Seminal Point

[peewee's lovechild]

Bro. You are free in this country to live in ignorance or to pursue information. You obviously like the nebulous grey areas that require little effort, unless you can have it spoonfed to you.

This is a distraction only in the fact that it is an attempt to reprogram votes, white votes. Honestly, why one would allow the same tricks to furment fear and derision has made this country what is is today.

Perhaps you should start with these questions. What is the reason/agenda? Why? Why me/us?

You still didn't answer my question.

But, this is America, feel free to ramble on endlessly.

[Doc Jerome]

First of all, can you prove that Hillary did absolutely nothing during the Clinton administration?

You won't be able to do that.

Secondly, if I'm a white guy running for President and I attend a church that has a pastor that says that all ######s are descendents of Noah's "dark" son . . . said son was cursed by Noah and God himself and therefore all "dark" peoples, i.e. "######s", are a cursed people . . . that it should have no negative effect on me because I myself don't believe in what my pastor is saying??

Do you seriously believe that?

Seriously?

There is enough information out here to refute most of HRC's experience claims already.

Looks like you revel in the ambiguity of posting by taking great pleasure in uttering the "N" word. Rev. Wright does not preach hate, which is not congruent with your example. Trinity does not preach a gospel of racism. There is no racist attack being made against white people there.

I understand that you may be paralyzed by fear; but, do not fear the promise that can be your glorious future.

[Doc Jerome]

I have a picture that I took with Bill Clinton.

I have a picture that I took with Tom Delay when he came to visit UT-Brownsville and I was in charge of setting up the display for our library.

I have a picture that I took with Phil Gramm when I was in High School.

Am I somehow affiliated with them or their politics because I took a picture with them?

If you can. The photo is at a fundraiser. The only way of attending a fundraiser is to give money. You are invited because you have given money; therefore, given access. That's how it works.

[101A]

Some have hope that inspiration can bring change.
Some have inspiration that change can bring hope.
And some have change that hope will bring inspiration.
We are inspired and hopeful and changed.
We need not fear what lies before us.
For before us lies the future, and the future will change unless it stays the same.
So we can hope in not fearing, and not fear in hoping.
If we stay divided, we cannot unite. And if we are not united, then we cannot be one. And if we are not one, then we must be two or three or several. And several is too many! You lose count after a while. My wife tells me not to try to remember more than three things on a shopping list. Any more than that, and she tells me I need to make a list. Heh, heh, she's the organized one, making all the lists. Me, not so much. But if there's only one thing on that list, then I don't need to write it down. I can remember it. It sticks at the forefront of my mind all the way to the store. And that's what America needs to be like.
You see, we must move forward, because if we are not moving forward, we are either moving backward, or sideways, or sitting still. And it hard to see if you are moving backward, because you have to crane your neck around.
And we in America are not a people who crane our necks around! We are not a people who rely on our peripheral vision!
Otherwise, how can we be reconciled to the future of change and hope and forwardness that lies before us? If we are not in the future, then we must be in the present or the past. But we cannot be in the past, because the past is already over. And as soon as we find ourselves in the present, the present is already past, and the future is now the present.
So we must unite the future with the present, because the future is ever-becoming the present! And if we are not changing and hoping, then as the future is becoming the present, it is not changing but rather staying the same, and the same is the status quo. So without our change and hope and inspiration, to be inspired and hopeful and changing, in order to change and hope and inspire, the future becomes the present, which becomes the past, and the status quo stays the same and does not change!
For we cannot take the past and make it the future. We cannot change the past. For that would be time travel. But they said, "You cannot change the past; it already happened," but we said, 'Yes, we can!" And then they said, "No, seriously, according to the laws of physics it's impossible," and we said we won't be bound by the shackles of the laws of physics. We said, "Yes, we can." And they said, "Really, I can show you the calculations according to quantum mechanics, you can't do it" and we said that quantum mechanics are the physics of the past. They are the physics of fear and of division. "Yes, we can!"

Very, very funny.

[peewee's lovechild]

There is enough information out here to refute most of HRC's experience claims already.

Looks like you revel in the ambiguity of posting by taking great pleasure in uttering the "N" word. Rev. Wright does not preach hate, which is not congruent with your example. Trinity does not preach a gospel of racism. There is no racist attack being made against white people there.

I understand that you may be paralyzed by fear; but, do not fear the promise that can be your glorious future.

