Why is race such a taboo subject?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Another great thread form ceci.
I 've just skimmed some of the responses, so I won't comment just yet. Except to say, this thread seems mainly concerned with white-on-black racism. And that may be valid, since that's what most of us are familiar with. But it transcends all races.

Two more quick points:
I don't see racial insults where many people see them. For instance, actors in blackface are funny to me. So are asian karate experts, and caucasian "fat cats". We should learn to laugh at ourselves and each other more.

Finally, Jesse Jackson is a common shakedown artist, not a great civil rights leader. And that is a fact, not just my opinion.




posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia
I've come to believe its comforting for some white people. And I would say do what you do, have your lil "race card" safety blanket so that you can deal, but its insulting.

Yeah. I use it because it's comforting.. must have been my imagination when I was waiting for a train and a 'non-white' pelted two fist size rocks at me, fractured a bone in my foot, called me white trash and then told me I was only angry at him because I was a racist.
Thats just ONE experience.
It's insulting to be told that I being racist because I DARED to react to a physical and verbal attack.. and it's even more insulting to be told that I've imagined this 'race card' thing. Did I imagine the racist nature of my attack as well? Must've been the way I was waiting for the train minding my own business or something because it couldn't have been because I'm white. Thats just not PC.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Donwhite.

You are correct. I can't dispute the history you site. It's down in, if you'll pardon the pun, black and white.

I think the motives for these various actions were less racial then they were purely political, save for Strom Thurmond; his were almost certainly racially motivated, we do agree on that.

Nixon running a burglary ring out of the Oval Office described as a no-no? That's just about the mildest phrase I've ever read to describe the incident
.

Of course, I can't read peoples minds, so I honestly don't know why so many soutern democrats left the party to support Ronald Reagan. It may indeed have been racially motivated. For some, I'm sure it was, for others it was simply that they didn't like the democratic alternative that was offered. I know I didn't much care for them.

Having said all this, I will admit that you are obviously a bit more, HAH! a lot more, well read on this subject than am I. You've also put a great deal of thought into this subject. I conceed you may indeed be right as to motive, but I think mistaken as to magnitude.

I enjoy these discussions, I learn a great deal from them. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

posted by seagull: “Donwhite. I can't dispute the history. It's down in, if you'll pardon the pun, black and white. I think the motives for these various actions were less racial then they were purely political, Nixon running a burglary ring out of the Oval Office described as a no-no? That's just about the mildest phrase I've ever read to describe the incident. [Edited by Don W]


RMN, Nixon, signed the OSHA and EPA into law and did a lot of other things Dems regard as “good,” maybe even AA - Affirmative Action, but I forget now. Nixon was a Eastern Establishment Republican type albeit he was from California. As was Earl Warren. Note how Arnold Schwarzenegger has mellowed or “bent” a great deal; no more Orange County right wing crapola, when it comes to California Green Issues.


I honestly don't know why so many Southern Democrats left the party to support Ronald Reagan. It may indeed have been racially motivated. For some, I'm sure it was, for others it was simply that they didn't like the democratic alternative that was offered. I know I didn't much care for them. I admit you are more read on this subject. You've also put a great deal of thought into this subject. You may be right as to motive, but I think you’re mistaken as to magnitude. I enjoy these discussions, Thanks. [Edited by Don W]


I too, see a lot of the world as black and white. Or Republican and Democrat. I really would rate Nixon’s Watergate intrusions as equal in seriousness to Clinton’s tete a tete with Monica. Inconsequential. But in each case, the Congress was of the opposite party and both were just waiting to make a name for itself. You can be sure if the Dems get control of the Congress in ‘06, Geo W better get a Damascus Road conversion or he will be #3 in the impeachment roll call.

