Holy Sh@t, what did you do America??

[helpmespock]

And outside the workplace the situation is even more bleak in that there is almost no significant interaction between us.

Fuck him, here are two photos from my superbowl party Sunday feb 1 2009, outside the workplace, long after my last shift at one of my houses...... these are coworkers and friends,







the only strained relations were between me and those stinkin steelers fans who got the last laugh thanks to Santonio Holmes....

[wil]

Here is an article that just happened to come up today on National Review Online. I realize some may dismiss it solely because of the source, but I think it echoes what I said, so I’m posting it.

Cowardly Conversation Starter
Enthralled to a cliché.

By Jonah Goldberg

Hey, black folks, do you know any white folks? Good. O.K., I want you to go up to them right now and, as politely as you can, start sharing your most deeply held racial views. Hey, white folks, you’re not off the hook. I want you to go and do likewise with any black people you know.

Don’t want to do that? Really? Well, then, you’re a coward.

That’s the short version of Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech this week celebrating Black History Month.

Holder says we are “a nation of cowards” because we’re unwilling to discuss race to his satisfaction. Some might say that’s an ironic diagnosis given that Holder is the first black attorney general, appointed by the first black president of the United States.

Nonetheless, Holder thinks the answer to our racial problems is for more people of different colors to talk about how race defines them. He suggests using the “artificial device” of Black History Month “to generate discussion that should come more naturally” but doesn’t.

Well, in the spirit of full and frank discussion, let me say I have some problems with Holder’s analysis.

The first thing worth pointing out is that Holder is wrong. America talks about race incessantly, in classrooms, lecture halls, movies, oped pages, books, magazines, talk shows, just about every third PBS documentary by my count, blogs, diversity training sessions and, yes, even mandatory Black History Month events.

In fairness, Holder seems vaguely aware of this. The hitch is that he thinks this isn’t nearly enough racial argy-bargy. We’ve got to work the balm of racial dialogue deep into the muscle and sinew of the body politic.

My biggest objection to Holder’s speech is that it reveals how enthralled to a cliché he is. Look, despite the bold tone of his remarks, this is just a terribly hackneyed idea. People have been calling for a national dialogue for years. Twelve years ago, Bill Clinton even proclaimed a whole year would be dedicated to a national conversation on race.

Assuming Holder is serious, who says more talk would make things better? Is there some social science to back up this talking point posing as wisdom? Have there been studies showing that if you force blacks and whites to talk endlessly about race, race relations improve? If so, is the research any good? Or is this liberal conventional wisdom masquerading as something else?

Perhaps Holder envisions a national conversation where the whole country becomes a giant School of Athens, with blacks as Socrates and whites as Plato, eagerly taking instruction on the finer points of racial consciousness. The image that comes to my mind is different. I see Michael Scott, the hyper-vapid boss from NBC’s The Office, hectoring Stanley and Darryl — the show’s two black characters — to make race an issue when it shouldn’t be.

Americans are very good at hearing ideological appeals, but we’re almost tone-deaf when it comes to clichés. That’s why liberals hide so much of their agenda inside them. Say “diversity makes us stronger” a billion times and you’ll come to believe it uncritically, too.

Usually, when I hear a liberal call for a national conversation on race, I translate it as: “People who disagree with me need to be instructed why they are wrong.” Indeed, in a sense it’s no wonder America is a nation of cowards when it comes to race, because so many of us are terrified of being called racist the moment we step out of line with liberal orthodoxy.

For example, when Clinton held one of his famous town-hall discussions, he invited Abigail Thernstrom — a polite, sophisticated scholar of racial issues and a champion of race-neutrality — to participate in a frank conversation about race. But the moment she expressed an honest objection to racial quotas, Clinton browbeat her as some kind of crypto-racist idiot.

We see something similar in how Holder envisions the latest iteration of a national palaver on race. He says of the debate over affirmative action (or what blogger Paul Mirengoff calls “a coward’s name for race-based preferences”) that, “This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes, who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own narrow self-interest.”

