Wattree's picture


    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree
    I was recently accused of character assassination by staunch Hillary Clinton supporters as a result of the mere mention in my article, "This Is Why I Don't Trust Hillary Clinton - She'll Do Anything To Win, And She Thinks We're Dumb," that once Hillary Clinton became desperate over her all but certain loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries, she began to continually allude to the assassination of Robert Kennedy during the 1968 primary. She kept repeating that mantra as justification for why she didn't simply get out of the race. The mere mention of this episode seemed to drive these Clinton supporters up the wall. They said it was "water under the bridge," and others tried to make light of it as though I was some sort of crazy conspiracy theorist - "Was Hillary also responsible for the sinking of the Lusitania - and by the way, where's her birth certificate?" But the fact is, this issue is not funny, and it should be seriously examined.  
    What made Hillary's remarks seem much more malevolent than a simple gaffe was, as pointed out in a Keith Olbermann commentary, someone had obviously told her that her mention of the word "assassination" was inappropriate since Sen. Obama had been receiving death threats every since the day he threw his hat in the ring to run for president, so Hillary stopped using the word - temporarily. But as her situation became more dire and it was all but certain that she was going to lose to Sen. Obama, she began using the word "assassination" again. 
    And later, On May 11th 2008, while appearing on Meet The Press, Hillary’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, made the same kind of statement to Tim Russert. He said that in order for Hillary to win the nomination "something big" would have to happen. Then Russett asked, "An act of God, or something catastrophic?", and he said, "Yes, something big would have to happen–absolutely."
    So how much farther did they have to go, say, "Calling all wingnuts! If somebody - ANYBODY - don't kill this guy America could end up with a Black man for president!!!?"  
    As writers and journalists, we should never tailor our opinions to appease our audience.  Audience appeasement and manipulation is the philosophy of Fox News, and it's one of the major problems that we have in our political environment today - political pundits and politicians are only telling the people what they want to hear. That's why America is so uninformed. Writers should ALWAYS seek truth, reveal what they find, and then let the people make up their own minds regarding what they believe; if they don't, they serve no useful purpose. If what you're saying is ridiculous, more often than not, the people will recognize it, but if a politician and his or her staunch supporters go ballistic at the mere mention of a subject, chances are, you've hit pay dirt.
    These Clinton supporters tried to justified their position that what I was saying was ridiculous by pointing out that President Obama appointed Hillary to Secretary of State and she served him well. In response, I pointed out that Bill Clinton was pushing for Hillary to be given the vice presidency. But while President Obama had the good sense to throw Hillary a bone to heal the rift in the Democratic Party, he also had the good sense NOT to place her within a heartbeat of the presidency. In addition, Hillary wasn't serving the President as Secretary of State, she was serving her own ambition.   
    In the interest of full disclosure, admittedly, I support Bernie Sanders - although, if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination she'll have my full-throated support, even though I'll be holding my nose in the process. I don't subscribe to the the Ralph Nader/Cornel West philosophy of becoming so upset with the Bogey Man that I leave the backdoor open for the Devil. But if I knew of, or found out, anything negative in Bernie Sanders' background, I'd be writing about it just like I'm writing about Hillary, because that's what I do. That's why at one point or another I anger everybody - Blacks, Whites, Jews, and Gentiles. The only people I haven't offended so far are Eskimos - but someone just informed me that by simply saying "Eskimo," I'm now batting a thousand. 
    So in my judgment, when Hillary Clinton repeatedly alluded to assassination while on the verge of losing the nomination to the first Black man with a legitimate chance to become President of the United States, that was, and is, a serious issue. That was much more than just a simple gaffe, and it shouldn't be fluffed off as such, because it speaks volumes about either Hillary's character, her judgment, or both. Thus, any journalist worth his or her salt should feel obligated to pursue this matter. It's about the obligation to follow truth wherever it leads and regardless to whose ox it gores. That's what both journalists, and true progressives are suppose to be all about, not joining personality cults. Only wingnuts and idiots place blinders on to support their favorite candidate. That's how we got George W. Bush - through the blind devotion of his less than thoughtful supporters - and we paid for it dearly, and we're still paying for it.
    This is neither a one-issue matter, nor a popularity contest. We're considering the best person to become the next President of the United States of America, and that's an awesome responsibility - and again, we can't do that responsibly by joining cults.  The future of this nation, and the future of our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren are depending on us to make a sober and intelligent decision on this matter, not to just vote blindly through knee-jerk emotionalism.  I addressed that issue in 2011 in an article entitled "Obama Supporters VS.  Cheerleaders."  I pointed out the following:
    "There are two types of people who support President Obama. There are his supporters who want to see him be a success, and then there are the cheerleaders who simply go along with everything that he does and deeply resent his supporters who don't.
    "The president's supporters understand the importance of remembering that in a representative democracy the president, and all politicians, are elected to serve the people, and not vice versa. They understand that all politicians are employees, and their primary job is to represent and protect the interest and principles of those who hired them. Thus, when we place the importance of any one man [or woman] above our own principles, we create a dangerous situation by corrupting the intent of our founding fathers, and turning the democratic process on its head."(http://wattree.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-supporters-vs-cheerleaders.html)
    So if anyone assassinated Hillary's character, it was Hillary herself.  I'm simply reporting it.
    Eric L. Wattree 
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.


