CNN Analyzes The ‘Swagga’ Of Black Men
By K. Daniel Glover | April 30, 2009
Viewers can conclude only one thing from the video below: It is OK for CNN to be "not politically correct" as long as the Change News Network is singing the praises of a black president with "swagga."
Let's pull out T.J. Holmes' analysis for a closer look-see: "I mean, people notice, and maybe it is kinda one of those things you're not supposed to say. ... There's just a bit of a, like we said, a swagger sometimes that people associate with ... black men."
K. Daniel Glover is a project manager for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.
43 Comments | Post a Comment
If that had been on Fox News, they would have called it racism. I do not believe it is “Swagga”, it is just plain ole arrogance. Or as Sarkozy said, It takes an arrogant man to put down his own country (“Whether or not we in the EU think it…”).
I call it cocky, just as his Administration, look at how many withdrew their names due to tax problems or are involved in litigation. Those who did get in, two were admitted tax cheats, and he brought Chicago politics to D.C. For God’s sake, he took his wife to dinner in Chicago using Air Force One, then back to Washington.
I do not care that he is Black (African American to be politically correct, but as Clarence Thomas said, “I do not expect to be treated any differently, just as a man who has succeeded, “success is blind”.
His make up 50% Caucasian, 43.75% Semitic (Arab), and 6.25% black African which is less than the 16% required to claim he is of the negroid race which the correct term to describe physical characteristics.
Everybody who fancies themselves a “big deal” - and those with “grand jobs” which imply “grand status” (CEOs, athletes, entertainers, famous personalities)have “it” - whatever you want to call it - swagger, arrogance, elitism, showoffism, egotism - or whatever. (Check out Donald Trump sometime!) And it sure as hell ain’t the singular province of “black men”. T. J. Holmes (and Don Lemon, for that matter) often come off as “distinctly black” in the ways they present or talk about certain subjects - but, in this case, “cockiness” is a trait commonly seen throughout humankind.
But - it’s certainly understandable that black people might get a little puffed-up with pride about the U.S. having a black president.
I know, as a Catholic, I was surely puffed-up when the first (and only) Catholic was elected President - as were most Catholics - and lots and lots of Irishers - at the time!
It’s just human nature and a routine expression of ethnocentrism.
I have to agree with “Dallas” on this one..recent events would suggest only the OBAMA administration (or supporters) are permitted to make any “racially associated” observation—WITHOUT being labeled racist.
The President and media persons suggest the “Tea Party” events were nothing more than racial motivations… “I do not believe it is “Swagga”, it is just plain ole arrogance because it DOES take an arrogant man to put down his own country while in another.
Re: Post 5;
I live in the south - in a solidly “Red” state - in a solidly GOP county - and in an historically Republican city.
In fact, my county has not voted for a DEM for president since 1932 - and that was the ONLY time. My county has only voted for a DEM for a statewide office ONCE - and that was for a state supreme court judge - in 1972!
Turnout for the TEA parties was, as expected, pretty high in my county’s three good-sized towns and in its central city.
AND - there were PLENTY of “Confederate” flags and posters all around and in all the gathering places. PLUS - there is a group of younger people, calling themselves “The Country Boys”, routinely running around with all different kinds of “Confederate” symbols - on their hats, clothing, flags flying from their pick-up trucks, tattoos, bumper stickers, etc. (Real “wahoos”, all!) AND - some of them are apparently prone to riding around various ‘gathering places’, e.g., on Main Street, in front of the local 20-Movie Theater, etc., waving “Confederate” flags out the windows of their trucks and yelling racial slurs at black people (and Hispanics) - and especially at other young black people (or Hispanics).
After the local TEA parties - a couple of good ‘ol white boys were marching up and down the street in front of the movie theater with their big, red Johnny Reb battle flag - and were stopped and asked by a young black guy if they were “racist” - and when they berated and threatened him - he pulled out a gun and shot one of the Johnny Reb types. (The Johnny Reb who was shot was - actually born and raised in friggin’ PENNSYLVANIA!)
Now - my county is pushing 400,000 in population - and is attached to a metro area with a population of well over 3,000,000 - - so we’re NOT talking about some tiny little all-but-forgotten hick town a full day’s drive out into the sticks and boondocks!
SO - do NOT keep on insisting that there is “NO RACISM” in the “anti-Obama-ism” among some VERY “Red” Republican strongholds - - because THERE MOST CERTAINLY IS!
And, during the last campaign - it was VERY obvious that plenty of my lifelong GOP neighbors ABSOLUTELY did NOT want a “black man” to be elected President of the United States. There is NO DOUBT that some of the “anti-Obama-ism” that I see regularly in my very, VERY GOP area is racially-motivated.