Perhaps. Or perhaps calling views you disagree with “extreme” and accusing those who hold them of having dishonorable motives is just a clever way of saying that you don’t want an “honest conversation” at all.


— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online

© 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

[helpmespock]

Holder says we are “a nation of cowards” because we’re unwilling to discuss race to his satisfaction. Some might say that’s an ironic diagnosis given that Holder is the first black attorney general, appointed by the first black president of the United States.


lol

[linemanpaul]

Originally Posted by helpmespock

yeah what an asshole! racism in America? everyone knows there is no such thing anymore!

Whats he talking about? Having a dialogue? Is he insinuating we should actually talk to one another about it?

How idiotic! Crazy talk!



geez could you guys be any more frightened of black people?


I have lots of black friends.....I can assure you they really don't want to kill you.....and they have one or two hobbies, other then, of course "doin all the white women" trust me.

I find this troubling coming from the "Great Uniter's" AG. His Boss is the same person that did fund raising for Farrakhan, sat with Rev.Wright for 20+ years and listened to his sermons on racial diversity at Sunday mass, but I did not hear Holder condemn Rev. Jackson or Rev. Sharpton for all the racial division stirred up by those two champions of racial equality. I do not have any pictures of my friends to post to show my ethnic diversity, because they are my friends and not badges of honor worn to make me look better than the next person. Now if you will excuse me a "White Woman" is telling me that she is going to kill me if I don't take the trash out

[helpmespock]

not badges of honor worn to make me look better than the next person

let me be certain i get you LMP.


You are suggesting I made the friends I have, so as to be able to post pictures of them on an internet forum so I might look better then the next person....

Thats what I am reading there, am i wrong?

[helpmespock]

you know, I guess my friends really are "badges of honor" for me... in the sense that I am proud to call them friends....one can tell a lot about a man by the friends he keeps, and i am proud of my friends, and would go to war with any one of them.... and as you say, your friends are not badges of honor.....thats too bad.....as usual no one speaks the truth of themselves better then you Linemanpaul.


actually let me clarify this thread for you linemanpaul, since you seem to have some difficulty following the meaning of written text.


You posted a video of the AG discussing the need for more racial dialogue in our country, and suggesting that though things may have improved on the surface of race relations in America, deep down things have changed little. He suggested evidence for this lay in (his belief) that outside of the workplace, and some somewhat artificial social settings, the races in america largely didn't mix....we don't hang out on our time off....


wil then responded that just because his neighborhood happens to be largely white, and he spends a lot of his free time there, that didn't make him a racist.

Wil went further to point out text from the AG's speech that seemed to argue that the state of race relations was actually "bleak" in america, and that when gathered together relations remain strained....wil pointed out the foolishness of this arguemnt and the irony of the setting in which it was made.

i posted two pics from my SB party which are simply of my friends, who happen to be diverse in their ethnic backround, and all appear to be getting along just fine. then i further discussed in agreement with Wil that this guy seemed to be greatly exxagerating the issue. as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words and when i read the AG's statement about "bleak relations outside the workplace"i couldn't help but see this as way overblown... I felt my particular group of friends contradicted his arguement dramatically....and I felt posting a couple of pics would state this better then i could ever write it. Of course instead of seeing those pics as a nice example of how far this country has come in the past generation, you had to twist them into something negative. Well done. seems you are making the AG's arguement for him.

[teaching point] In a debate, try not to add fuel to your opponents arguement, it makes you look stupid.

your response to my post was very clever indeed, suggesting that apparently I was very calculating in choosing my friends, and did so, so as to "appear" like a good guy....racially tolerant and all...
Your right LMP, those pics were staged, and the people in them really don't like one another....they are all just damn good actors... its been my master plan in the making....ever since I joined this forum...I have been plotting....biding my time.....only to be foiled by YOU! and those meddling kids, and their dog of course.....

well first of all....


FUCK YOU.

