| Author |
Message |
Chairman Mao
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: New White Flight?-killer link |
|
|
Yes you liberals hide the facts, but these facts have a way of coming out
(like when you came out of the closet)
http://flapsblog.com/?m=20051201
Another outstanding citizen you liberals embrace mentioned above...
You idiots amaze me..
Facts are facts you loser-libs, you cannot hide the facts 4ever.
"Jensen" <Jensen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:439b1313$0$8828$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...
| Quote: | "Vernon North" <Vernon North@oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e04ad68376b8b929897d5@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
So let's see the facts -- if you have any.
Verno
It is a fact, sad though it may be, that people who never visited the
United States have only Hollywood films and TV series to learn about
situations and conditions there. Hollywood is now doing their utmost to
portray the Blacks as an ethnic group that is equal in every way to the
Whites, but the impression from past decades have been so in-grown into
the heads (note I didn't say "brains") of peoples in the Near and Far East
that the Black people are mere criminals. This symptom will take decades
to erase. The same can be said about impressions about the Far East of
Westerners who never visited China, Japan, or any of the other countries
you care to mention - negative. I still see comic books in the United
States depicting the Chinese as small, yellow sub-humans terrorising
helpless White women: these are invariably drawn and written by old war
veterans with a deep hatred and grudge for the Chinese people after having
encountered them either during the Korean or the Vietnam war, and they are
too old to learn or accept that things are not so.
Jensen.
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chairman Mao
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: New White Flight? |
|
|
Because all of you liberals hate her, "She be not Black enuff"
"MissSouth" <lilhornie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134414313.405875.310450@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | First, THE WORLD would surely be a better, more peaceful place, if
christianity, judaism, and islam were eradicated. Or at least under
the control of a consortium of comedians.
Organized religion, as any rational thinker agrees, is, always has
been, and will forever be humankind's GREAT DIVIDER. But you knew
that.
Anyway, second, HOW DOES Condi Rice keep a straight face when writing
and uttering garbagey lies, such as are propounded in the following
piece of bull-shit?
This is obviously a pre-packaged collection of bald-faced falsehoods
aimed at convincing the most gullible audiences. Such hypocritical
hogwash barely deserves any comment. But such incredible lies are what
propelled us into Iraq!
Let's go over the Bush "democracy" rationale one more time, for those
of you who are weak-minded enough to believe it.
Except for a one-sentence toss-in utterance in a pre-2004 presidential
race speech, Bush NEVER spoke of spreading democracy any where in the
world! He spoke of fighting terrorism and other challenges, but
knowing as he did that oil was Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and his true reason
for wanting to attack and control Iraq, democracy seldom crossed the
the chimp's shallow, un-nuanced mind.
Now comes Rice, armed with Karen Hughes-style "public relations" pith,
spewing the democracy upchuck. But I hope she and Hughes don't think
Condi's Middle East audiences of tyrannical potentates actually buy
this spittle. If so, that makes Condi and Karen as dumb as Bush. And
we know how dumb that is.
=======
"The Promise of Democratic Peace"
Why Promoting Freedom Is the Only Realistic Path to Security
By Condoleezza Rice
Sunday, December 11, 2005; Page B07
The Washington Post
Soon after arriving at the State Department earlier this year, I hung a
portrait of Dean Acheson in my office. Over half a century ago, as
America sought to create the world anew in the aftermath of World War
II, Acheson sat in the office that I now occupy. And I hung his picture
where I did for a reason.
Like Acheson and his contemporaries, we live in an extraordinary time
-- one in which the terrain of international politics is shifting
beneath our feet and the pace of historical change outstrips even the
most vivid imagination. My predecessor's portrait is a reminder that in
times of unprecedented change, the traditional diplomacy of crisis
management is insufficient. Instead, we must transcend the doctrines
and debates of the past and transform volatile status quos that no
longer serve our interests. What is needed is a realistic statecraft
for a transformed world.
President Bush outlined the vision for it in his second inaugural
address: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the
growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and
culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." This
is admittedly a bold course of action, but it is consistent with the
proud tradition of American foreign policy, especially such recent
presidents as Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. Most important: Like the
ambitious policies of Truman and Reagan, our statecraft will succeed
not simply because it is optimistic and idealistic but also because it
is premised on sound strategic logic and a proper understanding of the
new realities we face.
Our statecraft today recognizes that centuries of international
practice and precedent have been overturned in the past 15 years.
Consider one example: For the first time since the Peace of Westphalia
in 1648, the prospect of violent conflict between great powers is
becoming ever more unthinkable. Major states are increasingly competing
in peace, not preparing for war. To advance this remarkable trend, the
United States is transforming our partnerships with nations such as
Japan and Russia, with the European Union, and especially with China
and India. Together we are building a more lasting and durable form of
global stability: a balance of power that favors freedom.
This unprecedented change has supported others. Since its creation more
than 350 years ago, the modern state system has always rested on the
concept of sovereignty. It was assumed that states were the primary
international actors and that every state was able and willing to
address the threats emerging from its territory. Today, however, we
have seen that these assumptions no longer hold, and as a result the
greatest threats to our security are defined more by the dynamics
within weak and failing states than by the borders between strong and
aggressive ones.
The phenomenon of weak and failing states is not new, but the danger
they now pose is unparalleled. When people, goods and information
traverse the globe as fast as they do today, transnational threats such
as disease or terrorism can inflict damage comparable to the standing
armies of nation-states. Absent responsible state authority, threats
that would and should be contained within a country's borders can now
melt into the world and wreak untold havoc. Weak and failing states
serve as global pathways that facilitate the spread of pandemics, the
movement of criminals and terrorists, and the proliferation of the
world's most dangerous weapons.
Our experience of this new world leads us to conclude that the
fundamental character of regimes matters more today than the
international distribution of power. Insisting otherwise is imprudent
and impractical. The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world
of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their
citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international
system. Attempting to draw neat, clean lines between our security
interests and our democratic ideals does not reflect the reality of
today's world. Supporting the growth of democratic institutions in all
nations is not some moralistic flight of fancy; it is the only
realistic response to our present challenges.
In one region of the world, however, the problems emerging from the
character of regimes are more urgent than in any other. The "freedom
deficit" in the broader Middle East provides fertile ground for the
growth of an ideology of hatred so vicious and virulent that it leads
people to strap suicide bombs to their bodies and fly airplanes into
buildings. When the citizens of this region cannot advance their
interests and redress their grievances through an open political
process, they retreat hopelessly into the shadows to be preyed upon by
evil men with violent designs. In these societies, it is illusory to
encourage economic reform by itself and hope that the freedom deficit
will work itself out over time.
Though the broader Middle East has no history of democracy, this is not
an excuse for doing nothing. If every action required a precedent,
there would be no firsts. We are confident that democracy will succeed
in this region not simply because we have faith in our principles but
because the basic human longing for liberty and democratic rights has
transformed our world. Dogmatic cynics and cultural determinists were
once certain that "Asian values," or Latin culture, or Slavic
despotism, or African tribalism would each render democracy impossible.