I’ve found that those who profess their anti-racism the loudest are often the most racist.
You know - I’ll always remember one of the lines from one of my favorite old-time radio programs - “You never know what evil lurks in the hearts of men!”
Tk: RE post 6
First… I did not SAY (nor did I read here) there was or is NO racism in the country.. There is (on many sides)white people do not have the MONOPOLY on racism. and I suspect there will always be—
As a matter of fact it can easily be claimed that those who voted for OBAMA for no other reason other than he is black are in and of themselves RACIST.. ....again not the point.. the point was odd how any disapproving of the current administration is racily motivated.. even your post is highly suggestive of this motivation.
My personal opinion is all this racial smoke screening is a bit of denial Americans are genuinely not pleased. But then again it is always easier to deflect rather than reflect.
One more thing… why must you assume that presence of a “Confederate Flag” was a racial symbol and not a symbol states rights? Your suggestions are rather “Ad homiest”
By the way… the President of the U.S. does not need to “swagga”—and doing so is unbecoming, IMHO. But then IMHO it seems he is more enamored with the tapestry of the Office rather than the respect for the Office. Men come and go—the Office of the President remains.
Regards
o..yea BTW you wrote…
“....big, red Johnny Reb battle flag - and were stopped and asked by a young black guy if they were “racist” - and when they berated and threatened him - he pulled out a gun and shot one of the Johnny Reb types.”
Nice that in your county… it is ok for someone to shoot the other because he was “berated.” and you appear to approve….. nice….very nice… nothing racial there
Sounds like Murder to me, I have a license to carry a concealed fire arm, but I do not give a damn what I am called, I dare say it will remain holstered. I also have serious doubts about the veracity of the (Johnny Reb) story in the fist place. I haven’t thought of the song or name of Johnny Reb since Johnny Horton’s album “Greatest Hits” which had songs such as Battle of New Orleans, Rock Island Line, Johnny Reb, Sink the Bismarck, Whispering Pines, North to Alaska in 1956. He was a History Teacher, and sang several songs as a way to get teens to pay attention.
Do not forget the Civil War was NOT about slaves, it was about the North screwing the southerners out of their money for cotton and other crops, while the Government refused to help many of them out of poverty. When the war became unpopular, only then did Lincoln say it was about slavery. But he had to wait till many prominent northerners to rid themselves of the slaves they owned.
To say it all began over slavery would be akin to saying George Washington actually cut down a Cherry Tree, did not happen.
As for the Union Jack, the British were purchasing good from the south at a fair price; they modeled their flag(s)…The Stars & Bars after the British flag.
For CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets, it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to use the word “teabagging” in a sentence.
Teabagging, for those who don’t live in a frat house, refers to a sexual act involving part of the male genitalia and a second person’s face or mouth.
So when the anti-tax “tea party” protests were held Wednesday April 15th, across the country, cable anchors and guests — who for weeks had all but ignored the story — covered the protests by cracking a litany of barely concealed sexual references.
One question to Anderson Cooper, David Schuster, and Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garofalo, also mentioned on CNN, would anyone care to inform us how they know so much about teabagging? I had never heard the term before it made the news.
I am always suspect of such stories of “I have a friend who has a friend or I know someone who” that is used as a basis for defense or substantiation but…hey ...like I said “deflection is always easier than reflection.”
In the modern day, there are still many who simply classify the Civil War (Americas) as one that was over the issue of slavery. It is true that this issue was important in the conflict; however there were other MORE significant differences (at the time) between the Union and Confederacy that fueled the fire of the conflict.
The Issue of States’ Rights was the key and most significant issue for the war.
In fact it was probably the one major issue that led to the American Civil War. It was the dispute over the rights of the individual states. Since the war against Britain was not to far removed… the one that created the independent United States themselves, it is likely that the mindset of being able to chart one’s own political, social, and economic future still existed in the individual states, all of whom were controlled to some extent by the central federal government (Paludan, 1998).
There was the issue of taxation, which once again, was one of the factors that led to the fight to create an independent United States in the first place. Each of the individual states was required of course to collect taxes and forward that revenue to the coffers of the centralized
federal government. With this payment of taxes came the right of each state to have a voice in the House of Representatives and Congress, but some states were displeased that this representative voice may not have been heard clearly enough.-–- is ANY OF THIS STARTING TO RING A BELL….. For the American south, this was a particularly sore subject; as a mainly agricultural part of the nation, the southerners felt a sense of entitlement in that they should be given economic subsidies and reduced taxes because of the cash crops that were largely impossible to grow in the north, such as tobacco, cotton, and sugar cane (Morrison, 1997).
