NOT BANNED IN BOSTON, BANNED RIGHT HERE.
1. This comment prompted a reply from me which was deleted:
" 2 . I note for the record that Wilda, a.k.a WVH, in agreeing with Kerry's comments, also
therefore agrees with Ferraro, who WVH claims is racist, and that WVH is therefore racist.
Q.E.D.
Posted by pudge at March 15, 2008 11:09 PM
3. Wilda, I removed your lies.
Posted by pudge at March 16, 2008 12:00 AM
4. Wilda, you said to me: "As much as you personally hate me and all people of color ..."
And I will delete any more posts you make to my articles, whatever those comments say.
You are permanently banned.
Posted by pudge at March 16, 2008 12:16 AM"
Really, because I responded to statement #2. Only an inadequate intellect bans people because they can't legitimately debate them. Just like Putin and the Chinese Communists, the poster can't withstand scrutiny, so they resort to bullying ala Tienamen Square. Ever met an ex KGB or Chinese Communist head with a sense of humor? Putin is surely one of the least controlling guys around (sarcasm) and probably one of the most despicable. I stand by the comment as much as you personally hate me and all people of color. That doesn't happen to be a lie.
The conclusion drawn is totally incorrect.. I interpreted Kerry's comments and stated that he is saying that certain life experiences help people to relate in a variety of situations. I in no way agree with Ferraro who was selected as Diane Feinstein declined because her husband had business "issues." Turns out, so did Ferraro's husband. Pot was chosen because she was a woman and she probably forgot that. To put words into some one's mouth and then deny them the opportunity to respond shows just how little intellectual wattage some people have. They are literally scared to death of some one responding to their lame post.
So, I am racist because I challenged Ferrarro statements, well as I said in the deleted post," Pudge, back at you, dude." I suspect that you hate urban areas is just code for you hate the diversity there. Good thing, because the area you live in has zip diversity, see the census data below.
2. The term "liar" is used by some as a convenient dodge to make up for the inability to answer some valid questions about your party's leadership, like:
a. A lot of republican leadership comes from small towns like Arlington, WA. Here are the
demographics for Arlington::
Race in Arlington (zip 98223), WA
91.49% of people are white, 0.79% are black, 2.20% are asian, 1.10% are native american, and 5.03% claim 'Other'.
4.66% of the people in Arlington (zip 98223), WA, claim hispanic ethnicity (meaning 95.34% are non-hispanic).
Arlington, WA People data
http://www.bestplaces.net/zip-code/Zip_Code_98223_Arlington_WA-PEOPLE-79822300010.aspx
b. Here are the demographics for the state of Washington.
Urban areas have very few republicans, can you guess why?
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/race/default.asp
I suspect that it was not lies, but questions such as how do republican leaders who live in small towns and
a. Hate urban areas
b. Hate the diversity of urban areas expect to expand the base?
These are the issues that people who are not "leaders" neither want to discuss or address.
Given the changing demographic composition of this state, the republican party is in a pickle. You can cheer lead for Rossi all you want, but he has to get some votes from urban areas to win. A lot of the young and idealistic voters and those fair-minded voters who want to build a decent state will not take kindly to republican leadership still in the mode of calling Blacks, Negroes.
Finally, I asked this specific question how does the republican party move this state from one-party mode with "leaders" like you?. I guess in the mind of some questioning their leadership is lying. Didn't Nixon do that already with the "Enemies List?"
George Bernard Shaw said this: "assassination is the extreme form of censorship."
ATTRIBUTION: George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Anglo-Irish playwright, critic. (1911). The Shewing-up of Blanco Posnet, preface, The Bodley Head Bernard Shaw: Collected Plays with their Prefaces, vol. 3, ed. Dan H. Laurence (1971).
The objection is not to being banned, the objection is to post #2 and the sanctimonious comments that follow. The attempt was to create an illusion that I have crossed some imaginary line of discourse. Of course, no one will be able to judge since my comments were deleted. The attempt was to make an insecure bully felt better about himself.
I will give Stefan credit, he puts his posts up and is not discriminatory. No one regardless of race, creed, or gender is allowed to comment, but then he is from the city, not a small town where there isn't much diversity and people are so scared of anyone different they have to invent any type of dodge to keep from answering the tough questions.
