So I haven't given any reponses in awhile, so here goes:
Health Care Again
Anonymous
Haha. That was Awesome.
Thanks
Update on Jorge
jaime pablo
That was so beautifully expressed my friend.
You made my week.
White Priv #5
tgt
I enjoy these posts. Too often we get sucked into false dichotomy...
Wow I guess we have come along way. First you criticize me for trafficking in a false dichotomy and now you congratulate me for avoiding false dichotomies. I call that progress.
Wal-Mart
tgt
It is impossible to be more than 110 mi from a McDs and be in the continental U.S.
Man I use to love the quarter pounder with cheese. And the fries. And the chicken nuggets. My kids know all about McDonalds. I took them there once in a moment of weakness. That was two years ago. They still talk about it. They are 4 and 6.
Anonymous
Until some other corporation sprouts up that has more integrity than Walmart, It will remain the best... just like the Lakers.
I smell sarcasm. Colin is that you?
Love
Anonymous
It's true that you don't have to believe in God to believe in Spirit, just as you don't have to believe in shoemakers to wear shoes.
I was thinking more like you don't have to get your shoes from any particular shoemaker and if you can't find a shoemaker you like, make your own shoes.
Hot Springs
Adarro
I would hate to have to report your discriminatory practices to the appropriate government authorities.
Good point. Please don't report me. Pretty please.
Lil' Wayne and Bernard Kerik
Anonymous
You're getting good at this blogging thing.
You think so?
Civil Liberties
Jesse
just a thought from an anonymous white guy... ever think that its the rich that are the true enemies of all you rightly label in here as oppressed and not "the white man".
Wow. If you reread LJ's comment (it precedes yours) she pretty much destroys your argument.
LJ
Where does he (me) say that all white men never ever have to work and get all the breaks? I am tired of people making valid critiques and analysis of there surroundings and the response being “don’t hate me because I am a white man!”
And she wrote her comment a month and half before you wrote yours. Now that is impressive.
Showing posts with label responses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label responses. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Responses from the challenge.
So since I started the challenge i haven't given any responses so here goes:
Kanye:
Charlie
Follow the rules or be cast out as a jerk.
I think that this sentence is the crux of where we disagree. Rulebreaking is a concept that is near and dear to my heart and I hope you don't cast me out as a jerk.
Romantic Comedies:
Colin
I hypothesize that Sleepless in Seatle is a superior romantic comedy than when Harry Met Sally.
Don't make an argument that you don't believe in yourself.
LJ
Long live Westley.
I would say thanks for battling with Colin, but his argument was so absurd that it wasn't worth your time. As for Westley I will find him and say "To the pain"... ...And no, Princess Bride in not better than When Harry Met Sally, not even close.
Isaac
Bull Durham
Excellent Choice. Great Effort. No Chance.
Civil Liberties
Charlie
I get frustrated being on the wrong end of lengthy and pointed jabs at the white men.
What LJ said.
LJ
Where in this post is GH attacking people for being white and male?
Brilliant. Thank you.
Roman Polanski
Bhagoosh
Why shouldn't any human say "poor friend" when their friends are caught in the abstract pincers of the injustice system?
Agreed. However if you are advocating for a friend that has committed a crime that has caused pain and suffering to people, you have to simultaneously acknowledge the severity of those actions.
Mackenzie Phillips
Charlie
I object (again) to your use of a the label, "priveleged well off man"...
I merely stated 4 facts. That John Phillips was privileged, well off, male and never held accountable. I made no additional comments about these facts. I made no conclusions. I stated them merely for the record. I'm not sure why you would argue with me about that.
Dead Peasants
Anonymous
And if the company just happens to have dangerous, unhealthy working conditions, all the better for them...
Absolutely
Gentrification
Charlie
Change 'rich people' to black people, or gay people, see if your argument holds up. I bet you (will) see how discriminatory you're being.
I think that is a great idea. The problem is that I reread my post and I never mention rich people. Not even once. So I decided to create a few sentences and try out your exercise. Here goes: Black people control 90% of the wealth in the United States. Gay people account for three-quarters of the worlds income. The average annual income of the top .1% of U.S. Citizens is 3 million, damn those are some Black... People! As a result of the Bush Tax Cuts, those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000; wow Gay people have it pretty good. This game is great I'm going to do it all the time. Thanks Charlie.
