JayB

Registrations are at 9,991 and counting. What's the fabulous prize going to be for the big 1-to-the-fourth? #1242

ALL YOUR TEXT ARE BELONG TO US! What's the deal with the [edited by JayB] business when I'm not even a mod in this forum?

This Guy might not agree with you. Ditto for These Guys etc, etc, etc, etc. But especially this guy: Just be sure not to taint your mind by peering between the covers of this racist screed.... Ahh, so you are arguing that the majority of the black population (remember 85% didn't vote for Bush) doesn't know whats good for them. Nice to see you coming out as a smug condscending conservative. Just questioning the link between opposing AA and racism. Not accurate characterization of most people who harbor such beliefs IMO, and getting less and less effective as a substitute for convincing arguments with every passing year.

Just doing my part to make the world safe for fat jokes.

Ergo they are racist. Someone had better get Jimmy Carter on the phone so he can set them straight.

The "Obese Airline Traveler" problem has "Market Opportunity" written all over-it. My other random comment is that the distinction between fat people and the various people in the "not cool to make fun of" group is that it's commonly understood that the people in the latter group have absolutely no control over the traits that place them in the "not cool to make fun of category." Despite the abundance of special-pleading exerted on their behalf, and all of the mass-yearning to be relieved of any responsibility for this condition - the fact of the matter is that the ratio between calories consumed and calories expended is what ultimately determines whether or not one is obese. End of story. Thanks.

This Guy might not agree with you. Ditto for These Guys etc, etc, etc, etc. But especially this guy: Just be sure not to taint your mind by peering between the covers of this racist screed....

What's worse is that if this precedent were to be overturned, any insurance companies were forced to pay claims for damages on uncovered properties - the net result would be that most insurers would pull out of the market, people in Mississippi that could get insurance would be forced to pay more - and in the short-term cluster, the absence of insurance coverage would surely hold up a significant amount of reconstruction and delay the recovery/rebuilding efforts. No ticky, no laundry.

Though noone but you has yet brought up affirmative action, you really seem to want to tie this in here so here goes. I think there are probably many naysayers of affirmative action who have noble or, at least, non-racist motives. I also think that a politician taking a stand against affirmative action will appeal to racists on that basis. The previous two sentences are not contradictory. The border fence is a similar issue, though a little harder to defend with a non-racist straight face, and the smearing of John McCain is pure hate politics (I notice you didn't address that one). Is Bush deliberately pandering to the "racist vote" through policies and actions? Why yes, that is my premise! Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Do you think he's had a sincere change of heart or is simply afraid for his life?

Or...you are attempting to evade the clear implications of what you are writing, or are just aren't terribly good at using words in a manner that expresses what you are actually thinking. Thanks for trying though.

Well Matt, I'd have to disagree with your assertion that adding extra penalties to crimes with racial dimensions automatically renders one racist, as there are quite a few folks out there with politics that are fairly close to your own, that nonetheless oppose them on the grounds that it's not the governments job to determine which beliefs are more vile than others, or which beliefs its acceptable for anyone to hold. They harbor an intense dislike for racism, but don't think that it can or should be outlawed. The interesting thing about the Florida debacle is that a large measure of the confusion about who was a felon and who was not came about because the adminstrators declined to allow race as a category to help match names with criminal records - probably in order to avoid any claims that the process was designed to exclude anyone of a particular color. When it became clear just how innacurate they were, several counties gave up trying to figure out who could vote and who couldn't, and consequently felons of every color who should not have been able to vote didn't have to worry about anyone standing in their way. The rest of the points you raised about social policy et all don't seem like especially good candidates for proving racism either. By this logic, Clinton could be called racist for his efforts on behalf of welfare reform, etec.

So back to my original query - one's stance on things like afirmative action, immigration policy, etc are clear indicators of hatred for particular races, and voting one for them renders one part of the "racist vote?" Bush is deliberately calculating his policies to appeal to people for whom the primary determinant of their voting behavior is racism? Interesting viewpoint.

So....where does the racist part come in here? It's clear that you don't like the guy or his policies, but that's something rather different than proving that they are grounded in racist convictions. BTW-Neologism or O.E.D. on the "Anvilicious"?

Of course. It's the connection between these actions and the claims of racism that I'm not quite getting.

So elaborate on "Bush and the right-wing racist subgroup that he panders to" theme. Matt - maybe you can elaborate on the racist dimensions of Bush's policy thus far?

Can't say that I'm surprised by this sentiment, nor the blanket condemnation of anyone that objects to racial preferences as racist. While there are indeed people who base their objections ot racial preferences upon racist feelings, I don't think that one can syllogize that argument so that it applies to everyone who disagrees with them. Seems like an odd explanation for the passage of things like I-200 in a place like Washington, and would probably seem equally odd to this guy, and others like him: Link.

