Liberal/Conservative, Freedom of Speech, etc...

I think my major confusion with his speech is that being from Canada, I have no idea what the terms 'liberal left' or 'democrat' actually mean.
Even in Canada, liberals, conservatives etc... they're all the same. Dishonest polititians who will lie and say anything to get elected, and then break all their promises once they're in power. Nothing ever changes and life is the same no matter who is in power so to me it's all just "The Government" to me. Dishonest, overpaid liars who don't have a clue what it's like to actually live in the real world.

So basically... splitting the U.S. government up into terms like 'left', 'conservative', 'democrat' etc., and then assigning certain beliefs and actions based on labelling an entire catagory of people....
Totally confusing to me.

IMO, Imus said what nobody else had the balls to say, at least over free public radio. But seriously,as you guys said, who cares. If the cheerleaders can't take name calling, they should just give up now.

Originally Posted by: schmangeI think my major confusion with his speech is that being from Canada, I have no idea what the terms 'liberal left' or 'democrat' actually mean.[/QUOTE]
Which pretty much illustrates what he was saying about schools reducing capacity for discerning thought.

Originally Posted by: schmangeEven in Canada, liberals, conservatives etc... they're all the same. Dishonest polititians who will lie and say anything to get elected, and then break all their promises once they're in power. Nothing ever changes and life is the same no matter who is in power so to me it's all just "The Government" to me. Dishonest, overpaid liars who don't have a clue what it's like to actually live in the real world.

After nearly forty years of living under the Liberal Party of Canada, that's not surprising. I'm not yet convinced, but I'm prepared to wait and see how Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party does things. So far, they've been able to deliver on their promises, despite the obstruction from the other parties.

[QUOTE=schmange]So basically... splitting the U.S. government up into terms like 'left', 'conservative', 'democrat' etc., and then assigning certain beliefs and actions based on labelling an entire catagory of people....
Totally confusing to me.

Don't assign the beliefs based on the category - assign the category based on the beliefs.

About that capacity for discerning thought... :confused:

What the frilly hell??
I never started a topic called "Liberal/Conservative, Freedom of Speech, etc..."
Who the hell did that??

Excuse my being majorly pissed off here, but this it's my choice what the hell topics I pick to place in the forum area.

Talk about my freedom of speech being violated.
Put it goddam back the way it was or I'll delete this whole thread.

I wanted to post an introduction explaining the origin of the thread, but our blessed BBS software doesn't let me do that. I chose your post as the starting point, becuse that's where the topic shifted. I posted in the original thread to explain that I had split of these posts, instead of hijcking a thread about 'puke-worthy' stars.

I would gladly put my name into the header as the thread starter if I could.

And now who's threatening who's freedom of speech here? ..."delete this whole thread" indeed?

I feel like somebody just walked into my office, went into my computer with my personal password and decided to organize my life the way they want it.


You're publishing material in my name, without my permission.
I didn't start this thread and that title is not mine.
If it isn't put back the way it was, I'll delete my participation in this thread, which will probably delete the entire thread.

I'll decide when I start a thread and nobody else!!

Originally Posted by: schmangeWhat the frilly hell??
I never started a topic called "Liberal/Conservative, Freedom of Speech, etc..."
Who the hell did that??

Excuse my being majorly pissed off here, but this it's my choice what the hell topics I pick to place in the forum area.

Talk about my freedom of speech being violated.
Put it goddam back the way it was or I'll delete this whole thread.

Why do you care? :confused:

Because there's a big difference between participating in a thread and actually starting one.
This thread looks like it was started by me, and written with a title that I didn't come up with.
I would never start a post on any board about politics and I feel like I've just had my freedom of speech completely violated.

Basically, this thread is not mine and I don't want it on the boards under my name, with that title.

I read through alot of the posts, but couldn't read them all, I just want to get my point across.. I've never even heard of Imus until my dad told me about this all yesterday, but I think he had the right to say what he wanted, he had the right to express his personal opinion, weither it hurts some feelings or not, plain and simple... Freedom of Speech.. If it doesn't exsist anymore, they should just take it out of the constitution.

I hate Al Sharpton, not because he is black, but because all he does is instigate.

My 2 cents.

I've done everything the BBS software will let me do to show that I started this thread by splitting a previous thread that had a differnet topic. It is unfortunate that I was not able to make that any clearer, but I have done what I could.

You are obviously willing to post political comments, so I have trouble understanding your objections.

Whatever, if you insist on deleting a thread, you have the power to do so.

And all that that action implies.

Originally Posted by: schmangeBecause there's a big difference between participating in a thread and actually starting one.
This thread looks like it was started by me, and written with a title that I didn't come up with.
I would never start a post on any board about politics and I feel like I've just had my freedom of speech completely violated.

Basically, this thread is not mine and I don't want it on the boards under my name, with that title.

If people read the thread now, they'll know it wasn't you.

