Show off your holiday lights and you could win an iPad! Enter your photo by December 13. Winner will be selected by popular vote.
Shot by Dan Thursday at the Hilltop Restaurant on Shenandoah Avenue
“A conflict begins and ends in the hearts and minds of people, not in the hilltops.”
More on Amos Oz here.
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
UK gets the jump on us, again.
You might me in for some strong competition!
In an interview with USA Today this week, writer Scott Lobdell said Kent is much more likely to start his own blog than he is to search for new work in the news business.
“I don’t think he’s going to be filling out an application anywhere,” Lobdell said. “He is more likely to start the next Huffington Post or the next Drudge Report than he is to go find someone else to get assignments or draw a paycheck from.”
& Voting Reform
A one party political system is a dictatorship. A two party political system is the same tyranny if an outside group controls both. And this is the situation the United States is dangerously approaching, because corporate billionaires now choose the candidates in every national election. In other words, no politician can afford to run for the higher offices without the support of the wealthy, so candidates promote policies that favor the tiny minority of rich people – at the expense of the vast majority of regular citizens
A fair political arena would not only allow, but encourage, a multitude of opinions, instead of just two versions of the same monopoly. Indeed, a proper election system would have numerous candidates, all running as an independent without parties. In this way, politicians would stand or fall on their own merits, rather than their promoters.
One solution for getting independent people into government again is to have all elections begin with lotteries. In addition, all losing votes should rollover until just one candidate remains with the most ballots cast in their favor.
Though slight variations would be needed for the individual states, the general idea of Lottery Elections is simple. The basic format is as follows…
President and Vice-President
● Current or recent Governors or Congresspersons may register for the lottery.
● Randomly chosen candidates are selected from this pool to run for election.
● Public television carries candidate debates/discussions.
● Most votes wins President and second most Vice-President.
State Office (Governors or Congresspersons)
● Current or recent District Representatives may register for the lottery.
● Randomly chosen candidates are selected from this pool to run for election.
● Public television carries candidate debates/discussions.
Regional Office (District Representatives)
● Current or recent Local Representatives may register for the lottery.
● Randomly chosen candidates are selected from this pool to run for election.
● Public television carries candidate debates/discussions.
Local Representative (City/County Councils)
● Local residents may register for the lottery.
● Randomly chosen candidates are selected from this pool to run for election.
● Public television carries candidate debates/discussions.
Additional rules include that officials may only serve one elected term at each level of government service. Nor may they be paid lobbyists after leaving office. And again, every vote cast for a losing candidate rolls over until the most popular candidate is determined and declared the winner.
The way “rollover” works is that voters rate every candidate in preferential order when they vote. For example, if five candidates are running for President, you vote for one, but also select your 2nd preference, 3rd preference, etc. This eliminates less wanted candidates from winning by a fluke. History shows that contestants are occasionally so similar that they split the vote and a much less wanted candidate wins. Rollover prevents this. Here is an example to clarify the concept further…
Candidate A: Different than other candidates. Receives 4% of the votes.
Candidate B: Different than other candidates. Receives 6% of the votes.
Candidate C: Nearly identical to candidate D. Receives 28% of the votes.
Candidate D: Nearly identical to candidate C. Receives 30% of the votes.
Candidate E: Different than other candidates. Receives 32% of the votes.
Without rollover, Candidate E wins narrowly. But with rollover, losing votes go to the next selection a voter made. In this example, Candidate C or D would be the second choice for almost everyone that voted for either of them. So Candidate D would win by a huge margin when most of C’s votes rolled over to D as their second choice. (Note the low vote count is always redistributed first.) In this example, even if every voter for A had selected B for second choice, B would still only have 10%. So now both A and B have their votes redistributed to the next choice on their ballots (who is not yet eliminated). This goes on until the winner is determined.
Security is another important consideration…
Computer vote counting risks the theft of entire elections by a very small group of people. In addition, it is too easy to invade privacy if who you voted for is tracked electronically.
Manual counting deters theft, yet ensures voter privacy. The volunteers who donate time to count votes during election years have always enjoyed this community service anyway. And with everyone watching each other count, plus all the double checking, the overall results are almost impossible to steal. Given the massive benefits, it doesn’t hurt to wait a few hours for election results to come in.
As an extra safeguard, ballots would be paper and designed similar to raffle tickets. This means every voter is given a double ballot with a unique serial number printed on both halves. The voter retains the duplicate stub after punching both halves in a voting booth. Voters can then go online and anonymously reference their ballot’s serial number against a registry of votes cast. Any discrepancies would be addressed by visiting the local voting commission, stub in hand, to correct the error.
