4, 2005
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon
the world."
-- W.B. Yeats
The contentious confirmations of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State
and Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General are now in place, but they
rest uneasily with respect to both contemplation and our history. More
senators voted against Rice than any State nominee since 1825, and
Gonzales was acceptable to only six Democrats and the compliant Senate
majority.
Orin Hatch
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=%22Orin%20Hatch%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&q=%22Orin+Hatch%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Orin+Hatch%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22Orin+Hatch%22&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
Mormons
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/01d66ad68fdf8384
Utah
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/94bba81fee2aea27
.
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
18 Feb 2005 10:26:30 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 06:53:45 -0800, "jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 00:18:05 -0600, (Kate ) said in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:08:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:07:28 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> in news message <49w
[-----]
And what WILL y'all do if Condaleeza Rice runs for President on
the
Republican ticket, and WINS??
The thought makes me chortle...
Me too, but for different reasons, I presume.
At least she can read more than a page at a time. But who will
tell
her what to do?
Whoever tells Shrub what to do, probably.
God?
It's a joint deityship between Cheney and Rove.
Lucifer and Satin?
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
19 Feb 2005 01:12:09 PM |
|
|
On 18 Feb 2005 08:26:30 -0800, "jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 06:53:45 -0800, "jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 00:18:05 -0600, (Kate ) said in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:08:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:07:28 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> in news message <49w
[-----]
And what WILL y'all do if Condaleeza Rice runs for President on
the
Republican ticket, and WINS??
The thought makes me chortle...
Me too, but for different reasons, I presume.
At least she can read more than a page at a time. But who will
tell
her what to do?
Whoever tells Shrub what to do, probably.
God?
It's a joint deityship between Cheney and Rove.
Lucifer and Satin?
Chamois the thought....
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
16 Feb 2005 08:50:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:46:58 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 00:18:05 -0600, (Kate ) said in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:08:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:07:28 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> in news message <49w
[-----]
And what WILL y'all do if Condaleeza Rice runs for President on the
Republican ticket, and WINS??
The thought makes me chortle...
Me too, but for different reasons, I presume.
At least she can read more than a page at a time. But who will tell
her what to do?
Whoever tells Shrub what to do, probably. She just won't look as
foolish announcing it as he does.
She is quite the little performer and tap dances very well. It's just
disgusting the way she wags her tail when told she's a good girl.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
16 Feb 2005 12:23:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:07:28 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108503079.588530.47510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Senate Confirms Our Country's Errant Path
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb05/Doerner0204.htm
by Carl Doerner
www.dissidentvoice.org
February 4, 2005
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon
the world."
-- W.B. Yeats
The contentious confirmations of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State
and Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General are now in place, but they
rest uneasily with respect to both contemplation and our history. More
senators voted against Rice than any State nominee since 1825, and
Gonzales was acceptable to only six Democrats and the compliant Senate
majority.
Has it occurred to anybody here that the Republican party, the party the
Democrats castigate as the party of the bigoted and racist, has put more
members of minorities in positions of real power in the last four years than
the Democrats have tried to do in the last fifteen?
Seems that the Democrats are 'for the little people' and for the minorities
only as long as they know their places, which is to be the grateful
recipients of lordly government and wealthy liberal handouts. After all, how
can you pat yourself on the back for being liberal and charitable if there
isn't any body waiting to recieve your bounty? After all, real equality for
minorities would be very inconvenient; it would mean that a black woman
might even (gasp) become Secretary of State and an Hispanic judge might
actually have something to say.
And what WILL y'all do if Condaleeza Rice runs for President on the
Republican ticket, and WINS??
The thought makes me chortle...
LOL, the woman is a major uncle tom. Your party would implode before
it managed to elect a black woman that thinks for herself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
16 Feb 2005 09:50:51 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:422ce58d.344740062@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:07:28 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108503079.588530.47510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Senate Confirms Our Country's Errant Path
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb05/Doerner0204.htm
by Carl Doerner
www.dissidentvoice.org
February 4, 2005
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon
the world."
-- W.B. Yeats
The contentious confirmations of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State
and Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General are now in place, but they
rest uneasily with respect to both contemplation and our history. More
senators voted against Rice than any State nominee since 1825, and
Gonzales was acceptable to only six Democrats and the compliant Senate
majority.
Has it occurred to anybody here that the Republican party, the party the
Democrats castigate as the party of the bigoted and racist, has put more
members of minorities in positions of real power in the last four years
than
the Democrats have tried to do in the last fifteen?
Seems that the Democrats are 'for the little people' and for the
minorities
only as long as they know their places, which is to be the grateful
recipients of lordly government and wealthy liberal handouts. After all,
how
can you pat yourself on the back for being liberal and charitable if there
isn't any body waiting to recieve your bounty? After all, real equality
for
minorities would be very inconvenient; it would mean that a black woman
might even (gasp) become Secretary of State and an Hispanic judge might
actually have something to say.
And what WILL y'all do if Condaleeza Rice runs for President on the
Republican ticket, and WINS??
The thought makes me chortle...
LOL, the woman is a major uncle tom. Your party would implode before
it managed to elect a black woman that thinks for herself.
How very predictable. Any black man or woman, that achieves success in a way
that you don't agree with gets slammed with racial slurs. Which of course
illustrates the point I was making; that y'all want them properly humble,
grateful and knowing their places.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
16 Feb 2005 02:19:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:50:51 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:422ce58d.344740062@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:07:28 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108503079.588530.47510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Senate Confirms Our Country's Errant Path
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb05/Doerner0204.htm
by Carl Doerner
www.dissidentvoice.org
February 4, 2005
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon
the world."
-- W.B. Yeats
The contentious confirmations of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State
and Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General are now in place, but they
rest uneasily with respect to both contemplation and our history. More
senators voted against Rice than any State nominee since 1825, and
Gonzales was acceptable to only six Democrats and the compliant Senate
majority.
Has it occurred to anybody here that the Republican party, the party the
Democrats castigate as the party of the bigoted and racist, has put more
members of minorities in positions of real power in the last four years
than
the Democrats have tried to do in the last fifteen?