    "Repeatedly alluded to"? AFAIK she mentioned this 1 time, at which the whole Obama campaign and support structure erupted and gasped in horror and cried foul.  

    If you want a "repeat", maybe you're thinking of Sarah Palin's crowd-stirring.

    Whatever, you want to dig, a man's gotta dig. Funny, but doesn't seem like assassination has been that big an issue these last 7 years. Ironic that Obama and Hillary have gotten pretty good at assassinating wanted figures through targeted drone strikes et al, including helping off one head-of-state in Libya.

    Hillary was often winning the popular vote when the pundits were calling for her to drop out. She'd go into a state, win the popular vote, and Obama would come away with more delegates. Axelrod just knew how to play the game better.

    It was a benign comment choosing a few races famous enough that people might remember them, meant to remind people that often primary fights extended long into the summer. For political purposes it was spun into a call for assassination. It was nonsense then, as many of the attacks on Hillary were, it's nonsense now.

    It's a fantasy and Wattree wants us to take it seriously and have a serous conversation about it. He consistently operates from the playbook illustrated by the ancient and probably apocryphal story of Lyndon Johnson instructing his campaign manager during an early congressional race to spread a rumor that his opponent, a farmer, was in the habit of enjoying carnal relations with his barnyard sows. “Hell, Lyndon,” the campaign manager replied. “You can’t call him a pig-f*****!” Nobody’s going to believe that.” “Yeah,” LBJ supposedly replied. “But I want to hear the SOB deny it.”

    South Carolina was the scene of a major conflict between Obama and Hillary. Blacks are aware of the history. Blacks in South Carolina now the history intimately. Blacks in South Carolina overwhelming support Hillary over Bernie. At the end of the day, you say that you will vote for Hillary. You write to anger people, but you are failing because you, personally state that you will vote for Hillary as the best of the if options if she wins the Democratic nomination.

    People who support Clinton have acknowledged their concerns about ties to Wall Street and having a more hard line military approach in the Middle East. They will hold their noses and vote for Hillary, just like you. The black Democrats in South Carolina seem to think the Hillary-Obama conflict is water under the bridge.

    I assume you did the title of your post on purpose so that it'd appear in the left column as:

    "Hillary Clinton: If Anyone Assassinated Her..." 

    A new low for Wattree - keep dredging the bottom, you'll strike new gold.

    Calling foul. Not generally a fan, but I'm throwing a flag, since no one can determine how their title displays.

    Really? I pay attention every time I post a diary or news item to make sure it doesn't cut off.

    I often even try to keep news items to 1 line headings so it doesn't unnecessarily boot another news item off the blog-roll

    Good points. Maybe I was giving him too much credit, but I hope not.

