O/T: Go Git Cha Momma

On Jul 24, 4:36=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> The point? People are get of sick of being lectured about race, while
> the very people who do so with great regularity are themselves the
> biggest bigots in the room.
>

I couldn't agree more. But to use 'redneck' as a launching point of
your argument about hypocrisy is reaching a bit, me thinks.
Rednecks are PROUD to be rednecks, Tim. They bask in their
redneckicity. They promote that whole life-style. They have contests
about the best redneck yard ornaments. They have even asked the legal
question: "if a redneck couple moves to Oregon, and they get a divorce
there, are they still brother and sister?"

IMHO, 'redneckness' is a condition that is
a) adopted
b) nurtured
3) and can be changed.

It's not like it is a sexual preference or a skin colour or a country
of origin. We have NO choice as to who and where our parents are at
the time of our birth. But a redneck? Really?

True bigotry is very damaging but for chrissakes we can lighten up a
bit. A Jamaican friend of mine LOVES to go into drug stores and ask
for 'skin coloured BandAids'. That is funny.... but I'm sure somebody
will get all riled up for his making a whitey feel uncomfortable.

Things would be so much better if we just lightened up a
bit(strikethat) a LOT.

On 7/24/2010 12:09 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:
>> (very old) joke, but with one of your pet causes as the target,
>> y'all would have been hollering about the evils of racism.
>
> What you missed is that the butt of this joke is older,
> no-longer-attractive, women. Instead, you made it political ("leftie
> vs. rightie"). But that's your MO.

What you missed is that it is tiresome to be lectured by self-anointed
saviors of men about racial insensitivity only to watch those very
same people loudly express *themselves* as bigots because the targets
are one of their favored protected classes. This is not about humor, this is
about hypocrisy - a cornerstone of the political and intellectual left -
and that's *your* MO.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:50:13 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Your mother was the ugly old bag in the wheelchair. Hahahaha! You are
>> right, that IS Funny!
>>
>
>
>So, you've seen here.
>What is funny, you must be a eunuch. Anyone with any balls would use his
>real name to make that reply.

As if "Ed Pawlowski" is your real name!

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> And fundamentally incorrect. The facts are sort of there, the truth is
> not.

You wouldn't know the truth if it gripped you by the throat and chewed on
your nose.

Oh well, at least you provide comic relief, although your fractured-logic,
factually-challenged rants often become sad rather than amusing.

Here's space for you to cry about liberals and their ad hominem attacks,
'cause everyone who disagrees with you is a lib fanatic and they're all the
same rotten sort. The rest of us will install new irony meters in
preparation for your next post.

[ ]

>(very old) joke, but with one of your pet causes as the target,
>y'all would have been hollering about the evils of racism.

What you missed is that the butt of this joke is older,
no-longer-attractive, women. Instead, you made it political ("leftie
vs. rightie"). But that's your MO.

On 7/27/2010 1:09 PM, DGDevin wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:e909d319-239d-4d16-83e1-23ce711e027f@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Beautifully put.
>
>> Daneliuk is but one of a BIG handful, here, who reason backward from
>> closely held beliefs.
>
>> Sadly, he's but one of MILLIONS of Americans who do the same thing.
>
>> "Reality disconnect" is certainly apt.
>
>> I prefer the term ... idiots.
>
> I'm not sure idiot is the right term. We all tend to accept what we want to
> believe, it requires a consistent effort to question one's own beliefs and
> listen to arguments and evidence that conflicts with those beliefs. Frankly
> I don't think most people have the moral courage to do so very often. Tim
> is merely an extreme example of a tendency we all have, although whether
> that makes him an idiot rather than a hopeless dogma-driven ideologue is an
> open question.
>
> On the other hand some of the things he's posted here have been so laughably
> pig-headed (e.g. his boast that he'd never knowingly listened to a John
> Lennon composition, as if that marks him as superior to those peasants who

I would challenge you to provide any evidence of my having said this.
I certainly do not recall saying so, and if I did, it was foolish.
It is not possible to live in modern times without having one's ears
assaulted by this sort of pop ear candy.

I did say that I doubt that he and the other three would be remembered
in music history more than a hundred or so years out.

As always, it's easier to argue when you get to make up your "facts".


> listen to rock music) that perhaps "idiot" isn't a bad description.

I listen to rock music - again an overt falsification on your part.
I simply don't regard it as being particularly important. It's an
aesthetic confection - cotton candy for your ears. Like cotton candy,
the pleasure is short lived, unremarkable, and easily forgotten.


> Clinical definitions aside, perhaps "idiot" can describe someone with an
> obnoxious personality too, not just someone with a really low IQ. ;~)

You've lied about what I've said, engaged in personal vitriol and indulged yourself in
name calling ... I'd guess you should rethink just who is and is not
obnoxious.
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:08:57 -0700 (PDT), busbus <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Jul 23, 8:12 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 05:49:36 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> >> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>>
>> >> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>>
>> >I've always heard it as an Amish family.  No matter, it is still worth a
>> >chuckle even if others think it is bigoted. .
>>
>> Your mother was the ugly old bag in the wheelchair. Hahahaha! You are
>> right, that IS Funny!
>
>
>Wow. People are really thin-skinned these days. My grandmother was a
>fat, old lady who was in a wheelchair at the end of her life. I
>thought the joke was funny (but I did hear it told differently years
>ago).
>
>So what? Heck, I am a old, short, fat, bald, short, Italian guy. If
>it were told the other way around and a person that fit that
>description to a tee, I would still laugh.
>
>Holy cow. Life is too darn short to get up in arms about every little
>thing. Ignore the crap you don't like to hear if it bothers you.
>Geesh.

You seem awfully excited over this.

I said it was funny, dumbass.

On 7/24/2010 6:24 PM, Andrew Barss wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : Oh, I thought it was funny. But I was making a point. The
> : saviors-of-mankind are horrified, just horrified, if someone makes
> : even the slightest racial comment, even in fun, UNLESS it's one
> : the groups they love to hate: Southerners, Christians, Tea Partiers,
> : Midwesterners and so on.
>
> : Imagine I posted this joke, and instead of "redneck" I used
> : "African American". 'Think Lou and the other lefties here
> : wouldn't have screamed "racism!!!" in about 4 heartbeats?
>
> Well, the joke relies on the people being from a group that plausibly have
> never seen an elevator before, right?
>
> So African-Americans won't work. I'm sure some have never seen an
> elevator (same for whites, Asians, etc.), but most have.
>
> So, you need to select a group of the right sort. Get it? Picking black
> people *would* be racist, since the implication would be that they are
> vastly more ignorant than they are, or dumb as a group and don't
> understand how an elevator works.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss

One of the more amazing bits of intellectual tap dancing I've ever seen.

Well played.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Jul 27, 12:46=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> And another demonstration of the "tolerance" of the left. =A0You and your
> ilk continue to make the right look like bastions of compassion and
> good will.

No, Tim. You're just an intellectually lazy and illogical person.

This probably explains YOUR belief system.

Notice, incidentally, that I don't try to extrapolate from a sample
size of (n=3D1) Tim ... to all conservatives.

I leave that to you, as you demonstrated above.

I DO notice, however, that the arguments and positions of most fairly
right-wing conservatives ... immediately fall apart when examined for
facts and logic.

Yours ... yeah, definitely.

