Boots and Sabers - The blogging will continue until morale improves...

No crisis until you act like there’s one | Home | Billions of Gallons of Sewage Dumped in Lake

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

No More Chieftains

It’s a sad day when we stop celebrating our Native American history.

The Osseo-Fairchild School District in western Wisconsin was ordered Tuesday to drop its Chieftains nickname and logo after the state determined it was race-based and promoted discrimination and harassment.

The state Department of Public Instruction’s first-of-its-kind order comes under a new state law that went into effect in May. The law allows the agency to order schools to drop their race-based nicknames and logos if they are deemed discriminatory.

(146) Comments

Posted by Owen at 2133 hrs

Politics + Politics - Wisconsin
Tags: wisconsin, history

The Marquette Warriors thing was way over before I became a student, alumnus, administrator, parent or faculty member. I wasn’t sure I understood it. If it wasn’t disrespectful, surely it was ok to do. But when I heard the history—Willie Wampum and other embarrassing facts—I had to admit that letting it go was the right thing to do. One can try to put a polite face on it when controversy hits, but you can’t erase the history of what it has been before.

The mileage may vary at other institutions. But our decision was the right one.
Posted by scott on July 27, 2010 at 2153 hrs

Menomonee Falls and Mukwonago should just change now before the inevitable order.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 27, 2010 at 2240 hrs

Make all team names so they referenced Caucasians, surely there will be no offense to that. Apparently no other race deems their people should be depicted in this way, so why force it on them?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 2247 hrs

Well there’s a sensible approach! It’s a wonder you’re not on a school board or board of directors somewhere.
Posted by scott on July 27, 2010 at 2254 hrs

Make all team names so they referenced Caucasians

I’d be cool with that.

http://www.liquideggproduct.com/wp-content/uploads/2 009/05/fightingwhites.png
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 27, 2010 at 2308 hrs

This was the name of a team in the Negro Leagues.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xUhGn7kAtK0/ShMRcEEoO0I/AA AAAAAAAN8/3F7lIx5kHLI/s320/AtlantaCrackers.jpg
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 27, 2010 at 2315 hrs

scott:
The Marquette Warriors thing was way over before I became a student, alumnus, administrator, parent or faculty member

I always wondered why you were such a pompous ass, this explains it all. Tell me scott, how do you get anything done when you spend all of your waking hours with your head hovering over your lap savoring the gases emanating from deep within your bowels?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 2320 hrs

Actually, you are incorrect Jay. The Atlanta Crackers were a Southern League AA team in Atlanta. The Atlanta Black Crackers were a team from the old Negro Leagues. Note the different logo from the one you posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Black_Crackers
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 2326 hrs

Ah yes. I assumed that was one of the Black Crackers logos.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 27, 2010 at 2330 hrs

Owen, if you think naming sports teams and creating logos and mascots is how Native American History should be “celebrated”, then you really have no regard for Native American History to begin with.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2010 at 2347 hrs

This is just so sad.
I know I’m pretty upset about the Vikings - my people.
Posted by Charlie Hillman on July 27, 2010 at 2350 hrs

chieftain
–noun
1.
the chief of a clan or a tribe.
2.
a leader of a group, band, etc.: the robbers’ chieftain.

Sounds extremely derogatory to me. Very racially inappropriate and harassing, too. Sheesh.
Posted by GAMazy on July 28, 2010 at 0017 hrs

What Laker said. How is having a name/logo on a high school kids helmet “celebrating” our Native American heritage?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0017 hrs

At first blush, it does seem innocuous. However, without knowing what the team logo looks like or if they have a mascot or some obnoxious cheer, it’s pretty hard to judge. From the article, it seems like this issue has been brewing for some time.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0057 hrs

When I was running cross-country and track, our school nickname was Cooney, after racoons. We had a gym bag made up that said Oconomowoc: Home of the Coons. (this was in the late 70’s)
Can you imagine the outrage over a racoon’s name if it happened today.
And scott, you have no idea what you are talking about. My dad worked with Al McGuire and the Warriors and I went to many games. There was no insulting behavior by the mascot and the mascot was revered and honored at the games. So, stop talking about something you have no clue about. I’d say you sound like a fool, but that has been demonstrated so many times.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0352 hrs

I always wondered why you were such a pompous ass, this explains it all

Thanks for the civil and thoughtful response. I was just trying to establish that I bleed blue and gold, having been part of the Marquette family for almost a dozen years now. Why would I want to establish this? Because I knew the next comments would be…

scott, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Actually, I know exactly what I’m talking about.