Lottery elections mean the end of career politicians. Plus, they ensure the better candidates can rise to the top by requiring elections after the drawings. They would result in the restoration of true citizen politicians and curtail the influence of the wealthy, whose total domination of election funding has effectively purchased the government for their own use. Lastly, the structure guarantees that the most important offices have candidates with sufficient experience in government.
That endorsement really surprises me. (Not)
Here’s an article that radical leftist publication, the Wall Street Journal, that points out another of the big lies Republicans are telling. I know folks like SuzieQ, mattr, and other try to trumpet a different story on this, but here are the facts. Of course I understand none of those folks are going to let a few facts confuse them.
Will Bush v. Gore Save Barack Obama?
If Obama narrowly wins Ohio, he can thank Justice Scalia and the court’s conservatives.
By Richard L. Hasen|Posted Friday, Oct. 26, 2012, at 5:42 PM ET
But the fight over Ohio’s election laws tells a different story. The Buckeye State has seen a rather remarkable string of wins for voting rights supporters. Federal courts have ordered the expansion of early voting and saved the votes of potentially thousands of voters who would have been disenfranchised because of poll worker errors, such as sending a voter to the wrong table to vote because the worker cannot tell an odd from an even number. Even more remarkably, the decisions from Democratic and Republican judges alike have relied on a very broad reading of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that ended the 2000 Florida recount in favor of George W. Bush. In fact, if President Obama narrowly ekes out a win in Ohio, he might have the conservative Supreme Court justices from 2000—Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia and Thomas—to thank for the victory.
In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court stopped the recount of votes ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, the most conservative justices on the court, argued that the recount violated Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which gives state legislatures the power to set the rules for choosing presidential electors. These justices said Florida’s recount violated Article II because it was done under standards set by the state’s judiciary, not its legislature.
Justices O’Connor and Kennedy did not buy the Article II argument. They rested their rationale for ending the recount on the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, claiming that the changing and haphazard recount standards were arbitrary and “valu[ed] one person’s vote over that of another.” The court pointed to all kinds of problems and inconsistencies with the way various state counting boards were handling “punch card ballots,” which were run through computer counting machines that scanned where “chads” had been forced out.
I generally mute political ads no matter who they’re for, bur I couldn’t help but notice that the lying NRA scare mongers are back claiming Obama wants all your guns, and that Romney has revived the lie that Obama gutted work rules for welfare.
matt and Frank must have gone out of town somewhere.
Awww, Dano. I’ve missed you, too. (Hugs)
A friend of mine forwarded this to me. It’s a 3 minute video that explains one reason why the Affordable Care Act needs to be retained instead of being repealed. There are elements of the ACA that I’m not crazy about, but this is not one of them.
Peace is always so short-lived.
I went 5/9
For those tired of the political noise…and want a new view of the little night creatures…watch these videos, I promise they will give you a warm and fuzzy feeling – and you will be surprised that this little guy can make you smile…enjoy.
Re: Comment by Kristen — October 28, 2012 @ 4:34 pm
I did one better but I was guessing on most.
7 out of 9 – American Taliban gets closer and closer to Islamic Fundamentalists…
Like Dave Hicks, I got 6 out of 9 and was guessing on most.
I had forgotten Mitt’s declaration that federal emergency relief funds were “immoral.”
Mitt Romney said in that debate that federal disaster relief should be handed off to the states or, even better, privatized.
Ron, I believe Mitt Romney is about to do ANOTHER about-face.
How many does that make? I’ve lost count!
He’s got to have a really sore neck from so many about faces. I hope he has a good physical therapist traveling with him.
hey man, i read a great column in Friday’s WSJ by an opinion journalist by the name of Kimberly Strassel, titled “A Chronic Case of Obamnesia…”.
One of the things she calls to our attention (and, it is FACT, not opinion…) is this:
“Leadership means that the buck stops here….I therefore intend to OPPOSE the effort to increase America’s debt limit”–Sen. Barack Obama, March 2006.
“It is not acceptable for us to NOT raise the debt ceiling and to allow the U.S. government to default”–PRESIDENT Obama, August 2009.
Shrillary, those videos were great! Li’l Drac ROCKS!
19.Mitt Romney said in that debate that federal disaster relief should be handed off to the states or, even better, privatized.
Comment by Dan Casey — October 28, 2012 @ 8:34 pm
Wrong Dan. . .hand off already in place. When you make a FEMA claim; they
pay VDEM. . .VDEM then pays you.