But they were wrong, and our statecraft must now be guided by the
undeniable truth that democracy is the only assurance of lasting peace
and security between states, because it is the only guarantee of
freedom and justice within states.
Implicit within the goals of our statecraft are the limits of our power
and the reasons for our humility. Unlike tyranny, democracy by its very
nature is never imposed. Citizens of conviction must choose it -- and
not just in one election. The work of democracy is a daily process to
build the institutions of democracy: the rule of law, an independent
judiciary, free media and property rights, among others. The United
States cannot manufacture these outcomes, but we can and must create
opportunities for individuals to assume ownership of their own lives
and nations. Our power gains its greatest legitimacy when we support
the natural right of all people, even those who disagree with us, to
govern themselves in liberty.
The statecraft that America is called to practice in today's world is
ambitious, even revolutionary, but it is not imprudent. A conservative
temperament will rightly be skeptical of any policy that embraces
change and rejects the status quo, but that is not an argument against
the merits of such a policy. As Truman once said, "The world is not
static, and the status quo is not sacred." In times of extraordinary
change such as ours, when the costs of inaction outweigh the risks of
action, doing nothing is not an option. If the school of thought called
"realism" is to be truly realistic, it must recognize that stability
without democracy will prove to be false stability, and that fear of
change is not a positive prescription for policy.
After all, who truly believes, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
that the status quo in the Middle East was stable, beneficial and worth
defending? How could it have been prudent to preserve the state of
affairs in a region that was incubating and exporting terrorism; where
the proliferation of deadly weapons was getting worse, not better;
where authoritarian regimes were projecting their failures onto
innocent nations and peoples; where Lebanon suffered under the boot
heel of Syrian occupation; where a corrupt Palestinian Authority cared
more for its own preservation than for its people's aspirations; and
where a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein was free to slaughter his
citizens, destabilize his neighbors and undermine the hope of peace
between Israelis and Palestinians? It is sheer fantasy to assume that
the Middle East was just peachy before America disrupted its alleged
stability.
Had we believed this, and had we done nothing, consider all that we
would have missed in just the past year: A Lebanon that is free of
foreign occupation and advancing democratic reform. A Palestinian
Authority run by an elected leader who openly calls for peace with
Israel. An Egypt that has amended its constitution to hold multiparty
elections. A Kuwait where women are now full citizens. And, of course,
an Iraq that in the face of a horrific insurgency has held historic
elections, drafted and ratified a new national charter, and will go to
the polls again in coming days to elect a new constitutional
government.
At this time last year, such unprecedented progress seemed impossible.
One day it will all seem to have been inevitable. This is the nature of
extraordinary times, which Acheson understood well and described
perfectly in his memoirs. "The significance of events," he wrote, "was
shrouded in ambiguity. We groped after interpretations of them,
sometimes reversed lines of action based on earlier views, and
hesitated long before grasping what now seems obvious." When Acheson
left office in 1953, he could not know the fate of the policies he
helped to create. He certainly could never have predicted that nearly
four decades later, war between Europe's major powers would be
unthinkable, or that America and the world would be harvesting the
fruits of his good decisions and managing the collapse of communism.
But because leaders such as Acheson steered American statecraft with
our principles when precedents for action were lacking, because they
dealt with their world as it was but never believed they were powerless
to change it for the better, the promise of democratic peace is now a
reality in all of Europe and in much of Asia.
When I walk past Acheson's portrait upon departing my office for the
last time, no one will be able to know the full scope of what our
statecraft has achieved. But I have an abiding confidence that we will
have laid a firm foundation of principle -- a foundation on which
future generations will realize our nation's vision of a fully free,
democratic and peaceful world.
The writer is secretary of state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chairman Mao
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:54 am
Post subject: Re: New White Flight? |
|
|
The list shows some of the worst politicians and crooks AmeriKa has to
offer.
Of course you liberals use these types to promote your world agenda.
"Jensen" <Jensen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:439a8cdf$0$8863$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...
| Quote: | "Chairman Mao" <nihaoma@shanghai.com> wrote in message
news:439a8057_2@news3.uncensored-news.com...
This "list" of yours only goes to prove that Jews are more qualified and
have better aptitude for the job.
Jensen.
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chairman Mao
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:58 am
Post subject: Re: New White Flight?-killer link |
|
|
Yes you liberals hide the facts, but these facts have a way of coming out
(like when you came out of the closet)
http://flapsblog.com/?m=20051201
Another outstanding citizen you liberals embrace mentioned above...
You idiots amaze me..
Facts are facts you loser-libs, you cannot hide the facts 4ever.
"Jensen" <Jensen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:439b1313$0$8828$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...
| Quote: | "Vernon North" <Vernon North@oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e04ad68376b8b929897d5@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
So let's see the facts -- if you have any.
Verno
It is a fact, sad though it may be, that people who never visited the
United States have only Hollywood films and TV series to learn about
situations and conditions there. Hollywood is now doing their utmost to
portray the Blacks as an ethnic group that is equal in every way to the
Whites, but the impression from past decades have been so in-grown into
the heads (note I didn't say "brains") of peoples in the Near and Far East
that the Black people are mere criminals. This symptom will take decades
to erase. The same can be said about impressions about the Far East of
Westerners who never visited China, Japan, or any of the other countries
you care to mention - negative. I still see comic books in the United
States depicting the Chinese as small, yellow sub-humans terrorising
helpless White women: these are invariably drawn and written by old war
veterans with a deep hatred and grudge for the Chinese people after having
encountered them either during the Korean or the Vietnam war, and they are
too old to learn or accept that things are not so.
Jensen.
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chairman Mao
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:08 pm
Post subject: Re: New White Flight? |
|
|
Because all of you liberals hate her, "She be not Black enuff"
"MissSouth" <lilhornie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134414313.405875.310450@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | First, THE WORLD would surely be a better, more peaceful place, if
christianity, judaism, and islam were eradicated. Or at least under
the control of a consortium of comedians.
Organized religion, as any rational thinker agrees, is, always has
been, and will forever be humankind's GREAT DIVIDER. But you knew
that.
Anyway, second, HOW DOES Condi Rice keep a straight face when writing
and uttering garbagey lies, such as are propounded in the following
piece of bull-shit?
This is obviously a pre-packaged collection of bald-faced falsehoods
aimed at convincing the most gullible audiences. Such hypocritical
hogwash barely deserves any comment. But such incredible lies are what
propelled us into Iraq!
Let's go over the Bush "democracy" rationale one more time, for those
of you who are weak-minded enough to believe it.