There was no insulting behavior by the mascot and the mascot was revered and honored at the games.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. It was an embarrassingly insulting caricature and everything from it’s name to it’s facial features and it’s tomahawk prop. The entire thing was a silly, cartoonish stereotype.

As I came into this discussion saying, other schools find other answers. For us, the name change was the right thing to do.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 0640 hrs

There was no insulting behavior by the mascot and the mascot was revered and honored at the games.

http://www.wdtimes.com/articles/2005/07/30/news/news1.txt

http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/nickname/willie_wampum

I am glad you can look back upon that time and remember how great it was to have that as your mascot. And to top it off, you aren’t a native american. And you don’t find it offensive? SHOCK! I am glad you were able to consider that other races might find something offensive that you do not. Talk about sensitivity.

I’d say you sound like a fool, but that has been demonstrated so many times.
Given your relationship with not being able to produce facts, it is highly comical that you can make this statement.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0819 hrs

I am Norwegian and I request, no DEMAND, that all use of the term “Vikings” be ceased immediately because it offends my sensibilities and portrays us as nothing but warring marauders!

The above makes no more sense than banning the use of the term Chieftan or Warrior. Shouldn’t these perpetual victims have to prove this supposed discrimination?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0820 hrs

Both sides are out of touch on this.

A.) The left: Says that the names are discriminatory, racist, and at best uncouth.

B.) The right: Says the names are a celebration of our native heritage.

C.) The truth: It is neither racist nor a celebration of native heritage. It is a nod towards this area’s native american past, but to call it a celebration is a stretch. To call this racism, the left’s favorite word, is just another assault on the meaning of the word.

Once again we have two groups arguing the most extreme possible views of an issue. I am sometimes guilty of this myself, but it is typically about something important…. like the national debt. There is absolutely no need for our state to have a “death panel” for the determination of public school names. If a community is OK with calling their team “the Chiefs”, so be it.

We absolutely know that all Indians are not offended by these names, and we absolutely know that there are a lot of guilty white people who are. There has to be a logical middle ground, like, you know…. leaving it up to the individual districts, like we have for the last however long? If the guilty white people, and outraged Indians (if there are any in the district) have an issue why can’t it be raised to the local school board? Why did we have to create another expensive government bureaucracy to oversee this?

This has gotten way out of hand, to the point where we are wasting valuable and already stretched government resources in a state that has a $6+B structural deficit…. We have FAAAAAR more important things to worry about. Priorities people….
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0853 hrs

The above makes no more sense than banning the use of the term Chieftan or Warrior. Shouldn’t these perpetual victims have to prove this supposed discrimination?

This reminds me, in college a letter to the editor in our school newspaper complained and moaned about our team name, Warriors. They screamed about how racist it was and as a member of a Native American tribe it must be changed.

Here’s the logo: http://www.northernsun.org/SportPics/NSIC/Winona_State.jpg
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 28, 2010 at 0859 hrs

Jay - that is simply laugh out loud funny.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0903 hrs

Isn’t it offensive that the aboriginals call themselves Native Americans? America is a European name. I mean if we’re going to completely separate ourselves shouldn’t it go both ways?

Oh life can be SO offensive, if you want it to be…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0904 hrs

Once again we have two groups arguing the most extreme possible views of an issue.

Once again we have a false equivalency between the left and the right in this discussion. Are these the words of an extremist?

If it wasn’t disrespectful, surely it was ok to do.