From Truthdig; Romney’s Cold War Ponzi Scheme
hey ron may and dano…ron says he’s a “moderate” republican, while ol’ dano would have us believe that but for Sarah Palin being on the ticket, he very well might not have voted for obama. Yeah,right. What a pair.
Hey you two “non-libs” (yeah, right), here’s ANOTHER obuma about face, from Stassel’s Friday WSJ column:
“If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to prserve a publicly financed general election”.–Senator Barack Obama, 2007.
“We’ve made the decision to NOT participate in the public financing system for the general election”.–Sen. Obama, June 2008.
Hey you two libs, keep’em coming.
g-stupid, they already have a thing with the un to overlook our elections, and you dont think that could be next? g-dud, g-ignorant, g-whiz what mud for a brain you have.
I said in a thread long ago that had Sen. McCain chosen a different VP I was ready to vote for him in 2008. Sarah Palin has the skill to succeed as a Reality Show. However, she is not now nor was she in 2008 qualified to hold high government office. John McCain’s choice of her in 2008 showed he didn’t respect the people of this country.
SuzieQ, frank and others object and/or make fun of my claim of being a moderate. That’s okay. I have thick skin and can deal with anything they might say. David Brooks recently wrote an article that described the meaning of moderation. It’s a great article and does a great job of describing political moderates in the U.S. today.
pammala don’t want no stinkin’ furrreners watchin’ OUR elecshuns! We kin watch therez but they ain’t watchin ours. When they do, they’re too hard ta steal and whatnot.
I think you just gave gdud the best description yet. In effect, you just dubbed gdud “mud”. I’m LMAO!
Reminds me of an old Calvin and Hobbs script.
#26 Wow are you an idiot, pammalamadingdong. The UN has no control whatsoever over our elections.
#30 Do you ever bother to read the idiocy pammalamadingdong posts? What a dolt.
hey ron may,
You and ol’ dano are joined at the hip…so to speak. Are you serious? You think you can pass yourself off as a “moderate” republican? Yet you whole-heartedly and enthusiastically caucus with dano and his legion of libs.
I bet you WISH you had written that Brooks’ piece about the “crease in obama’s pants”, eh?
Only in your mind, sir.
Look at that!!! Wankie and mattie show up at the same time. Imagine that!!!
You just made Romney’s point. NOW what’re ol’ dano and ron may gonna do? They spout off with garbage, and then YOU hit’em with the facts.
I LIKE watching this show!
oh dan’s dialect finally shows up, typical bammy idiot response, make fun of someone if you cant dispute what they say…that’s the roanoke rag for ya
yes old dannydumb, if we had all republican govenors, they would know how to spend the disaster funds, now the libbie coms, they’ll want to spend it on killing unborn children and food stamps
gmud shows his comprehension skills AGAIN, I never said they controlled it stupid.
This is the new Rwnutball meme…the UN “overlooking” our elections and what an unacceptable infringement this poses to our “freedoms”.
The UN “overlooks” lots of elections, and unless the RWnuts are afraid this will interfere with their usual gameplan of shorting Democrat precincts on voting machines and otherwise discouragine Democrat turn out, I don’t see why it’s a problem. After all, if you’re not doing anything wrong you should have nothing to hide.
” if we had all republican govenors, they would know how to spend the disaster funds, now the libbie coms, they’ll want to spend it on killing unborn children and food stamps.”
pammala, you can turn down those food stamps in your 7-11. But you don’t, do you?
Why don’t you make a stand, on principle?
gdud is out and about with her wittle BB gun again (and she seems to be yelling…alot).
I cannot wait for the comment blocking feature.
You and ol’ dano are joined at the hip
Last time I checked frankie boy, Dan lived in Roanoke and I live in northern Indiana. It’s hard to be “joined at the hip,” don’t you think??
Dan, She can’t stand on what she hasn’t got.
#37 I see, pammlalamadingdong, you’re scared of the UN even looking at it or being aware of it.
So tell us, pammalapdog, if they can’t control it, what the frick does it matter?
What a dingaling.
#40 “and she seems to be yelling…alot)”
You must be talking about Wankie. He’s using lots of caps.
Good Lord, it’s a zoo in here.
#41 You and me both!
Yeah, Laura, it’s funny how the oft exchange between Matt, Frank, gdad, and dave is allowed to go on and on and on and on… on every thread on every day, but when I have a point about how callous it is of some people to throw around the term ‘black’, Dan thinks it to be incessantly boring and nixes it because he sees new commenters like Justin struggling to rationalize how he was taught that calling someone ‘a black’ is okay but not ‘a yellow’.
