Conquer Club

Ok, so I agree that her wording isn't a "racial slur", per se...it is however racially-charged. But aside from that, I would never, ever vote for this woman SOLELY because of this. My logic follows the link, so you can go to the link first before reading my diatribe:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jul/23 ... -breaking/

Any politician that considers this sort of a descriptor for themselves in this day and age to be good for their campaign is simply either severely lacking in logic skills or frankly not very intelligent. Not only have you almost certainly turned off most of the conservative base with the phrase, but also the non-conservative religious group. As well, independents aren't going to see you as very "independent" in your viewpoints, so they're not likely to take much of a look at you either. Many liberals will be turned off by what they see as attempting to use race-baiting as a campaign platform. I don't even believe other blacks as a group will wholeheartedly support her for the same reason as the liberal vote. So basically, she's really only bringing in the "stick it to the man" vote. Is that vote really very large in Wisconsin? I can't imagine that it is.

I'm sorry, but "Wisconsin Politics" isn't the most eye-appealing title ever.

Army of GOD wrote:I'm sorry, but "Wisconsin Politics" isn't the most eye-appealing title ever.

If this lady wants to get elected, there better be a lot more whitey-hatin' mofo's in Wisconsin than I think there are.

Wow, what the Hell is wrong with her.

It's not a "racial slur" but it certainly is racist. To me, those words tells me she has no idea WHAT she wants to do and the only reason she wants to get elected is so that she can be in charge of the "whiteman".

All she had to do was label herself "community activist" and she lost me.

I'll show my electoral idiocy here:

If she is representing a north Milwaukee area around Fond du Lac Avenue and say 10th-20th Street she has a good shot at being elected with a label like that.

rockfist wrote:All she had to do was label herself "community activist" and she lost me.

Really? Which part are you upset with, "community" or "activist"?

Oh and what she said was incredibly offensive.

YEAH! I am not the white mans bitch either......... for hundreds of reasons............... but mainly because I am the white man.

Not offensive, and extremely hilarious. Reminds me of a character you would see off one of the funniest movies ever..... Friday.

Woodruff wrote:Ok, so I agree that her wording isn't a "racial slur", per se...it is however racially-charged. But aside from that, I would never, ever vote for this woman SOLELY because of this. My logic follows the link, so you can go to the link first before reading my diatribe:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jul/23 ... -breaking/

Any politician that considers this sort of a descriptor for themselves in this day and age to be good for their campaign is simply either severely lacking in logic skills or frankly not very intelligent. Not only have you almost certainly turned off most of the conservative base with the phrase, but also the non-conservative religious group. As well, independents aren't going to see you as very "independent" in your viewpoints, so they're not likely to take much of a look at you either. Many liberals will be turned off by what they see as attempting to use race-baiting as a campaign platform. I don't even believe other blacks as a group will wholeheartedly support her for the same reason as the liberal vote. So basically, she's really only bringing in the "stick it to the man" vote. Is that vote really very large in Wisconsin? I can't imagine that it is.

This country, and the forum, has a severe case of stickitodamangia.

Just another example of someone trying to work votes based solely on the color of skin. It worked for Obama, I dont blame this person. This is exactly the example that has been set. I was not expecting anything less.

Frigidus wrote:

rockfist wrote:All she had to do was label herself "community activist" and she lost me.

Really? Which part are you upset with, "community" or "activist"?

Oh and what she said was incredibly offensive.

I'm not upset with it, it just isn't something I support. Community activists are IMO people who try to rabble rouse to get enough people stirred up to give other people grief to get them to give them something they do not deserve.

rockfist wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

rockfist wrote:All she had to do was label herself "community activist" and she lost me.

Really? Which part are you upset with, "community" or "activist"?

Oh and what she said was incredibly offensive.

I'm not upset with it, it just isn't something I support. Community activists are IMO people who try to rabble rouse to get enough people stirred up to give other people grief to get them to give them something they do not deserve.