The mileage may vary at other institutions.

other schools find other answers. For us, the name change was the right thing to do.

I think that they are not. I won’t bother quoting the folks who responded to me for contrast.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 0908 hrs

Jay - that is simply laugh out loud funny.

The editors reply to that letter was a big picture of the logo. No words, just a picture. I wish there was some online archives for that paper so I could link it up. It was incredibly funny.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 28, 2010 at 0914 hrs

I am of Polish descent. I’m sure somewhere in the past my ancestors were overrun by someone wearing a hat like that logo from Winona State. I object.
I think we need to get rid of all the logos and nicknames. Someone will be offended by each one of them. I think there should then be a randomly generated 10 digit number assigned as the new nickname. I can’t wait to hear some of the cheers associated with that:

Gimme a 9, Gimme a 3 ...

Exciting.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0918 hrs

Oh yeah, the logos could all then just be bar codes. Think how much easier it will be, who can tell them apart? Can’t use colors though, look what that has done for gangs.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0921 hrs

I wonder when the left and those that make a living off of being perpetually offended and victimized will realize that by crying Discrimination and Racism for - you know, everything - has now diminished the meaning of those words so greatly, that they are now relative jokes.

See The Boy Who Cried Wolf....
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0926 hrs

I am Norwegian and I request, no DEMAND, that all use of the term “Vikings” be ceased immediately because it offends my sensibilities and portrays us as nothing but warring marauders!

Ok, get some other Norwegians together as a start. Or take it up yourself. That is what the native americans did. Or you could B&M about it, which is what you are more than likely going to do.

The left: Says that the names are discriminatory, racist, and at best uncouth.

Usually it is the native americans who say the names are discriminatory. I don’t know how that could assigned to the left.

Isn’t it offensive that the aboriginals call themselves Native Americans? America is a European name.

The Americas is the name of the continent. It is not a word that one can claim ownership of. And aborigine is more of a generic name, it is not specific to region or continent, unless it is capitalized. If it is capitalized, Aborigines, they are members of any of the indigenous peoples of Australia.

From owen’s article, “The order by DPI School Administration Consultant Paul Sherman noted that the district doesn’t have the permission of any federally recognized American Indian tribe to use the name or logo.” If the school wants to keep the logo, appeal and get a tribe to say it is ok.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0929 hrs

I’m sure somewhere in the past my ancestors were overrun by someone wearing a hat like that logo from Winona State

Mine too. Most likely my ancestors were of the Germanic tribes, which the Romans slaughtered in their desire to rule the known world.

Come to think of it, the Romans also enslaved those they captured alive. My ancestors may well have been slaves! I want my reparations!

Oh wait, Italy is broke as well. Give me an olive tree so I have olives for my martinis and a seaside villa and we’ll call it even.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 28, 2010 at 0934 hrs

liberal -

My statement about the Norwegians was… sarcasm. Which if you read the second paragraph you would have understood.

Also, if you read further down the article linked you would have found this little tidbit:

In response to those concerns, in 2004 the district enacted a policy to educate people about Indian history and limit the use of the nickname and the logo, which was redesigned in the likeness of Frank Thunder, a Ho-Chunk Nation leader whose descendants signed off on the arrangement.

So the district did perform some outreach to a tribe.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 0936 hrs

Frank Thunder

This is so a 70s/80s professional wrestling name.

Or a porn name.

Oh crap, I’m being insensitive. I should be flogged. No wait my ancestors were slaves so it’s OK. I’m just lashing out at the man for keeping me down.

In the ultimate irony, my recaptcha for this post was chief34
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 28, 2010 at 0942 hrs

So the district did perform some outreach to a tribe. /quote]

Which begs the question, if the school could get the descendants gave the ok, why couldn’t they get the whole tribe to sign off on it?

I wonder when the left and those that make a living off of being perpetually offended and victimized will realize that by crying Discrimination and Racism…

Where was this comment last week when the right was B&M about racism?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1009 hrs

liberal - not to derail a thread, but since you brought it up.