Seems that the Democrats are 'for the little people' and for the
minorities
only as long as they know their places, which is to be the grateful
recipients of lordly government and wealthy liberal handouts. After all,
how
can you pat yourself on the back for being liberal and charitable if there
isn't any body waiting to recieve your bounty? After all, real equality
for
minorities would be very inconvenient; it would mean that a black woman
might even (gasp) become Secretary of State and an Hispanic judge might
actually have something to say.
And what WILL y'all do if Condaleeza Rice runs for President on the
Republican ticket, and WINS??
The thought makes me chortle...
LOL, the woman is a major uncle tom. Your party would implode before
it managed to elect a black woman that thinks for herself.
How very predictable. Any black man or woman, that achieves success in a way
that you don't agree with gets slammed with racial slurs. Which of course
illustrates the point I was making; that y'all want them properly humble,
grateful and knowing their places.
How predictable, you think calling someone a racist is a racist slur.
Tell me Diana - do you even know what an Uncle Tom is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
16 Feb 2005 04:27:47 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4231a9f5.395020156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:50:51 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
How very predictable. Any black man or woman, that achieves success in a
way
that you don't agree with gets slammed with racial slurs. Which of course
illustrates the point I was making; that y'all want them properly humble,
grateful and knowing their places.
How predictable, you think calling someone a racist is a racist slur.
Tell me Diana - do you even know what an Uncle Tom is?
Oh, yes. I have actually READ 'Uncle Tom's Cabin". Can you say the same?
Believe me, sweetheart, calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is a very racist
epithet indeed.
And for you to call a black woman an 'Uncle Tom' because she has achieved
education, position and real power in the world today is very telling
indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
16 Feb 2005 08:36:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:27:47 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4231a9f5.395020156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:50:51 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
How very predictable. Any black man or woman, that achieves success in a
way
that you don't agree with gets slammed with racial slurs. Which of course
illustrates the point I was making; that y'all want them properly humble,
grateful and knowing their places.
How predictable, you think calling someone a racist is a racist slur.
Tell me Diana - do you even know what an Uncle Tom is?
Oh, yes. I have actually READ 'Uncle Tom's Cabin". Can you say the same?
Believe me, sweetheart, calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is a very racist
epithet indeed.
Oh bull crap - an Uncle Tom is a submissive racist - apparently you
had no comprehension of the book you read. More likely, you know, you
just are purposely 'misinterpreting' because that's the cool thang to
do today - say the current propaganda that comes out of the republican
machine.
And for you to call a black woman an 'Uncle Tom' because she has achieved
education, position and real power in the world today is very telling
indeed.
Excuse me? You just making up reasons for what I said - have you
tried asking or is that too much for that tiny brain of your to
actually listen to someone once in a while.
Cripes - I swear Diana, you don't really deserve to be called a woman.
You are just a loser and a sorry one at that.
I called her an Uncle Tom for sucking up to the white folk - for
telling everyone that as advisor she doesn't think it's her place to
give her opinion at staff meetings and for telling Collin Powell that
he should not complain about her and him being told to set up for the
Staff meetings and for generally sucking up to the power and being
their shill and public liar.
And I don't know about your standards, but none of those are the
actions of a truely educated, positioned and powerful woman - that's
just another neo-con flunkie. Even if the impossible does happen and
you can get the 'state's rights group wink wink' (bigoted republicans)
to vote her into office, she will still be a flunkie and that will be
the only reason she would be there. Your party doesn't elect leaders.
They haven't for decades now. They just elect morons that pretend
they don't know what is going on, so the corrupt can do as they
please.
Now go take your narrow little world view lies and your made up myths
about what real people think and stuff them up your dress. Apparently
you need something more in there, because I don't see any character in
anything you manage to put out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
16 Feb 2005 10:10:39 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4233ff8d.416932078@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:27:47 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4231a9f5.395020156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:50:51 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
How very predictable. Any black man or woman, that achieves success in a
way
that you don't agree with gets slammed with racial slurs. Which of
course
illustrates the point I was making; that y'all want them properly
humble,
grateful and knowing their places.
How predictable, you think calling someone a racist is a racist slur.
Tell me Diana - do you even know what an Uncle Tom is?
Oh, yes. I have actually READ 'Uncle Tom's Cabin". Can you say the same?
Believe me, sweetheart, calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is a very racist
epithet indeed.
Oh bull crap - an Uncle Tom is a submissive racist - apparently you
had no comprehension of the book you read. More likely, you know, you
just are purposely 'misinterpreting' because that's the cool thang to
do today - say the current propaganda that comes out of the republican
machine.
And for you to call a black woman an 'Uncle Tom' because she has achieved
education, position and real power in the world today is very telling
indeed.
Excuse me? You just making up reasons for what I said - have you
tried asking or is that too much for that tiny brain of your to
actually listen to someone once in a while.
Cripes - I swear Diana, you don't really deserve to be called a woman.
You are just a loser and a sorry one at that.
I called her an Uncle Tom for sucking up to the white folk - for
telling everyone that as advisor she doesn't think it's her place to
give her opinion at staff meetings and for telling Collin Powell that
he should not complain about her and him being told to set up for the
Staff meetings and for generally sucking up to the power and being
their shill and public liar.
And I don't know about your standards, but none of those are the
actions of a truely educated, positioned and powerful woman - that's
just another neo-con flunkie. Even if the impossible does happen and
you can get the 'state's rights group wink wink' (bigoted republicans)
to vote her into office, she will still be a flunkie and that will be
the only reason she would be there. Your party doesn't elect leaders.
They haven't for decades now. They just elect morons that pretend
they don't know what is going on, so the corrupt can do as they
please.
Now go take your narrow little world view lies and your made up myths
about what real people think and stuff them up your dress. Apparently
you need something more in there, because I don't see any character in
anything you manage to put out.