    At the end of the day, you will cast a vote for a woman that you feel wanted Obama assassinated and that you don't trust. You are not standing on high moral ground. 

    Again, you're not thinking efficiently. Does it make sense NOT to vote for the Bogey Man, if it will let the Devil in the backdoor!!!?
    I've said this before, but if you don't understand that simple concept, I'm really done here.  I'm just going to post, and let you struggle with my rationale or not comment on my posts at all.  As I've said before - but I don't seem to be able to get through - I don't post to Dagblog to get into spitball fights. I'm posting to relate to serious thinkers who are capable of either agreeing or disagreeing in an objective fashion, and I'm sure that there are more that enough people out there who fit that definition. So no more playing in the sandbox, spitball fights, or babysitting for me. By continuing in this mode, I'm doing myself a disservice.


    My thinking is intact. I point out that others who will vote for Hillary question how she will respond on certain issues including Wall Street and the Middle East. People are concerned about active issues not past issues. Obama and the black community in South Carolina, the site of the first battle on race in 2008 Primaries, have moved on. You are again stuck in the past. Serious thinkers are focusing on 2016 issues. No one is surprised that Hillary is a politician who will dry to extract blood from her opponents. Serious thinkers actually rate that characteristic as very important in opposing the current GOP. The fact that Hillary is a street-fighter makes Bernie Sanders appear weak in comparison. There is room for discussion of why you think that Sanders is more capable of dealing with a reactionary GOP Congress than a person who stood her ground in a double digit hour inquisition on Benghazi.

    You boast that your posts are geared to create anger. There should be no surprise on your part when you receive angry responses. I cannot understand why you are frustrated when people reply to a post designed to create a response. People who disagree with your position are not throwing spitballs, they are arguing that your position is incorrect. You seem to be taking the position that any opposition to your posts will be ridiculed and dismissed.



    This is what I'm talking about regarding serious and efficient thinkers. I'm talking about people who consume and process information accurately, and who don't simply hear what they want to hear, but you've repeatedly demonstrated that you either don't grasp, misinterpret, or corrupt what you hear to suit your purpose. That's a sign of desperation to prop up an untenable position - a prime example of ego padding, or a person who's more interested in defending his or her ego than objectively exploring the facts. What's the sense in trying to have a discussion with such a person?  For example, you said the following: 
    "You boast that your posts are geared to create anger."

    Show me where I said that. 



    You accused me of lying about your comment about the Holocaust

    You were wrong. I posted your words verbatim. Your response was to say that you cared about the living.

    Now you say that because you speak the "truth" you anger everyone, including the Inuits 

    ......... That's why at one point or another I anger everybody - Blacks, Whites, Jews, and Gentiles. The only people I haven't offended so far are Eskimos - but someone just informed me that by simply saying "Eskimo," I'm now batting a thousand. 

    Sounds like a boast to me.

    Edit to add:

    What I have noticed about you is that you are quick to question the intelligence of others. When you face criticism, you become frustrated. You divert attention to other things never admitting error.


    You've made my point. Is saying that "at one point or another I anger everybody" the same as saying that my posts are "GEARED" to anger everybody?  No it isn't. I was stating a FACT, not an INTENT.  So you failed to grasp the information accurately, which led to a misinterpretation of the "facts" that you consumed, and then you completely corrupted my meaning to promote a totally inaccurate position.
    Case closed.


    You made my point with your Holocaust commentary. I'd ignore that comment too, if I were you.

    Regarding your statement about anger and the section about the Inuit, you seem proud that you were batting 1.000. That comment comes across as a boast that you had now included the "Eskimos". You did not say that you meant no offense, you said that now everybody was included. Your sentence is consistent with pride about angering multiple groups. I used your sentence structure to note that you wanted to anger Eskimos as well. The words suggest an equal opportunity offender.

    I am not engaging in a sandlot fight, I am telling your how I interpreted your wording. It came across as not being concerned about offending another group. Eskimo is the equivalent of redskin. If you said the you were batting 1.000 now that you got the redskins involved, I would have made the same analysis of your sentence.