My friends are my friends, probably because I really mean it when i say i take people for who they are and i don't give a shit what their ethnic, racial or religious backround is. I'll defend them against assholes, and they will defend me.


.....so when i get pissed at people like yourself who seem to constantly have an issue with minorities, particularily blacks, its actually simply because i am not some ignorant racist punk bitch.

[linemanpaul]

helpmespock
I posted the video of the AG and stated I wanted someone to defend this fool, and you stepped up to the plate,"geez could you guys be any more frightened of black people?", so that would seem that you agree with his view that we are racist. The photos that were posted by you seem to add fuel to my argument that the AG is a fool in making a speech about how we are cowards when it comes to race relations, a diverse fabric of society makes a strong society "[teaching point] In a debate, try not to add fuel to your opponents arguement, it makes you look stupid." Now to address ".....so when i get pissed at people like yourself who seem to constantly have an issue with minorities, particularily blacks, its actually simply because i am not some ignorant racist punk bitch.", sat with two crazy ass Jamaicans for a breakfast of salt mackerel, ackee, boiled bananas, and boiled dumplings before we began our day. Having worked construction for close to 30 years, every ethnic, creed and race have been part of my life, the people that work with me are as close as my own family because I spend more time with them on and off the field. We are in total agreement on this point that you made "My friends are my friends, probably because I really mean it when i say i take people for who they are and i don't give a shit what their ethnic, racial or religious backround is. I'll defend them against assholes, and they will defend me"

[linemanpaul]

Cartoons are closer to fact that the politicians that vote for this crap

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/02/...ay-funnies-30/

[ckn]

The defining moment for me of the Bush administration that proved that tranche of politicians had no balls and even less intelligence was the PATRIOT Act. It's likely that this financial stimulus package will mark Obama's administration (and that of the politicians in both Congress and the Senate) in the same way. Both are/were short-term decisions that will irreparably damage the USA for a generation.

[wil]

Originally Posted by ckn

The defining moment for me of the Bush administration that proved that tranche of politicians had no balls and even less intelligence was the PATRIOT Act. It's likely that this financial stimulus package will mark Obama's administration (and that of the politicians in both Congress and the Senate) in the same way. Both are/were short-term decisions that will irreparably damage the USA for a generation.

The defining fact for me of the Bush administration was that we were not attacked a second time after 9/11/2001. And EVERYONE EVERYWHERE was declaring how it was not a question of "IF" but rather "WHEN" we got hit again.

That for me will be the Bush legacy.

[ckn]

Originally Posted by wil

The defining fact for me of the Bush administration was that we were not attacked a second time after 9/11/2001. And EVERYONE EVERYWHERE was declaring how it was not a question of "IF" but rather "WHEN" we got hit again.

That for me will be the Bush legacy.

The terrorists won though. They got you to change your country for the worse as a result of their actions. In my counter-insurgency training in the military, one of the first lessons we got taught was that the primary goal of terrorism isn't the immediate act but to bring about long term negative change in those terrorised. A friend who did the current version of the course tells me that that "lesson" is no longer taught.

On your second sentence, the people doing the declaring were generally one of four groups: the paranoid, the media (who gain extra viewers/readers from negative news), the government or those with financial motives for increasing defence spending. It's politically safer and less risky to say "there will be another terrorist incident" and be wrong than to say "we're confident there won't be another one" and be wrong.

In the UK, the former head of the MI5 (our version of the FBI) says we're now running head-first into a police state because of poorly devised anti-terrorist acts and other "just think of the children/terrorists" paranoia acts. She was joined today by the recently retired Director of Public Prosecutions (our equivalent of the US Attorney General) who made the same argument against his previous employers.

The terrorists aren't just winning, they've won if intelligent people such as yourself believe what you wrote there.

[ptjn1201]

Originally Posted by ckn

The terrorists won though. They got you to change your country for the worse as a result of their actions. In my counter-insurgency training in the military, one of the first lessons we got taught was that the primary goal of terrorism isn't the immediate act but to bring about long term negative change in those terrorised. A friend who did the current version of the course tells me that that "lesson" is no longer taught.