Kate? You are one of the most stupid women I have ever come across. You
can't keep your temper for a second, you go to insults from the first second
you begin posting, you absolutely delight in exposing your ignorance and
bigotry at the same time you are calling others ignorant and bigoted. I see
no need to deal with you again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
17 Feb 2005 09:00:17 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:10:39 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4233ff8d.416932078@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:27:47 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4231a9f5.395020156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:50:51 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
How very predictable. Any black man or woman, that achieves success in a
way
that you don't agree with gets slammed with racial slurs. Which of
course
illustrates the point I was making; that y'all want them properly
humble,
grateful and knowing their places.
How predictable, you think calling someone a racist is a racist slur.
Tell me Diana - do you even know what an Uncle Tom is?
Oh, yes. I have actually READ 'Uncle Tom's Cabin". Can you say the same?
Believe me, sweetheart, calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is a very racist
epithet indeed.
Oh bull crap - an Uncle Tom is a submissive racist - apparently you
had no comprehension of the book you read. More likely, you know, you
just are purposely 'misinterpreting' because that's the cool thang to
do today - say the current propaganda that comes out of the republican
machine.
And for you to call a black woman an 'Uncle Tom' because she has achieved
education, position and real power in the world today is very telling
indeed.
Excuse me? You just making up reasons for what I said - have you
tried asking or is that too much for that tiny brain of your to
actually listen to someone once in a while.
Cripes - I swear Diana, you don't really deserve to be called a woman.
You are just a loser and a sorry one at that.
I called her an Uncle Tom for sucking up to the white folk - for
telling everyone that as advisor she doesn't think it's her place to
give her opinion at staff meetings and for telling Collin Powell that
he should not complain about her and him being told to set up for the
Staff meetings and for generally sucking up to the power and being
their shill and public liar.
And I don't know about your standards, but none of those are the
actions of a truely educated, positioned and powerful woman - that's
just another neo-con flunkie. Even if the impossible does happen and
you can get the 'state's rights group wink wink' (bigoted republicans)
to vote her into office, she will still be a flunkie and that will be
the only reason she would be there. Your party doesn't elect leaders.
They haven't for decades now. They just elect morons that pretend
they don't know what is going on, so the corrupt can do as they
please.
Now go take your narrow little world view lies and your made up myths
about what real people think and stuff them up your dress. Apparently
you need something more in there, because I don't see any character in
anything you manage to put out.
Kate? You are one of the most stupid women I have ever come across. You
can't keep your temper for a second, you go to insults from the first second
you begin posting, you absolutely delight in exposing your ignorance and
bigotry at the same time you are calling others ignorant and bigoted. I see
no need to deal with you again.
LOL - truth hurst doesn't it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
16 Feb 2005 09:50:36 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4233ff8d.416932078@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:27:47 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4231a9f5.395020156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:50:51 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
How very predictable. Any black man or woman, that achieves success in a
way
that you don't agree with gets slammed with racial slurs. Which of
course
illustrates the point I was making; that y'all want them properly
humble,
grateful and knowing their places.
How predictable, you think calling someone a racist is a racist slur.
Tell me Diana - do you even know what an Uncle Tom is?
Oh, yes. I have actually READ 'Uncle Tom's Cabin". Can you say the same?
Believe me, sweetheart, calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is a very racist
epithet indeed.
Oh bull crap - an Uncle Tom is a submissive racist - apparently you
had no comprehension of the book you read. More likely, you know, you
just are purposely 'misinterpreting' because that's the cool thang to
do today - say the current propaganda that comes out of the republican
machine.
That's what I thought. You haven't read the book. You figure that calling
someone an 'Uncle Tom' is just fine because liberal black people will use it
to describe any black person who doesn't agree with them.I believe other
epithets are 'oreos' and other lovely things, but it's all racist bunk. And
YOU are buying into that; that one's skin color means that one must behave a
certain way, be a certain thing, think along a specific path, one that is
defined for one by very rich white guys with an agenda.
Heaven forbid that someone with extra melanin actually make it in the
'white' world without permission from the Kennedy's...Kate, you make me more
than a little ill.
You ARE a racist.
AND stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
17 Feb 2005 02:26:55 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4233ff8d.416932078@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:27:47 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4231a9f5.395020156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:50:51 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
How very predictable. Any black man or woman, that achieves
success in a
way
that you don't agree with gets slammed with racial slurs. Which
of
course
illustrates the point I was making; that y'all want them properly
humble,
grateful and knowing their places.
How predictable, you think calling someone a racist is a racist
slur.
Tell me Diana - do you even know what an Uncle Tom is?
Oh, yes. I have actually READ 'Uncle Tom's Cabin". Can you say the
same?
Believe me, sweetheart, calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is a very
racist
epithet indeed.
Oh bull crap - an Uncle Tom is a submissive racist - apparently you
had no comprehension of the book you read. More likely, you know,
you
just are purposely 'misinterpreting' because that's the cool thang
to
do today - say the current propaganda that comes out of the
republican
machine.
That's what I thought. You haven't read the book. You figure that
calling
someone an 'Uncle Tom' is just fine because liberal black people will
use it
to describe any black person who doesn't agree with them.I believe
other
epithets are 'oreos' and other lovely things, but it's all racist
bunk. And
YOU are buying into that; that one's skin color means that one must
behave a
certain way, be a certain thing, think along a specific path, one
that is
defined for one by very rich white guys with an agenda.
Heaven forbid that someone with extra melanin actually make it in the
'white' world without permission from the Kennedy's...Kate, you make
me more
than a little ill.
You ARE a racist.
AND stupid.
So how come the Mormon church believed that African Americans were
sub-humans?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
17 Feb 2005 09:18:50 AM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108628815.486367.174820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
So how come the Mormon church believed that African Americans were
sub-humans?
Wow, what a classic tu quoque fallacy that one is.
.........even if it WERE true, which it isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
17 Feb 2005 02:28:48 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108628815.486367.174820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
So how come the Mormon church believed that African Americans were
sub-humans?
Wow, what a classic tu quoque fallacy that one is.
........even if it WERE true, which it isn't.
