Consider that a dog could be a wolf if it weren't for circumstances far beyond its understanding.

I heard a couple pretty good quotes this week, my favorite being from Mike Tyson while talking about the power of women.

"I've had it all. I've had money, I've had fame, but if god invented anything better than p*ssy, he's keeping it for himself."

Quotes of the week anyone?

No other species? Apparently you've never seen an ant death spiral, in which an entire colony of ants will swirl in upon itself until all the ants die.

There are also cases of dogs and cats that will refuse food and water until they die of hunger following the death of an owner.

And as for the complexity of our brain being the cause of so many illnesses, I'm curious as to what part of our bodies you don't think are susceptible to disease or illness. Or are you referring specifically to mental illness?

Empty bottles were piled into the bags they'd arrived in.

The young drunk returned to a long-abandoned glass to find that that several fruit flies had drowned themselves in the remaining wine.

He laughed at their folly even though he was already neck deep.

And the President of the United States went to Harvard, you need a Ph.D. to be a doctor, and you need to pass the Bar to be an accredited litigator.

Can you make it through life without a degree? Of course you can. However, having the degree opens doors. Also, the real value of going to school isn't the degree, it's the education.

Also, you can point to as many special cases as you want, but people with an education make an average of about a million more dollars in their lifetime than those without one.

Agreed, I definitely got the sense that he was trying to make an argument where there wasn't one, maybe kick up press for his book. Glen Beck got away with calling Obama a racist, so he thought he could get away with calling Stewart a Bigot. The problem is that Beck slings better bull.

She's already made unfounded claims that she didn't think I got it. At least I gave sound reasoning. As for her background, I didn't use anything that wasn't made public in her profile.

Her whole argument is ridiculous, except for the bit about recognizing racial differences not being racism, which she originally argued against. She stops responding to people who put her in a corner.

Why would we ask the victims of racism to deal with it instead of seek to reduce the number of victims? When people become passive about a thing like racism, you get things like the Holocaust. I know a lot of people throw that out there as a kind of fear tactic, but it really is a good example here. The Jews had the kind of mentality that Rachel speaks of where they thought they could endure persecution and truly thought that if they held out long enough, things would get better. Obviously it didn't. The reason why we've made so many strides in reducing racism in this country is precisely BECAUSE people were willing to stand up and fight.

The problem is that Rachel thinks she understands racism because she's experienced it on some level. What she doesn't understand is the scale in which it affects someone's life when they don't make up the wealthier majority that had (and arguably still has) control over the government for over 200 years. She may not even realize the fact that the entire culture of the "African American" comes from racism and the fact that people of many cultures were taken from their native land and had all ties cut off from their roots. They lost their given names and were separated from their family so a few generations down the line from living in Africa, people lost all ties with where they came from.

So while Rachel knows that she's Italian, Native American, Welsh, and German, the reason why most Black people don't identify with a specific African nation (other than the fact that the borders of Africa were drawn up by Europeans who didn't factor in where tribes were located) is because that was stolen from them. The Black culture in the United States is the product of racism trying to normalize and find itself in a society that is gradually becoming more accepting. Even the way in which she identifies with herself and is a totally different mindset.

She sees a half-Black president, some athletes who make a few bucks and that we're allowed to live in the same neighborhoods and use the same restrooms now and figures that racism is just something that should be tolerated. She thinks it's something that can be avoided, but probably doesn't take into account that white people have targeted every minority in this country in some kind of large scale racial conflict at some point in it's history (and currently is doing so as we speak).

Simply put, she doesn't get it. What's bad is that she thinks she does. I honestly think that the reason finds the idea of a "typical white person" sort of out look so offensive is because, quite frankly, she might have one.

Are you joking? In my first response to you, I mentioned that recognizing differences in people of different races did not make one racist. I stated that racism was more about hating people because of those differences. Now you're coming back at me by trying to say that you see those differences and that makes you and Obama racist, but that you don't treat people differently or hate them because of their race.

By stating "If recognizing racial differences makes me a racist then ok," you show that either you just completely forgot what you had just argued against or that you just have a basic lack of understanding for what you're talking about. You're either missing the point or simply refuse to understand. Either way, I'm satisfied because anybody who reads the discourse and can articulate an argument is going to see that.

Again, thank you for proving my point. I know you didn't think that you agreed with me, but you just flipped on your own point without knowing it.

By the way, from this statement, one would gather that you believe that, typically, Asians don't pull the race card and other races are more likely to do so. That statement right there holds just as much racism and hatred as the clip from Obama that you cited. Either you're both racist and hateful, or neither statement exemplifies such things. Thank you for proving my point.

You're taking the term out of context. We're not talking about an archetype where there's a set of defined traits. It's a general term. However, there are characteristics that a white person might typically have or responses white people typically might give in certain situations in higher percentages than other races.

For instance, white people typically wear Abercrombie more often than black people or they might typically listen to country. However, that doesn't mean that all (or even most) white people have that trait, just that it wouldn't be out of the ordinary if they did. It doesn't mean that black people never do those things, just that it's less typical.