I like how you didn't answer the question.

I like how you deflected with my use of "######", nevermind that I was using it as an example of extremeism.

But, go ahead do what you want . . .

[peewee's lovechild]

If you can. The photo is at a fundraiser. The only way of attending a fundraiser is to give money. You are invited because you have given money; therefore, given access. That's how it works.

Do you have any idea how many people take pics with candidates?

Do you have any idea how many random people donate to a candidate?

Does a candidate have to know every single person donating?

Give me a break.

Now, having someone whose been investigated for two years for fraudulent acitivity run the finances of your campaign . . . . now that's a horse of a different color.

[smeagol]

Now, having someone whose been investigated for two years for fraudulent acitivity run the finances of your campaign . . . . now that's a horse of a different color.

The Clintons are scandal-free . . .

[JoeChalupa]

Somehow, you must summon the strength to overcome or face your fear, bias, hatred, anger, etc. That is truly the measure of a man, and the essence of all human struggle.

I concur.

[JoeChalupa]

Hillary's claim of 35 years of experience is...in Bill Clinton's terms...a fairy tale.

[peewee's lovechild]

The Clintons are scandal-free . . .

I never said that.

But, Obama is the candidate that is not supposed to be like all the other candidates.

He's not supposed to be "old politics", and yet he seems to be exactly that.

[peewee's lovechild]

Hillary's claim of 35 years of experience is...in Bill Clinton's terms...a fairy tale.

I think it's absurd to discount all the politcal work she's done in her life.

That's just re ed.

[JoeChalupa]

I think it's absurd to discount all the politcal work she's done in her life.

That's just re ed.

I'm not discounting all her political work but what really matters is the kind of experience. I don't consider her experience superior. And even the most experienced of politicians make mistakes..such as voting for the Iraq War.

And the re ed smack is weak..very weak.

[JoeChalupa]

I never said that.

But, Obama is the candidate that is not supposed to be like all the other candidates.

He's not supposed to be "old politics", and yet he seems to be exactly that.

To claim Obama is exactly like old politics is re ed. Nobody, especially Hillary "the presidency is owed to me" Clinton, thought Obama would be ahead in delegates, States won and the popular vote at this time of the presidential campaign.

[peewee's lovechild]

I'm not discounting all her political work but what really matters is the kind of experience. I don't consider her experience superior. And even the most experienced of politicians make mistakes..such as voting for the Iraq War.

And the re ed smack is weak..very weak.

It wasn't any kind of smack at all.

She's been actively involved in politcs since Obama was in diapers.
This whole Health Care initiative . . . she's been the biggest proponent since before it was the cool thing to support.

To brush aside all that she has done is just insane, or re ed.

[peewee's lovechild]

To claim Obama is exactly like old politics is re ed. Nobody, especially Hillary "the presidency is owed to me" Clinton, thought Obama would be ahead in delegates, States won and the popular vote at this time of the presidential campaign.

He's been caught in lies.

He's condemed a white man (Imus) for "racial remarks" and even called for him to lose his job, meanwhile I haven't heard him blast the rap industry for doing the same on a daily basis.

He needs the street cred.

Isn't that what an old school politician does?

He blasts the Clintons for being life long politicians that can't be trusted, and yet he was quick to allign himself with Ted Kennedy because it was convenient for him. For s sake, he even made it a point to sit next to him at the State of The Union Address.

Ted freaking Kennedy!!!!

The Kennedy's are nothing but old school politics!!

Why can't you see that?

[Doc Jerome]

I like how you didn't answer the question.

I like how you deflected with my use of "######", nevermind that I was using it as an example of extremeism.

But, go ahead do what you want . . .

Some questions don't require a response. Some questions are answered in an esoteric or even in a cryptic way. What is required by you, is to go beyond the tacit fundamental understanding you have of the world.

Hint. Using the "N" word is not a prerequisite for embarking on a journey of self improvement or elevated discourse.

I will, as you say, do what I want; however, before I do that, I'd like to assist you if at all possible in the inauguration of your own personal renaissance. Remember, . . . There is nothing to fear in your glorious future.

[Yonivore]

To claim Obama is exactly like old politics is re ed. Nobody, especially Hillary "the presidency is owed to me" Clinton, thought Obama would be ahead in delegates, States won and the popular vote at this time of the presidential campaign.