Albizu
Charlie
If Albizu Campos was guilty as the courts found him, and he was sentenced to 80 years, well, you take your chances when you commit crimes.
Charlie didn't my godfather tell you that you don't ever dis Albizu Campos to a Puerto Rican? (inside joke) Albizu Campos said: "The good people of the U. S. are not to be blamed for the shameless conduct of certain government officials." As a result, you never saw innocent civilians killed as a result of his efforts. Don Pedro Albizu Campos was a nationalist that fought for Puerto Rican Independence. Puerto Rico continues to be the oldest colony in the world. Since 1492 an uncountable amount of atrocities have been brought upon our beautiful island. The U.S. Government has committed it's share of atrocities on the Puerto Rican people, such as the forced sterilization of thousands of Puerto Rican Women. In the seventies Jimmy Carter summoned a study to understand the relationship between the Unites States and Puerto Rico. The study concluded that U.S. treatment of Puerto Rico was so abhorrent, that it was appropriate to release, Oscar Collazo (the man that attempted to kill Harry Truman) as well as Irving Flores Rodriguez, Lolita Lebron, and Rafael Cancel-Miranda (three individuals that opened fire in Congress, wounding 4 congressman). Let me make the record clear, if you have a problem with Albizu Campos and the tactics he employed, I'm willing to discuss it. That said in order for me to have that conversation you better first recognize that they are no different than the tactics of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Community
Taina
Thanks for writing this.
No. Thank you.
Rush Limbaugh
Charlie
I listen to Rush about 5 minutes a week
There's the problem.
Sorbet and Interracial Marriage
Charlie
That judge, or minister, who ever he might be, might be the dumbest person of the week.
I couldn't agree more.
Kanye:
Charlie
Follow the rules or be cast out as a jerk.
I think that this sentence is the crux of where we disagree. Rulebreaking is a concept that is near and dear to my heart and I hope you don't cast me out as a jerk.
Romantic Comedies:
Colin
I hypothesize that Sleepless in Seatle is a superior romantic comedy than when Harry Met Sally.
Don't make an argument that you don't believe in yourself.
LJ
Long live Westley.
I would say thanks for battling with Colin, but his argument was so absurd that it wasn't worth your time. As for Westley I will find him and say "To the pain"... ...And no, Princess Bride in not better than When Harry Met Sally, not even close.
Isaac
Bull Durham
Excellent Choice. Great Effort. No Chance.
Civil Liberties
Charlie
I get frustrated being on the wrong end of lengthy and pointed jabs at the white men.
What LJ said.
LJ
Where in this post is GH attacking people for being white and male?
Brilliant. Thank you.
Roman Polanski
Bhagoosh
Why shouldn't any human say "poor friend" when their friends are caught in the abstract pincers of the injustice system?
Agreed. However if you are advocating for a friend that has committed a crime that has caused pain and suffering to people, you have to simultaneously acknowledge the severity of those actions.
Mackenzie Phillips
Charlie
I object (again) to your use of a the label, "priveleged well off man"...
I merely stated 4 facts. That John Phillips was privileged, well off, male and never held accountable. I made no additional comments about these facts. I made no conclusions. I stated them merely for the record. I'm not sure why you would argue with me about that.
Dead Peasants
Anonymous
And if the company just happens to have dangerous, unhealthy working conditions, all the better for them...
Absolutely
Gentrification
Charlie
Change 'rich people' to black people, or gay people, see if your argument holds up. I bet you (will) see how discriminatory you're being.
I think that is a great idea. The problem is that I reread my post and I never mention rich people. Not even once. So I decided to create a few sentences and try out your exercise. Here goes: Black people control 90% of the wealth in the United States. Gay people account for three-quarters of the worlds income. The average annual income of the top .1% of U.S. Citizens is 3 million, damn those are some Black... People! As a result of the Bush Tax Cuts, those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000; wow Gay people have it pretty good. This game is great I'm going to do it all the time. Thanks Charlie.
Albizu
Charlie
If Albizu Campos was guilty as the courts found him, and he was sentenced to 80 years, well, you take your chances when you commit crimes.
