Republicus

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Name:
Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

The Bush-Hater Is A Race-Baiter





(from top: Lil' Rascal Buckwheat, Representative Cynthia Mckinnon, President Bush as Buckwheat, monkey-montage of President Bush)

Republicus was recently visited by blogger John Roper
(http://johnpatrickroper.blogspot.com/ ) and Republicus returned the courtesy by paying him a visit.

He noticed that Mr. Roper had just opened his own blog and Republicus saw fit to leave a few comments to get the ball rolling for the fellow blogger.

The posts are comprised of visuals which speak for themselves.

One such post was called "Buckwheat Cloned!" and consisted only of the picture of Representative Cynthia Mckinnon above.

Republicus gasped in astonishment and "LOL"-ed.

Just compare the top two pics of Buckwheat and Representative Mckinnon to see what Republicus found humorous: The expression and hair-do of the congresswoman most certainly evokes Our Pal Buckwheat's in that picture (and Buckwheat was called a "she" in his earliest appearances, if memory serves).

Enter Lee Harvey (swooping in like a moonbat out of hell):

To recap, Lee Harvey was banned from Republicus for causing another guest--Kelly--to leave because of the offensive, lowbrow tactlessness he directed at her. However, Republicus felt bad soon thererafter and reinstated his privileges at Republicus, provisionally: That he apologize to Kelly and stop the damn importation of lengthy, lefty opinion pieces (he could feel free to provide links to them if he felt that strongly about their opinion and was too dense to communicate the gist of them himself).

But, rather than apologizing to the woman, he decides instead to appear as "Anonymous" here and there and carry on venting his two cent's (if not penny's) worth under the guise of some mystery man.

Fine. He makes the job of Republicus easy by providing the same examples of easily-diagrammed and de-constructed liberal-think, anyway (as you shall see here), and at least there was no more importation of the opinion pieces.

Furthermore, his decision to skulk around anonymously rather than having to apologize to Kelly just confirms his own skullduggery.

Meanwhile, he lurks and carefully watches who's coming and going at Republicus and spies to see who they are and where they're coming from like a typical nosey liberal who needs to know everyone's business.

Clicking on Mr. Roper's name, he sees the Buckwheat post and decides that Roper is a "bigot." Then he sees that Republicus visited the blog and--"A-ha!"--left the "LOL" comment at that post, so Lee Harvey rushes back to "out" Republicus as a "racist" in the last post (which has since been deleted because Republicus was informed that it was another chain-email hoax), in his determination to slander and discredit him (he has called Republicus stuff like "twisted," a "fascist," "blind," and now "racist").

Lee Harvey said nothing at Mr. Roper's blog, but decided to do his slandering at Republicus, calling him "lowbrow" and both he and Mr. Roper--Republicus' guest-- not just "racists," and not just "incredible" racists," but "patent" racists" in his characteristic, over-the-top hyperbole meant to be taken seriously, all because Mr. Roper posted the above bad hair-day pic of Representative McKinnon and titled it "Buckwheat Cloned!" and Republicus, astonished, LOL-ed (which, if not innocuous, is bad manners, but "racist?").

But get this:

1) Representative Mckinnon, in that pic, with that expression and hairdo, does, in fact, bear a striking resemblance to Our Pal Buckwheat's own expression and hair-do.

No?

Yes. It's an objective observation.

2) Ironically, while calling Mr. Roper and Republicus "incredibly racist" for making the comparison and "LOL"-ing, respectively, Lee Harvey fails to see that he is playing the same reverse-racism race-card that Representative McKinnon played to justify why she struck a U.S. Capital Building security guard who didn't recognize her and asked her to stop at a checkpoint.

She has since apologized.

Will Lee Harvey apologize?

Hell no.

3) Look at the third pic that has made its rounds on the Internet:

It's President Bush as Buckwheat!

Is that "O-tay," Spanky?

If so, why? Why is it o-tay to to put the POTUS' face on a rascally ragamuffin who happens to be African-American, but it's not o-tay to chuckle about an expressive resemblance between that very ragamuffin and a U.S. Representative, who's also African American--unless, of course, it is you who is engaging in racial discrimination?

Explain.

4) The fourth pic is a montage of Bush's facial expressions compared to a chimp's, which raised lotsa laughs from the childish Bush-hating crowd for quite some time, with Bush being called "monkey Bush," or "Simian-In-Chief" or some such for months (until the historical ignoramuses that are the Bush-haters caught wind that Abraham Lincoln was called "Ape Lincoln" and so dropped any inconvenient comparison with one of our greatest presidents).

Did Lee Harvey have a problem with that?

Hell no.

But what would Lee Harvey say if the chimpanzee montage was with Representative Mckinnon?

And what about Representative Mckinnon's lawyer, who in the midst of an argument on Hannity & Colmes-- wherein he insisted that the incident with the congeresswoman was racially motivated-- called Sean Hannity a "rich white boy"?

What the hell is that?

Then he conceded that he didn't know how "rich" Hannity was, but left the part about "white boy" unretracted.

But if Hannity called the lawyer a "black boy" (or even a "rich black boy"), well, Hannity would be out of a job, understandably as that sort of thing should not be tolerated given the actual and tragic racial discriminations in relatively recent American history that created exceptional sensitivities, but shame on the lawyer's own insensitivity to the glaring double-standard and his failure to lead by example.

Meanwhile, how many times has Lee Harvey characterized the Bush administration (which is the most ethnically diverse in American history)--and Republicus himself--as "anglo-fascists?"

Plenty of times.

BUT THAT'S O-TAY!

74 Comments:

Anonymous Jeff said...

And like I said before, you can't spin this one away. Three words man, It is wrong. Don't care who it is, don't care at all, It is wrong, and yes, the 30 or so black friends my wife and I have in our circle and have looked at the email pic "comparison", not knowing a thing about who Cynthia Mckinney is, BECAUSE it doesn't matter, were very offended. Yes I did check with others just to make sure it wasn't just me. Again man, as the only person here who actually knows you, I am telling you this is wrong, and yes it IS racist John, period. There is no other way around that. You can throw my hatred of Bush out the window, and the fact Mckinney is a democrat out the window, it is irrelevant. Decency is not partisan. You are tumbling down a steep slope in your life now man, and right now I am offended at your incredible lack of common sense/sensitivities and saddened at who you are rapidly becoming.

9:09 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

That's what I'm talking about John. Let's see, how can I answer this as heartfelt as can be conveyed on a setting like this.
First, Historically blacks have been degradingly compared to apes, chimps, monkeys, whatever pathetic past KKK moniker you wish to pull out, and they are very very aware of this. Second, "buckwheat" is a pretty bad past Cartoonish Characterization of how whites perceived and treated blacks in that day. While Buckwheat may be a beloved character to you, white america, and oh how amusing he is( O-Tay), he is a reminder to the majority of black america of what they faced and still do face today, whether you want to accept that or not, they do.
So, how do you think my black wife would perceive Bush, being compared to chimps and buckwheat(ie black) and those OBVIOUSLY meaning to be derogatory? Do you think her as a black woman is going to care that they are making fun of Bush, or do you think, and rightfully so, she and others just might be offended that the butt of the joke is his derogatory implication is he is really being compared to being no better than a blackie? Do you really think I, who married her and fathered a gorgeous daughter with her, who will have to face this kind of shit for apparently the forseeable future am going to be ok with any of this? Sad indeed brother.

9:38 PM  
Blogger John said...

Wrong, sure, because it's bad manners to a woman.

Insensitive? Sure, because she's a woman.

You're the one playing the race card, Lee Harvey.

Take it up with Roper, not me for laughing in astonishment at the resemblance.

The woman had a bad hair-day, and was caught in an expression that could be superimposed over Buckwheat's pic.

There's nothing black or white about it.

You gotta problem with Buckwheat?

I saw it on Roper's blog, said "Holy s**t!" and "LOL."

Then you swoop in here and call me a "racist."

That's offensive. That's slander.

Explain to me how that's racism, because I don't see it.

Then you gather "30 or so black friends" to point out what a "racist" I am in your demagogic way and in your obsession to discredit me as widely as possible and in a not-so-subtle way to intimidate me.

I am "tumbling down a steep slope in (my) life now man," because you don't like my blogging?

You are "saddened at (what I am) rapidly becoming?

What the hell have you become?

You "hope Bush gets assassinated."

And it's "Mckinnon," and if you knew what kind of racist crap she was trying to pull, you wouldn't be freaking out over the superficial comparison with Buckwheat.

And cut the "I know you" crap. You think you "know" a lot of things which you're demonstrably clueless to.

And if you think I'm a racist, that's proof.

Now stop stalking me and go away.

10:09 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

And just on a side note, I have met Mckinnon, I have had conversation with Mckinnon. She seemed every bit of the typical politician to me for the most part, could care less about her one way or another.

And that pic is definitely doctored, wonder who did that?

If you'd like to see the real pic, go to http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004902.htm

I'm sure your familiar with this psycho's site.

10:11 PM  
Blogger Douglass said...

Jeff: racism?!?!

You know just as well as I that Mckinney looks like Buckwheat, even on a good hair day.

Do you think that Buckwheat was some sort of sub-human whose comparison to a black person is akin to comparing an ape to a black person?

Buckwheat was a person.

It would be racist to think that Mckinney is somehow less human because she looks like Buckwheat.

10:25 PM  
Blogger John said...

Jeff said:

"That's what I'm talking about John. Let's see, how can I answer this as heartfelt as can be conveyed on a setting like this.
First, Historically blacks have been degradingly compared to apes, chimps, monkeys, whatever pathetic past KKK moniker you wish to pull out, and they are very very aware of this."

Right. That's why the monkey-Bush thing can slide on an anglo.

"Second, "buckwheat" is a pretty bad past Cartoonish Characterization of how whites perceived and treated blacks in that day. While Buckwheat may be a beloved character to you, white america, and oh how amusing he is( O-Tay), he is a reminder to the majority of black america of what they faced and still do face today, whether you want to accept that or not, they do."

Hm. Okay.

"So, how do you think my black wife would perceive Bush, being compared to chimps and buckwheat(ie black) and those OBVIOUSLY meaning to be derogatory?"

It's not derogatory comparing a POTUS to a chimp or a rascally ragamuffin?

"Do you think her as a black woman is going to care that they are making fun of Bush, or do you think, and rightfully so, she and others just might be offended that the butt of the joke is his derogatory implication is he is really being compared to being no better than a blackie?"

I don't see it that way, and I really don't think comparing Bush to a chimp or Buckwheat has any racial over or undertones.

"Do you really think I, who married her and fathered a gorgeous daughter with her, who will have to face this kind of shit for apparently the forseeable future am going to be ok with any of this?"

Look, I don't know if you've actually come across people who think like that, or if it's your own paranoia, but if it's the former, ignore them and/or stay away from them. That's their problem.