(As a side note Slave labor, contrary to popular belief, was not invented by the American south, nor did American southerners travel to Africa in any large manner to capture Africans to be enslaved (Adreano, 1962); rather, many of the slaves were in fact “sold out” by their own people, and sent enmasse to America to work in the fields of the south, (and EUROPE) and to serve in the households of wealthy southerners as domestic help. )
Slavery was certainly an issue that held the explosive potential to tear apart the relatively new United States- but Lincoln was not ready to go to war on this alone.
This is both on and off topic, it is what was not in the previous DHS memo, highly more detailed with specifics. It was declassified, then pulled within hours of it’s release, but some on the ball captured it and have posted the document.
http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf
Re: Post 7;
As usual, wrong and misinterpretive on most points.
Your comment:
“One more thing… why must you assume that presence of a “Confederate Flag” was a racial symbol and not a symbol states rights?”
First - relative to the Civil War, the South seceded, first and foremost, to PROTECT and maintain, as they referred to it, “their peculiar institution” - i.e - slavery. (No slaves = no plantation-based economy = the end of cotton, tobacco, sugar, rice and indigo production - ALL EXTREMELY (cheap) LABOR-INTENSIVE.)
Second - the Consitution of the Confederate States of American (as I recall, it was in Article 9) perpetually PROHIBITED any legislation at any level which would constrict or restrain slavery in any way - and the article made it plain that slaves were to be considered “property” forevermore.
And - in regard to the incident I described above - the young black guy who shot the white guy (who is, at last word, recovering) - was offended by the raucous display of the Confederate flag, was, in turn, physically threatened and assaulted by at least 3-4 young white guys and feared for his life (enough, here, to claim self-defense). Other white people in the area at the time came forward and said they were also offended by the actions of the “country boys” - and said they felt these guys were “terrorizing” black people - while behaving and using the confederate flag in an offensive and “hateful” manner.
Third - the “states rights” to which you (and every apologist of the South’s conduct) refer were the alleged “rights” of the Confederate states to determine themselves whether they would permit slavery or not - and the “to protect property rights” element of that same argument clearly referred explicitly to the “property ownership” of slaves. This same fallacious “states rights” argument was applied by southerners to the attempt of the federal government to end segregation in the South - beginning around 1948 and continuing through the ‘60s - and caused the formerly “Solid South” Democrats to begin switching to the Republican Party in droves.
Fourth - there are court decisions certifying that, in many instances, the Confederate battle flag is seen by many as a symbol of slavery, a symbol of the southern states’ attempt to protect slavery, and as a symbol of oppression to the descendants of those slaves - - MUCH the same way that the Nazi Swastika is perceived, especially by Jewish people - and by ALL freedom-minded people everywhere! (And, don’t forget - the primary protagnist in this incident - the guy who was shot - they guy waving a large Confederate flag and leading his buddies in racist rants - was born and raised in Pennsylvania - and is NOT a descendent of a long line of Southerners with ancestors who were CSA soldiers! He has no direct southern “heritage” or “family history” at stake.)
Apologists and their opponents can argue about the TEA parties, the “true” causes of the Civil War and the perceptions of the Confederate battle flag ad nauseum. Both most fair-minded people know racism when they hear it or see it - and I heard plenty of local, garden-variety racism during the recent presidential campaign - and I heard it and saw some during the recent TEA parties in my area - and - while two wrongs do not make a right - I certainly perceive typical southern-style racism in the incident I described. (It’s possible the black guy with the gun may also be a racist in his own right - but that Confederate flag waving and anti-black racial taunts came first and, to me, is the proximate cause.)
There is NO DEFENSE of slavery. Period.
And, there’s no doubt (at least in my mind) that some of the anti-Obamaism I’ve heard and seen is racially-motivated.
In any event, I’m not interested in arguing any further about slavery as a primary cause of the Civil War; that the Confederate flag is or is not a symbol of slavery and racism; and whether or not there’s a racially-motivated element in some of the more virulent of the anti-Obama sentiment out there.
BTW: The Southern Poverty Law Center has, in conjunction with federal investigatory agencies, currently listed some 960 “hate” organizations in the U.S. - all involving some element of racism - many promoting KKK-like “white nationalism”.
You two guys, “Wesley” and “Jerry”, can slice it and dice it any way you want - but there’s far too much racism around - and it certainly is a component and motivator in some of the anti-Obama sentiment I have heard and seen - and I certainly did see some of it in play in my local area TEA parties.
TK:
If never ceases to amaze me why some people can and will take the most objective point and seek to make subjective arguments.