Charlie didn't my godfather tell you that you don't ever dis Albizu Campos to a Puerto Rican? (inside joke) Albizu Campos said: "The good people of the U. S. are not to be blamed for the shameless conduct of certain government officials." As a result, you never saw innocent civilians killed as a result of his efforts. Don Pedro Albizu Campos was a nationalist that fought for Puerto Rican Independence. Puerto Rico continues to be the oldest colony in the world. Since 1492 an uncountable amount of atrocities have been brought upon our beautiful island. The U.S. Government has committed it's share of atrocities on the Puerto Rican people, such as the forced sterilization of thousands of Puerto Rican Women. In the seventies Jimmy Carter summoned a study to understand the relationship between the Unites States and Puerto Rico. The study concluded that U.S. treatment of Puerto Rico was so abhorrent, that it was appropriate to release, Oscar Collazo (the man that attempted to kill Harry Truman) as well as Irving Flores Rodriguez, Lolita Lebron, and Rafael Cancel-Miranda (three individuals that opened fire in Congress, wounding 4 congressman). Let me make the record clear, if you have a problem with Albizu Campos and the tactics he employed, I'm willing to discuss it. That said in order for me to have that conversation you better first recognize that they are no different than the tactics of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Community
Taina
Thanks for writing this.
No. Thank you.
Rush Limbaugh
Charlie
I listen to Rush about 5 minutes a week
There's the problem.
Sorbet and Interracial Marriage
Charlie
That judge, or minister, who ever he might be, might be the dumbest person of the week.
I couldn't agree more.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Responses to: Michael Vick and others
Well where do I begin?
Ahh yes Nat X and your analysis of of my Michael Vick post. First you make mention of the fact that you believe that Mumia is "guilty" and that he should "fry" like chicken. Well I believe that Mumia is innocent and I don't believe that anyone should "fry". But I promise to write an upcoming post detailing my opinions on Mumia's case.
In the meantime you were also very critical of my position on Michael Vick. You wrote: "I think your argument that he got "judged" more harshly because he has black skin is completely wrong." I think it is important to clarify that I never stated whether or not Vick was judged wrong in the courts. I was merely discussing the judgement of him in the public and media. You go on to say that: "The problem I have with this is that had it been a local "thug from the hood" committing those same acts, his prison sentence would have been much greater." That's actually debatable. I certainly agree that typically, people with money, black or white, get lighter sentences than people without. But in the case of Michael Vick, because of his name, the Federal Government stepped in, invested heavily in the investigation and convicted him. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the feds would do this for a "thug from the hood". Also Vick's sentence of two years in Prison is pretty high for animal cruelty. And two years in Federal Prison for animal cruelty is almost unheard of. I didn't mention that Vick got off light, because he didn't. I didn't discuss Vick's actual case in my post because I am horrified by what Michael Vick did. It's just that they are plenty of people around the country writing about how disgusted they are by Vick's actions. I'm merely saying that when a Black Person commits a reprehensible act, society has a little more venom in it's condemnation, a little more acid on the tongue. You may disagree but I certainly have a leg to stand on in this argument.
As far as your point about criminals, give me a second and I'll get to it.
Colin as far as "Am I a hippie for washing my dog with Nag Champa Soap?", you nailed it.
Slaves in the White house:
Trees you wrote:
"I don't want to rename the monuments and wipe history clean. Our nation's history is an incredibly violent one. I want to be reminded of this. I want to walk down the street and see the evidence of our ancestor's mistakes in vivid, tangible detail. I want to see and feel the connections to the past and the truth."
I hear you but here is where I have problem. Washington is still a hero. The man was a slave owner and still is a hero. The country is filled with schools that black children attend that are named after slave owners. We have one in Albany named after Phillip Schuyler, a local slave owner. You won't see Hitler's image plastered across Germany. We are taught to believe that the slave owners that founded our country were good men, who just happened to think of black people as animals destined to serve them. I do not buy this. Personally I believe that the treatment of Women, Africans, and Native Americans by the founding fathers, invalidates them as pillars of freedom. I think we'd be best off if we took the papers they wrote and threw them into a museum and got a crew of brilliant thinkers of all races, genders, and sexual identities to write a real set of principles that we could truly believe in.
