On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:52:36 GMT, "Slinky" <slinky@spring.toy> wrote:
>You're going to have to do better than that, you ignorant goof.
>
>
>Europe has PLENTY of racism. They just don't have the same number of people
>of color living in close quarters with their native populations, so they
>have fewer incidents of racial tension. When they have them, they are far
>more explosive and deadly. They have ghettos and segregation by the wallet,
>just as the U.S. You are talking out of your ass. You know not of what you
>speak.
>
>Americans of African descent have had MANY different words describe them
>over the centuries, as have ethnic groups from all over the planet. This is
>no different in the U.S. than any other country, despite your bullshit
>assertions.
>
>The distinctive term "African-American" is used to specify a person's race
>when referring to their race and is NOT a racist term. People from Ireland,
>Italy, and Latin America frequently refer to themselves by their ethnicity
>as a point of cultural pride, not divisiveness.
>
>Slavery in the U.S. ended LONG after it did in Europe and involved MILLIONS
>of more people than the entire European continent's slave complement. The
>terms to describe African-Americans, originally put in place to keep them
>separate, were later used to identify them for early attempts at reparations
>and later for affirmative action campaigns.
>
>Negro, Colored, and Black have been words used in the past and have each
>become slurs, due to mostly white racism.
>
>To use the term "African-American" when specifically discussing the issue of
>race is about as racist as it is sexist to call a person a "woman" when
>having a discussion about gender inequality.
>
>I am all for a color-blind society. I can't wait until America finally
>grows up and stops treating people differently according to race, gender,
>religion, and sexual preference. Until then, intelligent people (you are
>certainly not one of them) will need to use terms to discuss racial issues
>since those issues continue to need discussion. If you are somehow
>suggesting that there is no need to discuss issues of racial equality, you
>are completely insane.
>
>If you had even half a brain, or just a general grasp of the proper use of
>language, you'd realize all of this and quit trying to sound like you have
>any idea of what you're talking about.
>
>Your feeble attempt to sound sanctimonious is obviously as disingenuous as
>your ignorant attempt to fault my criticism of the Republican party.
>
>If you had read it carefully, you'd have seen that I pointed out the past
>racism of the Democrats. The Republicans are now the party of race-baiting
>and tokenism. Ask candidate McCain from 2000, who had to publically rebuke
>George Bush's supporters who used his adopted daughter's skin color to
>spread lies about him having a "black love-child" outside his marriage. Ask
>Colin Powell if he thinks he was shown as much respect as previous
>Secretaries of State while in the Bush White House. Ask Condaleeza Rice the
>same question, and if she is being given the resources she has asked for.
>Ask Condaleeza if she's happy with the number of "people of color" at work
>in her department. Both have written and spoken volumes about their
>dissatisfaction. We'll only hear about Condaleeza's truest feelings after
>Obama is sworn in and she's back to teaching, but meanwhile, she's let it
>slip quite a few times that she and Colin have largely been window dressing
>on a white good ol' boy administration.
>
>You'd better go back and check you recent history, little Bozo. Democrats
>have only had majorities in Congress since 2006 (that's two years, junior)
>and have had NOTHING to do with the current problems facing our nation.
>They have been stonewalled these past two years by the narrowness of their
>majority, with Republicans filibustering and blocking progress on their
>agenda. President Bush has only exercised his veto SINCE the Democrats have
>gained those narrow majorities and he has chosen in other cases to use
>"signing statements" more than any other president in history to essentially
>re-write legislation after it's been passed, EVEN LAWS PASSED BY REPUBLICANS
>DURING THEIR SIX-YEAR (count 'em) MAJORITY.
>
>But don't worry. The Democrats will soon have a filibuster-proof majority
>in the Senate and perhaps veto-proof majority in both the Senate and the
>House. Barack will have to be sure he shows as much respect to the
>legislative branch as Bush showed contempt.
>
>Before you call someone a dumb-ass, check your fucking facts. RETARD!
Heavens!
Nothing shallow about this chap, to be sure.
And although he apparently hasn't a humourous bone in his body,
He most certainly has a firm grasp on vocabularly of a particularly
scatalogical genre!
Well done, I say!
Sincerely yours,
HMS Victor Victorian NP-g18
God Save the Queen!
God Preserve the Prince of Wales!
Rule Britannia!
|
|