Except for a one-sentence toss-in utterance in a pre-2004 presidential
race speech, Bush NEVER spoke of spreading democracy any where in the
world! He spoke of fighting terrorism and other challenges, but
knowing as he did that oil was Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and his true reason
for wanting to attack and control Iraq, democracy seldom crossed the
the chimp's shallow, un-nuanced mind.
Now comes Rice, armed with Karen Hughes-style "public relations" pith,
spewing the democracy upchuck. But I hope she and Hughes don't think
Condi's Middle East audiences of tyrannical potentates actually buy
this spittle. If so, that makes Condi and Karen as dumb as Bush. And
we know how dumb that is.
=======
"The Promise of Democratic Peace"
Why Promoting Freedom Is the Only Realistic Path to Security
By Condoleezza Rice
Sunday, December 11, 2005; Page B07
The Washington Post
Soon after arriving at the State Department earlier this year, I hung a
portrait of Dean Acheson in my office. Over half a century ago, as
America sought to create the world anew in the aftermath of World War
II, Acheson sat in the office that I now occupy. And I hung his picture
where I did for a reason.
Like Acheson and his contemporaries, we live in an extraordinary time
-- one in which the terrain of international politics is shifting
beneath our feet and the pace of historical change outstrips even the
most vivid imagination. My predecessor's portrait is a reminder that in
times of unprecedented change, the traditional diplomacy of crisis
management is insufficient. Instead, we must transcend the doctrines
and debates of the past and transform volatile status quos that no
longer serve our interests. What is needed is a realistic statecraft
for a transformed world.
President Bush outlined the vision for it in his second inaugural
address: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the
growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and
culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." This
is admittedly a bold course of action, but it is consistent with the
proud tradition of American foreign policy, especially such recent
presidents as Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. Most important: Like the
ambitious policies of Truman and Reagan, our statecraft will succeed
not simply because it is optimistic and idealistic but also because it
is premised on sound strategic logic and a proper understanding of the
new realities we face.
Our statecraft today recognizes that centuries of international
practice and precedent have been overturned in the past 15 years.
Consider one example: For the first time since the Peace of Westphalia
in 1648, the prospect of violent conflict between great powers is
becoming ever more unthinkable. Major states are increasingly competing
in peace, not preparing for war. To advance this remarkable trend, the
United States is transforming our partnerships with nations such as
Japan and Russia, with the European Union, and especially with China
and India. Together we are building a more lasting and durable form of
global stability: a balance of power that favors freedom.
This unprecedented change has supported others. Since its creation more
than 350 years ago, the modern state system has always rested on the
concept of sovereignty. It was assumed that states were the primary
international actors and that every state was able and willing to
address the threats emerging from its territory. Today, however, we
have seen that these assumptions no longer hold, and as a result the
greatest threats to our security are defined more by the dynamics
within weak and failing states than by the borders between strong and
aggressive ones.
The phenomenon of weak and failing states is not new, but the danger
they now pose is unparalleled. When people, goods and information
traverse the globe as fast as they do today, transnational threats such
as disease or terrorism can inflict damage comparable to the standing
armies of nation-states. Absent responsible state authority, threats
that would and should be contained within a country's borders can now
melt into the world and wreak untold havoc. Weak and failing states
serve as global pathways that facilitate the spread of pandemics, the
movement of criminals and terrorists, and the proliferation of the
world's most dangerous weapons.
Our experience of this new world leads us to conclude that the
fundamental character of regimes matters more today than the
international distribution of power. Insisting otherwise is imprudent
and impractical. The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world
of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their
citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international
system. Attempting to draw neat, clean lines between our security
interests and our democratic ideals does not reflect the reality of
today's world. Supporting the growth of democratic institutions in all
nations is not some moralistic flight of fancy; it is the only
realistic response to our present challenges.
In one region of the world, however, the problems emerging from the
character of regimes are more urgent than in any other. The "freedom
deficit" in the broader Middle East provides fertile ground for the
growth of an ideology of hatred so vicious and virulent that it leads
people to strap suicide bombs to their bodies and fly airplanes into
buildings. When the citizens of this region cannot advance their
interests and redress their grievances through an open political
process, they retreat hopelessly into the shadows to be preyed upon by
evil men with violent designs. In these societies, it is illusory to
encourage economic reform by itself and hope that the freedom deficit
will work itself out over time.
Though the broader Middle East has no history of democracy, this is not
an excuse for doing nothing. If every action required a precedent,
there would be no firsts. We are confident that democracy will succeed
in this region not simply because we have faith in our principles but
because the basic human longing for liberty and democratic rights has
transformed our world. Dogmatic cynics and cultural determinists were
once certain that "Asian values," or Latin culture, or Slavic
despotism, or African tribalism would each render democracy impossible.
But they were wrong, and our statecraft must now be guided by the
undeniable truth that democracy is the only assurance of lasting peace
and security between states, because it is the only guarantee of
freedom and justice within states.
Implicit within the goals of our statecraft are the limits of our power
and the reasons for our humility. Unlike tyranny, democracy by its very
nature is never imposed. Citizens of conviction must choose it -- and
not just in one election. The work of democracy is a daily process to
build the institutions of democracy: the rule of law, an independent
judiciary, free media and property rights, among others. The United
States cannot manufacture these outcomes, but we can and must create
opportunities for individuals to assume ownership of their own lives
and nations. Our power gains its greatest legitimacy when we support
the natural right of all people, even those who disagree with us, to
govern themselves in liberty.
The statecraft that America is called to practice in today's world is
ambitious, even revolutionary, but it is not imprudent. A conservative
temperament will rightly be skeptical of any policy that embraces
change and rejects the status quo, but that is not an argument against
the merits of such a policy. As Truman once said, "The world is not
static, and the status quo is not sacred." In times of extraordinary
change such as ours, when the costs of inaction outweigh the risks of
action, doing nothing is not an option. If the school of thought called
"realism" is to be truly realistic, it must recognize that stability
without democracy will prove to be false stability, and that fear of
change is not a positive prescription for policy.
After all, who truly believes, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
that the status quo in the Middle East was stable, beneficial and worth
defending? How could it have been prudent to preserve the state of
affairs in a region that was incubating and exporting terrorism; where
the proliferation of deadly weapons was getting worse, not better;
where authoritarian regimes were projecting their failures onto
innocent nations and peoples; where Lebanon suffered under the boot
heel of Syrian occupation; where a corrupt Palestinian Authority cared
more for its own preservation than for its people's aspirations; and
where a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein was free to slaughter his
citizens, destabilize his neighbors and undermine the hope of peace
between Israelis and Palestinians? It is sheer fantasy to assume that
the Middle East was just peachy before America disrupted its alleged
stability.