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Ok, so I agree that her wording isn't a "racial slur", per se...it is however racially-charged. But aside from that, I would never, ever vote for this woman SOLELY because of this. My logic follows the link, so you can go to the link first before reading my diatribe:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jul/23 ... -breaking/

Any politician that considers this sort of a descriptor for themselves in this day and age to be good for their campaign is simply either severely lacking in logic skills or frankly not very intelligent. Not only have you almost certainly turned off most of the conservative base with the phrase, but also the non-conservative religious group. As well, independents aren't going to see you as very "independent" in your viewpoints, so they're not likely to take much of a look at you either. Many liberals will be turned off by what they see as attempting to use race-baiting as a campaign platform. I don't even believe other blacks as a group will wholeheartedly support her for the same reason as the liberal vote. So basically, she's really only bringing in the "stick it to the man" vote. Is that vote really very large in Wisconsin? I can't imagine that it is.

This country, and the forum, has a severe case of stickitodamangia.

Not really, no...not at all, in my opinion.

Phatscotty wrote:Just another example of someone trying to work votes based solely on the color of skin. It worked for Obama, I dont blame this person. This is exactly the example that has been set. I was not expecting anything less.

Oh good Lord, could you possibly be any more of a caricature?

rockfist wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

rockfist wrote:All she had to do was label herself "community activist" and she lost me.

Really? Which part are you upset with, "community" or "activist"?

Oh and what she said was incredibly offensive.

I'm not upset with it, it just isn't something I support. Community activists are IMO people who try to rabble rouse to get enough people stirred up to give other people grief to get them to give them something they do not deserve.

So you don't recognize that SOMETIMES there is a very good reason for some rabble rousing and getting people stirred up? Interestingly, I would consider the Tea Party (which you seem to support) as a great example of community activism. How do you juxtapose that?

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

rockfist wrote:All she had to do was label herself "community activist" and she lost me.

Really? Which part are you upset with, "community" or "activist"?

Oh and what she said was incredibly offensive.

I'm not upset with it, it just isn't something I support. Community activists are IMO people who try to rabble rouse to get enough people stirred up to give other people grief to get them to give them something they do not deserve.

So you don't recognize that SOMETIMES there is a very good reason for some rabble rousing and getting people stirred up? Interestingly, I would consider the Tea Party (which you seem to support) as a great example of community activism. How do you juxtapose that?

Rabble rousing implies stirring up hatred or violence amongst the masses. When you do that, its very hard to turn it off (as Robespierre found). I am not saying violence is never justified (for instance against Communists or the Hugo Chavez' of this world it certainly is). I would think long and hard before stirring up those feelings in large numbers of people. Its also important to note that even in cases where violence may be justified it may not be the best means to achieving your goals.

I do not see the Tea Party as community activists. They are by and large Patriots and small government people who would rather go things alone in most cases but are being force by a tyrannical government to band together to fix things. Community activists are people who usually want a strong central government to change things (read that take things from others and give them to them) on their behalf. So in that sense they are polar opposites. I think Jefferson put it best "a government large enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Ok, so I agree that her wording isn't a "racial slur", per se...it is however racially-charged. But aside from that, I would never, ever vote for this woman SOLELY because of this. My logic follows the link, so you can go to the link first before reading my diatribe:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jul/23 ... -breaking/

Any politician that considers this sort of a descriptor for themselves in this day and age to be good for their campaign is simply either severely lacking in logic skills or frankly not very intelligent. Not only have you almost certainly turned off most of the conservative base with the phrase, but also the non-conservative religious group. As well, independents aren't going to see you as very "independent" in your viewpoints, so they're not likely to take much of a look at you either. Many liberals will be turned off by what they see as attempting to use race-baiting as a campaign platform. I don't even believe other blacks as a group will wholeheartedly support her for the same reason as the liberal vote. So basically, she's really only bringing in the "stick it to the man" vote. Is that vote really very large in Wisconsin? I can't imagine that it is.

This country, and the forum, has a severe case of stickitodamangia.

Just another example of someone trying to work votes based solely on the color of skin. It worked for Obama, I dont blame this person. This is exactly the example that has been set. I was not expecting anything less.

I've always been amazed more black people didn't stand for president - they'd all have got in.

Is that sarcasm?

There are many state and congressional districts where black people constitute a majority of the population so I don't see how their race would harm them when running for office in those areas.

rockfist wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

rockfist wrote:All she had to do was label herself "community activist" and she lost me.

Really? Which part are you upset with, "community" or "activist"?

Oh and what she said was incredibly offensive.

I'm not upset with it, it just isn't something I support. Community activists are IMO people who try to rabble rouse to get enough people stirred up to give other people grief to get them to give them something they do not deserve.