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 05:49:36 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>>
>> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>>
>
>I've always heard it as an Amish family. No matter, it is still worth a
>chuckle even if others think it is bigoted. .

Your mother was the ugly old bag in the wheelchair. Hahahaha! You are
right, that IS Funny!

On Jul 23, 12:04=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>
> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.

Feel free to edit it to make it as politically correct as you feel
necessary.
Or, learn to not look for offense where none was intended.

R

On Jul 29, 4:44=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > In Breitbart's defense, he did not edit the video. He played (he says)
> > what was sent to him.
>
> He says--can you suggest why he should automatically be believed, and/or =
why
> he shouldn't be subject to the same requirements of fact-checking etc. as=
a
> real journalist?
>
> Michael Moore always has an excuse when he gets busted bending the truth,=
I
> see no reason to cut any more slack to Breitbart than I would Moore--they=
're
> both just propagandists.


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Say it ain't so!

In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> Originally heard as an African-American family.

> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.

What about this then, perhaps it would be ok if the guy was an auto mechanic?

"I cannot imagine an auto mechanic trying to become so elegant as to only
use a screwdriver for all repairs."
Tim Daneliuk

On 7/24/2010 5:03 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 24, 4:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> The point? People are get of sick of being lectured about race, while
>> the very people who do so with great regularity are themselves the
>> biggest bigots in the room.
>>
>
> I couldn't agree more. But to use 'redneck' as a launching point of
> your argument about hypocrisy is reaching a bit, me thinks.
> Rednecks are PROUD to be rednecks, Tim. They bask in their
> redneckicity. They promote that whole life-style. They have contests
> about the best redneck yard ornaments. They have even asked the legal
> question: "if a redneck couple moves to Oregon, and they get a divorce
> there, are they still brother and sister?"
>
> IMHO, 'redneckness' is a condition that is
> a) adopted
> b) nurtured
> 3) and can be changed.
>
> It's not like it is a sexual preference or a skin colour or a country
> of origin. We have NO choice as to who and where our parents are at
> the time of our birth. But a redneck? Really?
>
> True bigotry is very damaging but for chrissakes we can lighten up a
> bit. A Jamaican friend of mine LOVES to go into drug stores and ask
> for 'skin coloured BandAids'. That is funny.... but I'm sure somebody
> will get all riled up for his making a whitey feel uncomfortable.
>
> Things would be so much better if we just lightened up a
> bit(strikethat) a LOT.

I wish to point out that "lightened up" is a verrrrrrry racially
insensitive term ...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 7/23/2010 5:34 PM, Stuart wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>
>> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>
> What about this then, perhaps it would be ok if the guy was an auto mechanic?
>
> "I cannot imagine an auto mechanic trying to become so elegant as to only
> use a screwdriver for all repairs."
> Tim Daneliuk
>

It was always "OK" with me. I was never offended. I was only pointing out
that the same people that breathlessly defend leftie sensitivity are
the first one in line to belittle, make fun of, or otherwise look down
upon anyone not in one of their pet protected groups. It's not about
being offended by the joke. It's about being offended by the hypocrisy.

To me, the only important things about a joke being "OK" are:

a) Is is appropriate for the audience.

b) Is is mean spirited?

c) Is it funny?


And, yes, "auto mechanic" is fine too, both in the context of the joke
and in the cite your provide.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 7/24/2010 3:06 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 24, 5:04 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 7/23/2010 9:20 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 6:40 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> I was only pointing out
>>>> that the same people that breathlessly defend leftie sensitivity are
>>>> the first one in line to belittle, make fun of, or otherwise look down
>>>> upon anyone not in one of their pet protected groups.
>>
>>> You really just MAKE this shit up, don't you ?
>>
>>> Easier to argue against positions that you WISH others held, than it
>>> is to argue against positions that they ACTUALLY DO hold, now isn't
>>> it ?
>>
>>> A-maz-ing.
>>
>> I stand by what I said.
>
>
> Oh, Of THAT, I have NO doubt.
>
> Nobody ELSE says it, though, Tim.

Oh, plenty of people are saying it, you're just not listening.

The whole kerfuffle this last month or so about the National
Association For The Advancement Of We-Can't-Use-That-Word-Anymore
People claiming that the Tea Party was innately racist was one data
point. This came after they completely *fabricated* a story about some
black congress critter getting assaulted with racial epithets -
something which did NOT happen.

Then there was O'Reilly, The White House, and the SecAg wrongly
jumping to conclusions about the racial insensitivities of an
appointed bureaucrat. The difference? O'Reilly, The White House, and
the SecAg all *apologized* immediately. The dear people at the
National Association For The Advancement Of We-Can't-Use-That-Word-Anymore
People have not recanted a single word of their bilge. Why?
Because - like most lefties - they are race baters and bigots
simply of a different stripe.

The point? People are get of sick of being lectured about race, while
the very people who do so with great regularity are themselves the
biggest bigots in the room.

And that, sir, is on the minds and hearts of *lots and lots* of
people. It's the left that's tone deaf here, not the 80% of the rest
of the nation.


>
> You just argue against straw men ... ad nauseum.

I argue against observable hypocrisy. If you think this is a
straw man, it is a reflection of your disconnection from the
debate taking place within the culture.

>
> Lovely habit.

I do think it is a lovely habit to observe reality, comment upon it,
and call out the holier-than-thou crowd that thinks they know
what's good for everyone while failing to observe even the slightest
degree of self-restraint.

>
> Not among your worst, though, I'd guess.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Jul 24, 6:15=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/24/2010 5:03 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 4:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> The point? People are get of sick of being lectured about race, while
> >> the very people who do so with great regularity are themselves the
> >> biggest bigots in the room.
>
> > I couldn't agree more. But to use 'redneck' as a launching point of
> > your argument about hypocrisy is reaching a bit, me thinks.
> > Rednecks are PROUD to be rednecks, Tim. They bask in their
> > redneckicity. They promote that whole life-style. They have contests
> > about the best redneck yard ornaments. They have even asked the legal
> > question: "if a redneck couple moves to Oregon, and they get a divorce
> > there, are they still brother and sister?"
>
> > IMHO, 'redneckness' is a condition that is
> > a) adopted
> > b) nurtured
> > 3) and can be changed.
>
> > It's not like it is a sexual preference or a skin colour or a country
> > of origin. We have NO choice as to who and where our parents are at
> > the time of our birth. But a redneck? Really?
>
> > True bigotry is very damaging but for chrissakes we can lighten up a
> > bit. A Jamaican friend of mine LOVES to go into drug stores and ask
> > for 'skin coloured BandAids'. That is funny.... but I'm sure somebody
> > will get all riled up for his making a whitey feel uncomfortable.
>
> > Things would be so much better if we just lightened up a
> > bit(strikethat) a LOT.
>
> I wish to point out that "lightened up" is a verrrrrrry racially
> insensitive term ...
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Mmm.. that gives it a different slant, oops, I mean complexion, damn...

On 7/23/2010 3:19 PM, BrownLogBase10 wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>>
>> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>
> Lets try that agin:
>
> this spook and this kike walk up to this thing made for lazy crackers to
> get their fag asses up to another floor...
>
> Oh..
>

My point exactly. Why is "redneck" OK when these other terms are not?

> Hi Tim! Hybernation over?

Oh, I lurk.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:40:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It was always "OK" with me. I was never offended.

So it was all about being heard eh?