Had we believed this, and had we done nothing, consider all that we
would have missed in just the past year: A Lebanon that is free of
foreign occupation and advancing democratic reform. A Palestinian
Authority run by an elected leader who openly calls for peace with
Israel. An Egypt that has amended its constitution to hold multiparty
elections. A Kuwait where women are now full citizens. And, of course,
an Iraq that in the face of a horrific insurgency has held historic
elections, drafted and ratified a new national charter, and will go to
the polls again in coming days to elect a new constitutional
government.
At this time last year, such unprecedented progress seemed impossible.
One day it will all seem to have been inevitable. This is the nature of
extraordinary times, which Acheson understood well and described
perfectly in his memoirs. "The significance of events," he wrote, "was
shrouded in ambiguity. We groped after interpretations of them,
sometimes reversed lines of action based on earlier views, and
hesitated long before grasping what now seems obvious." When Acheson
left office in 1953, he could not know the fate of the policies he
helped to create. He certainly could never have predicted that nearly
four decades later, war between Europe's major powers would be
unthinkable, or that America and the world would be harvesting the
fruits of his good decisions and managing the collapse of communism.
But because leaders such as Acheson steered American statecraft with
our principles when precedents for action were lacking, because they
dealt with their world as it was but never believed they were powerless
to change it for the better, the promise of democratic peace is now a
reality in all of Europe and in much of Asia.
When I walk past Acheson's portrait upon departing my office for the
last time, no one will be able to know the full scope of what our
statecraft has achieved. But I have an abiding confidence that we will
have laid a firm foundation of principle -- a foundation on which
future generations will realize our nation's vision of a fully free,
democratic and peaceful world.
The writer is secretary of state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vernon North
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:55 am
Post subject: Re: New White Flight?-Tookie victim Asian girl-liberals make |
|
|
In article <439e5612_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
| Quote: | You are a dense moron, even with statistics in front of your hooked nose you start making excuses for the facts.
|
BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAA! You've posted that before, oh forgetful one!
Now, let's see if you can FINALLY answer this question:
PASTE-IN OF POST CHAIRMAN MAO WON'T ANSWER:
-----------------------------------------
In article <4385c0f5_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
| Quote: | I have a question... are Niggers and Jew$ racist and hateful too?
|
Of course some of them are. Just as there are racist and hateful people
in all ethnic groups.
| Quote: |
Or by your logic only White males can be racist (liberal mantra)
Let the excuses roll.
|
IF you can find a post in which I have said or implied that, find it.
Post a link to it. If you can, I will admit you are right and will
apologize to you, in writing, here.
If you cannot find it, I expect an admission from you that YOU were
wrong, that I did NOT say that, and I will also expect your apology, in
writing, here.
Verno
-----------------------------------------
What's the matter, Chairman? Why won't you answer?
Put up or shut up.
| Quote: |
Yes you are a liberal excuse maker that needs a dose of world reality.
Can you make excuses for the Nigger that did this?
Your fellow Hollywood libs and other shit-liberals are making excuses right now.
You dirt-balls amaze me! You world turds are losing the war on misinformation and diversity speeches.
|
Your post is a joke, isn't it? As usual, you spew the "racist hater's
official vocabulary" but you don't seem able to connect it with what I
posted. Can you? You haven't yet.
So let's try a little test. It should be easy if your IQ is higher than
90. Ready?
Look through my posts and find specific "excuses" I have made "for the
facts". Be specific. Post my "excuses" in quotations. Say why they
are "excuses".
Do you think you can handle that?
Do your best. Be very specific. Come on, Chairman! Show us what you're
made of!
Verno
| Quote: |
"Vernon North" <Vernon North@oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message news:MPG.1e04d8d8403b14629897d6@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
In article <439b1313$0$8828$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>,
Jensen@gmail.com says...
"Vernon North" <Vernon North@oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e04ad68376b8b929897d5@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
So let's see the facts -- if you have any.
Verno
It is a fact, sad though it may be, that people who never visited the United
States have only Hollywood films and TV series to learn about situations and
conditions there. Hollywood is now doing their utmost to portray the Blacks
as an ethnic group that is equal in every way to the Whites, but the
impression from past decades have been so in-grown into the heads (note I
didn't say "brains") of peoples in the Near and Far East that the Black
people are mere criminals. This symptom will take decades to erase. The same
can be said about impressions about the Far East of Westerners who never
visited China, Japan, or any of the other countries you care to mention -
negative. I still see comic books in the United States depicting the Chinese
as small, yellow sub-humans terrorising helpless White women: these are
invariably drawn and written by old war veterans with a deep hatred and
grudge for the Chinese people after having encountered them either during
the Korean or the Vietnam war, and they are too old to learn or accept that
things are not so.
Stereotyping is natural and seductively easy, which is why the patterns
you describe above exist. And there are facts that reinforce the
prejudices people drawn from media and popular culture. In the US, for
example, blacks are convicted of murder at a much higher rate per capita
than any other ethnic group.
Some might use these stats to support such statements as "bad niggers
over shadow the good ones 90% of the time". The stats tell us that in
2002, the black murder rate was ~ 25 per 100,000 of population, while
the white murder rate was ~ 3.5 per 100,000 of population.
Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
The higher black murder rate makes a huge difference in the number of
blacks on death row. But the critical question is what inferences we
are smart enough to draw from these facts. If you want to look at
populations and risk, in any given year 99.975% of blacks DON'T commit
murders. With whites, it's 99.9965% who don't commit murders in any
given year.
Yet, some take the data as justification that "a lot of blacks are
murderers". This illustrates how murder rates and imprisonment rates
dramatically skew people's perceptions of entire population groups, even
when an intelligent look at the data shows just the opposite.
So, is the black murder rate a problem? Damn right it is! A murderous,
violent black sub-culture exists in parts of the US. But is the average
black likely to be a murderer? No, in fact, it's very, very unlikely
that the average black you see on the street, at work, etc. is likely to
commit murder.
Unfortunately, most people aren't particularly good at critical
thinking, so they draw conclusions like "bad niggers over shadow the
good ones 90% of the time". But of course, these are the same people
who buy lottery tickets -- which have been called "a voluntary tax on
poor math skills".
Verno
[image/jpeg]
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chairman Mao
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: New White Flight?-Tookie victim Asian girl-liberals make |
|
|
The title of this thread reads , "White flight and the death of the 4 people
your liberal icon/hero caused."
Do not try to skirt away from the thread topic...
Do you support the Hollywood liberals and dirt-ball groups that feel violent
criminals should get off or not?
Will you place blame on the victims or poverty or some other bullshit reason
instead of responsibility.
We want to know how credible your liberal-Clintonial views are.
Thus, out comes your agenda and that correlates to your bullshit diatribes.
You liberals are now trying to pass off as "normal" posters due to the large
amount of nuts in your own backyard.
(Ashamed?)
This makes your post seem more credible to read. However, you show a pattern
of skirting key issues that indicate the typical liberal mantra.
We want to know how far to the left you are...until I get real answers I'll
peg you as another idiotic liberal nut.