    One view of Redskin and Eskimo



    More nitpicking and ego padding to defend an untenable position:
    "The point is that Eskimo is a more general word than Inuit. All Inuit are Eskimos but not all Eskimos are Inuit. The two words aren't synonyms. According to Wikipedia, the term is offensive in Canada and Greenland and not elsewhere."
    I didn't know that, and obviously, you didn't either. But that said, it still doesn't justify your grossly inaccurate statement that "I SAID" my posts are "GEARED" to anger.  You're obviously struggling to try to find a way to justify your gross inaccuracy, but the only way you can do that is by finding a quotation by me where I said that my posts are "GEARED"  to anger. Otherwise, you're guilty of a gross inaccuracy, and a groundless allegation, and that speaks directly to your credibility, and your ability to consume information.
    So I'm done with you, because I don't want to waste my time playing games with you when I could be thinking about something significant.  It's like talking to a child, where every time you answer a question they keep asking, why? why?  why?  I have no time for that.  So I'm going to leave you to deal with your own growing pains.  Leave me out of it.



    My ego is big enough to admit an error. This Native Alaskan site points out that two different periods of Mongol migration occurred. The first thousands of years before the second, The first  group are know as Eskimos and are Western and Central Alaskan.The second are Inuits and are Eastern Alaskan, Canadian, and in Greenland. The Eskimos don't appear to like the term Inuit and the Inuits don't like the term Eskimo. The Wikipost about Eskimos and Inuits may be in error. I have no problem retracting a statement about Inuit. 


    I will do some more investigation to see if this holds up.

    I still note that you ignore you statement about the Holocaust in which you called me a liar. No problem since you won't be responding.


    You might like this link including the comments.

    That is so interesting.  I like "first nation", but even that may not be accurate.  We'll probably never know who came first.  

    Up here where I live we run into the same thing with Native Americans vs. Indians.  Some find "Indian" offensive, while those who like it and use it think "Native American" is sissy.  

    Hard to keep up.

    It is hard to keep up. "Oriental" is now taboo in case you haven't yet heard. The correct word is "Asian". I was first told this by my first generation Vietnamese/American daughter-in-law, she was cool about it, just letting me know. 


    There is a small learning curve. If the question comes up, you just ask what a person or group wants to be called. The preference may vary over time. Negro became colored. Cored became black or African-American. Different generations have different feelings. That is just human nature.

    From what I know, colored was earlier, no? Colored predominated until starting to be replaced by Negro in the 1920's as pushed by Dubois, though certainly not a complete success, both terms somewhat co-existing.

    Negro (and Colored of course) declined from 1966 to 1974, shifting to Black.with the 60's movement.

    Jesse Jackson tried to push for African-American starting around 1988, but Black & African-American remain largely equivalent cause people mostly don't care.

    See below

    I hate this political correctness thing. On 4th of July, about 2 years ago, my neighbor brought me over a plate (actually, containers) of food.  It was loaded down with food, all kinds of seafood, chicken, beef, etc.-  it took me 3 days to eat it all. But he brought his plate too, because we were sitting around drinking and arguing politics like we always do (he's conservative).  Then I noticed that he had watermelon and I didn't. So I asked him, "Hey man, where's my watermelon? " And he told me, "Julie thought that you may be insulted if she sent you some watermelon."  I said, "WHAT!!!? Man you better go over there and get me some watermelon. I love watermelon!"  
    Then it occurred to me that that's the same thing that happens with knowledge.  We miss out on a lot by being so politically correct that we have to walk on eggshells around one another. People can't fully express themselves if they're forced to be politically correct, so it deprives us of the opportunity to really get to know one another, and having the benefit of correcting misconceptions.
    Thereafter, Richard and I discussed that, and agreed to set all that kind of stuff aside.  As a result, we're much closer today, and he feels free to REALLY tell me what's on his mind, and we've both benefited from it greatly.  We agreed that what's important is not what a person says, but the intent behind what he says.  
    We spend a lot more time together now - every weekend - sitting up in my yard drinking gin and arguing.  He got so tipsy one weekend that he told me that he thinks the country is going to miss Obama when he 's gone, because although he doesn't agree with everything he does, Obama makes him feel safe.  He feels that the country is in responsible hands.  I didn't think I'd ever hear that coming from him.  So I'm not a big fan of political correctness.

