WARNING - Do NOT enter this thread if you are easily "offended" by words.

[LesterM]

I am amazed that people think that putting disclaimers on racist remarks makes them any less offensive or that the silence of good men to stand up to such blatent hate speech is acceptable . I know this matters to no one but until these racist remarks stop i must withdraw any further participation

 

[mitch768292]

I am amazed that people think that putting disclaimers on racist remarks makes them any less offensive or that the silence of good men to stand up to such blatent hate speech is acceptable . I know this matters to no one but until these racist remarks stop i must withdraw any further participation

Perhaps you did not notice the title to this thread:

WARNING - Do NOT enter this thread if you are easily "offended" by words.

What part of that sentence did you not understand?

 

[mitch768292]

I am amazed that people think that putting disclaimers on racist remarks makes them any less offensive or that the silence of good men to stand up to such blatent hate speech is acceptable . I know this matters to no one but until these racist remarks stop i must withdraw any further participation

 

[mitch768292]

Huhrump....(clearing throat)....

I just don't know if I can continue to participate with communistic speech being spewed by CERTAIN PEOPLE and I am appaled that good men have not come forward to shout it down and hound the rascals from civilization. This is intolerable. (pause for effect) The very idea that someone would dare exercise their first amendment rights, unthinkable! I am disgusted. How dare they express a thought that I personally don't like. We all know that you cannot write anything that I don't personally approve of. I am going to pick up my toys and go home.

(mustering my best puckered face look, as though I just let a nasty fart)



ROFLMAO!





Yes gentlemen, this is all tongue in cheek.

 

[mitch768292]

I am amazed that people think that putting disclaimers on racist remarks makes them any less offensive or that the silence of good men to stand up to such blatent hate speech is acceptable . I know this matters to no one but until these racist remarks stop i must withdraw any further participation

Does "racist" = truth teller?

 

[mitch768292]

I am amazed that people think that putting disclaimers on racist remarks makes them any less offensive or that the silence of good men to stand up to such blatent hate speech is acceptable . I know this matters to no one but until these racist remarks stop i must withdraw any further participation

Go start a communist thread for you and your like minded buddies. That seems the logical thing to do, does it not?

May God Bless and keep you,

all my love,

Mitch!

 

[mitch768292]

I am amazed that people think that putting disclaimers on racist remarks makes them any less offensive or that the silence of good men to stand up to such blatent hate speech is acceptable . I know this matters to no one but until these racist remarks stop i must withdraw any further participation

hey, wait a minute, you forgot your flag....

 

[mitch768292]

 

[Jayman01]

I think you are stirring the pot way too much mister...

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.


Please don't let it blow up in your face...

 

[parisnoyd]

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.


Please don't let it blow up in your face...

For some pervy reason, I read snake, and saw the explosion! I'm sure the rest was very nice, too.

 

[mitch768292]

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation."

 

[mikeyank]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesterM View Post
I am amazed that people think that putting disclaimers on racist remarks makes them any less offensive or that the silence of good men to stand up to such blatent hate speech is acceptable . I know this matters to no one but until these racist remarks stop i must withdraw any further participation

Go start a communist thread for you and your like minded buddies. That seems the logical thing to do, does it not?

May God Bless and keep you,

all my love,

Mitch!

Mitch. I had said that I would TRY not to comment on your political threads, as we are so diametrically opposed in our beliefs, unless I felt a compelling need to comment. Well here it is. Why do you believe that the opposite of "racist remarks" and "blatant hate speech", (which Lester commented on) is "a communist thread for you and your like minded buddies"?

I abhor racism, but in no way do I believe I am a communist. I try to be a fair minded person, who believes in our constitution, and is in favor of all people having equal rights.