"African Americans have long suffered from racist laws and policies in
this country. Until 1978, the Mormon Church also maintained a policy
of racial bias. The policy in question is the restriction of
priesthood ordination from men of African descent. In spite of this
restriction, many African Americans joined the Church and served as
faithfully as they could for years, not in great numbers but enough to
make people take notice and worry about the justice of priesthood
restrictions. Who were these African American Mormons? What motivated
them to sacrifice for the Church that offered them less than full
membership privileges? How did they feel about this restriction and
the several theories as to its continuance? How did they feel about
the reversal of that policy? The answers to these questions vary
widely from individual to individual. African American Mormons came
from all walks of life. Spiritual experiences which lead to their
baptisms are as unique as the individuals themselves. Feelings about
priesthood restriction varied from person to person but also changed
from decade to decade as national opinion toward race changed as well.
Even the policy itself changed almost as often as the presidents of the
Church"
http://www.geocities.com/solmes.geo/african_american_mormons.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
17 Feb 2005 03:20:04 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108672128.229522.211200@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108628815.486367.174820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
So how come the Mormon church believed that African Americans were
sub-humans?
Wow, what a classic tu quoque fallacy that one is.
........even if it WERE true, which it isn't.
"African Americans have long suffered from racist laws and policies in
this country. Until 1978, the Mormon Church also maintained a policy
of racial bias. The policy in question is the restriction of
priesthood ordination from men of African descent. In spite of this
restriction, many African Americans joined the Church and served as
faithfully as they could for years, not in great numbers but enough to
make people take notice and worry about the justice of priesthood
restrictions. Who were these African American Mormons? What motivated
them to sacrifice for the Church that offered them less than full
membership privileges? How did they feel about this restriction and
the several theories as to its continuance? How did they feel about
the reversal of that policy? The answers to these questions vary
widely from individual to individual. African American Mormons came
from all walks of life. Spiritual experiences which lead to their
baptisms are as unique as the individuals themselves. Feelings about
priesthood restriction varied from person to person but also changed
from decade to decade as national opinion toward race changed as well.
Even the policy itself changed almost as often as the presidents of the
Church"
http://www.geocities.com/solmes.geo/african_american_mormons.html
So?
How does this affect you and Kate...or anybody else, calling Dr. Rice an
"Uncle Tom"? Does our history make it OK for you to do so?
Remember, according to the above article, black people were welcome to join
the church all during our history; something that many other organizations,
theist or not, can't say. Indeed, this is something some organizations STILL
can't say. Some organizations still segragate big time, if they do let
'black' people join.
And of course there is THIS; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
has extended the priesthood to all worthy male members, no matter what their
color, since 1978; something that other organizations still don't do, and
even during the decades where the priesthood was withheld from them, they
were never considered 'subhuman' (your term). We had always been promised
that a day would come when they would all have the priesthood. It came. Now
you have to figure out what you are more ***** at, Maff; that we ever
did discriminate against black people (in which case, you have to discount
the opinions and the right to make judgments from everybody in the country)
or that we now do NOT.
When you make up your mind, talk to me. In the meantime, bub, who has more
right to say something about being racist; a woman who belongs to an
organization that some may see as once being racist but now is not, or a man
who has to go back over a quarter of a century to find wrongdoing in order
to criticise, but feels quite comfortable with using racist epithets
himself?
In other words, maff, before you go off on the Mormons, I suggest that you
look in the mirror. *I* haven't used any racial slurs against anyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
17 Feb 2005 03:39:51 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108672128.229522.211200@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108628815.486367.174820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
So how come the Mormon church believed that African Americans
were
sub-humans?
Wow, what a classic tu quoque fallacy that one is.
........even if it WERE true, which it isn't.
"African Americans have long suffered from racist laws and policies
in
this country. Until 1978, the Mormon Church also maintained a
policy
of racial bias. The policy in question is the restriction of
priesthood ordination from men of African descent. In spite of
this
restriction, many African Americans joined the Church and served as
faithfully as they could for years, not in great numbers but enough
to
make people take notice and worry about the justice of priesthood
restrictions. Who were these African American Mormons? What
motivated
them to sacrifice for the Church that offered them less than full
membership privileges? How did they feel about this restriction
and
the several theories as to its continuance? How did they feel
about
the reversal of that policy? The answers to these questions vary
widely from individual to individual. African American Mormons
came
from all walks of life. Spiritual experiences which lead to their
baptisms are as unique as the individuals themselves. Feelings
about
priesthood restriction varied from person to person but also
changed
from decade to decade as national opinion toward race changed as
well.
Even the policy itself changed almost as often as the presidents of
the
Church"
http://www.geocities.com/solmes.geo/african_american_mormons.html
So?
How does this affect you and Kate...or anybody else, calling Dr. Rice
an
"Uncle Tom"? Does our history make it OK for you to do so?
Remember, according to the above article, black people were welcome
to join
the church all during our history; something that many other
organizations,
theist or not, can't say. Indeed, this is something some
organizations STILL
can't say. Some organizations still segragate big time, if they do
let
'black' people join.
And of course there is THIS; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints
has extended the priesthood to all worthy male members, no matter
what their
color, since 1978; something that other organizations still don't do,
and
even during the decades where the priesthood was withheld from them,
they
were never considered 'subhuman' (your term). We had always been
promised
that a day would come when they would all have the priesthood. It
came. Now
you have to figure out what you are more ***** at, Maff; that we
ever
did discriminate against black people (in which case, you have to
discount
the opinions and the right to make judgments from everybody in the
country)
or that we now do NOT.
When you make up your mind, talk to me. In the meantime, bub, who has
more
right to say something about being racist; a woman who belongs to an
organization that some may see as once being racist but now is not,
or a man
who has to go back over a quarter of a century to find wrongdoing in
order
to criticise, but feels quite comfortable with using racist epithets
himself?
In other words, maff, before you go off on the Mormons, I suggest
that you
look in the mirror. *I* haven't used any racial slurs against anyone.