If Obama had said that typically, white people in this country are more educated and create more wealth non-white people, would you take offense or call that hateful? If not, then why?

All I heard was that he acknowledged that there were differences in how people of different races perceive things because we have different experiences. At no point did he say anything bad about white people. Honestly, you would disagree with the notion that there's a number of ways that a person could act that would be considered "typical" or "atypical" in terms of social norms?

Not being racist doesn't mean that you try to pretend that everyone is the same, it more about not hating people who are different. If Rick Sanchez had simply said that he and Jon Stewart (or he and the CNN executives) had different perspectives on life because of their background, no one would have cared.

"Typical" isn't inherently mean anything bad, just like "atypical" doesn't inherently mean anything good.

It's not just that he was saying they owned stuff, but that they were controlling the media and trying to keep certain people from succeeding, specifically people of other races who don't say exactly what they like to hear. He refers to an actual conversation with a CNN executive who he claimed had likened him to Hispanic reporter as a way to try to dissuade him from being an anchor.

So to put it into perspective, he calls Stewart a bigot, then says that the people who own CNN and other news networks are just like him, then he tries to list a way in which he's been discriminated against while working at CNN, essentially calling them bigots. Throw in a few ignorant comments about what really constitutes a being a minority and Rick Sanchez suddenly living off the sales for the book that he was supposed to be on pushing on the radio in the first place.



Because getting into an altercation with a black man in a crowd of white people and shouting "Look! A n*gger!" doesn't qualify as comedic genius.

As far as I know Ted Turner, the founder of CNN is not Jewish.

He did mention that he didn't believe that Jews were a minority. And that they didn't have the same kind of persecution engraved into their every day life in American like he did as a Cuban-American or like people did if they were Black or even women.

I think they took more issue with how he called Jon Stewart a bigot and said that the CNN execs were holding him down because they were Jews and he was Cuban.

I was going through some youtube clips and I came across an Alex Jones rant that kinda struck me as odd. He begins his rant by saying that we're losing to the country to an imminent illegal immigrant (specifically Mexican and hispanic) take over. He stated that there were 30 million illegal immigrants in the country and that they were raised in other nations to be nationalistic.

(Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qokvw2A0RIE )

My initial question was: How exactly are they going to do that? 30 million people sounds like a lot, but the U.S. has a growing population of over 300 million. Even then, our government is primarily white and sometimes overtly racist and politicians build entire campaigns predicated upon demonizing illegals. EVEN THEN, most illegals are poor, they don't vote, and they have a low rate of formal education.

However, this isn't even the most relevant form of my question, not for Alex Jones anyways.

At the same time, Alex Jones will also tell you that he believes we're all being controlled by the Illuminati. That they're they only ones with any real power in the country and that they rule over us with an invisible fist. They brainwash us and sell lies to us through the media, tv and movies. They're setting up FEMA camps, spraying poison gas into the air and no one seems to be able to stop them because they hide behind a facade in which we never definitively know who we're dealing with.

So really, when Alex says that the illegals are going to take the country from us, what he really means to say is that he believes that the uneducated minority without money or representation are going to take the country away from the secret organization (which is also a group of Anglos) that manipulates the government in it's campaign to take over the world.

So I guess my real question for Alex (or for any of his supporters) would be: How are the 30 million illegals supposed to take on the 300 million citizens, the puppet government, AND the Illuminati?

Of course that's operating from the assumption that he actually believes all of that and isn't simply lining his pockets by creating a state of fear and paranoia. Hell, if he was doing that, he could say JUST ABOUT ANYTHING and trigger a response in his "truthers" who will believe him because anyone who disagrees is naively "drinking the kool aid."

Disclaimer: This isn't to say that nothing Alex says is true, just trying to illustrate the obvious fear tactics I saw in one video.

Not true. Loving one thing never means inherently hating anything else.



I don't have any quotes but I can paraphrase because I happened to listen to the interview on youtube earlier today.

The main thing was that he called Jon Stewart a bigot and could not name a specific instance in which he was actually bigoted towards anyone. When the host suggested that Sanchez was perhaps still bitter about being targeted by Stewart on the Daily Show. Sanchez said that Jon was going after him because he was a Latino news anchor that was nearing his level and that Stewart only tolerates minorities as long as they stay in their place. Again, he provides no examples.

Then he claimed that CNN had held him down because he was Hispanic, stating that one of the executives at CNN (who he says are all Jewish) had likened him to another Hispanic reporter as opposed to a news anchor.

Sanchez claimed that he'd been discriminated against both times because Stewart and the exec were Jewish and he was Hispanic, even though neither of them ever said anything about that. When the host if he could think of any other possible reason why he could be getting picked on, the host was polite enough to say "I don't know," instead of "Because of the stupid words that come out of your face."

That is the question.

It's a lot easier to turn off your brain and not think about things in general, but we use this kind of reasoning in most things that we do.

Especially given that the word wasn't directed at anyone and had no negative connotation, except for that which may have been put upon it by whoever censored me.