Why one seeks to twist a discussion beyond recognition is always an article of amazement. And for that matter, the vast majority of Americans are so grossly ignorant of their own revolutionary and civil war history it is very and frighteningly easy for people to accept subjective out of context illustrations as evil as good and vice versa or fail to see absurdity of such subjective argument.
You happily and boastfully toss about your “so called historical knowledge” yet persist in revisionist history, and fundamentally ignore the issue and INSIT on making it a racial issue… and I am sure “at least in [YOUR] mind) everything that is anti-Obamaism is nothing but race…. BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE…
You toss out racial diatribe –ignorant of the original discussion– like “.. incident I .. the young black guy who shot the white guy.. was offended by the raucous display,, as if this was some sort of justification…
You toss your bluff and bluster about and then have the unmitigated gall to write “In any event, I’m not interested in arguing any further about slavery as a primary cause of the Civil War…” which upon reflection is a very safe path for you… since it is self evident you are way out of your element. No disrespect—but some might call you ignorant… but I wont for that would be rude.
Deflection requires no intellectual capacity ….
And TK——-
BTW prior to the Civil War ... the constitution was primarily for the Federal government ...that was what the War was about.. it (constitution) was made Applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment (AFTER the Civil War)....
For example the First amendment say “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, .... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances ”
NOTE is says “CONGRESS” not the STATES… I take it back you really are un-informed.
Re: Post 13 and 14;
Post 13 = Hot Air.
Post 14 = I never mentioned ANYTHING about the U.S. Constitution whatsoever. I DID mention Article 9 of the CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA - - and you go off on some “deflected”, full-of-hot-air “U.S. Constitution/14th Amendment” non sequitur (???)
Talk about “twisting a discussion beyond recognition”!
(Do you even understand any of the posts that you choose to challenge with your unintelligible irrelevancies?)
TK,
Face it, you have been not only nailed by JerryC, but your proclivities have exposed, once again.
Ok let me make it EASY for you..
1. Who in this tread raised the confederacy issue..? You did
2. Who said anything about caring if Obama white or black? You did
3. Who in the thread said Slavery was ok or NOT ok? You did.
4. Who justified shooting another human because they were offended? You did.
5. Who raised the Nazi imagery … You did.
6. Who is incapable of accuracy with objective presentation.. You are.
7. How can you even begin to discuss the American Civil war without discussing the US Constitution – you tired but are simply not equipped with the gear necessary.
You need to stay in the ‘lil kid’s pool let the grownups deal with the real issues –you simply cannot focus, nor seemly are you able to develop a thesis with an opening statement and reasonable conclusion. Moreover and when confronted you “childishly do the “hot air” “hot air” mantra. However, fear not… we will still take care of you. – BTW why did you change your screen name “Brian”?
Hot Air– Perhaps but at least my presentation is reasonably cogent, unlike your childish playground like railing of “hot air, hot air.”
If you insist on attempting to bloviate – at least present a defensible position.
now rail-away TK, Rail-away.
Dallas… appreciate the input.
Two conflicting responses immediately should suggest more thought is required.
But first, must be the thought that respectful disagreement is quite common and should be expected among intelligent, reflective people. We all know that everyone makes many mistakes, so there is nothing at all odd in thinking that the one who disagrees with you has just made a mistake this time around.
The difference is TK is never understanding of respectful disagreement—rather he always assume he is correct to the point he is fully closed minded….
so I am done have any discussion with him.
Regard
Re: Posts 16 and 17:
Hey, Wes! So you finally found a playmate in ol’ Jer, huh! Good for you. Pete and Repeat - quite a pair.
Naturally, as you’ve explained, I realize that you have to contend with nasty medical treatments and high-powered drugs which sometimes make you go completely off the tracks. But ol’ Jer, I dunno, he just seems totally befuddled.
Frankly, I can’t even begin to figure out what the heck he’s trying to say most of the time - and he NEVER responds directly to what someone posts directly to him about some issue he’s raised, some misinterpretation or mistake he’s made, some errors of fact, etc.! He just creates some totally new and misdirected obfuscation and goes off the wall from there with a bunch of (at least to me) very weird-sounding and hot-air-filled irrelevancies about somesuch and thisthat!
Anyway - he used the term “reasonably cogent”. Unfortunately, I find the opposite to be true much of the time.
But, what the hay! You guys just want to have fun, right?
Vaya con Dios!
TK:
See post 18, you post 20
A)
I dunno… it seems I have done a fair job of negating any of your so called “arguments” but the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of your would be “thesis support” does make such effort difficult at best. Many scholars would hold that every attempt to advance your capability further is simply labor lost– I agree.