Obama is a product of the old-time Chicago-style Democrat party machine. Meet the new boss, same as the old.

[peewee's lovechild]

Some questions don't require a response. Some questions are answered in an esoteric or even in a cryptic way. What is required by you, is to go beyond the tacit fundamental understanding you have of the world.

Hint. Using the "N" word is not a prerequisite for embarking on a journey of self improvement or elevated discourse.

I will, as you say, do what I want; however, before I do that, I'd like to assist you if at all possible in the inauguration of your own personal renaissance. Remember, . . . There is nothing to fear in your glorious future.

Ummm, I'm sorry you got all butt hurt that I used the word "######" to prove a point. I'm sorry that you're not adult enough to use that in a conversation.

I never, at any point, used it to refer to anyone in particular. Kori would've banned my ass by now.

So, if you're not some black guy that is easily offended by any mention of the word "######", eventhough it's being used in a non-offensive way, you're a white guy living with white guilt.

I'm neither. I have a clear conscience. And, if you go back to the post where I used that word, you might find that there was an actual reason to use it.

So, once again, ignore the question I posed and make an issue about a non-issue to deflect the fact that you don't want to answer the question.

[Doc Jerome]

Ummm, I'm sorry you got all butt hurt that I used the word "######" to prove a point. I'm sorry that you're not adult enough to use that in a conversation.

I never, at any point, used it to refer to anyone in particular. Kori would've banned my ass by now.

So, if you're not some black guy that is easily offended by any mention of the word "######", eventhough it's being used in a non-offensive way, you're a white guy living with white guilt.

I'm neither. I have a clear conscience. And, if you go back to the post where I used that word, you might find that there was an actual reason to use it.

So, once again, ignore the question I posed and make an issue about a non-issue to deflect the fact that you don't want to answer the question.

I am neither hurt nor offended that you chose to liberally use the "N" word. Your point is pointless. It has no merit at all. Trinity does not preach a gospel of hate, . . . oh well. Look, I have already responded to your drivel.

What does it matter what or who I am? I do not need to lean on Kori to co-sign my posts, or anything in them. Especially an offensive word (to many) that you justify by back-dooring it's usage.

Your question was answered already. You are just too thick in coming to that realization. Your anger is apparent and your liberal use of the "N" word just exposes your flaws. Ultimately, we can't disguise who we are. I offered something to you that goes beyond a simple disagreement and exchange on a blog. It apparently did not pass your threshold of humanity or curiosity to even consider it. This shows your lack of judgement in the heat of discussion and proves that you are incapable of elevated discussion. Be gone, . . . simpleton.

[fyatuk]

Together, we must hold those that propagate misinformation as fact accountable to the spirit that is the promise of America.

Stop the misinformation and limited cognitivism.

Considering both sides of the fence and all major candidates fall into that, how would you suggest resolving it.

Oh, and I doubt you used cognitivism correctly. The adjective "limited" doesn't really make sense with the meaning of the word. I believe you meant "cognition" instead. Not that that matters, just didn't make sense.

[Doc Jerome]

Considering both sides of the fence and all major candidates fall into that, how would you suggest resolving it.

Oh, and I doubt you used cognitivism correctly. The adjective "limited" doesn't really make sense with the meaning of the word. I believe you meant "cognition" instead. Not that that matters, just didn't make sense.

That is the conundrum that people in America must solve in order to bring a sense of propriety and fairness to every facet of the American experience. Eliminating the all too obvious biases in the media would be a perfect start. He who controls the image controls the perceptions of that image.

Yes, the word cognitivism is derived from the word cognition. However, the word cognitivism is used in several ways. In a general sense, with respect to discourse, it is the position that sentences used in that discourse are meaningful and capable of being true or false. This concept can apply to many aspects of life, including ethics and many normative matters such as contests, music, and even the concept of democracy. All have norms (or rules), and while it would be difficult to accept that the candidate with the most delegates does not win the contest, or that C-E-G is not C Major (triad), or even that we have freedom of speech, the contrast in ethics can be true or false too. We may want ethical statements to be categorically true, while we only need statements about right action to be contingent on the acceptance of the rules of a situation. The choice to play the contest, compose or conceptualize music, pursue the lawful promise that is America according to the given set of rules are all legitimate transfers of application.

I admit, while it does not reflect an absolute, it does reflect an abated position or diminution which lies somewhere inbetween. Thus, limited cognitivism does not adhere to the rules, nor to the concept of absolutes. In short, artistic license.

