|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:48 PM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Uh, yeah. Right.
McKinney acknowledges she wasn't wearing one when she was stopped, but concurred with Myart that police should know who she is.
OK. She's not wearing the ID tag/pin required for lawmakers to be easily identified by security staff (there are hundreds of them, after all, and some of the faces change every few years), and the police stop her from entering the Capitol building. Isn't that their job?
Can I cross the border without my passport, and then sue for racism and sexism if I'm stopped by a black woman who doesn't "recognize" me as a "friendly"?
I can't be the only one who's read the various studies indicating that cross-racial identification is frequently flawed? The members of one race are very likely to mis-identify or fail to recognize members of another (to put it crudely, members of another race often appear "alike" to members of another), not out of intolerance, but because of the different identifying characteristics that people of different races use to encode someone's faces in their memory. There's plenty of reasearch out there, most of it conducted by advocates for black men incorrectly identified by white witnesses in order to overturn their unjust, wrongful convictions! That must be why we carry identifying cards, tags and features or something, so people can be clearly identified without regard for race, gender or other characteristics!
Oh, I forgot, it's only racism when a white person does it, just as it's only sexism when a man does it. Aside from which, why would our feminist courts let pesky science and facts get in the way of their ideology. Justice may be blind, but she's sure got some serious preconceptions when it comes to matters of gender. Sadly, I do believe that she's still blatanty racist and actively discriminates against black men in particular. Mz. Justice is far too busy being a radical feminist to worry about some man's human rights, you know. Women are, after all, far more valuable and important, what with the 30% of the GDP and government revenues they contribute vs. the 70% they help themselves to.
My favorite line:
"Not every assault deserves to be criminally prosecuted.", says her lawyer.
It must be nice to feel you have a "choice" about whether to ruin a man's life for no reason whatsoever, especially when the encounter is ultimately your own damned fault. Not that this stops hundreds of thousands of TRO's from being issued against non-violent, innocent men every year as a tactic in divorce. Why let truth or intellectual honesty interfere with a perfectly good ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:53 AM April 4th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that one cannot use cross racial identification as an excuse. Even though it is proven to exist, it is not politically correct.
Look, I'm half American Indian and half Caucasian. When I see people who are Indian (full-blood or otherwise) I have no problem telling one person from another. The same is true for "white" people. I have no problem telling them apart either. Perhaps it is because I have the features of both ethnicity's, I don't know. But when it comes to ethnic groups outside of Indian or White, Yeah, I sometimes do have trouble telling people apart. Does this make me a "racist"? No, because racism is a conscious act. I do not try or want to not be able to tell people of other races apart I just can't, at times. I have heard Blacks say that "all White people look the same". I have heard Asians say "all Blacks AND Whites look the same". And I have heard Indians (again mixed or full-blooded) Say the same about Blacks and Asians.
Does this make us all racist then?
I guess according to ms. McKinney it does.
But I think in the end we just have yet another American woman that thinks that the rules should apply to everyone but herself.
That's just what I think.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:53 AM April 5th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Even though it is proven to exist, it is not politically correct.
Exactly, TC, and I'm 100% with you regarding your statement about an American woman practicing exceptionalism.
Sadly, exceptionalism's a great Euro-American tradition (and a Canadian one). In the US, it was the quasi-legal principle used to keep slaves, force native Americans off their land with a veneer of "legitimacy", commit genocide against the same groups, violate treaty after treaty signed with various Nations therein, and to deny them the basic rights assured all colonized Nations by the UN's various resolutions - an illegal practice the US and Canada continue, right up to this very day.
It's the same principle that allows the US and Canada to show unflagging support for Isreali terrorism and genocide, while condemning Arab terrorism and genocide. We need to make up our minds - either terrorism and genocide are always wrong no matter who commits them, or we stay the hell out of such matters, as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I think the western powers are occupying the wrong part of the Middle East (why the hell don't we send in about
At least some progress has been made in Canada, where the Inuit people have been given back the territory of Nunavut that was stolen from them as an area where they continue to have the rights, benefits and protections accorded all Canadians, but where they have a degree of self-determination and self-government. Nunavut's an area which comprises about 1/3 of Canada's land mass, and Canada is the second largest country in the world, after all. A long overdue step in the right direction. Sorry to wander off topic, but I am talking with an American Indian, and exceptionalism is a subject that Native North Americans are all too familiar with, thanks to us European descendants.