So you don't recognize that SOMETIMES there is a very good reason for some rabble rousing and getting people stirred up? Interestingly, I would consider the Tea Party (which you seem to support) as a great example of community activism. How do you juxtapose that?

Rabble rousing implies stirring up hatred or violence amongst the masses. When you do that, its very hard to turn it off (as Robespierre found). I am not saying violence is never justified (for instance against Communists or the Hugo Chavez' of this world it certainly is). I would think long and hard before stirring up those feelings in large numbers of people. Its also important to note that even in cases where violence may be justified it may not be the best means to achieving your goals.

I'm not talking about violence...I'm talking about rousing the rabble. Getting the general populace moving. That is rabble rousing.

rockfist wrote:I do not see the Tea Party as community activists.

I am surprised to hear this.

rockfist wrote:Community activists are people who usually want a strong central government to change things (read that take things from others and give them to them) on their behalf.

No, I reject that definition completely. A community activist is someone who is trying to get the community active, energized, moving for change.

rockfist wrote:Is that sarcasm?
There are many state and congressional districts where black people constitute a majority of the population so I don't see how their race would harm them when running for office in those areas.

Do you actually believe all or even most of those black state and congressional district candidates are "someone trying to work votes based solely on the color of skin", then? Because that's what the dumbass said that jonesthecurl was responding to.

Army of GOD wrote:I'm sorry, but "Wisconsin Politics" isn't the most eye-appealing title ever.

The title got me interested woodruff, if that makes you feel any better

The b-word was referring to a female dog that rolls over, she said.

WELL I GUESS THAT SETTLES IT JUST A SIMPLE MISUNDERSTANDING WAS ALL

When I see news stories like this it just makes me want to overhaul the entire voting system. Y'know, something along the lines of everybody getting two votes, one "This dude sounds like an ok kind of guy, I would like him to win" vote, and another "Whoah! This chap sounds like a complete retard. Keep him away from the important buttons please" option.

The reason I would not vote for her is that the statement shows that her world-view is the Leonard Jeffries/Alton Maddox/Al Sharpton/Jessie Jackson model; that all socio/political world events are about a struggle between races. Since that is a skewed and flawed model, her conclusions and policies are unlikely to be any good.

Woodruff,

I think if you look up the definition a rabble rouser you will see its implies stirring up hatred and potential violence. You are better arguing that a community activist need not be a rabble rouser than that rabble rousing is good based on Webster's definition. And I might even go along with that argument, but even though I would admit that they need not be rabble rousers I would stipulate that far too many "community activists" are in fact rabble rousers.

I have an extremely negative view of a "community activist." I can't label the Tea Party as community activists because I see what they are doing as Patriot work, they are heros. What most community activists do IMO falls under my definition. I picture a disgusting ACORN worker when I picture a "community activist." Am I picturing/defining it this way to make my views easier to reconcile? Quite possibly.

rockfist wrote:Woodruff,

I think if you look up the definition a rabble rouser you will see its implies stirring up hatred and potential violence. You are better arguing that a community activist need not be a rabble rouser than that rabble rousing is good based on Webster's definition. And I might even go along with that argument, but even though I would admit that they need not be rabble rousers I would stipulate that far too many "community activists" are in fact rabble rousers.

I have an extremely negative view of a "community activist." I can't label the Tea Party as community activists because I see what they are doing as Patriot work, they are heros. What most community activists do IMO falls under my definition. I picture a disgusting ACORN worker when I picture a "community activist." Am I picturing/defining it this way to make my views easier to reconcile? Quite possibly.

And that's okay with you? lol

Don't bother playing around with definitions just so you can paint a huge category of "community activists" all with the same brush. Tea Partiers are activists no matter how you spin it.

I can admit my preconceptions when it comes to words and phrases; other phrases that I have preconceived notions on and an oversimplified explanation of them:

"Fair Share" = socialism
"Freedom" = less government
"People's Republic" = communism
"Facist, Communist, Socialist" = one who supports government control a leftist.
"New Democrat" = a leftist who will not admit their leftist views.
"Neocon" = a religious person and foreign policy hawk, who does not support small government.
"Government" = something that exists to prevent others from doing us more harm, the lesser of two evils.
"Ferrari" = a parasite