Respectfully,

Mike

 

[mitch768292]

Part 2 of 2 of my message to Mike

Anytime you find naive white Americans who refuse to believe anything, regardless of truth, that "offends" negroes, they are usually persons with left wing views that will be similar if not identical to those of the communist, not just on race but on many other issues such as government control of everything and confiscating wealth to re-distribute, planned and government controlled production and state ownership of capital. All of those views usually, not always, but usually go hand in hand.
When somebody starts throwing out that silly word "racist" I am going to come back with the equally offensive (at least to some) and maybe not totally accurate word, "communist."
The term "racist," and again I must say, it is so overused as to have lost any meaning, is a term most frequently uttered from the mouths of people on the left. "Communist" is an adjective usually coming from the mouths of people on the right. I find that when somebody is called "racist" it usually means they are telling the truth about something and blacks don't like that particular truth.
Yesterday I read an article in the WSJ that clearly illustrates my point. In Detroit their convention center is falling apart. They risk losing the annual auto show to the city of Chicago. They asked the state to pick up the tab, some $240 million I believe, to renovate the center. The state said OK, we will get the money but the ownership and control of the center has to be turned over to a regional (3 county authority). SO typical was the response of the black city council. "Racism!" they declared. Whitey is trying to take away the convention center so they can share the revenue with the suburbs. When suburban local governments in the three counties around Detroit were asked to tax their citizens to renovate Detroit’s convention center, they said OK. BUT, we want our people to get some of the jobs and some of the building contracts. Again, the black city council cried "Racism!" They want the white people to pay for their convention center but get no benefit from it and have no control over it. So goddamn typical. I could go and on with example after example. They have become the "boy who cried wolf." It is expected nowadays that when you say something that you know they will not like, such as "We need to build more prisons and have mandatory sentencing" they are going to scream "racism." Did it ever occur to them that maybe we just want to make the world safer for us and them?
I am glad that you are not a communist. I too believe in equal rights, but not special rights and privileges bestowed on a select few by the government. I believe that we are guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal results in life. With equal opportunity comes the opportunity to fail as well as succeed. I don't believe that skin color gives a group carte blanche to ignore the law and the rules of civilized society, nor does it give them any entitlements to any more than the rest of the citizenry.

Thanks for asking Mike. I hope through discourse like this we can all educate each other and walk away knowing more than when we entered.

all the best,

Mitch

 

[mitch768292]

Part 1 of 2 of my message to Mike


Good morning Mike,
I am glad that you are here. You have a brain and you don't mind speaking up. I admire that and I respect you for it. Most importantly you are an advocate of free speech, a rare attribute amongst liberals these days. And I want you to come on in and give an opinion anytime you want to. The first amendment belongs to you too.
I detest the "R" word with all of its negative connotations. It is a much over used word that seems to be thrown at anybody who does anything that negroes don't like. If you are against crime then you are a "racist." If you are against corruption in black dominated city governments, then you are a "racist," if one is pro second amendment, then you are a "racist." If you are opposed to racial quotas and favoritism, then you are a "racist." One member has indirectly called me that because I pointed out, factually, the problems with crime in our schools, ineffective and inefficient local government, and wasteful city spending tied to widespread political corruption and fraud, therefore I must be a "racist." I think that member's problem is that he is so pro-black and anti-white that he will not stop to consider that what I wrote, from firsthand knowledge, is simply true. And it is true in many big cities across the nation.
But let me give you a straight answer to your good and thoughtful question. Historically, and we know this from intelligence data gathered all the way back to the 40's by the FBI, the communists (i.e. Soviets and their minions) considered racial strife a wonderful way to the give America and Britain a headache if nothing else. They knew that stirring up racial tension would cause untold civil unrest, as it certainly did. They actively, even using KGB money funneled through their embassy in D.C., sought to encourage and instigate pro-negro activities, i.e. "civil rights," and eventually full scale rioting, which you and I both remember very vividly I am sure. The FBI has a stack of files a mile high documenting MLK's association with communists and taking money funneled through from communist sources. The American Communist party always backed anti-white demonstrations, propaganda, and legislation. Many lawyers associated with so called "civil rights" lawsuits were well known lift wingers with ties to communists and the official American Communist Party apparatus. The Soviets did the same thing in South Africa, indeed throughout all of Africa, to cause the same headaches for France and Britain during the Cold War.

