Jump to content
Want daily summaries and Breaking News alerts?
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
© Copyright 2015
For more squawks, pick up a copy of today's Albany Herald.
To submit a squawk, Click here.
Absolutely--she is so wonderful. Unlike the present first lady, Princess Kate doesn't have a vain. I am entitled, bone in her body.
What makes that squawker believe that FLOTUS has less class? What is the definition of class?
How do you know she is wonderful? When was the last time she invited you to dinner?
Oh snap!!!!....lol.......good one.
Michelle Obama is the epitome of Brains and Beauty. She is the sexiest first lady we have ever had. (Much better looking than the last two first ladies for sure!!!) She is a great role model to so many. We love you Michelle Obama!!
OK folks. This is what drugs do to your mind.
No drugs here dude.....maybe you need some!!
Built like Tina Turner.
Do you ever have anything nice to say!?!?!? Everything you say is full of hate...anger!!! I mean We all get it, you don't like President Obama. It just shocks me that so much hate goes on and on. It is getting clearer why...I think everyone sees it also
I think she is built like Tina Turner. That in no way makes me a racist. I don't care for how Tina Turner is build. That in no way makes me a racist. If I quote the oft-quoted proverb "black is beautiful" it in no way makes me a racist if I don't feel that way. That's why God created a world full of diversity. Some like some things and not others. If you don't believe that blue eyes and blond hair is beautiful, that in no way makes you a racist. Let's all have a nice day and enjoy our diversity and our likes and dislikes without calling each other RACISTS.
What's Love Got To Do with It? Love's got everything to do with it, I love Tina Turner.
I like TT!
I don't think Michelle is all that beautiful. She may be younger, but what will she look like when she is in her 60's & 70's?
Way to go Coach!!!
If you like fat asses.
Some do and some don't. That's what makes the world go round.
The bigger they are, the better Da Corch likes them. There is more of it to see & love. I heard Da Corch is an @$$ kind of guy.
Kate is Beautifull,and smart.And coach, enjoy while you can,i can hear the votes comming in now.They will both be out of OUR Whitehouse soon.And you may love Her,but dont put the word WE in there,because you do not speak for all of US.
She will still be the MOST BEAUTIFUL of all time!!!
.......because as we've all been told...."BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL"........or so they say................
Racist remark if there ever was one...you kill me!!! Everyday you get on this paper and spread your Racism!!! I am willing to bet my military retirement that if you had to say half of the stuff you say on here to anyones face...you would not open your mouth!!! But yet you hide behind your computer and throw hatred and Racist remarks all over the page...morning, noon, and night!!!!
Come on over and we can have a Beer Summit and discuss it.
And then you can embark on your Apology Tour to apologize for calling everybody names like "racist" etc.
So, Sister......are you saying you are not a racist???
Yes but I do know one when I see one or hear one or read one.
If I were to say on here "WHITE IS BEAUTIFUL" then you and several others on here would immediately cry out that I was a racist. In fact I have never heard anybody say such a thing. But I've heard the other.......why is that not RACIST?
Right On Sister!
cj42....it ain't right to lust after the first lady.
See that is the problem..."Our" Whitehouse...actually belongs to the people of the United States of America. I am an American who fought for this country, but it kills me that people are saying "Our" like someone stole it from you...you are still an American...it was "Our" Whitehouse when Bush was there...and it still is "Our" Whitehouse now....
The whitehouse belongs to all the people...not just the ones with light skin. Your sad ignorance is showing. Minorities have endured term after term of presidents we didn't always like or vote for, but it kills you that the one time you went to the poll, your candidate lost. How sad for you!
If Coach can't use WE, then you can't use OUR. You do not speak for me.
I know thats right erudite!!!
Kate is a beautiful and graceful lady. As far as the other, do not speak for me either.
America's two of the greatest First Ladies were Barbara Bush and Laura Bush. I definitely do not think the First Lady warrants being sexy physically. It is the beauty we see on the inside and the poise, grace and compassion for others.
Kate is a beautiful and graceful lady. As far as the other, do not speak for me either.
America's two greatest First Ladies were Barbara Bush and Laura Bush. I definitely do not think the First Lady warrants being sexy physically. It is the beauty we see on the inside and the poise, grace and compassion for others.
"We" and "our" seem to be such inclusionary words but obviously are also exclusionary. In fact, most of the time they are meant to be exclusionary. We as opposed to you; ours as opposed to yours. Squawker sounded like he was being inclusive, as in "everybody". Certainly, he knew better. Coach took umbrage at the statement and proceeded to exclude himself and others from squawker's statement. Justice4Moma, for some unknown reason, felt Coach had included him/her in his group called "we" and excluded himself/herself from that group. Justice4Moma appears to be exclusionary in referencing "our Whitehouse", prompting Erudite to lay down the law and forbid the use of either word!
Perhaps there is something to that rule of grammar that pronouns should be teathered to nouns in order to avoid confusion. ;)
When the Queen referrs to "WE" she means no one besides herself. Completely singular I believe. Of course "we" are not a Constituitional monarchy.