“NEVER responds directly to what someone posts directly to him about some issue….” Hmmmmm!!!! Pot……Kettle ……. Black. or is this to obfuscated for you?
now..go away ...I am sure there are lots of Junior High students you can argue with…
Re: Post 21;
“Fair job of negating ...” is right up there with “reasonably cogent” on the “Statements Made That Are Furthest From The Truth” scale.
Maybe “waterboarding” isn’t really torture - but reading and trying to make sense of your posts on this thread - IS!
TK:
If you stop twisting words, and conversations, come up with something worthwhile, I will take the water boarding, at will. I have had it before, why sould now be any different?
Re: Post 23;
Although we didn’t know it by that name back then, but when I was a freshman in college - and pledging a fraternity went on all year and a “Hell Week” lasted for a month - - the pledgemaster and brothers subjected us pledges to “waterboarding” many, many times - - and most of the brothers back in those days were Korean War veterans attending college after their service in the G.I Bill.
Personally, it was done to me at least a couple dozen times - and while it was obnoxious and aggravating (like you, sometimes) - and while I did understand that they were NOT trying to kill me by doing it - with me, it ranks up there with mid-century fraternity pranks - and we went through stuff that I believe was a lot worse.
You’re one of the ‘wordtwisters” and mind-benders here, Wes - and you still haven’t learned how to be civil. So - no more “nice” for you! Stuff it!
TK RE:24
Let me be candid.. I think you are full of it… and so far as “pledging a fraternity went on all yeae and YOUR SO CALLED a “Hell Week”—- YOU have no IDEA what hell week is or can be like….. and beyond that ...I engage no more.
Pledge and fraternity hazing… jeeze you make me fall out of the chair…... ROFLMFAO
Re: Post 25;
First, I don’t think you’ve ever had a candid moment in your life.
Second, you have no idea what I know, nor anything about me nor my experiences.
Third, I could care less about your “engaging” or “not engaging” - although you apparently have something obsessive/compulsive going on about that.
Fourth, if I could really “make you” (a stupid concept - “he made me do it” - a spoiled child-sounding comment) “fall out of your chair” - chances are I’d probably keep doing it 24/7 until such time as the constant falling finally caused you to be unable to continue your girlyman whining.
Fifth, I once owned a non-emergency medical transportation service and we frequently were called on by police and other relevant authorities to transport a variety of mentally-impaired and/or mentally-damaged persons to any one of the several state institutions (“funny farms” we used to call them) which would care for these unfortunate people under “penal-medical” conditions. On those occasions, upon the delivery of a subject to one of those institutions, it was routine to see MANY of those, shall we say, “in-patients” - “rolling on the floors laughing their friggin’ a***s off” - something which these damaged or impaired persons were wont to do on an apparently regular and continuing basis. So - it’s certainly not a surprise to hear that you, Jer, were “ROFLMFAO”.
Sixth, it’s YOU, Jer, who “has no IDEA”.
(I could go on, but I gotta’ go take a leak ...)
TK your post 26: “First, I don’t think …”
I quite agree with you ..you don’t appear to think.
Second ..what I do not know is quite irrelevant– the mere fact you suggested “pledge hell week was hard” or anything more than a minor annoyance or passing discomfort; raised to the level of SERE training in that you were “water boarded” was so absurdly funny – I could not help but laugh – this was the most unbelievably funny thing I have heard in years. I have more canopy time than you have had stress.. hell week….indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Third… Girly man? See above (pot–kettle–black)
“YOU once OWNED… and were called on by the police”… Hooah!!!! hmmm impressive– someone ELSE had already done the hard stuff…. You seem to prefer it that way.
“(I could go on, but I gotta go take a leak ...)”—- when you do… one doubts it is done standing… all the stress of your fraternity day…...and all.
TK: Post # 7
“You’re one of the ‘wordtwisters” and mind-benders here, Wes - and you still haven’t learned how to be civil. So - no more “nice” for you! Stuff it!”
“No more “nice” for you?” You have perhaps been civil to me one, possibly two times out of several hundred posts. Our disagreements began when you, Brian R. Sullivan a.k.a; lauren, lauren’s daughter, and a few more (TK)? That divergence came from my comments regarding Obama’s shortcomings; you were vociferously defending his ideals. Civility cuts both ways.
Now you say you are a conservative, if so we would have been in agreement, thus no need to rip apart, and insult my posts [and anyone who disagreed with you]. I must add you have made some outrageous claims, such as your DOD low level clearance as a “Marine Reservist”. Upon investigating your so called clearance with the DOD, who do not destroy records (no time limits there which become outdated are still kept) had never heard of you, all I received from you was a convoluted explanation, it still do not make much sense. Water boarding has been around awhile, however its use in college hazing is a comparatively a new practice.
