A Question About Offensive Language

I had heard hearsay about this before but you @APACHERAT h are the first person to have proven it.

Thank you.

 

For myself, the sweetest sound I know is the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner."

Still brings tears to my eyes.

 

There is some beautiful Arabic singing, as evidenced in this song by Sting.

And the Arabic call to prayer does have a pleasant ring to it as well.

I lived at USNTC Kenitra Morocco in 9th Grade and our house was out in town and we heard the Arabic call to prayer 5 times per day. It is not bad. It does not qualify as the sweetest sound for me however.

 

tell that to Ann Coulter.

 

Relevance? None, right? Yeah, of course you have none.

See, if you had an argument, you would have made it. However, you don't, so you can't.

 

i made my point hours ago

Their Forum, Their Rules.

 

It seems Obama always had an identity problem. Those who knew him during his Occidental College and Columbia University days said Obama never looked upon himself as being an American but looked upon himself being an internationalist.

There are many of the PC liberals and progressives today when asked "Do you look upon your self as being a citizen of America or a citizen of the world" ? It surprises me how many said a citizen of the world.

 

I disagree with all censorship of words. In the case of racism, people need to learn they don't have a right to never be offended, and a child using the F word has nothing to do with their future success unless some idiot tries to make something out of it.

As for forum rules, I disagree with the profanity filter, but it's only a minor annoyance. I don't think it makes a forum in any way better, and just serves as a roadblock to open discourse. Not as bad as the radio messing up songs because of replacing bad words with stupid sounds. I hate the radio, and DJs who talk.

 

You could have just posted the TOS but then, it doesn't matter whether you did that or not because it applies regardless of what you post, so...

you have no point.

 

I agree

 

No problem - white people with superior culture are smarter than black people with inferior such. Makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

So can white people learn to line up in the 100 metres final with their culturally inferior African bros?

Thought not.

 

Well, I know a lot of people on the right have never been able to accept President Obama. And nothing would have changed that. Remember Mitch McConnell said, before Obama stepped into his office (when he was first elected) that his number one job was to make certain Obama was a one term president. I think McConnell is a worthless, unpatriotic, fool. His number one job should have been, to work with our elected president to do the work of the American people. Not to pleasure himself eight hours a day with his stupid, racist, BS. And that's just an example of the crap Obama had to live with for eight years.

Now, I don't see anything in your sources that appear troublesome. Obama had lived in Indonesia for four years so, to me, it makes sense that he would have registered as a muslim at the schools you mentioned. In the same way, a child who had been raised in Boston, then moved to Indonesia, might well register in a school, there, as a Catholic. Same difference.

And you say: "Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class..."
How is that a surprise? He was in the third and forth grades, in Indonesia. Would you be as terrified of a white kid in America who spent two hours a week learning about Christianity in his Kansas school, or in Sunday school?

That he loved the sound of the muslim call to prayer, why would that be a big deal. Do not Catholics love the sounds of their churchbells?

Finally you mention three more things:

1) "Obama has a credibility problem when it comes telling the truth"
I'm sure you can find instances where you feel Obama lied, or said something that turned out to be flat wrong. Buy have you even known anyone, anywhere, who lies as easily and constantly and in as many ways as donald trump? In my life, I've never seen such an outright lying liar.

2) "he is a community organizer by proffesion"
This one I don't even care about.

3) "and an Alynskyite."
Anyone who has any claim to being intellectually curious would know about Saul Alynski. And, Hitler, King George, or Abe Lincoln, for that matter. Alynski and Obama never met. But Alynsky is known as the father of community organizing, and he wanted the poor to unite in a effort to improve their own lives. He was smart enough to know that the lives of the poor would never improve if it was left up to the likes of rich billionaires like trump and the avaricious Wall Street parasites and One Percenters he has surrounded himself with. These, billionaires are the people who are damaging America and destroying the American middle class. But all that is for another thread, another time.

So, basically, I think your Obama complaints are non-starters. There just isn't any there, there. Be honest. Look at trump, closely. He, is a fraud, a cheat, a swindler, a liar. He cheated college kids out of their money. Refused to pay workers, suppliers, contractors, and caused a great many people to lose millions of dollars. On top of all that, he lies to your face on almost a daily basis. And THIS is something you should be worried about. trump is a maggot living on the flesh of America; he, and his kind of parasites have nearly killed her.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-na-obamachildhood15-2007mar15-story.html

 

The ol' blank slate or tabula rasa argument has been debunked for many many years. In fact, I don't know of anybody who has even used that particular argument since Darwin.

 

Brilliant.

 

"smart" refers to intellect. running isn't intellect.

white culture brought with it the schools and universities which allowed most to be educated. up until recently, it was the only difference. now that non-whites have the same access to schools and universities, they're leaving whites in the shade ... academically/intellectually.

 

that would be because you've probably only ever lived in western countries. it's understandable that you would be oblivious, when you only have one sample to work from.

 

What does that have to do with anything? You mentioned neuroplasticity, which doesn't necessitate everybody starting off at the same starting line. So already, you're throwing up something that has nothing to do with anything, and now you are talking about where I might have lived?

Dude, is this the best you've got? An ad hominem? Seriously!!!!

 

Looks like I am in the Strongly Disagree group on this.

I am an American.

Us against Them.

Looks like Americans, Greeks, and Russians are very similar in this way too.

 

It's not an ad hom, I'm just pointing out that you have a western-centric perspective. That will limit your insight significantly. You're drawing the entirety of your knowledge on this from a single cultural and actual perspective.