Exceptionalism's always pretty sick stuff when it's used in politics and warfare, but it doesn't surprise me when an activist woman tries to use it. It's about their most common tactic. Fortunately for us, most women aren't activists!
Anyhow, like we've been saying, each race uses different things to "encode" a person into memory. Whites tend to have differing hair colors and such that we use to separate one person from another, so we rely less on facial features to do so. However, among American Indians, for instance, most hair is dark, so facial structure and features become more important in distinguishing people. Same with black folks, Asians (south or east), and so on. It's not racist, and in my opinon, shouldn't be considered politically correct, because ALL races do this - it's just what you're raised with (if a white man grows up among mostly Asians as I did for much of my upbringing, he will actually have more trouble distinguishing white folks from one another than he will Indians i.e. from India, or Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese people!).
As you say, Thundercloud, it is NOT racist to behave in this way - it's just how the human brain is "wired". Some feminist might try to argue socialization over biology here, but consider that it happens among ALL races, and therefore cannot be a construct of a single society!
Here's hoping they prosecute this woman for assaulting a peace officer trying to do his job in a climate of fear. She should be ashamed of herself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:57 AM April 5th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Damn - finger slipped, hit the submit button! The line in the third paragraph should end with "(why the hell don't we send in about a million peacekeepers?)", and I meant to say that cross-racial identification "...should be considered politically correct, because ALL races do this" a bit farther down the page. Sorry, guys - got the shakes from a bad flu!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 10:15 AM April 5th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
That's okay, R.M.
You know what? I should have said that it's politically incorrect for WHITE PEOPLE to cross racially identify. It seems that if we "people of color" do it, it's a-okay. ...even when we do it with OTHER "people of color".(???) Okay, now that's just messed up, no matter how you look at it. *shrugs shoulders*
Any way I hope you recover from the flu soon, my friend.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:08 PM April 5th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Feeling much better today, thanks TC. I liked the South Park episode on hate crimes, where the moral of the story is, if you're going to beat someone up, you better make damn sure they're the same color as you! It's a screwed up world, alright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 02:40 PM April 5th, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. Yeah, I just saw that episode (of South Park) not more than a week ago. (It's being shown in syndication now) That's the one where Cartman (a White kid) beans Token (a Black kid) with a rock. It's totally innocent (though admittedly stupid) but the adults just go nuts calling Cartman a "hate criminal". The whole thing is blown WAY out of proportion. But in the end it was really nothing to do with race. It was just one kid being mean to another. That's just what kids do, regardless of race, color, ethnicity, etc.
That was a funny episode, but it really mirrored reality. We see the same kind of hysterical over reaction by adults when a little boy so much as kisses a little girl on the cheek or passes her a love note in class. (notice that when the genders are reversed no such reactions take place by adults)
Actually, despite the crude and frankly, at times vulgar, humor "South Park" hits a lot of social nails on the head.
And yes, I did see the episode where they made fun of Indians. I'm not easily offended, though and I realize that EVERYONE is a target of "South Park"'s humor. You can't just laugh when they pick on the "other guys". One has to be able to laugh at themselves. That is a big problem with a lot of women, these days. They can laugh at men even in the most sadistic situations but they can NOT laugh at themselves. Maybe that is why so many are so "miserable" these days.
Oh well, Maybe the fact that we laugh at so many of them, it makes up for their inability to laugh at themselves.
Hmmm. Maybe I'll tape "South Park" tonight.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 06:28 PM April 5th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
(Comic aside intended....)
As a young white man, I lived in the Caribbean on an island that's 99% black. (Hence, my nickname --- HEY WHITE BOY!)
When I first started working there, I needed to set up a bank account (Barclay's U.K. of course).
My indigenous friend told me to "go see the RED girl at the counter, she'll take care of you."
So I go to the bank.
Been on the island for a couple weeks.
I see lovely black girls, delightfully coffee-coloured girls, some almost-white girls, ebony-flavored girls, white-with-a-hint-of-chocolate girls....
no "red" girls anywhere to be seen by my uninformed eyes.
Come to find out a "red girl" is code for a gal from Trinidad!
Funny!
Did you know that in the French islands (Martinique, Guadeloupe, etc.) in the 1800's the law contained 180 categories for determining race based on blood ratios of white:black?
Hence the terms octoroon, quadroon, etc.
And BTW, ThunderCloud --- is a 5% Native-American qualified to claim rez-street cred?
