[quote]etaco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…
I don’t even know any black people who would claim this man is our spokesman which means you are just jumping to conclusions.
Does this say more about him, us, or you?
I don’t even know Sharpton’s stance on most issues.
It says a lot about the TV media that continually turn to him to speak for the “black community” or pay attention when he claims to speak for the “black community” when protesting something or other.
So.
Do lazy media tactics shine brightest to you only when pointed at Sharpton? If not, then how could he possibly stand out among the tons of other garbage they relay on tv?
I think implicit message is something like this.
Dear [ ],
Basically, white people have an underlying desire for a black pope-- that is to say, a pope of all black people. We want one person we can turn to to summarize your collective feelings on any issues which may affect black people differently (or not) than the population as a whole.
Sure we could use surveys and statistics to break down the variations of opinions amongst black people or anyone else, but that costs money and takes effort. It’s much easier to just ask a black guy, specifically a black guy who claims to speak for all black people. So in short, lazy white people kindly request that if you don’t like what your self-appointed black pope is saying, then please elect a new one who better represents your collective view.
Thanks for your understanding,
White Folk[/quote]
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
Mr. Obama has continued to lie about his past in regards to his use and sale of drugs and his sex with a gay male in 1999.
LOL
First time I’ve heard of this.
Dare I say it?
Gaynigger for Pres![/quote]
This thread has officially gone too far. NP, to the extent you have any decency - even .9 of decency - you should apologize to the forum. I guess this is the logical end to these conspiracy idiocies.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
Mr. Obama has continued to lie about his past in regards to his use and sale of drugs and his sex with a gay male in 1999.
LOL
First time I’ve heard of this.
Dare I say it?
Gaynigger for Pres!
This thread has officially gone too far. NP, to the extent you have any decency - even .9 of decency - you should apologize to the forum. I guess this is the logical end to these conspiracy idiocies.[/quote]
Jut report the post, BB. I hate being a little snitchy bitch, but that post is over the line.
Washington used to take laudanum for his dental issues, which is an alcoholic tincture of opium. This mixture contained 10 milligrams of morphine per milliliter. Translation, Washington was fucked up most of the time.
That’s certainly plausible given laudanum’s use amongst the wealthy of the era.
I say let the president get fucked up. What is so virtuous about sobriety anyway?
The soberest nations in the world are also the most violent.
[/quote]
That may be well and true, yet I’d rather not see my next president on the next installment of celebrity rehab. Whether there were drug days or not, I’d prefer they be behind the candidate.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
Mr. Obama has continued to lie about his past in regards to his use and sale of drugs and his sex with a gay male in 1999.
LOL
First time I’ve heard of this.
Dare I say it?
Gaynigger for Pres!
This thread has officially gone too far. NP, to the extent you have any decency - even .9 of decency - you should apologize to the forum. I guess this is the logical end to these conspiracy idiocies.[/quote]
I guess some people will continue whistling and looking the other way while claiming that racism and homophobia are not present in America.
I guess some people will continue whistling and looking the other way while claiming that racism and homophobia are not present in America.
[/quote]
Does anybody actually seriously claim that?
I can’t imagine that anyone but the PC demagogues who have bought into their own bullshit seriously believes that either racism or homophobia are in any way diminished from any other time in the history of this or any country.
People may not act on their feelings like they used to, which is why you don’t see as many lynchings and gay-bashings as you used to, but it does not follow that those feelings are not still there.
Nominal Prospect may indeed be wannabe racist, or a sexist, or a homophobe, or a Neo-Nazi, or whatever, but I suspect that he says half of the crap he does simply to get a rise out of people, which he usually ends up getting.
However, it would be a mistake to think that his beliefs are really so anomalous. There are a hell of a lot more racists and supremacists out there than anyone wants to admit… and they come in all colors.
I guess some people will continue whistling and looking the other way while claiming that racism and homophobia are not present in America.
Does anybody actually seriously claim that?
I can’t imagine that anyone but the PC demagogues who have bought into their own bullshit seriously believes that either racism or homophobia are in any way diminished from any other time in the history of this or any country.
People may not act on their feelings like they used to, which is why you don’t see as many lynchings and gay-bashings as you used to, but it does not follow that those feelings are not still there.
Nominal Prospect may indeed be wannabe racist, or a sexist, or a homophobe, or a Neo-Nazi, or whatever, but I suspect that he says half of the crap he does simply to get a rise out of people, which he usually ends up getting.