    By the way, you commented the other day on a comment I made regarding my spending the last five years trying to "teach" Rita to stop being so forgiving of people who wrong her.  You said that it was misogynistic. It wasn't, because we're a couple, and she teaches me a lot as well, especially in the areas of business (she has her own business) and class. 

    She's back from her Russian tour, and she was a huge hit.  At one festival 1500 musicians and 700 THOUSAND spectators came to see her. The Russians even had her do a commercial for Russian television. Below is a video of a little boy coming to see her off at the train station when she was leaving the country. He brought her a rose and hugged her. (I'm having problems with this video for some reason, but I posted the URL).  
    Rita also met a lot of music promoters while she was there.  She said she was shocked. It was like being in Beverly Hills. They have this counter-culture that throw these big parties with music promoters from all over the world, and she received offers to tour several other countries in Europe and Asia (seven, I believe).  So I'm beginning to wonder if her dreams coming true may turn out to be my nightmare, because this last three weeks have been agony for me. I'm not leaving the country in the current political environment, and don't want Rita to, but I do want her to be happy. Being very cognizant of the hardships that the men that Billie Holiday and Dinah Washington brought into their lives, when it became clear that me and Rita was becoming more than just close, I made a promise to myself to never interfere with her career.  So I'm facing a dilemma. Perhaps that accounts for my mood here on Dagblog. 
    Check out the video of this little boy. When I look at that kid, it gives me more insight into how our respective governments are manipulating us. How could anybody see that young boy as "the enemy?"  Rita says he's a brilliant pianist, and they bonded immediately. He fawned over her and was on her heels all while she was in that city - including during performances - and when she left, it was painful to think that she would probably never see him again. She felt like she was leaving behind a kid that she had known all of his life. (Click on upload a new video to see video).
    November 12 at 2:36am · 

    марк крас uploaded a new video.


    Rita needs to be hired by the State Department. the Russian people loved her. They even took her to the Kremlin, but Putin was out of town. And one Russian promoter told her that if she ever dumped me he'd like to marry her. If I have anything to say about it, that ain't gon' happen. I don't even know why she told me about that.

    That was my comment, Eric. What's misogynistic about it is that you felt the need to throw it into a conversation you were having with a woman.  Me. As if all women need to be taught these things by a man who knows better.  You can be as insulting or dismissive as you choose, but don't think you won't get called on it.  You will.


    That's your imagination. I would have said the exact same thing regardless to who I was talking to, or whether it was a man or woman I was trying to "teach." Such nonsense don't even cross my mind. That man/woman thing seems to be your fixation, it's not mine.  The only time I even think about gender is before I kiss someone - or if they're wearing something particularly attractive. Good grief!!!

    Teach?  Where do you think you are?


    I think I'm in a world where, if we're smart, we should always seek to educate, or be educated.  That's how we grow. Now, what kind of world do you live in, where we all agree on a point of view, and never examine it?  I think that's called conservatism - to protect and "CONSERVE" your point of view.  

    I think it is important for people to realize that 40% of Americans do not know who Bernie Sanders is and that percentage is higher among black Americans.  The DNC has done it's best to make sure lesser known candidates are at a huge disadvantage in this election.


    I fully agree, Sync.
    But this medium that we're currently writing to can offset DNC's efforts, and I intend to use it in a way that will. I post to just about every Black site on Facebook, and I've already shocked a lot of Black people with the article above.


    I can admit an error. You called me a liar regarding your statement about the Holocaust which you  refer toas "holocaust". Any comment?

    Still crickets

    Not unexpected.

    Colored vs Negro 

    Interesting question

    DuBois wrote of the Negro in the Atlantic in August 1897


    He co-founded the National Asscistion for the Advancement of Colored People in 1909.


