http://www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/2004/11/17/
seems potraying black republicans as big lipped n mamies is just fine so long as they have left the liberal block. Seems Black is not so much genetic as it is a way of thinking after all and that way seems to be:" stay on the pal\\lantation and be god slaves and vote for your liberal maza like you know yoy should.If you decde to think for yourself and jump ship them a political whipping we will give you".
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/mhking/blog/condicartoon_1.jpg
http://www.ucomics.com/doonesbury/
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2004/po041117.gif
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005788
http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/000763.html

These leftist cartoonists have yet again proved to the world that they are prejudiced against blacks who don't share their views--and that's good to know.Not unlike the caby in new york that james taronto spoke of while he was in New York for the convention;
We got an insight into contemporary liberal attitudes toward race on a taxi ride not long ago. We were en route to Shea Stadium along with fellow conservative commentator Joel Mowbray, and our driver was a youngish Haitian woman who had her radio tuned to Air America. Mowbray started a political discussion with her, and she told him that she doesn't like Republicans because "they hate black people."

"Does President Bush hate Condi Rice and Colin Powell?" Mowbray asked, to which she replied that Rice and Powell aren't "really black" because they "don't think like black people."

The idea that black people are supposed to think in a certain way is, of course, a racist assumption in itself. But what's most interesting about this exchange is that our driver had in effect redefined race so that it has nothing to do with race. When she said, "They hate black people," she meant merely, "They disagree with liberal ideology."


The deafning silence from the liberal sensitivity police, who would be all over a conservative cartoonist committed a similar offense (http://www.mrc.org/mediawatch/1997/watch19970401.asp#5 second item), simply proves yet again the hypocrites on bigotry are liberals when it comes to race.This is usefull to know also{as if its a secret**.

i think it's more anti-condoleeza

i think it's more anti-condoleeza
That's my take on it. They're not just some random black woman, they're exaggerating a likeness.

was the ghetto talk needed in the first one?

the second one didnt seem racist but seemed to make fun of rice and bush together. in a way she is his little parrot. but i dont see how this makes the cartoon racist.

i do think the text in the first wasnt called for though.

she isnt ignorant, she's educated and they're attempting to say she isnt.

i think it's more anti-condoleeza
I dont think so :rolleyes:

i think it's more anti-condoleeza
And thomas and Powel excetra.

Lame excuses h2 . lame.

http://pages.prodigy.net/hauxfan/Signs/Group_3/1.gif

what

well think of the context in which H2 says this.

he refered to her and powell (or was it one or the other) in another thread as a "token".

so not surprising he wouldnt see it.

*outrage*

The second one is not remotely racist. She is in fact a yes woman. She needn't be. She's smarter than G Dub.

The first one is seen as racist because of the dumb talk connotation to slavery. I find it distasteful, frankly.

ooh it's so risque

its not only her. in the anglican church blacks and asians are the conservatives/traditionalists. the whole steriotype of a blue eyed, blond hair nazi and the short, "brown" commi is BS. to think that a race is more liberal than another race is itself truly ignorant and racist. there are many other myths about blacks. like that they are cannibals or that they hate whotes.

well think of the context in which H2 says this.

he refered to her and powell (or was it one or the other) in another thread as a "token".

so not surprising he wouldnt see it.

they are fascist blacks the uganda's prez. but of course there is the leftist darling aristide. remember him?, the guy who so rudely jeered at as a dictator pig. :rolleyes: . he was one of yours, chazes supporters.

LOL, the sad part is most southern blacks I run into sound just like that stereotype.

I never heard a big stink about the Chicago Tribune posting this editorial cartoon:

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/chicago-trib-antisemitism.jpg

How do we know the first cartoon is by a liberal? Maybe it's by a racist right winger who doesn't think black women should occupy such high positions?

everyone is a right winger to you.

a right-winger talking about the alumnum WMDs?
hahaha. hahahahaa. no :|

libertarians.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20041116/lpo041116.gif *thanks to criminal for finding the pic*

comon people, these are political cartoons. nothing is holy in political cartoons. never has ben, never will.

in the 80s the soviet papers were full of cartoons against solidarity. they said that pope and cia had a contract to destroy communism, and that walesa was a right-wing stooge. SU and its firevreating atheists hated pope and solitarity so much that they paid that jerk to shoot him. cartoons are not just jokes. and these werent just light jokes they were fruirts of deep cynicism and vicousness.

How do we know the first cartoon is by a liberal? Maybe it's by a racist right winger who doesn't think black women should occupy such high positions?
Google is your friend.

GEEES.

Madison, Wisconsin A radio host named John Sylvester. On the air Wednesday, he called Dr. Rice "Aunt Jemima" (after the black woman on the pancake mix box) and Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom." His reasoning? "I was aiming that directly at a black person that is letting himself (and herself) be used by an administration that has been extremely hostile to minorities."

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Another radio talk show host is drawing criticism in Wisconsin. Madison's mayor and Senator Russ Feingold are critical of Madison's John "Sly" Sylvester for calling Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima." Sylvester is program director and morning personality on W-T-D-Y-A-M in Madison. He says he used the term Wednesday to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration.

Hows that?
Isee and so do alot of others.
http://www.kdth.com/LocalNews.cfm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139031,00.html


__________________


They present a prominent African American in a way reminiscent of the racist cartoons of pre-WWII America.They are to upity for the left.

2 words;
intellectual nihilism

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/041116/cagle00.gif Rice as tiny moron with buck teeth lost in Colin Powell's huge shoes.

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/041116/davies.gif
A black couple, labeled "Civil Rights Movement" and "Women's Movement" lament Rice under a banner reading "First Black, Female Warmonger Secretary of State -- Historic Celebration."

Rice sticking tongue out and waving hands from ears with caption, "The Secretary of State is America's face to the world. George Bush".

Th etipicle dumb incompotent black person,....right. http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/041116/sherffius21.gif
Its not just me;

http://www.iwf.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=699
IWF Denounces Racist Depictions of Dr. Condoleezza Rice in Popular Editorial Cartoons

http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/11/17/chairmanship/

you guys and ur stupid race problems in this nation are pathetic. cant people be more "colorblind".
one women told me this :She was the first black POW. are you joking, you classify POWs by race. how is this country gonna get "according to merit and not color of the skin" i donno.

libertarians.

Don't bring me into this.

Danziger's work appears at first glance to be overtly racist and I can see how someone would take it that way. Having said that, Danziger defends himself thusly:

"In fact the idea for the cartoon was suggested to me by a friend who is African-American. It wasn't racist. Nor am I. I have been doing this for nearly thirty years, and any review of my work will prove that no racism attaches.

Further, I am a decorated Vietnam veteran who voted for Nixon once, GHW Bush twice and even for Bob Dole. So keep your labels.

Nothing racist about it at all. Just the standard lies told by a political operative, out of her depth, who happens to be African-American. Whenever this administration is in trouble they send out Condi Rice because the press, which is mostly white and male, gives her a far easier treatment than they would a white male."

http://redmindbluestate.********.com/2004/10/jeff-danziger-half-racist.html

The man's cartoonish attacks during the Clinton years include stuff like this:

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/cmp/1998/danziger197.html

they hate whotes. - Damn whotes...

you guys and ur stupid race problems in this nation are pathetic. cant people be more "colorblind".
one women told me this :She was the first black POW. are you joking, you classify POWs by race. how is this country gonna get "according to merit and not color of the skin" i donno. - I think I agree with you here.

The second one is not remotely racist. She is in fact a yes woman. She needn't be. She's smarter than G Dub.

The first one is seen as racist because of the dumb talk connotation to slavery. I find it distasteful, frankly. was the ghetto talk needed in the first one?

the second one didnt seem racist but seemed to make fun of rice and bush together. in a way she is his little parrot. but i dont see how this makes the cartoon racist.

i do think the text in the first wasnt called for though.

she isnt ignorant, she's educated and they're attempting to say she isnt. - I agree.