“Girly man” odd that you used a SNL skit for the phrase, using verbicide rather the true phrase. What did Jerry say to deserve an insult, or insult anyone whose comments you do not agree with you?
Or is that just “Swagga”?
Wesley RE your above post..
“me thinks thou are correct”..
I have some access to Paralinguistic Analysis tools, so I copied and ran some of the text from “Brain and TK” in the application. Analysis (albeit limited) revealed like sarcastic utterances that included more negative language than positive, more subjective than expressive and less interrogative than imperative sentence types; and frequent use of specific and like verbs, adverbs, and adjectives.
Not to mention they use the same linguistics, an eggcorn’s. Malapropism anyone? 
I am pretty sure their one in the same ...
but thanks.. I have learned not try to have (any further discussion
Dear Wesless in Dallass:
NOWHERE did I ever say I was a “Marine reservist”. You’re off the reservation, AGAIN!
I have NEVER “vociferously” defended any public, poilitical personage, including Obama, prior to the election, nor since.
I have NEVER said I was a “Conservative” - nor a Republican, nor Liberal, nor Democrat. I HAVE said I am probably “more conservative than you” on a lot of issues; I HAVE said I am totally opposed to “political and ideological extremism” and “extremism in all things”; I HAVE said I’ve been a registered Independent for 41 years and a registered Republican for four; I’ve INDICATED a distaste for the economic policies of the last 25+ years; and, I’ve indicated that I support Main Street over Wall Street and enforcement of existing illegal immigration laws - that the political commentators I prefer are Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs - and, while I intensely dislike the guy personally, I’m fully with Savage on his “borders, language and culture” mantra.
While not knowing the current term back then, I (along with my pledge mates) WAS hazed during a year of fraternity initiation with “waterboarding” (and other MORE aggravating things) MANY times - by upper-class fraternity members who were KOREAN WAR VETERANS attending college on the G.I. Bill. (And “waterboarding” apparently was used regularly in both the Korean and Vietnam conflicts - by BOTH sides - because those fraternity brothers who were military veterans definitely knew how to do it.) My only point was - - “waterboarding” is NOT as nasty as it’s currently cracked up to be - UNLESS the subject fears the perpetrators may really kill him /her - which was obviously NOT the case in my personal experience.
And, I am NOT a regular TV viewer and, in fact, have NEVER seen Saturday Night Live even ONCE in the, who knows, 30+ (?) years it’s been on TV. I originally heard the term “girlymen” used in a speech by Arnold Schwarzenegger two or three years ago as he was chastising certain members of the California state legislature for being “crybabies” or “whiners”.
And - MANY TIMES, I did try to be empathetic, sympathetic and respectful of your health issues, and especially on those occasions when you admitted your medications led you to post some outlandish comments and ad hominem attacks - especially on “Brian Sullivan” - on these forum threads - - AND - - there were some occasions wherein I ACTUALLY AGREED WITH YOU, especially on immigration and some other “traditionalist” issues. But - you still go off on your often completely un-understandable, personal attack babblings, rants and raves - some of which, frankly, I can’t even follow (see your “marine reservist” comment ???).
So, as I said, Wes, “Stuff it!” Less Wes is best.
Re: Post 29;
“I am pretty sure their one in the same ...”.
“Linguistically”, you might want to explain how your “Paralinguistic Analysis tools” allowed you to make the second-grade mistake of writing “their” instead of “they’re” in your ridiculous (and, as usual, W-R-O-N-G!) sentence above. ??? ??? ???
Pretty Jerky, Jerry!
P.S.
Re: “I have learned not try to have (any further discussion” - - - I think it’s possible that you have never really “learned” ANYthing - including how to write a simple declarative sentence. (???)
Sure you and Wes aren’t the same person? At the very least, are you maybe on the same medications?
P.P.S.
AND - you DID SAY ABOVE that “Brain and TK” are THE SAME didn’t you!?!? Gee, THANKS! I appreciate that you finally recognize the superiority of my intelligence and are willing to respect some of my thoughts on things.! Thanks, again, Jer! Have a wonderful weekend!
Wess - RE: your post 30
Let it go dude.
TK, (Aka Brian et.al) as you Wess, correctly stated, has been vociferous- but that is fine. However when cannot persuade, he “hates” –- and is all over the place… check out his diatribe in the discussion “Obama Stimulus Jobs No. Deceiving”- so let it go.