    Here is DuBois' response to a high school student who felt Negro was a white man's word close to the N-word, from the NAACP's Crisis Magazine in 1928


    Interesting hearing DuBois use the term "Afro-American" as early as '28. Also feels like he could be blogging in 2015 - surprising that the language doesn't feel very dated (unlike the 1909 article that's a bit thicker) 

    Of course "Negro" is Spanish or Portuguese for "black" as well, while I suppose or guess that part of the contempt in "nigger" is they can't even take the time & respect to say the word properly. (Niger & Nigeria are of course based on that same root, in this case French)

    Mulatto vs. pure(r) black is also still a theme, though less than used to be - assume that having a slightly whiter black skin is less of a "thing" to hang onto these days?

    Thought of you the other day with "20 feet from Stardom" with the singer getting into the feeling & empowerment of Lou Reed's "and all the colored girls sing..." along with the black background singers on "Sweet Home Alabama" going "we don't want to sing about Alabama", & then turning it into "we're gonna sing the *CRAP* outta this song, I got your Alabama right here". Doo doo doo, and we all did what we could do.

    I was not familiar with the documentary. It looks like it is available on iTunes. I will try to get to it this weekend. Thanks.

    The full movie's on Youtube at least.


    I think I'm in a world where, if we're smart, we should always seek to educate, or be educated. That's how we grow. Now, what kind of world do you live in, where we all agree on a point of view and never examine it?  I think that's called conservatism - to protect and "CONSERVE" your point of view at all costs. 

    And you say I tend to be dismissive.  I always take on the tone of the person who's addressing me, so what am I supposed to do, pretend to enjoy ignorance?

    I live in a world where grownups have discussions, pass along information, and learn from one another. I don't go into any discussion with the idea that I'm there to teach anyone.  That would be condescending and a real conversation-buster.  We're here to discuss and to communicate.  It's not a classroom and we're not your students.


    Life is a classroom, and we're all teachers - or should be.

    Signing out of your classroom.  it's not for me.


    That's perfectly fine with me. Because remember, you signed up for my class when you commented. I didn't go to one of your posts and sign up for yours.  All I intend to do is post articles, so you came at me, not vise versa.  I would be perfectly content to just post my articles and not communicate other than that at all.  And you say I'm dismissive?  Yes I am. Some White folks seem to think that Black people have a moral obligation to be ignorant and humble.  Well, I'm not, and if you choose to come into my classroom, you're just going to have to live with that.  Dismissive?  You damn right. What am I suppose to do act like I enjoy ignorance!!!? I don't, and I make that perfectly clear. I take on the tone of the person who addresses me. if you don't want arrogance, don't bring arrogance to the table, or like you said, sign out of my classroom and don't come back.  I'm not going to tap dance for you, or cater to your sensibilities, lady, and to think I should is not only childish, but betrays a presumptuous sense of entitlement - "You're free to write; just don't say anything I might not like."  Lady, give me a break!!! 

    Life could be so sweet and easy
    if people would only know their place,
    if they would partake 
    of the nectar their own life presents,
    instead of trying to mix my drink. 
    If you're Muslim , White, Jew, or Gentile,
    that's cool - just do your thing,
    but the problems begin when you try
    to force me
    to drink from YOUR cup and spring.
    You may be in love with Scotch,
    but personally, I'm predisposed to Gin.
    Now you're trying to say I'm a heathen,
    because I don't do your thing?
    And what's this thing about being "better?"
    Nothing's sillier in this world -
    you may be better at wearing a sheet,
    but I know better how life unfurls.
    And I don't give a damn if you hate me -
    why should I give a shit?
    But I strongly suggest you hate me 
    from afar,
    unless you don't care about life a bit.
    In the final analysis I'm who I am,
    and the strong has nothing to prove;
    but again, I suggest you stay in your place,
    to keep your life untouched and full.



    What about being an asshole?

    That transcends both.

    No, this isn't a school, you're not a teacher, your blogs aren't the work of Plato or Thomas Aquinas. But somehow from your old school aesthetic I expected you to act more of a gentleman, or at least not engage in gender-baiting. Guess you schooled me on that one - you are the man.