[Extra Stout]

That is the conundrum that people in America must solve in order to bring a sense of propriety and fairness to every facet of the American experience. Eliminating the all too obvious biases in the media would be a perfect start. He who controls the image controls the perceptions of that image.

Yes, the word cognitivism is derived from the word cognition. However, the word cognitivism is used in several ways. In a general sense, with respect to discourse, it is the position that sentences used in that discourse are meaningful and capable of being true or false. This concept can apply to many aspects of life, including ethics and many normative matters such as contests, music, and even the concept of democracy. All have norms (or rules), and while it would be difficult to accept that the candidate with the most delegates does not win the contest, or that C-E-G is not C Major (triad), or even that we have freedom of speech, the contrast in ethics can be true or false too. We may want ethical statements to be categorically true, while we only need statements about right action to be contingent on the acceptance of the rules of a situation. The choice to play the contest, compose or conceptualize music, pursue the lawful promise that is America according to the given set of rules are all legitimate transfers of application.

I admit, while it does not reflect an absolute, it does reflect an abated position or diminution which lies somewhere inbetween. Thus, limited cognitivism does not adhere to the rules, nor to the concept of absolutes. In short, artistic license.

I nominate this for "Postmodern Post of the Year."

[101A]

I nominate this for "Postmodern Post of the Year."

I second (and I think the poster should rename himself "Buckley's Ghost")

[peewee's lovechild]

I am neither hurt nor offended that you chose to liberally use the "N" word. Your point is pointless. It has no merit at all. Trinity does not preach a gospel of hate, . . . oh well. Look, I have already responded to your drivel.

You didn't respond to it, so I'll post it again:

Secondly, if I'm a white guy running for President and I attend a church that has a pastor that says that all ######s are descendents of Noah's "dark" son . . . said son was cursed by Noah and God himself and therefore all "dark" peoples, i.e. "######s", are a cursed people . . . that it should have no negative effect on me because I myself don't believe in what my pastor is saying??

Do you seriously believe that?

What does it matter what or who I am? I do not need to lean on Kori to co-sign my posts, or anything in them. Especially an offensive word (to many) that you justify by back-dooring it's usage.

If I was being racist, Kori would have banned me. Now, you chose to take offense to it for some reason. I'm not going to apologize for it.

Your question was answered already. You are just too thick in coming to that realization. Your anger is apparent and your liberal use of the "N" word just exposes your flaws. Ultimately, we can't disguise who we are. I offered something to you that goes beyond a simple disagreement and exchange on a blog. It apparently did not pass your threshold of humanity or curiosity to even consider it. This shows your lack of judgement in the heat of discussion and proves that you are incapable of elevated discussion. Be gone, . . . simpleton.

My liberal use of "######"?

Damn, you are extremely sensitive.

[Doc Jerome]

Reposting your flawed premise does very little to help your case. An answer has already been rendered.

I am not, have not, nor will I, accuse you of being racist unless it is merited. You continue to hide under the protective skirt of Kori in an attempt to hide your shortcomings. Perhaps this explains your support and defence of Sen. Clinton. You see the skirt of a woman to be a protective cloak with which you find comfort and protection from “The Force.” Well, Vader never showed such cowardice.

The fact that out of all the possible scenarios at your disposal, you selected from your vast reservoir of knowledge, an example that does not apply to Sen. Obama’s situation, to prove some phantom analogous connection. Rev. Wright has NEVER made any broad assertions of any kind regarding white people. He rails against the system/government/rich white folk.

1. System- A group of interrelated components or elements forming a complex whole. In his case, anyone or anything denying him an opportunity to pursue his American dream.

2. Government- Remember, he is a former marine who served his country (had to be out of love considering the times) and after having completed that service, allowed little opportunity.

3. Rich White Folk- Hyper elite's that control the flow of wealth and opportunity in this country and indeed the world. Not all white people, but the 1% in control.

His statements indicate that he identifies the above as a static presence in society. The gospel preached at the church (Trinity) is not one of hate, nor hating white people. Listen to Sen. Obama’s speech to get the rest, . . .

I am not seeking an apology from you, as I am not hurt by your choice of words, you are. After posting and reposting, you have successfully destroyed your credibility 8 times. I am certain that George Lucas did not intend Vader to be so uncouth.