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about, pulled from Wikipedia:

"The (communist) party's most widely reported work in the South was its defense, through the ILD, of the "Scottsboro Boys", nine black men arrested in 1931 after a fight with some white men also riding the rails, then convicted and sentenced to death for raping two white women dressed in men's clothes later found on the same train. None of the defendants had shared the same boxcar as either of the women they were charged with raping.
The International Labor Defense was the first to offer its assistance. William L. Patterson, a black attorney who had left behind a successful practice to join the Communist Party, returned from training in the Soviet Union to run the ILD. After fierce disputes with the NAACP, with the ILD seeking to mount a broad-based political campaign to free the nine while the NAACP followed a more legalistic strategy, the ILD took control over the defendants' appeals.
The ILD successfully overturned their convictions on appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which held in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) that the State's failure to provide the defendants with counsel in a capital case violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The ILD's battles with the NAACP continued when the cases returned to Alabama for retrial, when the NAACP blamed the ILD for the conviction and death sentence handed down by the jury in the retrial of the lead defendant. While the NAACP later backtracked and agreed to join with the ILD in defending the nine after other black organizations and a number of NAACP branches attacked it for that position, the tensions never disappeared and the ILD retained control of the second round of appeals. It won reversals of these convictions in Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935) on the ground that the exclusion of blacks from the jury pool had violated the defendants' constitutional rights. Even so, all of the defendants were convicted on their third retrial.
The Scottsboro defense was only one of the ILD's many cases in the South at that time: it also defended Angelo Herndon, a Communist Party activist sentenced to death by the State of Georgia for treason for his advocacy of national self-determination for blacks in the black belt, while demanding retribution for lynching and due process for criminal defendants. For a period of time in the early and mid-1930s the ILD was the most active defender of blacks' civil rights in the South and the most popular party organization among African-Americans.
The League of Struggle for Negro Rights, founded in 1930 as the successor to the ANLC, was particularly active in organizing support for the Scottsboro defendants. It also campaigned for a separate black nation in the South and against police brutality and Jim Crow laws, while also advocating a more general policy of opposition to fascism and support for the Soviet Union.
During the Popular Front era the party attracted support from a number of the brightest lights in African-American literature, including Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, Chester Himes, some of whom joined the party, only to break with it in later years. Paul Robeson, a vocal defender of the Soviet Union, apparently never joined the party, but was loyal to it, offering to join it in the early 1950s when the government was trying the party’s national leaders for violation of the Smith Act.
The Communist Party also took up less earthshaking issues. The party’s newspaper, The Daily Worker, started agitating for integration of major league baseball in the mid-1930s. The party also made a point of integrating its dances and other social events and continued to ostracize and expel members accused of "white chauvinism"."

 

[slimvintage]

I'm not posting here in response to any specific ideas expressed in the thread, but just doing some Saturday musing on themes I've noticed over the last few days. So this is some of the stuff I think about some of the drift I've been noticing on the forum's more theoretical threads lately. To start with, Symbols.

The far right had it's apogee in Hitler's Germany. Many right wing extremists, at the popular level, identify themselves with symbols like the swastica, the skull and crossbones, even, mistakenly, with the Confederate Flag. The left likes the Peace symbol, and the far left may still use the hammer and sickle to identify their cause. The far left and the far right are mainly discredited elements of mainstream political thought, the adherents of which wouldn't be pleased to be identified with extremist symbols.

Another thing I think, and this is because of my age: I find it tiresome to have to respond to the same retrograde ideas time and again year after year. During the winter I read David McCullough's excellent John Adams, written about a time when the states were obliged to come together to form a fledgling nation. The southern states were leery about throwing their lot with a bunch of anti-slavery puritans even then. Over time the whole idea of slavery became repugnant and shameful even in the south, where apart from prejudice, important and understandable economic concerns were in play. All that is thankfully over, and the stench that emanated from the discredited philosophy that blacks were inferior to whites has long since blown away, away.

You guys who are so incensed by examples of government corruption surely know that politicians are often dishonest people and US politics is sometimes a dirty business. Just a fact. And not in any way apocalyptic since there are functioning mechanisms to get rid of the crooks. These sometimes work frustratingly slowly, but even that is defensible since judicial mistakes create instability. I hope that the terrible municipal abuses which so infuriate Mitch will, with the help of vocal whistle blowers like him, be eventually remedied. I personally don't think he does his cause a favor by flavoring his perfectly defensible complaints with what could be construed by suspicious people as anti-black rhetoric. That shit is so boringly passé. And unproductive. When you're trying to get something done, you want to keep from sounding wildly out of touch, since a lot of people are so dismissive of crazies.

It's a beautiful day. I'm gonna get out for a run. Wish you could join me.

 

[mitch768292]

I'm not posting here in response to any specific ideas expressed in the thread, but just doing some Saturday musing on themes I've noticed over the last few days. So this is some of the stuff I think about some of the drift I've been noticing on the forum's more theoretical threads lately. To start with, Symbols.

