[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're falling for the good/evil dualistic dichotomy. > > I'm talking about an energy signature which is neither > good nor evil on either side, because 1) such simplis- > tic distinctions don't exist, and because 2) all beings > are a complex *mix* of energies of all sorts. > It's just that Obama's energy mix is more intelli- > gent than McCain's, by a long shot. That provides > people with an opportunity to see which energy they > identify with more -- intelligence or idiocy. Nothing dualistic or simplistic about Barry's thinking, nosiree bob! > > > > In short, Obama represents the culmination of the struggle > > > > of the American people for life, liberty, and the pursuit > > > > of happiness. Anything less is slavery and servitude in > > > > more ways than one. > > > > > > I could not agree more. And interestingly, isn't > > > it fascinating to see who on this forum literally > > > hates the man, no matter how much they try to > > > disguise it? Somebody ask Barry when he got the siddhi to discern who "literally hates" and who does not. Without exception, the > > > posters on this forum who dislike Obama intensely > > > are unhappy people, with a track record of trying > > > their damnedest to make other people as unhappy as > > > they are. Hands, please: Who else believes those of us who dislike Obama are unhappy people? > > Let's find out who they are by the response > > that you get. You mean after Barry has done his level best (but failed miserably) to try to make us as unhappy as he is? > You mean like a homosexual calling a straight > guy a homosexual and thinking that it's an > insult? :-) Is that anything like calling straight women homosexuals and thinking it's an insult? > THAT is what I'm talking about with regard to the clash > of energies. It's not a good vs. evil thang; it's an > intelligence vs. stupidity thang. No one who is the > least bit intelligent (or sane) is going to go around > insulting other people by insinuating that they're > *just like them*. I don't think anybody ever suggested you were a straight woman, Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did you just out yourself? No, it was that same guy who hacked Sarah Palin's email accounts on Gmail. Turns out that he's not only a misogynist pig w.r.t. Sarah but also has a long-standing grudge against somebody named Susan, so he's going around hacking her names onto every email address he can get his hands on. Yeah, that's the ticket. :-) More seriously, and presented as evidence that Sarah Palin shouldn't be allowed within twenty miles of the White House, the FBI just raided the apartment of the guy who might have done the Sarah Palin hacking, and if it's really him and the rumors are true, do you know HOW he hacked her account? He read the newspaper reports about Sarah Palin and, just from details about her life that were freely available in the press, figured out what her password was. He's 19. Now doesn't THAT make you feel all warm and fuzzy about the person who is potentially going to have a password into the most sensitive and secret information on Earth? :-) > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan Hirschmann > wrote: > > > > On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:50 AM, John wrote: > > > > > > It's the clash of energies that is important. > > > > > > In other words, it's the fluctuation of the gunas, in > > > vedic terms. > > > > Sure glad that's in Vedic terms, John. For a moment > > there it sounded like plain old ordinary English terms. > > > > Sal > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
Did you just out yourself? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan Hirschmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:50 AM, John wrote: > > >> It's the clash of energies that is important. > > > > In other words, it's the fluctuation of the gunas, in vedic terms. > > Sure glad that's in Vedic terms, John. For a moment > there it sounded like plain old ordinary English terms. > > Sal >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:50 AM, John wrote: >> It's the clash of energies that is important. > > In other words, it's the fluctuation of the gunas, in vedic terms. Sure glad that's in Vedic terms, John. For a moment there it sounded like plain old ordinary English terms. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What's really ironic, Robert, is that the "language of race", as the > author puts it in his article, is virtually the exclusive domain NOT > of the Republicans but of the Dixiecrats of the Old South WHO WERE > ALL DEMOCRATS. > > And even today, that still holds true: a recent poll found that 1/3 > of all WHITE DEMOCRATS harbour racist feelins towards Obama AND THIS > FACT ALONE COULD COST HIM THE WHITE HOUSE...NOT REPUBICANS! > > See: http://tinyurl.com/456bmp Yes, this is true... When LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act, is when they turned. And the comment that Jesse Jackson shows that black people can hold race against Obama. That would be the biggest irony of all. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > > > Americans are recognizing that Obama is a phenomenon in > > > American politics. If there are many racists in the Democratic > > > Party, Obama wouldn't have gotten this far in the nominating > > > process. > > > > > > IMO, there's a surging consciousness in the USA for a change > > > from the present Republican administration, and it just happens > > > to be Obama who is the best one among the Democrats to > > > challenge the Republicans. > > > > Whether he succeeds or fails. > > > > It's the clash of energies that is important. > > In other words, it's the fluctuation of the gunas, in vedic terms. No, not at all. Energy -- and the universe composed of it -- is far more interesting and complex than the dumbed-down triumverate of energies postulated by "Vedic" philosophers. You're falling for the good/evil dualistic dichotomy. I'm talking about an energy signature which is neither good nor evil on either side, because 1) such simplis- tic distinctions don't exist, and because 2) all beings are a complex *mix* of energies of all sorts. It also has nothing to do with "evolution" and who is more "evolved" or any simplistic horseshit like that. It's just that Obama's energy mix is more intelli- gent than McCain's, by a long shot. That provides people with an opportunity to see which energy they identify with more -- intelligence or idiocy. The fact that the polls (even though they are being manipulated) are so close indicates that Americans are torn on this subject. > > > In short, Obama represents the culmination of the struggle > > > of the American people for life, liberty, and the pursuit > > > of happiness. Anything less is slavery and servitude in > > > more ways than one. > > > > I could not agree more. And interestingly, isn't > > it fascinating to see who on this forum literally > > hates the man, no matter how much they try to > > disguise it? And then you think of the number that > > these people run here on a regular basis, and its > > intent. > > IMO, some people here are intentionally provoking controversy > for the sake of notoriety in the forum. Well, duh! :-) Seriously, John, sometimes you have a tendency to state the obvious as if it were profound. > > Most of us can feel that intent, no matter how much > > they try to disguise it. Without exception, the > > posters on this forum who dislike Obama intensely > > are unhappy people, with a track record of trying > > their damnedest to make other people as unhappy as > > they are. > > Let's find out who they are by the response that you get. You mean like a homosexual calling a straight guy a homo- sexual and thinking that it's an insult? :-) THAT is what I'm talking about with regard to the clash of energies. It's not a good vs. evil thang; it's an intelligence vs. stupidity thang. No one who is the least bit intelligent (or sane) is going to go around insulting other people by insinuating that they're *just like them*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > > Americans are recognizing that Obama is a phenomenon in American > > politics. If there are many racists in the Democratic Party, Obama > > wouldn't have gotten this far in the nominating process. > > > > IMO, there's a surging consciousness in the USA for a change from > > the present Republican administration, and it just happens to be > > Obama who is the best one among the Democrats to challenge the > > Republicans. > > Whether he succeeds or fails. > > It's the clash of energies that is important. In other words, it's the fluctuation of the gunas, in vedic terms. > > > In short, Obama represents the culmination of the struggle of the > > American people for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > > Anything less is slavery and servitude in more ways than one. > > I could not agree more. And interestingly, isn't > it fascinating to see who on this forum literally > hates the man, no matter how much they try to > disguise it? And then you think of the number that > these people run here on a regular basis, and its > intent. IMO, some people here are intentionally provoking controversy for the sake of notoriety in the forum. > Most of us can feel that intent, no matter how much > they try to disguise it. Without exception, the > posters on this forum who dislike Obama intensely > are unhappy people, with a track record of trying > their damnedest to make other people as unhappy as > they are. Let's find out who they are by the response that you get.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Americans are recognizing that Obama is a phenomenon in American > politics. If there are many racists in the Democratic Party, Obama > wouldn't have gotten this far in the nominating process. > > IMO, there's a surging consciousness in the USA for a change from > the present Republican administration, and it just happens to be > Obama who is the best one among the Democrats to challenge the > Republicans. Whether he succeeds or fails. It's the clash of energies that is important. > In short, Obama represents the culmination of the struggle of the > American people for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > Anything less is slavery and servitude in more ways than one. I could not agree more. And interestingly, isn't it fascinating to see who on this forum literally hates the man, no matter how much they try to disguise it? And then you think of the number that these people run here on a regular basis, and its intent. Most of us can feel that intent, no matter how much they try to disguise it. Without exception, the posters on this forum who dislike Obama intensely are unhappy people, with a track record of trying their damnedest to make other people as unhappy as they are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > wrote: > > > > > BUT WHAT DOES HE STAND FOR NO ONE KNOWS! CHANGE FOR CHANGE'S > > SAKE IS JUST SILLY PAP. > > > You could try reading his extensive policy positions online. Maybe > all You know about obama is change but that only points to your mental > laziness. If anything obama is much more wonkish than mccain. You've > admitted after all that you're in the insurance business but didn't > know AIG was in trouble until the day before bankruptcy, despite it > being in all the financial press since january - to be that out of > touch shows you greatly limit your exposure to information. > ...and that shows you don't understand the insurance industry, which is NOT dependent upon one reading up and being "au courant" on financial news. That's for financial advisors, not estate-planners, which is something entirely different. Insurance companies are rated according to 3 or 4 rating companies, such as Best. Insurance is under state jurisdiction. There are ALREADY safeguards in place for insurance companies that go out of business, which I've already explained on this forum. And I have NO PROBLEM letting those safeguards work without Bush and the federal government interfering. As for Obama's policies: HE HAS FLIP-FLOPPED ON VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE ONE...SO WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT HIS WEBSITE SAYS?