But you belong to a racist organization. It's for you and your racist
organization to convince the African Americans. The voting statistics
show Bushie fascists only get about the 10% African American vote when
under Eisenhower the African American vote was divided evenly between
the parties. Your racist buddies (i.e. Confederates, Christian
fundaamentalists and other racists) won't even vote for her even if she
decides to contest the Presidential elections.
You better look at your ugly racist face in the mirror again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
17 Feb 2005 03:54:32 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108676391.619171.213560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
But you belong to a racist organization.
And it is racist, how, exactly? If you are going to go by history alone, we
are far LESS racist than many other organizations, including the nation
itself. Or didn't you know that one of the problems Missourri had with us
waaaaay back when was that they were afraid we were going to convert and
free all their slaves? We really weren't into slavery...and Joseph Smith,
when he ran for President, did so on an abolitionist ticket.
So what is it, maff, that you think makes us racist? hmmn? Your opinion?
Well, since you are a man who will use racist language to discribe a black
woman just because she disagrees with you politically, you will understand
if your charge that my 'organization' is racist is less than credible. Are
there racists IN it? Yeah. Of course. There are racists everywhere. But the
organization itself, and the leaders and the vast majority of members? nope.
Sorry.
It's for you and your racist
organization to convince the African Americans.
Oh, (she says sweetly) we are. Or haven't you looked at the statistics for
joining the church among African Americans?
The voting statistics
show Bushie fascists only get about the 10% African American vote when
under Eisenhower the African American vote was divided evenly between
the parties. Your racist buddies (i.e. Confederates, Christian
fundaamentalists and other racists) won't even vote for her even if she
decides to contest the Presidential elections.
There you go again, switching over to something else. Doesn't the smell of
spoiled red herring get to you after awhile?
You better look at your ugly racist face in the mirror again.
And while I'm doing that, I'll bring my five children to look in there with
me. They don't any of 'em need much sun block.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
17 Feb 2005 04:30:48 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108676391.619171.213560@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
But you belong to a racist organization.
And it is racist, how, exactly? If you are going to go by history
alone, we
are far LESS racist than many other organizations, including the
nation
itself. Or didn't you know that one of the problems Missourri had
with us
waaaaay back when was that they were afraid we were going to convert
and
free all their slaves? We really weren't into slavery...and Joseph
Smith,
when he ran for President, did so on an abolitionist ticket.
So what is it, maff, that you think makes us racist? hmmn? Your
opinion?
Well, since you are a man who will use racist language to discribe a
black
woman just because she disagrees with you politically, you will
understand
if your charge that my 'organization' is racist is less than
credible. Are
there racists IN it? Yeah. Of course. There are racists everywhere.
But the
organization itself, and the leaders and the vast majority of
members? nope.
Sorry.
You are the one who should be sorry. African Americans aren't flocking
to join LDS or the Republican Party. Why don't you ask yourself why
African Americans don't vote for racists like you?
It's for you and your racist
organization to convince the African Americans.
Oh, (she says sweetly) we are. Or haven't you looked at the
statistics for
joining the church among African Americans?
They ceratinly aren't joining the LDS or the Republicans. Why would
they join racist organizations?
The voting statistics
show Bushie fascists only get about the 10% African American vote
when
under Eisenhower the African American vote was divided evenly
between
the parties. Your racist buddies (i.e. Confederates, Christian
fundaamentalists and other racists) won't even vote for her even if
she
decides to contest the Presidential elections.
There you go again, switching over to something else. Doesn't the
smell of
spoiled red herring get to you after awhile?
The voting figures shows why African Americans dislike racist
organizations.
You better look at your ugly racist face in the mirror again.
And while I'm doing that, I'll bring my five children to look in
there with
me. They don't any of 'em need much sun block.
Are they going to join the Klan?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
17 Feb 2005 10:07:28 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108679448.257449.117970@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
You are the one who should be sorry. African Americans aren't flocking
to join LDS or the Republican Party. Why don't you ask yourself why
African Americans don't vote for racists like you?
Actually, they are, to both.
It's for you and your racist
organization to convince the African Americans.
Oh, (she says sweetly) we are. Or haven't you looked at the
statistics for
joining the church among African Americans?
They ceratinly aren't joining the LDS or the Republicans. Why would
they join racist organizations?
They wouldn't. Which is why many are leaving the Democratic party and
joining the Republicans, and why we are getting black converts to the
church.
Of course, we don't really TRACK our converts by race, since that's not a
consideration, but from the faces I see in church every week....
And we do track the rate the church is growing in Africa. Now, I'm quite
certain that you haven't actually gone to look at any statistics. You are
simply assuming that no black person would join the LDS church because you
KNOW it's racist. You still haven't told me why we are, I notice. (probably
because you are quite aware that we are not).
The voting statistics
show Bushie fascists only get about the 10% African American vote
when
under Eisenhower the African American vote was divided evenly
between
the parties. Your racist buddies (i.e. Confederates, Christian
fundaamentalists and other racists) won't even vote for her even if
she
decides to contest the Presidential elections.
There you go again, switching over to something else. Doesn't the
smell of
spoiled red herring get to you after awhile?
The voting figures shows why African Americans dislike racist
organizations.
You better look at your ugly racist face in the mirror again.
And while I'm doing that, I'll bring my five children to look in
there with
me. They don't any of 'em need much sun block.
Are they going to join the Klan?
You really are a pip, maff. Don't you get tired of being this transparently
ludicrous?
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
18 Feb 2005 03:25:01 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108679448.257449.117970@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
You are the one who should be sorry. African Americans aren't
flocking
to join LDS or the Republican Party. Why don't you ask yourself why
African Americans don't vote for racists like you?
Actually, they are, to both.
Not the 90% of the African Americans. You'll have more chance of
converting an atheist into joining the Mormon church or Bushie fascism
than converting an African American into joining the Mormon church or
Bushie fascism.
It's for you and your racist
organization to convince the African Americans.
Oh, (she says sweetly) we are. Or haven't you looked at the
statistics for
joining the church among African Americans?