Overly complex explanation:

Editorial cartoons exaggerate facial features - that's just how it is. The old racist cartoons also exaggerated facial features commonly found on people of the "races" they portrayed.

So when a cartoonist gives a carricature of a black individual big lips, it's not because they're trying to be racist - but because that person happens to have that attribute.

Danziger's work appears at first glance to be overtly racist and I can see how someone would take it that way. Having said that, Danziger defends himself thusly:

"In fact the idea for the cartoon was suggested to me by a friend who is African-American. It wasn't racist. Nor am I. I have been doing this for nearly thirty years, and any review of my work will prove that no racism attaches.

Further, I am a decorated Vietnam veteran who voted for Nixon once, GHW Bush twice and even for Bob Dole. So keep your labels.
."


So according to this information, it would be wrong to characterize "Danziger" a liberal...

They present a prominent African American in a way reminiscent of the racist cartoons of pre-WWII America.They are to upity for the left.

2 words;
intellectual nihilism

or delusion ...


Rice as tiny moron with buck teeth lost in Colin Powell's huge shoes.


yeah, and ?


A black couple, labeled "Civil Rights Movement" and "Women's Movement" lament Rice under a banner reading "First Black, Female Warmonger Secretary of State -- Historic Celebration."



now if anybody could point out where the black couple is on the pic, please , I can't find them.... :confused:
Rice sticking tongue out and waving hands from ears with caption, "The Secretary of State is America's face to the world. George Bush".

Th etipicle dumb incompotent black person,....right.

Or maybe the dumb incompetent rep still stuck in the cold war, as most political anlysts tend to view her


Its not just me

no, your uncanny ability to see racism where there isn't seem to be shared with some others ...
I mean, the mere performance of being able to not only tell, but dissect what coul dbe interpretated as racist in those could even prompt that remark : you do have some training in the field yourself ...

The ultimate anti-satire weapon : you can't make fun of him/her, it's antisemitism/racism/bigotry against French ...
No , wait, the last one can be applied to Kerry only, so it's ok ...

So according to this information, it would be wrong to characterize "Danziger" a liberal...

That's the gist of it.

this kind of "she a black women" speech is europe would have been proporterious. purly PC. BECAUSE SEPARATE CONNOT BE EQUAL. so stop judjung people by their genital and pigment orientation. all man AND women are created equal.

from what I could see at his site; Danziger is just mean to everyone.

whos danzider?

This thread is just stupid. She's black and the guy doesn't like her. Must mean that he's racist and Liberal. Guess he should have drawn her as a white person, 'cause that wouldn't be racist.

So Rice is just Bush's parrot now? I seem to remember a while back the liberal media (redundancy alert!) telling us all how Rice was one of the smartest people in the cabinet. And I remember without a doubt that they told all of us, and still do, that Bush is a moron who is basically a puppet for his more intelligent cabinet.
So forgive me if I am confused but which one is it? Is it true that Rice is Bush's puppet or is what we have been told for the past four years true and Bush is just a puppet himself? If so, I would think it mighty impressive for a puppet to have his own puppet, especially when his new puppet was supposed to be one of his many puppet masters up until just recently. It's all very confusing if you have a partially functioning memory but apparently the liberal media's memory only goes as far back as each morning they wake up and think of another way to dump on Bush, their own previous "truths" and claims be damned. Either that or they just want to take this chance to make fun of a po' dumb colored woman, which is always fun :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's been my impression that Bush has a certain agenda that his yes-men have been agreeing with him over, but that his cabinet has been playing to his prejudices so that they can acheive their own goals as well. So it goes both ways. And if she's one of the more intelligent cabinet members, I'm scared to think what the some of the dumber members are like.

This thread is just stupid. She's black and the guy doesn't like her. Must mean that he's racist and Liberal. Guess he should have drawn her as a white person, 'cause that wouldn't be racist.


So surely if a conservative cartoonist draws a picture of, oh I don't know, Kofi Annan, or Barack Obama, with huge lips, bare feet, and saying something like "I knows me all about book learnin but I's don't know nuttin 'bout workin in no gubmint" that it would just be written off as the cartoonist not liking them. You liberals make me sick. Your hypocracy is disgusting. You damn well know that if cartoons like this were about someone like Obama that you would be screaming racism with all your might but since in this case the target is a black conservative racism doesn't exist. Sickening

So surely if a conservative cartoonist draws a picture of, oh I don't know, Kofi Annan, or Barack Obama, with huge lips, bare feet, and saying something like "I knows me all about book learnin but I's don't know nuttin 'bout workin in no gubmint" that it would just be written off as the cartoonist not liking them.Probably. It would be an expression of the 'toonist's belief that Kofi is stupid. The rest is used by both sides in political cartoons to further emphasize who the person is via exagerration. It's hard to make someone black in a black and white cartoon. There are some, like the Boondocks, that can do it, but that's not cheap, and it's nearly impossible to do the political cartoon style of drawing using the method employed by that particular artist.

You liberals make me sick. Your hypocracy is disgusting.What hypocrisy? Can you demonstrate the hypocrisy using evidence? Or is this just your prejudice forcing you to assume? Why don't we assume? Because it makes an ASS out of yoU and ME.

You damn well know that if cartoons like this were about someone like Obama that you would be screaming racism with all your might but since in this case the target is a black conservative racism doesn't exist. SickeningActually (you see, you assumed), it would depend on the context and the intent. Remember, the sin is in the intent.



If you haven't noticed yet, I haven't offered my personal opinion on the comics. I do have one question for you. You complain that the Left is being hypocritical. So riddle me this: If the Left is being hypocritical because it is not expressing moral outrage at this, what does that make the Right for trying to suppress freedom, especially the First Amendment, which it claims the Left is against?

Yeah, it's been my impression that Bush has a certain agenda that his yes-men have been agreeing with him over, but that his cabinet has been playing to his prejudices so that they can acheive their own goals as well. So it goes both ways.

But but but, how can Bush be working towards his own agenda, I thought he was just a tool of big oil companies. That contention must be forgotten now that the exact opposite is the new liberal talking point.

And if she's one of the more intelligent cabinet members, I'm scared to think what the some of the dumber members are like.

Wow, you liberals must have an amazing standard of what intelligent is. Let's take a look at a little of Rice's mediocre resume shall we.

6 years as Stanford University's Provost and chief budget and academic officer.

Professor of Political Science and winner of the Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.

Member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control.

Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies.

Yes, very obviously a dunce and not nearly at the same intelligence level as such liberal messiahs like Ted Kennedy who was thrown out of Harvard for cheating on a Spanish exam.

But but but, how can Bush be working towards his own agenda, I thought he was just a tool of big oil companies. That contention must be forgotten now that the exact opposite is the new liberal talking point.
Oh please, can't you do anything more than whine, bitch, complain, and make stupid accusations that only an idiot would use? Do you consider yourself to be an idiot? (Hey, psst, try not to respond with the bull**** claim that I'm some Liberal intellectual elite who automatically thinks that you are stupid)

Wow, you liberals must have an amazing standard of what intelligent is. Let's take a look at a little of Rice's mediocre resume shall we.
You know, you really know how to abuse and rape the word "Liberal." If I were you, which thankfully I am not, I would stop using it because then I wouldn't have the slightest clue as to what it means.


6 years as Stanford University's Provost and chief budget and academic officer.

Professor of Political Science and winner of the Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.

Member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control.

Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies.

I see nothing that requires her to be unusually intelligent for the position that she no has. Maybe it's just that I believe that the "everyman" is just too stupid to handle certain jobs because I believe that our leaders should be much more intelligent than the average individual.

