StevenSeagal

hey you and Raindawg should get together to rob some graves. Hmmm... Raindawg = Renowned PhD archeologist and professor. Tvashtarketena = A wannabe who dropped out of South Seattle Community College. recent events have demonstrated that people from all levels of income and education can be adept at stealing shit. SS - aren't you like, missing, Glenn Beck or something? no but I'm definitely missing your mom!

hey you and Raindawg should get together to rob some graves. Hmmm... Raindawg = Renowned PhD archeologist and professor. Tvashtarketena = A wannabe who dropped out of South Seattle Community College. recent events have demonstrated that people from all levels of income and education can be adept at stealing shit.

You're off your meds again, aren't you. Careful, chubby. I'll kick your fucking ass. Threats of violence have been reported to the authorities and the website admin. You're on notice!

hey you and Raindawg should get together to rob some graves.

I don't about speeches, but Barry/Bubba sure could climb!

With Coulter, sloppy seconds are probably unavoidable. Nevertheless, your the man to venture onto her deadly ground and enter the belly of the beast. Ugh. Besides she's currently Under Siege by all those horny black conservatives!

With Coulter, sloppy seconds are probably unavoidable.

No, Beck is like Stryper. And Weiner is like Nuclear Assault

Among the first, certainly not THE first, as that is surely Hannity's spank mag of choice.

Sargent D and the S.O.D.: Ruthless and vicious he'll stomp on your face Deadly, malicious, stay out of his space He'll rip your eyes out, don't look the wrong way And once you meet him, there's no time to pray He'll rip your heart out, make you eat your own lips Then crack your elbows, and crush fingertips He'll make you wish that you didn't exist, Cause Sargent D is coming, and you're on his list Don't cut the line, cause he'll cut off your legs Don't take your time or you'll spend time with the dead Don't try to trick him, he'll fill you with lead Don't beg for mercy, he'll piss on your head He'll kill your sister, then mail back the tits He'll beat you senseless, then break out the whips He'll make you wish that you didn't exist, Cause Sargent D is coming, and you're on his list He'll put gas on your kids, then throw them a match He'll back the car over grandma, then dissect her cat With his Stormtroopers of Death, he'll come to your town Their Uzi's rip through flesh, then it's time to chow down Their cause is justified, their reason is clear The word revenge is all that they hear He'll make you wish that you didn't exist, Cause Sargent D is coming, and you're on his list The title music for Headbangers Ball!!! with the trains crashing head on, etc.

And Limbaugh is already out there telling his sheep exactly what the president is going to tell Congress despite not having heard the speech yet (sound familiar?). And of course, he is 'going to tell Congress to ignore the wishes of the American people and usher in an unprecedented level of tyranny and totalitarianism to America!" So the tactic is, get people mad about speeches in advance before the content is revealed, then when the speech isn't anything like they promised, for those who still watched the speech, they can say "he switched speeches at the last minute after he got caught!" which is something I heard about the school speech yesterday. What did Glenn Beck and Michael Weiner say about it? I'm over them. Limbaugh turns me on more now.

A particularly good method would have been "why do you think it is that Republicans are such cunts?"

Then why did you capitalized His Name? It's capitalize, not capitalized. And, how do you know Gawd is a "He"?

i guess b/c the criticism's have mostly been from conservatives, not liberal, so it was more precise to use the adjective - it was also a continuation of a lesson last week where we discussed political identities, took quizzes/polls on the subject, and in general tried to make sense of the words "liberal" and "conservative" in popular speech bill, the kids were largely unimpressed i'd say - just eyeballing their hand-votes (the kid w/ 11 fingers had the spinal tap option too!) the average was somewhere around 5 (but hardly anyone went as high as 7, there were more 1s, n' 2s) - most felt it was a repetitive message - some thought he was bragging too much on himself (the word "i" is used a good bit)and perhaps more interested in improving the economy than their own little lives - there were complaints that he didn't list less glorious occupations on the list of goals (just doctors n' lawyers, they said - i said it woulda been a little wierd if he had spetn 5 minutes listing all of america's trades though) i challenged them to find subtle, non-verbal messages - no one mentioned it until i prompted them, but he was wearing a blue tie and standing in front of a blue background - intentional subliminal adverting for the democratic party? regardless, the discussion alone made this a very worthwhile activity for my class - a lot of animated kids poking fun at old people has alwasy tickled me in the brain-stem it also provided a good opportunity to put up a pie-chart of the federal budget, discuss the concept of priorities as revealed by spending, the nature and sources of funding for public education, etc. Well I do hope you eventually concluded class by telling them they are unamerican if they don't love Obama.