On your second sentence, the people doing the declaring were generally one of four groups: the paranoid, the media (who gain extra viewers/readers from negative news), the government or those with financial motives for increasing defence spending. It's politically safer and less risky to say "there will be another terrorist incident" and be wrong than to say "we're confident there won't be another one" and be wrong.

In the UK, the former head of the MI5 (our version of the FBI) says we're now running head-first into a police state because of poorly devised anti-terrorist acts and other "just think of the children/terrorists" paranoia acts. She was joined today by the recently retired Director of Public Prosecutions (our equivalent of the US Attorney General) who made the same argument against his previous employers.

The terrorists aren't just winning, they've won if intelligent people such as yourself believe what you wrote there.

I think it's far too early to say the terrorists won just because of the Patriot Act. Everybody loves to bring up the wiretaps and increased surveillance, but our government has done warrantless wiretapping on assorted radicals, ne'er-do-wells, mobsters and others since Alexander Graham Bell gave us telephone service. The publicity that the feds just might be listening in on phone calls of Arabs going about their business was pure politics -- this was a way for Democrats who voted FOR the Patriot Act to pacify the far Left. While the feds have the ability to listen in on all of our phone calls, they don't have the manpower to do it, even if they wanted to -- think about it -- a few billion phone calls a day -- there just isn't enough time.

Most civilized countries have more relaxed rules than the US as far as admissibility of evidence; that evidence discovered outside of the terms of a warrant is mostly still admissible "in the interests of justice." The US has for some time lived under the idea that it is far better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man to be imprisoned. The Patriot Act doesn't really change this -- but it has given government far better tools for gathering evidence. Unfortunately, many look at terrorism as a purely criminal manner -- but one of the functions of the federal government is to provide for the common defense, and protection of our citizens is a paramount concern, and if we let terrorists plot in peace until they strike, what protection is that? By the time the bombs go off or the planes go down, it's too late.

Perhaps the Patriot Act merely helps to balance the scales of justice after 60 years of post-WWII "civil rights."

[ckn]

Originally Posted by ptjn1201

I think it's far too early to say the terrorists won just because of the Patriot Act. Everybody loves to bring up the wiretaps and increased surveillance, but our government has done warrantless wiretapping on assorted radicals, ne'er-do-wells, mobsters and others since Alexander Graham Bell gave us telephone service. The publicity that the feds just might be listening in on phone calls of Arabs going about their business was pure politics -- this was a way for Democrats who voted FOR the Patriot Act to pacify the far Left. While the feds have the ability to listen in on all of our phone calls, they don't have the manpower to do it, even if they wanted to -- think about it -- a few billion phone calls a day -- there just isn't enough time.

Most civilized countries have more relaxed rules than the US as far as admissibility of evidence; that evidence discovered outside of the terms of a warrant is mostly still admissible "in the interests of justice." The US has for some time lived under the idea that it is far better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man to be imprisoned. The Patriot Act doesn't really change this -- but it has given government far better tools for gathering evidence. Unfortunately, many look at terrorism as a purely criminal manner -- but one of the functions of the federal government is to provide for the common defense, and protection of our citizens is a paramount concern, and if we let terrorists plot in peace until they strike, what protection is that? By the time the bombs go off or the planes go down, it's too late.

Perhaps the Patriot Act merely helps to balance the scales of justice after 60 years of post-WWII "civil rights."

Some fair points BUT other issues such as the Guantanamo "convenience" of getting rid of habeas corpus simply because a politician branded someone as a "terrorist" surely makes my point. Whenever someone's freedom is taken away because a politician says so, that person cannot get access to the evidence against them and the laws are changed so that the courts can't even free them then something is badly wrong. The principles of habeas corpus and other civil rights have been around since the Magna Carta yet are casually thrown away by politicians who didn't even have the good common sense to read what they were voting for and bowed to "patriotism" threats.