Pippa not so bad herself.........expecially from behine
That's not nice! :)
You are a member. Bigot.
Not a bigot, I didn't take the picture.
Why did you post it with the comment you made?
My bad, I should have posted under Coach42's comment. My opinion is she is not the most beautiful, that's all. Hell she took my king size snickers away. I bet she has a stock pile in the whitehouse.
In my opinion, our American equivalent of Kate Middleton is Ivanka Trump. She is intelligent, beautiful, poised, elegant and unassuming.
See Lulu, it's people like The Member that make me keep writing on race.
the member posts on here maybe once a month. you post a lot more often on race. don't blame your shallowness on that idiot
How is that shallow? I do post on race quite a bit as I find racism to be foolish. There is no such thing as race in nature; species yes, but race, no. We are not the human RACE; we are the human SPECIES. I do not believe I have brought up race unless it has been pertinent to the discussion.
I'd take Jackie O over Michelle O anyday of the week and twice on tuesday!
How dare the Albany Herald post a picture like that on their website? Comparing the First Lady to a monkey! I am highly offended.
The Albany Herald just keeps proving that it is a racist media outlet.
The Obama's are a beautiful family...stop hating.
We got it removed!!
And I was one of those who clicked on "Suggest removal"
The only way M. Obuma could have class is to take the c and l away.
This is why Albany can't progress. Ya'll are going straight to Hell with all of this hate and racism. I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO GLAD i LEFT
If we all are honest......the first ones to bring up "race" in these comments are the same ones who immediately cry "RACIST" when those who disagree respond with a comment about race. Then there are those who see RACISM under ever bush and interpret every comment in that light. You very often go out looking for something.....you put out bait for something....and lo and behold you find it!
Sister, I will be honest. Race does not exist in places that do not care about physical attributes. Race does not appear in nature. I do not believe one can be 'racist' without the power to grant or deny based on color but I do believe that people can be prejudiced. When the attitude is put into action, it becomes discrimination.
What I have found is that the color has become the defining factor, not history. It's because we are 'black' or 'brown' or 'white' or ..... not because we have had a history of limited schooling, a history of having land stolen and forced to move cross country, a history of being kept from the polls. I guess that is why I am so interested in racial ideology; it keeps everything else silent.
I do believe in "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination" these days but that still is not enough for some people. I do believe in a Justice Department that spends all its time and resources suing the individual States and Citizens of the USA for political purposes. And if you'd like to take a lesson from Nature, you can look to Charles Darwin where it's survival of the fittest and snooze you lose. Without God you can make no sustainable argument that the Human species should be any different.
Charles Darwin never said that; he said species that fail to adapt will become extinct. Herbert Spencer made the statement about survival of the fittest.
I do not follow your god logic; the human species will not be any different. Those that fail to adapt, will become extinct.
Who needs TV to get entertained? Just read the online herald comments...Gotta love it!
I do love it but today, this has gotten outta hand.
Here is the problem, I posted that picture to see the reaction of the people on here. Now I do not know anybody's race, but by some earlier post one can reasonably tell who is white and who is black and I saw today that most of the white people on this post came to Michelle Obama's defense as well as the black people. I was going to wait until tomorrow and post the same with George Bush in the picture instead of M. Obama to prove that there would not be the same outcry as we had today, but I didn't want to test the Albany Herald's patience, especially after Ms_Rational got so angry. I am will to bet she is white, too, which says she sees no color when it comes to issues. I see racism on both sides, you can deny it all you want, but it is true. I especially wanted to see the coach42's reaction, because all he sees is black and no good in white. I posted "I'm sorry" in my post so I could come back to this point to let everyone know what I was doing. So again I am sorry.
You blew it by setting up your plan! I may know the Bush/chimpanzee photo to which you refer. I believe that the intent there was to question his intelligence, not his color. The photo was still quite offensive.
Folks who claim to see no color are lying to themselves and doing a disservice to history. Color has made a difference and continues to do so so to be color blind is not helpful. To be color blinded is even less so.
My oh My. A waste is a terrible thing to mind.
I flagged Member's post as soon as I saw it. I found it offensive, automatically taking it as a form of racial slur. I'm still not convinced otherwise. However, looking at his/her explanation and your response and then looking at the Bush/chimp photos made me consider something less nefarious though still inexcusable.
You state that the Bush/chimp photo was not about race, but the photo of the First Lady is. Given history, a logical assumption. But then again, there is another possibility. The thread involved attractiveness. Like the similarity in expressions between Bush and chimp, there is a similarity in expressions in the photos posted by Member. Like the Bush bashers using the photos to imply a lack of intelligence, perhaps Member was implying a lack of beauty, at least in his eyes. If he really was planning on making a point, I hope he realizes that he should state his point before the tornado hits.
Also, I was intrigued by a statement in an earlier post in this thread. “I do not believe one can be 'racist' without the power to grant or deny based on color…” Could you explain?