"Sad indeed brother."

Jeeeeeeeeeee-ZUZ. Awright. For your daughter, and your wife, I'll delete the friggin' post and tell Roper to do likewise.

Like I said, I understand the "actual and tragic racial discriminations in relatively recent American history that created exceptional sensitivities," but the brudduhs and sistas I know are a lot thicker-skinned than you.

10:26 PM  
Blogger John said...

McKinnon's a racist.

10:28 PM  
Blogger John said...

But let me tell you something: I don't buy into this victimization crap.

And I love Buckwheat. The whole gang of urchins, Spanky, Alfalfa, Farina too.

Who the hell doesn't?

10:31 PM  
Blogger John said...

Douglass said:

"You know just as well as I that Mckinney looks like Buckwheat, even on a good hair day.

Do you think that Buckwheat was some sort of sub-human whose comparison to a black person is akin to comparing an ape to a black person?

Buckwheat was a person.

It would be racist to think that Mckinney is somehow less human because she looks like Buckwheat."

EXACTLY.

10:33 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

You don't have to delete your post, I'm not asking you too. You obviously stand by it and your set of beliefs. I stand by mine, and if you think I don't have thick skin being in an "interracial" marriage in the USA, heh, lol, well, lets just say, that's an awfully amusing white perspective on my "dermis thickimus". lol. Oh lord.

10:39 PM  
Blogger John said...

Where the hell do you live? 19th Century Richmond? Sheesh. I see mixed couples everywhere.

You're listening to too much liberal "victimization" crap, Jeff.

Their arguments are inherently racist, but they''ve "earned the right to be racist!" (?!?!?)

You don't hear conservative blacks talking like that, that's for damn sure (and I dare you to call them "Uncle Toms").

10:47 PM  
Blogger John said...

Like I said Jeff, if you truly know people who think the way you described, then just ignore and/or stay away from them.

But I think it may be some of that liberal hooch you've drinking, Jeff.

Consider: You said that the pic of Bush's face superimposed on Buckwheat's is interpreted by the sensitive (or hypersensitive, maybe?) African-American as meaning that "Bush is no better than a blackie."

BUT--who would've made such a pic? Conservative, "racist" Bush-supporters? Of course not. Lefty BUSH-BASHERS would put that together.

Are they--the Bush-bashing creators--suggesting "Bush is no better than a blackie?"

How can that be, unless they're the ones harboring such notions?

Or, maybe, it IS in the eye of the beholder, and racism is read into it when there is none intended?

I think that's a problem many African-Americans have--the one's who have been brainwashed by the liberal establishment which wants to keep them dependent, teaching them to see themselves as victim's of Whitey.

11:00 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

That was an awfully odd response- Orlando, Fla- Nashville,TN, Cincinnati, OH, Cleveland,OH. Thats where I've been the last 6 years. What exactly does that have to do with having thick skin, and who is playing what victim? Conservative blacks? I've not met one before. :) And I have a hard time believing I have called anyone or ever would call anyone an "Uncle Tom". Now if he/she works or supports this administration I would call them a fascist, thats for sure, but thats political, and in this case, true. :)

11:01 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

I don't care who does it, regardless of political affiliation. Like I said before, decency is not partisan. Regardless, it's wrong.

11:03 PM  
Blogger John said...

Does this post hurt your wife's feelings?

11:04 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Well maybe thats a topic best to be discussed with someone other than just a bunch of Whitey's". You'll probably get a much different perspective from someone who lives in 80% black populace D.C., to someone who grew up say, in a population that was 1% black. Either way, racism is there, it is real, yes I have seen and experienced it firsthand, but nothing compared to my family and friends. It's just a part of life for them, something they all too casually just accept as norm in our country. And if you know me, and I know you do, I don't do well with norm.

11:08 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

She read your first one, well, first I showed her Ropers, the comparison shot. Not amusedat all, regardless or who it was, rolled her eyes and said yeah, so whats new. Then saw your lol response, wanted to know if that was "MY" John? Yeah, she was. So I asked her to send it to a group of her friends and family, no baiting, just"whadaya think of this?" Not one came back laughing about it.

11:12 PM  
Blogger John said...

Well, if this hurts your wife's feelings, and your friends, I'll delete it. But it's NOT ABOUT BLACK & WHITE. It's what resides in a person's heart.

And racism is not peculiar to whites. The most outrageously racist statements I hear come from black activists.

11:12 PM  
Blogger John said...

"Then saw your lol response, wanted to know if that was 'MY' John?"

Aw, man. LOOK. SHE WAS THE SPITTIN' IMAGE OF BUCKWHEAT. Okay? I said "Holy s**t!" and LAUGHED OUT LOUD. Gimme a friggin' break.

11:15 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

It doesn't matter, keep the post, it's at least a pretty honest perspective of real issues in this country. Black/white, doesn't matter, racism is racism. And doctoring a photo like that, to me anyway, kinda shows me what resides in that persons heart, and it didn't look pretty to me.Keep the post man, no worries. Maybe you'll get some comments about it from not your regular visitors with an interesting perspective.

11:17 PM  
Blogger John said...

Jeff said:

"Second, 'buckwheat' is a pretty bad past Cartoonish Characterization of how whites perceived and treated blacks in that day."

Whaddya mean? All the rascals were dirt poor and are you saying that Spanky, Alfalfa, and Wheezer treated Stymie, Buckwheat, and Farina differently?

Hell no. Stymie was the star of the show most of the time and even the smartest of the gang (even though he couldn't bake a cake worth shit).

"While Buckwheat may be a beloved character to you, white america, and oh how amusing he is( O-Tay)..."

There's no racial dimension to the affection for Buckwheat. He's a cute little kid.

"He is a reminder to the majority of black america of what they faced and still do face today, whether you want to accept that or not, they do."

Well, see right there: Eye of the beholder. They see a dragon of oppression, I see a cute little kid and part of the club.

11:28 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

I finally got around to reading this whole debate...

Jeff...I have been to the blog that started this whole issue.

There have been times when I have taken offense where none was intended...so I know what that feels like...

My personal feeling on this is that no offense was intended. You were looking for a reason to yell at John.

Before you try to take the "mote" from John's eye...try looking at the "beam" in your own.

You have been down right rude and inconsiderate about my religious affiliation in the past...you have slandered my good name.

PLEEEEAASEEEE!!! Give us a break!

John has even offered to take all this from his blog...and yet you have NEVER apologized for anything...NOT one IOTA!!

12:36 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Jeff, If you had really been offended by the picture you would have brought it up with John Roper. But your beef is not with John R., is it?? No, indeed it is not.

I really don't know what your past connection is with the owner of this blog, but you seem to have a vendeda...some sort of point to prove that goes far deeper than the subject matter of this blog.

It is really too bad that such animosity exists in your heart toward this blogger.

I have some very close friends who are liberal...even Bush-haters...but we are able to keep that apart from our friendship. The difference here is that the friendship means more than our political differences.

With you, Jeff, that gets in the way of any connections you might have with John.

I feel sorry for you.

1:01 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Kelly, you are truly a clueless chick man.

6:05 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Alright lets get real "Kel", I could give a fuck what your religion is, denigrated it my ass. Mentioned it as a sect in one posting that you were too stupid to realize that I was mentioning it as a sect of christianity, which you then felt you needed to remind me it was a christian sect, geeeezzzz, get over your fucking self already. Secondly, I consider you nothing more than an empty vessel, your hollow. I find your insights into the workings of the world to be childish and naive at best, again, I can't take you seriously at all. You want to take offense at that fine, tough shit, I don't care, I really don't. Look, I've known John for over 20 years, I can yell at him all I want at this point, if he doesn't like it, he can and has told me to fuck off, repeatedly even. That's fine, I can deal with that, no worries. Your level of understanding into my conversations on this topic are case in point, childish and have no nuance of even a rudimentary comprehensive level of the discussions or the outcome. A beef with Roper? Why, I don't know him, and after looking at his blog, quite frankly wouldn't want too. He might be a fine person somewhere under there, but not for me. I know and have been friends with John long enough to feel free to call him out and vice versa , particularly on a subject close to me where respect issues from me to him could be compromised. I called his tacit approval out, we argued it out, and I'm still fine with him, and underneath, I gurantee he's still fine with me too. If he's not, then that also is his perogative, and I have no problem with that also. You do an awful lot of assuming, and act like you have some level of understanding into my life, framed of course by your "Lee Harvey" character assumptions about me, thats John's literary license shining through, and I'm fine with that too, big freaking deal. You really need to lighten up, seriously, it's hard not to laugh at your comment s sometimes(most times) for me. There seems to be very little connection there for me on your musings and your- oh forget it, might as well just bang my head up against a wall, that would probably make more sense to you.

Yes John, I have again offended the fair Kelly, mother of 5 who wouldn't hurt a fly. And once again, and HONESTLY, no offense meant here, but so the fuck what, she's freaking annoying. :)

I'm better for business and you know it. Who are you guys gonna argue with, yourselves, each other, pleeeeaze, ain't happening. John throws out his million word essays on the topic of the day, which war on Christ are we fighting now anyway?, and your glowingly approving responses that amount to yeah yeah thats right!!!! like the little sidekick to the yellow toothed bully in the classic movie A Christmas Story, and John you know who I'm talking about. Substance please!!!!!!! Now go ahead and frog her arm already.

6:40 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Just because you have known him for 20 years does not give you the right to swoop in here and rant the way you do.

This is John's blog, not yours! You are not the ONLY visitor to this blog.

There are many people who come to this blog who do not agree with John, but they do it in a civil manner. We enjoy the political dialogue and can often see their point of view and why they think the way they do.

All you do is spew hate.

I told John that I would try not to offend you when he banned you from this blog and then let you back. But there is no getting around it.

You will take offense. The problem is, you do not take anyone seriously who does not tow the liberal, "I hate Bush" line.

7:36 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

John,

We used to compare the image of Yoda to one of our Church leaders.

Everyone thought it was funny...he could take a joke and thought it was funny, too.

8:17 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

To refute Kelly line by line:

She said: Blah blah blah blah blahBlah blah blah

Me: uh whatever

Her: blah blah blah blah blah bush hater
b
la
h blah blah
Again- this post has nothing to do with politics, but you just can't get over it can you


Her; blah blah blah blah blah hater spewer blah blah

Me: yeah posting about racial tolerance and sensitivities, yep, just keep spewing the hate I do.
Living up to the comprehension level I discussed earlier Kel.

Her: blah blah blah blah blah ba I'm better, try not too offend. blah blah blah

Me: anything you say, and offend away, I don't care. Not that offendable over here.

Like I said, chill out already, you take yourself way too seriously, just relax, this ain't the end of the damn world here.

It's a good thing John is sleeping in this morning or you and I would never get to chat anymore. I miss it, I really do. :)

It's humor Kelly chill.