And Limbaugh is already out there telling his sheep exactly what the president is going to tell Congress despite not having heard the speech yet (sound familiar?). And of course, he is 'going to tell Congress to ignore the wishes of the American people and usher in an unprecedented level of tyranny and totalitarianism to America!" So the tactic is, get people mad about speeches in advance before the content is revealed, then when the speech isn't anything like they promised, for those who still watched the speech, they can say "he switched speeches at the last minute after he got caught!" which is something I heard about the school speech yesterday.

Homeboy may unwittingly be onto something here... surely encouraging kids to stay in school and study hard undermines the axiomatic republican trait of willful ignorance. Funny you should say this Willful ignorance indeed. Wonder what this guy's lesson plan is... "Kids, the financial system in this country is in great shape and we shouldn't change a thing! Here's your credit cards, buy whatever you want! Nothing wrong with getting what you want, this is America after all! Don't let anyone tell you there's ANYTHING wrong with how we do things- we're ALWAYS right, and when we're not, just remember we're the greatest country on Earth, everyone else is far worse, so we don't have to do change a thing!"

This statement sounds like something right out of some ideological manifesto, to be honest. I think Buckaroo's question asked about the actual content of the speech. Apparently, you think that children should not be subjected to listening to the president of the United States on any level and about any subject in the first place. What "goals" that you allude to are to be furthered by the president encouraging students to stay in school and work hard and do something good for the country, that you find so abhorrent? Whether this gains Obama political points or not, I don't see any harm or underhanded agenda contained in the content of this speech; it seems that the ones with the political agenda are people that think THIS president should not be allowed to speak to students on principle. I don't recall the Reagan speech referred to above causing any such uproar. Again, appealing to children to study hard and offering encouragement to find what they are good at and asserting that their education is critical to the success of this country is the beginning of "totalitarianism"? Strident rhetoric like this sounds so skewed and marginal it is hard to take you seriously- and you make enough thoughtful points at times that I really don't understand how you can believe this. OH COME ON. on the basis of this statement, he's a "Racist Fuck"? Maybe, maybe he's a race baiter,but you've taken a huge jump on this information alone. By the logic you have outlayed repeatedly in this thread, anyone who alludes, unfairly or not, that you are a racist either directly or indirectly for your support of perceived racist policie, makes that person a "racist fuck". Makes zero sense. Nada. Zilch.

that was precisely my point, but as always it went ignored by Fairweather as he was too busy constructing his strawman to address it.

I don't think many people would talk like they do here in the company of just about anyone. That's the internets for you. I don't get your first statement though. If someone says they want to exterminate all Jews, it doesn't follow that he's an anti Semite? But if someone uses an epithet sarcastically for the specific purpose of provoking fellow whites, then that makes him...racist? Insensitive? Asshole? Humorist? Which?

Considering many liberals in this country are blacks, Latinos, and Asians (are they considered a minority?), I assume that you mean the racism is working against white people. It is only since Obama was elected that we are suddenly hearing blacks being accused of racism vocally and in public in mainstream places. If you mean white liberals and your shining example is prole's clearly sarcastic posts on cascadeclimbers.com, then I think you need to do a little more homework before making such a broad accusation. And citing tvash's epithet usage above isn't going to cut it, since his use of those words is obviously meant to troll. FWIW, I think the fact that even contextural usage of racist words has been deemed voodoo is a sign that peopke's hypersensitivity is off the charts and everyone on both sides needs to lighten the phuck up. As above. If you can so easily dismiss the significance of the "occasional loudmouth Confederate battle flag waving yahoo" in its ability to speak for all conservatives, while simultaneously using what you perceive as one guys racist and anti Semitic posts (and in this case I see at most a crass insensitivity rather than true intent or hatred) as a springboard to accuse all liberals of being racist, then there's really not much difference between the two of you.

No. He has a history of anti-Semitic posts here. Like what? I'm not defending him, but I don't recall him suggesting that Hitler had the right idea, that Jews are inherently bad people, etc. I do recall him repeatedly railing against Israeli government policies, which is a lot different. Maybe I missed these posts of which you speak.

1) Even abhorrent speech is protected in this country under the 1st Amendment. And I'm not my brother's keeper. 2) His post was a troll, plain and simple. Maybe not funny, but anyone can see it was meant as such. I'm going to guess he's not actually anti-semitic; on the other hand, you might consider him anti-semitic simply for suggesting/inferring that Israeli policy is flawed. Which is every bit as hyperbolic as his "Ominous" post. 3)What "race bombs" have I ever posted? 4) your post suggests that if we shut Prole up, it will then be OK for us to post racist shit. I disagree.

Wow. You know you're cash poor when....