You like to make excuses and ignore facts, this is a concept that leftist
use. This also shows you have no real life experiences, maybe you are
posting from some igloo in Canuck land.
If so, you lack the correct background and experience to dispute the facts
and to make a valid argument on 90% of the threads you reply to.
"Vernon North" <Vernon North@oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e08aaf42c452f2e9897da@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
| Quote: | In article <439e5612_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
You are a dense moron, even with statistics in front of your hooked nose
you start making excuses for the facts.
BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAAAA! You've posted that before, oh forgetful one!
Now, let's see if you can FINALLY answer this question:
PASTE-IN OF POST CHAIRMAN MAO WON'T ANSWER:
-----------------------------------------
In article <4385c0f5_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
I have a question... are Niggers and Jew$ racist and hateful too?
Of course some of them are. Just as there are racist and hateful people
in all ethnic groups.
Or by your logic only White males can be racist (liberal mantra)
Let the excuses roll.
IF you can find a post in which I have said or implied that, find it.
Post a link to it. If you can, I will admit you are right and will
apologize to you, in writing, here.
If you cannot find it, I expect an admission from you that YOU were
wrong, that I did NOT say that, and I will also expect your apology, in
writing, here.
Verno
-----------------------------------------
What's the matter, Chairman? Why won't you answer?
Put up or shut up.
Yes you are a liberal excuse maker that needs a dose of world reality.
Can you make excuses for the Nigger that did this?
Your fellow Hollywood libs and other shit-liberals are making excuses
right now.
You dirt-balls amaze me! You world turds are losing the war on
misinformation and diversity speeches.
Your post is a joke, isn't it? As usual, you spew the "racist hater's
official vocabulary" but you don't seem able to connect it with what I
posted. Can you? You haven't yet.
So let's try a little test. It should be easy if your IQ is higher than
90. Ready?
Look through my posts and find specific "excuses" I have made "for the
facts". Be specific. Post my "excuses" in quotations. Say why they
are "excuses".
Do you think you can handle that?
Do your best. Be very specific. Come on, Chairman! Show us what you're
made of!
Verno
"Vernon North" <Vernon North@oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e04d8d8403b14629897d6@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
In article <439b1313$0$8828$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>,
Jensen@gmail.com says...
"Vernon North" <Vernon North@oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e04ad68376b8b929897d5@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
So let's see the facts -- if you have any.
Verno
It is a fact, sad though it may be, that people who never visited the
United
States have only Hollywood films and TV series to learn about
situations and
conditions there. Hollywood is now doing their utmost to portray the
Blacks
as an ethnic group that is equal in every way to the Whites, but the
impression from past decades have been so in-grown into the heads
(note I
didn't say "brains") of peoples in the Near and Far East that the
Black
people are mere criminals. This symptom will take decades to erase.
The same
can be said about impressions about the Far East of Westerners who
never
visited China, Japan, or any of the other countries you care to
mention -
negative. I still see comic books in the United States depicting the
Chinese
as small, yellow sub-humans terrorising helpless White women: these
are
invariably drawn and written by old war veterans with a deep hatred
and
grudge for the Chinese people after having encountered them either
during
the Korean or the Vietnam war, and they are too old to learn or accept
that
things are not so.
Stereotyping is natural and seductively easy, which is why the patterns
you describe above exist. And there are facts that reinforce the
prejudices people drawn from media and popular culture. In the US, for
example, blacks are convicted of murder at a much higher rate per
capita
than any other ethnic group.
Some might use these stats to support such statements as "bad niggers
over shadow the good ones 90% of the time". The stats tell us that in
2002, the black murder rate was ~ 25 per 100,000 of population, while
the white murder rate was ~ 3.5 per 100,000 of population.
Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
The higher black murder rate makes a huge difference in the number of
blacks on death row. But the critical question is what inferences we
are smart enough to draw from these facts. If you want to look at
populations and risk, in any given year 99.975% of blacks DON'T commit
murders. With whites, it's 99.9965% who don't commit murders in any
given year.
Yet, some take the data as justification that "a lot of blacks are
murderers". This illustrates how murder rates and imprisonment rates
dramatically skew people's perceptions of entire population groups,
even
when an intelligent look at the data shows just the opposite.
So, is the black murder rate a problem? Damn right it is! A
murderous,
violent black sub-culture exists in parts of the US. But is the
average
black likely to be a murderer? No, in fact, it's very, very unlikely
that the average black you see on the street, at work, etc. is likely
to
commit murder.
Unfortunately, most people aren't particularly good at critical
thinking, so they draw conclusions like "bad niggers over shadow the
good ones 90% of the time". But of course, these are the same people
who buy lottery tickets -- which have been called "a voluntary tax on
poor math skills".
Verno
[image/jpeg]
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vernon North
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:33 pm
Post subject: Re: New White Flight?- Chairman Mao Won't Answer Questions A |
|
|
In article <439fb8d5_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
| Quote: |
The title of this thread reads , "White flight and the death of the 4 people
your liberal icon/hero caused."
|
You changed the thread title only two posts ago. I just changed it to
something more relevant.
Do not try to skirt away from the thread topic...
| Quote: |
Do not try to skirt away from the thread topic...
Do you support the Hollywood liberals and dirt-ball groups that feel violent
criminals should get off or not?
Will you place blame on the victims or poverty or some other bullshit reason
instead of responsibility.
We want to know how credible your liberal-Clintonial views are.
Thus, out comes your agenda and that correlates to your bullshit diatribes.
You liberals are now trying to pass off as "normal" posters due to the large
amount of nuts in your own backyard.
(Ashamed?)
This makes your post seem more credible to read. However, you show a pattern
of skirting key issues that indicate the typical liberal mantra.
We want to know how far to the left you are...until I get real answers I'll
peg you as another idiotic liberal nut.
You like to make excuses and ignore facts, this is a concept that leftist
use. This also shows you have no real life experiences, maybe you are
posting from some igloo in Canuck land.
If so, you lack the correct background and experience to dispute the facts
and to make a valid argument on 90% of the threads you reply to.
|
Now we have two posts you're too gutless to answer. A pattern is
developing. Every time I challenge you to substantiate what you posted,
you can't. You run and hide.
You're starting to look like a simpleton who makes statements he can't
back up.
Here are two posts you don't have the guts to answer.
PASTE-IN OF POST #1 CHAIRMAN MAO WON'T ANSWER:
-----------------------------------------
In article <4385c0f5_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
| Quote: | I have a question... are Niggers and Jew$ racist and hateful too?
|
Of course some of them are. Just as there are racist and hateful people
in all ethnic groups.
| Quote: |
Or by your logic only White males can be racist (liberal mantra)
Let the excuses roll.
|
IF you can find a post in which I have said or implied that, find it.
Post a link to it. If you can, I will admit you are right and will
apologize to you, in writing, here.