    This doesn't have nothing to do with gender. This is about toeing your White-ass line - Period!  And if you think that any Black man who doesn't cater to your crazy ass is an arrogant asshole,  well, so be it. Under such circumstances, I don't have a problem with being an asshole.
    And as for this not being a school, as long as I'm the one writing the article, this is what I say it is. If you don't like that, then get the hell out of my arena. I didn't drag you here to read my lectures - it was your eyeballs that brought you here. Do you ever see me commenting on your posts? There's a reason for that. If I think someone is drenched in bullshit, I simply step around both them, and their bullshit, and I suggest you do the same. Only a fool wastes his or her time consuming bullshit.  Are you a fool? I have been on Dagblog for five years and I have yet to read even ONE of your articles, because based on your comments, I know it would be a waste of time. So I don't know why you waste your time in MY classroom, because it should be clear by now that I don't give a shit what you think, yet you keep coming back for more. What kind of idiocy is that!!!? If you think I'm an asshole, or full of shit, fine, I shouldn't have to be bothered with you anymore. But not you - you just keep coming back with your opinions, as if I give a shit about 'em.  Again, what kind of idiocy is that? 
    I write articles to disseminate what  I think, and then I move on.  If nobody ever commented at all, I wouldn't feel a thing, because I'm not here to get into discussions; I post here to simply disseminate my opinions, just like if I were writing to a magazine or newspaper.  So if I never saw the name you hide behind again, I would give less than a damn. You're totally unimportant to me. I wouldn't want to see you run over by a tractor, but in terms of my opinions, and what I think, you and what you think are meaningless - and I can't understand what makes you, or anyone else, think that they should be.  So if you think I'm an asshole because I don't give a shit about you, then I plead guilty.  Grow up.

    I've no idea what my color has to do with it, and don't even know what a "White-ass line" is. I see you & rmrd have been arguing - does one of you represent the official "Black-ass line", or is it just individuals debating with some overlap of opinions and other discontinuities?

    I come to your posts as part of the Commons - a public space - and just as in the Tragedy of the Commons, public spaces can easily be trashed and despoiled if non-owners don't take care of them much as an owner would.

    Most of the time in "your" classroom, I'm talking to other readers, as you have a tin ear for anything but yourself. And I think you're an asshole because of the way you talk to Ramona or even rmrd, show horrifying pictures of black people hanging from trees to make pithy irrelevant points, make boorish sexist and racist comments, and otherwise act like a repugnant self-absorbed jerk. (I don't much care for how you crow and brag about your relatives and anyone you've known, but that's beyond what I comment on, aside from I guess now). Unlike you, I don't paint everything in terms of *me*.

    Yet, you still come around, so you ARE a fool, so don't complain.

    "show horrifying pictures of black people hanging from trees to make pithy irrelevant points."

    Only a White man could call this an irrelevant point. And you said the pictures are horrifying.  WHAT ABOUT THE ACT!!!?  Look at how casually they're standing there - and then they'll go home and conjure up tears of emotion talking about what a wonderful nation we live in. So I don't want to hear shit from you about impropriety.  You see what you want to see, and you're blind to what you don't. That's been the way of many White folks throughout history. That's why I have absolutely no respect for the opinion of White people of your ilk - and I spotted you two years ago.    

    Image result for lynching in america

    Sure, any old shit you toss out there must be relevant - just give it a good picture. You might as well be advertising weight reduction or a new cream soda - but the PICTURE!!! the ACT!!!



    You're not only clueless, but you have piss-poor judgment. Ask any Black person do they equate the above picture of a lynching with "advertising weight reduction or a new cream soda." Only a White man would make such a statement - and a dumb White man at that.  Why am I wasting my time with you?.
    And then people ask me why am I so dismissive of idiots like you. They've got to be kidding!!!

    Only a clueless callous person of whatever race would use such a picture where it wasn't relevant and needed, and yet you've done this multiple times - presumably you have the attitude of "I'm black so I can misuse horrid pictures from my heritage at will". Shock value.  So yeah, it's about the same as a diet soda or smart phone marketing absconding with important gut-wrenching cultural images.