8:34 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Jeff,

Oh, and btw...if you wonder why the blog entry where your initial comment that started this whole thing was deleted, its because I pointed it out to John that the quote he posted was false.

He then came to my blog and thanked me for pointing it out to him.

If I disagree with John I let him know...and why.

Jeff said, "Not that offendable over here."

But isn't this the whole reason for this discussion...That you were offended by something John said?

Jeff said, "It's humor Kelly chill."

John said...

"Holy S**T!

LOL!"

It's HUMOR Jeff chill.

8:55 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

By something from someone whom I've had a 20 plus year friendship, and who knows I am married to a black woman, was I offended, concerned, disappointed? Yeah, and I told him so. The post he took down, never paid much attention to that, I assume you are referring to the Eagle thing from the Quran, could care less about. I just wanted him to know I didn't appreciate his response to something found predominantly racist in it's overtone, coming from where we were. From you Kelly, from Roper, who you say I should take my beef up with, again I say why, don't know either of you, don't really want to. You can have all your opinions on the racial subject you want, thats your problem to deal with. Mine was personal with John, and that was that. And it's over. Do you have anything to actually contribute on the issue, or you just hanging round, twirlin your purse waiting for Republicus to show up and play today. REPUBLICUSSSSS, can you come out and playyyyy????

Man some superhero you are- WAKE uppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp


All smiles Kel

9:35 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Then send it in an email and leave the rest of us out of your little spat...

OR can't you do that?

10:32 AM  
Blogger John said...

Jeff said:

"That's what I'm talking about John. Let's see, how can I answer this as heartfelt as can be conveyed on a setting like this.
First, Historically blacks have been degradingly compared to apes, chimps, monkeys, whatever pathetic past KKK moniker you wish to pull out, and they are very very aware of this."

"Get out of the sixties, we don't have this mentality anymore."

Bobby Flekman, *This Is Spinal Tap*

"Second, 'buckwheat' is a pretty bad past Cartoonish Characterization of how whites perceived and treated blacks in that day. While Buckwheat may be a beloved character to you, white america, and oh how amusing he is( O-Tay), he is a reminder to the majority of black america of what they faced and still do face today, whether you want to accept that or not, they do.'"

Get over it. He's part of "Our Gang." All the boys and girls are urchins (except for Wally and Darla).

And Stymie's Da Man. I mean Da Boy. I mean...

You know what I mean.

"So, how do you think my black wife would perceive Bush, being compared to chimps and buckwheat(ie black) and those OBVIOUSLY meaning to be derogatory?"

It's not derogatory comparing a POTUS to a chimp or a rascally ragamuffin?

And are you sure that "those OBVIOUSLY meaning to be be derogatory" are electrically-charged with racism, or is it the insecurity and paranoia of the beholder?

Aside from good manners, am I supposed to otherwise pretend that the pic of the congresswoman did not resemble Buckwheat, else be considered a "racist?"

That's PC. It's fascist thought-control and word-twisting.

"Do you think her as a black woman is going to care that they are making fun of Bush, or do you think, and rightfully so, she and others just might be offended that the butt of the joke is his derogatory implication is he is really being compared to being no better than a blackie?"

I don't see it that way, and I really don't think comparing Bush to a chimp or Buckwheat has any racial over or undertones.

Consider: You said that the pic of Bush's face superimposed on Buckwheat's is interpreted by the sensitive (or hypersensitive, maybe?) African-American as meaning that "Bush is no better than a blackie."

BUT--who would've made such a pic? Conservative, "racist" Bush-supporters? Of course not. Lefty BUSH-BASHERS would put that together.

Are they--the Bush-bashing creators--suggesting "Bush is no better than a blackie?"

How can that be, unless they're the ones harboring such notions?

Or, maybe, it IS in the eye of the beholder, and racism is read into it when there is none intended?

What you're saying in all this is that some people are hyper-sensitive about some things (perhaps justifiably so, as their grandparent's suffered precisely what you're describing), and that I--for example--should be mindful of the sensitivity and keep my mouth shut.

But compelling me to keep my mouth shut on the threat of being charged a "racist" I reject outright. My laughter at the resemblance of McKinnon and an American icon (who does NOT represent racism in my book) is not "racist."

Some people are insecure and hypersensitive and I should be mindful of that just out of courtesy for my fellow American.

But this "White America" vs. "Black America" is what's racist, and divisive, and it's coming from your liberal crowd to keep distinctions alive and their own political herding intact.

THAT'S what's kept "the black man down," not "Whitey."

"Do you really think I, who married her and fathered a gorgeous daughter with her, who will have to face this kind of shit for apparently the forseeable future am going to be ok with any of this?"

Soooo...Mckinnon doesn't look like Buckwheat in the pic? Is that it?

"Alright lets get real "Kel", I could give a fuck what your religion is, denigrated it my ass."

Why should I give a "fuck" about what you perceive as racism?

And aren't you engaging in the very same insensitivity--to a woman, no less--that you attacked me for?

You don't think Kelly can give you stories about the persecution of Mormons, then and today, as you clearly demonstrate?

Like Kelly said, "Take the log out of your own eye."

"Mentioned it as a sect in one posting that you were too stupid to realize that I was mentioning it as a sect of christianity, which you then felt you needed to remind me it was a christian sect."

False. You had it separated from Christianity altogether (at least grammatically). I reminded you that it was a sect.

"geeeezzzz, get over your fucking self already."

YOU get over yourself. You just created a racial incident because I laughed at Mckinnon's resemblance to Buckwheat.

LOOK AT THE PICS.

"Secondly, I consider you nothing more than an empty vessel, your hollow."

Yes, Jeff, and you're so full of it.

"I find your insights into the workings of the world to be childish and naive at best, again, I can't take you seriously at all."

So...no apologies to Kelly but more insults?

"You want to take offense at that fine, tough shit, I don't care, I really don't."

Yes, meanwhile Jeff started this whole thread by complaining about my "insensitivity," my "offensiveness," and that I should care for the sake of a mother's feelings.

"Your level of understanding into my conversations on this topic are case in point, childish and have no nuance of even a rudimentary comprehensive level of the discussions or the outcome."

Actually, Kelly has demonstrated good sensitivity to nuance and the rudiments of arguments. It is YOU who has demonstrated childish insensitivity and ignorance, which has made it so easy to call you out on them and diagram your hypocrisies, contradictions, double-standards, and nonsense.

"A beef with Roper? Why, I don't know him, and after looking at his blog, quite frankly wouldn't want too. He might be a fine person somewhere under there, but not for me."

You called his post "incredibly" and "patently" racist.

Are you always so ready to judge people "you don't know" as "racist?"

Then you go on and assert how you've "known" me for twenty years-- even though I've seen you 2-3 times in the last ten, haven't spoken to you on the phone for a couple, blocked your emails, and was removed from your Christmas card mailing list because of politics.

Then you call me, who you "know"--like Roper, who you don't-- an "incredibly" and "patent racist," which was why I posted this.

You're talking nonsense.

"I know and have been friends with John long enough to feel free to call him out and vice versa , particularly on a subject close to me where respect issues from me to him could be compromised."

You "called me out" as a "racist."

"I called his tacit approval out..."

No, you called me a racist. And what you reacted to was neither "tacit" or "approving." It was simply astonished laughter.

"we argued it out, and I'm still fine with him, and underneath, I gurantee he's still fine with me too."

I disapprove of your reasoning processes that have apparently been compromised by the illogic of liberalism and compel you to blurt out non sequiters and contradictions, e.g. first playing the offended party and accusing me of being to cavalier about a sensitive issue, and then playing the light-hearted fellow who chides Kelly to "relax" and "chill" and "not take things so seriously."

"If he's not, then that also is his perogative, and I have no problem with that also."

Coulda fooled me.

"You do an awful lot of assuming..."

That's you Jeff, only you peddle your assumptions and presumptions as "facts."

"...and act like you have some level of understanding into my life, framed of course by your 'Lee Harvey' character assumptions about me, thats John's literary license shining through..."

"Literary license?" You said "I hope Bush gets assassinated." That's why I call you Lee Harvey.

"...and I'm fine with that too, big freaking deal. You really need to lighten up, seriously..."

Waitasec. This whole thing began because you made "a big freaking deal" about my laughing at Roper's post.

You argued on behalf of "black America" on the premise that "black America" is unable to "lighten up" and is why "a big freaking deal" is made about Buckwheat, and that I should be sensitive to that, essentially saying that it was I who was TOO "lightened-up" and cavalier about the issue.

And now it's the inverse of that?

Now it's you who are good natured and light-hearted and I--and/or Kelly--who are uptight?

"it's hard not to laugh at your comment s sometimes(most times) for me."

You started this whole thing by calling me a racist because I laughed at Mckinnon being the spittin' image of Buckwheat in that pic.

"There seems to be very little connection there for me on your musings and your- oh forget it, might as well just bang my head up against a wall, that would probably make more sense to you."

What a coincidence. That's what I'm doing right now...

"Yes John, I have again offended the fair Kelly, mother of 5 who wouldn't hurt a fly. And once again, and HONESTLY, no offense meant here, but so the fuck what, she's freaking annoying. :)"

Rushing back here to "out" me as a "racist" because I laughed at the "Buckwheat Cloned" at another blog is annoying.

Furthermore, you manipulated my emotions by mentioning your wife and daughter.

Shouldn't that be irrelevant? "So the fuck what?"

Why did you think it relevant for you but don't extend the same courtesy to Kelly?

"I'm better for business and you know it."

What are you talking about? My business is production. You halt production by quagmiring me in commentary sections.

"Who are you guys gonna argue with, yourselves, each other, pleeeeaze, ain't happening."

Wellll...I do love the smell of napalm in the morning...

"John throws out his million word essays on the topic of the day, which war on Christ are we fighting now anyway?, and your glowingly approving responses that amount to yeah yeah thats right!!!!"

So?

"...like the little sidekick to the yellow toothed bully in the classic movie A Christmas Story, and John you know who I'm talking about."

Yes I do. But that's you. I'm Ralphie.

"Actually, the Substance please!!!!!!! Now go ahead and frog her arm already."

Hm. I feel like I'm looking at a dissected frog in high school biology class right about now and pondering its purpose in the biosphere aside from its incessant ribbiting and it's nutritional benefits to turtles.

Kelly said:

"Just because you have known him for 20 years does not give you the right to swoop in here and rant the way you do."

He has the right. He's just presumptuous and tactless.

"I told John that I would try not to offend you when he banned you from this blog and then let you back. But there is no getting around it.

You will take offense. The problem is, you do not take anyone seriously who does not tow the liberal, 'I hate Bush' line."

It's okay, Kell. I don't Bush-haters seriously, either.

Kelly said:

"John,

We used to compare the image of Yoda to one of our Church leaders.

