I'm not joking, and I'm not having fun. You have revealed a side that is not just unattractive, it is absolutely wrong. You need to reflect, and you need to change.
If I were Tim Russert I would play the video, but there is no video. There is only this verbatim quote from your recent post:
"I think that the average Democrat is clearly smarter than the average member of the Republican base. Obama, of course, won the vote of the college-educated voters. In Massachusetts, the 2010 move to the right v 2008 was primarily among whites without the benefit of college.
Now, I will stray from PC, understanding the attacks that will follow. Jews vote Democratic on a 2/1 - 3/1 basis and are probably the most intelligent and educated among us. I don't think that is a coincidence. It figures."
Now, I will stray from PC, understanding the attacks that will follow. Jews vote Democratic on a 2/1 - 3/1 basis and are probably the most intelligent and educated among us. I don't think that is a coincidence. It figures."
Even if you mean the comment regarding Jews as complimentary, it is racist. What's next? Are blacks dumb? Oh no, the dumb ones are Republicans.
Let me be clear: when you characterize ethnic groups as dumb or smart you are a racist. In my opinion, when you characterize Republicans as dumb you are merely an elitist. Right now I have you down as a racist elitist. You have broken the social contract and I am done with you.
I am into repentance and forgiveness, but I don't have the standing to absolve you, I can only forgive you. You have revealed an ugly side and i recommend a deep and serious taking of stock.
I won't respond to you without evidence of meaningful change.
Good luck,
Hags
11 comments:
Can a person clap with one hand. Debating yourself may not be much fun Rich(ie)
The list grows.
Mark, Sara, Tom and now Hags.
No wonder the man can not win his own "home" district.
The same intellect that can allow Terry to infer Bigotry in Conservatives yet state how he "loves" Baxter despite his ramblings is also the same defect that can somehow (somehow!) attribute the MA miracle to sexism or satisfaction with their own health care, instead of admitting it was a strong rejection, BY DEMOCRATS, of the "o" agenda and style.
Grave yard and whistle.
No need to respond, Hags. This is a vigorous blog and not for the faint hearted. I will try, somehow, to go on without your pithy posts.
You apparently golf, Doc, with petulant old white guys that can't stand to hear a different point of view - especially when they can't seem to win an argument. I think they leave because they are tired of looking bad when challenged.
Frequently, the exit blogs appear to have been written after an excessive number of adult beverages. The most recent exit may be one of them.
Lets review:
Mark's last post was an attempt to put down Keynesian economic and he lavishly praised two countries that had succeeded... through Keynesian economics. When I pointed out his embarrassing and revealing error, he was gone.
What would Freud say about a man that takes on a woman's name as a Nom de Guerre? (Not that there is anything wrong with that). That is one for us to wonder and "Sara P" to know. I do think his posts were of the "tin foil hat" variety, including his prayer for harm to come to our president. I thought that was beyond the pale, but I didn't pick up and leave in a huff.
Tom - who did not write one memorable word - was a particularly odd case. What set him off? I offered Sara P a "good luck in Nashville", where the other Sarah P would be speaking and Wenzel lost his composure. He said I denigrated his buddy but he wasn't specific (as is often the case here). Clearly, there was no insult - just a pissed off little man that didn't agree with what I had to say.
Hags is a shame. He seemed like a level headed guy stuck on the GOP team and a little frustrated for it. I will miss him, as I miss Chicago Mark. I will not even notice the absence of Wenzel or Sara P.
I stand by my comments regarding the intellectual firepower of Jews. Perhaps Hags has been too busy golfing with WASPs, but our Jewish brothers and sisters are, in fact, more educated than the average American and more successful as well. Look at their disproportionate representation in medicine, law and science. They are also heavily Democratic, which stands to reason by my way of thinking.
There is absolutely nothing racist about those observations and Hags is bright enough - even as a gentile - to know that. He was just generally unhappy with my comments about his team and used that as an excuse to head to the hills.
Who knows, Doc, you may quit if I keep asking you to specify how you would balance the budget... (Hags couldn't answer that challenge either)
I have NEVER inferred Bigotry in Conservatives and I challenge that statement. I love Baxter's passion and generally agree with his point of view. I do not believe he is a racist but I have not studied his posts and only look at the blog posts that interest me. I got on this post because
#1 Have fun
#2 Share thoughts
#3 Learn something
#4 Expand my knowledge
#5 Express my ideas and test them
I am not that close a follower so I am unaware Sara P, and Tom have quit blogging. I believe that is a shame. Baxter, I can say because I know these men, they are GOOD PEOPLE. Hags is a great guy also, while I disagree with much of their solutions to America, I would be in a foxhole with these guys anytime.
In the words of Rodney King " why can't we all get along" we don't have to agree but name calling should not be tolerated. We are all complex people with complex identities, I know because I actually like Dr. Jim, but I have a lot friends I can't explain to others. LOVE
THANK YOU for your kind words, Terry. I appreciate it.