WVH/
7. I cannot grasp why educated, presumably successful blacks still resort to pulling the "race card". Those who do, in effect, are defending the cowardly, race-baiting tactics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, rather than embracing the success and freedom gained by Thomas Sowell and Condi Rice. Here's to those who have thrown off the chains of Democrat Party victimhood and embraced opportunity and freedom!
Posted by Saltherring at March 16, 2008 07:11 AM
Satthering,
Since Pudge pulled my comments to post #2, you have no idea whether I, was, in your words "playing the race card"
I called Ferraro a racist for the same type of argument that those who throw around "empty suit" make. Girlfriend, was chosen for the Veep slot because she was a woman. Mondale wanted a woman and was turned down by Feinstein. The bigger issue is was Ferraro simply doing the bidding of the Clintons and giving them cover for the Pennsylvania primary. A poster at Politico said it best. Clinton would rather be known as a racist than a rapist.
Interesting that you would come to a conclusion without seeing the posts that was deleted. As to comments by Dr. Sowell and others. I wonder if you are so happy with Dr. Sowell after he wrote these comment about Senator Mc Cain:
January 25, 2008 12:00 AM
McCain?s Age
Old-time common sense.
By Thomas Sowell
"....Have we reached the point where we have so many politically correct taboos that we can?t even talk sense?
....Does a man in his seventies have less energy for either physical or mental tasks than someone younger? Those of us who are in our seventies know darn well that we can?t do everything we used to do, as well as we used to do it....
Quite aside from age, there is all too much evidence already that John McCain is not the kind of man who has given in-depth thought to many of the serious issues on which he shoots from the hip, which some people equate with ?straight talk....?
Still happy with the good Dr., now? I doubt it. You simply want to discuss the world as you see it and anyone with a differing opinion is doing what playing the "race card" or in Dr. Sowell's case the "age card" with Mc Cain.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWJjYzgzNjIwMGUwNzdmNTJkYjcyYmYyNzIzMTY4ZTY=
Until you have my full comments, you only have a very limited view of the entire discussion.
"8. Hank: none of what you said made any sense. As was made perfectly clear to anyone who isn't "mentally ill," it is not Wilda's "viewpoints" that got her banned, it is the fact that she perpetually lies about me, saying that I am a racist and that I "hate people of color," that got her banned.
It's not just this one time. She's been doing it for awhile, and not just to me, but to many others. I have never said a single thing that would make any rational person think I am in the least bit racist, but that fact is not relevant to her.
I couldn't care less what anyone's viewpoints about the issues are. I welcome disagreement. I do not welcome libel. Wilda has decided to make this personal -- not just with me, but with many others -- and to call everyone she disagrees with a racist. I have given her a lot of rope, but I finally just got tired of her lies about me and others.
It's not even so much that I care about what she says. No one listens to her anyway. But she ends up hijacking the discussions, so that the whole discussion turns into a shouting match between her and everyone else who challenges her on her vicious lies.
She is free to post in the "Public Blog" and to the articles of other posters, but no longer to my articles, because she has proven herself incapable of not lying about other people.
Posted by pudge at March 16, 2008 08:43 AM
Lying about people, really. Is Pudge's view of the world so limited that you can't let the reader decide? Anyhow, my comments must have hit the target, otherwise why the response?
If no one is listening to my comments, then the harm in leaving them up is what, that people will skip over them, might not read them. Are you performing a public service?
You said: "Wilda has decided to make this personal -- not just with me, but with many others -- and to call everyone she disagrees with a racist."
Really, Have I have called people racist other than Rick D. and you? Is that everyone I have disagreed with? So, do you think those opinions were taken out of no context. Didn't Rick D. who has yet to disclose his education background call a Columbia and Harvard Law grad a janitor and "empty suit?" Now, you, as long as you can control the conversation, you are fine, anyone one diasgreeing with you is a liar or slanders you. It's all about you isn't it?
Let's review:
1. You posted Ferraro's comments. She later resigned and I called her a racist and I should add hypocrite as she was chosen solely for her gender by Mondale.
2. In response to my initial comment, you posted this:
"2 . I note for the record that Wilda, a.k.a WVH, in agreeing with Kerry's comments, also
therefore agrees with Ferraro, who WVH claims is racist, and that WVH is therefore racist.
Q.E.D.
Posted by pudge at March 15, 2008 11:09 PM"
So, I did not call you a racist first, you are the one that labeled. Unfortunately, my comments were deleted, but I then said back at you and still do. Like the school bully or the totalitarian regimes of Russia and China, you want the illusion of discussion, but not really.