Nope, dud. I was just referring to your 8 exclamation marks in the midst of 14 words (ya know, where you were yelling like a little girl?). Lol. You’re fun, dud.
“Yeah, Laura, it’s funny how the oft exchange between Matt, Frank, gdad, and dave is allowed to go on and on and on and on… on every thread on every day, but when I have a point about how callous it is of some people to throw around the term ‘black’, Dan thinks it to be incessantly boring and nixes it because he sees new commenters like Justin struggling to rationalize how he was taught that calling someone ‘a black’ is okay but not ‘a yellow’.”
Mark, you’ve been singing that song for what — years now? — on this blog. It’s waaaaaay played out (besides being dumb, which I’ve already explained to you.) And besides, I didn’t “nix” your comments about this. I asked you to can it.
Judging by the other current exchanges on this blog, your definition of what is considered ‘dumb’ and ‘boring’ is suspect at best.
#48 MMM, you’ve been making that same muddled, ridiculous “point” for at least two years now. And no matter how anybody replies to it, you continue arguing on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. That’s why I tried to warn Justin. Glad to see Dan cut it off.
“Judging by the other current exchanges on this blog, your definition of what is considered ‘dumb’ and ‘boring’ is suspect at best.”
MMM, there is no question that “dumb” and “boring” are subjective judgments. I don’t pretend they’re not. Then, there is the little question of whose blog this is. Is there any dispute as to whether it’s mine?
You always are free to come here — or not.
Me asking someone to rationalize calling someone ‘a black’ being okay compared to calling someone ‘a yellow’ is no more muddled and ridiculous than you going on and on and on and on and on calling people names when you do not agree with their viewpoint. It shows you are a weak debater, a weak man, and a weak liberal.
oh come on ron may,
even i think you are smarter than that. ok…, maybe you aren’t. well…here goes…i meant that you and ol’ dano are joined at your “figuratively” lib hips. do ya unnerstand, now?
hey Marked Man,
I wonder if ol’ dano would let you use the word “black” if you, well, were… black?
Or, if you were, well, a lib?
I’m now faced with a dilema. Which is the best handle for gdud? Is it “mud”? Or, “dud”?
Ok. Here it is: I think its a tie, and that “mud” and “dud” can be used interchangeably.
by the way,
didjall hear about the Des Moines Iowa (no, not ohio, vpjoe…) having endorsed Romney over obuma? Yep!
over the past 36 years, their presidential endorsements have gone thusly:
…carter, carter, mondale, dukakis(sp?), clinton, clinton, gore, obuma, and….weight for it…ROMNEY!
but when I have a point about how callous it is of some people to throw around the term ‘black’, Dan thinks it to be incessantly boring and nixes it because he sees new commenters like Justin struggling to rationalize how he was taught that calling someone ‘a black’ is okay but not ‘a yellow’.” -MMM
MMM, you are past the point of annoying and are vicariously pushing into ad naseum. Why do you feel the need to drag your argument onto another thread? Your argument above, holds absolutely no water! It is one of the most illogical arguments I have ever heard. The fact that you brought my name into this one is completely ignorant. Although I disagree with your stance, I agree that you have the right to have it. If you have a point to make; make it with your own intelligence and logic. Trying to prove your point with negative statements and circular arguments doesn’t prove anything. You have not proven anything, and you certainly cannot argue anything to the point of clarity. So PLEASE chillax, bro! Mr. Casey gives us all a chance to voice our opinions in a respectful manner on a respectful platform.
I think having a place that people from our communities can come together and discuss things together and stick in some facetious statements from time to time is great! But when a thread is bogged down or crashed by comments unbecoming of the argument at hand, it detracts from everyone else’s view point.
I have never claimed to have all of the answers, and to be honest, I hope that I never do. But when given the chance to give my opinion, I want to give it respectfully, and honestly and look at others opinions with an open mind with the realization that I could be wrong.
“I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
You are on the verge of proving, Mr. Galilei, wrong MM.
‘Black’ is a term used to describe a group of people who you do not want to offend (even though you want to single them out) because you aren’t quite sure where they originated from.
‘Yellow’ is a term you DO feel is offensive because you FEEL that you can safely call everyone ‘Asian’ and believe in your heart of hearts that ‘Asian’ includes every possibility of where they originated from.
And you feel that is not illogical??
Oh, and trust me JT, you saying anything about my logic in no way offends me in the least.
Marked Man: “vernacular” – look into it. The answers are there.
MM, I am not trying to offend you at all. I am simply trying to reason with you. Making a valid attempt to convey my point of view. You feel as if your argument is valid, I on the other hand feel it is not. We don’t agree on this subject… so what. The Earth will keep spinning. Now, can we move on from this please?