I really do have a big ax to grind with Nixon. He promised to stop the Vietnam War in his 1968 campaign. He barely beat Hubert Humphrey who would have stopped the war in 6 months, as I surely do believe. Nixon on the other hand, admitted later he had no plan. That the promise was a political ploy, pure hoopla. He planned to “wing it.” Then, he and Kissinger - "K" is under indictment for war crimes you know and he can’t leave the US - for the illegal bombing of Cambodia - kept the war going until 1974, when they ended it on the same terms available to them in 1969. In that time frame, over 20,000 GIs went KIA, as did also 1,000,000 Vietnamese. For that I truly fault him! Know what? For that I do not believe Congress would have impeached Nixon. Now how's that figure?

[edit on 4/20/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Finally, Jesse Jackson is a common shakedown artist, not a great civil rights leader. And that is a fact, not just my opinion.


No, that is your opinion until you produce evidence to the contrary. You aint out in the hoods where he's in raising money for poor people working right along side him so this isn't first hand knowledge, is it? Have you seen his personal tax returns? Or maybe the accounting books for Rainbow Push?

Jesse Jackson--I say very few words against the man--he was there right next to MLK...I guess since the bullets didn't hit him he aint a hero. Still, he's out there everyday whether I agree with him or not, he's grassroots pushing the agenda he believes in...how does that make him a "common shakedown artist". The fact that he's out with a hopeful message for those that have been forgotten while other americans aren't makes him extraordinary by comparison.

See, it's attacks like these that make black folk cringe. Tis like Jesse runnin up in houses with a ski-mask on talkin bout "cum up off ya damn change!?" "Common shakedown artist". So basically, he's a thief, and if that's a fact, you really need to get your proof together since you've made it your business to crap on his name all over this board every time it comes up. Ususally, I ignore it but come on...you just called it a fact...I have to assume you have some proof of this thievery, and now would be the time for you to present it.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Orginally posted by jsobecky
Another great thread form ceci


Again, you have my thanks, jsobecky. I appreciate your comments. I am glad you are here.


Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't see racial insults where many people see them. For instance, actors in blackface are funny to me. So are asian karate experts, and caucasian "fat cats". We should learn to laugh at ourselves and each other more.

Finally, Jesse Jackson is a common shakedown artist, not a great civil rights leader. And that is a fact, not just my opinion.


Well, I think that it depends on the context. Now, when I first saw the movie, Blazing Saddles, I was pretty upset by it. I thought that it dealt with Black stereotypes negatively. But when I began to read that Richard Pryor wrote the story and that it actually lampooned the attitudes about racism, then my mind changed.

I thought it was especially funny when Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little wore Ku Klux Klan sheets as they approached the table when a search for a new sheriff was going on. That was one of the funniest parts of the film, among others.

Now, there are films that aren't so funny. Such as the old "classic", D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation (1917) and The Jazz Singer (1927). Those films both use negative stereotypes of Black people and are unrepentant about it. Here, Blacks were played by actors in "Black Face". It wasn't that African-Americans weren't around acting in Hollywood during those times; they were. But, I could possibly surmise that it was the racist contempt that Griffith had to put White actors in "Black Face" and possibly pass it off. There's nothing to laugh about when a movie celebrates the rise of the Klan in Reconstruction. Or, it's nothing to laugh about when Al Jolson goes in "Black Face" and sings "Mammy".

Or, in Breakfast at Tiffany's(1961) which has one of my favorite actresses, Audrey Hepburn. Mickey Rooney (in "Yellow Face", I suppose) portrayed and lampooned a Japanese man in the film, Mr. Yunioshi. That obviously was offensive and it was in poor taste. There were as many Asian-Americans working in Hollywood, let alone Japanese people. Could Blake Edwards not find a Japanese man for the role? Or was it that old "subtle racism" working? And certainly, that wasn't funny. There are many other examples in film and television, but those three provide an apt contrast to what could be construed as "funny" opposed to what isn't.

About white-on-black racism and vice-versa: Yes, it is true that it is probably the most familar forms of racial prejudice a lot of people are familiar with. But, I had hoped that other people could contribute and bring this issue above just the simple act of "racism". I would like the thread to feature posts that would educate the rest of the members on the different aspects of culture and race, too. Like I said before, I don't want people to blame each other. I would like people to educate each other and talk out these issues.