If you cannot find it, I expect an admission from you that YOU were
wrong, that I did NOT say that, and I will also expect your apology, in
writing, here.
-----------------------------------------
PASTE-IN OF POST #2 CHAIRMAN MAO WON'T ANSWER:
-----------------------------------------
In article <439e5612_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
| Quote: | You are a dense moron, even with statistics in front of your hooked nose you start making excuses for the facts.
Yes you are a liberal excuse maker that needs a dose of world reality.
Can you make excuses for the Nigger that did this?
Your fellow Hollywood libs and other shit-liberals are making excuses right now.
You dirt-balls amaze me! You world turds are losing the war on misinformation and diversity speeches.
Your post is a joke, isn't it? As usual, you spew the "racist hater's |
official vocabulary" but you don't seem able to connect it with what I
posted. Can you? You haven't yet.
So let's try a little test. It should be easy if your IQ is higher than
90. Ready?
Look through my posts and find specific "excuses" I have made "for the
facts". Be specific. Post my "excuses" in quotations. Say why they
are "excuses".
Do you think you can handle that?
Do your best. Be very specific. Come on, Chairman! Show us what you're
made of!
----------------------------------------
Well, now we know. You can't handle a simple challenge to put up or
shut up. You can't substantiate what you said. Are you in the habit of
lying, or is this just a "special case"?
Verno |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chairman Mao
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:27 pm
Post subject: Re: New White Flight?- Chairman Mao Won't Answer Questions A |
|
|
I only see this topic White flight?
What thread are you reading?
"Vernon North" <Vernon North@oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e096ab9c0c33b199897db@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
| Quote: | In article <439fb8d5_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
The title of this thread reads , "White flight and the death of the 4
people
your liberal icon/hero caused."
You changed the thread title only two posts ago. I just changed it to
something more relevant.
Do not try to skirt away from the thread topic...
Do not try to skirt away from the thread topic...
Do you support the Hollywood liberals and dirt-ball groups that feel
violent
criminals should get off or not?
Will you place blame on the victims or poverty or some other bullshit
reason
instead of responsibility.
We want to know how credible your liberal-Clintonial views are.
Thus, out comes your agenda and that correlates to your bullshit
diatribes.
You liberals are now trying to pass off as "normal" posters due to the
large
amount of nuts in your own backyard.
(Ashamed?)
This makes your post seem more credible to read. However, you show a
pattern
of skirting key issues that indicate the typical liberal mantra.
We want to know how far to the left you are...until I get real answers
I'll
peg you as another idiotic liberal nut.
You like to make excuses and ignore facts, this is a concept that leftist
use. This also shows you have no real life experiences, maybe you are
posting from some igloo in Canuck land.
If so, you lack the correct background and experience to dispute the
facts
and to make a valid argument on 90% of the threads you reply to.
Now we have two posts you're too gutless to answer. A pattern is
developing. Every time I challenge you to substantiate what you posted,
you can't. You run and hide.
You're starting to look like a simpleton who makes statements he can't
back up.
Here are two posts you don't have the guts to answer.
PASTE-IN OF POST #1 CHAIRMAN MAO WON'T ANSWER:
-----------------------------------------
In article <4385c0f5_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
I have a question... are Niggers and Jew$ racist and hateful too?
Of course some of them are. Just as there are racist and hateful people
in all ethnic groups.
Or by your logic only White males can be racist (liberal mantra)
Let the excuses roll.
IF you can find a post in which I have said or implied that, find it.
Post a link to it. If you can, I will admit you are right and will
apologize to you, in writing, here.
If you cannot find it, I expect an admission from you that YOU were
wrong, that I did NOT say that, and I will also expect your apology, in
writing, here.
-----------------------------------------
PASTE-IN OF POST #2 CHAIRMAN MAO WON'T ANSWER:
-----------------------------------------
In article <439e5612_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
You are a dense moron, even with statistics in front of your hooked nose
you start making excuses for the facts.
Yes you are a liberal excuse maker that needs a dose of world reality.
Can you make excuses for the Nigger that did this?
Your fellow Hollywood libs and other shit-liberals are making excuses
right now.
You dirt-balls amaze me! You world turds are losing the war on
misinformation and diversity speeches.
Your post is a joke, isn't it? As usual, you spew the "racist hater's
official vocabulary" but you don't seem able to connect it with what I
posted. Can you? You haven't yet.
So let's try a little test. It should be easy if your IQ is higher than
90. Ready?
Look through my posts and find specific "excuses" I have made "for the
facts". Be specific. Post my "excuses" in quotations. Say why they
are "excuses".
Do you think you can handle that?
Do your best. Be very specific. Come on, Chairman! Show us what you're
made of!
----------------------------------------
Well, now we know. You can't handle a simple challenge to put up or
shut up. You can't substantiate what you said. Are you in the habit of
lying, or is this just a "special case"?
Verno
|
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vernon North
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:41 pm
Post subject: Re: New White Flight?- Chairman Mao Won't Answer Questions A |
|
|
In article <43a00188_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
| Quote: | I only see this topic White flight?
What thread are you reading?
|
Yours -- the one that is unravelling by the day as you refuse to answer
questions about what you post.
You know -- these ones:
Here are two posts you don't have the guts to answer.
PASTE-IN OF POST #1 CHAIRMAN MAO WON'T ANSWER:
-----------------------------------------
In article <4385c0f5_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
| Quote: | I have a question... are Niggers and Jew$ racist and hateful too?
|
Of course some of them are. Just as there are racist and hateful people
in all ethnic groups.
| Quote: |
Or by your logic only White males can be racist (liberal mantra)
Let the excuses roll.
|
IF you can find a post in which I have said or implied that, find it.
Post a link to it. If you can, I will admit you are right and will
apologize to you, in writing, here.
If you cannot find it, I expect an admission from you that YOU were
wrong, that I did NOT say that, and I will also expect your apology, in
writing, here.
-----------------------------------------
PASTE-IN OF POST #2 CHAIRMAN MAO WON'T ANSWER:
-----------------------------------------
In article <439e5612_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
| Quote: | You are a dense moron, even with statistics in front of your hooked nose you start making excuses for the facts.
Yes you are a liberal excuse maker that needs a dose of world reality.
Can you make excuses for the Nigger that did this?
Your fellow Hollywood libs and other shit-liberals are making excuses right now.
You dirt-balls amaze me! You world turds are losing the war on misinformation and diversity speeches.
Your post is a joke, isn't it? As usual, you spew the "racist hater's |
official vocabulary" but you don't seem able to connect it with what I
posted. Can you? You haven't yet.
So let's try a little test. It should be easy if your IQ is higher than
90. Ready?
Look through my posts and find specific "excuses" I have made "for the
facts". Be specific. Post my "excuses" in quotations. Say why they
are "excuses".
Do you think you can handle that?
Do your best. Be very specific. Come on, Chairman! Show us what you're
made of!