Well JM, let’s hope that other people like myself will start raising their kids to refer other people by their name or gender (men and women) instead of just calling them a color. Be it ‘black’ as was used to describe a person as a unit of someone’s property, or ‘yellow’ as was used to describe… well another minority group in this country.
Gee Frank I guess that would mean that Romney has less than a 50% chance of winning.
“Well JM, let’s hope that other people like myself will start raising their kids to refer other people by their name or gender (men and women) instead of just calling them a color. Be it ‘black’ as was used to describe a person as a unit of someone’s property, or ‘yellow’ as was used to describe… well another minority group in this country.”
Good grief. MM is SO high-minded, right? It might be possible to mount such an argument if he wasn’t so darn picky about everything right here on this blog, which is exactly how we know he is.
And besides that: he is arguing that all references to skin color and race are somehow morally wrong — but gender? It is not wrong to refer to a person by their gender!
Nice double standard there.
Thanks and that’s fine, Justin. I was just trying to convey how I feel… that some people say it is okay in their mind to call someone ‘a black’ when that was used to refer to them as property at one time is wrong.
It’s funny in a weird way… people argue that it is okay to call someone ‘a black’ nowadays because it no longer is used to refer to someone as a slave or property, yet, for the most part, the only time anyone refers to a group as ‘some blacks’ is because they feel they are being treated differently or are being grouped differently or are being singled out in some form or another BECAUSE within the last 160 years, they were treated differently.
If we want slavery and all connotations that go along with that to be done away with, then we MUST stop singling out groups of people just because they were treated differently 50 or 150 years ago.
Dan Casey, legally referring to a group of women or men as property has never blackened the eye of this country in the way slavery has.
Leave it to Dan Casey to assume a group of people would rather be referred to a a ‘bunch of blacks’ rather than a ‘bunch of equal men and women’.
Dan Casey, keepin’ the racism ALIVE baby!
“Dan Casey, keepin’ the racism ALIVE baby!”
I’m keeping the reality alive.
Oh, and trust me, MM, you saying anything about me keeping racism alive doesn’t offend me in the least.
Because you’re not dealing with reality.
dannyboy , the neighborhood where my store is located doesn’t have people on food stamps. there ya go.
Did y’ll catch that? pammala works in a food-stamp free zone.
As if she knows . . .
#67 And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on….
#69 Uh, uh, pammala. Even the Crystal Spring 7-Eleven is bound to get folks who are on food stamps.
“…just because they were treated differently 50 or 150 years ago.”
Comment by Marked Man — October 29, 2012 @ 3:16 pm
Yes, and the African Americans/Blacks are no longer “treated differently” in 2012 – except they are. No racism anymore? Marked Man watch this video in its entirety [hard to stomach] of the despicable teabaggers’ rally – and come back and say how irrelevant being black in America is…especially when you happen to be the first black President of the United States of America.
Dan, I am not trying to offend you at all.
So the reality you live in would rather refer to a group of people waiting for a plane as ‘a bunch of black people and white people’ as opposed to ‘a bunch of men and women’.
Thank the stars that some of us would rather be referred to as an equal rather than a color.
I’m curious as to whether Marked Man is equally as offended by the term ‘redskins’.
Posted on October 29th, 2012″
And only people who live in that neighborhood shop at that store. No one from anywhere else ever goes there.
pammalapdog doesn’t own a 7-11. At best, she’s a manager, but I seriously doubt that. But just for squirts and giggles, let’s assume she’s not telling a bold-faced lie, and she is a franchisee. As such, her store is owned by the parent company, who can revoke her franchise agreement at any given time for failure to uphold their standards. She has to abide by whatever they decide is best for the business. If they say she has to accept food stamps, she has to accept them. Franchises are a way for people to pretend they own a business without having had to do any of the real work of building the business initially. They are piggy-backing off of someone else’s hard work and risk.
Shrill, so is the president ‘a black’ or ‘half a black’ or ‘half a white’ or ‘a man who was born/created as equal as you or I’?
Contra, if you use it like “Whoa, look at that group of redskins waiting on that bus!” then yes it would be offensive.
Contra, if you say “Woot woot, that’s my boy Obama tellin’ Romney what it is!”, is that racist?
And btw, Contra, if you walk in a strip bar, and you say to your buddy, “Whoa, look at that group of naked WOMEN dancing on that stage!” MM says that is NOT offensive.