[SAINT_X]

Back to the point of the "cowardly" comment.

Yet again Jonah Goldberg put up an argument that cannot withstand even the slightest critical analysis. He attempts to change the argument in order to support his flawed interpretation. The argument by Holder was not for the average citizen to confront one another on race. The argument was that in the context of a national election in which a black man was running a great many white folks declined to vote for him because he is black, and they would not admit that publicly. I don't know about where you live, but I know alot of people that were sick to death of Bush but very quietly admitted ( to other white people ) that they could not vote for a black man.
If Obama were white, he'd have carried 60+ percent...no doubt.

And I contend that he just might have carried Texas...

[wil]

Originally Posted by SAINT_X

Back to the point of the "cowardly" comment.

Yet again Jonah Goldberg put up an argument that cannot withstand even the slightest critical analysis. He attempts to change the argument in order to support his flawed interpretation. The argument by Holder was not for the average citizen to confront one another on race. The argument was that in the context of a national election in which a black man was running a great many white folks declined to vote for him because he is black, and they would not admit that publicly. I don't know about where you live, but I know alot of people that were sick to death of Bush but very quietly admitted ( to other white people ) that they could not vote for a black man.

I would wager that for every white person who did not vote for Obama solely because of his race, there are an equal number of black people who did vote for him solely because of his race. So I would guess the numbers wash and since he won despite the racists in Saint X's neighborhood I think we can toss that argument in the hopper.

But like I said before...
green people not voting for a dude because he's orange = racism
orange people voting for a dude because he's orange = not racism

[SAINT_X]

Originally Posted by wil

I would wager that for every white person who did not vote for Obama solely because of his race, there are an equal number of black people who did vote for him solely because of his race. So I would guess the numbers wash and since he won despite the racists in Saint X's neighborhood I think we can toss that argument in the hopper.

But like I said before...
green people not voting for a dude because he's orange = racism
orange people voting for a dude because he's orange = not racism

Quite. And how many voted for McCain solely because he was white, or did not vote because of some phobia. The permutations are almost endless. Some people analyzed the Obama candidacy and chose to view his race, and the inherent dramatic storyline , as a positive, others allowed it to appeal to their darker natures and illogically viewed his skin color as a negative in his run for the Presidency.

I can assure you, those racists live everywhere... but few admit it. And that is the argument i think.

BTW...did I miss something?...Holder never said all the cowards were white.

[ptjn1201]

Guantanamo has put our pols in a difficult situation. While the Bush administration determined it was the best that could be done -- while they're really prisoners of war, they answer to no state, and the back and forth over military tribunals, etc. left the administration with only bad options. I think Bush would've been better off if he let the CIA move the guys caught in Iraq to a camp in Afghanistan and vice versa. Obama has pledged to close Guantanamo, but he doesn't seem to know what to do with the guys there, and I doubt he'll close it as quickly as he'd like. Pretty much all of them left there were fighting against the US and would normally be classified as POWs.

The Left likes to make it as though all of these guys were just minding their own business and got caught up in the maelstrom, but they're were involved. Were they decision-makers? Mostly not, but in traditional wars, privates were scooped up as POWs just as generals were. Politically and militarily, it's difficult to decide what to do with these guys. In traditional wars, POWs could be held until the end of hostilities. But when will these hostilities end? Who knows? And who could really tell -- there won't be a treaty with Al Qaeda or its offshoots or any other Islamist terror outlet. There'll be an ebb and flow -- more attacks, followed by periods of fewer attacks, but there'll be no formal end.

One co-worker suggests giving every family in the Muslim world air-conditioning and US cable TV, and it would be cheaper than fighting them until the end of time. Somehow I think they'd end up with far more channels than any of us get.

[wil]

Originally Posted by SAINT_X

BTW...did I miss something?...Holder never said all the cowards were white.

So?