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BUT WHAT DOES HE STAND FOR NO ONE KNOWS! CHANGE FOR CHANGE'S > SAKE IS JUST SILLY PAP. > You could try reading his extensive policy positions online. Maybe all You know about obama is change but that only points to your mental laziness. If anything obama is much more wonkish than mccain. You've admitted after all that you're in the insurance business but didn't know AIG was in trouble until the day before bankruptcy, despite it being in all the financial press since january - to be that out of touch shows you greatly limit your exposure to information.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > wrote: > > > > What's really ironic, Robert, is that the "language of race", as > the > > author puts it in his article, is virtually the exclusive domain > NOT > > of the Republicans but of the Dixiecrats of the Old South WHO WERE > > ALL DEMOCRATS. > > > > And even today, that still holds true: a recent poll found that > 1/3 > > of all WHITE DEMOCRATS harbour racist feelins towards Obama AND > THIS > > FACT ALONE COULD COST HIM THE WHITE HOUSE...NOT REPUBICANS! > > > > See: http://tinyurl.com/456bmp > > Americans are recognizing that Obama is a phenomenon in American > politics. If there are many racists in the Democratic Party, Obama > wouldn't have gotten this far in the nominating process. Whites who vote "Democrat" are not necessarily the same ones who vote in primaries or in conventions. > > IMO, there's a surging consciousness in the USA for a change from the > present Republican administration, and it just happens to be Obama > who is the best one among the Democrats to challenge the Republicans. BUT WHAT DOES HE STAND FOR NO ONE KNOWS! CHANGE FOR CHANGE'S SAKE IS JUST SILLY PAP. > > In short, Obama represents the culmination of the struggle of the > American people for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > Anything less is slavery and servitude in more ways than one. What a bunch of mindless bullshit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert wrote: > > > > > > > > > The Language of Race.. > > > > > > It was not that long ago that black people in the Deep South > could > > be beaten or killed for seeking the right to vote, talking back to > > the wrong white man or failing to give way on the sidewalk. People > of > > color who violated these and other proscriptions could be > > designated "uppity niggers" and subjected to acts of violence and > > intimidation that were meant to dissuade others from following > their > > examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > The term "uppity" was applied to affluent black people, who > > sometimes paid a horrific price for owning nicer homes, cars or > more > > successful businesses than whites. Race-based wealth envy was a > > common trigger for burnings, lynchings and cataclysmic episodes of > > violence like the Tulsa race riot of 1921, in which a white mob > > nearly eradicated the prosperous black community of Greenwood. > > > Forms of eloquence and assertiveness that were viewed as laudable > > among whites were seen as positively mutinous when practiced by > > people of color. As such, black men and women who looked white > people > > squarely in the eye and argued with them about things that > > mattered were declared a threat to the racial order and > persecuted > > whenever possible. > > > This obsession with black subservience was based in nostalgia for > > slavery. No sane person would openly express such a sentiment > today. > > But the discomfort with certain forms of black assertiveness is too > > deeply rooted in the national psyche and the national language > to > > just disappear. It has been a persistent theme in the public > > discourse since Barack Obama became a plausible candidate for the > > presidency. > > > A blatant example surfaced earlier this month, when a Georgia > > Republican, Representative Lynn Westmoreland, described the Obamas > > as "uppity" in response to a reporter's question. Mr. Westmoreland, > > who actually stood by the term when given a chance to retreat, > later > > tried to excuse himself by saying that the dictionary definition > > carried no racial meaning. That seems implausible. Mr. Westmoreland > > is from the South, where the vernacular meaning of the word has > > always been clear. > > > The Jim Crow South institutionalized racial paternalism in its > > newspapers, which typically denied black adults the courtesy titles > > of Mr. and Mrs. and reduced them to children by calling them by > > first names only. Representative Geoff Davis, Republican of > Kentucky, > > succumbed to the old language earlier this year when describing > what > > he viewed as Mr. Obama's lack of preparedness to handle nuclear > > policy. "That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," he > > said. > > > In the Old South, black men and women who were competent, > confident > > speakers on matters of importance were termed "disrespectful," the > > implication being that all good Negroes bowed, scraped, grinned and > > deferred to their white betters. > > > In what is probably a harbinger of things to come, the McCain > > campaign has already run a commercial that carries a similar > > intimation, accusing Mr. Obama of being "disrespectful" to Sarah > > Palin. The argument is muted, but its racial antec