Yes, very obviously a dunce and not nearly at the same intelligence level as such liberal messiahs like Ted Kennedy who was thrown out of Harvard for cheating on a Spanish exam.
¿Español? No dije que don Ted es más inteligente.

If you haven't noticed yet, I haven't offered my personal opinion on the comics. I do have one question for you. You complain that the Left is being hypocritical. So riddle me this: If the Left is being hypocritical because it is not expressing moral outrage at this, what does that make the Right for trying to suppress freedom, especially the First Amendment, which it claims the Left is against?

Where is the right trying to suppress the First Amendment? Have the newspapers that ran these cartoons been shut down? Has Bush or any of the other evil righties taken any kind of action against this? No they haven't.

Just to let you know, because it seems liberals have trouble understanding this fact, freedom of speech does not mean others have to listen to what you say without being able to call you on it. It is your right to say what you want and it is just as much my right to say it is crap.
And it's the height of hypocracy for a liberal to talk about suppressing freedom when most liberals would put people in jail for committing the "crime" of not registering or applying with the government to exercise a RIGHT that is GUARANTEED by the very document most liberals so selectively cite.

thats why many socialists, commies and other progressives are in jails across america and europe for questioning the holocuast. talk about "backfiring" :rolleyes:
all this because they commited a hate crime.

Oh please, can't you do anything more than whine, bitch, complain, and make stupid accusations that only an idiot would use? Do you consider yourself to be an idiot? (Hey, psst, try not to respond with the bull**** claim that I'm some Liberal intellectual elite who automatically thinks that you are stupid)
What stupid accusations am I making? I'm just trying to keep up with the ever changing positions of liberals when it comes this. One day the President is a oil company tool, the next he is using those around him for his own personal agenda, the next he is a buffoon who is practically illiterate, then he is a liar who has manipulated and deceived millions, then he..... And real cute how you ask me if I consider myself to be an idiot then immediately hide behind the "do not respond that I am an elite who thinks you're stupid" routine. Be a little more original tough guy.


You know, you really know how to abuse and rape the word "Liberal." If I were you, which thankfully I am not, I would stop using it because then I wouldn't have the slightest clue as to what it means.

Is calling a liberal a liberal a no-no now? Please, tell me exactly what a liberal is then since I obviously don't know and have been asleep for the past 4 years. And I notice for good measure here you had to throw in insult number 2.


I see nothing that requires her to be unusually intelligent for the position that she no has. Maybe it's just that I believe that the "everyman" is just too stupid to handle certain jobs because I believe that our leaders should be much more intelligent than the average individual.

I'm sorry, I'm still trying to decipher just what the hell you are saying here. Are you saying that the "everyman" is a professor of political science, winner of major teaching awards, and member of groups on international studies? Are these credentials indicitive of the "average individual" and therefore not quite enough to qualify one for a high level cabinet position? What higher standard would you approve of and who exactly would you deem qualified to meet this standard? I'm sure you could think of many people better qualified since Rice's credentials are common and average.


¿Español? No dije que don Ted es más inteligente.

Then who, do tell, has better qualifications?

rice is not everyman.

thats why many socialists, commies and other progressives are in jails across america and europe for questioning the holocuast. talk about "backfiring" :rolleyes:
all this because they commited a hate crime.

Who in America is in jail for merely questioning the Holocaust?

rice is not everyman.

I know that, but from what I could decipher from flamer's post, he seemed to be saying that her credentials weren't very impressive and therefore she is an everyman. Although, the way he worded it I can't be sure that's what he was trying to say.

Who in America is in jail for merely questioning the Holocaust?

i forgot their names. one guy is a french intellectual. there are NOT holocaust denyers they simply had conspiracys that many deaths in Austwisz were faked. This is a controversial topic, my point is that many of its victims are not neo-nazi's but over-curious historians.

well, one must ask the question why bob dylan got kicked out of US. ;)

I know that, but from what I could decipher from flamer's post, he seemed to be saying that her credentials weren't very impressive and therefore she is an everyman. Although, the way he worded it I can't be sure that's what he was trying to say.

liberals oppose her simply because she is a conservative. they oppose her like they opposed margaret tetcher. why are people so psyched about her race and gender? tetcher was a very hardcore right-winger and she was a woman. she had more balls than carter and kenedy combined.

Where is the right trying to suppress the First Amendment? Have the newspapers that ran these cartoons been shut down? Has Bush or any of the other evil righties taken any kind of action against this? No they haven't.
Wow, I didn't know that the entire Right Wing had the power to shut down institutions. Mayhaps you should read this thread again. Look who is complaining. The Right. What are they complaining about? Rice is being made fun of in a political cartoon. That's not right! Jeez, grow up.

Just to let you know, because it seems liberals have trouble understanding this fact, freedom of speech does not mean others have to listen to what you say without being able to call you on it. It is your right to say what you want and it is just as much my right to say it is crap.
But to demand that this institution be shut down because it offers a dissenting view is not covered. That's what you guys want, accodring to the theme of this thread, and that's just not right.

And it's the height of hypocracy for a liberal to talk about suppressing freedom when most liberals would put people in jail for committing the "crime" of not registering or applying with the government to exercise a RIGHT that is GUARANTEED by the very document most liberals so selectively cite.
Uh? Huh? What? I don't follow? You need to expound on this generalization before I shall give any sort of response.


And Rice is nothing special in that one special organ. Perhaps it is the fact that I almost exclusively interact with those who are considered "above average" that I consider her to be only moderately intelligent and skilled. Then again, her psycho mindset might be having an adverse effect on my opinion of her intelligence.

personally, i dont like her.
i just dont. i like minneta and powell, though ;)

Danziger's work appears at first glance to be overtly racist and I can see how someone would take it that way. Having said that, Danziger defends himself thusly:

"In fact the idea for the cartoon was suggested to me by a friend who is African-American. It wasn't racist. Nor am I. I have been doing this for nearly thirty years, and any review of my work will prove that no racism attaches.

Further, I am a decorated Vietnam veteran who voted for Nixon once, GHW Bush twice and even for Bob Dole. So keep your labels.

Nothing racist about it at all. Just the standard lies told by a political operative, out of her depth, who happens to be African-American. Whenever this administration is in trouble they send out Condi Rice because the press, which is mostly white and male, gives her a far easier treatment than they would a white male."

http://redmindbluestate.********.com/2004/10/jeff-danziger-half-racist.html

The man's cartoonish attacks during the Clinton years include stuff like this:

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/cmp/1998/danziger197.html
Get caught,appeal to the "my black friend gave me the idea".

Yea.Right.

Get caught,appeal to the "my black friend gave me the idea".

Yea.Right.
I accuse you of being the racist one here. It was clearly Rice being depiced as an idiot. You, among others, then determine it to be an allegorical description of blacks.
But that's irrelevant to what I quoted. Let me attack that now. You just said that he can't use in his defense against accusations that the cartoon was racist that the individual who came up with it was from that race. In other words, you just stated that it is possible to be a racist bigot towards one's own race simply by making any sort of comment that could be contrued as being demeaning to a particular race. I guess when blacks use the word "*****" when speaking in ebonics is now hateful racism.
Please, think. Try it. Experiment with it.

that "bad word" means black. negro spanish - black
its that simple.

I accuse you of being the racist one here. It was clearly Rice being depiced as an idiot. You, among others, then determine it to be an allegorical description of blacks.
But that's irrelevant to what I quoted. Let me attack that now. You just said that he can't use in his defense against accusations that the cartoon was racist that the individual who came up with it was from that race. In other words, you just stated that it is possible to be a racist bigot towards one's own race simply by making any sort of comment that could be contrued as being demeaning to a particular race. I guess when blacks use the word "*****" when speaking in ebonics is now hateful racism.
Please, think. Try it. Experiment with it.
Go ahead. Its your last line of defense and a rather weak one at that.