Seems Breitbart caught several big fish with that one after all…

In addition to catching the rank hypocrisy and ineptness of both the NAACP and the Obama admin…

Ms Sherrod is from the perpetual victim class

and so is her husband
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1019 hrs

lstw:
Where was this comment last week when the right was B&M about racism?

Perhaps because that was an actual case of racism?

As usual Liberals are incapable of telling the difference.
Not surprising, many of them defended her right to make this racist comment.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1019 hrs

My post is in regard to the woman running for the state assembly.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1023 hrs

How about the Osseo-Fairchild Casinos? Or would that be offensive to their long and dignified history of gambling?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1032 hrs

I realize now that every time I used a Big Chief drawing tablet as a child, somewhere a “Native American” cried.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1207 hrs

I went to MU before the stupid name change - and it was still a STUPID decision.

I think we should just change all the team names to “Whitey” and get it over with.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1210 hrs

Why should there even be team sports? The Liberals are offended that fragile egos will be bruised, to the point where no scores are kept, and trophies are given to all. Welcome to the panty waist society, brought to you by the ever vigilant professionally outraged.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1227 hrs

I must LOL at Scott for saying in sarcasm “Thanks for the civil and thoughtful response” when he, in turn called me every name in the book because I criticized ObamaCare. Typical.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1233 hrs

Scott Feldstein serves as nothing more than a reminder that Hitler lacked ambition.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1238 hrs

Back to the original point of this post. Owen wrote, “It’s a sad day when we stop celebrating our Native American history.” Which is hilarious, because it suggests that, for example, calling a team the “Redskins” is somehow a celebration of history.

Let’s see what the National Congress of American Indians has to say: “The National Congress of American Indians has long condemned the use of sports team “mascots” that claim to portray Native Americans and Native cultures in a positive light…. These mascots in no way honor Native Americans, they are an unnecessary element of today’s society and represent the last vestiges of a time thought long past when such stereotypes were commonplace.”
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1256 hrs

Yeah, because “Chieftains” as used in this instance is really derogatory. Thanks, liberals, for working to protect the bruised egos of “Native Americans” everywhere.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1300 hrs

Scott Feldstein serves as nothing more than a reminder that Hitler lacked ambition.

Wow. I think we have a prime candidate for who’s been leaving the threatening and anti-semitic comments on my blog.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1301 hrs

@Questioner: While it is not normally the way I prefer to communicate, I’ll make an exception to the rule and offer you a personal message from a favorite movie of mine.

““It looks to me like the best part of you ran down the crack of your mama’s ass and ended up as a brown stain on the mattress.”“

—-Gunnery Sgt Hartman in Full Metal Jacket
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1340 hrs

Maybe you sheep would be better off blaming the Native Americans this is supposedly “celebrating” instead of the boogeyman “liberals” that talk show hosts tell you to fear.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1355 hrs

Yeah, because “Chieftains” as used in this instance is really derogatory. Thanks, liberals, for working to protect the bruised egos of “Native Americans” everywhere.

Who are you to decide what is or is not derogatory towards native americans? Are you a native american? Typical conservative ignorance.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1402 hrs

Thanks for the civil and thoughtful response.
Pot, meet the kettle.

My family is of Germanic origin. The Germanic tribes had chiefs and warriors… they painted their bodies and used feathers in their clothing. I hereby offer my global permission to all schools and organizations state wide to use those terms and images in good health.

I am, however, offended by the wanton use of so many native American words in the names of our cities (and even our state). As Scott has pointed out, past indiscretions and negative attitudes toward the native Americans should be taken into account… all those names should be immediately changed to non-native American terms.

I suggest Milwaukee be renamed Sewageville (Sewage would be short for South Eastern city Without A Good Economy), and Wisconsin be changed to Taxsylvania.

We’ll work on erasing all native American heritage from the rest of the state when we are done here. btw, I am also offended at the use of the name Marquette, as it refers to an old dead white man whose explorations led to the abuse of native residents, much in the way that Columbus did.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1403 hrs

I hope that does what I’m intending it to.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 28, 2010 at 1423 hrs

lstw:
Who are you to decide what is or is not derogatory towards native americans? Are you a native american?