Everyone thought it was funny...he could take a joke and thought it was funny, too."

Well, I'm sure he would much rather have been compared to Han Solo. :(

"Jeff said:

Me: yeah posting about racial tolerance and sensitivities."

You call conservatives and the Bush administration "Anglo-Christo-fascists."

"yep, just keep spewing the hate I do."

You called me a "patent racist."

"Living up to the comprehension level I discussed earlier Kel."

You don't comprehend your own hypocricy and double-standard.

"Me: anything you say, and offend away, I don't care. Not that offendable over here."

You called me an "incredibly patent racist" because you were hyper-offended that I laughed at Roper's "Buckwheat Cloned!" post.

"Like I said, chill out already, you take yourself way too seriously, just relax, this ain't the end of the damn world here."

Yes, this whole thing started because it wasn't you who freaked out and took ONE pic and ONE title (i.e. "Buckwheat Cloned!") way too seriously.

"It's a good thing John is sleeping in this morning..."

John is up at the crack of dawn.

"...or you and I would never get to chat anymore. I miss it, I really do. :)

It's humor Kelly chill."

But you...aw, fergit it.

Kelly said:

"Oh, and btw...if you wonder why the blog entry where your initial comment that started this whole thing was deleted, its because I pointed it out to John that the quote he posted was false.

He then came to my blog and thanked me for pointing it out to him.

If I disagree with John I let him know...and why.

Jeff said, 'Not that offendable over here.'

But isn't this the whole reason for this discussion...That you were offended by something John said?

Jeff said, 'It's humor Kelly chill.'

John said...

"Holy S**T!

LOL!"

It's HUMOR Jeff chill."

Yes. But he misses it because "he's childish and has no nuance of even a rudimentary comprehensive level of the discussions or the outcome."

(whatever the hell THAT means)

10:56 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

And he's back. I bet this is the longest thread you've ever had on your blog yet. Up to 33 posts so far. Damn. And it's still only you and Kelly, and the Bush hater of course. Haven't given up on you yet brother, twisted as you may be, but I attribute that to the upside down world you currently dwell in. But walking on the ceiling might be cool for a little while, until the blood flow causes delirium and delusional behavior. Fall to the floor man, shake it off.

11:16 AM  
Blogger Douglass said...

John! You said:

"But this "White America" vs. "Black America" is what's racist, and divisive, and it's coming from your liberal crowd to keep distinctions alive and their own political herding intact. THAT'S what's kept "the black man down," not "Whitey."

"Coming from your (the) liberal crowd"?!?!

Hmm. I know that folk like Al Sharpton 'won't let racial wounds heal' and whatnot, but he does not represent all liberals (he ran in 2004 to 'take out the DLC') Also, republicans are not saints when it comes to racism.
America's crime control policy is patently racist, biased against the young and biased against males. Why?

Because these people don't act like timid and industrial animals that are controlled by the government, so they are thrown in Jail for their ‘misbehavior’.

Example: as of June 2003, 8 out of 100,000 white women aged 65 and over (20+ age bracket) were incarcerated. Compare that with black males aged 22-24 (2 year age bracket). 12,809 out of 100,000 are incarcerated. That’s 12.8 percent. Hmm. THAT wouldn't give black males the idea that racism was afoot now would it.


Racism pops up under all political parties. Trying to smear the liberals by blaming them for today's racism is very 'politically correct'(to republicans). But it's a dishonest move.

11:31 AM  
Blogger John said...

Jeff said: "I just wanted him to know I didn't appreciate his response to something found predominantly racist in it's overtone, coming from where we were. Mine was personal with John, and that was that. And it's over."

Kelly replied: Then send it in an email and leave the rest of us out of your little spat...

OR can't you do that?"

He can't. He's blocked because he wouldn't stop bombarding mee with lefty Bush-hating screeds after I asked him too many times.

After I blocked him, he then came to the blog to spitefully do the same thing, and wouldn't stop.

That was one of the reasons why I banned him.

The other reason was because he attacked you and caused you to leave.

I told him he could come back if he stopped the importation of the screeds (or the plagiarized reworking of them) and apologized to you.

Since then he has called you a "clueless chick" and other derogatory things."

Also, long ago, I told him to drop the personal crap and stop trying to take advantage of our "20 year friendship" in a sleazy way of saying stuff like: "You have a twisted mind, old friend" (which basically sticks a knife into the character of Republicus with a smile).

He doesn't listen.

You'll recall, Jeff, that out of that "20 year friendship" that, not only have I not spoken to you on the phone in over a year, and not only have I seen you 2 times in over ten years, and not only have I blocked you from my emails, but there was 5-6 year stretch where I wanted nothing to do with you precisely because of utter lack of savoir faire and offensive presumptions about personal matters that are none of your business. You went out of your way to re-establish the friendship and I--in my nature--shrugged off your past indiscretions and offenses and welcomed you back into my circle of acquaintances until you started going Lee Harvey about the POTUS.

And you're dong the same SHIT now, and pulling me into the intellectual sewer with you in the process.

Granted, I'm a sentimental guy and have some affection for Jeff (having preserved the voice-mail for all time wherein he informed that Gibbs was back with the Redskins), but Kelly hit the nail on the head:

Jeff has a personal problem and instead of finding a way to contact me (it's easy to go around blocked email), or just keep his BIG MOUTH shut, he marches on to a public blog and accuses me of being a racist and blah-blah-blah before saying "Oh, it's okay, I'M OLD FRIENDS WITH THE ANGO-CHRISTO-RACIST-TWISTED FASCIST WHO I"M TRYING TO PERSONALLY DISCREDIT ON THE WORLDWIDE WEB!

You're engaging in the same SLEAZE that angered me decades ago, Jeff.

11:31 AM  
Blogger John said...

Douglass said:

"Trying to smear the liberals by blaming them for today's racism is very 'politically correct'(to republicans). But it's a dishonest move."

I wasn't blaming them for racism. I was blaming them for the liberal policies which themselves were racist and did nothing to promote reconciliation and assimilation.

I think there were good intentions behind them, but they backfired and destroyed entire generations of black families (e.g. the welfare state).

"I have a dream that someday people will be judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin."

MLK

Ditto.

11:39 AM  
Blogger Douglass said...

John,

I agree that some Liberal social welfare policies have backfired and ended up being counter-productive.

BUT.

First you said: " But this "White America" vs. "Black America" is what's racist, and divisive, and it's coming from your liberal crowd to keep distinctions alive and their own political herding intact."

Then, in your reply, you said that:

"I was blaming them for the liberal policies which themselves were racist and did nothing to promote reconciliation and assimilation."
"I think there were good intentions behind them, but they backfired and destroyed entire generations of black families (e.g. the welfare state)."

So at first you say the liberals are keeping racial wounds open as "to keep distinctions alive and their own political herding intact."

Then, you say that you were merely critiquing good-hearted policies that ended up making racism worse.

Now John, I'm not able to handle a flip-flopper.

Which position do you support?

A) The one that claims the liberals prolong and irritate anti-white racism as to provide the Liberal crowd with political power.

or

B) The one that critiques the negative impact of Liberal social welfare but applauds the good intentions behind these policies.

Oh, I don't want to hear any of this 'both, or 'neither' jargon. It is one or the other. A or B.

12:35 PM  
Blogger John said...

A) The one that claims the liberals prolong and irritate anti-white racism as to provide the Liberal crowd with political power.

Yes. I see that.

B) The one that critiques the negative impact of Liberal social welfare but applauds the good intentions behind these policies.

I don't "applaud" the good intentions. I just don't think that the tragedies that resulted from LBJ's "Great Society" stuff were planned by sinister intentions.

Nevertheless, the consequences came about and politicians exploit the tragedies --and even rely on their continuances-- to keep political power, playing race-cards and instigating class-warfare (e.g. Gore's "The People vs. The Powerful" demagoguery, as if the "powerful" aren't also people).

1:08 PM  
Blogger John said...

BTW, Douglass, I can't access your blog.

1:11 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Cynthis McKinney shows just how quick the racism card is played...

McKinney Apologizes For Capitol Fight

3:00 PM  
Blogger John said...

Thanks Kell. Yes, I'm aware of what she was trying to pull. That's my problem with her.

Also, I spoke to three African- American (I prefer that over "black") friends of mine: Two women and a man.

I know one of the women--works for the Dept. of Homeland Security-- is no fan of Bush, but I don't know the politics of the other two (a leasing agent and concierge).

I told them the situation, that I had gone to a blog that had the "Buckwheat Cloned!" pic of Mckinnon. I told them it was anastonishing likeness and that I LOL-ed.

I told them that someone (i.e. Lee Harvey) saw my "LOL," came back to my blog, and called me a "racist."

All three thought that making fun of McKinnon's likeness to Buckwheat was "offensive"--i.e. rude, hurtful, etc., in a generic, common-decency sense.

I agree, as I said as much throughout the commentary.

"Was it racist?" I asked.

"No" all around.

Well what's up, I asked, with the commentator (i.e. Lee Harvey) who presumed to speak on behalf of "Black America" and insisted it was racist?

The gentleman explained to me: "Some people are just oversensitive."

The women agreed.

Case closed.

3:40 PM  
Blogger John said...

Jeff wagered: "And he's back. I bet this is the longest thread you've ever had on your blog yet. Up to 33 posts so far."

Wrong.

3:44 PM  
Blogger the liberal samurai said...

Putting aside all the personal back and forth, the problem is that John can't see the world through the eyes of a minority. Its easy for you to say, just get past racism and accept it because you've never faced it. To you Buckwheat is just a colorful character but to many minorities he embodies black stereotypes at the time. The big fro, the cheesy smile, the affinity for watermelon. To you, that was decades ago and it shouldn't have any impact; I agree that it souldn't, but the fact is that it does. You can't experience it the way Jeff and I have. We're both in interracial marriages; Jeff sees stuff he didn't see before and my wife sees things she never saw before.

The only way you'll see it is if you move to Harlem or Compton. Yeah, eventually you'll get used to being somewhere you aren't wanted; but it'll always be in the back of your head that you're begrudgingly accepted and a lot of people don't want you there.

Jeff you're welcome at my blog anyday (especially when John goes on one of his line by line screeds).

Kelly, was that South Park about Mormons true? Was your religioun really read out of some magical hat?

3:58 PM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

John,

Wow. Of all the blogs I read, yours has just about the most heated exchanges I have ever seen.

Liberal Samurai,

Interesting that you bring that up. When I was a kid going to elementary school in west Texas, I was one of three caucasian kids in a class of about 30. The rest were either african-american or hispanic. Since Mom & Dad worked full time, after school I stayed at a neighbor's house. She was from Mexico City. To your point, this was where I learned to fight. I didn't hang out with the other two "white kids" because we just did not get along, so for a significant part of my life I did not see the world as "me versus them." I saw the world as "there are some people that are jerks and some who are not."