Brown suger is simply saying she is an idiot.Need I say more on who is racist. :eek7:

the old strawman argument. I did not say that. he simply says his black friens and gives no name or evidence to back it up.You assume he is truthfull hear. I amd more skeptical as should you be.

Funny, according to armstrong williams{a blck colomnist, using the N word by blacks is just that. Dont take my word for it , take a fellow black mans.I would give the colum but since you clearly dont comprehind well....whats the point.

Go ahead. Its your last line of defense and a rather weak one at that.


too bad it's actually rather valid, and the only weakness here is featured in your "arguements" ...

If you think the majority of the cartoons are posted are racist....you're really off base.

Go ahead. Its your last line of defense and a rather weak one at that.
Last line of defense and weak? Well, if it were, then I would have focused exclusively on it, as opposed to arguing two additional points.

Brown suger is simply saying she is an idiot.Need I say more on who is racist.[/QUOTE]
"Brown Suger"? You come up with some crazy-ass claims.

the old strawman argument. I did not say that. he simply says his black friens and gives no name or evidence to back it up.You assume he is truthfull hear. I amd more skeptical as should you be.
Pronouns should not be used by you. You did say that.

Funny, according to armstrong williams{a blck colomnist, using the N word by blacks is just that. Dont take my word for it , take a fellow black mans.I would give the colum but since you clearly dont comprehind well....whats the point.
"That" being what? Is it meaningless? Or is it intentionally racist? One or the other. And I doubt that anyone could possibly "comprehind." Now if you want to accuse me of being unable to comprehend, then you are just bull****ting away. That's a waste of my time, and you shouldn't waste my time.

that "bad word" means black. negro spanish - black
its that simple.
"******" derives from negro, and it is derogatory. This is common knowledge. Y yo comprendo español.

too bad it's actually rather valid, and the only weakness here is featured in your "arguements" ...
ROFL If you only knew my family tree.

The last gasp of desperation is being puffed by you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6561960/

“I’m concerned that I have offended many African-Americans by using a crass term to describe an incompetent, dishonest political appointee of the Bush administration. I apologize,” wrote Sylvester, who is white.

Sylvester wrote he would not, however, apologize for criticizing Rice, saying “she has allowed herself to be used as a black trophy by an administration.”

He fanned the flames two days later by issuing an apology to the fictional Aunt Jemima. Sylvester has been sharply criticized by civic and civil rights leaders; NAACP president Kweisi Mfume said the attacks on Rice “are just as bad as those who hide under sheets and burn crosses.”


D@mmed rascist NAACP. :p

Radio DJ? When did I ever make any mention of any radio DJ? What? I didn't? There goes your whole case, sucka.

Radio DJ? When did I ever make any mention of any radio DJ? What? I didn't? There goes your whole case, sucka.


Switch to DJ since cartoons are a no-go :|

i think it's more anti-condoleeza


With the slur and the rocking chair and the aluminum tubes being a litter of children?

Again:

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/

Danziger is just mean to everyone.

Switch to DJ since cartoons are a no-go :|
Huh?

Huh?

FL: This thread is ridiculous. It starts out with cartoons and accusations of liberal racism and then, Cyllon switches to the subject of a radio DJ...

True, but it's still fun to let them feel like they have some sort of argument.

http://www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/2004/11/17/[/url


The deafning silence from the liberal sensitivity police, who would be all over a conservative cartoonist committed a similar offense ([url]http://www.mrc.org/mediawatch/1997/watch19970401.asp#5 second item), simply proves yet again the hypocrites on bigotry are liberals when it comes to race.This is usefull to know also{as if its a secret**.


It's very simple. Liberals use their constituents to further the liberal agenda, not to further the interests of the constituents. The NAACP, because of its silence in this matter, has destroyed what little credibility it had left. Similarly, NOW totally disgraced itself by backing Clinton when he did far more damaging things than people like Bob Packwood ever did, whom they excoriated.

Radio DJ? When did I ever make any mention of any radio DJ? What? I didn't? There goes your whole case, sucka.
He was included and you generalized. Dont blame me.

Post 23.

FL: This thread is ridiculous. It starts out with cartoons and accusations of liberal racism and then, Cyllon switches to the subject of a radio DJ...
No whats rediculous is you inability to follow the thread . As sulla mention and as post 23 does. :rolleyes:

Post 23 is where you quoted me. I had asked for background information on Danzinger. You quoted that from me and responded with something to the contrary; a DJ.

Also on post 23 you included more anti-condi non racist political cartoons.

He was included and you generalized. Dont blame me.

Post 23.No, I was rather specific in my limitation of my subject material. Don't blame me if you were too dense to see that.

It's very simple. Liberals use their constituents to further the liberal agenda, not to further the interests of the constituents. The NAACP, because of its silence in this matter, has destroyed what little credibility it had left. Similarly, NOW totally disgraced itself by backing Clinton when he did far more damaging things than people like Bob Packwood ever did, whom they excoriated.Uh, the constituency of Liberals is, well, Liberals. Go figure. The rest is totally worthless BS that has no basis in reality.

Post 23 is where you quoted me. I had asked for background information on Danzinger. You quoted that from me and responded with something to the contrary; a DJ.

Also on post 23 you included more anti-condi non racist political cartoons.
now you are just lying to cover your butt.

here is what I posted, not a quote from you.

Madison, Wisconsin A radio host named John Sylvester. On the air Wednesday, he called Dr. Rice "Aunt Jemima" (after the black woman on the pancake mix box) and Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom." His reasoning? "I was aiming that directly at a black person that is letting himself (and herself) be used by an administration that has been extremely hostile to minorities."

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Another radio talk show host is drawing criticism in Wisconsin. Madison's mayor and Senator Russ Feingold are critical of Madison's John "Sly" Sylvester for calling Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima." Sylvester is program director and morning personality on W-T-D-Y-A-M in Madison. He says he used the term Wednesday to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration.

Hows that?
Isee and so do alot of others.
http://www.kdth.com/LocalNews.cfm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139031,00.html

No, I was rather specific in my limitation of my subject material. Don't blame me if you were too dense to see that.


you were braodand general not minutely specific.

Be careful how you paraphrase. I stated that I was "rather specific," not "minutely specific." The difference in terminology is significant.
And no, I was not broad and general. I actually kept on referring to the cartoonist and his political cartoon. Unless visuals can now be transmitted via radio, I don't see the relevance of a DJ.
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=849440&postcount=49
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=849359&postcount=38
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=849110&postcount=34
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67452&page=3&pp=20
Notice I constantly mention the political cartoon or the cartoonist. Demonstrate where I referenced the DJ.
Thought so.
You should apologize now for acting so stupid and making such ridiculous accusations against me.

now you are just lying to cover your butt.

here is what I posted, not a quote from you.

Oh so you're saying you didn't quote me in post 23 and type below "Google is your friend" GEES. LMAO. And I'm being accused of lying!!!

Madison, Wisconsin A radio host named John Sylvester. On the air Wednesday, he called Dr. Rice "Aunt Jemima" (after the black woman on the pancake mix box) and Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom." His reasoning? "I was aiming that directly at a black person that is letting himself (and herself) be used by an administration that has been extremely hostile to minorities."

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Another radio talk show host is drawing criticism in Wisconsin. Madison's mayor and Senator Russ Feingold are critical of Madison's John "Sly" Sylvester for calling Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima." Sylvester is program director and morning personality on W-T-D-Y-A-M in Madison. He says he used the term Wednesday to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration.