As for Rev. Jackson: you are entitled to your opinion. But, I tend to see him more than that. And I have written seagull upon what I thought about Rev. Jackson. However, I will say a bit more later in a future post.


Originally quoted by riley
Yeah. I use it because it's comforting.. must have been my imagination when I was waiting for a train and a 'non-white' pelted two fist size rocks at me, fractured a bone in my foot, called me white trash and then told me I was only angry at him because I was a racist. Thats just ONE experience.
It's insulting to be told that I being racist because I DARED to react to a physical and verbal attack.. and it's even more insulting to be told that I've imagined this 'race card' thing. Did I imagine the racist nature of my attack as well? Must've been the way I was waiting for the train minding my own business or something because it couldn't have been because I'm white. Thats just not PC.


No, you didn't imagine your attack. And I think it is sad that someone attacked you simply because of color. I can tell from the tone of your words that you are still angry about it. But, simply blaming an entire race on a single confrontation is also bad. You've got to readjust your mind-set to think clearly about the situation. What led up to this? Why do you suppose you were called that derogatory name? What precipitated the fight? You have to put it all into context.

Re-examine your feelings and ask yourself if you have been treated by others of this non-white race the same way or positively. And you have to realize that not all members of this non-white race act that way. You have to use this situation as a way to reexamine your own thoughts regarding racism. And then, you have to look at the bigger picture. And you must try, like some Black people, to get the "chip off your shoulder" and make peace with what happened to you by replacing this horrible act with positive experiences.

I'm not foolish to say that when confronted with racist experiences that they will not happen again. They do. But you have to deal with your anger so it won't eat you up inside. As of playing the "race card", I think it goes both ways. And it's not good at any turn.




[edit on 20-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia
See, it's attacks like these that make black folk cringe.


It makes this white girl cringe, too. Because no matter how much good a man does in his life, no matter how hard he works, no matter how much he gives of himself, if he is found to be imperfect in some way, if he cheats on his wife or maybe makes some decisions in bad judgment, some people will use that to discount every good thing he's ever done. And I don't care what color he is or what color I am, that pisses me off.

And, jsobecky, I'm not asking you to love Rev. Jackson, but did you read the thread? Did you see how we're trying to be civil here and talk about race and the issues that different races have with others? For you to come in this peaceful thread and blurt out that one of the most respected black icons is nothing but a shakedown artist is just about the rudest thing I've ever seen you do. Believe whatever you want about Jackson, but what kind of response are you hoping for with that statement? You had to know that would piss people off. Yet it was important for you to say. Again. We all know what you think about Jackson, ok?

Please, this is not about attacking leaders of races, it's about talking, conversing, discussing. Can we just try to keep it cool?

I do agree with you that we would do better to laugh at ourselves. If we could give up the negative feelings even about negative stereotypes, we'd be a lot better off.

cici- I am not familiar with the old films you're talking about, but I do recall seeing people in 'blackface' on TV. I don't find it funny, but I also don't find it offensive


Originally posted by ceci2006
Or, it's nothing to laugh about when Al Jolson goes in "Black Face" and sings "Mammy".


This is what I'd like to know. Can you explain to me why this is so offensive? Is it because there were black actors around but at the time, people would rather hire a white actor and dress him up as a black man?

I don't think this scene is particularly funny but I don't 'get' why it's offensive.

When I hear about something like this, I can't understand why black people are STILL, in 2006, upset about what happened in the past. I do understand that it was terrible the way black people used to be (and sometimes still are) treated, but why hold onto this past transgression today?

I try to imagine how it might feel to you. The first thing that comes to mind is that women used to be treated like second class citizens. They couldn't vote, they were kept down, their job was to take care of the home and have kids. They were (and sometimes still are) beaten to keep them in line and to this day, they make less money than men doing the same job.

Now, me being a woman, if I took the same approach to the past as most black people I know, I would be mad at men and still hold onto the way women were treated back then. But what good would that do me? How women were treated in the past has never been a motivational factor for me to pursue a better future. I understand that that's just the way people did things back then. Society didn't value women as much as they do today but we've learned. We've grown. And I hope will continue to gain equality in the sexes.