(rhetorical)

Mark

Just a simple question:

Does that mean that ANY physical identifier, such 'Blue Eyes' or
'Blondie'... 'Stretch', 'Shorty', (I could go on...) makes it on par
with 'redneck'?
Hell, calling Frank 'Old Blue Eyes' was an age discrimination-type
remark. SUE the bastards!!!

Personally, I do NOT like to be called a Caucasian. It bundles me with
the likes of Conrad Black, Lee Harvey Oswald and Nixon. I am NOTHING
like those people.

The Good Lord, Creator of all thing Flawless, made ME in HIS image.
The rest of you are IMPOSTORS!!

I could be wrong.

On Jul 23, 6:40=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> I was only pointing out
> that the same people that breathlessly defend leftie sensitivity are
> the first one in line to belittle, make fun of, or otherwise look down
> upon anyone not in one of their pet protected groups. =A0


You really just MAKE this shit up, don't you ?


Easier to argue against positions that you WISH others held, than it
is to argue against positions that they ACTUALLY DO hold, now isn't
it ?


A-maz-ing.

On Jul 23, 12:41=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Imagine I posted this joke, and instead of "redneck" I used
> "African American". =A0'Think Lou and the other lefties here
> wouldn't have screamed "racism!!!" in about 4 heartbeats?

So...your theory on how to improve communication and make the world a
friendlier place is to pre-emptively criticize? Seems an odd method.

R

On Jul 23, 4:35=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/23/2010 3:19 PM, BrownLogBase10 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > =A0Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>
> >> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>
> > Lets try that agin:
>
> > this spook and this kike walk up to this thing made for lazy crackers t=
o
> > get their fag asses up to another floor...
>
> > Oh..
>
> My point exactly. =A0Why is "redneck" OK when these other terms are not?
>


No point in asking Foxworthy, is there=85

On 7/27/2010 1:23 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:09 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure idiot is the right term. We all tend to accept what we want to
>> believe, it requires a consistent effort to question one's own beliefs and
>> listen to arguments and evidence that conflicts with those beliefs. Frankly
>> I don't think most people have the moral courage to do so very often. Tim
>> is merely an extreme example of a tendency we all have, although whether
>> that makes him an idiot rather than a hopeless dogma-driven ideologue is an
>> open question.
>
> Fair point.
>
> I use "idiot" to describe a person devoid of intellectual vigor or
> rigor.
>
> Stupid ... may be genetic. Ignorant, OTOH, has a fairly easy cure:
> education.
>
>
>> On the other hand some of the things he's posted here have been so laughably
>> pig-headed (e.g. his boast that he'd never knowingly listened to a John
>> Lennon composition, as if that marks him as superior to those peasants who
>> listen to rock music) that perhaps "idiot" isn't a bad description.
>
> It GETS good to you :-)
>
>> Clinical definitions aside, perhaps "idiot" can describe someone with an
>> obnoxious personality too, not just someone with a really low IQ. ;~)
>
> And we have a winner :-)
>

And another demonstration of the "tolerance" of the left. You and your
ilk continue to make the right look like bastions of compassion and
good will.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

On Jul 27, 7:12=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > And fundamentally incorrect. =A0The facts are sort of there, the truth =
is
> > not.
>
> You wouldn't know the truth if it gripped you by the throat and chewed on
> your nose.
>
> Oh well, at least you provide comic relief, although your fractured-logic=
,
> factually-challenged rants often become sad rather than amusing.
>
> Here's space for you to cry about liberals and their ad hominem attacks,
> 'cause everyone who disagrees with you is a lib fanatic and they're all t=
he
> same rotten sort. =A0The rest of us will install new irony meters in
> preparation for your next post.
>
> [ =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0]

Wow.... how many chances do YOU have left with mr. Jaques?

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:06:54 -0700 (PDT), busbus <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Jul 23, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:08:57 -0700 (PDT), busbus <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 23, 8:12 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 05:49:36 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
>>
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> >> >> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>>
>> >> >> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>>
>> >> >I've always heard it as an Amish family.  No matter, it is still worth a
>> >> >chuckle even if others think it is bigoted. .
>>
>> >> Your mother was the ugly old bag in the wheelchair. Hahahaha! You are
>> >> right, that IS Funny!
>>
>> >Wow.  People are really thin-skinned these days.  My grandmother was a
>> >fat, old lady who was in a wheelchair at the end of her life.  I
>> >thought the joke was funny (but I did hear it told differently years
>> >ago).
>>
>> >So what?  Heck, I am a old, short, fat, bald, short, Italian guy.  If
>> >it were told the other way around and a person that fit that
>> >description to a tee, I would still laugh.
>>
>> >Holy cow.  Life is too darn short to get up in arms about every little
>> >thing.  Ignore the crap you don't like to hear if it bothers you.
>> >Geesh.
>>
>> You seem awfully excited over this.
>>
>> I said it was funny, dumbass.
>
>Nope. You said YOUR line was funny, not the joke.

As long as you are walking around with that broomstick up your ass,
how about sweeping the hallway for us?

On Jul 23, 8:31=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/23/2010 5:41 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 6:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 7/23/2010 3:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 23, 4:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On 7/23/2010 3:19 PM, BrownLogBase10 wrote:
>
> >>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>> =A0Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>
> >>>>>> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>
> >>>>> Lets try that agin:
>
> >>>>> this spook and this kike walk up to this thing made for lazy cracke=
rs to
> >>>>> get their fag asses up to another floor...
>
> >>>>> Oh..
>
> >>>> My point exactly. =A0Why is "redneck" OK when these other terms are =
not?
>
> >>> No point in asking Foxworthy, is there=85
>
> >> So I guess all the other derogatory terms above are OK too, huh?
>
> > I didn't say that.
>
> > =A0'Identifiers' such as 'Blondie' aren't always derogatory. Fat Albert
> > was black. What of it?
>
> So "redneck" isn't derogatory when used in this context?
>
I didn't think so, but then again, I don't have the same Liberal
sensitivities as you.

On Jul 23, 8:12=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 05:49:36 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>
> >> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>
> >I've always heard it as an Amish family. =A0No matter, it is still worth=
a
> >chuckle even if others think it is bigoted. .
>
> Your mother was the ugly old bag in the wheelchair. Hahahaha! You are
> right, that IS Funny!


Wow. People are really thin-skinned these days. My grandmother was a
fat, old lady who was in a wheelchair at the end of her life. I
thought the joke was funny (but I did hear it told differently years
ago).

So what? Heck, I am a old, short, fat, bald, short, Italian guy. If
it were told the other way around and a person that fit that
description to a tee, I would still laugh.

Holy cow. Life is too darn short to get up in arms about every little
thing. Ignore the crap you don't like to hear if it bothers you.
Geesh.

In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:


> >
>
> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>
> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.

Lets try that agin:

this spook and this kike walk up to this thing made for lazy crackers to
get their fag asses up to another floor...

Oh..

Hi Tim! Hybernation over?

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In Breitbart's defense, he did not edit the video. He played (he says)
> what was sent to him.

He says--can you suggest why he should automatically be believed, and/or why
he shouldn't be subject to the same requirements of fact-checking etc. as a
real journalist?

Michael Moore always has an excuse when he gets busted bending the truth, I
see no reason to cut any more slack to Breitbart than I would Moore--they're
both just propagandists.