I'm sorry to see all these people leave - they all seem very well informed, but maybe they have been on this blog to long and are tired of it. I'm new to the blog so I look at Baxter as great entertainment. It's like having John Kerry on your blog. You can just see him looking down his nose at you. He probably wishes he would have thought of Obama's "guns and religion" statement himself. The pomposity is overwhelming; it is that of a professor ("those who can do, those who can't teach"). Oh and as far as "This is a vigorous blog and not for the faint hearted" - boy are you a tough guy! Nobody stands a chance against you!
Obama a brilliant law professor - uh yeah. What a thin resume', he is in so far over his head and it shows. Leader of the Republican Party - we have none, nor do we need one at this point. The Dems are so screwed up; the wheels are coming off this baby. We don't have to do anything - just let them continue on this road. They have had a Super Majority for close to 8 months and the White House and they still can't get anything done. They are comical! I think the country needed to go through a huge dose of liberal/socialist agenda.
By the way speaking of Bigots how about Rev Wright - Obama sat in those pews for 20 years, what about Dreams from My Father - extremely racist.
Way to pile on, Mark. Hey - that was courageous!
I think I have worn the other guys down. To use Terry's foxhole analogy - it is you, Jim and Riegel remaining - Hags took a powder rather than face the incoming fire.
I enjoy your posts for the most part, though you do seem to have a passive/aggressive thing going on.
BTW, Mark, any suggestions that Obama is a racist are way off the mark. That is Glenn Beck stuff. You can do much better than that.
Though it wasn't intended as such, I take any comparisons to Senator Kerry as a compliment. I just wish he had picked Gephardt as his running mate in '04. I think he would have won the election, picking up Mizzou and Iowa. Edwards didn't add one vote to the ticket.
You deserve it, your previous gay comments all show that you are very hypocritical as are most Libs. You would fit right in the Hollywood/Liberal Media/Academia elite "do as I say, not as I do" mentality. I just don't know if I have the mental toughness to stay with you but I'll try.
Oh and as far as Obama not being racist - how could anyone sit in those pews for 20 years, get married and have his kids baptized all along listening to a pure racist? I would be gone in a minute. Square that association for me. Crickets!
I will return the favor of a quick response, as you did with my budget challenge.
I think Obama made a calculated decision to join Wright's church since it held a good deal of influence in the community in which he was working. He had political intentions, and had to sign up with one of the locals. Cynical? Yes. How many politicians attend church for political reasons? A bunch.
I don't think Obama sat in the pews for 20 years. I expect he was rarely there. I think he is probably an agnostic, but I don't really know. Fortunately, this country does not have a religious test for officeholders.
Rev Wright is a misguided bombastic fellow and no friend of Obama. When the chips were down in '08, he didn't pipe down for his former parishioner, he spoke ever louder. He is a piece of shi* and not worthy of all the partisan attention he has received.
Any suggestion that Obama is a racist is way over the top. It is an example of the lack of civility that Bam talks about. Do you not see the inherent malevolence of calling the first black president a racist? You have plenty of other complaints - you probably ought to stick to those.
You have made your own subtle gay jabs on this board. Desperate Housewives? You have no high ground here, Mark. Jim G even had to tell you to knock it off.
Pomposity? Guilty as charged - we all are. Check the posts. I am merely a combative and assertive blogger who gets it from all directions around here. There has been no shortage of arrogance, sanctimony, condescension or pomposity on this board all the way around. My earlier reference to "vigorous political blog - not for the faint hearted" is the subtitle of this Morning Coffee blog. I didn't name it.
Got It!
Joined a church for influence not for the belief in the religion.
Didn't sit in the pews? Obama said he could no more disavow Rev Wright any more than he could disavow his own family. Sounds to me like he was pretty close to him. "Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life" Huffington Post 3/18/08.
He's agnostic, so the above is a lie?
Religous test is not the issue.
Not worthy of attention - so associations mean nothing, another pass.
Dreams of my Father - "It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need" let's contrast that to "I also looked up the term racist, and Websters says,
“1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.”
I waived off Jim's comment and it was pointed at both of us.
Got It!
Joined a church for influence not for the belief in the religion. TRUE.
Didn't sit in the pews? Obama said he could no more disavow Rev Wright any more than he could disavow his own family. Sounds to me like he was pretty close to him. "Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life" Huffington Post 3/18/08.
He's agnostic, so the above is a lie? NOT NECESSARILY.
Religous test is not the issue.
Not worthy of attention - so associations mean nothing, another pass. GREATLY EXAGGERATED AND BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION.
Dreams of my Father - "It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need" let's contrast that to "I also looked up the term racist, and Websters says,
“1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.” I DO NOT SEE RACISM IN THAT STATEMENT. TRY TO SEE THINGS LIKE THAT THROUGH BLACK EYES AND MAYBE YOU WON'T BE SO SANCTIMONIOUS.
I waived off Jim's comment and it was pointed at both of us. TRUE - I AM NOT CLAIMING THE HIGH GROUND EITHER.
Post a Comment