Hows that?
Isee and so do alot of others.
http://www.kdth.com/LocalNews.cfm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139031,00.html

Danzinger's not a liberal, and his cartoon is racist. Therefore justify your thread title without diverting the attention of the thread to another topic.

Be careful how you paraphrase. I stated that I was "rather specific," not "minutely specific." The difference in terminology is significant.
And no, I was not broad and general. I actually kept on referring to the cartoonist and his political cartoon. Unless visuals can now be transmitted via radio, I don't see the relevance of a DJ.
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=849440&postcount=49
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=849359&postcount=38
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=849110&postcount=34
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67452&page=3&pp=20
Notice I constantly mention the political cartoon or the cartoonist. Demonstrate where I referenced the DJ.
Thought so.
You should apologize now for acting so stupid and making such ridiculous accusations against me.
Nice try with the isolated single post bit. I guess a context is really garlic to old dracula.

You should appologise for liabling me dear.

Oh so you're saying you didn't quote me in post 23 and type below GOOGLE. GEES. LMAO. And I'm being accused of lying!!!



Danzinger's not a liberal, and his cartoon is racist. Therefore justify your thread title without diverting the attention of the thread to another topic.
More lawyeriez evasion.

her it is dumbed down so even YOu can understand.

I posted the radio guy in response{thats me talking** to the quote you made prevoius.

Now you come back and say I nevr mentiond him. See, I did. I did not say You mentioned him.. Get your own gripe strait please. :eek7:

Not liberal. Says you. Besides the thread is much broader than just him. But why should we expect you to even know that elementery factoid. :rolleyes:

Nice try with the isolated single post bit. I guess a context is really garlic to old dracula.
Look at any of my posts. Never did I go beyond the limited scope of the first post. The first post was about a political cartoon.

You should appologise for liabling me dear.
Apologize? Me? For you doing something that stupid, and still being unable to admit that you screwed up? It'll be a cold day in Hell first.

I did look. You are a waste of time.
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/spezial/roderick/ups.gif

Must be a Texas thing to not be able to admit when you've screwed up.

You have to be first. see ,unlike you ,we dont confes under presure to things we did not do.

You have to be first. see ,unlike you ,we dont confes under presure to things we did not do.
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=851886&postcount=67

Well, that's your post claiming that I generalized such that I included anything other than certain political cartoons within my point of debate. I then proceeded to point out your error, which you denied as existing. So ignoring your first sentence for it makes no sense within the context of your post, I posit that you continue to live in denial over your mistake.

I have experienced more bigotry on here from the left than from any nut case white supremecist. I have been called a homo, traitor to my race, oreo, Uncle Tom; told I should act black by many, talk black, get out of "dodge" etc. All this from the tolerant left. :rolleyes:

Wow, all that from one person, so it automatically translates to the universal standard. Yeah, that's just stupid.

I have been called a homo, traitor to my race, oreo, Uncle Tom;
Well, if someone called you all that, he certainly wasn't a liberal ...
A leftist maybe, but not a liberal .
The left, but not the "tolerant left"

Wow, all that from one person, so it automatically translates to the universal standard. Yeah, that's just stupid.

That statement is uninformed (stupid for those with a liberal education). The fact is Truth Teller, Criminal, among others reinforced those statements. I have rec'd emails besides the post expressing those same thoughts. Since you fail to condemn that racism I will include you in the support of it. Remembert what Abbie Hoffman said, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=851886&postcount=67

Well, that's your post claiming that I generalized such that I included anything other than certain political cartoons within my point of debate. I then proceeded to point out your error, which you denied as existing. So ignoring your first sentence for it makes no sense within the context of your post, I posit that you continue to live in denial over your mistake.
Blah blah blah. Seems the racist , mistake and all the rest are very clear. :p

That statement is uninformed (stupid for those with a liberal education). The fact is Truth Teller, Criminal, among others reinforced those statements. I have rec'd emails besides the post expressing those same thoughts. Since you fail to condemn that racism I will include you in the support of it. Remembert what Abbie Hoffman said, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."
Where did I condone or support such actions? And I came to the conclusion based off of your previous bitching and your current sig. Post some of these alleged e-mails. I'm curious to see them. And frankly, this is a two way street. I have received five hundred twenty some death threats because I have openly spoken out against the War in Iraq. So much for Compassionate Conservatives, eh?

Blah blah blah. Seems the racist , mistake and all the rest are very clear. :p
Write coherently (that means that you need to rewrite this in English, but I'll take español).

Where did I condone or support such actions? And I came to the conclusion based off of your previous bitching and your current sig. Post some of these alleged e-mails. I'm curious to see them. And frankly, this is a two way street. I have received five hundred twenty some death threats because I have openly spoken out against the War in Iraq. So much for Compassionate Conservatives, eh? I am talking about emails, PMs, from people on here. YOur stance on the war lengthens it and results in more deaths, including those of American soldiers. I for one, do not condone death threats, even for Amercan liberals. We are a nation of laws and should not tolerate anonymous threats.(If they weren't anonymous, that is a different story.) You can act awfully stupid. By your lack of condemnation for racial, religious bigotry, you condone it.

YOur stance on the war lengthens it and results in more deaths, including those of American soldiers.

lol
that's a bloody stupid thing to say .
the stance of Flaming Liberal LENGTHENS the war by itself ?
Looking for pathetic excuses or what ?

Well, if someone called you all that, he certainly wasn't a liberal ...
A leftist maybe, but not a liberal .
The left, but not the "tolerant left" - I'll have to agree here. Neither TT nor Anarky are liberals.

I think its F-ing hilarious. What the hell, they make fun of Ms Rice but so what? She's a public figure in a high position and she just so happens to be black. Anyway, its absolutely true that she is just Bush's puppet.

lol
that's a bloody stupid thing to say .
the stance of Flaming Liberal LENGTHENS the war by itself ?
Looking for pathetic excuses or what ?

Actually, I was speaking about US citizens who oppose the war. Just as it did in Viet Nam, opposition lengthened the war and caused more casualties. HO Chi Min himself stated such. OBL has also stated that if he inflicts enough casualties the US will fold up its tent and go home. That is historical fact.

IN view of the facts, it was a bloody stupid thing for you to say.

Actually, I was speaking about US citizens who oppose the war. Just as it did in Viet Nam, opposition lengthened the war and caused more casualties. HO Chi Min himself stated such. OBL has also stated that if he inflicts enough casualties the US will fold up its tent and go home. That is historical fact.

IN view of the facts, it was a bloody stupid thing for you to say.


no
you are purposedly inverting the cause and consequences :
Losses make liberal "bitching" and that, possibly, causes the country to withdraw .
and NOT as you put it, liberal bitching causes losses witch makes the country withdraw ...

I think its F-ing hilarious. What the hell, they make fun of Ms Rice but so what? She's a public figure in a high position and she just so happens to be black. Anyway, its absolutely true that she is just Bush's puppet.

But the criticism is because she is black. Aunt Jemimah is a racist label. And hasn't the left been saying that Bush was her puppet. I thought uyou guys thought he was too stupid to be anyones puppet master.

YOu cna make fun of the gap in her teeth, her politics, her piano playing. But when you make race the issue it is racist. Just as you made my race the issue in your disagreement with me. I dont' call you stupid because you are white. YOur stupidity has nothing to do with your race. See the difference?

no
you are purposedly inverting the cause and consequences :
Losses make liberal "bitching" and that, possibly, causes the country to withdraw .
and NOT as you put it, liberal bitching causes losses witch makes the country withdraw ...

Not true, it is you who has it backward. Read the writings on Uncle Ho, especially post war. It was his goal not to negotiate, to let the anit war crowd in the US do his fighting. His strategy, brilliant in its simplicity and success, was to prolong the war until the left made it impoosible in the US to continue. This is historical fact.