Of course the clowns at Agricultural and the White House who fell for this
scam should be ashamed. Breitbart is however not ashamed at all, he's an
attack dog, he feels under no compulsion to be truthful. So whether he
edited the video or cheerfully repeated a lie someone else provided, he's
still nothing more than a propagandist.

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:

> On the other hand, the thing speaks for itself.

There was a joke in National Lampoon many years ago about the FBI announcing
they'd identified JFK's assassin based on Mick Jagger's recorded confession:
"Who killed the Kennedys...it was...me".

Carefully edited fragments of a speech that convey the exact opposite of the
meaning of that speech do not qualify as the evidence speaking for itself,
they qualify as intentional deception and to suggest otherwise is absurd.

> But I do agree that Breitbart got Breitbarted. Just like NAACP, the White
> House, The Secretary of Labor, and Milton (my next door neighbor).

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:36:03 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> DGDevin wrote:
>>>
>>> The only difference between people like you and your counterparts on
>>> the far left fringe is the color of your flags. You believe only
>>> that evidence which supports what you already believe, and ignore
>>> whatever evidence is inconvenient to your position. And just like
>>> Breitbart you'll "edit" the facts to suit your argument, as you
>>> demonstrate above.
>>> Same as it ever was, same as it ever was....
>>
>> In Breitbart's defense, he did not edit the video. He played (he
>> says) what was sent to him.
>>
>
> That "defense" handily strips him of any shred of credibility going
> forward, by claiming that he will post and promote anything that is
> sent to him without even cursory fact checking, or even thinking. The
> first thing any credible journalist would do if someone set them
> something like that would ask the glaringly obvious and basic
> question... "Where is the rest of it?"
>
> He would have been better off not trying to defend himself at all.
> This confession is a self-condemnation.

On the other hand, the thing speaks for itself.

But I do agree that Breitbart got Breitbarted. Just like NAACP, the White
House, The Secretary of Labor, and Milton (my next door neighbor).

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> What you missed is that it is tiresome to be lectured by self-anointed
> saviors of men about racial insensitivity only to watch those very
> same people loudly express *themselves* as bigots because the targets
> are one of their favored protected classes. This is not about humor,
> this is about hypocrisy - a cornerstone of the political and
> intellectual left - and that's *your* MO.

First, there's nothing inherently wrong with hypocrisy - 90% of
gynecologists are men.

Secondly, I do agree that those who lecture on the evils of bigotry are
themselves bigoted - against bigots. They must, perforce, hate themselves!

No wonder their thinking processes are confounded.

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The whole kerfuffle this last month or so about the National
> Association For The Advancement Of We-Can't-Use-That-Word-Anymore
> People claiming that the Tea Party was innately racist was one data
> point.

Reality Disconnect No. 1 They said there were *some* people with apparent
racist attitudes associated with the Tea Pary, not that the entire TP is
racist. And when you see photos of people at TP rallies holding signs that
say things like, "Obama's goal--white slavery" or "Obamanomics--monkey see,
monkey spend" or "Congress = plantation owners, taxpayers = niggars" (sic)
(and that sign was held by a prominent TP activist who was denied entry to a
TP event because the organizers knew damn well his sign was inflamatory)
then it seems quite reasonable to say that there are indeed *some* people
with racist attitudes participating in the TP.

That TP leaders have taken steps to prevent such folks from getting into
their tent (like holding rallies on private property so they can exclude
people carrying signs that would embarrass the TP in news photos) would seem
to confirm that even the TP knows it has indeed been attracting some racist
jerks and it needs to do something about that. Of course if you can explain
why the Tea Party Federation expelled Mark Williams and his Tea Party
Express after Williams wrote that blacks in America preferred slavery to
freedom since as slaves they didn't have to think for themselves or do any
real work--other than that Williams' words were blatantly racist and thus
there are indeed some racists among the ranks of the Tea Party--fine,
explain away.

> This came after they completely *fabricated* a story about some
> black congress critter getting assaulted with racial epithets -
> something which did NOT happen.

Reality Disconnect No. 2. If several Republican members of Congress had
said they were eye (and ear) witnesses to racial apithets being yelled,
would you still insist it didn't happen? But since the witnesses were Dems,
you feel you're on safe ground in denying they really heard what they say
they heard. Of course there is always the fallback position that if such
epithets were used it was an undercover plant from ACORN or the DNC who used
them, just like all the folks holding signs with racist messages at TP
events are *really* there just to make the TP look bad.

> Then there was O'Reilly, The White House, and the SecAg wrongly
> jumping to conclusions about the racial insensitivities of an
> appointed bureaucrat. The difference? O'Reilly, The White House, and
> the SecAg all *apologized* immediately. The dear people at the
> National Association For The Advancement Of We-Can't-Use-That-Word-Anymore
> People have not recanted a single word of their bilge. Why?
> Because - like most lefties - they are race baters and bigots
> simply of a different stripe.

Reality Disconnect No. 3. The NAACP has indeed recanted and apologized for
allowing themselves to be "snookered," and it didn't take them long either.

> The point? People are get of sick of being lectured about race, while
> the very people who do so with great regularity are themselves the
> biggest bigots in the room.
>
> And that, sir, is on the minds and hearts of *lots and lots* of
> people. It's the left that's tone deaf here, not the 80% of the rest
> of the nation.

Do some people sometimes play the race card without justification? Sure,
I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Does that therefore mean *all*
accusations of racism are therefore unfounded, that as some Nevada
Republicans recently announced there is no longer a need for the NAACP or
similar groups? That is of course absurd.

Even Andrew Breitbart grudgingly admitted that watching the full video of
Shirley Sherrod's speech leaves the viewer with a completely different
impression than Breitbart's edited clips created. But naturally he doesn't
have the balls to accept responsibility for using those misleading clips,
and those who believe and regurgitate the falsehoods clowns like Breitbart
spew won't give the process another thought because they *like* being
deceived so long as the deception suits their biases.

>> You just argue against straw men ... ad nauseum.
>
> I argue against observable hypocrisy. If you think this is a
> straw man, it is a reflection of your disconnection from the
> debate taking place within the culture.

Pot, kettle, black.

>> Lovely habit.
>
> I do think it is a lovely habit to observe reality, comment upon it,
> and call out the holier-than-thou crowd that thinks they know
> what's good for everyone while failing to observe even the slightest
> degree of self-restraint.

The only difference between people like you and your counterparts on the far
left fringe is the color of your flags. You believe only that evidence
which supports what you already believe, and ignore whatever evidence is
inconvenient to your position. And just like Breitbart you'll "edit" the
facts to suit your argument, as you demonstrate above.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was....

<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Your mother was the ugly old bag in the wheelchair. Hahahaha! You are
> right, that IS Funny!
>


So, you've seen here.
What is funny, you must be a eunuch. Anyone with any balls would use his
real name to make that reply.

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>
> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>

I've always heard it as an Amish family. No matter, it is still worth a
chuckle even if others think it is bigoted. .

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e909d319-239d-4d16-83e1-23ce711e027f@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...


> Beautifully put.

> Daneliuk is but one of a BIG handful, here, who reason backward from
> closely held beliefs.

> Sadly, he's but one of MILLIONS of Americans who do the same thing.

> "Reality disconnect" is certainly apt.

> I prefer the term ... idiots.