----------------------------------------
Cat got your tongue, Mao?
Verno
| Quote: |
"Vernon North" <Vernon North@oyama.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e096ab9c0c33b199897db@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
In article <439fb8d5_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
The title of this thread reads , "White flight and the death of the 4
people
your liberal icon/hero caused."
You changed the thread title only two posts ago. I just changed it to
something more relevant.
Do not try to skirt away from the thread topic...
Do not try to skirt away from the thread topic...
Do you support the Hollywood liberals and dirt-ball groups that feel
violent
criminals should get off or not?
Will you place blame on the victims or poverty or some other bullshit
reason
instead of responsibility.
We want to know how credible your liberal-Clintonial views are.
Thus, out comes your agenda and that correlates to your bullshit
diatribes.
You liberals are now trying to pass off as "normal" posters due to the
large
amount of nuts in your own backyard.
(Ashamed?)
This makes your post seem more credible to read. However, you show a
pattern
of skirting key issues that indicate the typical liberal mantra.
We want to know how far to the left you are...until I get real answers
I'll
peg you as another idiotic liberal nut.
You like to make excuses and ignore facts, this is a concept that leftist
use. This also shows you have no real life experiences, maybe you are
posting from some igloo in Canuck land.
If so, you lack the correct background and experience to dispute the
facts
and to make a valid argument on 90% of the threads you reply to.
Now we have two posts you're too gutless to answer. A pattern is
developing. Every time I challenge you to substantiate what you posted,
you can't. You run and hide.
You're starting to look like a simpleton who makes statements he can't
back up.
Here are two posts you don't have the guts to answer.
PASTE-IN OF POST #1 CHAIRMAN MAO WON'T ANSWER:
-----------------------------------------
In article <4385c0f5_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
I have a question... are Niggers and Jew$ racist and hateful too?
Of course some of them are. Just as there are racist and hateful people
in all ethnic groups.
Or by your logic only White males can be racist (liberal mantra)
Let the excuses roll.
IF you can find a post in which I have said or implied that, find it.
Post a link to it. If you can, I will admit you are right and will
apologize to you, in writing, here.
If you cannot find it, I expect an admission from you that YOU were
wrong, that I did NOT say that, and I will also expect your apology, in
writing, here.
-----------------------------------------
PASTE-IN OF POST #2 CHAIRMAN MAO WON'T ANSWER:
-----------------------------------------
In article <439e5612_3@news3.uncensored-news.com>, nihaoma@shanghai.com
says...
You are a dense moron, even with statistics in front of your hooked nose
you start making excuses for the facts.
Yes you are a liberal excuse maker that needs a dose of world reality.
Can you make excuses for the Nigger that did this?
Your fellow Hollywood libs and other shit-liberals are making excuses
right now.
You dirt-balls amaze me! You world turds are losing the war on
misinformation and diversity speeches.
Your post is a joke, isn't it? As usual, you spew the "racist hater's
official vocabulary" but you don't seem able to connect it with what I
posted. Can you? You haven't yet.
So let's try a little test. It should be easy if your IQ is higher than
90. Ready?
Look through my posts and find specific "excuses" I have made "for the
facts". Be specific. Post my "excuses" in quotations. Say why they
are "excuses".
Do you think you can handle that?
Do your best. Be very specific. Come on, Chairman! Show us what you're
made of!
----------------------------------------
Well, now we know. You can't handle a simple challenge to put up or
shut up. You can't substantiate what you said. Are you in the habit of
lying, or is this just a "special case"?
Verno
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichAsianKid
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: New White Flight? |
|
|
The chinese think thus about Rice: (very ironic, considering the last
name) LOL!!!!
| Quote: | From the UK guardian:
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1461260,00.html
He says that of 800 messages he has read about her visit, no less than
70 involved racist comments about her colour: of these, only two were
relatively moderate; the rest were vicious, describing Rice as a "black
ghost", "black dog", "black woman" and "black bitch". One stated, "You
are not even like a black ghost, a really low form of life," and
another, "Her brain is even more black than her skin." One writer said:
"I don't support racism, but this black ghost really makes people
angry, the appearance of a little black who has made good."
| Quote: | From an Australian newswire:
|
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/03/25/1111692629223.html?from=top...
"How come the United States selects a female chimpanzee as Secretary of
State?"
"This black woman thinks rather a lot of herself."
"She's so ugly she's losing face. Even a dog would be put off its
dinner while she's being fed."
Chairman Mao wrote:
| Quote: | Because all of you liberals hate her, "She be not Black enuff"
"MissSouth" <lilhornie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134414313.405875.310450@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
First, THE WORLD would surely be a better, more peaceful place, if
christianity, judaism, and islam were eradicated. Or at least under
the control of a consortium of comedians.
Organized religion, as any rational thinker agrees, is, always has
been, and will forever be humankind's GREAT DIVIDER. But you knew
that.
Anyway, second, HOW DOES Condi Rice keep a straight face when writing
and uttering garbagey lies, such as are propounded in the following
piece of bull-shit?
This is obviously a pre-packaged collection of bald-faced falsehoods
aimed at convincing the most gullible audiences. Such hypocritical
hogwash barely deserves any comment. But such incredible lies are what
propelled us into Iraq!
Let's go over the Bush "democracy" rationale one more time, for those
of you who are weak-minded enough to believe it.
Except for a one-sentence toss-in utterance in a pre-2004 presidential
race speech, Bush NEVER spoke of spreading democracy any where in the
world! He spoke of fighting terrorism and other challenges, but
knowing as he did that oil was Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and his true reason
for wanting to attack and control Iraq, democracy seldom crossed the
the chimp's shallow, un-nuanced mind.
Now comes Rice, armed with Karen Hughes-style "public relations" pith,
spewing the democracy upchuck. But I hope she and Hughes don't think
Condi's Middle East audiences of tyrannical potentates actually buy
this spittle. If so, that makes Condi and Karen as dumb as Bush. And
we know how dumb that is.
=======
"The Promise of Democratic Peace"
Why Promoting Freedom Is the Only Realistic Path to Security
By Condoleezza Rice
Sunday, December 11, 2005; Page B07
The Washington Post
Soon after arriving at the State Department earlier this year, I hung a
portrait of Dean Acheson in my office. Over half a century ago, as
America sought to create the world anew in the aftermath of World War
II, Acheson sat in the office that I now occupy. And I hung his picture
where I did for a reason.
Like Acheson and his contemporaries, we live in an extraordinary time
-- one in which the terrain of international politics is shifting
beneath our feet and the pace of historical change outstrips even the
most vivid imagination. My predecessor's portrait is a reminder that in
times of unprecedented change, the traditional diplomacy of crisis
management is insufficient. Instead, we must transcend the doctrines
and debates of the past and transform volatile status quos that no
longer serve our interests. What is needed is a realistic statecraft
for a transformed world.