They ceratinly aren't joining the LDS or the Republicans. Why would
they join racist organizations?
They wouldn't. Which is why many are leaving the Democratic party and
joining the Republicans, and why we are getting black converts to the
church.
Not the 90% of African Americans.
Of course, we don't really TRACK our converts by race, since that's
not a
consideration, but from the faces I see in church every week....
Are they joining the Klan as well?
And we do track the rate the church is growing in Africa. Now, I'm
quite
certain that you haven't actually gone to look at any statistics. You
are
simply assuming that no black person would join the LDS church
because you
KNOW it's racist. You still haven't told me why we are, I notice.
(probably
because you are quite aware that we are not).
Not when they find out you're a Bushie fascist.
The voting statistics
show Bushie fascists only get about the 10% African American
vote
when
under Eisenhower the African American vote was divided evenly
between
the parties. Your racist buddies (i.e. Confederates, Christian
fundaamentalists and other racists) won't even vote for her even
if
she
decides to contest the Presidential elections.
There you go again, switching over to something else. Doesn't the
smell of
spoiled red herring get to you after awhile?
The voting figures shows why African Americans dislike racist
organizations.
You better look at your ugly racist face in the mirror again.
And while I'm doing that, I'll bring my five children to look in
there with
me. They don't any of 'em need much sun block.
Are they going to join the Klan?
You really are a pip, maff. Don't you get tired of being this
transparently
ludicrous?
Why don't you tell that to the African Americans? Do you think atheists
are going to join the Morman church?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
18 Feb 2005 01:28:28 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108718701.651260.167340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108679448.257449.117970@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
You are the one who should be sorry. African Americans aren't
flocking
to join LDS or the Republican Party. Why don't you ask yourself why
African Americans don't vote for racists like you?
Actually, they are, to both.
Not the 90% of the African Americans. You'll have more chance of
converting an atheist into joining the Mormon church or Bushie fascism
than converting an African American into joining the Mormon church or
Bushie fascism.
maff. There are over 6 and a half BILLION people on the planet. There are a
little over 12 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. Do the math. We don't get 98% of anybody at all, and I have yet to
see your point, except that you are still trying to skirt your own racist
attitude by desperately pointing fingers at someone else.
But quite frankly, converts come from many places and many belief systems,
even (gasp) atheists. Of course, by the time they actually join the church
they aren't atheists any more, but that's beside the point.
It's for you and your racist
organization to convince the African Americans.
Oh, (she says sweetly) we are. Or haven't you looked at the
statistics for
joining the church among African Americans?
They ceratinly aren't joining the LDS or the Republicans. Why would
they join racist organizations?
They wouldn't. Which is why many are leaving the Democratic party and
joining the Republicans, and why we are getting black converts to the
church.
Not the 90% of African Americans.
Honey, if we were getting 10% of African Americans that would be success
unequaled by any other religion. (grin) Shoot, I'd be ecstatic at 5%.
However, most of them are Baptist or Catholic or something else that they
are quite happy with.
Of course, we don't really TRACK our converts by race, since that's
not a
consideration, but from the faces I see in church every week....
Are they joining the Klan as well?
Right after you do,
No. Excuse me, from your attitude toward blacks, I think I'd better amend
that statement. Make that about fifty years after you do.
And we do track the rate the church is growing in Africa. Now, I'm
quite
certain that you haven't actually gone to look at any statistics. You
are
simply assuming that no black person would join the LDS church
because you
KNOW it's racist. You still haven't told me why we are, I notice.
(probably
because you are quite aware that we are not).
Not when they find out you're a Bushie fascist.
You really need to make up your mind whether you are a racist or an idiot or
both, maff.
This wishy washiness is getting tiresome.
The voting statistics
show Bushie fascists only get about the 10% African American
vote
when
under Eisenhower the African American vote was divided evenly
between
the parties. Your racist buddies (i.e. Confederates, Christian
fundaamentalists and other racists) won't even vote for her even
if
she
decides to contest the Presidential elections.
There you go again, switching over to something else. Doesn't the
smell of
spoiled red herring get to you after awhile?
The voting figures shows why African Americans dislike racist
organizations.
You better look at your ugly racist face in the mirror again.
And while I'm doing that, I'll bring my five children to look in
there with
me. They don't any of 'em need much sun block.
Are they going to join the Klan?
You really are a pip, maff. Don't you get tired of being this
transparently
ludicrous?
Why don't you tell that to the African Americans? Do you think atheists
are going to join the Morman church?
Some do. Most don't. After all, why would an atheist join a church? Of
course, you could, with some truth, say that none would. After all, if one
does join one sincerely, it would mean that he is no longer an atheist,
wouldn't it? Therefore, (shrug) no atheist would join the Mormon church.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
19 Feb 2005 03:42:39 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108718701.651260.167340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108679448.257449.117970@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
You are the one who should be sorry. African Americans aren't
flocking
to join LDS or the Republican Party. Why don't you ask yourself
why
African Americans don't vote for racists like you?
Actually, they are, to both.
Not the 90% of the African Americans. You'll have more chance of
converting an atheist into joining the Mormon church or Bushie
fascism
than converting an African American into joining the Mormon church
or
Bushie fascism.
maff. There are over 6 and a half BILLION people on the planet. There
are a
little over 12 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day
Saints. Do the math. We don't get 98% of anybody at all, and I have
yet to
see your point, except that you are still trying to skirt your own
racist
attitude by desperately pointing fingers at someone else.
The point is that the 6 billions don't accept MOrmon or Bushie fascism.
It's as simple as that. You can always try to kill all 6 billions of
us. But you'll find it's your fascist organization which will be hunted
across the Union and the World.
But quite frankly, converts come from many places and many belief
systems,
even (gasp) atheists. Of course, by the time they actually join the
church
they aren't atheists any more, but that's beside the point.
The point is your fascist organization will be dismantled like all
fascist organizations.
It's for you and your racist
organization to convince the African Americans.