Now, I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone, but I honestly don't understand why black people hold onto the past and seem to use it as a valid reason to hate the white folk.

I was no more a slave-owner than Saphronia was a slave, yet I somehow feel that because my ancestors may have had slaves (I don't know) I am somehow responsible for their behavior. Actually, just because of the color of my skin, I feel like I'm supposed to be sorry for what other people (with the same color skin) did. Which, by the way, was just the way people did things back then. They enslaved a race. Yes, it's horribly wrong! It's disgusting! However, we've learned. We've grown. And I hope will continue to gain equality in the races.

This is one thing I've never understood. And I don't buy that it's because I'm white. That it's 'a black thing' and I could only understand if I was black. Because I am a human, a compassionate woman and women have a dark history and it doesn't affect me at all. I won't be kept down by our collective past. I won't let the past dictate who I am today. And many black people do. I'd love to understand why.

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia
No, that is your opinion until you produce evidence to the contrary. You aint out in the hoods where he's in raising money for poor people working right along side him so this isn't first hand knowledge, is it? Have you seen his personal tax returns? Or maybe the accounting books for Rainbow Push?

How do you know that I "ain't out in the hoods"?

And no, I haven't seen his financial records, or those of Push. He's been called on them many times by members of the press and refuses to release them.


Jesse Jackson--I say very few words against the man--he was there right next to MLK...I guess since the bullets didn't hit him he aint a hero.

Photo-op.


Still, he's out there everyday whether I agree with him or not, he's grassroots pushing the agenda he believes in...how does that make him a "common shakedown artist". The fact that he's out with a hopeful message for those that have been forgotten while other americans aren't makes him extraordinary by comparison.

Don't be fooled into believing that the Good Reverend is out to help the litle guy. He only shows up when it's to his benefit. Here's one assesment of who really benefits from his efforts:

One of most despicable aspects of the operation of Jackson and his milieu is the exploitation of the prestige of the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s for their own selfish and reactionary ends. In the name of defending minority business opportunities, Jackson has resorted to barely disguised extortion to steer millions of dollars from Fortune 500 companies into the bank accounts of his friends and family members.
Source



"Common shakedown artist". So basically, he's a thief, and if that's a fact, you really need to get your proof together since you've made it your business to crap on his name all over this board every time it comes up. Ususally, I ignore it but come on...you just called it a fact...I have to assume you have some proof of this thievery, and now would be the time for you to present it.

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but you gotta face the truth. He even subsidizes his mistresses and the mother of his kid from an illicit affair. His shakedown of Anheuser-Busch for his sons' beer distributorship, of the Ameritech-SBC merger, the CBS-Viacom merger, of Coca-Cola, are well known incidents. Here are a few sources for you to read:

www.skeptictank.org...
www.judicialwatch.org...
www.wsws.org...

Don't shoot the messenger.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
cici- I am not familiar with the old films you're talking about, but I do recall seeing people in 'blackface' on TV. I don't find it funny, but I also don't find it offensive.

This is what I'd like to know. Can you explain to me why this is so offensive? Is it because there were black actors around but at the time, people would rather hire a white actor and dress him up as a black man?

I don't think this scene is particularly funny but I don't 'get' why it's offensive.

When I hear about something like this, I can't understand why black people are STILL, in 2006, upset about what happened in the past. I do understand that it was terrible the way black people used to be (and sometimes still are) treated, but why hold onto this past transgression today?


First of all, Benevolent Heretic, I would like to say those are great questions to ask because my White friends ask me about the same thing.

And, it is hard rather to explain. But I'll do my best to try (please if anyone else wants to contribute on this notion, chime in).

It is, at first, part of the "racial baggage" Black people have held on to. My family, especially, has taught me and my sister not to forget how far African-Americans have had to go. Not to mention, how hard we have to work to make something of ourselves. And, the easy answer is that when seeing those examples in film jump out at me, it reminds me negative stereotypes such as these are not funny and that they treated the Black image in a derogatory fashion.