And Nat X:
My problem is that the constitution was written by slave owners. And than amended after the civil war by the inheritors of their legacy. In those amendments they wrote: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
In other words slavery is abolished unless you are convicted of a crime. Any crime. The government has the legal authority to enslave you if you are convicted of any crime. Is it a coincidence that the ancestors of America's original slaves make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population, aka legal slaves? No it isn't. Now you did mention that they have committed these crimes and that's the problem. That is a problem and I'm in favor of working with young people to prevent crimes before they happen. But in the USA a crime one place is not necessarily a crime another place.
When you go to city court you will find lots of Black teenagers arrested for nickel bags of weed. This is possibly the number one first offense for Black youth. What happens is these young men are convicted, without sufficient legal representation, sent to youth correctional facilities and trained to become lifelong criminals. Meanwhile in the suburbs and college campuses, their counterparts are trafficking large amounts of Marijuana and other drugs and rarely caught and prosecuted. In the few circumstances where a middle class white youth is arrested for this type of offense, they are provided proper legal representation, resulting in reduced penalties and avoidance of any form of incarceration that would result in further criminalization. And this cycle continues over and over again.
It's my opinion that the U.S. power structure feels comfortable with this because it has never fully separated itself from it's racist past. By clinging to symbols of Slave owners we continue their legacy, sometimes unconsciously. Our attempts to change racism need to be intentional and require a deep examination of historical wrongs. This is the necessary first step in my opinion, without it, I don't think we will ever end racism and the prison system will continue to be the descendant of the slave system.
Also Nat, as far as me moving to Somalia, I'll take it under consideration. As far as me wasting my talents, I disagree.
Ahh yes Nat X and your analysis of of my Michael Vick post. First you make mention of the fact that you believe that Mumia is "guilty" and that he should "fry" like chicken. Well I believe that Mumia is innocent and I don't believe that anyone should "fry". But I promise to write an upcoming post detailing my opinions on Mumia's case.
In the meantime you were also very critical of my position on Michael Vick. You wrote: "I think your argument that he got "judged" more harshly because he has black skin is completely wrong." I think it is important to clarify that I never stated whether or not Vick was judged wrong in the courts. I was merely discussing the judgement of him in the public and media. You go on to say that: "The problem I have with this is that had it been a local "thug from the hood" committing those same acts, his prison sentence would have been much greater." That's actually debatable. I certainly agree that typically, people with money, black or white, get lighter sentences than people without. But in the case of Michael Vick, because of his name, the Federal Government stepped in, invested heavily in the investigation and convicted him. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the feds would do this for a "thug from the hood". Also Vick's sentence of two years in Prison is pretty high for animal cruelty. And two years in Federal Prison for animal cruelty is almost unheard of. I didn't mention that Vick got off light, because he didn't. I didn't discuss Vick's actual case in my post because I am horrified by what Michael Vick did. It's just that they are plenty of people around the country writing about how disgusted they are by Vick's actions. I'm merely saying that when a Black Person commits a reprehensible act, society has a little more venom in it's condemnation, a little more acid on the tongue. You may disagree but I certainly have a leg to stand on in this argument.
As far as your point about criminals, give me a second and I'll get to it.
Colin as far as "Am I a hippie for washing my dog with Nag Champa Soap?", you nailed it.
Slaves in the White house:
Trees you wrote:
"I don't want to rename the monuments and wipe history clean. Our nation's history is an incredibly violent one. I want to be reminded of this. I want to walk down the street and see the evidence of our ancestor's mistakes in vivid, tangible detail. I want to see and feel the connections to the past and the truth."
I hear you but here is where I have problem. Washington is still a hero. The man was a slave owner and still is a hero. The country is filled with schools that black children attend that are named after slave owners. We have one in Albany named after Phillip Schuyler, a local slave owner. You won't see Hitler's image plastered across Germany. We are taught to believe that the slave owners that founded our country were good men, who just happened to think of black people as animals destined to serve them. I do not buy this. Personally I believe that the treatment of Women, Africans, and Native Americans by the founding fathers, invalidates them as pillars of freedom. I think we'd be best off if we took the papers they wrote and threw them into a museum and got a crew of brilliant thinkers of all races, genders, and sexual identities to write a real set of principles that we could truly believe in.