OBL is doing the same thing. His strategy is to let the antiwar crowd win, by refusing to negotiate, inflicting steady level of casualties, military and civilian, he hopes the left will force a change in the US position, and eventual withdrawal.

Is anyone offereing to act as an honest broker between the US and OBL to stop the fighting? Off course not, OBL won't negotiate, doesn't have to as long as he has the sympathies of the left, or at least the alliance of the anti US crowd.

I am talking about emails, PMs, from people on here.
Name names.

YOur stance on the war lengthens it and results in more deaths, including those of American soldiers.
This is just stupid. Silence expedites war. Yeah, right.

I for one, do not condone death threats, even for Amercan liberals. We are a nation of laws and should not tolerate anonymous threats.(If they weren't anonymous, that is a different story.)
Fifty fifty. Some anonymous, the rest were people telling them to my face, usually demonstrating in the air how they were going to gut me.

You can act awfully stupid. By your lack of condemnation for racial, religious bigotry, you condone it.
Where have I not condemned racial or religious bigotry? And how does that equate to stupidity?
Thinking about this for a moment, I think that the psychological event of projection is occurring here. You need to seek help. This is not healthy.

Not true, it is you who has it backward. Read the writings on Uncle Ho, especially post war.

Listen, I don't care a flying **** about what Ho Chi Minh said, or wether Eistein once said that the earth was flat .
Point is, you have said an enormous logical absurdity .

I guess we were kicking ass and taking names in Vietnam. I suppose that we really didn't encounter that much resistance. Makes you wonder why everyone who came back had some sort of psychological problem, why many of those who came back protested the war. To accuse the anti-war crowd of being the reason that we lost the war is to completely ignore history.

OBL has been invited to do negotiations?

Listen, I don't care a flying **** about what Ho Chi Minh said, or wether Eistein once said that the earth was flat .
Point is, you have said an enormous logical absurdity .

Then show it. First understand I did not say or imply what you said I did. I did say once the war starts, antiwar activity prolongs it, the enemy seizes the opportunity to wear down the opposition, using the anti war crowd as an ally.

YOu should care what Uncle HO, said, it was his strategy, it worked. This is not my opinion, it is what he did. It worked. The fact that it worked proves he was a pretty smart guy. HO had absolutely no reason to negotiate an end to the war.

Point is, your rejection of fact is an enormous logical absurdity.

I guess we were kicking ass and taking names in Vietnam. I suppose that we really didn't encounter that much resistance. Makes you wonder why everyone who came back had some sort of psychological problem, why many of those who came back protested the war. To accuse the anti-war crowd of being the reason that we lost the war is to completely ignore history.

But I didn't do any of those things, did I? We lost the war mainly because it was a political blunder, not a military blunder. We encountered a lot of resistance in VN. I have two purple hearts and some royal pains as reminders of that resistance. I have seven friends who were taken prisoner and executed because they were wounded. I had a friend named Cosmo who lost fingers when a prisoner because he refused to kill his own men.

NOt everyone came back has a psych problem, most don't. Most do remember the horrors of combat, that is as it should be. That is absolutely the dumbest statement you have uttered so far. Speak authoritatively out of ignorance.

I'll use smaller words for you. I NEVER said we lost the war because of the antiwar crowd. The war was lost the day it started. The war was prolonged because of the antiwar crowd. Prolonging war causes casualties.

Look, Ho might have said that, but he'd still need the guns, men, and strategy to make sure that America did not win or improve. People complaining back home won't change the strategy with which a war is fought. You claim that because I do not support this war, it will be prolonged. Okay, how will supporting the war shorten it? Can you prove this either way? No. The fact of the matter is that you're making a bunch of claims that you cannot prove, and that there is no real way to disprove, except through logical deduction and common sense, both of which you have been denying.

But I didn't do any of those things, did I? We lost the war mainly because it was a political blunder, not a military blunder. We encountered a lot of resistance in VN. I have two purple hearts and some royal pains as reminders of that resistance. I have seven friends who were taken prisoner and executed because they were wounded. I had a friend named Cosmo who lost fingers when a prisoner because he refused to kill his own men.
Whose asking you if you did any of those things. America is the "we." Okay, so your friends messed up and/or killed. Don't see how that relates to your premise that it was a political blunder and not a military blunder. And if we were doing so well militarily, then why was it such a quagmire? We sure as hell didn't make any progress.

NOt everyone came back has a psych problem, most don't. Most do remember the horrors of combat, that is as it should be. That is absolutely the dumbest statement you have uttered so far. Speak authoritatively out of ignorance.
Ever had dreams about Vietnam? Psychological trauma, however minute, exists within all of us. Vietnam veterans happen to share that one trauma together. And believe me, I know what I'm talking about.

I'll use smaller words for you. I NEVER said we lost the war because of the antiwar crowd. The war was lost the day it started. The war was prolonged because of the antiwar crowd. Prolonging war causes casualties.
You're going to feel so stupid now. Okay, your position is that the war would have ended sooner had everyone supported it. Okay. You also posit that the war was lost from the beginning. Okay, so how would we have lost the war faster if nobody complained about it? It makes no sense. Your language isn't the issue, it's your failure to use logic.

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=851886&postcount=67

Well, that's your post claiming that I generalized such that I included anything other than certain political cartoons within my point of debate. I then proceeded to point out your error, which you denied as existing. So ignoring your first sentence for it makes no sense within the context of your post, I posit that you continue to live in denial over your mistake..........Write coherently (that means that you need to rewrite this in English, but I'll take español).You use blah blha and its self evident inteligence. Some one else does and the insult bag opens.
see previous. The posts are not general and neither is the topic. You proved a nice atempter at dancing around the issue but little else.http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/fatguy1.JPG

What the **** are you writing? Can somebody please give me a Cyllon to English translation of whatever that post states? Please, I'd love to actually be able to comprehend that.

Look, Ho might have said that, but he'd still need the guns, men, and strategy to make sure that America did not win or improve. People complaining back home won't change the strategy with which a war is fought. You claim that because I do not support this war, it will be prolonged. Okay, how will supporting the war shorten it? Can you prove this either way? No. The fact of the matter is that you're making a bunch of claims that you cannot prove, and that there is no real way to disprove, except through logical deduction and common sense, both of which you have been denying.

Well for starters your premise is wrong. Ho had plenty of men, and no shortage of weaponry of any kind. We were fighting on his terms, so his strategy was valid, proof is it worked. First, he had the weaponry and resources because we did not deny them to him. We had the ability to do so, but decided not to "escalate" hostilities. "Escalate" and "De-escalate" were popular catch phrases of the day.

Second you are linking guns men and strategy, implying he had no plan to achieve victory. He had the guns men and the strategy, he publicly stated what that strategy was, just like OBL is still doing. Uncle HO's strategy is a matter of historical fact, public record if you will. For you to say he had no strategy just shows you do not understand the history of the war, or don't know what strategy means.

OBL has an endless supply of men and guns. His strategy is almost exactly the same, he intends to cause enough casualties to make the US cry "uncle." He believes this because this strategy has worked in the past, darn near every time. It worked in Lebanon and Somalia for instance. It worked in Afghanistan against the Russians. HE thinks it will work now, and he looks to people like you to help him.

My opinion is, it is the reason he doesn't want to stop fighting. He has no shortage of men or weapons, and TIME is on his side. This is the reason he doesn't want to negotiate, what is there to negotiate from OBLs point of view? He is not hurting us militarily, (as an aside we are gaining valuable combat training, this is hard to teach in a classroom, I used to do it.) He has most of the press on his side, and no signs of changing. The New York Times has run the ABu Grhab prison brouhaha 41 times on the front page. How many front page stories have you seen in the TImes about the slaughter rooms uncovered in Fallujah? How about the stories, films etc showing the unbelievable torture and execution of thousands of people? NOne of these make it to the Times or any other major news outlets. Since the total emphasis is on the US, he only has to wait, support for the war will keep eroding, he will win Iraq. The real question is what will he do next when he does.