Sure, if one does not have the authority or legal right to deny or grant access based on color, then one cannot be "racist". It is a question of level:I can hate you because of your color and be a bigot or prejudiced but I cannot keep you out of my store or from voting or from school. If I could, then I am 'racist'. I can use my prejudice to follow you around the store which makes my action discriminatory but I have to let you shop there. For me, any -ism denotes power. Hatred denotes bigotry.
Thinking perhaps I had missed something, I looked up definitions of "racist" and none of them mentioned the restrictions you are placing on the term. Doesn't creating your own definition of words make rational discussions difficult?
No, I do not believe it makes discussions difficult. All participants have to do is agree on the definition of terms. I am just speaking from my knowledge. I am trying to get people to understand that 'racism' is not merely not liking but actively denying or allowing access. Perhaps one day the dictionary will support this definition.
If discussants want to use racist/racism as simply disliking or hating based on color, so be it. These two actions just fit better with prejudice (an attitude) as no action is being taken.
By rational discussion, I meant a conversation where the participants understand each others' ideas. That understanding can't take place if the participants recognize different definitions for significant terms in their discussion. By making up your own definition, you do the opposite of agreeing on the definition! The definitions in the dictionaries are the accepted, agreed upon definitions.
But, just using your definition of racist ("if one does not have the authority or legal right to deny or grant access based on color, then one cannot be "racist".), a person who, without any "authority or legal right" burns down the house of another because of their race, would not be a racist. Did I understand your definition correctly?
That is correct. The arson would be a crime completed out of prejudice which led to discriminatory behavior. Unless the arsonist had the power to deny this person residency at the start, the behavior is merely ignorance..
But, I will use the venacular 'racist' ...for some, this action would be called 'racist'.
Other than you, who would not consider it to be a racist action?
What is the purpose of redefining the term? Does it allow you to give certain individuals a sense of cover from the term? It appears that you redefine terms to apply only to people you feel antagonistic toward. In this case you attempt to apply it only to someone with "the power". How about a teen who paints KKK on the door of a black person's home? Or is planning to do so? Just how long will your definition be? A youngster who acts threateningly toward elderly people has the power to deny them a sense of safety. You might as well include in your definition,"applicable only to those I dislike".
I wrote that I could accept the venacular. If you want to call the teen racist, go for it. If you want to say that the youngster denies safety so be it. Whatever you can live with. I don't dislike anyone here; I don't know any of you.
It is not a matter of "wanting" to call someone racist or not. Reason and fairness dictates the proper use (accepted definition) of the term when identifying a person or activity as being, or not being, racist. I am not familiar with how you actually use the term regarding individuals. My question arose from your statement about the requirements for being racist. But I must ask again, for what reason do you see the need to redefine the term?
I redefine the term because in my academic fields, that is what we use. To complicate the matter further, because race does not exist in nature, we have come to call race "racial ideology" because race is a concept, not natural.
My background is science. That might explain why playing with a definition drives me up the wall. I still have not come to grips with the redefinition of planet which resulted in Pluto losing its status :).
That makes me nuts too!!
Oh! if you happen back, What would make those in your field of academics redefine the term?
One reason is to add power to the mix. Doing so allows for a more complete understanding of the effect of 'racial ideology'. Since race does not occur in nature, there must be a reason for attaching the concept to mankind. That reason is power. If there is no power, why note differences in skin color? Another reason for expanding the definition is a hope of imparting to people that 'race' is merely an idea and as such, can be re-thought.
First, race, as it is properly defined, does exist! The term refers to variations within a species as a result of separation/isolation of groups within the species. Each race, upon coming into contact with another for the first time, recognized the physiological differences that developed naturally. I will agree that racial differences, both real and invented, have been and continue to be used in acquiring power as well as wealth.
Changing the definition of racist so that it applies only to those in authority does not allow for a better understanding of racial ideology. Rather, it creates a tool through which racial ideology is used to gain power.
I searched for your definition of racism. It seems that this definition developed within far left revolutionary groups. Could you be more precise about which "academic fields" you were referencing?
Oh no, the definition does not apply only to those in power; it refers to the effects of 'race' as causing excess or absence of power. So yes, racial ideology IS about the use of the term by some to say one is better than another; we can transfer this into gender ideology as well as religious ideology. The point is because these are ideas and not reality, we can rethink them.
The species differentiation is only for used with humans; we do not speak of other 'races' of dogs because they are different colors. Many who believe that a god created humans do not believe the differences are natural but rather created by that god; it would be evolution otherwise.
My academic specialities are comparative religions, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history.
Is my definition 'improper' or just not common?
:) I think I have a read on your thinking now. Much luck to you.
I love FLOTUS, someone please explain what this means to Sister and LU, they to are Bubbavet_rureel friends. They are trully special!! Kate is wonderful, however, mine, LuLu and Sister_Ruby first lady has the following:
Be my friend, can you do that?
Does she have any extra grammar? If so, perhaps she can offer you a little...
6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
10 a.m. to 8 p.m.