And neuroplasticity is effectively blank slatehood. A child begins to absorb and store (intellectually) late inutero. The rate of absorption increases dramatically after birth, and stays very high until around age 8, when it starts to even out for a spell. It's that first 8 years .. and in particular the first few years ... which determine how synaptically efficient we will be. The PRIMARY stimulus of synaptic response is frequent engaged interaction from a particular and regular caregiver. This is well established science.

Cultures (personal or societal) which don't consciously engage with their infants produce 'dumber' kids. That can happen for any number of reasons. Parental laziness, disinterest, PND, too many kids, drugs, alcohol, family dysfunction, mental illness ... etc etc etc.

 

My perspective is not the discussion. An ad hominem is an attack on the person, rather than the argument. You question my perspective, so that's an ad hom.

Keep me out of it, and focus on the arguments I bring to bear.

Each child starts off differently. Some are boneheads, and some aren't. Neuroplasticity merely means that once we start, then our brains change thanks to environment and behavior. Some people start off in back of the bus, and others start off in the pole position.

Where we start is based on genetics.

 

Something went wrong in America and it started with the left.


From America's founding days until the early 1970's America was a very nationalistic nation. Probably less than 10% of Americans weren't nationalist. They were the anarchist, internationalist socialist and eventually the communist.

During America's progressive era many progressives were socialist but they were nationalist socialist. They were immigration restrictionist and wrote America's first anti drug laws. Todays progressives aren't true progressives but anarchist, Marxist, Maoist, internationalist socialist hiding behind the progressive label that they hijacked.

The author of the pledge of Allegiance was a socialist and an American nationalist, Francis Bellamy. And from 1893 until early 1942 ever American in grade school and high school started the day pledging their a allegiance to America with the Bellamy salute. (Today known as the Nazi salute)


http://global-politics.eu/2016/03/31/bellamy-salute/

 

Somewhat relevant to your post, jusy bit more liberalism and we will be full blown segregation again, only it will be the white folk

Principal transferred after asking to group white students

 

Well right or wrong the USA (aka America) still exists albeit as a highly fractured and divided Body Politic.

My memory goes back only to Ike vaguely, and JFK more vividly, and LBJ with painful clarity, and Nixon with disgust, by which time I was in college, and then clearly with Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, BH Obama, and now DJ Trump.

If as you @APACHERAT say that the breakdown began in the early 1970's then that points the finger at Nixon. But since you are indeed a venerable Nam Vet (my generation of military venerated you, at least) you must recall that sh!t began to hit the fan under LBJ which was actually the late 1960's. So you may be off by about 5 years or so.

I suspect that it was Viet Nam the fokked us up.

Don't you remember the joke about LBJ? "How can you tell if LBJ is lying?"

Answer: "Anytime his lips are moving."

 

Actually it began around during the early / mid 1960's with the counter culture movement that was led by the SDS. The agenda was your typical commie change by violence and civil unrest on the streets. It's what commies always use to do.

Things weren't catching on so one day in the ealy 60's Bernie Sanders old "Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee" (SNCC) that had ties to CPUSA contacted the SDS leadership and convinced the SDS to get the anti draft movement involved. There's always been an anti draft movement in America any time there was a draft.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7627

We all know what happened in Chicago back in 1968.

But the SDS organized the "Days of Rage" in Chicago in 1969 and it petered out, it was a flop.

So in late 69 or early 1970 the SDS had a big meeting. They came up with a new strategy to achieve their agenda. Some would go underground adopting terrorism (Weathermen / Weather Underground) Most the of SDS would adopt cultural-marxism and political correctness. Become college professors and school teachers and start indoctrinating our children in college and soon in our public schools while the rest would be joining the Democrat party as the "New Left" hiding behind the liberal label and run for public office. While some would adopt Alinkyism and become community organizers agitating, causing trouble and dividing society.

So it really began with the counter culture movement but it was the "New Left" of the 1970's and adopting political correctness that really ****ed up and changed America.

Re: Vietnam War.

The radical left like the SDS and the New Left were never against the Vietnam War, they were against the America winning the war in Vietnam.

 

In the 1960's I was in middle school watching the news on tv and seeing several of my parents' friends going to Viet Nam and coming back in a box.

It was extremely painful for their wives, some of whom were pregnant when their hubbies left for Viet Nam. And it was painful for the rest of us to witness as well.

There is nothing more painful to see and hear than a woman wailing inconsolably.

I'm glad you @APACHERAT made it back.

Did you surf over there ?!

In my trying to decipher what went wrong in Viet Nam I finally got my hands on a book published by The Navy League entitled "Rolling Thunder In A Gentle Land".

[ https://www.amazon.com/Rolling-Thunder-Gentle-Land-Revisited/dp/1782001875 ]

This traced the history of the Viet Nam War back to the 1850's.

The ultimate conclusion was that Westmoreland himself was solely responsible for the USA's demise in Viet Nam, having been vaulted over Creighton Abrams and several more superior generals by LBJ, presumably because Westy paid lip service to LBJ.

In addition the book also paints significant doubt that any general could have "won" the campaign of Viet Nam simply due to several factors, most notably because the North Vietnamese people and Vo Nguyen Giap were politically, physically, and emotionally prepared to suffer more deaths than the USA was. And when interviewed for a documentary, this is also what Giap said himself.

I have since come to view the political fallout during and after Viet Nam to be simply the repercussions of these battlefield deaths of Americans -- 58,220.

Maybe my view is oversimplified.