[strongarm]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

I know that all those who voted for Obama must have read this man's agenda before it was posted here on his new website, but just incase you were blinded by his aura, read it and you will be surprised and and be ashamed. You wanted change you got alot more than you might of thought

The Agenda.

aggreed!!

[linemanpaul]

A little something from the "Racist Punk Bitch" for the ER Doc and the Saint. This is a true hero, he has my support, I spoke of him in earlier posts as a fine and decent man, not a race baiting asshole like Holder. Holder is in the same class Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, Farrakhan, and the hits just keep on coming

LTC(R) Allen West: The PC Club

Greetings readers, I have held my peace long enough to allow Attorney General Eric Holder an opportunity to rectify his faux pas from last week. I am now compelled to offer my insights into Attorney General Holder’s epidemic of diarrhea of the mouth when he called our Country a “Nation of Cowards”.

Whenever I think of fools speaking unwisely I am drawn to the writings of one who is considered the wisest man the world has ever known, not you Bill Clinton. Rather, I speak of King Solomon and his words from the Book of Proverbs.

Solomon certainly has some advice which Eric Holder may wish to take to heart. I shall use The Soldiers New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs, Holman Christian Standard Bible

Proverbs 15:7 “The lips of the wise broadcast knowledge, but not so the heart of fools”

Proverbs 15:14 “The discerning mind seeks knowledge, but the mouth of fools feed on foolishness”

For Eric Holder to castigate our America as a “nation of cowards”, being someone who has capitalized on every opportunity this Country could afford, is pure foolishness. It also represents a malicious narcissism and hypocrisy from someone purported to be of great education.

I am a West Man, third of four generations of military servicemen; Dad World War II combat wounded veteran, older Brother Vietnam Marine combat wounded veteran, my serving 22 years active duty in 13 different countries and three combat zones, and my young nephew, Captain Herman Bernard West, commanding an artillery unit serving his second tour in Afghanistan. We are proud American black Men who certainly are not indicative of a “nation of cowards”. Holder’s comments are offensive to the legacy my Dad established for our family.

Perhaps also Attorney General Holder forgot about the many white Americans, and Jewish persons, who marched during the civil rights movement, some cowards huh?

Attorney General Holder, do not ever refer to my Country with such manner of disrespect. I have stood with Americans in many foreign lands, seen them everyday across this Nation, and we are not cowards!

Proverbs 17:28 “Even a fool is considered wise when he keeps silent, discerning when he seals his lips”

Attorney General Holder has certainly lost respect as the enforcer of our Nation’s laws. It would have bided him best to have kept his comment to himself, even though it must be in his heart. It has to be evident to the American people that this person cannot be trusted to protect a County which he holds in such disdain.

What could have persuaded Holder to make such an insidious comment and believe he would not be challenged? And anyone defending his comment or ignoring it is complicit in this terrible offense against our great Nation.

If Holder had any honor, which I doubt, he would have apologized. Since an apology seems to not be an option, Attorney General Holder MUST resign.

If Holder does not resign then President Obama MUST dismiss Eric Holder from his Cabinet, or perhaps Obama and his cabinet hold the same contempt for America?

Proverbs 18:6 “A fools lips lead to strife, and his mouth provokes a beating”

My recommendation to Holder is to stay away from places where we cowards congregate; military bases, NASCAR races, around law enforcement officers, first responders, Southeast Conference college football and basketball games, Boy Scout meetings, biker bars, VFW and American Legion Posts, youth soccer games, anywhere true Americans exist.

Remain in those places where the bravest victims in America exist; your office, the White House, Ivy League schools, Hollywood, NAACP offices, Oprah Winfrey Show, and MSNBC. Cowardice is voting for an inexperienced usurper and charlatan just because he is black, do not be confused.

Yes, I am angry and therefore Attorney General Eric Holder you have earned a lifetime membership in The Phallus Cranium Club.

Sir, you are not there alone, Speaker Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Rod Blagojevich are members, and Congressman Clyburn of South Carolina membership is being processed as well.

Steadfast and Loyal!
LTC(R) AB West