Start a new thread. Put it under my name with these posts and have the opening post be: "What do you guys think about this whole Don Imus thing?" I really could care less.

Ok. I've had a chance to calm down. Eaten some ice cream and a cookie so I feel better now.

So... fine, leave it. Just keep in mind in future that before dividing up threads or starting threads under other peoples name, it'd be a good idea to get their permission first.

When I saw a thread with my name on it that I hadn't started, I majorly freaked. I'm always very aware of what topics I've begun, and even though it may not look like it, some thought actually goes into what the title of the thread will be because it influences the entire thread as a whole.

I would never in my life start a thread about politics, or religion.
Yes, I would participate. But starting a thread is completely different than participating in one.
For instance, I would gladly stand in a crowd and listen to people stand on boxes and make speeches in the street. I'll even get up and make some speeches of my own. But there's no way I'd stand in the middle of the street and announce "I want to talk about politics".
And if somebody else got up in the middle of the street and put on a Schmange suit and did it, I'd kick him off his box, take off his costume and tell him to stop pretending he's me.

Originally Posted by: schmangeOk. I've had a chance to calm down. Eaten some ice cream and a cookie so I feel better now.

So... fine, leave it. Just keep in mind in future that before dividing up threads or starting threads under other peoples name, it'd be a good idea to get their permission first.

When I saw a thread with my name on it that I hadn't started, I majorly freaked. I'm always very aware of what topics I've begun, and even though it may not look like it, some thought actually goes into what the title of the thread will be because it influences the entire thread as a whole.

I would never in my life start a thread about politics, or religion.
Yes, I would participate. But starting a thread is completely different than participating in one.
For instance, I would gladly stand in a crowd and listen to people stand on boxes and make speeches in the street. I'll even get up and make some speeches of my own. But there's no way I'd stand in the middle of the street and announce "I want to talk about politics".
And if somebody else got up in the middle of the street and put on a Schmange suit and did it, I'd kick him off his box, take off his costume and tell him to stop pretending he's me.

Where does one get a Schmange suit and does it come in a 42 regular? :D

I'm just kidding guys.

Originally Posted by: hunter60Where does one get a Schmange suit and does it come in a 42 regular? :D

I'm just kidding guys.

Do you want the white one with the crew cut, or the black one with the afro?

Originally Posted by: schmangeDo you want the white one with the crew cut, or the black one with the afro?

Hmm. Depends. Black if it's for a formal affair or white for leisure wear but not after Labor Day of course. :D

The black ones were left out in the rain and got all nappy headed so I had to segregate them. So, all i have available is white.

My favorite part about this is how the phrase "nappy headed hoes" has been thrust into the forefront of the American Lexicon.

And just how exactly is this racist? Sexist yes, but racist, perhaps not. I know plenty of nappy-haired white people. My roommate in college could grow a sweet jewfro, and my brother's hair is so thick and kinky that water is repelled off of it.

And who gives a **** about female basketball anyways? :D

Originally Posted by: LeedoggMy favorite part about this is how the phrase "nappy headed hoes" has been thrust into the forefront of the American Lexicon.

And just how exactly is this racist? Sexist yes, but racist, perhaps not.

Yeah. I think the chronology of events pretty much speaks for itself.

1) Imus calls some unknown basketball team a bunch of 'nappy headed hos'
2) The media gets hold of it and starts to spread it around
3) Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpeton go on a witch hunt against the 'racist' and 'sexist' (secondary) remarks made by Imus and turn it into a media circus using the race card to blow everything out of proportion thinking ... "this is a perfect opportunity to throw ourselves into the spotlight again against the way whites treat blacks"
4) Imus apologizes like he'd already done several times before and offered to meet with the team to apologize personally (which is what should have happened to begin with and probably would have if not for the media circus thing.
5) He apologizes in person and out of the glare of the media and the team gracefully accepts his apology
6) The media now turn their attention to where terms like "nappy headed hos" actually come from and hey, guess what... it's rap music.
7) The media gets a hold of this and starts to spread it around
8) The public now starts taking aim at rap music and black artists in particular
9) Jessie Jackson and Al Sharepeton quickly start backpedaling while saying "this was really all about sexism and not racism" ... thinking to themselves "oops, guess that one kinda backfired"

... and what should happen now if they're ever going to be taken seriously again...

10) Jessie Jackson and Al Sharepeton go on an all out war against rap music with a particular emphasis on how black men treat black women.

Personally, I think they're just gonna crawl back into their hole and wait for 'whitey' to make another stupid mistake again.

racism isn't what imus did.


racism is strom thurmond filibustering the civil rights act of 1957 for a historic 24 hours and 18 minutes. putting in the effort beforehand to spend time in a steam room to dehydrate hismelf so he wouldn't have to go urinate while he filibustered and he also had an assistant waiting in the cloakroom with a bucket just in case.