3. Now as to hijacking discussions. Are the libertarians who post here so sensitive on the issue of race that they can't be challenged on any remark? No wonder you are a fan of Dr. Paul's, unlike Senator Obama, he really never cut the ties with Duke did he?
The final analysis is this, you have been given a tiny bit of power and you are using it to exclude any thought not in agreement with your limited view of the world and your larger view of your own importance. You simply don't have the intellectual wattage or temprament to be in a situation where you do not totally exert control.
Interesting thing though, the state is changing and even in your little part of the world, it will become more diverse. At some point the republicans in this state will decide that they would rather be in power and they don't want to exist in a one-party world and they will jestison "leaders" like you because you simply are a dead weight they can no longer afford.
Posted by: WVH on March 16, 2008 09:54 AM"9. Geraldine Ferraro's comments were not racist. The more we learn about Obama the more clear it becomes,he is not qualified to be President and shouldn't be a U.S. Senator either.
Posted by Glassman at March 16, 2008 09:25 AM"
I suppose the irony of posting on a thread to which any viewpoint to the contrary is censored escapes you. Of course Chairman Pudge like Chairman Mao agrees like he looks at himself in the mirror and agrees with that.
For a contrary opinion, this from Slate:
"....The racist card is textbook strawmanship. As opposed to having to address whether her comments were, as Obama said, "wrongheaded" and "absurd," Ferraro gets to debate something that only she can truly judge?the contents of her heart.
It's a clever and unassailable move: How would you actually prove that Ferraro is definitively a racist? Furthermore, it appeals to our national distaste for whiners. It's irrelevant that the Obama campaign never called Ferraro a racist. It's also irrelevant that Ferraro said the same thing of Jesse Jackson in 1988. And it's especially irrelevant that Ferraro apparently believes that Obama's Ivy League education, his experience as an elected official, and his time of service on the South Side of Chicago pale in comparison with the leg-up he's been given as a black male in America. By positioning herself as a victim of political correctness run amok, Ferraro stakes out the high ground of truth telling.
Ferraro may be the most strident, but she's far from the first to join the rogue's gallery of public figures who have made patently foolish claims about black people, then ducked beneath the shield of nonracism.
Fellow "not a racist" Ron Paul was busted last year when it was found that newsletters bearing his name were filled with hateful invectives directed at blacks. When the news broke, Paul swore that he was no racist and that the writings said nothing about his own beliefs. No matter that the newsletters were titled Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, and the Ron Paul Survival Report...."
http://www.slate.com/id/2186553/
Posted by: WVH on March 16, 2008 10:06 AM14. Politically Incorrect: it depends on how you define "racism." It is most popularly defined as a belief that one race is superior, or inferior, in one or more ways, or simply an arbitrary belief that one race should be subjected to another.
I know it is politically incorrect for me to say so, but as the word is commonly used, no, I have absolutely no racism in me. I do have various cultural biases, but no "racism" whatsoever.
Sorry to destroy your prejudices!
Posted by pudge at March 16, 2008 10:27 AM
The key wiggle room comes with as the term is commonly used. This is an interesting statement from some one who lives in a homogeneous community, hates cities, and probably has limited contact outside their social circle.
My question is how honest is this answer?
A better discussion of racism is found in the following essay:
"....This definition brings to our attention the sociological phenomena of groups and of power dynamics. Racism is a tool for domination and social control. Sociologically it is a psychological tool for the dominance of one group over another. The practical methods of the perpetuation of racism on an individual level are described in the next definition by Daniel Pouzznerr:
Racism, defined most completely, is the practice of employing a decision-making methodology according to which decisions can be changed based specifically on the race or races of the people affected by the decisions.[6]
That is, racism is discrimination based on race. Racism is still an individual decision. The next definition describes racism as a more abstract, structural phenomenon:
Racism is a structural relationship based on the subordination of one racial group by another. The notion of race can be defined within this according to [various criteria].[7]
Here racism no longer describes individuals and their beliefs and thoughts. Rather it is a sociological phenomenon. An attempt to explain how such a structure results in the absence of individual prejudices, David Wellman argues for an expanded definition of racist behavior:
Racism extends considerably beyond prejudiced beliefs. The essential feature of racism is not hostility or misperception, but rather the defense of a system from which advantage is derived on the basis of race. The manner in which the defense is articulated - either with hostility or subtlety - is not nearly as important as the fact that it insures the continuation of a privileged relationship. Thus it is necessary to broaden the definition of racism beyond prejudice to include sentiments that in their consequence, if not in their intent, support the racial status quo.[8]"
http://www.danielhindes.com/essays/essay.php?essay=5
I doubt if the poster could pass all the Hindes test and show an absence of racism.