And it is indicative of the racism that existed in the past and still does today. Now, that doesn't mean that Black people should harbor that same anger today. We shouldn't. And for myself, I try to see beyond these past indignities in order to understand the context of which these films and images were applied.

But for other people, sometimes seeing negative images like that reinforce their ideas about Black people. Like in television shows and films during the Golden Age of television, all you would see were Black people as maids, butlers or valets. And if you see those same images, that is simply what a viewer would think about Black people--they were born to serve others. Now these images aren't the only ones in film and television, but these negative stereotypes are prevalent--especially when the news and some television shows perceive Black people, if not people of color as junkies, thieves and "ganstas". However, the same could be said about women and their roles on television as well. And women have gone a long way, but then again, we--as ladies--have more to go in seeing equality in our media images.

Molly Haskell is a great writer which investigates the images of women in film and television. Give her a try, when you have the chance.

I cannot lie. I get angry when I see stereotypes like that. But, I tend to see them now in a different light. When I watch a film or television, I now put the entire thing into context instead of harboring on that "one scene" that might be offensive. But that doesn't mean that I won't forget it. But I won't use it against anyone if they treat me with respect and I do the same. But in no way do I blame White people for what happened in the past. But, I do think about how history has shaped the social structure which has barred not only Blacks but other people of color from American institutions. And I would ask that White people examine the past as well to reevaluate their positions regarding race, culture, history and politics--in terms of the media. There's been a lot of stereotypes flung about--both ways.

I know that isn't a complete answer. But I hope that this helps you understand. I will be saying more about this later.

Btw, I am a film maven. I love watching film. So, it's okay if you haven't seen those films. They were used as an example in my mind to explain to jsobecky that you can't just "laugh" at every stereotype of "Black Face" you see. You have to put the entire film's message into context.


As for the "slave master" and "slave-owning" issue: Here too, it is part of the racial history of Black folk. This is another area that needs to be reevaluated and reexamined. For my part, I have joined with several members of my extended family in working on a family tree. That way, we can examine how our role was shaped by these influences. And we've found out some interesting things that views race-relations in a different light.

Otherwise, I think that people need to hash this out instead of letting it seethe quietly year after year. That way, we can learn to progress together as a nation instead of flinging accusations about "who owned who". However, if not controversially, there are companies still in industry today that have benefitted from the importation and implementation of slaves. In California, there is actually a list which displays each insurance company. Which goes to show me that the corporations, even back then, had a hand in taking advantage of a "profitable" situation.

UPDATE: Here is the list of the insurance companies that dealt with the slave trade. It not only goes into these companies, but also it discusses the bill passed by the California State Legislature in 2002: Consumers: Slavery Era Insurance Registry Report


But I won't lie to you and say that these things don't make a lot of Black people mad--especially when the remnants of slave culture remain in the names as well as the municipal structures of some towns. Slavery is a sore point with a lot of people. And we have to deal with that history more so that we can find some sort of conclusion.














[edit on 20-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by BenevolentHeretic
And, jsobecky, I'm not asking you to love Rev. Jackson, but did you read the thread? Did you see how we're trying to be civil here and talk about race and the issues that different races have with others? For you to come in this peaceful thread and blurt out that one of the most respected black icons is nothing but a shakedown artist is just about the rudest thing I've ever seen you do. Believe whatever you want about Jackson, but what kind of response are you hoping for with that statement? You had to know that would piss people off. Yet it was important for you to say. Again. We all know what you think about Jackson, ok?

So it's OK if others can call him a great man, a great leader. The facts don't bear that out. If someone disagrees with the popular sentiment, then they are "rude". And maybe, just maybe, a racist.

Maybe people need to be teed off a little bit. Maybe they need to know when they are being fooled. But we can't talk about that, now can we? And ceci wonders why race is such a taboo subject.

I'm not here to make people mad, so don't try that guilt trip. But I won't stand by and say so-and-so is a demi-god when it just isn't true.




posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
It's a bit late for me to make any significant comments, but I can say that I approve of this thread. It's partly the ignorant views on race that's caused me to shy away from ATS of late. It's a breath of fresh air to read a thread about race that doesn't degenerate into flamewars and various sides whining about the others and scapegoating.