The far right had it's apogee in Hitler's Germany. Many right wing extremists, at the popular level, identify themselves with symbols like the swastica, the skull and crossbones, even, mistakenly, with the Confederate Flag. The left likes the Peace symbol, and the far left may still use the hammer and sickle to identify their cause. The far left and the far right are mainly discredited elements of mainstream political thought, the adherents of which wouldn't be pleased to be identified with extremist symbols.

Another thing I think, and this is because of my age: I find it tiresome to have to respond to the same retrograde ideas time and again year after year. During the winter I read David McCullough's excellent John Adams, written about a time when the states were obliged to come together to form a fledgling nation. The southern states were leery about throwing their lot with a bunch of anti-slavery puritans even then. Over time the whole idea of slavery became repugnant and shameful even in the south, where apart from prejudice, important and understandable economic concerns were in play. All that is thankfully over, and the stench that emanated from the discredited philosophy that blacks were inferior to whites has long since blown away, away.

You guys who are so incensed by examples of government corruption surely know that politicians are often dishonest people and US politics is sometimes a dirty business. Just a fact. And not in any way apocalyptic since there are functioning mechanisms to get rid of the crooks. These sometimes work frustratingly slowly, but even that is defensible since judicial mistakes create instability. I hope that the terrible municipal abuses which so infuriate Mitch will, with the help of vocal whistle blowers like him, be eventually remedied. I personally don't think he does his cause a favor by flavoring his perfectly defensible complaints with what could be construed by suspicious people as anti-black rhetoric. That shit is so boringly passé. And unproductive. When you're trying to get something done, you want to keep from sounding wildly out of touch, since a lot of people are so dismissive of crazies.

It's a beautiful day. I'm gonna get out for a run. Wish you could join me.

I am trying not explode. Wanna be a eunuch?

You are so damn lucky that I love you!


HUGS AND KISSES BABY!

 

[mitch768292]

I'm not posting here in response to any specific ideas expressed in the thread, but just doing some Saturday musing on themes I've noticed over the last few days. So this is some of the stuff I think about some of the drift I've been noticing on the forum's more theoretical threads lately. To start with, Symbols.

The far right had it's apogee in Hitler's Germany. Many right wing extremists, at the popular level, identify themselves with symbols like the swastica, the skull and crossbones, even, mistakenly, with the Confederate Flag. The left likes the Peace symbol, and the far left may still use the hammer and sickle to identify their cause. The far left and the far right are mainly discredited elements of mainstream political thought, the adherents of which wouldn't be pleased to be identified with extremist symbols.

Another thing I think, and this is because of my age: I find it tiresome to have to respond to the same retrograde ideas time and again year after year. During the winter I read David McCullough's excellent John Adams, written about a time when the states were obliged to come together to form a fledgling nation. The southern states were leery about throwing their lot with a bunch of anti-slavery puritans even then. Over time the whole idea of slavery became repugnant and shameful even in the south, where apart from prejudice, important and understandable economic concerns were in play. All that is thankfully over, and the stench that emanated from the discredited philosophy that blacks were inferior to whites has long since blown away, away.

You guys who are so incensed by examples of government corruption surely know that politicians are often dishonest people and US politics is sometimes a dirty business. Just a fact. And not in any way apocalyptic since there are functioning mechanisms to get rid of the crooks. These sometimes work frustratingly slowly, but even that is defensible since judicial mistakes create instability. I hope that the terrible municipal abuses which so infuriate Mitch will, with the help of vocal whistle blowers like him, be eventually remedied. I personally don't think he does his cause a favor by flavoring his perfectly defensible complaints with what could be construed by suspicious people as anti-black rhetoric. That shit is so boringly passé. And unproductive. When you're trying to get something done, you want to keep from sounding wildly out of touch, since a lot of people are so dismissive of crazies.

It's a beautiful day. I'm gonna get out for a run. Wish you could join me.

OK baby, here comes the hammer:

1. "The far left and the far right are mainly discredited elements of mainstream political thought," - DEAD WRONG. I give you Obama, Nancy Polosi, Chuck Shumer, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, et. al, as exhibt A. The far left is very much in power, alive and well, indeed thriving.