Posted by: WVH on March 16, 2008 10:53 AM
"Feel free to disagree: I am, of course, talking in unprovable speculation, as is anyone who disagrees with me. So, big shrug. My real point is not whether Ferraro is right or wrong, it is just that Ferraro said nothing more than what Kerry and many other Obama supporters have said: they support Obama in large part because he is black.
Posted by pudge at March 16, 2008 03:34 PM
27. tc is not WVH. tc only made ONE ad hominem attack against me! (The one in sentence two.) No way could WVH have written such a post!
Posted by pudge at March 16, 2008 03:35 PM
Really, what a towering intellect? First, you ban people, then call them liars and continue to malign people without giving them any recourse to answer. What a truly standup guy, Not.
"Feel free to disagree: I am, of course, talking in unprovable speculation, as is anyone who disagrees with me. So, big shrug. My real point is not whether Ferraro is right or wrong, it is just that Ferraro said nothing more than what Kerry and many other Obama supporters have said: they support Obama in large part because he is black.
Posted by pudge at March 16, 2008 03:34 PM
27. tc is not WVH. tc only made ONE ad hominem attack against me! (The one in sentence two.) No way could WVH have written such a post!
Posted by pudge at March 16, 2008 03:35 PM
Really, what a towering intellect? First, you ban people, then call them liars and continue to malign people without giving them any recourse to answer. What a truly standup guy, Not.
24. TC= WVH
Posted by Rick D. at March 16, 2008 03:21 PM
25. tc= WVH............why bother hiding?
Posted by Rick D. at March 16, 2008 03:27 PM
No we are actually two different people. The issue is hate and the politics of we will trash anyone we disagree with and then give them no opportuntity to respond. I am not surprised that Rick D. and Pudge are closer than velcro. Birds of a feather as they say. I can't tell was that an ad hominem attack or not?
tc is very much his own person and I am glad that he is at least debating the issues.
Posted by: WVH on March 16, 2008 04:28 PM"....I think he is likely to get killed by McCain if he wins the nomination, because of all those things. But I do not undestimate the ability of the media to not only ignore Obama's many shortcomings, but to try to make people think they are actually good things.
Posted by pudge at March 16, 2008 04:34 PM "
Maybe, maybe not. Never underestimate the power of people like Pudge and Rick D. to mobilize the dem base to vote AGAINST a republican because republicans are so intolerent in the eyes of many.
Guess what, you can't ban all critics for life or segregate their comments because you don't like them and don't have the intellectual gravitas.
Pudge was oh soooooo effective in the Sno County Sheriff's race. And the winner is?
Posted by: WVH on March 16, 2008 04:41 PM32. Pudge......
Dude, your having way to much fun on this one.
Loving it. (-:
Posted by Army Medic/Vet at March 16, 2008 05:31 PM
Yeh, he really wouldn't be having fun if he allowed full and open discussion. But then, Putin doesn't allow open discussion either and he seems to be having the time of his life.
Posted by: WVH on March 16, 2008 05:57 PM"33. I personally think it's a grand thing that finally we are seeing the possibility of a black President. Says a great deal about our country, liberty, and democracy. However, I will not vote for Obama because he is so far left, and I am conservative. Now, if it were someone like Michael Steele, Condi Rice, different story. But, annoyingly, they are considered "not really black" because they're not liberal.
Posted by katomar at March 17, 2008 07:37 AM
34. katomar, exactly. I think a black or female president would be a Good Thing. But it would only be a Good Thing if it happened based solely on that person's merits, and not because we forced it to happen just so that Good Thing would happen!
It's like if you're trying to win a record in baseball, say, the most sacks in a season, and so the quarterback just lets you sack him so you can get the record. That, to me, takes almost of all the meaning away from the accomplishment.
I would never vote for anyone based on the color of their skin or their gender. Call me old-fashioned.
Posted by pudge at March 17, 2008 08:10 AM"
I believe that Katomar would support a candidate of ANY COLOR and faith who is conservative and a person of good character. The other person. Not.