My great, great, great grandfather.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:43 PM April 5th, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Never forget, TC, above all things, feminists are the world's worst sore winners. That's why they believe that no matter what they gain at men's expense, no matter how privileged a woman might be, unless they are out-ranking, out-earning and out-performing men in every way, at every time and in every place, they're "oppressed" and the "victims" of discrimination.
Men could be dropping dead of food poisoning on the podium next to a feminist speaker, and she'd complain that they were attempting to "silence her voice" by distracting the audience, thereby continuing the unbroken history of the "oppressive patriarchy". The consequences for the dying men, or perhaps the need to call some ambulances for them, would never cross her two-dimensional mind. She'd just see them as oppressing her, and "deserving to die". To paraphrase the editor of Ms. magazine, to a feminist, hating men is a viable political act, right? I can only assume this extends to patricide. But then we'll be oppressing them by filling up too many graves, or something.
In order to maintain the cognitive dissonance (better known as doublethink) that drives them, feminists routinely deny objective reality, and constantly re-frame it to be consistent with their victim complex. There truly is no "fair" way to defeat them once they've seized power as they clearly have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:10 PM April 5th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
My Father was supposed to be of French descent, blue eyes, dark skin, and dark hair. My Mother was a Comstock, red hair, green eyes and very pale. My Great Great Grandmother on my Fathers side was supposed to be a full blooded Cherokee Native American Indian. I am in all respects a Mutt. Above all else I am a Human Being, and a Male. I have always treated anyone with respect regardless of color or race or religion as an equal. Respect has to be earned. After the initial meeting those that did not deserve my respect lost it period. I have lived with People of color, I have served with People of color, and they as well as I are Human beings period. Anything else is nothing more than propaganda designed to seperate People. Just like the gender wars...."It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:27 PM April 5th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
(Davidadelong) -- "Anything else is nothing more than propaganda designed to seperate People. Just like the gender wars..."
(An old quote) - "Until the colour of a man's skin is no more important than the colour of his eyes... there will be war..."
Bob Marley referencing Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie's (Ras Tafari's) famous speech to the United Nations. (BM Reggae song - "War.")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 10:27 AM April 6th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
>"And BTW, Thundercloud--- is a 5% Native-American qualified to rez-street card?"
Roy-
It depends. Some Indian nations require you to be at least 50% Indian, some require you to be at least one quarter or more. If you're Cherokee some bands have no blood quantum restrictions at all, they just require that you show at least some proof that you are a descendant.
Frankly, though most of us (Indians) don't care that much how far back one's blood line goes as long as that person upholds, respects and honors tradition. I know Indian people who are full bloods and Indian people who are as little as one five hundredth but we are all one people and that's what matters most.
The whole blood quantum system was put up by our federal government to insure that as few as possible people could claim Indian heritage. That way the government insured it's self that it didn't have to pay restitution to too many people.
As far as I know you can get a C.D.I.B(Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood) card no matter how much or how little Indian blood you are. It simply states that you are of Indian heritage and are recognised by the federal government. It doesn't always qualify one for restitution, payment or residency on a reservation. You can, however, make and sell items as "Genuine Indian made".
I hope that helps a little.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 05:24 PM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
It is somewhat obvious that all the cards are being played by this Woman. I have heard that the officer just grabbed her arm because she wouldn't stop when asked. She was not wearing the required lapel pin to designate who she was. Since the area is a high security area, there is no excuse for her actions period, even if she is a Black Female congress person. If the system was so lax in their approach would not she raise an alarm if the "wrong" People were allowed to get in and jeapordize "her" safety? But, this is the kind of people that are paid to protect the taxpayers. Does anyone else see the joke? Oh yeah, the joke is on the tax payers, as usual.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 05:52 PM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I live in the state that this jerk represents but not in her district thank god!
She, if not a moron, could be deemed seriously mentally disordered.
However, her questionable mental state exactly mirrors the constituency she represents.
So it works out.
I hope she gets busted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Daoistfire on 02:57 AM April 4th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
wear the freaking pin.
( Short sentence because these thing happens too much)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 06:28 AM April 4th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Cynthia McKinney has abused her position of power.Now she admits to misusing Government funds to bring Isaac Hayes to her Office to one of her functions. The arrogance of this Bitch and her manipulative Lies is appalling. When will we grow a spine and show this bitch the door? And kick her skanky ass to the curb?
Danny Glover is an idiot. He was on Bill Maher's HBO show and said that Colleges were not bastions of Feminism. Seated Next to him was a Feminist who admitted things have gone too far on College Campuses. Danny Glover is a Moron. I have zero interest in what he has to say. Nor Harry I am friends to a Thug Belafonte. Screw them both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:59 AM April 4th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"Harry Belafonte".