I'm not sure idiot is the right term. We all tend to accept what we want to
believe, it requires a consistent effort to question one's own beliefs and
listen to arguments and evidence that conflicts with those beliefs. Frankly
I don't think most people have the moral courage to do so very often. Tim
is merely an extreme example of a tendency we all have, although whether
that makes him an idiot rather than a hopeless dogma-driven ideologue is an
open question.

On the other hand some of the things he's posted here have been so laughably
pig-headed (e.g. his boast that he'd never knowingly listened to a John
Lennon composition, as if that marks him as superior to those peasants who
listen to rock music) that perhaps "idiot" isn't a bad description.
Clinical definitions aside, perhaps "idiot" can describe someone with an
obnoxious personality too, not just someone with a really low IQ. ;~)

In news:4629129e-6a33-46a8-bb7f-55bce21c825d@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com,
Robatoy <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> On Jul 29, 4:44 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> In Breitbart's defense, he did not edit the video. He played (he
>>> says) what was sent to him.
>>
>> He says--can you suggest why he should automatically be believed,
>> and/or why he shouldn't be subject to the same requirements of
>> fact-checking etc. as a real journalist?
>>
>> Michael Moore always has an excuse when he gets busted bending the
>> truth, I see no reason to cut any more slack to Breitbart than I
>> would Moore--they're both just propagandists.
>
>
> Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Say it ain't so!

Okay, it ain't so............they're just media ho's

On 7/24/2010 5:54 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:

> I couldn't agree more. But to use 'redneck' as a launching point of
> your argument about hypocrisy is reaching a bit, me thinks.
> Rednecks are PROUD to be rednecks, Tim. They bask in their
> redneckicity. They promote that whole life-style. They have contests
> about the best redneck yard ornaments. They have even asked the legal
> question: "if a redneck couple moves to Oregon, and they get a divorce
> there, are they still brother and sister?"
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Only if they're not the same sex.

ROTFL ... by personal observation I'd have to say that in certain parts
of the country (AR, for some reason, comes to mind) the family trees
don't have many branches.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 7/23/2010 11:54 AM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:41 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Imagine I posted this joke, and instead of "redneck" I used
>> "African American". 'Think Lou and the other lefties here
>> wouldn't have screamed "racism!!!" in about 4 heartbeats?
>
> So...your theory on how to improve communication and make the world a
> friendlier place is to pre-emptively criticize? Seems an odd method.
>
> R

No ... it's to illustrate hypocrisy when I see it ...

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:36:03 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>DGDevin wrote:
>>
>> The only difference between people like you and your counterparts on
>> the far left fringe is the color of your flags. You believe only
>> that evidence which supports what you already believe, and ignore
>> whatever evidence is inconvenient to your position. And just like
>> Breitbart you'll "edit" the facts to suit your argument, as you
>> demonstrate above.
>> Same as it ever was, same as it ever was....
>
>In Breitbart's defense, he did not edit the video. He played (he says) what
>was sent to him.
>

That "defense" handily strips him of any shred of credibility going
forward, by claiming that he will post and promote anything that is
sent to him without even cursory fact checking, or even thinking. The
first thing any credible journalist would do if someone set them
something like that would ask the glaringly obvious and basic
question... "Where is the rest of it?"

He would have been better off not trying to defend himself at all.
This confession is a self-condemnation.

"busbus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9d0feab6-ef47-4a65-a55f-8e527b42b398@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 23, 8:12 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 05:49:36 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>
> >> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>
> >I've always heard it as an Amish family. No matter, it is still worth a
> >chuckle even if others think it is bigoted. .
>
> Your mother was the ugly old bag in the wheelchair. Hahahaha! You are
> right, that IS Funny!


Wow. People are really thin-skinned these days. My grandmother was a
fat, old lady who was in a wheelchair at the end of her life. I
thought the joke was funny (but I did hear it told differently years
ago).

So what? Heck, I am a old, short, fat, bald, short, Italian guy. If
it were told the other way around and a person that fit that
description to a tee, I would still laugh.

Holy cow. Life is too darn short to get up in arms about every little
thing. Ignore the crap you don't like to hear if it bothers you.
Geesh.

There are lots of people these days that look hard for something to be
offended by. That's the reason we have middle fingers.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>In Breitbart's defense, he did not edit the video. He played (he says)
>>what
>>was sent to him.
>>
>
> That "defense" handily strips him of any shred of credibility going
> forward, by claiming that he will post and promote anything that is
> sent to him without even cursory fact checking, or even thinking. The
> first thing any credible journalist would do if someone set them
> something like that would ask the glaringly obvious and basic
> question... "Where is the rest of it?"
>
> He would have been better off not trying to defend himself at all.
> This confession is a self-condemnation.

There is an old saying in journalism about some stories being too good to
fact-check. Breitbart *at best* avoided researching the story before
repeating it because he liked what those edited clips showed. The last
thing he wanted was to find out the clips were misleading, he liked them too
much.

On Jul 27, 12:09=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm not sure idiot is the right term. =A0We all tend to accept what we wa=
nt to
> believe, it requires a consistent effort to question one's own beliefs an=
d
> listen to arguments and evidence that conflicts with those beliefs. =A0Fr=
ankly
> I don't think most people have the moral courage to do so very often. =A0=
Tim
> is merely an extreme example of a tendency we all have, although whether
> that makes him an idiot rather than a hopeless dogma-driven ideologue is =
an
> open question.

Fair point.

I use "idiot" to describe a person devoid of intellectual vigor or
rigor.

Stupid ... may be genetic. Ignorant, OTOH, has a fairly easy cure:
education.


> On the other hand some of the things he's posted here have been so laugha=
bly
> pig-headed (e.g. his boast that he'd never knowingly listened to a John
> Lennon composition, as if that marks him as superior to those peasants wh=
o
> listen to rock music) that perhaps "idiot" isn't a bad description.

It GETS good to you :-)

> Clinical definitions aside, perhaps "idiot" can describe someone with an
> obnoxious personality too, not just someone with a really low IQ. =A0;~)

And we have a winner :-)

On Jul 23, 12:20=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:08:57 -0700 (PDT), busbus <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 23, 8:12=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 05:49:36 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >> >> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>
> >> >> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>
> >> >I've always heard it as an Amish family. =A0No matter, it is still wo=
rth a
> >> >chuckle even if others think it is bigoted. .
>
> >> Your mother was the ugly old bag in the wheelchair. Hahahaha! You are
> >> right, that IS Funny!
>
> >Wow. =A0People are really thin-skinned these days. =A0My grandmother was=
a
> >fat, old lady who was in a wheelchair at the end of her life. =A0I
> >thought the joke was funny (but I did hear it told differently years
> >ago).
>
> >So what? =A0Heck, I am a old, short, fat, bald, short, Italian guy. =A0I=
f
> >it were told the other way around and a person that fit that
> >description to a tee, I would still laugh.
>
> >Holy cow. =A0Life is too darn short to get up in arms about every little
> >thing. =A0Ignore the crap you don't like to hear if it bothers you.
> >Geesh.
>
> You seem awfully excited over this.
>
> I said it was funny, dumbass.

Nope. You said YOUR line was funny, not the joke.