My Dad, early on, was a bigot. (Later in life he converted in a major way, and has been doing research and getting published by studying the black military units that served in Texas during the Indian Wars.) When I was young though, he wanted to tell me that I could never date a girl that did not have skin as white as mine was. By that time, he and I fought about that because I was smitten with a particular hispanic girl that was just simply beautiful. It was not my Dad that gave me a black eye over that, it was her friends who thought that a cracker should never date her.

After college, I married a german girl from Minnesota (another no-no in the older south) and have VERY caucasian kids. One of the things they have learned from both of us is that I will never tolerate predudice on any grounds that involve race or religion. If either of my boys want to date/marry anyone, it is entirely their own choice. My kids do not have to live in Harlem or anywhere else to know that stupidity is not to be tolerated. These are values that can and should be taught in every household, regardless of one's racial or religious background *or* the neighborhood that they happen to live in. (As it happens we have quite a mix here in Irving, TX, and the congregation at our church is a great way to see the diversity of the neighborhood.)

Kelly,

Pay no attention to the jibe against the Mormon Church. The creators of Southpark are "shock-jocks" and I have had to explain to my own kids that those guys have no claim on good taste. I feel that the comment was a tad bit out of line and only placed here to get a rise out of you. Ignore it, and rise above.

4:44 PM  
Blogger the liberal samurai said...

Kelly/Phelonius,

I truly meant no offense. It wasn't a jibe I honestly just wanted to seperate fact from fiction as South Park tends to take a grain of sand and turn it into a sand dune. It wasn't a jab honest; the only person I take cheap shots at it John ;)

5:02 PM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

Hey Samurai,

I retract my statement on that. You should really look at the history, and Kelly can make some references better than I to satisfy your curiosity. I see that you were not really trying to make Kelly mad, and I SURELY do not want to inflame another argument here.

5:14 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

I don't watch South Park. Period. I don't take South Park's opinions seriously because I dont' care for the show.

So, I really don't care what they say about Mormons.

Liberal Samarai, I think you know that what South Park says is false. I think that people, in general, are smart enough to see that South Park doesn't know.

At any rate, no offense taken.

6:34 PM  
Blogger John said...

Samjay presumed: "Putting aside all the personal back and forth, the problem is that John can't see the world through the eyes of a minority. Its easy for you to say, just get past racism and accept it because you've never faced it."

It goes both ways, Sanjay. Like I said, the most outrageous racial remarks I've heard came from liberal African-American/black (whatever) political activists. I have my own ethnicity and bore my own fare share of prejudices (I'm first generation American).

My ancestors were in a state of Islamic Dhimmitude by the Ottoman Turks for 500 years (and achieved liberation after the American slaves did).

Do you know what that was like?

I don't either, but I know this: My dad came here to get away from all that.

I'm an individualist and I deal with individuals based on their own individuality and character.

There's good people and bad people, period.

Every "group" has a sob story about "discrimination" or being prejudiced against.

Even blondes.

I reject double-standards and sectarianism based on class/race.

Unfortunately, many liberal politicians depend on those things for power and incite division and themselves engage in blatant racism to keep their herds behind the fences.

There's no "Black America" or "White America" or Red-State America" or "Blue State America."

There's only the United States of America.

Sure Buckwheat had the fro and the cheesy smile, but what about that ridiculous stick of hair on top of the cracker Alfalfa's head?

Wupty-do, their kids and part f the charm of the Rascal's was that they were totally innocent of race-consciousness, for themselves and for each other. They were who they were with their own distinct personalities.

And if you notice, the white adult's didn't treat them any different from any other kid who drove them crazy with their antics.

So what if Buckwheat talked funny? He was easier to understand than Porky was, that's for damn sure.

And finally, so what if Mckinnon looks like Buckwheat?

It's you lefties who see everything in black & white, as the comments have proved.

I don't put any prejudicial baggage on anyone's shoulders because of their skin color, and I don't appreciate anyone putting any on mine because of my own-- e.g. "John doesn't understand because he's caucasian."

What the heck is that, Sanjay? Does that mean you can't understand caucasians because you're not one?

I'm accused of being "naive" because I've succesfully become color-blind towards my fellow humans (gee, how did that happen to a right-winger in an inherently "racist" society?"), while Jeff, the "enlightened" and "experienced" liberal calls Kelly "clueless" and me "blind" because we don't see the racism he does?

What does that tell you? It tells you that the Kool-Aid we drink is just what the good Reverend MLK ordered, while what you're drinking is turning you into the racist Mr. Hydes you despise.

Sure there's racism/racists. ON BOTH SIDES. Who cares. Fuhg 'em. That's their problem, and loss.

Meanwhile, LOOK AT THE FRIGGIN' PICS: MCKINNON LOOKS JUST LIKE BUCKWHEAT.

*Satis.*

P.S. I've never seen an entire episode of South Park. Or even of American Idol, for that matter.

But I do want to check out South Park.

8:31 PM  
Blogger John said...

Kelly discerned:

"Jeff...your beef is not with John R., is it?? No, indeed it is not.

I really don't know what your past connection is with the owner of this blog, but you seem to have a vendetta...some sort of point to prove that goes far deeper than the subject matter of this blog."

lol Kelly, your level of understanding the nuances of conversation is a credit to women's intuition.

"It is really too bad that such animosity exists in your heart toward this blogger."

Kelly said:

*I have some very close friends who are liberal...even Bush-haters...but we are able to keep that apart from our friendship."

Sure, I as well, and if the head-butting gets too fierce, we leave each other alone or don't discuss politics.

That is why--before Jeff became incommunicado-- I kept the topics of the occassional telephone conversation restricted to stuff like football and family.

But he got really unhinged with Bush and turned me off with the expressed hope for "assassination."

That's unacceptable.

Kelly perceived:

"The difference here is that the friendship means more than our political differences."

With you, Jeff, that gets in the way of any connections you might have with John."

But it's all part of the "connection," Kelly. He's trying to prove something.

He's got a weird, love-hate obsession for me. Always did.

Look at his response to your stinging, insightful analysis: After you dress him down: he comes in, calls you a "clueless chick" and leaves...

...but comes back with a long-winded rebuttal rife with:

(1) more insults towards you, like an "empty vessel," "hollow," "childish," "naive at best," *etc,* contemptuous of why I banned him the first time, because he attacked my guests!

and

(2) abrupt, about-face contradictions, like (a) WE are the ones who should "chill" AFTER he himself FREAKS OUT about Buckwheat, and (b) "so the fuck what" about you being "a mother of 5" AFTER he makes his entire case against this post with "how...my black wife...and gorgeous daughter" would feel about the rascally Buckwheat.

In other words--and mark this, because it's how lefties like Lee Harvey try to "win" arguments-- the sheer objectivity of the congresswoman looking like Buckwheat is irrelevant to how *he* subjectively "feels" about it, while contemptuously deeming irrelevant *your* own feelings.

But the truth hurt, and after he left he had to return once again to erase over everything you said with the gibberish of "blah-blah-blah," as if the words which compelled the very behavior meant nothing to him.

Look for yourselves. They're all responses to Kelly's intuitive observation of Lee Harvey's obsession with me.

Kelly said: "I feel sorry for you."

It's hard to feel sorry for that type of personality, Kelly. He not only ignored one of the two provisions he had to abide by to get un-banned (i.e. apologize to you) but compounded the original offense by heaping more insults on you.

Meanwhile, he tampered with my own temper by going from "Anglo-Christo-Blind-Twisted-Fascist" *etc.* to "racist," a serious accusation in our country and one that was announced on the World Wide Web.

He has no discretion or tact and takes everything to a personal level.

This particular incident began because, I'll remind you again, Lee Harvey, you recklessly slandered me, on the World-Wide Web, as being a racist.

That's a serious charge.

And this is only the latest episode in a drama that was a nice little gimmick at first ("Hey! Republicus is the real thing! He's even got his own troll!") but, quite frankly, you embarrass me at this point, and interrupt the progress of postings.

And in all your rationalizations and sob-stories and screeds and attacks, not once have you apologized for anything that you've said that has been proven to be demonstrably false (if not nonsensical), and, of course, you have not apologized to Kelly, which was a condition to let you participate on the excellent blog of Republicus.

Mind you, while Jeff tries to present all of his outlandish accusations and subjective assertions as statements of objective "facts" (e.g. "This *is* racist," etc.), Kelly had the presence of mind, decorum and class to condition her discernment of Lee Harvey's evident and weird obsession with me as "my personal feeling."

Anyway, Lee Harvey, remember that screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater--and libeling someone a "RACIST!" on their blog--is not protected by Free Speech.

Just like I didn't blackball you from pledging my college fraternity after I heard--because you liked boasting to anyone who would listen-- that your very first impulse upon beholding yours truly was stabbing me with the concealed knife you liked to carry around with you in college (before you flunked out), because I smiled BACK at your smiling girlfriend across the room, you're also still here by my magnanimous grace, which, like then, you don't seem to understand and appreciate, as you still like to slip in a dagger to try to discredit, ridicule, or slander me with character assassination.

You called me a "racist," on the World Wide Web, who was "tumbling down a steep slope in my life right now" and that you were "saddened at what I was rapidly becoming," i.e. a "blind-twisted-anglo-Christo-fascist" who's also a racist, all along playing the "concerned friend" card who, in one breath, is willing to bet that "underneath, (you) guarantee (I'm) still fine with (you), too."

Actually, you pissed me off again (it's not the first time, is it?).

But you hedge your "guaranteed" bet in the next breath:

"If he's not, then that also is his perogative (sic), and I have no problem with that also."

So you don't "have a problem" if a "friend of 20 years" isn't "fine" with something you said, toughguy?

I'm not letting you slide through like I did when I let you pledge, Lee Harvey.

I didn't blackball you then, but I've done it here and I'll do it again starting NOW if the next time you show your face and open your mouth, you don't apologize to my guest Kelly first thing, as was one of the two conditions of letting you back in anyway (instead you come back in and insult her some more, under cover of some "victim status").

Enough of your psycho-dramas.

Go hang out at the Liberal Samurai's blog, as he invited, and stop stalking me.

(he's all yours Sanjay. Enjoy)

8:03 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

:)

10:26 AM  
Blogger the liberal samurai said...

Once again ignoring the personal back and forth... John, you are 100% right that I cannot understand the caucasian experience. I'm not treated like one and I can never know what it feels like to be one. I've been to the holocaust museum in DC, and I can pretty much gurantee it didn't affect me the same way it would someone who is jewish. I can guess how they feel about it, but I'll never experience it quit the same way.

You're right, there are bad people on both sides. And yes, I do just do my best to forget about it; moving away from the South made it easier. But do you realize that just a few decades ago I wouldn't have been able to marry my wife in some states?