Oh, (she says sweetly) we are. Or haven't you looked at the
statistics for
joining the church among African Americans?
They ceratinly aren't joining the LDS or the Republicans. Why
would
they join racist organizations?
They wouldn't. Which is why many are leaving the Democratic party
and
joining the Republicans, and why we are getting black converts to
the
church.
Not the 90% of African Americans.
Honey, if we were getting 10% of African Americans that would be
success
unequaled by any other religion. (grin) Shoot, I'd be ecstatic at 5%.
However, most of them are Baptist or Catholic or something else that
they
are quite happy with.
So you'll die for Bushie fascism?
Of course, we don't really TRACK our converts by race, since
that's
not a
consideration, but from the faces I see in church every week....
Are they joining the Klan as well?
Right after you do,
No. Excuse me, from your attitude toward blacks, I think I'd better
amend
that statement. Make that about fifty years after you do.
African Americans look after themselves after your fascist organization
is defeated.
And we do track the rate the church is growing in Africa. Now, I'm
quite
certain that you haven't actually gone to look at any statistics.
You
are
simply assuming that no black person would join the LDS church
because you
KNOW it's racist. You still haven't told me why we are, I notice.
(probably
because you are quite aware that we are not).
Not when they find out you're a Bushie fascist.
You really need to make up your mind whether you are a racist or an
idiot or
both, maff.
This wishy washiness is getting tiresome.
That's what Nazis and Confederates also said. They said they had
Almighty God on their side.
The voting statistics
show Bushie fascists only get about the 10% African American
vote
when
under Eisenhower the African American vote was divided evenly
between
the parties. Your racist buddies (i.e. Confederates,
Christian
fundaamentalists and other racists) won't even vote for her
even
if
she
decides to contest the Presidential elections.
There you go again, switching over to something else. Doesn't
the
smell of
spoiled red herring get to you after awhile?
The voting figures shows why African Americans dislike racist
organizations.
You better look at your ugly racist face in the mirror again.
And while I'm doing that, I'll bring my five children to look
in
there with
me. They don't any of 'em need much sun block.
Are they going to join the Klan?
You really are a pip, maff. Don't you get tired of being this
transparently
ludicrous?
Why don't you tell that to the African Americans? Do you think
atheists
are going to join the Morman church?
Some do. Most don't. After all, why would an atheist join a church?
Of
course, you could, with some truth, say that none would. After all,
if one
does join one sincerely, it would mean that he is no longer an
atheist,
wouldn't it? Therefore, (shrug) no atheist would join the Mormon
church.
So you agree that Mormon fascism or Bushie fascism is going to be
mortal like all fascism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
19 Feb 2005 10:11:51 AM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108806158.978255.28960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108718701.651260.167340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108679448.257449.117970@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
You are the one who should be sorry. African Americans aren't
flocking
to join LDS or the Republican Party. Why don't you ask yourself
why
African Americans don't vote for racists like you?
Actually, they are, to both.
Not the 90% of the African Americans. You'll have more chance of
converting an atheist into joining the Mormon church or Bushie
fascism
than converting an African American into joining the Mormon church
or
Bushie fascism.
maff. There are over 6 and a half BILLION people on the planet. There
are a
little over 12 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day
Saints. Do the math. We don't get 98% of anybody at all, and I have
yet to
see your point, except that you are still trying to skirt your own
racist
attitude by desperately pointing fingers at someone else.
The point is that the 6 billions don't accept MOrmon or Bushie fascism.
It's as simple as that. You can always try to kill all 6 billions of
us. But you'll find it's your fascist organization which will be hunted
across the Union and the World.
Good grief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
19 Feb 2005 02:40:53 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108806158.978255.28960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108718701.651260.167340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108679448.257449.117970@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>
You are the one who should be sorry. African Americans aren't
flocking
to join LDS or the Republican Party. Why don't you ask
yourself
why
African Americans don't vote for racists like you?
Actually, they are, to both.
Not the 90% of the African Americans. You'll have more chance of
converting an atheist into joining the Mormon church or Bushie
fascism
than converting an African American into joining the Mormon
church
or
Bushie fascism.
maff. There are over 6 and a half BILLION people on the planet.
There
are a
little over 12 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day
Saints. Do the math. We don't get 98% of anybody at all, and I
have
yet to
see your point, except that you are still trying to skirt your own
racist
attitude by desperately pointing fingers at someone else.
The point is that the 6 billions don't accept MOrmon or Bushie
fascism.
It's as simple as that. You can always try to kill all 6 billions
of
us. But you'll find it's your fascist organization which will be
hunted
across the Union and the World.
Good grief.
You can always try Bushie fascist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
19 Feb 2005 02:46:21 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108845653.944871.137500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<snip to>
across the Union and the World.
Good grief.
You can always try Bushie fascist.
That's your line.
.....and a rather stupid one, at that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
19 Feb 2005 03:46:42 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108845653.944871.137500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<snip to>
across the Union and the World.
Good grief.
You can always try Bushie fascist.
That's your line.
....and a rather stupid one, at that.
So tell that to the International Criminal Court.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
17 Feb 2005 08:59:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 03:50:36 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4233ff8d.416932078@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:27:47 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4231a9f5.395020156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:50:51 GMT, "DianaC"
<snip to>
How very predictable. Any black man or woman, that achieves success in a
way
that you don't agree with gets slammed with racial slurs. Which of
course
illustrates the point I was making; that y'all want them properly
humble,
grateful and knowing their places.
How predictable, you think calling someone a racist is a racist slur.
Tell me Diana - do you even know what an Uncle Tom is?
Oh, yes. I have actually READ 'Uncle Tom's Cabin". Can you say the same?
Believe me, sweetheart, calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is a very racist
epithet indeed.
Oh bull crap - an Uncle Tom is a submissive racist - apparently you
had no comprehension of the book you read. More likely, you know, you
just are purposely 'misinterpreting' because that's the cool thang to
do today - say the current propaganda that comes out of the republican
machine.