On Jul 23, 6:26=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/23/2010 3:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 4:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 7/23/2010 3:19 PM, BrownLogBase10 wrote:
>
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> =A0Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>
> >>>> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>
> >>> Lets try that agin:
>
> >>> this spook and this kike walk up to this thing made for lazy crackers=
to
> >>> get their fag asses up to another floor...
>
> >>> Oh..
>
> >> My point exactly. =A0Why is "redneck" OK when these other terms are no=
t?
>
> > No point in asking Foxworthy, is there=85
>
> So I guess all the other derogatory terms above are OK too, huh?
>
I didn't say that.

'Identifiers' such as 'Blondie' aren't always derogatory. Fat Albert
was black. What of it?

On Jul 27, 10:23=A0am, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > The whole kerfuffle this last month or so about the National
> > Association For The Advancement Of We-Can't-Use-That-Word-Anymore
> > People claiming that the Tea Party was innately racist was one data
> > point.
>
> Reality Disconnect No. 1 =A0They said there were *some* people with appar=
ent
> racist attitudes associated with the Tea Pary, not that the entire TP is
> racist. =A0And when you see photos of people at TP rallies holding signs =
that
> say things like, "Obama's goal--white slavery" or "Obamanomics--monkey se=
e,
> monkey spend" or "Congress =3D plantation owners, taxpayers =3D niggars" =
(sic)
> (and that sign was held by a prominent TP activist who was denied entry t=
o a
> TP event because the organizers knew damn well his sign was inflamatory)
> then it seems quite reasonable to say that there are indeed *some* people
> with racist attitudes participating in the TP.
>
> That TP leaders have taken steps to prevent such folks from getting into
> their tent (like holding rallies on private property so they can exclude
> people carrying signs that would embarrass the TP in news photos) would s=
eem
> to confirm that even the TP knows it has indeed been attracting some raci=
st
> jerks and it needs to do something about that. =A0Of course if you can ex=
plain
> why the Tea Party Federation expelled Mark Williams and his Tea Party
> Express after Williams wrote that blacks in America preferred slavery to
> freedom since as slaves they didn't have to think for themselves or do an=
y
> real work--other than that Williams' words were blatantly racist and thus
> there are indeed some racists among the ranks of the Tea Party--fine,
> explain away.
>
> > This came after they completely *fabricated* a story about some
> > black congress critter getting assaulted with racial epithets -
> > something which did NOT happen.
>
> Reality Disconnect No. 2. =A0If several Republican members of Congress ha=
d
> said they were eye (and ear) witnesses to racial apithets being yelled,
> would you still insist it didn't happen? =A0But since the witnesses were =
Dems,
> you feel you're on safe ground in denying they really heard what they say
> they heard. =A0Of course there is always the fallback position that if su=
ch
> epithets were used it was an undercover plant from ACORN or the DNC who u=
sed
> them, just like all the folks holding signs with racist messages at TP
> events are *really* there just to make the TP look bad.
>
> > Then there was O'Reilly, The White House, and the SecAg wrongly
> > jumping to conclusions about the racial insensitivities of an
> > appointed bureaucrat. The difference? O'Reilly, The White House, and
> > the SecAg all *apologized* immediately. The dear people at the
> > National Association For The Advancement Of We-Can't-Use-That-Word-Anym=
ore
> > People have not recanted a single word of their bilge. =A0Why?
> > Because - like most lefties - they are race baters and bigots
> > simply of a different stripe.
>
> Reality Disconnect No. 3. =A0The NAACP has indeed recanted and apologized=
for
> allowing themselves to be "snookered," and it didn't take them long eithe=
r.
>
> > The point? People are get of sick of being lectured about race, while
> > the very people who do so with great regularity are themselves the
> > biggest bigots in the room.
>
> > And that, sir, is on the minds and hearts of *lots and lots* of
> > people. It's the left that's tone deaf here, not the 80% of the rest
> > of the nation.
>
> Do some people sometimes play the race card without justification? =A0Sur=
e,
> I've seen it happen with my own eyes. =A0Does that therefore mean *all*
> accusations of racism are therefore unfounded, that as some Nevada
> Republicans recently announced there is no longer a need for the NAACP or
> similar groups? =A0That is of course absurd.
>
> Even Andrew Breitbart grudgingly admitted that watching the full video of
> Shirley Sherrod's speech leaves the viewer with a completely different
> impression than Breitbart's edited clips created. =A0But naturally he doe=
sn't
> have the balls to accept responsibility for using those misleading clips,
> and those who believe and regurgitate the falsehoods clowns like Breitbar=
t
> spew won't give the process another thought because they *like* being
> deceived so long as the deception suits their biases.
>
> >> You just argue against straw men ... ad nauseum.
>
> > I argue against observable hypocrisy. =A0If you think this is a
> > straw man, it is a reflection of your disconnection from the
> > debate taking place within the culture.
>
> Pot, kettle, black.
>
> >> Lovely habit.
>
> > I do think it is a lovely habit to observe reality, comment upon it,
> > and call out the holier-than-thou crowd that thinks they know
> > what's good for everyone while failing to observe even the slightest
> > degree of self-restraint.
>
> The only difference between people like you and your counterparts on the =
far
> left fringe is the color of your flags. =A0You believe only that evidence
> which supports what you already believe, and ignore whatever evidence is
> inconvenient to your position. =A0And just like Breitbart you'll "edit" t=
he
> facts to suit your argument, as you demonstrate above.
>
> Same as it ever was, same as it ever was....


Beautifully put.

Daneliuk is but one of a BIG handful, here, who reason backward from
closely held beliefs.

Sadly, he's but one of MILLIONS of Americans who do the same thing.

"Reality disconnect" is certainly apt.

I prefer the term ... idiots.

On Jul 24, 5:04=A0am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/23/2010 9:20 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 6:40 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I was only pointing out
> >> that the same people that breathlessly defend leftie sensitivity are
> >> the first one in line to belittle, make fun of, or otherwise look down
> >> upon anyone not in one of their pet protected groups. =A0
>
> > You really just MAKE this shit up, don't you ?
>
> > Easier to argue against positions that you WISH others held, than it
> > is to argue against positions that they ACTUALLY DO hold, now isn't
> > it ?
>
> > A-maz-ing.
>
> I stand by what I said.


Oh, Of THAT, I have NO doubt.

Nobody ELSE says it, though, Tim.

You just argue against straw men ... ad nauseum.

Lovely habit.

Not among your worst, though, I'd guess.

On 7/23/10 12:12 PM, RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:04 am, Tim Daneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>>
>> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>
> Feel free to edit it to make it as politically correct as you feel
> necessary.
> Or, learn to not look for offense where none was intended.
>
Tim would have found it hilarious if they were Democrats.
:-)

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:029639d5-c33e-483a-a8a0-e1c90c2f227e@g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 24, 4:36 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> The point? People are get of sick of being lectured about race, while
> the very people who do so with great regularity are themselves the
> biggest bigots in the room.
>

I couldn't agree more. But to use 'redneck' as a launching point of
your argument about hypocrisy is reaching a bit, me thinks.
Rednecks are PROUD to be rednecks, Tim. They bask in their
redneckicity. They promote that whole life-style. They have contests
about the best redneck yard ornaments. They have even asked the legal
question: "if a redneck couple moves to Oregon, and they get a divorce
there, are they still brother and sister?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if they're not the same sex.

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

: Oh, I thought it was funny. But I was making a point. The
: saviors-of-mankind are horrified, just horrified, if someone makes
: even the slightest racial comment, even in fun, UNLESS it's one
: the groups they love to hate: Southerners, Christians, Tea Partiers,
: Midwesterners and so on.