I will try to use deduction, logic and common sense to educate you, but it won't do any good because it is not your intention to learn anything. You can't teach someone anything who already knows everything. Adn yo have pretty much told that in any discussion you are too smart for me.

A few things. OBL is not in command of the Iraqi forces, last I checked. Ho's strategy was to use the anti-war crowd to wear down resistance. Okay, let's say you're right. How would eliminating this support have won us the war, or made us pull out faster? And how would we have eliminated their weapons sources. Considering who was arming them, I'm curious to know what your solution would be.
OBL's strategy is to use terror and militant fundamentalists to eliminate the Western World. Pulling out of Iraq is something that he would like to see, but I seriously doubt that he has the capacity right now to do that. And the press is not on OBL's side. Even though you think it is, it's not. The press reports what it believes will get it the most money. Americans aren't interested in seeing torture chambers and things like that. We already know about those things. America is much more interested in what our troops are doing. They're more interested in the dirty scandals than in the real news. That's what makes them money. And all for-profit media wants to do is make money.


Your last paragraph perplexes me. Care to expound on that?

A few things. OBL is not in command of the Iraqi forces, last I checked.
It is Zarquawi, but OBL could end it if he chose. Z is his Lt. I'm trying to deal with the big picture here, not just Iraq but the AQ vs US war.

Ho's strategy was to use the anti-war crowd to wear down resistance. Okay, let's say you're right. How would eliminating this support have won us the war, or made us pull out faster? And how would we have eliminated their weapons sources. Considering who was arming them, I'm curious to know what your solution would be.
I see you still don't understand. I don't know if that is due to my simple minded explanation or you are blinded by your agenda. I will assume a bit of both.

If there was no anti-war crowd in the US, and if all the demonstrations in the US were to demand the US win the war, there would have been a different outcome. First, Ho would have had a reason to negotiate, since if the US kept fighting, it could outlast HO. So HO would have had to adopt a different strategy. Other countries would have offered to broker a peace. We should have issued a formal declaration of war. We should have treated any nation dealing with the North as hostile. (This is one thing I do agree with Bush on. You are either with us or against us.) If you can't have that attitude, the war is probably not worth fighting. From this point I will have to guess since that is not what occurred. If the US had inposed a gov't on S Nam, one that provided education, food, medical care to its citizens, along with security and opportunity, the populace would have fought differently, and would not have been intimidated by NV or VC. It would have had to make the gov't corruption free. EVery time you found an officer dealing in corruption, he should have been shot in public and his body hung in the village square as an example of what happens to corrupt gov't officials.
You have heard a lot about all the war crimes committed by the US, especially in the last election, ( I still can't fathom why the left would want to elect a murdering war criminal, but that is another topic) What no one ever seems to bring up is all the war crimes committed by the Reds. Do you have any idea how many disembowelled women I have seen? Do you know how long it takes someone to die with their intestines hanging out? If you had a wife or daughter, or any family at all you had a powerful incentive to help the VC and not help the ARVN or the US.
The US should have imposed an embargo on NOrth Viet Nam. It should have allowed unrestricted bombing of the North. You have heard about "carpet bombing" I'm sure. Did you know it was the jungle that was carpet bombed? Not a city or town to my knowledge was ever carpet bombed in that war. (I have seen bombs jettisoned, and they can land in the worst places but that is a flight crew decision if they have time to make it.) All ports and industrial areas should have been legit targets, even for carpet bombing.
I dont' know if this is even possible in this day and age, but once the decision to go to war is made, the generals should fight it. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon did more to muck things up than any soldier fielded by the enemy. YOu are seeing that again in Iraq. The civilians running the war. We should amend the Constitution to say you can't fight without a declaration of war, and once the Declaration is made, the generals are in charge.
Last, and you really won't understand this, the war was a huge waste and should never have been fought the way we did. Fighting communism is a good thing. But it should not be at the expense of our humanity. I think I would have driven my son to prison before I would have let him go to Nam, probably would have disowned him if he went to Canada, but I did three tours. To a degree I was young and stupid. I did it not to save my country, but serve it, ( I had taken an oath) but mostly I did it to help, help my friends survive, help the new guys survive, and give a lot of civilians the chance to survive. It is the same reason I went to Nicaragua with Cosmo and a couple of others, not support Somoza but to support freedom. Hell Somoza was gone, it was Ortega the Red that was the threat. CA and his crowd will never understand that part. Communism is an ugly brutal system that enslaves its victims. I don't believe people should be slaves.


OBL's strategy is to use terror and militant fundamentalists to eliminate the Western World. Pulling out of Iraq is something that he would like to see, but I seriously doubt that he has the capacity right now to do that. And the press is not on OBL's side. Even though you think it is, it's not.I dont think the press is on the side of OBL, never said that. The press in not on the side of the US, it is slanted so far left it will print and report anything that hurts the country. The press reports what it believes will get it the most money. Most journalists would disagree with that. They will tell you that they became journalists to "change" the way things are in the US. Most of the press is controlled by the left. Please dont' tell me corporations, that idea is so stupid and self contradictory it never ceases to amaze me.Americans aren't interested in seeing torture chambers and things like that. We already know about those things. America is much more interested in what our troops are doing. They're more interested in the dirty scandals than in the real news. That's what makes them money. And all for-profit media wants to do is make money. How do you explain Dan Rather's presence on CBS then? HIs ratings are worse than the test pattern, it is costing CBS millions to keep him there. Scandals of anykind are news, but that doesn't explain why the NYT had the AG scandal on the front page 41 times, about 4 times more than any other paper. Adn those copies never sold more than any other paper.After the first week, did you know any more about Abu Grab than the first day? Heck the NYT doesn't give that much coverage to the UN scandal and that is a big juicy one involving sex, billions of dollars and the top officials of the UN, France, Iraq, Syria etc. Can you explain that one? IF it was only money they would be covering it. No, the NYT has an agenda, it has convinced a lot of people that Bush is a right wing christian fundamentalist, when he is not right wing by any stretch, and Kerry spent evey Sunday in Church preaching before the election, but no one ever called him a Jesus freak. See the difference? It is not only money.

I went on too long. I think I will go to bed.


Your last paragraph perplexes me. Care to expound on that? YOu are much smarter than that. What part don't you understand?

What the **** are you writing? Can somebody please give me a Cyllon to English translation of whatever that post states? Please, I'd love to actually be able to comprehend that.
keep floping.

http://pages.prodigy.net/bestsmileys1/emoticons3/dofin2.gif

Somebody, anybody, translate Cyllon's posts into a real language.

What the **** are you writing? Can somebody please give me a Cyllon to English translation of whatever that post states? Please, I'd love to actually be able to comprehend that.
LOL :rofl:

I guess we were kicking ass and taking names in Vietnam. I suppose that we really didn't encounter that much resistance. Makes you wonder why everyone who came back had some sort of psychological problem, why many of those who came back protested the war. To accuse the anti-war crowd of being the reason that we lost the war is to completely ignore history.

I didn't accuse the anti war crowd of being the reason we lost the war. We lost the war for other reasons, probably the day we decided to take over from the French, the war was lost.

Whose asking you if you did any of those things. America is the "we." [b]You stated that I accused the war crowd of being the reason we lost the war, I didn't do that. I took great pains to point out that is not the case. For a guy that keeps telling me how much smarter you are than me your lack of comprehension is amazing. Okay, so your friends messed up and/or killed. Messed up or killed? Bieng executed is messed up? :rolleyes: YOu are really an idiot. Don't see how that relates to your premise that it was a political blunder and not a military blunder. And if we were doing so well militarily, then why was it such a quagmire? We sure as hell didn't make any progress. It was a war planned by, and directed by politicians. There was no militray objective. The goal was never to "win." I dispute your claim that we were doing so well militarily. It is true we lost few battles, some, but not many, but since there was no clear military objective, it is pretty difficult to support your claim that we were doing well militarily. But then you've been wrong about most of this.