BTW And since they are the same person… one is a serious liar and blow-hard ..which means both liars and blow-hard.
later!!
TK.. in 31 are you really an idiot or just that arrogant?
in my text the preceding statement to the one you referenced was:
“—-Malapropism anyone? smile”—
it was followed by: “I am pretty sure their one in the same ...”
IT WAS making FUN of you ... note the word “Malapropism”.. what a pontificating idiot….
like I said… “the peril of arguing with an idiot…..”
And to the REST of the forum readers (moderator included), I apologize—in advance—for the “idiot” reference—some people have legitimate developmental issue and therefore an excuse. Others.. well ‘nuff said.
I believe this thread has run its course. When I have the time however, I will find you DOD posts.
Next time everyone…maybe. Hope all has a nice Mother’s Day.
Post 32, 33 and 34;
Jerry, with all due respect and in truth, most of your obsessive-compulsive posts here directed at me - even forgetting your oft-tortured style - are generally unintelligible to me. Sincerely, much of the time, I have absolutely no idea what it is that you’re supposedly trying to say - other than to obnoxiously disagree with whatever I might say, using whatever nebulous and esoteric verbiage you can come up with, and using whatever name-calling and personal insults you feel you can get away with.
Just right here - you advise Wes to “let it go” - and, then, you continue to rant on mostly unintelligibly for three more consecutive posts - even apologizing to the moderator and readers for insulting me because, according to you, I have “legitimate developmental issue”.
Jerry, you and Wes are the guys that may have some “issues” here - and, frankly, you might want to re-read some of your diatribes at me because, rather than those posts making me angry, they have often made me feel embarrassed - for YOU!
And - your comment: “However when cannot persuade, he “hates”...”
I’ve never personally “hated” anyone or anything in my whole life - but it is obvious that you probably do “hate” anyone and anything that does not correspond to your way of thinking, your perspective and your version of “reality”. It seems to me that your posts solely aimed at dumping on me more than prove the point. (?)
And - your comment: “TK, (Aka Brian et.al)” ...
Wes has been cranking out this supposedly “proven”, yet very erroneous, paranoidal theory, or whatever it is, since late last summer - and, now, you’ve jumped on his always-off-key bandwagon as a result, apparently, of using your own “paralinguistic analysis tools” to verify Wes’ theory!
For the life of me, I can’t understand why ANYONE would waste even a minute worrying whether Poster A and Poster B “might” be the “same” person - - but, since you and Wes apparently share this among your varied obsessions and compulsions - - ASK THE A.I.M. MODERATOR! He or she or they should be readily able to confirm - - YOU ARE WRONG!
And - IF “Brian Sullivan” and I WERE the SAME person posting here under two different handles - don’t you think I’d have already conjured up another alter to replace him so I could “bug you two” the same as I had appaently been doing for the last nine or ten months or so! You two guys are so far out in left field you’re going to need a bus or a taxi to get back to home plate.
And - your comment: “IT WAS making FUN of you ...”
Jer, in your own words, this statement is a direct admission on your part that you’re purposely attacking my person - making fun of me, PERONALLY - a prima facie ad hominem attack! That’s against A.I.M.s rules, here, don’t you know that?
Don’t worry though! I feel bad for you - and I won’t insist that the Moderator bump you off!
And, I’ll tell you something else: I had my own back and forth, and very heated arguments with “Brian Sullivan” here on many occasions - - and while he was way, Way, W-A-Y more knowledgeable and factually accurate than you and Wes could EVER be - - you are by F-A-R a much, MUCH B-I-G-G-E-R pain in the a** than he was because - whereas he was hammer-like with an occasional one or two quick smacks - you’re more the pea under the mattress type - endlessly nagging, ragging, bugging - but, still, not really worth waking up in the middle of the night and moving the mattress in order to find the source of the aggravation.
And - do you EVER really believe ...“‘nuff said”?
It’s too bad you feel the need to bounce off the walls and get all wound up because you don’t happen to agree with my perspectives on certain things - or what you THINK are my perspectives on certain things - but calling me “liar”, “idiot”, or the object of “development issues” is certainly NOT going to change my perspectives - nor get me to respect much of anything else you may have to say - nor to respect you as a person.
Wes was doing the same kind of thing you are some months back, especially against “Brian Sullivan” - and he ultimately explained it as the result of the stress of serious health issues and enduring treatments and strong medications. If that should be your case, also, then you have my genuine sympathy - and my respect for your struggle.
As I said above, have a nice weekend.
Mr T.K.