I don't consider you a racist, but I think your "just buck up and let go of it" mentality is typical of someone who has never faced racism. You can understand the concept of racism real easy. You can understand how it is supposed to feel and make the logical conclusion that only stupid people act that way and should be ignored. The problem is that there are a lot of stupid people on BOTH sides and ignoring it ain't solving anything. Don't ask me for solutions, as I have none.

BTW, your no red america/blue america thing, that is almost a word for word quotation from Barack Obama's speech we were discussing a few posts back.

10:55 AM  
Blogger John Roper said...

I will attempt to answer my critics:

Unless someone can channel my thoughts there is no possible way to know my motivation behind the graphic of Cynthia McKinney aka Buckwheat. Here goes:

I remember Buckwheat on The Little Rascals as being a stupid kid which is akin to the spoiled brat that Cynthia Mckinney is acting like.

Moreover,if one cannot see the similarity between the two, particularly in the eyes,the hair-do, then a visit to the eye doctor would be a good thing. Buckwheat is black, Cynthia Mckinney is black,so what's the problem?

Please don't start with you just don't know what it's like to be black. You're right, I don't. But, I do know what it's like to be a minority. When you live in a town that is 80% black and you happen to be white you have a firm understanding of what it's like to be in the minortiy. I will tell you though, I leave my race card at home. If I go out and do something stupid I expect to be held accountable. Ms. Mckinney evidently does not.

There is a term in psychology known as projecting. When you have a particular behavior you believe everyone does so you try to project that behavior onto others in every sort of situation in order to excuse your behavior. If I steal then everybody must steal. If I'm a racist then everybody must be a racist. You get the point.

A cursory look at the list of Ms. Mckinney's campaign donors

http://herndon2.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00256354/124538/sa/ALL

will show you that no one knows racism like she does. Antisemitism comes to mind as many of the donors on her list are people and organizations linked to terrorism, which makes me have to ask the question, is this someone we want involved in our government?

Furthermore, I believe it's time for folks to grow some thicker skin, although I know that this is a futile statement. Some folks love to be offended. It motivates their life. They are constantly looking for some way to be offended and no matter what anyone does to make things right, it is never good enough. They just love to be offended. They teach their kids the same thing. As a matter of fact the kids will pick up offenses that the parents have. Their parents will tell them how so-and-so did them wrong when they were younger and voila, instant offense. The kids will carry this around with them, they may even go as far as hating so-and-so's kids, and on and on. We have become the United States of the Offended.

Is the graphic racist? No, but it is in bad taste and intentionally so. But, I've always been of the mind that one good turn deserves another.

11:52 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

I let it go because you are clearly nuts, Kelly has nothing to do with this. And your the one who blew this up. I just stated that after knowing you for so longand vice versa, I was disappointed in your tacit approval(ie laughing) at something I considered racist posted by someone else(Roper).That was it. And I did it as a By the way statement, that was it, the rest here is your mental issue on how you deal with personal criticism. You do and always have taken any negative criticism as an affront to your manhood, it's pathetic. Kelly has nothing to do with this and her response to our discussion the night before was pointless and off topic.Yes I consider her an annoying twit, so I had a few minutes off fun with her, so what. The result of my by the way post to you on a personl level, was you, once again, turning everything into an attack on the liberal downfall of America and somehow a comparison to President Bush protection statement. However the fuck you got there from where I started only your mind knows, again pretty pathetic.

It's unwinding pretty quick in there.

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

And to you Mr. Roper, I answer, yes it was in bad taste, and it was obviously intentional. And I repeat the only point even necessary for this dialogue. It does not matter one iota who that woman is, period, Deceny is not partisan. Even in this ridiculously divided politically ravaged nation, there is not an excuse for that crap, from anyone, period. It's not hard to understand, regardless of what reason anyone had in their head for justifying it, it's wrong, and that's just how I feel. Thats all.

12:08 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

John Roper said,

"I remember Buckwheat on The Little Rascals as being a stupid kid which is akin to the spoiled brat that Cynthia Mckinney is acting like."

This is what the post was about...it was about behavior rather than racism. My understanding is that Roper was camparing the attitude and behavior of Buckwheat to Mckinney. The similarity in their looks was an added bonus.

Mckinney is the one who is being racist. Her behavior says that white men will treat her badly because she is black. But she treated the security guard the way SHE did because they are white. That is racism.

----------

and ..Jeff, this is a public blog owned by John (Republicus). You cannot expect to say something to John and not have someone else (anyone else) comment. It is our right...unless we are banned.

Ya, this is not about me. But, I, too am a friend of John's and am a guest of his on this blog. You do not own him and neither do I.

John may have blown this up...but only because it was another straw on the camel's back.

Sincerely,

an annoying twit

-----

BTW...John, I didn't see an apology.

12:43 PM  
Blogger the liberal samurai said...

Am I the only one that sees it as odd that a couple of white guys (john & john) are telling a minority and a guy married to a minority what is and isn't racist? And John, you're telling everyone to get thicker skin and then get all bent out of shape about being called a racist on the sacred web? Granted, being called a racist sucks, but suck it up man!

3:30 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

Sanjay, I am going to have to agree a bit with what you are saying.

Everyone seems to look for the offense and expect others to suck it up and grow a thicker skin.

I have been there on both sides.

I can see why Jeff was hurt by what was said. I can see why John was offended by what Jeff said.

I probably said something that offended and I am probably guilty of taking offense.

The problem we all have is that we have never walked in each others shoes ...probably never will.

I'm willing to forgive Jeff (with provision that he doesn't call me clueless or a nitwit any more.)

Who's with me?

4:03 PM  
Blogger Douglass said...

Liberal Samurai!!

You said : "Am I the only one that sees it as odd that a couple of white guys (john & john) are telling a minority and a guy married to a minority what is and isn't racist?"

Ha!

I know your games.

The only thing that's 'odd' is the manner in which you are going about stating your opinion. You clearly insinuated that racism is somehow connected to whiteness.

Why did you, of all people, choose to make such an inflammatory insinuation?

4:17 PM  
Blogger the liberal samurai said...

Doug. Valid point. EVERYONE can be racist. In this case it looks like I'm singling out white folks because in this case its two white guys. But if someone puts up a picture of Bush then a picture of say Snuffy Smith, who some would consider a racist depiction of white "trash" I'd probably react the same way John did (LOL). But if a couple of white guys told me they thought it was racist; I guess I wouldn't react with "suck it up!"

Just to clear up, I don't mean to imply only white folks can be racist.

5:05 PM  
Blogger Douglass said...

Liberal Samurai!

I see.

I wouldn't have objected if you had initially pointed out that your example was not indicative of a general trend.

Thanks for clearing that up.

5:16 PM  
Blogger John said...

As of this date, April 20, in the Year of Our Lord 2006, Republicus has been viewed 1,865 times.

Is that a Sign?

1865 is the year the Amerrican Civil War ended, preserving the Union and emancipating the slaves.

That was a long time ago.

By Constitutional Law we are United, and by both Constitutional Law and the Word of God Free, all of us.

Those laws were forged by fire, and blood.

The conditions have been set, the playing field sufficiently leveled.

The government can do nothing more (except insidiously undermine and reverse them on the pretense of "improving" on them).

Sanjay said:

"Once again ignoring the personal back and forth... John, you are 100% right that I cannot understand the caucasian experience."

When I asked, "Does that mean you can't understand caucasians because you're not one?" that was a rhetorical question. There is no "caucasian experience." We're all humans. We all get dealt bad hands from time to time because of the vicissitudes of life and the actions of wicked people alike.

W have to ride the bucking bronco of the former as best we can and either learn to navigate around the latter (the same way you try to avoid stepping in dog-shit) or deal with them appropriately.

"I'm not treated like one and I can never know what it feels like to be one."

Sanjay. You ARE one: a human being.

We all bleed when we're pricked.

"I've been to the holocaust museum in DC, and I can pretty much gurantee it didn't affect me the same way it would someone who is jewish."

I can guarantee you that every Jewish person who went there wasn't affected in the "same way" as the next.

And although there is something every Jewish person felt that they had in common with every other--a shared heritage-- I'm pretty damn sure that what you felt was what everyone--Jew and Gentile--felt: the evil that men can do to one another, and that is the most important lesson.

The Nazis--for all their monstrous inhumanity-- were human beings too.

"...can guess how they feel about it, but I'll never experience it quit the same way."

But the discrimination you yourself have experienced is, essentially, the same.

"You're right, there are bad people on both sides. And yes, I do just do my best to forget about it; moving away from the South made it easier. But do you realize that just a few decades ago I wouldn't have been able to marry my wife in some states?"

But now you can. In every state.

"I don't consider you a racist, but I think your "just buck up and let go of it" mentality is typical of someone who has never faced racism."

No, it's just the realization that we can't change the human condition.

All we can do--in our own worlds--is rise above it.

It's personal responsibility.

"You can understand the concept of racism real easy. You can understand how it is supposed to feel and make the logical conclusion that only stupid people act that way and should be ignored. The problem is that there are a lot of stupid people on BOTH sides and ignoring it ain't solving anything."

Who's "ignoring?" If someone infringes on your Civil Rights at a criminal level, they go to jail.

"Don't ask me for solutions, as I have none."

You have to accept the human condition and rise above it on your end, and at the same time celebrate the progress that has culturally marginalized--and even criminalized-- bad upbringing and attitudes.

"BTW, your no red america/blue america thing, that is almost a word for word quotation from Barack Obama's speech we were discussing a few posts back."

I absorb what is said. ;)

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Roper:

John Roper said:

"I will attempt to answer my critics:

Unless someone can channel my thoughts there is no possible way to know my motivation behind the graphic of Cynthia McKinney aka Buckwheat."

Yes. "Who knows what resides in a man's heart but the man's own spirit within him?"

St. Paul

"Here goes:

I remember Buckwheat on The Little Rascals as being a stupid kid which is akin to the spoiled brat that Cynthia Mckinney is acting like."

lol *ahem* Sorry, go on :

"Moreover,if one cannot see the similarity between the two, particularly in the eyes,the hair-do, then a visit to the eye doctor would be a good thing. Buckwheat is black, Cynthia Mckinney is black,so what's the problem?"

Don't look at me, John.

"Please don't start with you just don't know what it's like to be black. You're right, I don't. But, I do know what it's like to be a minority. When you live in a town that is 80% black and you happen to be white you have a firm understanding of what it's like to be in the minortiy. I will tell you though, I leave my race card at home. If I go out and do something stupid I expect to be held accountable. Ms. Mckinney evidently does not."

It's called reverse racism.

"There is a term in psychology known as projecting. When you have a particular behavior you believe everyone does so you try to project that behavior onto others in every sort of situation in order to excuse your behavior. If I steal then everybody must steal. If I'm a racist then everybody must be a racist. You get the point."