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What's really ironic, Robert, is that the "language of race", as the > author puts it in his article, is virtually the exclusive domain NOT > of the Republicans but of the Dixiecrats of the Old South WHO WERE > ALL DEMOCRATS. > > And even today, that still holds true: a recent poll found that 1/3 > of all WHITE DEMOCRATS harbour racist feelins towards Obama AND THIS > FACT ALONE COULD COST HIM THE WHITE HOUSE...NOT REPUBICANS! > > See: http://tinyurl.com/456bmp Americans are recognizing that Obama is a phenomenon in American politics. If there are many racists in the Democratic Party, Obama wouldn't have gotten this far in the nominating process. IMO, there's a surging consciousness in the USA for a change from the present Republican administration, and it just happens to be Obama who is the best one among the Democrats to challenge the Republicans. In short, Obama represents the culmination of the struggle of the American people for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anything less is slavery and servitude in more ways than one. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert wrote: > > > > > > The Language of Race.. > > > > It was not that long ago that black people in the Deep South could > be beaten or killed for seeking the right to vote, talking back to > the wrong white man or failing to give way on the sidewalk. People of > color who violated these and other proscriptions could be > designated "uppity niggers" and subjected to acts of violence and > intimidation that were meant to dissuade others from following their > examples. > > > > > > > > The term "uppity" was applied to affluent black people, who > sometimes paid a horrific price for owning nicer homes, cars or more > successful businesses than whites. Race-based wealth envy was a > common trigger for burnings, lynchings and cataclysmic episodes of > violence like the Tulsa race riot of 1921, in which a white mob > nearly eradicated the prosperous black community of Greenwood. > > Forms of eloquence and assertiveness that were viewed as laudable > among whites were seen as positively mutinous when practiced by > people of color. As such, black men and women who looked white people > squarely in the eye and argued with them about things that > mattered were declared a threat to the racial order and persecuted > whenever possible. > > This obsession with black subservience was based in nostalgia for > slavery. No sane person would openly express such a sentiment today. > But the discomfort with certain forms of black assertiveness is too > deeply rooted in the national psyche and the national language to > just disappear. It has been a persistent theme in the public > discourse since Barack Obama became a plausible candidate for the > presidency. > > A blatant example surfaced earlier this month, when a Georgia > Republican, Representative Lynn Westmoreland, described the Obamas > as "uppity" in response to a reporter's question. Mr. Westmoreland, > who actually stood by the term when given a chance to retreat, later > tried to excuse himself by saying that the dictionary definition > carried no racial meaning. That seems implausible. Mr. Westmoreland > is from the South, where the vernacular meaning of the word has > always been clear. > > The Jim Crow South institutionalized racial paternalism in its > newspapers, which typically denied black adults the courtesy titles > of Mr. and Mrs. and reduced them to children by calling them by > first names only. Representative Geoff Davis, Republican of Kentucky, > succumbed to the old language earlier this year when describing what > he viewed as Mr. Obama's lack of preparedness to handle nuclear > policy. "That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," he > said. > > In the Old South, black men and women who were competent, confident > speakers on matters of importance were termed "disrespectful," the > implication being that all good Negroes bowed, scraped, grinned and > deferred to their white betters. > > In what is probably a harbinger of things to come, the McCain > campaign has already run a commercial that carries a similar > intimation, accusing Mr. Obama of being "disrespectful" to Sarah > Palin. The argument is muted, but its racial antecedents are very > clear. > > The throwback references that have surfaced in the campaign suggest > that Republicans are fighting on racial grounds, even when express > references to race are not evident. In a replay of elections past, > the G.O.P. will try to leverage racial ghosts and fears without > getting its hands visibly dirty. The Democrats try to parry in > customary ways. > > Mr. Obama seems to understand that he is always an utterance away > from a statement or a phrase that could transform him in a > campaign ad fro
[FairfieldLife] Re: Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White House
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:22 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Racist White Democrats may cost Obama the White > House > > > > What's really ironic, Robert, is that the "language of race", as the > author puts it in his article, is virtually the exclusive domain NOT > of the Republicans but of the Dixiecrats of the Old South WHO WERE > ALL DEMOCRATS. > > They were Democrats until Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, > knowing full well that as a result, the Southern states would become > Republican. > Rick, you conveniently snipped out the next paragraph -- and the link -- which shows that it is the racism of the White Democrats today that will cause Obama to lose. Either leave that stuff in or include a "[snip]" so the reader is informed that there was something else there.