Myself, I think you should totally avoid gender and instead say, “Whoa, look at that group of naked PERSONS dancing on that stage!”
/sarcasm font off.
MM – as noted, I call him the President of the United States, just as I would call Hillary Clinton…
Before responding to me, did you even WATCH the video? If so, is the President being treated differently?
“Myself, I think you should totally avoid gender and instead say, “Whoa, look at that group of naked BLACKS dancing on that stage!”” – Dan
Fixed it for ya, Dan.
Shrill, you would call Hillary the President of the United States?? Why? Besides, even SHE called obumbles a liar and shamed him.
Also, you DID call the president ‘a black’. I asked you, is the president ‘a black’ or ‘half a black’ or ‘half a white’ or ‘a man’?
A ‘woman’ was never used as a LEGAL quantity to refer to someone as property in the Democratic South either was it?
MM, throughout history, and in some places even today, women have been (and are) considered property by the fact of their gender and other circumstances. I’m surprised you don’t recognize that. Perhaps your sensitivity regarding such matters is not as attuned as you believe it to be.
Well, MMM has managed to continue his ridiculous circular arguments concerning this topic. Don’t even get the dude started on “African American.”
Dan, we are talking about women being regarded LEGALLY and being recorded as pieces of property here in the U.S.. just as ‘blacks’ were… where did that happen again??
Oh… I get it now! So we should not refer to an individual as a race. OK, but according to your logic, we are not to refer to any one group of people as a race. Got it! Lets roll everything back! So, how are you going to explain to every culture in this country that they are not allowed to name their culture anymore because you find it racist. Jews are no longer allowed to say they are Jewish, Latinos are no longer allowed to stand up and be proud of where they came from. Black people are not allowed to be “Black and proud”, because that is racist. Canadians are no longer able to say that they are America’s hat… We are going to throw everyone’s identity away because you want to be equal but sexist…? You do not want separations except for what reproductive system you possess? What if they were reassigned sexually? What do you want to call them then? Are they still equal?
The reason why we have cultural identities is to preserve their own culture. Hmmm, I wonder how I know this? Perhaps my wife is a minority? Perhaps my children are now a part of this minority… Maybe my wife is extremely proud of her background and where she came from and she wants that recognition from society. She wants people to know that she is different and she is extremely proud of her culture. Is she racist? Perhaps my oppressive, racist, cultured, ignorant self wants my children to know and understand where they came from. I want them to know their history. But people like you want to tell them that is wrong. It is wrong for them or anyone to label their culture because some people find that racist?
Fine, from your point of view I may be racist, but let me say that I hate white people. I hate white people because they feel the need to push their silly baseless ideas on the public because it conflicts with their one-sided, limited view of the world. Just because you find that myself and Dan are racist, doesn’t mean that we are. I am very sure that is a label that we, nor our friends and family would accept. For someone who doesn’t like labels, you sure do like to dish them out.
In closing, don’t you think the president may like to be referred to as the first “black” president? Whose call is it? Yours? I certainly hope not. It is not yours to decide. Do you go to a Mexican Restaurant? Or do you call it, a “restaurant” and leave people to imagine what eating establishment your refined sense of cultural morality may sit and eat? Perhaps you are the one who needs to work on his own culture and get your xenophobic white sheets out from thine closet. I know… it must be hard to see sitting down in your port-a-john.
MM – do you trivialize much?
If Hillary Clinton became President, she would be the President of the United States…what is your problem? Geez. Time to move on and away from your ridiculous conflated premise.
The UN itself is not sending anyone to monitor elections here. That is a scare tactic. The monitoring group is called the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OCSE). Although not a UN division, it is an observer in the UN General Assembly.
I think ol’ dano’s strip clubs are just begging to be sued by some black, white, or brown gay guy dancer, for gender descrimination.
…no grounds to sue unless you allow someone to put you in a box, ya know?
hey ron may,
you missed your calling. you might coulda been a pretty good mathematical/probability teacher. now, how do ya like the following two statistics?:
1….the rag picked a lib eight of the past nine presidential elections (88.9%)
2….and 100% of the previous 8.
…and, how ya like the following thoughts, eh?
…the rag is the main newspaper in an important swing state….
…I betcha that you libs woulda rather had the paper’s endorsement… than Romney get it,…eh?
drip, drip, drip…, … well, you know how it goes.
you got it about half right…if billary clinton were potus, we’d ALL be in a world of doodoo.
hey justin t….you wearing your “i hate me” tee shirt?
Hey, Frank. No need to wear my “I hate, Frank” shirt… everyone knows I hate white people… I am actually wearing my shirt that says, “Ask me why people that follow hypocrite Mormons are so insanely gullible”. Go ahead, Frank… ask me.