YES.

John, any reader familiar with Republicus knows that I PEGGED the utilization of the psychological defense mechanism of projection as being the primary offensive weapon used by the Left in their rhetoric.

Clinton was a projecting machine. All the vices he hurled at conservatives/Republicans he has proven to be brimming over with himself (e.g. greed), or actually coveted for himself (e.g. kingly power).

Lee Harvey is a fine protege:

"You do an awful lot of assuming, and act like you have some level of understanding into my life."

Right. And he doesn't.

Orwell diagrams the phenomenon beautifully in *Animal Farm.*

"A cursory look at the list of Ms. Mckinney's campaign donors

http://herndon2.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00256354/124538/sa/ALL

will show you that no one knows racism like she does."

Exactly. But mum on that from Lee Harvey who rushed back ready to libel me--and you-- as engaging in racism.

"Antisemitism comes to mind as many of the donors on her list are people and organizations linked to terrorism, which makes me have to ask the question, is this someone we want involved in our government?"

There's a lot of people like that in the federal government. They're the terrorist appeasers and the one's screaming loudest that the War on Terror is racially underpinned (being against "brown-skinned" people) and a scheme of the Neoconservative "Zionists," among other things subversive to the war effort.

"Furthermore, I believe it's time for folks to grow some thicker skin, although I know that this is a futile statement."

Indeed, I myself said so way above:

"Like I said, I understand the 'actual and tragic racial discriminations in relatively recent American history that created exceptional sensitivities,' but the brudduhs and sistas I know are a lot thicker-skinned than you."

Which was futile, because Lee Harvey came back and "corrected":

"...and if you think I don't have thick skin being in an "interracial" marriage in the USA, heh, lol, well, lets just say, that's an awfully amusing white perspective on my 'dermis thickimus'. lol. Oh lord."

Like I said, Jeff, I conducted my own little survey with three African-Americans, a male and two females. I told them about the situation. They ALL agreed that it wasn't "racist," and, furthermore, the gentleman assurred me that: "John, some peole are just oversensitive" (i.e. thin-skinned) about all that. No worries."

So take that, whiteboy.

"Some folks love to be offended. It motivates their life. They are constantly looking for some way to be offended and no matter what anyone does to make things right, it is never good enough."

Mmmmmmm-hm. You got DAT right.

"They just love to be offended. They teach their kids the same thing. As a matter of fact the kids will pick up offenses that the parents have. Their parents will tell them how so-and-so did them wrong when they were younger and voila, instant offense. The kids will carry this around with them, they may even go as far as hating so-and-so's kids, and on and on."

I know people just like that. I'm embarrassed to be related to them.

"We have become the United States of the Offended."

Yeah. Everyone's "a victim." It's "their fault."
"I'm owed"...

"Is the graphic racist? No, but it is in bad taste and intentionally so."

Ditto, John. I said:

"Wrong, sure, because it's bad manners to a woman.

Insensitive? Sure, because she's a woman."

But Mckinnon's behavior was invitational to that sort of teasing.

"But, I've always been of the mind that one good turn deserves another."

Bravo. Drop by anytime, John.

Lee Harvey spewed:

"I let it go..."

Because you're good-natured? :)

"...because you are clearly nuts."

:(

"Kelly has nothing to do with this."

So why did you devote 4 back-to-back posts attacking her character after she made a personal observation which she conditioned as "That's just how I personally feel?"

"And your the one who blew this up."

You called me--and Roper--a racist on the World Wide Web.

That ain't patty-cakes.

"I just stated that after knowing you for so longand vice versa, I was disappointed in your tacit approval(ie laughing) at something I considered racist posted by someone else(Roper)."

Like I said, my response to the Roper's post was: "Holy S**T! LOL!"

That is not a "tacit approval." That is an vocifrous expression of astonishment.

Learn to speak English, asnd stop throwing words around that you evidently don't understand the meaning of.

"That was it."

That was not "it." You forgot these parts: "...and yes it IS racist John, period. There is no other way around that.

[...]

You are tumbling down a steep slope in your life now man, and right now I am offended at your incredible lack of common sense/sensitivities and saddened at who you are rapidly becoming."

Which is...an anglo-Christo-blind-twisted-facist" who's also a "racist?"

"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in you goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered."

W. Buckley to Gore Vidal, Chcago DNC, 8/22/68

lol Yeah. What he said, Jeff.

"And I did it as a By the way statement, that was it."

No it wasn't. And you keep boasting that you "stand by each and every word." So eat them:

"...and yes it IS racist John, period. There is no other way around that.

[...]

You are tumbling down a steep slope in your life now man, and right now I am offended at your incredible lack of common sense/sensitivities and saddened at who you are rapidly becoming."

"the rest here is your mental issue on how you deal with personal criticism."

You slandered me, on the World Wide Web, as engaging in racism (the latest in a long list of slanderous calumnies), because of your own mental issues and psychological love-hate conflict for your host.

"You do and always have taken any negative criticism as an affront to your manhood, it's pathetic."

You slandered me, on the World Wide Web, as engaging in racism (the latest in a long list of slanderous calumnies).

And you just called me "pathetic."

"You c Kelly has nothing to do with this and her response to our discussion the night before was pointless and off topic."

Why, then, the lengthy and back-to-back insults and rebuttals, unless there's something to her discernment that there's some personal agenda going on with you in regards to your host, and that it stung you to the quick?

Like I said, Jeff, you're demonstrating the same offensive and presumptuous veiled hostility towards me that compelled me to scold and eventually shun you years ago under circumstances that compelled me to purge negativity from my life.

You just said: "You do and always have taken any negative criticism as an affront to your manhood."

Is that your interpretation to my at first annoyed but then angered reaction to your uncouth manners and presumptions, that it stems from a sensitive ego and testosterone?

Which you present as "fact?"

Why don't you just say, "You know, I really don't know you as well as I think I do, but it just seems to me, in my opinion, that you argue out of a sensitive ego and testosterone, if not the lack of it and hence insecurity, because of A, B, and C?"

And I could say, "Hm, I can't argue with D, E, and F, so maybe he has a point and I should work on that character flaw."

OR, I can say, "You're mistaking my actual A, B, and C for your own D, E, and F, and projecting as fact onto me the fact that it is YOU who feels like he has to "prove" his manhood.

But I don't think you want to go there.

Yes I consider her an annoying twit, so I had a few minutes off fun with her, so what."

You said to her, a wholesome, intelligent mother of five and a guest of Republicus who has--unasked-- troubleshooted tech problems with this blog and fact-checked to keep the bar raised here (which you always lower) that you, who expects everyone to care about your subjective rants, that "I could give a fuck what your religion is," and that she "were too stupid to realize" stuff and to "get over your fucking self already."

If that wasn't enough to compel any McDonald's store or even bar manager to throw you out to the sidewalk for talking that way to a female patron, you continued your highbrow assault on her thusly: "I consider you nothing more than an empty vessel, your hollow. I find your insights into the workings of the world to be childish and naive at best, again, I can't take you seriously at all. You want to take offense at that fine, tough shit, I don't care, I really don't."

But while you now quickly belittle and backpedal away from any notion that you maliciously attacked her and actually offended her:

"Yes I consider her an annoying twit, so I had a few minutes off fun with her, so what."

...you forget that you yourself acknowledged doing just that:

"Yes John, I have again offended the fair Kelly, mother of 5 who wouldn't hurt a fly. And once again, and HONESTLY, no offense meant here, but so the fuck what, she's freaking annoying."

If there is "HONESTLY no offense" meant in your offensive apathy, you nevertheless affirmed that you were indeed being offensive to cause her the assumed distress you then "HONESTLY" and "inoffensively" are apathetic to.

You were being Clintonian. You capitalized "HONESTLY no offense" meaning to call attention to "honestly" unintended offensiveness on your part to distract from the actual acknowledgement of being offensive in the previous sentence.

Then you called her nothing more than "a little sidekick," as if all of the millions of newspaper readers who write letters to the editor to agree with a view are "little sidekicks."

You're disqualified from anymore rational debate, but I will continue to diagram your low-level tactics to help politically-inattentive readers hone their radars next time they hear the same garbage coming out of the mouths of projecting, inverting, and spinning lefty politicians (sorry, Sanjay, the politicians you support own the copyrites on that kind of word-raping rhetoric).

As for how Lee Harvey treats another guest of Republicus (the catalyst of this post): "A beef with Roper? Why, I don't know him, and after looking at his blog, quite frankly wouldn't want too. He might be a fine person somewhere under there, but not for me."

Anyway, then Lee Harvey begins to speak in tongues:

"The result of my by the way post to you on a personl level, was you, once again, turning everything into an attack on the liberal downfall of America and somehow a comparison to President Bush protection statement."

What the hell are you babbling about?

"However the fuck you got there from where I started only your mind knows."

How the hell did you get to there?

"again pretty pathetic."

(Republicus is arching his eyebrows)

"It's unwinding pretty quick in there."

In "there?" So were back to Bush?

Yes. The poll numbers in the thrirties.

Was it something I said? :O

Jeff *exuents,* but has forgotten his jacket and returns:

"And to you Mr. Roper, I answer, yes it was in bad taste, and it was obviously intentional."

He didn't ask. He acknowledged that."

"And I repeat the only point even necessary for this dialogue. It does not matter one iota who that woman is, period, Deceny is not partisan. Even in this ridiculously divided politically ravaged nation, there is not an excuse for that crap, from anyone, period."

Do you have any clue as to what Mckinnon was trying to pull?

You're right, there's no excuse for that.

Do you have anything to say about her lawyer calling Sean Hannity "just a rich white boy?"

Right, decency is not partisan, and there's no excuse for that.

And why is this nation "ridiculously divided politically ravaged?"

Because of malcontents like you.

"It's not hard to understand, regardless of what reason anyone had in their head for justifying it, it's wrong, and that's just how I feel. Thats all."

Yeah, and I felt bad and offered to pull it down. You said no, and I left it at that.

That was many comments ago.

Pay attention to what you say.

Kelly said:

"John Roper said,

'I remember Buckwheat on The Little Rascals as being a stupid kid which is akin to the spoiled brat that Cynthia Mckinney is acting like.'

This is what the post was about...it was about behavior rather than racism. My understanding is that Roper was camparing the attitude and behavior of Buckwheat to Mckinney. The similarity in their looks was an added bonus.

Mckinney is the one who is being racist. Her behavior says that white men will treat her badly because she is black. But she treated the security guard the way SHE did because they are white. That is racism."

It's reverse racism.

"and ..Jeff, this is a public blog owned by John (Republicus). You cannot expect to say something to John and not have someone else (anyone else) comment. It is our right...unless we are banned."

Tell it, Kelly.