: Imagine I posted this joke, and instead of "redneck" I used
: "African American". 'Think Lou and the other lefties here
: wouldn't have screamed "racism!!!" in about 4 heartbeats?

Well, the joke relies on the people being from a group that plausibly have
never seen an elevator before, right?

So African-Americans won't work. I'm sure some have never seen an
elevator (same for whites, Asians, etc.), but most have.

So, you need to select a group of the right sort. Get it? Picking black
people *would* be racist, since the implication would be that they are
vastly more ignorant than they are, or dumb as a group and don't
understand how an elevator works.


-- Andy Barss

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

: So "redneck" isn't derogatory when used in this context?

No.

-- Andy Barss

On 7/23/2010 5:41 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 23, 6:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 7/23/2010 3:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 4:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 7/23/2010 3:19 PM, BrownLogBase10 wrote:
>>
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>>
>>>>>> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>>
>>>>> Lets try that agin:
>>
>>>>> this spook and this kike walk up to this thing made for lazy crackers to
>>>>> get their fag asses up to another floor...
>>
>>>>> Oh..
>>
>>>> My point exactly. Why is "redneck" OK when these other terms are not?
>>
>>> No point in asking Foxworthy, is there…
>>
>> So I guess all the other derogatory terms above are OK too, huh?
>>
> I didn't say that.
>
> 'Identifiers' such as 'Blondie' aren't always derogatory. Fat Albert
> was black. What of it?
>

So "redneck" isn't derogatory when used in this context?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 7/23/2010 3:55 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Jul 23, 4:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 7/23/2010 3:19 PM, BrownLogBase10 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>>
>>>> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>>
>>> Lets try that agin:
>>
>>> this spook and this kike walk up to this thing made for lazy crackers to
>>> get their fag asses up to another floor...
>>
>>> Oh..
>>
>> My point exactly. Why is "redneck" OK when these other terms are not?
>>
>
>
> No point in asking Foxworthy, is there…

So I guess all the other derogatory terms above are OK too, huh?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 7/22/2010 10:51 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Another Elevator Story
>
> Enjoy
>
> Lew
> ---------------------------------------
> A redneck family from the hills was visiting the city and they were
> in a mall for the first time in their lives.
>
> The father and son were strolling around while the wife shopped.
>
> They were amazed by almost everything they saw, but especially
> by two shiny, silver walls that could move apart and then slide
> back together again.
>
> The boy asked, 'Paw, what's at?'
>
> The father (never having seen an elevator) responded, 'Son, I dunno.
>
> I ain't never seen anything like that in my whole life, I ain't got no
> idea'r what it is.'
>
> While the boy and his father were watching with amazement, a fat old
> lady in a wheel chair rolled up to the moving walls and pressed a
> button.
>
> The walls opened and the lady rolled between them into a small room.
>
> The walls closed and the boy and hi s father watched the small
> circular number above the walls light up sequentially.
>
> They continued to watch until it reached the last number and then the
> numbers began to light in the reverse order.
>
> Then the walls opened up again and a gorgeous, voluptuous
> 24 year-old blonde woman stepped out.
>
> The father, not taking his eyes off the young woman, said quietly to
> his son, 'Boy........ ........ ..go git cha Momma!
>

Originally heard as an African-American family.

It's just as bigoted now as it was then.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 7/23/2010 11:16 AM, FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 7/23/10 12:12 PM, RicodJour wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 12:04 am, Tim Daneliuk<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Originally heard as an African-American family.
>>>
>>> It's just as bigoted now as it was then.
>>
>> Feel free to edit it to make it as politically correct as you feel
>> necessary.
>> Or, learn to not look for offense where none was intended.
>>
> Tim would have found it hilarious if they were Democrats.
> :-)
>



Oh, I thought it was funny. But I was making a point. The
saviors-of-mankind are horrified, just horrified, if someone makes
even the slightest racial comment, even in fun, UNLESS it's one
the groups they love to hate: Southerners, Christians, Tea Partiers,
Midwesterners and so on.

Imagine I posted this joke, and instead of "redneck" I used
"African American". 'Think Lou and the other lefties here
wouldn't have screamed "racism!!!" in about 4 heartbeats?



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> On the other hand some of the things he's posted here have been so
>> laughably
>> pig-headed (e.g. his boast that he'd never knowingly listened to a John
>> Lennon composition, as if that marks him as superior to those peasants
>> who
>
> I would challenge you to provide any evidence of my having said this.
> I certainly do not recall saying so, and if I did, it was foolish.
> It is not possible to live in modern times without having one's ears
> assaulted by this sort of pop ear candy.

Well dip me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians, I do believe I'm wrong
about that. It wasn't you, it was Heybub, he observed that he hadn't
listened to a complete song by John Lennon or Michael Jackson but he had
heard all of Mozart's symphonies. Mea culpa, I was mistaken and I apologize
and withdraw the remark.

> I did say that I doubt that he and the other three would be remembered
> in music history more than a hundred or so years out.

Just as foolish as what I thought you had posted. They dominated popular
music (and had considerable cultural impact otherwise) in the latter half of
the 20th century and remain astonishingly influencial today--they still sell
millions of recordings a year forty years after they broke up. Your hope
that they will be forgotten in the next sixty years is irrational given the
evidence at hand.

> As always, it's easier to argue when you get to make up your "facts".

Pot, kettle, black. Care to quote the NAACP saying the Tea Party is
innately racist? No? Of course not.

>> listen to rock music) that perhaps "idiot" isn't a bad description.
>
> I listen to rock music - again an overt falsification on your part.
> I simply don't regard it as being particularly important. It's an
> aesthetic confection - cotton candy for your ears. Like cotton candy,
> the pleasure is short lived, unremarkable, and easily forgotten.

If there is a market for being a stuffed-shirt you must be a millionaire,
you do it so well.

>> Clinical definitions aside, perhaps "idiot" can describe someone with an
>> obnoxious personality too, not just someone with a really low IQ. ;~)
>
> You've lied about what I've said,

I was mistaken and I've said so, apologized too.

> engaged in personal vitriol

You must be used to that by now, your personality triggers that reaction so
often that surely rec.woodworking cannot be the only place where people
conclude you are a hilariously arrogant ass. If ever there was a
personification of the old gaffer waving his cane and yelling at those damn
kids to stay off his lawn, it's you, Tim.

> and indulged yourself in
> name calling ...

You mean the way you routinely dismiss people you disagree with as various
species of misguided and/or wicked leftists out to ruin the nation and the
world? Why is it that your own name-calling doesn't qualify as
name-calling, huh?

> I'd guess you should rethink just who is and is not
> obnoxious.

We're all obnoxious from time to time, I would never claim to be immune.
You, on the other hand, seem to consider it a point of pride, as if being a
pompous and egotistical dork was exactly what you set out to do. Hey, suit
youself. Just don't act so surprised when the rest of us exercise our right
to laugh at you.