That's what I thought. You haven't read the book. You figure that calling
someone an 'Uncle Tom' is just fine because liberal black people will use it
to describe any black person who doesn't agree with them.I believe other
epithets are 'oreos' and other lovely things, but it's all racist bunk. And
YOU are buying into that; that one's skin color means that one must behave a
certain way, be a certain thing, think along a specific path, one that is
defined for one by very rich white guys with an agenda.
LOL. You again make up stuff to make yourself feel good.
Why don't you just make up that I kill people and rape babies - would
that make you right? Maybe not and I see you don't care - but I bet
it would make you feel even more powerful.
oooh, hot idea, isn't it?
Heaven forbid that someone with extra melanin actually make it in the
'white' world without permission from the Kennedy's...Kate, you make me more
than a little ill.
You ARE a racist.
AND stupid.
LOL Diana - if you were the arbitrator of stupidity, the world would
actually be doing better under your idiot republicans and someone
would actually respect you.
Reality is a *****, isn't it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Orin Hatch |
16 Feb 2005 01:48:00 AM |
|
|
On 16 Feb 2005 00:23:03 -0600, (Kate ) said in
alt.atheism:
LOL, the woman is a major uncle tom. Your party would implode before
it managed to elect a black woman that thinks for herself.
The Repugs don't want a president who thinks for him/herself. Reagan,
Bush Jr. Any puppet will do.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Orin Hatch |
17 Feb 2005 07:04:05 PM |
|
|
On 15 Feb 2005 13:31:19 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Senate Confirms Our Country's Errant Path
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb05/Doerner0204.htm
by Carl Doerner
www.dissidentvoice.org
February 4, 2005
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon
the world."
-- W.B. Yeats
The contentious confirmations of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State
and Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General are now in place, but they
rest uneasily with respect to both contemplation and our history. More
senators voted against Rice than any State nominee since 1825, and
Gonzales was acceptable to only six Democrats and the compliant Senate
majority.
During recent weeks I was either present as a photojournalist in the
hearing room in Washington or closely following the daily C-SPAN
coverage of both Senate hearings and debate. In addition, I have
keenly observed moves the Bush administration has made in the past
four years that undermine the Constitution, that manipulate the public
on both foreign and domestic issues through the use of fear, and the
lies to the American people and to other nations. All of these are
designed to serve its elite and corporate sponsors, consolidate
undemocratic power, and advance an ideological program of foreign and
domestic ambitions written before it illegitimately grasped power in
2001 and instituted after allowing the major terrorist attack on this
country to occur.
It should be added this Bush-Cheney imperialist agenda includes racism
and intolerance, cloaked domestically in a phony religious mantle. The
reader may recall that until his language was tidied by his handlers,
George Bush linked these neo-conservative endeavors to earlier
ignominious Western assaults on Islam by publicly referring to his
post-9/11 unfolding policy in the Middle East as "a crusade." And, as
it is asymmetric and is provocative, the actions actually promote a
terrorist response.
Though the electorate has failed to provide the opposition party
sufficient seats to adequately challenge runaway war-making,
ideological packing of the Supreme Court and federal courts, and a
coming systematic dismantling of the nation’s social programs,
Democrats have finally been stirred by the same anger that the general
public has felt upon revelation of the lies for war and repeated
criminal abuse of the electoral process. Except for recalcitrant John
Kerry, Democrats who did so are slowly revealing they erred in their
votes supporting invasion of Iraq.
Seated between the interrogators and nominee Rice, I felt the
senators’ palpable outrage at the years of administration lies about
Saddam Hussein. Senator Boxer in particular -- but Senators Biden,
Dodd, and Sarbenes as well -- leveled on Rice in a manner that drew
Republican rebuke characterizing their questions as "a
cross-examination."
The most contentious issues in Bush choices of Rice and Gonzales were
lies to promote war and torture of prisoners, as well as each of the
nominee’s role in developing objectionable policies. Rice repeatedly
ducked committee criticism of her speeches suggesting Iraq was about
to detonate a nuclear weapon in one of our cities. In turn, Gonzales
sidestepped his two-year endorsement of the Bybee memorandum, which
fundamentally made inhumane treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, in
Afghanistan, and at Abu Ghraib our government’s policy. Patrick Leahy
said all Democrats were prepared to support Gonzales until he failed
to disassociate himself from use of torture, and Carl Levin of
Michigan added that Gonzales clearly "provided the legal framework"
for the abuse we have witnessed.
Dodd of Connecticut ripped the nominee’s counsel given to Bush
regarding denial of due process to prisoners, saying, "Churchill
suggested we just execute the Nazis, but at Nuremberg we gave every
one of them a lawyer. That’s the core of this issue."
How ludicrous and irrational, then, were Republican speeches during
Senate debate. While allowing to stand the Gonzales characterizations
of the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete," they charged
Democrats with simple partisan attacks on Bush and argued, variously,
that Al Qaeda prisoners don’t deserve humane treatment because "they
don’t obey the rules of war" and "they oppress women." (Adolph Hitler,
too, called the Geneva Conventions "obsolete.")
Orin Hatch declared prison abuse was committed by low-ranking
"renegade soldiers" who needed to be punished. Writing in the New
Yorker, Seymour Hersh has clearly established how torture policy
flowed down through the chain of command.
Equally spurious was the repeatedly sung Republican rags-to-riches
refrain about the Gonzales childhood and rise, its exemplification of
success for minority aspirations. Look folks, even the Hispanic Caucus
in Congress opposed his nomination.
But what is implicit in this inter-party sparring over the Attorney
General -- this proxy struggle -- is the Bush plan to place another
ideologue -- his Texas buddy Alberto Gonzales -- in the Supreme Court,
one who will secure the vote to reverse women’s right to choose.
As if his counsel on torture did not sufficiently demonstrate his
betrayal of law for ideology, Gonzales brings another defect. Two
years ago the Atlantic Monthly carried an account of the Gonzales
record in Texas. As legal advisor to then Governor Bush he wrote the
pre-death briefings for the first 57 of the 152 Governor Bush-era
executions. | |