Lead in….A doctor tells his/her patient to lose weight, and the patient thinks: “If my doctor really believed that, he/she wouldn’t be so fat.” You “no/go” a blogger because you think they are Right Wing, etc. You name it: Democrat, Re-publican, Christian or atheist. Such examples illustrate classic uses of ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.
Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter. Rather than concentrating on an individual’s character, we should, in these cases, be asking ourselves questions such as, Is the doctor’s advice medically sound?
Although ad hominem arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, according to a new book, “Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments.
Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirect¬ly related to the point being articulated.
In reading the entire thread it appears rather apparent who frequent transgressor is. In this thread it began with your commentary in number 6. In that particular narrative you asserted some significantly broad assumptions as fact. The very idea suggesting an assumption as fact is counter intuitive. Some other writers challenged you. Your response was more like “Yeah? So’s your old man….”
This is more of the classic comeback that we might think about when we hear the word “argument.” We think of a heated discussion of something, maybe ending in name-calling or even shoving. But a semi-academic argument is something different. The name-calling is more polite, and there’s not much shoving, ok I am kidding a little.
The purpose of argument, in an academic setting, is to analyze an issue or a situation and to make a case for your point of view, to convince your reader or listener of the truth of something. Perhaps you might consider this in the future.
I should add, not to disparage but to inform, it is clear in this thread no one appears to be a professional editor. YOUR frequent use of split infinitives, dangling participle, ending of sentences with prepositions in concert with poor word use suggest, at least to me, a disingenuousness for you to criticize others.
For whatever benefit you will derive from another’s observation.
Re: Bystander-1;
Your comment:
“The purpose of argument, in an academic setting, is to analyze an issue or a situation and to make a case for your point of view, to convince your reader or listener of the truth of something.”
This is probably more-or-less true in a truly “acadmic setting”. But, this is certainly NOT an academic setting - and I am definitely NOT interested in “argument” or arguing (whether of the “heated” or “academic” sort).
My simple purpose in being here is to see what OPINIONS a variety of people may espouse on the issues raised in this forum - and to offer my own personal OPINION from time-to-time. I have no interest here to “convince” anyone of anything or to establishing “the truth of something” - especially since this latter activity, at least herein, is nigh impossible since much of the commenting here is based on topics and subjects which, by their very nature, are subjective and open to almost limitless interpretation based on personal philosophies, perspectives, level of knowledge, etc. You know ... “Arizona is too hot!” ... “Alaska is too cold!” ... blah, blah, blah.
Almost everything posted here is primarily personal opinion, personal interpretation, or reflective of personal predilections, prejudices, biases and/or perspectives on what is, in the first place, often a naturally subjective issue or topic.
Your comment:
“YOUR frequent use of split infinitives, dangling participle, ending of sentences with prepositions in concert with poor word use suggest, at least to me, a disingenuousness for you to criticize others.”
See what I mean?
(And, by the way, you might want work on your own spelling.)
If in an academic setting, you mean by higher education, re: A university, my days at my chosen university were far less liberal than in the past several years.
When my son attended his university, even in unrelated classes to Political Science, was being indoctrinated into the far left (socialists) views.
Just as he should have, ignored their many of their ideals. He had his own views and compared them to what was being said to fairly weigh them. He believed he was on his own track, therefore tuning out the rest as his interest was an education, not some professor’s views. Although he knew how to play the game in order to receive his proper grades, I find this to be distressing, disturbing to be in today’s academia. However, he did graduate with a GPA of 3.9, a shame as he disagreed with a Professor on an essay.
TK to Bystander-1:
“(And, by the way, you might want work on your own spelling.)”
YOU misspelled acadmic in, “This is probably more-or-less true in a truly “acadmic setting”.
*And in post #36, “paranoidal” is not even a word, then you misspelled “appaently”, should have been: “apparently” in “...“bug you two” the same as I had apparently been doing for the last nine or ten months or so! “.
If you are going to criticize, you should be correct yourself.
Re: Post 40:
Look who’s talking!
Pick any one of your posts and check it out Wes. Much of the time I can’t even firgure out what you’re TRYING to say.
<laughing>, that is your problem, everyone else understands, so what is you excuse? And note, the spelling (which was the subject) is correct.
Re: Post 42;
No excuse, Wes. Don’t need one. Frequently, I just don’t really understand a lot of the Norm Crosby-type stuff you post. If you’re sure other people dig it, more power to them. And, I do understand you have health and medication issues that may come into play - so, let’s just agree that we will NEVER see eye-to-eye - and leave it at that.
April 30 at 9:26 pm | #1 | Link
In the “Bonfires of the Vanities” Thomas Wolfe was less eloquent and rather then the “swagga” referred to it as the “pimp roll”.