From the Big Pharoah: "To all my American friends, congratulations!!! Haven't you noticed it?? These days your country is not our villain anymore. Denmark is having its share of our flag burning parades. Sorry my Danish friends, but give these poor Americans a rest and take their place for a moment. I know you're generous. America, this is the time to celebrate." "Update: This post got some of the funniest comments I ever read. Here are just a few of the ones I liked: I don't know, BP. We're used to being #1. It took the work of many generations to put the "great" in Great Satan. It doesn't seem fair the Danes should just saunter in and take all that away from us with a few measly cartoons.But I suppose this must sound petty. Perhaps the Danes are entitled to enjoy their day in the sun. (JohnL) Well, we Danes have always joked about the lack of world wide knowledge about our country.But 12 small cartoons certainly changed all that.Sorry to all you Americans for working so hard all these years to stay on top of the Most Hated list. (Marianne) we're not number 1 anymore?? C'mon US.. we're gonna have to work harder!! Look out, Denmark, the we'll get our title back from you yet!! (jw) Enjoy your time in the spotlight Denmark, I can assure you, we are probably only one step away from pissing off the world again. (t) I'm really frustrated. I was praying Holland would for once be the Great Satan, but we are as usual being ignored. (Infidel) Hey, you've goot to admit the "death to the U.S.A" chant was getting old. "Death to Denmark" however is as fresh as can be, not to mention absurd and utterly pathetic. It really does sound like something out of a monthy python sketch. (Einherjar ) Hold it!You mean America in no longer NUMBER ONE???!!!Oh, how the mighty Satan has fallen!Pushed aside in the Great Infidel Smack-down by TINY DENMARK!Gosh, the SHAME I fell as a patriotic American! (Jeffery) lol.It's an American day of rest! Enjoy it, my fellow countrymen, because tomorrow, we will surely have to get back on that horse. (C MAR II) We invaded somebody and somebody took the top spot with a fricken cartoon? Is it my imagination or are there always people in the middle east burning flags? (Mike) We are happy to have some relief. It is hard work being the Great Satan of the World for 26 years straight! (Original Jeff) YEAAAAAA!!!! How long do we get? A week? WOW, we've never had a vacation before. (Tina) if the U.S. just wanted to be hated, why couldn't we have published cartoons, rather than send in troops? It would have been sooo much cheaper! (Solomon2)"

I think it would be more akin to a soldier's relative using the funeral-pulpit at the burial service to berate the people in the audience who were opposed to the war, but came to show their respects. Of course when a national figure passes away it makes sense to reflect on their life, their causes, etc - but IMO using the occaision of the funeral to berate people in the audience is poor form. Plenty of time for that once the service has concluded. My opinion - that's all.

Could be worse. You could be looking at a 6" manmade base that's been through about 20 freeze-thaw cycles covering acres and acres of crowded groomers. Count your blessings.

Seems like it covered the recent chronology and the social climate reasonably well. What were you hoping for more emphasis on?

So why did GWB show up? The man is almost universally disliked in the black community (see voting patterns) and his administration has spent a good bit of energy dismantling and weakening the legislation people like King worked for. Oh, I suppose W does pay lip service to King's accomplishments. Can't imagine why guests gave him a hard time..... I was mostly referring to the notion of holding an activist funeral, like the one that you referred to above. If that's what someon wants to do, that's fine, but only if the guests know the purpose of the service in advance. In the case of CSK, I think that this was almost like a state funeral, and sometimes it's incumbent upon whoever occupies the office to make an appearance in order to pay the nation's respects. While they no longer occupy the office, I'm sure that's at least part of the reason why Carter, Clinton, and GB senior felt as though they should publicly recongize her passing by attending the services. It was basically a lose-lose situation for GW, as I'm sure that if he elected not to attend he'd be criticized for that as well.

As long as its clear that this is the purpose of the funeral, I'd say that's fine. That way people who harbor different outlooks, but pondered coming to pay their respects, and using their presence to comfort the survivors by showing them that the deceased were broadly loved and admired - can just send a card instead. It's just the bait-and-switch/abuse of sympathy aspect that I dislike, but advance notice would take care of that.

I don't think anyone would question the general principle that the quotes illustrate - although some would question the chronology, as both Teddy and FDR were long gone by 1948 - but the manner of, and the motives for the critique also matter. In some cases they're honorable, in some cases they're not - and the freedom to criticize in service of patriotism comes along with the obligation to endure criticism on the same grounds.

I still think it's in poor taste, and it's more a manners issue than a political one. Some members of my family went to a funeral where the passing of the deceased was especially tragic - really, really terrible - and some of the survivors turned it into an invitation for everyone in the audience to accept Jesus as their personal savior etc. The plea may have been entirely in keeping with the deceased's wishes, but I thought that using was in incredibly poor taste nonetheless.