Ever had dreams about Vietnam? Psychological trauma, however minute, exists within all of us. Vietnam veterans happen to share that one trauma together. And believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I believed you when you said you were a lot smarter than I, I am not about to believe another wopper. One thing you have proved to me is you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


You're going to feel so stupid now. Actually thelonger you pratle the smarter I feel. Okay, your position is that the war would have ended sooner had everyone supported it. Okay. You also posit that the war was lost from the beginning. Okay, so how would we have lost the war faster if nobody complained about it? It makes no sense. Your language isn't the issue, it's your failure to use logic.

I think the failure is on your end. The war may have ended sooner because Ho might have negotiated a truce. His statement was that as long as the antiwar crowd grew, carried on, he could merely outwait us and win. He would never negotiate with a country that wasn't trying to win the war.

Now that is his position, not mine, although I undestand and agree with it.

I think his strategy was brilliant on a number of accounts.

It is I think a major part of the strategy used by OBL in Iraq. (Yes I know he isn't there the last time you looked). Why would any Al Qaeda fighter quit when he sees that even US citizens are agreeing with OBL that we are only there for oil, to control, occupy Muslim land and rape it of its resources?

But the criticism is because she is black. Aunt Jemimah is a racist label. And hasn't the left been saying that Bush was her puppet. I thought uyou guys thought he was too stupid to be anyones puppet master.

YOu cna make fun of the gap in her teeth, her politics, her piano playing. But when you make race the issue it is racist. Just as you made my race the issue in your disagreement with me. I dont' call you stupid because you are white. YOur stupidity has nothing to do with your race. See the difference?
I myself would never call another person an Uncle Tom because I am white and its not my place to say who is fit to be a "real" black. But the cartoons show Ms Rice as a stooge of the president. I do not see these cartoons as being racist all that much. If they showed someone like Dick Chaney the same way I would find it just as funny.

I do happen to think Bush himself is also a puppet of US oil interests and the military industrial complex and so what if he is surrounded by other puppets. We live in a world of illusions and nothing is ever as it seems. The only difference between Bush supporters and those against him, IMHO, is that those of us against him are able to see the game he is playing.

[b]You stated that I accused the war crowd of being the reason we lost the war, I didn't do that. I took great pains to point out that is not the case. For a guy that keeps telling me how much smarter you are than me your lack of comprehension is amazing. Messed up or killed? Bieng executed is messed up? :rolleyes: YOu are really an idiot. It was a war planned by, and directed by politicians. There was no militray objective. The goal was never to "win." I dispute your claim that we were doing so well militarily. It is true we lost few battles, some, but not many, but since there was no clear military objective, it is pretty difficult to support your claim that we were doing well militarily. But then you've been wrong about most of this.
Okay, you claimed that the anti-war crowd prolonged the war beyond what it should have taken, and the same thing is being done in Iraq. Knowing what we know about Ho, OBL, and the terrorists currently operating in Iraq, we know that negotiations will never occur with them. It's beyond their capacity to capitulate to the West. It would be like Israel surrendering to Hitler.
I like how you called me an idiot for allegedly stating that I considered being executed the same as being "messed up." Well, that was very stupid of you to claim because the "and/or killed" covers executions. You see, it means that your friends were messed up and then killed, just killed, or just messed up (I couldn't think of a better word to cover the physical and psychological torture that they went through).
My position is that we didn't do well military. It looks like we agree, but you just didn't comprehend my post. And there was a clear military objective: drive all Communists out of Vietnam. Well, we failed that one. Yes, that was the goal set by politicians, but it required the military to achieve it. In Vietnam, the concept of "battles" was still operating under the old standard. It changed after Vietnam. We learned quite a bit from our experience in Vietnam, including the fact that battles aren't quite what we expected. Even though we won plenty of battles, we were still losing the war. This you have to agree on if you want to stay consistent.

I believed you when you said you were a lot smarter than I, I am not about to believe another wopper. One thing you have proved to me is you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
When did I ever state that I am smarter than you?

Actually thelonger you pratle the smarter I feel.
It's called being delusional. If you still feel more intelligent after reading this post, then you're in denial.

I think the failure is on your end. The war may have ended sooner because Ho might have negotiated a truce. His statement was that as long as the antiwar crowd grew, carried on, he could merely outwait us and win. He would never negotiate with a country that wasn't trying to win the war.

Now that is his position, not mine, although I undestand and agree with it.
I disagree. Ho would not have negotiated a truce with us because on fundamental level, he viewed us as an enemy that could not be tolerated. He would never truly negotiate.

I think his strategy was brilliant on a number of accounts.
I disagree, but let's not press this issue.

It is I think a major part of the strategy used by OBL in Iraq. (Yes I know he isn't there the last time you looked). Why would any Al Qaeda fighter quit when he sees that even US citizens are agreeing with OBL that we are only there for oil, to control, occupy Muslim land and rape it of its resources?[/QUOTE]
Would they quit if we supported this country's actions over there? No. Why? Because they would then see it as a confirmation of Western Tyranny. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I didn't accuse the anti war crowd of being the reason we lost the war. We lost the war for other reasons, probably the day we decided to take over from the French, the war was lost.
Whatever.

Okay, you claimed that the anti-war crowd prolonged the war beyond what it should have taken, and the same thing is being done in Iraq. Knowing what we know about Ho, OBL, and the terrorists currently operating in Iraq, we know that negotiations will never occur with them. It's beyond their capacity to capitulate to the West. It would be like Israel surrendering to Hitler.
I like how you called me an idiot for allegedly stating that I considered being executed the same as being "messed up." Well, that was very stupid of you to claim because the "and/or killed" covers executions. You see, it means that your friends were messed up and then killed, just killed, or just messed up (I couldn't think of a better word to cover the physical and psychological torture that they went through).
My position is that we didn't do well military. It looks like we agree, but you just didn't comprehend my post. And there was a clear military objective: drive all Communists out of Vietnam. Well, we failed that one. Yes, that was the goal set by politicians, but it required the military to achieve it. In Vietnam, the concept of "battles" was still operating under the old standard. It changed after Vietnam. We learned quite a bit from our experience in Vietnam, including the fact that battles aren't quite what we expected. Even though we won plenty of battles, we were still losing the war. This you have to agree on if you want to stay consistent.


When did I ever state that I am smarter than you?


It's called being delusional. If you still feel more intelligent after reading this post, then you're in denial.


I disagree. Ho would not have negotiated a truce with us because on fundamental level, he viewed us as an enemy that could not be tolerated. He would never truly negotiate.


I disagree, but let's not press this issue.

It is I think a major part of the strategy used by OBL in Iraq. (Yes I know he isn't there the last time you looked). Why would any Al Qaeda fighter quit when he sees that even US citizens are agreeing with OBL that we are only there for oil, to control, occupy Muslim land and rape it of its resources
Would they quit if we supported this country's actions over there? No. Why? Because they would then see it as a confirmation of Western Tyranny. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Whatever. Whatever.

Start another thread about Viet Nam instead of hijacking this one.

Driving the reds out of South Viet Nam was not a military objective, not even startegic really, since the Viet Cong were South Vietnamese.

But assume that was the strategic objective, what was/were the tactical military objectives?

Adn you are worng about Ho negotiating, he did do it you know.

This thread is dead. The subject of this thread was set under false pretenses and ignorant prejudices.