    Here, have a Coke:

    Eric, you're free to post here until Michael decides you don't have that right, but you're not free to insult me or anyone else here.  When you comment on your own post you've included yourself in the conversation, like it or not.  You say you simply want to post here and then move on, but you don't do that.  You stay around to defend your ideas.  Everyone here has the opportunity to agree or disagree, but we are not in a lecture hall and you are not the professor in charge.  

    Some people will disagree vehemently with what we've posted here, but defending our ideas is far different from dismissing or insulting anyone who dares to think differently.  You've crossed the line here and I'm not going to let it pass.  This kind of comment is not acceptable.  I'm a moderator here and you can take this as a warning.


    PP, I appreciate your efforts but you need to know when to stop.  It's now.



    You have left a large amount to unpack here. I noted that you called me a liar regarding your statement about the Holocaust, you refuse to apologize.A real man would have addressed the error. I realize that you are scared. You are scared  that blacks will be rounded up. You are too scared to venture outside the country. So I really don't expect a fearful person to address the Holocaust issue.

    Your post regarding what black people must do to request unalienable rights was pure trash. Blacks have to show white folks that blacks are of good character before assuming right will be forthcoming. This is pure Stepin Fetchit nonsense. W.E.B. DuBois realized that reactionary whites would never really respect blacks. You were unaware that there were more college age black men in college than in prison because you live in a bubble. My teenage nieces and nephews know that fact. Pregnancies among unwed black women are down among black women.Violent crime is down in most urban areas populated by blacks. Don't feel bad that you were unaware of that fact because the New York Times blew the data as well. When presented with data, you dismiss it as anecdotal. Sad.

    You repeatedly post the same picture of young black men flashing money as a stereotype for hip-hop culture. You can only do this because you are unaware that young black people have created websites to deal with the stereotype you promote. Google "Which picture would they use?" and you will see black college student in goofy poses that could be used to label them thugs. Those pictures are shown along with the young men and women in business attire. Which picture would the media choose to portray young blacks? Media would choose the same type of picture that you repeatedly post. You are part of the problem of image that you decry. By the way, the young men in your repeatedly posted photo have unalienable rights.

    Along with your stereotypical photo, we are told that blacks should boycott artists who present a negative image. I admit that I am not a big hip-hop fan, but if the artist tells me that his music reflects his life, should he be silenced? Do you have a free speech right to call people names, but the hip-hop artist needs to be silenced? It is a crap argument. You boycott by not supporting the artist by not buying his music. You turn the dial when the artist comes on or you tune them out if they are playing in a mall or other place. 

    Because you live in a bubble you do not realize that blacks have spoken out about profanity and misogyny in hip-hip. When the movie "Straight Outta Compton" was released, black women who were abused by Dr.Dre publicized his misogyny and violence.There was a community response. David Banner a hip-hop artist who speed misogyny and profanity has apologized for his past recording that harmed women. Is this apology real or part of a new release campaign? What matters is that the apology is on record. Boycotts of music often serve to bring in more record purchases because people don't want to be told what they can buy.

    You then state that black people should not wait for the next homicide by police to complain about police violence. This shows that you are totally ignorant of the ongoing pressure being applied to the Justice Department , state governments, and local government to change police practices. You have no clue about the battle over the myth of the  so-called "Ferguson Effect". You can use Google to find out what is going on.

    I only addressed a couple of the ridiculous proposals take comprise your nonsensical plan, While you sit on these sidelines complaining about blacks not putting your irrational plan into operation, other blacks will actually be engaged in activism,

    Sometimes you stop by to see what someone has said just to see what nonsense they have posted. That is the reason I stopped here. What I expected and got was the name-calling and inability  to form a rational thought process that you posted. It is amusing that you think that you are thinking. I read what Donald Trump and Ben Carson post as well. The three of you provide much needed humor to my day. Thanks. The characteristic of name-calling rather rather than dealing with the weak arguments being made is shared by all of you.

    Closing comments.  This thread is no longer relevant to the topic.

    Latest Comments