I don’t know what high school you went to, Justin, but ‘black’ is not a culture. If your wife or kids are ‘blacks’, that is not their culture or history.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Based on her skirting the question, I guess Shrill doesnt want to define just how ‘black’ the president is or is not.
Didn’t Hillary call president obumbles a liar and shame him?
Whoa, four posts in a row Frank, matt’s gonna getcha!
Marked Man: You’ve used the word “black” nearly twenty times, far more than anyone else on this thread. You’re highlighting a problem by being a part of it, man. The sooner you stop talking about it, the sooner it fades from being an issue. As of now, it just looks like you like making race an issue.
#98 That’s MMM, JM. One weird guy.
Oh sorry, JM, but my argument pales in comparison on the ridiculous front to your and Matt’s quarrels.
Maybe one day I can grow down and become less of man like yourself perhaps? Then you can talk to me.
“Black” alert, MMM, “black” alert!!!! There’s a right winger over on the RT talking about “blacks” making a huge mistake electing Obama. You need to get over there and take care of it.
MM, You are defining the argument without any evidence to the contrary. I do believe your babbling is dead. I am not going to comment on this any longer. Its like fighting with my wife’s mom. I hope that one day you can complete a thought.
“MM, You are defining the argument without any evidence to the contrary. I do believe your babbling is dead. I am not going to comment on this any longer. Its like fighting with my wife’s mom. I hope that one day you can complete a thought.”
Welcome to the club, Justin True.
Good call. You’d never get that wasted time back in your life.
So Justin leaves us with this bit of knowledge… ‘Black’ is a culture so it is okay to call anyone darker than him that and they should like it because he is being sensitive by not calling them ‘African’ (oh, it IS okay to call some other people ‘Asian’ however).
Sorry, gdad, unlike you I don’t have time or desire to pretend to be a little policeman on every single blog on the roanoke.com website.
By all means, you have at it though!!
Probably the most telling statement from Justin…
Calling someone ‘a black’ lets everyone else be aware of their history.
…and when you have nothing further to debate about your point, resort to ad hominem. And apparently, throw in some smug blubbering, as well.
What’s the matter, MM, you don’t like the implication that you might be racist without actually hating other races? There’s such a thing, you know… you just can’t help but take each and every opportunity to bring race into a discussion, can you? When it comes to race, you just can’t let it go, can you? Guess what? That’s racist. Three years is a long time to be wearing the cape that no one asked you to wear, hero.
You’ve alluded several times that they shouldn’t be referred to as black in the first place. Okay, here’s your chance, genius: stop using the damned word! At all. Try leading by example, because I’m pretty sure that you’re not the ambassador that African-Americans want fighting for them.
You think that you’re above us, and that’s cool… but it’s not the reality of things. You don’t possess some greater intellect or knowledge than us lowly peons. You have a piss-poor grasp of what racism is all about and in the end, you come off as struggling to suppress some latent racism within yourself. You nearly obsess about it and all attempts by you to justify your reasoning leave you far from the shore where anyone with a grasp of logic resides. It’s a sad, misguided effort that’s just being wasted.
I pointed you to “vernacular” earlier. If you had done a little reading, you’d understand that in order to change the vernacular of a term, you must demonstrate it without fail and get others to follow. You’re failing miserably at that, sir.
Your pathetic attempt at condescension is quite ironic in light of your comment history here. We can go that route if you like and I’ll unleash a deluge of condescending extemporaneous prose that will make your weak snark look like a leaky faucet in comparison.
You’re a small man in a great big world hurtling through an infinitely bigger universe – a grain of sand among billions upon billions just like you. You’re not “marked”; you’re just another ranting internet lunatic like the rest of us. No one is coming for you. No one cares. The universe is indifferent.
Let’s just stick to the topics at hand, shall we?
#106 Nah, MMM, you’re just a policeman for liberals on Dan C’s blog. We’ve noticed. And my point exactly.
JM, unfortunately for you there is absolutely nothing you could say here or in person that would make me look, feel, or even seem weak… not to myself or anyone else.
And besides, JM, I never said I was above everyone here (or whatever small of ‘us’ you meant).
When I see something I disagree with, I let the person or people know… rather than hiding behind a thin veil of keyboard cowboy insults.