I used to think Belafonte was pretty righteous.
But now, I just think he's really weird and everything.
Was he always like this or did something happen to him to change him?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 02:20 PM April 4th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
He, as well as Danny Glover has a ring in the nose. They pander to the womyn in their lives, since that is who holds the purse strings. "Hoka hey!" Sir!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 10:19 AM April 5th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
>"They pander to the womyn in their lives since that is who holds the purse strings."
Yeah. I should have figured that out myself.
But it figures.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by quetzal on 02:01 PM April 5th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
This post is especially meant to caution any African-American supporters of mens' rights: It has appeared to me recently, that some womens' rights advocates are trying to align themselves with blacks of either gender, in order to appear more credible when persecuting the 'evil white male oppressors' that us white men are. I am not saying that this is what the Congresswoman had in mind here. But this post reminds me of the issue. Just this a.m., there was an article on the front page of the St. Pete (FL) Times. It was by a black woman reporter, and she was in turn writing about another black woman reporter in North Carolina, who apparently was herself writing about a black stripper who claims she was raped by the white members of the male lacrosse team of Duke U.
The article in the Times can be interpreted as saying that the N.C. reporter 'knows' the stripper is not lying about being raped, even though no formal charges have been filed yet (as usual, tried in the media). Also the article says at one point, "white men rule the world", quoting the N.C. reporter.
[Editors, please do not reject this reply. I wish not to link to the article in question, as it would be rejected due to it's apparent lack of bias against men. Please know that I am not trying to change the subject, but that it is important to caution our members about this possible phenomenon of biased women trying to sway African-Americans to their viewpoint!]
--quetzal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:47 PM April 5th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Just to connect-the-dots.....
VAWA 2005 as passed by 100% of our misandrist congresspersons contains several initiatives to "pay special attention" to Native American and urban African American female "victims..."
A few million dollars is being dispersed to set up special domestic violence dragnets on the tribal reservations and in distressed metro areas nationwide.
The VAWA bill (now law) refers to this initiative as reaching out to "underserved" women and children.
(Does that mean non-deserving or under-supplied ... doesn't matter much to the feminazi predators in D.C. ???)
Translation --- further victimize the Third World men and their families resident in these here Un-united States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:55 AM April 6th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, blacks or African Americans (a misleading term, since many are Carribean or South American in ancestry, and there are many caucasians from parts of Africa) are still badly mistreated by western society, and America in particular; minority men far more so than women, who of course have feminism looking out for them. However, $50 billion in special programs later, minority women are doing much better than they were, yet minority men are more marginalized than ever.
I think it's important that we recognize that the women's movement is commiting a gross injustice when it claims that women are some sort of "minority" or "victim class", when white women are far and away the single most privileged class of human beings ever to have walked the Earth, and when white women are the majority of women in western society! Thomas Sowell's work on "affirmative action" addresses this quite nicely. Consider that in Canada, 70% of the population qualifies for special consideration under employment "equity" legislation, while 30% (able-bodied white males), can be and are legally discriminated against. We haven't cured discrimination with these laws, we've encoded it in legislation, and ensured that racism and sexism will always be fundamental to the hiring and promotions process!
The feminists should be ashamed that they are stealing resources from the actual minority of people who really are dispossessed and marginalized in our societies (men and women who are not white, aboriginal peoples, religious minorities, etc.)
This is just more of the "sore winner" complex among feminists that I mentioned above - feminists will claim that men should be rounded up into concentration camps or otherwise dispossessed and disenfranchised as long as they feel they can point to at least one woman, anywhere, who they feel they can claim is a "victim". As a result of this deceitful stance, naturally they are latching onto minority women as many of them are denied a fair shake in society, not because they are women, but because of their race! As usual, the contrary facts and objective reality (i.e. minority women face discrimination because they are minorities, not because they are women, who make up the majority of ALL human cultures), do not disturb feminists in the least.
As mens rights activists, we must always remember that within our ranks, there are some men who need our attention and assistance more than others, and try our best to work for the equality of the genders, regardless of race. We should absolutely avoid trying to "over-identify" with or exploit minority men as "poster children" for our situation and cause, in the shameful way that feminists have and continue to do. Instead, let's try to focus what few resources we do manage to draw towards men on those who need it most.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "This little excerpt explains why a man in this stiuation would be arrested on the spot: he is white and male...