President Bush outlined the vision for it in his second inaugural
address: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the
growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and
culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." This
is admittedly a bold course of action, but it is consistent with the
proud tradition of American foreign policy, especially such recent
presidents as Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. Most important: Like the
ambitious policies of Truman and Reagan, our statecraft will succeed
not simply because it is optimistic and idealistic but also because it
is premised on sound strategic logic and a proper understanding of the
new realities we face.
Our statecraft today recognizes that centuries of international
practice and precedent have been overturned in the past 15 years.
Consider one example: For the first time since the Peace of Westphalia
in 1648, the prospect of violent conflict between great powers is
becoming ever more unthinkable. Major states are increasingly competing
in peace, not preparing for war. To advance this remarkable trend, the
United States is transforming our partnerships with nations such as
Japan and Russia, with the European Union, and especially with China
and India. Together we are building a more lasting and durable form of
global stability: a balance of power that favors freedom.
This unprecedented change has supported others. Since its creation more
than 350 years ago, the modern state system has always rested on the
concept of sovereignty. It was assumed that states were the primary
international actors and that every state was able and willing to
address the threats emerging from its territory. Today, however, we
have seen that these assumptions no longer hold, and as a result the
greatest threats to our security are defined more by the dynamics
within weak and failing states than by the borders between strong and
aggressive ones.
The phenomenon of weak and failing states is not new, but the danger
they now pose is unparalleled. When people, goods and information
traverse the globe as fast as they do today, transnational threats such
as disease or terrorism can inflict damage comparable to the standing
armies of nation-states. Absent responsible state authority, threats
that would and should be contained within a country's borders can now
melt into the world and wreak untold havoc. Weak and failing states
serve as global pathways that facilitate the spread of pandemics, the
movement of criminals and terrorists, and the proliferation of the
world's most dangerous weapons.
Our experience of this new world leads us to conclude that the
fundamental character of regimes matters more today than the
international distribution of power. Insisting otherwise is imprudent
and impractical. The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world
of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their
citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international
system. Attempting to draw neat, clean lines between our security
interests and our democratic ideals does not reflect the reality of
today's world. Supporting the growth of democratic institutions in all
nations is not some moralistic flight of fancy; it is the only
realistic response to our present challenges.
In one region of the world, however, the problems emerging from the
character of regimes are more urgent than in any other. The "freedom
deficit" in the broader Middle East provides fertile ground for the
growth of an ideology of hatred so vicious and virulent that it leads
people to strap suicide bombs to their bodies and fly airplanes into
buildings. When the citizens of this region cannot advance their
interests and redress their grievances through an open political
process, they retreat hopelessly into the shadows to be preyed upon by
evil men with violent designs. In these societies, it is illusory to
encourage economic reform by itself and hope that the freedom deficit
will work itself out over time.
Though the broader Middle East has no history of democracy, this is not
an excuse for doing nothing. If every action required a precedent,
there would be no firsts. We are confident that democracy will succeed
in this region not simply because we have faith in our principles but
because the basic human longing for liberty and democratic rights has
transformed our world. Dogmatic cynics and cultural determinists were
once certain that "Asian values," or Latin culture, or Slavic
despotism, or African tribalism would each render democracy impossible.
But they were wrong, and our statecraft must now be guided by the
undeniable truth that democracy is the only assurance of lasting peace
and security between states, because it is the only guarantee of
freedom and justice within states.
Implicit within the goals of our statecraft are the limits of our power
and the reasons for our humility. Unlike tyranny, democracy by its very
nature is never imposed. Citizens of conviction must choose it -- and
not just in one election. The work of democracy is a daily process to
build the institutions of democracy: the rule of law, an independent
judiciary, free media and property rights, among others. The United
States cannot manufacture these outcomes, but we can and must create
opportunities for individuals to assume ownership of their own lives
and nations. Our power gains its greatest legitimacy when we support
the natural right of all people, even those who disagree with us, to
govern themselves in liberty.
The statecraft that America is called to practice in today's world is
ambitious, even revolutionary, but it is not imprudent. A conservative
temperament will rightly be skeptical of any policy that embraces
change and rejects the status quo, but that is not an argument against
the merits of such a policy. As Truman once said, "The world is not
static, and the status quo is not sacred." In times of extraordinary
change such as ours, when the costs of inaction outweigh the risks of
action, doing nothing is not an option. If the school of thought called
"realism" is to be truly realistic, it must recognize that stability
without democracy will prove to be false stability, and that fear of
change is not a positive prescription for policy.
After all, who truly believes, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
that the status quo in the Middle East was stable, beneficial and worth
defending? How could it have been prudent to preserve the state of
affairs in a region that was incubating and exporting terrorism; where
the proliferation of deadly weapons was getting worse, not better;
where authoritarian regimes were projecting their failures onto
innocent nations and peoples; where Lebanon suffered under the boot
heel of Syrian occupation; where a corrupt Palestinian Authority cared
more for its own preservation than for its people's aspirations; and
where a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein was free to slaughter his
citizens, destabilize his neighbors and undermine the hope of peace
between Israelis and Palestinians? It is sheer fantasy to assume that
the Middle East was just peachy before America disrupted its alleged
stability.
Had we believed this, and had we done nothing, consider all that we
would have missed in just the past year: A Lebanon that is free of
foreign occupation and advancing democratic reform. A Palestinian
Authority run by an elected leader who openly calls for peace with
Israel. An Egypt that has amended its constitution to hold multiparty
elections. A Kuwait where women are now full citizens. And, of course,
an Iraq that in the face of a horrific insurgency has held historic
elections, drafted and ratified a new national charter, and will go to
the polls again in coming days to elect a new constitutional
government.
At this time last year, such unprecedented progress seemed impossible.
One day it will all seem to have been inevitable. This is the nature of
extraordinary times, which Acheson understood well and described
perfectly in his memoirs. "The significance of events," he wrote, "was
shrouded in ambiguity. We groped after interpretations of them,
sometimes reversed lines of action based on earlier views, and
hesitated long before grasping what now seems obvious." When Acheson
left office in 1953, he could not know the fate of the policies he
helped to create. He certainly could never have predicted that nearly
four decades later, war between Europe's major powers would be
unthinkable, or that America and the world would be harvesting the
fruits of his good decisions and managing the collapse of communism.
But because leaders such as Acheson steered American statecraft with
our principles when precedents for action were lacking, because they
dealt with their world as it was but never believed they were powerless
to change it for the better, the promise of democratic peace is now a
reality in all of Europe and in much of Asia.
When I walk past Acheson's portrait upon departing my office for the
last time, no one will be able to know the full scope of what our
statecraft has achieved. But I have an abiding confidence that we will
have laid a firm foundation of principle -- a foundation on which
future generations will realize our nation's vision of a fully free,
democratic and peaceful world.
The writer is secretary of state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901711.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in