[kj] New Interview with Jaz Wherein He Discourses at Length on a Variety ...

sade1 saulomar1 at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 9 16:10:35 EDT 2011


[BTW, if my earlier reply sounded pointedly personal, I apologize, it's just
that I use "you" the way those 'other people over there' use "one". More
appropriate, yep, but it's hard changing old patterns....)



> ..your 'analogy' is just based on your own personal opinion and speculation.

 
That statement, considering you are not aware of my knowledge-base for replying
or the breadth of my awareness of the general issue of civil/equal/human rights,
makes that statement above, ironically, in effect strictly YOUR personal opinion
AND speculation.  I'll assume then that all our opinions and speculations are
worth acknowledging.


Also, Victory, like Might, doesn't equate to Right.  What are you implying by
"BUT he won..." So? The number of people who liked him over the other guy was
NEVER an issue, neither in my comments nor in yours. So I don't get how his
winning has anything to do with proving/validating/justifying/or-whatever re:
his position on the topics. Elections by definition are popularity contests
ONLY. Nothing to do with how right/wrong a canditate's positions are.

It's truly simple the distillation of Randy's utterance: Govt. shouldn't act out
its (meaning, OURS) racism in the public square, actions, programs,
institutions, similar-&-etc. but private individuals, initiatives, policies, and
concerns (meaning, everyone, and everywhere else not covered in Civil Rights Act
-i.e. the public sphere, not just "private businesses") should be allowed to
make up their own mind on the matter, to follow whatever their biases beg and
paw at the insides of their hosts' chest cavities for.


As he stated that he prefers it, one way they (the "privates") would be free
to make up their minds would be for/on behalf of racism. He's against it, sure,
he calls racist descrimination " bad business" [an offensive and
dismissive trivialization, to be sure] "BUT." Enough said.  How manymore
criminal or present-day-historical examples does one need to see that
decentralizing the protections against racism and discrimination is both giving
permission to, and a ploy to get away with, local bigotries to have free rein. 
Further, making it a local/state issue takes the a victim's right of redress
further away from the federal court system and swerves it through the
local/state courts, who are all the more steeped in the local culture and
traditions that gave cause for such court actions in the first place!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2rBz9gwo


And in case you're tempted to think I'm speaking out of my ass, so to speak,
well so IS HE! He says so himself! (2:03 of vid) Please don't hold me to a
different standard than you do him.

I'm just tired of bigoted pigs dressing up as lil'-innocent-"who, me?! Ah cood
nevah..."-types trying to fuck the people the moment their trusting backs are
turned.


[This is really a nice thread to pursue because it really begins to expose the
truest, most curdling feelings behind different sides of the issue, the feelings
that believers will really stand up and die for. Or that "some" ("Earl Grey,
please; thank you.") will march in front of Barack, and his wife, and his
children, the dog, and the Capitol by the thousands-n'-thousands with machine
guns, assault rifles, and clips - and some really stupid signs to boot!]


 



________________________________
From: "Devacor at aol.com" <Devacor at aol.com>
To: gathering at misera.net
Sent: Sat, April 9, 2011 6:24:43 AM
Subject: Re: [kj] New Interview with Jaz Wherein He Discourses at Length on a
Variety ...


your 'analogy' is just based on your own personal opinion and speculation.

sure it made news, as it was a 'story'
But he won his election- once it was explained out it, people had an
understanding of what he was actually saying- where one agrees with his stance
or not, the sensationalism was taken out of it and it became a non issue.
 something like george allen and his 'macaca' flap-- now that was something else
and he sunk faster then a rock in water. that was an issue.

  I'm not even saying im a Rand Paul supporter- im neutral on him, and im about
in the middle on his statement- but to make it into something else is bogus.


A


 
In a message dated 4/8/2011 9:30:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
saulomar1 at yahoo.com writes:
Fire may be bad, it may be good, may be used to create warmth BUT you never give
the Pyro the Zippo.


>

>The only time you wink-wink & a nod-nod for the pyro to be given the Zippo is if

>you want his Pyromanic ass to have the Zippo, and of course it will always be in

>a way that provides such enabler overly-intellectualized plausible deniability:

>                             "What, me? Oh no, i never thought he'd starta fire

>- again. Nooo... I just thought he should have the same right to, and the actual

>hands-on empowerment therefrom, owning a Zippo, like everyone else. (what can be

>wrong with that?). I'm innocent."

>

>

>And the media did jump on it, at least the tv morning news shows, the BBC tv

>news here in US, on En Contexto (tv), online it was Cnn, Msnbc, BBC, Guardian,

>Truthout, ReaderSupportedNews, and i think it may even have appeared on Deutsche

>Welle news.

>It got coverage, alright. And I don't recall nor even inferred from the whole

>mess that it was ever dismissed as a non-issue.

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20110409/7ad806c3/attachment.htm>


More information about the Gathering mailing list