And Nat X:
My problem is that the constitution was written by slave owners. And than amended after the civil war by the inheritors of their legacy. In those amendments they wrote: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
In other words slavery is abolished unless you are convicted of a crime. Any crime. The government has the legal authority to enslave you if you are convicted of any crime. Is it a coincidence that the ancestors of America's original slaves make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population, aka legal slaves? No it isn't. Now you did mention that they have committed these crimes and that's the problem. That is a problem and I'm in favor of working with young people to prevent crimes before they happen. But in the USA a crime one place is not necessarily a crime another place.
When you go to city court you will find lots of Black teenagers arrested for nickel bags of weed. This is possibly the number one first offense for Black youth. What happens is these young men are convicted, without sufficient legal representation, sent to youth correctional facilities and trained to become lifelong criminals. Meanwhile in the suburbs and college campuses, their counterparts are trafficking large amounts of Marijuana and other drugs and rarely caught and prosecuted. In the few circumstances where a middle class white youth is arrested for this type of offense, they are provided proper legal representation, resulting in reduced penalties and avoidance of any form of incarceration that would result in further criminalization. And this cycle continues over and over again.
It's my opinion that the U.S. power structure feels comfortable with this because it has never fully separated itself from it's racist past. By clinging to symbols of Slave owners we continue their legacy, sometimes unconsciously. Our attempts to change racism need to be intentional and require a deep examination of historical wrongs. This is the necessary first step in my opinion, without it, I don't think we will ever end racism and the prison system will continue to be the descendant of the slave system.
Also Nat, as far as me moving to Somalia, I'll take it under consideration. As far as me wasting my talents, I disagree.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Responses to various posts
Ok well I'm glad you are all with me. It is greatly appreciated. I'm gonna post a new blog soon.
In the meantime let me get back to some of you out there:
Trees, Fine you win. My next blog will be about my community work. But I'm really upset that you are making me take a break from pontificating about the election and the financial crisis.
Annonymous you wrote:
"It is not important to consider the alternative, however little the difference may seem? What I mean is, by casting a vote FOR someone, you may, in effect, cast one AGAINST another."
I will answer your question while also responding to the famous TGT who said sarcastically:
"But, yeah, Obama and McCain are like totally the same."
First of all I'm not actually condemning the act of voting just as I don't think people should condemn the act of not-voting. I don't believe that walking into a booth and voting accomplishes a whole lot but I don't think walking into a booth does much damage. The next step for most that follow this line of logic is "well why not vote?" I get it. I just don't subscribe to it for the most part.
I'm not condemning voting, I'm condemning the corporate capitalist, two party power structure and there bullshit elections. I believe that voting for a democrat today is voting for a republican tomorrow. I think people miss is a key piece of what the candidates are saying. If you don't vote for me, vote for the other guy. The republicans and democrats rule the United States of America with a partnership. Meaning they run the country together. Neither party ever challenges that basic principle. Sure Republicans and Democrats probably hope that they win every seat in congress and completely take over the government but they realize in reality that they will always share power. And that works for them. So what I'm saying is, if you vote for Jimmy Carter in 1976 you are also voting for Ronald Reagan in 1980. And if you vote for GW Bush in 2000 than you are also voting for Barack Obama in 2008. People often say imagine where we'd be if Gore had won the election in 2000. It actually isn't that hard to figure out. Al Gore would have been crucified by the republican congress and Fox type media. He would have lost to John McCain who would have run as a moderate and his VP wouldn't be Sarah Palin. I know it's conjecture but not really. This stuff is pretty easy to see. Barack Obama would not have become famous so quickly because the democratic convention in 2004 would have been focused on Al Gore and how awesome he was. (and for the record anything cool that Gore has ever done, didn't happen while he was vice-president and wouldn't have happened during his presidency.) After McCain's victory and four years of BS. The democrats wouldn't have looked to Barack Obama as they would need someone with experience to unseat President McCain, and that person would have been Hillary Clinton. And so now we'd have Hillary versus McCain.
Shortly after the re-election of GW Bush in 2004 I was listening to Rush Limbaugh courtesy of my father-in-law. And he warned his listeners that there will once again be a democrat in office. It's about to happen and guess what, I feel very confident in saying that there will once again be a Republican president. The reason is simple neither candidate challenges the other parties right to be plan B. And they will never change that basic dichotomy because works it for them...
In the meantime let me get back to some of you out there:
Trees, Fine you win. My next blog will be about my community work. But I'm really upset that you are making me take a break from pontificating about the election and the financial crisis.