[edit on 4/20/2006 by Flinx]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
If Bush41 had not been either Director of the CIA, Ambassador to China or the Congressman form Texas, his son Neil would be doing time for helping steal $75 M. from Silverado S&L, his son Geo W would be in prison for Insider trading and anyone who thinks the Texas Ranger deal was not a payoff, cant count. What do you think Neil is doing for a living today? Read his divorce papers, I believe they are on-line.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
"Birth of a Nation" was shown in the White House to President Woodrow Wilson, a unreconstructed Southerner who had moved to New Jersey and was elected president from NJ, thus concealing his birthplace. Staunton, VA. No conspiracy, just happenstance. Pres. Wilson hailed the movie - the first feature length film - as an historical epic. The movie portrayed the cross burning Ku Klux Klan as the “saviors” of white womanhood from the clutches of sex crazed black men.

"The Jazz Singer," which was the black face proto-type, used Al Jolson as a black man singing the blues for his mother, which was of course, his Mammy. By Stephen Collins Foster.

You should have heard the brouhaha in Ky when the State Song "My Old Kentucky Home" was changed. Also by Stephen Foster, who lived in Bardstown, Ky. Follows is the 1986 version adopted by the State:
“The sun shines bright in the old Kentucky home,
Tis summer, the people* are gay;
The corn-top's ripe and the meadow's in the bloom
While the birds make music all the day.”

The original 1858 version of the song used “darkies” where it now says “people” in line 2. So many otherwise good people argued we should not change the song for “historical accuracy” reasons.


[edit on 4/20/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by donwhite
One Q. jsobecky, Why Do You Hold Jesse To A Higher Standard Than Geo W?

You like those big bolded lead-in questions, don't you donwhite?


Maybe you can show me where you got that notion from. Let's start there, OK?

While I'm here, there is a thread going on about Ann Coulter's latest book. The usual suspects are there, calling her names like "the bratty, spoiled daughter of Pat Robertson", insane, a NAZI, etc.

Funny, but I don't see them being called "rude".


[edit on 20-4-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Methinks your concern over honest preachers is feigned.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
ceci, your last post was thought provoking. You say that you get angry when you see certain stereotypes, but yet you look at them in the historical context of when they were made. That's a very healthy attitude, imo.

If we edit them out, and make it un-PC to ever refer to them or bring them up, then we run the risk of raising a generation of "holocaust-deniers". We need to build a monument to them or else it won't be long before people will say, "Aw, shucks..it wasn't that bad".



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
While I'm here, there is a thread going on about Ann Coulter's latest book. The usual suspects are there, calling her names like "the bratty, spoiled daughter of Pat Robertson", insane, a NAZI, etc.

Funny, but I don't see them being called "rude".


DW: Well, my favorite preacher is Louis Farrahkhan, if he would only quit blaming everything on Jewish persons . .



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Do You Know A Bigger Crook Than Jim Bakker? Or Jerry Falwell? Jim Swaggart? Oral Roberts?
Methinks your concern over honest preachers is feigned.

Youthinks, do you?
donwhite, you're a riot.
But we're not here to play "Sidetrack the topic".

I'm still waiting for that quote where I held JJ to a higher standard that GWB, donwhite....



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
While I'm here, there is a thread going on about Ann Coulter's latest book. The usual suspects are there...


Are you really comparing Ann Coulter to Jesse Jackson??? Ann Coulter?? Seriously! What did she ever do for anyone other than Ann Coulter?

You're talking politics, not race! I'm not fooled. You hate JJ because he's a democrat.

Can we get back to the subject. Can this thread be saved?

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

You're talking politics, not race! I'm not fooled. You hate JJ because he's a democrat.

Oh BH, that is rich! That is seriously the funniest line I have read in a long time! I have to admit, that took the wind out of my sails. Who could ever stay mad at you?


Can we get back to the subject. Can this thread be saved?

I'm ok with that.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join