2. "Over time the whole idea of slavery became repugnant and shameful even in the south" - Historically inaccurate, a generalization, vauge, no supporting evidence, perhaps you might find some anectdotal quotes to support this ridiculous assertion. Slim, you lived in the South for what, 4 years? I have been here for 51 years.

3. "the discredited philosophy that blacks were inferior to whites" - See my response in #2 above. That is a whole other topic that you and I had best do in private.

4. "don't think he does his cause a favor by flavoring his perfectly defensible complaints with what could be construed by suspicious people as anti-black rhetoric" - I only know the truth and I tell it, plain and simple, not rhetoric, just facts. The truth is not always comfortable or pretty, is it? If that is "racist" then so be it.

5. "That shit is so boringly passé. And unproductive." - What "shit"? Explain yourself sir?

6. "you want to keep from sounding wildly out of touch, since a lot of people are so dismissive of crazies" - I agree. That is why I would never do it.

7. It is a good thing that I cannot reach over to Spain.

(I can talk like this to Slim because we are "asshole buddies" as we used to say back at the frat house in my day. )


One's opinon on these topics is colored by one's vantage point and life experiences. I can assure you that I am in the majority in my state, indeed throughout the South, absolutely no doubt about it. In a room with 20 of my peers, I would get resounding applause and accolades for "telling it like it is." No brag, just fact.


hugs and kisses,

Mitch

 

[mitch768292]

Worth repeating.

"...a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." -
-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[mitch768292]

Several of you have sent me messages by PM and some by private email and some by telephone, expressing concern for me.


Specifically, you have worried that I might get banned for expressing controversial views and political opinions in the Forum.

I am warmed by that thoughtfulness and I thank you. It means a lot to me to know that I have so many friends, some of whom actually agree with me but prefer not to say so publicly. I understand. You have to have a thick skin to climb into the ring, so to speak. It is not for everybody, some folks are like the boxers and others are like the spectators. It takes all of us to make it work.

I have been told about another member who was "banned." I think it is pretty obvious if you go back and read some of his posts that he got into trouble for criticizing management too frequently, too strongly and for critisizing the site and maybe some models. He seems to have gotten into an ongoing argument with management, a stupid mistake. He made powerful enemies, always a serious mistake. But I cannot see where management ever commented on political postings or non-site related issues, it was always something having to do with the site, films, models etc.

How can you get banned for expressing political opinions about history and current social issues? I am simply a forceful advocate for my position, like a good trial lawyer. Go to court sometime and watch a good trial. The lawyers are indeed gladiators who put up one heck of a fight for their client's position and it ain't always pretty, not like kindergaten or Sunday School. The real world is a rough and tumble place, not for the faint of heart.

What would be the reason to ban me, because somebody does not like my politics? Has it come to that? If you express an opinion that I don't like, should you get banned? No. Should you get banned because I don't like the words you use or the way you express your opinon? No. That is your privilege.

However, having said all of that, the fact is Mark runs the show. It is his call. Everybody has to respect that. We are all guests in his house, albeit paying guests, sort of like staying in a hotel. If you stay in the hotel you pay and you follow the owner's policies. But so far I have seen no policy that says you cannot have opinions simply because a vocal minority does not agree with your views. I have seen no prohibition on discussing history, current affairs, religion, politics, etc. Can somebody point it out to me if I have overlooked that rule? Where is it written? "Rules" are written and displayed, otherwise how would you know what is allowed and what is not? That is why we have speed limit signs, so we know what is allowed. The signs are out there for all to see so nobody can say they did not know what the speed limit was.

If Mark tells me to stop writing about politics or any other topic, then I will certainly do it, as long as everybody is prohibited. The rules must apply to everybody equally. I want to be a good paying guest. I am pretty sure that Mark will let me know if I am "speeding" and what the limit is.

God Bless each and every one of you here at the Broke Straight Boys Forums.
love all of ya a bunch!

Mitch

 

[scorpio]

This is me talking as a member of the site:

You are WAY OVER your speeding limit and quite frankly, i'm so tired of your neverending rants. It's not the fact you guys talk about religions, politics... it's how the arguements are brought.

I told you exactly what i thought about you and still, you keep bringing things in an aggressive manner.
THIS IS A PORN SITE for crying out loud.

Oh yeah personally, people claiming they are "assholes" and proud of it have no place in my life.

Like you said, this is Mark's board and it's his choice.
Peace out