However, it would be a mistake to think that his beliefs are really so anomalous. There are a hell of a lot more racists and supremacists out there than anyone wants to admit… and they come in all colors.[/quote]
True, this is no case of ‘see I told you so’. We all knew so, nobody truly denied its existence. Just that racism or discrimination isn’t the underlying cause behind every case in question. Assuming as much makes you just as much a conspiracy theorist as our nazi foe Nominal Prospect.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
Mr. Obama has continued to lie about his past in regards to his use and sale of drugs and his sex with a gay male in 1999.
LOL
First time I’ve heard of this.
Dare I say it?
Gaynigger for Pres!
This thread has officially gone too far. NP, to the extent you have any decency - even .9 of decency - you should apologize to the forum. I guess this is the logical end to these conspiracy idiocies.
I guess some people will continue whistling and looking the other way while claiming that racism and homophobia are not present in America.
[/quote]
Who is whistling and looking the other way? We all know Al Shades/NP is a racist jerk. BB called him on it here. He has been called on it elsewhere.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
Mr. Obama has continued to lie about his past in regards to his use and sale of drugs and his sex with a gay male in 1999.
LOL
First time I’ve heard of this.
Dare I say it?
Gaynigger for Pres!
This thread has officially gone too far. NP, to the extent you have any decency - even .9 of decency - you should apologize to the forum. I guess this is the logical end to these conspiracy idiocies.
I guess some people will continue whistling and looking the other way while claiming that racism and homophobia are not present in America.
Who is whistling and looking the other way? We all know Al Shades/NP is a racist jerk. BB called him on it here. He has been called on it elsewhere.[/quote]
Up until NP “went too far”, I didn’t notice anyone taking issue with the fact that allegations of him having sexual relations with another man were used to put him in a negative light. As long as its not too racist or too homophobic, as long as nobody “goes too far with it”, it gets the wink and nod approval.
Well I was actually talking about more of the party drugs than ADHD or depression although both of those are given out way too often. I also think it would help though if someone did not have experience in those drugs to help curb them. How could someone who takes Ritalin even though they may not need it be an active force to curbing the over prescription of the drug? It’s that like an alcoholic starting a campaign for prohibition?
Could you please explain how someone who “did not have experience in those drugs” would be better prepared to deal with our nation’s drug problem than someone who had used them and participated in the drug culture?
Are you suggesting that having an elected leader who claimed to never use drugs would shame our chemically elated public into changing their drug saturated lifestyles? Or that someone who was never involved with drugs would be better educated, having more practical knowledge of the issue?
[/quote]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Up until NP “went too far”, I didn’t notice anyone taking issue with the fact that allegations of him having sexual relations with another man were used to put him in a negative light. As long as its not too racist or too homophobic, as long as nobody “goes too far with it”, it gets the wink and nod approval. [/quote]
Since when has sexual indiscretions and drug use been the sole domain of homosexuals and blacks?
Well I was actually talking about more of the party drugs than ADHD or depression although both of those are given out way too often. I also think it would help though if someone did not have experience in those drugs to help curb them. How could someone who takes Ritalin even though they may not need it be an active force to curbing the over prescription of the drug? It’s that like an alcoholic starting a campaign for prohibition?
Could you please explain how someone who “did not have experience in those drugs” would be better prepared to deal with our nation’s drug problem than someone who had used them and participated in the drug culture?
Are you suggesting that having an elected leader who claimed to never use drugs would shame our chemically elated public into changing their drug saturated lifestyles? Or that someone who was never involved with drugs would be better educated, having more practical knowledge of the issue?
Well I was actually talking about more of the party drugs than ADHD or depression although both of those are given out way too often. I also think it would help though if someone did not have experience in those drugs to help curb them. How could someone who takes Ritalin even though they may not need it be an active force to curbing the over prescription of the drug? It’s that like an alcoholic starting a campaign for prohibition?
Could you please explain how someone who “did not have experience in those drugs” would be better prepared to deal with our nation’s drug problem than someone who had used them and participated in the drug culture?
Are you suggesting that having an elected leader who claimed to never use drugs would shame our chemically elated public into changing their drug saturated lifestyles? Or that someone who was never involved with drugs would be better educated, having more practical knowledge of the issue?
[/quote]
Sure, I would like to have someone who hasn’t fried their brains yet in power. I mean really…look at Bush, he makes up words.
[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
Could you please explain how someone who “did not have experience in those drugs” would be better prepared to deal with our nation’s drug problem than someone who had used them and participated in the drug culture?
Are you suggesting that having an elected leader who claimed to never use drugs would shame our chemically elated public into changing their drug saturated lifestyles? Or that someone who was never involved with drugs would be better educated, having more practical knowledge of the issue?