Everywhere you comment or as you say, “When I see something I disagree with”, you do not pay attention, nor do you comprehend what the other side of the argument is saying. At first I thought it was your reading comprehension level. But now I see that you are so obscenely delusional, that you feel as if your stance is the only correct and acceptable stance. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility of yourself being incorrect, and you refuse to acknowledge others valid questions aimed at you. –YOU define the argument in your head, therefore in your own little world you have already won the argument. Then when someone points out your fallacies, you feel as if they are trying to cut you down or offend you. Personally I feel as if you are blind to all other views, thus leaving yourself ignorant and lacking intellectually for not thinking about other’s points of view. You are one-sided, and lack the fortitude to consider others. I feel sorry for you…
MM is not obscenely delusional. He’s simply messing with you. He’s anonymous here, so it’s not like his credibility is on the line or anything. He has nothing to lose. Just trolling, that’s all.
Right wingers never change, not their tune, not their mental age, not their aversion to the truth or facts, not their ludicrous peccadilloes, not their whiny attitudes, not their tired rhetoric and not ever their incessant drum beat. I am so thankful you are not on my side, that some days it makes me giddy. Liberals have a lot of faults, but thanks be to God, not yours.
As I have said many times you are by far the best writer on this blog.
Justin, I never said that everyone that uses the term ‘a black’ to describe a person are themselves necessarily racist… I simply said that the term ‘a black’ has its origins steeped in racism and I asked that people be a little more careful when they throw it around. They try and make themselves believe it is okay now because they hear a lot of other people doing it.
It’s the same thing with the word ‘boy’. Just because someone uses that term to describe a full grown man, doesn’t necessarily mean the person saying it is racist… even though the word has been used in the past as a racial slur.
You cannot accuse someone of calling president obama a ‘boy’ of being racist and if you think you can, you have to include anyone that has called someone ‘a black’ as being racist as well.
That is my point.
I guess we all should implement the “don’t fee the troll” rules here on your blog from now on.
**”Don’t FEED the trolls”
Michael, you said the other day that you were a simple man. Do you, as that simple man with simple, clear (somewhat rigid) values and ideals feel that the hateful bile released here by the right wingers is any more attractive than anything from the left? It isn’t. Who is it that thinks such will ever be treated as welcome here? Granted you throw a zinger once in a while (or cheer one), but really what is the point in some of this hate, lies and stupidity?
Dan Casey is not a right winger (Thank you God!). His topics are not skewed to respect and uphold right wing narratives (quite the opposite, thankfully). Most of Dan’s fans and bloggers are not right wingers. Why is it necessary to tear that down for so many right wingers?
Dave Hicks is not a liberal yet he posts here and almost always manages to keep civil and offer substantive discussion points (sometimes even when I am dogging his argument). Ron May is not a liberal and he stays civil and offers substantive, interesting, thought provoking posts. You are not a liberal and you post here, mostly manage to keep it civil and agree to disagree. You know however, that almost all of the right wingers who come here continually and constantly berate Dan, the paper, the blog, and the regular bloggers. It gets old. NO ONE makes anyone come here.
Is that how you folks make friends in the real world? Is that how you behave in other people’s homes or businesses? In public? Enough is enough! How about you stand up to it, instead of letting them trash your party and make people think you are all crazy?
Few people on earth would accept what is posted here and stay calm in response. I freely admit that I cannot. I also do not go to right wing leaning blogs and demand they respect and allow my ideas and insults. That is what is wrong with this world now IMO.
Seeing the damage of that Hurricane makes me see that we are all in this together, why do so many people need to prove how small and ignorant they are?
I believe we have now completly beaten the hide off this dead horse; can we let it rest in peace now? I think we all know where we stand on the issue…
Agreed, Steve C. I apologize to JM and Justin for seeming irrational. It is something I strongly believe in and was trying to prove my point.
JM is right, I do lead by example and shouldn’t berate others that do not.
Sandi, even on this left-leaning blog there are as many left-leaners that say things they should not as there are right-leaners. I will attempt to do better about that as I know you will too.
Also, I do not agree with all things right-leaning and I do agree with some things that are left-leaning. I apologize if I leave a black mark on either side as a result of any rant I let out.
5 days and still crickets… I dunno Dan… Is it just too dry a topic, or does no one want to explore solutions instead of railing? I thought at least a few people would say “good”, “bad” or “indifferent. Personally, I think a lottery election format would be fantastic over the absurdity we have now.
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Fri, 06 Dec 2013 03:07:25 +0000
Metro Columnist Dan Casey knows a little bit about a lot of things but not a heck of a lot about most things. That doesn't keep him from writing about them, however. So keep him honest!
He welcomes your rants, raves and considered opinions, so long as the language is civil (i.e. no four-letter words). He'll read all your posts and may or may not respond.