On 7/27/2010 11:56 AM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:23 am, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> The whole kerfuffle this last month or so about the National
>>> Association For The Advancement Of We-Can't-Use-That-Word-Anymore
>>> People claiming that the Tea Party was innately racist was one data
>>> point.
>>
>> Reality Disconnect No. 1 They said there were *some* people with apparent
>> racist attitudes associated with the Tea Pary, not that the entire TP is
>> racist. And when you see photos of people at TP rallies holding signs that
>> say things like, "Obama's goal--white slavery" or "Obamanomics--monkey see,
>> monkey spend" or "Congress = plantation owners, taxpayers = niggars" (sic)
>> (and that sign was held by a prominent TP activist who was denied entry to a
>> TP event because the organizers knew damn well his sign was inflamatory)
>> then it seems quite reasonable to say that there are indeed *some* people
>> with racist attitudes participating in the TP.
>>
>> That TP leaders have taken steps to prevent such folks from getting into
>> their tent (like holding rallies on private property so they can exclude
>> people carrying signs that would embarrass the TP in news photos) would seem
>> to confirm that even the TP knows it has indeed been attracting some racist
>> jerks and it needs to do something about that. Of course if you can explain
>> why the Tea Party Federation expelled Mark Williams and his Tea Party
>> Express after Williams wrote that blacks in America preferred slavery to
>> freedom since as slaves they didn't have to think for themselves or do any
>> real work--other than that Williams' words were blatantly racist and thus
>> there are indeed some racists among the ranks of the Tea Party--fine,
>> explain away.
>>
>>> This came after they completely *fabricated* a story about some
>>> black congress critter getting assaulted with racial epithets -
>>> something which did NOT happen.
>>
>> Reality Disconnect No. 2. If several Republican members of Congress had
>> said they were eye (and ear) witnesses to racial apithets being yelled,
>> would you still insist it didn't happen? But since the witnesses were Dems,
>> you feel you're on safe ground in denying they really heard what they say
>> they heard. Of course there is always the fallback position that if such
>> epithets were used it was an undercover plant from ACORN or the DNC who used
>> them, just like all the folks holding signs with racist messages at TP
>> events are *really* there just to make the TP look bad.
>>
>>> Then there was O'Reilly, The White House, and the SecAg wrongly
>>> jumping to conclusions about the racial insensitivities of an
>>> appointed bureaucrat. The difference? O'Reilly, The White House, and
>>> the SecAg all *apologized* immediately. The dear people at the
>>> National Association For The Advancement Of We-Can't-Use-That-Word-Anymore
>>> People have not recanted a single word of their bilge. Why?
>>> Because - like most lefties - they are race baters and bigots
>>> simply of a different stripe.
>>
>> Reality Disconnect No. 3. The NAACP has indeed recanted and apologized for
>> allowing themselves to be "snookered," and it didn't take them long either.
>>
>>> The point? People are get of sick of being lectured about race, while
>>> the very people who do so with great regularity are themselves the
>>> biggest bigots in the room.
>>
>>> And that, sir, is on the minds and hearts of *lots and lots* of
>>> people. It's the left that's tone deaf here, not the 80% of the rest
>>> of the nation.
>>
>> Do some people sometimes play the race card without justification? Sure,
>> I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Does that therefore mean *all*
>> accusations of racism are therefore unfounded, that as some Nevada
>> Republicans recently announced there is no longer a need for the NAACP or
>> similar groups? That is of course absurd.
>>
>> Even Andrew Breitbart grudgingly admitted that watching the full video of
>> Shirley Sherrod's speech leaves the viewer with a completely different
>> impression than Breitbart's edited clips created. But naturally he doesn't
>> have the balls to accept responsibility for using those misleading clips,
>> and those who believe and regurgitate the falsehoods clowns like Breitbart
>> spew won't give the process another thought because they *like* being
>> deceived so long as the deception suits their biases.
>>
>>>> You just argue against straw men ... ad nauseum.
>>
>>> I argue against observable hypocrisy. If you think this is a
>>> straw man, it is a reflection of your disconnection from the
>>> debate taking place within the culture.
>>
>> Pot, kettle, black.
>>
>>>> Lovely habit.
>>
>>> I do think it is a lovely habit to observe reality, comment upon it,
>>> and call out the holier-than-thou crowd that thinks they know
>>> what's good for everyone while failing to observe even the slightest
>>> degree of self-restraint.
>>
>> The only difference between people like you and your counterparts on the far
>> left fringe is the color of your flags. You believe only that evidence
>> which supports what you already believe, and ignore whatever evidence is
>> inconvenient to your position. And just like Breitbart you'll "edit" the
>> facts to suit your argument, as you demonstrate above.
>>
>> Same as it ever was, same as it ever was....
>
>
> Beautifully put.
>
> Daneliuk is but one of a BIG handful, here, who reason backward from
> closely held beliefs.
>
> Sadly, he's but one of MILLIONS of Americans who do the same thing.
>
> "Reality disconnect" is certainly apt.
>
> I prefer the term ... idiots.

And fundamentally incorrect. The facts are sort of there, the truth is not.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

DGDevin wrote:
>
> The only difference between people like you and your counterparts on
> the far left fringe is the color of your flags. You believe only
> that evidence which supports what you already believe, and ignore
> whatever evidence is inconvenient to your position. And just like
> Breitbart you'll "edit" the facts to suit your argument, as you
> demonstrate above.
> Same as it ever was, same as it ever was....

In Breitbart's defense, he did not edit the video. He played (he says) what
was sent to him.

On 7/27/2010 2:12 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:46 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And another demonstration of the "tolerance" of the left. You and your
>> ilk continue to make the right look like bastions of compassion and
>> good will.
>
> No, Tim. You're just an intellectually lazy and illogical person.

More tolerance. More ad hominem. More lack of responsive content.

>
> This probably explains YOUR belief system.
>
> Notice, incidentally, that I don't try to extrapolate from a sample
> size of (n=1) Tim ... to all conservatives.

Since I'm no conservative, this statement is null.

>
> I leave that to you, as you demonstrated above.
>
> I DO notice, however, that the arguments and positions of most fairly
> right-wing conservatives ... immediately fall apart when examined for
> facts and logic.
>
> Yours ... yeah, definitely.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]

On 7/23/2010 9:20 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Jul 23, 6:40 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I was only pointing out
>> that the same people that breathlessly defend leftie sensitivity are
>> the first one in line to belittle, make fun of, or otherwise look down
>> upon anyone not in one of their pet protected groups.
>
>
> You really just MAKE this shit up, don't you ?
>
>
> Easier to argue against positions that you WISH others held, than it
> is to argue against positions that they ACTUALLY DO hold, now isn't
> it ?
>
>
> A-maz-ing.

I stand by what I said. If one of the non-libs here had posted that
(very old) joke, but with one of your pet causes as the target,
y'all would have been hollering about the evils of racism.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In news:678000c8-aafb-4da9-971b-9849f136cd4c@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com,
Robatoy <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> Just a simple question:
>
> Does that mean that ANY physical identifier, such 'Blue Eyes' or
> 'Blondie'... 'Stretch', 'Shorty', (I could go on...) makes it on par
> with 'redneck'?
> Hell, calling Frank 'Old Blue Eyes' was an age discrimination-type
> remark. SUE the bastards!!!
>
> Personally, I do NOT like to be called a Caucasian. It bundles me with
> the likes of Conrad Black, Lee Harvey Oswald and Nixon. I am NOTHING
> like those people.
>
> The Good Lord, Creator of all thing Flawless, made ME in HIS image.
> The rest of you are IMPOSTORS!!
>
> I could be wrong.

If there was a women within 50 yards of you typing this, then yes, you ARE
wrong<g>