"Ya, this is not about me. But, I, too am a friend of John's and am a guest of his on this blog. You do not own him and neither do I."

Yeah.

"John may have blown this up...but only because it was another straw on the camel's back."

I didn't "blow up" anything, Kelly. You're suggesting that the voluminous density is comprised of hot air.

"Sincerely,

an annoying twit

-----

BTW...John, I didn't see an apology."

Don't hold your breath. I'm not getting one either.

I myself am sorry if his wife's feelings were hurt-- but they shouldn't be.

For the last time, Mckinnon looked like Buckwheat in the pic, I gasped "Holy S**T!' and LOL-ed on Roper's blog, Jeff spied the astonished laughter, told thirty people, and came back here and race-baited by calling me a racist, turned this into a racial incident and insulting my other guests in the process.

5:32 PM  
Blogger John said...

Douglass, I can't access your blog.

L.S. said: "But if a couple of white guys told me they thought it was racist; I guess I wouldn't react with "suck it up!"

Sanjay, just to be clear on my end, I don't mean "suck it up" in the sense that racism should be tolerated and accepted, rather that we should accept certain realities about humanity (like that there are murderers, rapists, liars, thieves, and yes, racists among us, and always will be) but follow our better angels and try to rise above the dregs and live up to our potentials.

Thanks guys.

5:42 PM  
Blogger John said...

Kelly blessed:

"I'm willing to forgive Jeff (with provision that he doesn't call me clueless or a nitwit any more.)

Who's with me?"

I'm with ya. You just watch yourself, Jeff.

5:48 PM  
Blogger Douglass said...

Comparing McKinney to buckwheat is hilarious, yet inappropriate.

Sure, the comparison is true about McKinney.

That woman’s behavior has a similar effect on the non-black schema of black Americans as Buckwheat’s behavior AND she looks like Buckwheat.

Liberal samurai pointed out “to many minorities he (Buckwheat) embodies black stereotypes at the time. The big fro, the cheesy smile, the affinity for watermelon.”

That is true, and is one reason why the comparison is unsuitable today.

Generations of black Americans were degenerated by the propaganda of Jim Crow and when we use a piece of that propaganda to make a joke, it pushes a lot of buttons in the black person who views the ‘joke’.

Things are made worse by comparing buckwheat to one of the few Black female congresswomen hailing from a state that once practiced segregation.

Roper and Kelly, I agree that we need to grow thicker skins, but isn’t that in itself proof that we lack these ‘thick skins’?






John, Roper and Kelly, I agree that we need to “grow thicker skins”, and “accept certain realities about humanity”

But isn’t that in itself proof that we lack these ‘thick skins’, and we cannot yet effectively cope with these 'realities'?

5:56 PM  
Blogger John said...

All men Are Created EQual."

That doesn't mean that all men (and women, of course) *become* equal.

Either by outside forces working against them, or by their own inner demons, inequalities arise.

But I must insist that every individual has the power to rise above any obstacles and overcome the temptation to retaliate by doing evil, whether the obstacles were inflicted upon him by birth (e.g. a birth defect), inflicted upon him from without (e.g. an anemic job market), or some combination of both (e.g. born a minority in an oppressively racist or ethnocetric society).

I can't begin to list the many, many role-models from all three situations and of all races, creeds, socio-economic background, and both genders, that despite the deck being stacked against them, have worked hard and been succesful in their own endeavors and became heroes and heroines for humanity to boot (and they did it without lying, stealing, slandering, murdering, discriminating, hating, blaming, coveting, *etc.*, but by having the kind of character we point out for our children to learn by).

6:36 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

John said:


'"John may have blown this up...but only because it was another straw on the camel's back."

I didn't "blow up" anything, Kelly. You're suggesting that the voluminous density is comprised of hot air.'

For clarification...I said, John MAY have blown this up....I did not say you HAD.

No offense.

8:01 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Ok ,now we are talking. Is it just me, or have we maybe come around full circle on this little argument.

Kelly said...

Sanjay, I am going to have to agree a bit with what you are saying.

Everyone seems to look for the offense and expect others to suck it up and grow a thicker skin.

I have been there on both sides.

I can see why Jeff was hurt by what was said. I can see why John was offended by what Jeff said.

I probably said something that offended and I am probably guilty of taking offense.

The problem we all have is that we have never walked in each others shoes ...probably never will.

I'm willing to forgive Jeff (with provision that he doesn't call me clueless or a nitwit any more.)

Who's with me?

Ding ding ding

And we have a winner.....
Thank you. It only took how many overly offensive posts by me to get here, but I can deal with that.

Sanjay, your awesome, Kelly, so are you.

All smiles

John says:

But while you now quickly belittle and backpedal away from any notion that you maliciously attacked her and actually offended her:

"Yes I consider her an annoying twit, so I had a few minutes off fun with her, so what."

...you forget that you yourself acknowledged doing just that:

"Yes John, I have again offended the fair Kelly, mother of 5 who wouldn't hurt a fly. And once again, and HONESTLY, no offense meant here, but so the fuck what, she's freaking annoying."

Which, by coincidence ;) (wink) , was your reason for laughing at a racist posting of a black woman,it was ok Because, she annoys you by her actions. HMM- point below-

"Do you have any clue as to what Mckinnon was trying to pull?"

Why would that matter is(was) my point.


John says:

Kelly blessed:

"I'm willing to forgive Jeff (with provision that he doesn't call me clueless or a nitwit any more.)

Who's with me?"

I'm with ya. You just watch yourself, Jeff.

Consider myself watched.
Kelly, sorry to use you so badly to make a point. John sorry to offend your mental capacities, to make a point. But thank you all for getting it.

I thought this might turn out to be an interesting post, wasn't disappointed.

And yes Kelly, seriously, as my wife is smacking me in the head for the umteenth time over this, it was intentional nastiness on my part towards you, I have no animosity towards you what so ever. Oh and she says to apologize to that lady. Yes dear, I'm sorry, I really am.

8:03 PM  
Blogger John said...

:)

8:27 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

:)

8:48 PM  
Blogger John Roper said...

Y'all come over to my blog and blow steam, I need the traffic. I got an idea brewing for another graphic. Who knows, I may dis Bill Clinton and Al Gore, the new dhimmis in Chief.

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

12:06 PM  
Blogger John said...

Okay, John. I'll drop by presently.

Jeff said:

"'Yes John, I have again offended the fair Kelly, mother of 5 who wouldn't hurt a fly. And once again, and HONESTLY, no offense meant here, but so the fuck what, she's freaking annoying.'

Which, by coincidence ;) (wink) , was your reason for laughing at a racist posting of a black woman,it was ok Because, she annoys you by her actions. HMM- point below-"

I see your point Jeff, and I did miss your own intended use of irony. BUT: Again, I laughed in astonishment first and foremost because of the striking resemblance.

True, the importation of the pic from John's blog to mine and the public posting of what would most certainly be hurtful was, indeed, not discouraged by Mckinnon's own behavior, but are you actually trying to make an accurate analogy between my own detached apathy for the feelings of a congresswoman from the opposition party who I don't know but think unconscionably engaged in race-baiting, to your own "don't give a fuck" apathy for a woman (i.e. Kelly) who is a personal friend and guest and in no way whatsoever engaged in the type of race-baiting or other base behavior that the congresswoman engaged in to warrant the apathy for her feelings?

Also, you needn't apologize to me. I didn't ask for one. Don't need one. I've known you for 20 years.

But I'll take it. ;)

3:38 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

John says:

True, the importation of the pic from John's blog to mine and the public posting of what would most certainly be hurtful was, indeed, not discouraged by Mckinnon's own behavior, but are you actually trying to make an accurate analogy between my own detached apathy for the feelings of a congresswoman from the opposition party who I don't know but think unconscionably engaged in race-baiting, to your own "don't give a fuck" apathy for a woman (i.e. Kelly) who is a personal friend and guest and in no way whatsoever engaged in the type of race-baiting or other base behavior that the congresswoman engaged in to warrant the apathy for her feelings?


Let's see if I can say this somewhat clearly.

Sanjay prefaced every posting with- leaving out the personal stuff" or something to that effect.Which I thought was just hilarious(in a good way).

But, that was what I was trying to say, racism is very personal, very personal and that can't be left out at all. When Kelly had a chance to read through your and my banterings from the night before on the subject, she stated something like;
"I don't know if you were really offended, or if is something personal between you and John, and an excuse to yell at him". Well, the you are clueless response was a kneejerk whatever response, then I thought, well, it is personal, to me, my wife, and between me towards you, in so far as my respect level towards you. So I figured, ok, lets make this personal, for you two, and see how you react to being impuned in some way.

Since I am white, and are both of you, race really couldn't be the issue. So Kelly got a continuation of clueless parlayed into intelligence, and you got a chest pumping full of craziness affecting any reasoniong abilities you may have. Both pretty personal, and offensive, I hoped anyway. And let the conversation go where it may.

You kept trying to make it political, about Mckinney, which it never was for me, and never should have mattered to anyone in my opinion. You also kept stating it was inappropriate, mainly because she was a woman, which again, I wouldn't have cared if it was some black liberal congressman you equally loathed. Neither issue was relevant to me, only the personal.

Your defense of Kelly, whom you know about as well as Mckinney was great, because it made it personal for you, there was a connection you felt for her, for whatever reason, be it she's nice here, you share some common views on politics and life, whatever. The point was, while YOU felt apathy for Mckinney, because of how you feel towards her views and actions, your justification for laughing in the first place( yes I know her resenblance in the photo was uncanny), BUT her resemblance to my wife, and every single other person of color is a much more deeply felt personal relationship. When my wife sees that picture, she doesn't see some psycho race baiting liberal freak that some people view her as, she sees herself, and her race being put down yet again,that is very vey personal, and the reason, well, it's irrelevant.

Does that make any sense, or did I butcher this?

Oh and as far as the apology to you. Well you did kinda ask for it, so I gave it to ya, didn't want you to feel left out. And the christmas card list, just to clear the record(man I was dying over this one, almost jumped in to clear it up), nobody has gotten one in years, we've gotten real lazy, you weren't singled out at all. :)


Kelly and John say:

"BTW...John, I didn't see an apology."

Don't hold your breath. I'm not getting one either.

5:21 PM  
Blogger John said...

Jeff said:

"BUT her resemblance to my wife, and every single other person of color is a much more deeply felt personal relationship."

Sooooo... all blacks look the same to you?

8:44 PM  
Blogger John said...

Jeff:

When I said this:

"Also, you needn't apologize to me. I didn't ask for one. Don't need one. I've known you for 20 years."

You seem to be "proving" that, in fact, I did, here:

"Don't hold your breath. I'm not getting one either."

But stating a belief that I wasn't getting one is not the same as asking for one.

I think you just wanted to prove me wrong. ;)

5:21 PM

8:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home