[/quote]
On a more serious answer, what would the motivation be for someone to enact stricter drug controls when they used to enjoy getting high?
If our nation is going to waste billions of dollars trying to stop everyone from using drugs than they might as well put it to good use.
Also, how effective would a campaign be if someone get’s arrested for using coke under a drug enforcement policy the President signed and then that person goes to the media and says, “How fair is it that I got arrested for something the President likes to do?” That kills the campaign and the dollars spent on it are pissed down the toilet.
Finally, what possible use could practical knowledge of finding a dealer, knowing a good price, and then how to use a drug be used for as a President? What is he going to do, suggest to the crack heads a reasonable price to pay? I don’t see how it could be a benefit in any possible way.
I can foresee you suggesting that he may be able to recommend how police to cut it off at the source. However, what holds true for one city doesn�??t for another. So unless he bought coke in every city, his first hand experience doesn�??t help on the national level.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Up until NP “went too far”, I didn’t notice anyone taking issue with the fact that allegations of him having sexual relations with another man were used to put him in a negative light. As long as its not too racist or too homophobic, as long as nobody “goes too far with it”, it gets the wink and nod approval.
Since when has sexual indiscretions and drug use been the sole domain of homosexuals and blacks?
Anyone remember Clinton? [/quote]
I think the issue that many took over Clintons blowjob was that it was from a woman who was not his wife, and the legal issue was that he bullshitted about it while under oath.
I didn’t see any stories alleging that the had gotten a blowjob years before his presidency or marriage; nor do I imagine such an allegation would have swayed anyone against voting for him.
I wasnt connecting the drug use to his race, so much. But there have been obvious examples of the tactic being used, even on here. I think the thread was “Obama on the record”, and started with something like “I’m Barak Obama and you should vote for me because I’m black and Oprah says so”.
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
On a more serious answer, what would the motivation be for someone to enact stricter drug controls when they used to enjoy getting high?
If our nation is going to waste billions of dollars trying to stop everyone from using drugs than they might as well put it to good use.[/quote]
The last thing I would want is for someone to be so blind as to actually think that since all of those millions of dollars couldn’t stop drug use, that what is needed…is more laws and stricter control.
Are you saying you believe what we need are even more laws and greater control?
[quote]
Also, how effective would a campaign be if someone get’s arrested for using coke under a drug enforcement policy the President signed and then that person goes to the media and says, “How fair is it that I got arrested for something the President likes to do?” That kills the campaign and the dollars spent on it are pissed down the toilet.[/quote]
Gee, I don’t remember anyone writing that they want their president to get high while in office.
You seem to under the impression that “the War on Drugs” shouldn’t be completely overhauled. You also seem to believe that drug use isn’t an ingrained part of our current society whether you are able to see it or not. Someone like you, someone who has never experienced just how casual and expansive the use is, should not be in charge of inacting even more lies that haven’t worked.
We have had this discussion before (I started a thread on it a few weeks ago). The real question is whether we need to be trying to stop any and all drug use or whether using all of those billions of dollars for other social programs is the better option.
Up until NP “went too far”, I didn’t notice anyone taking issue with the fact that allegations of him having sexual relations with another man were used to put him in a negative light. As long as its not too racist or too homophobic, as long as nobody “goes too far with it”, it gets the wink and nod approval. [/quote]
I don’t know about anyone else, but I really didn’t read the OP. I saw it was by jlesk, so I skipped it until I saw people responding. Then I glanced at the OP and read the responses. I think the most responsive comment addressing the OP was mine questioning whether the link was to a porn site… until of course NP made his comment. You may choose not to believe it, but I didn’t realize the allegation was about gay sex until NPs post. Not that I care - you can read it a lot of different ways; I agree with RJ in that the discussion was about sex in general and drug use in general.
It might make you feel morally superior to find racism, sexism, homophobia, elitism, xenophobia, etc., etc., under every rock and hiding around every corner - or it may just be reflexive. I don’t know - but to me it seems rather negative to your outlook and stultifying to your ultimate objective.
I admit that my reading style on here is to skip over posts by a lot of people - or pages of posts if I’m getting in late on a thread. I don’t read a lot of posts if the OP title doesn’t catch my attention - even if they have a lot of responses. I happened to catch NPs sad post because I was involved in a separate discussion with Prof X at that juncture. So Sherlock, sometimes the dog that doesn’t bark only signifies that the dog is asleep, inside, out for a walk or enjoying a nice bone… To put it another way, just because you struck upon one possible answer out of many, don’t kid yourself that you’ve proved your point.