Annonymous you wrote:
"It is not important to consider the alternative, however little the difference may seem? What I mean is, by casting a vote FOR someone, you may, in effect, cast one AGAINST another."
I will answer your question while also responding to the famous TGT who said sarcastically:
"But, yeah, Obama and McCain are like totally the same."
First of all I'm not actually condemning the act of voting just as I don't think people should condemn the act of not-voting. I don't believe that walking into a booth and voting accomplishes a whole lot but I don't think walking into a booth does much damage. The next step for most that follow this line of logic is "well why not vote?" I get it. I just don't subscribe to it for the most part.
I'm not condemning voting, I'm condemning the corporate capitalist, two party power structure and there bullshit elections. I believe that voting for a democrat today is voting for a republican tomorrow. I think people miss is a key piece of what the candidates are saying. If you don't vote for me, vote for the other guy. The republicans and democrats rule the United States of America with a partnership. Meaning they run the country together. Neither party ever challenges that basic principle. Sure Republicans and Democrats probably hope that they win every seat in congress and completely take over the government but they realize in reality that they will always share power. And that works for them. So what I'm saying is, if you vote for Jimmy Carter in 1976 you are also voting for Ronald Reagan in 1980. And if you vote for GW Bush in 2000 than you are also voting for Barack Obama in 2008. People often say imagine where we'd be if Gore had won the election in 2000. It actually isn't that hard to figure out. Al Gore would have been crucified by the republican congress and Fox type media. He would have lost to John McCain who would have run as a moderate and his VP wouldn't be Sarah Palin. I know it's conjecture but not really. This stuff is pretty easy to see. Barack Obama would not have become famous so quickly because the democratic convention in 2004 would have been focused on Al Gore and how awesome he was. (and for the record anything cool that Gore has ever done, didn't happen while he was vice-president and wouldn't have happened during his presidency.) After McCain's victory and four years of BS. The democrats wouldn't have looked to Barack Obama as they would need someone with experience to unseat President McCain, and that person would have been Hillary Clinton. And so now we'd have Hillary versus McCain.
Shortly after the re-election of GW Bush in 2004 I was listening to Rush Limbaugh courtesy of my father-in-law. And he warned his listeners that there will once again be a democrat in office. It's about to happen and guess what, I feel very confident in saying that there will once again be a Republican president. The reason is simple neither candidate challenges the other parties right to be plan B. And they will never change that basic dichotomy because works it for them...
Friday, September 5, 2008
Responses to: Why I'm not voting for Barack Obama 1 & 2
Hey y'all. Here's my response to some of the comments I recieved for my recent blogs. Be sure to check out my next blog: Why Reverse-Racism Doesn't Exist.
First of all we are worldwide. That's right, Eileen in China sent us a response. She thinks the world will like us more if Obama is President. I'm not gonna argue, after all she is in China.
Anonymous: Not so fast. Stay tuned and you'll see who I'm voting for and no I wouldn't vote for Obama if I lived in say, Ohio. But than again I live in New York, so for all you know, I might be lying.
TGT: You said that my "argument traffics in a false dichotomy". Ouch. Next time you should just say that "I'm ugly and my momma dresses me funny." And by the way you said that: "This is 2000 all over again, but with the distinctions much greater and the stakes much higher." If you mean by "2000 all over again" that Joe Biden is the second coming of Joe Lieberman, than I agree.
And by the way Trees, loquacious, Really? Have you read your brother's comments? (Those are the words of your sister) And for the record I prefer the term garrulous.
First of all we are worldwide. That's right, Eileen in China sent us a response. She thinks the world will like us more if Obama is President. I'm not gonna argue, after all she is in China.
Anonymous: Not so fast. Stay tuned and you'll see who I'm voting for and no I wouldn't vote for Obama if I lived in say, Ohio. But than again I live in New York, so for all you know, I might be lying.
TGT: You said that my "argument traffics in a false dichotomy". Ouch. Next time you should just say that "I'm ugly and my momma dresses me funny." And by the way you said that: "This is 2000 all over again, but with the distinctions much greater and the stakes much higher." If you mean by "2000 all over again" that Joe Biden is the second coming of Joe Lieberman, than I agree.
And by the way Trees, loquacious, Really? Have you read your brother's comments? (Those are the words of your sister) And for the record I prefer the term garrulous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)