YES!!! Who are you to decide?
And why are those who aren’t offended ignored?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1439 hrs

You know what?

I’m offended when public establishments put the toilet paper roll on backwards. I think we need to legislate that issue. (If we did it with cigarettes, we can do it with toilet paper, right?)

I’m also offended by the restaurant name “Hooters.” We all know it has nothing to do with owls. Purely sexist. Legislate it.

The name iPad is offensive, as well. It lends a disturbing parallel to a feminine product.

Stop the madness!
Posted by GAMazy on July 28, 2010 at 1515 hrs

You guys need to learn how to close your tags.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1518 hrs

To be consistant, then the native americans need to demand that cities with an Indian name need to change the city’s names, street names and every thing else that are Native American. But they just choose to pick on schools because they are a soft target and they have the insane liberals to help them.
But to be a liberal means you have to be inconsistnt in your views.
and to scott, you have right to complain about people’s behavior as you are biggest a-hole around. Considering all the things you have called me and others, you have no right to be treated with courtsey..
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1526 hrs

NEVER! Unclosed tags are the trend of the future! Embrace the trend and help us move forward or sentence yourself to a life of mundane closed tag schematics!
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 28, 2010 at 1526 hrs

Dan, I came into this discussion without attacking anyone. If I do that and get treated like shit anyway, what is the lesson there? I think maybe it’s that I shouldn’t bother. It doesn’t pay. It’s not reciprocated.

But you know what? I will if you guys will. You can see that I do try. (No, really. Read my first comments in this thread, then check out how they were received.)

And I sincerely hope you’re not defending the guy who made the Hitler remark to me. if you are, then forget what I just said. I reserve the right to treat you like dirt at any time without further provocation.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1536 hrs

I’m offended that beautiful women wear clothing.

I’m offended Liberal women don’t shave OR bathe regularly.

I’m offended by Whites who wear dread locks.

I’m offended by a whole lot of things.

But I’m especially offended that those things that disrespect my country, religion, and fellow conservative Americans are not seen as equally important as those things that are designed to destroy the unity necessary to preserve this great country.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1541 hrs

Are you a native american?

Actually, yes, I was born here. My forefathers traveled to North America many generations ago.

Please explain to me how that makes me any different from what you like to call “Native Americans,” or American Indians. Anthropologists tell us that these people were not indigenous to North America either but migrated here at some point from somewhere else.

Go use your smug sense of self-righteousness and paternalistic need to protect some perceived underclass somewhere else. The American Indians don’t need your help.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1544 hrs

Liberal women shave more than yours do—and in more places.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1544 hrs

Are you a native american?

Actually, yes,

Too funny!

And you guys wonder at the fact that so many minority groups just don’t dig American conservatism. It’s just so puzzling!
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1546 hrs

Thanks to djmamayek and GAMazy for sticking to the subject and rationality.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1616 hrs

Sheeya. Like toilet paper and Hooters.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1618 hrs

Remind me to never purchase a used Ipad .
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1630 hrs

scott:
Liberal women shave more than yours do—and in more places.

I notice you didn’t mention bathing, which leaves me to believe you mean by your statement that they “shave more often, and in more places” as a necessity to rid themselves of body lice ,and crabs.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1636 hrs

The Americas is the name of the continent. It is not a word that one can claim ownership of. And aborigine is more of a generic name, it is not specific to region or continent, unless it is capitalized. If it is capitalized, Aborigines, they are members of any of the indigenous peoples of Australia.

The name America is derived from an Italian, Amerigo Vespucci and therefore is a European name. I’m not sure what the aboriginals called it at that time but my guess is that it had hundreds of names. I did not capitalize aboriginals in my comment. I question being offended by the use of the word chieftain by the ancestors of Europeans but no offense to using the European name for the continent.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1744 hrs

@ anon #46

I don’t fear liberals/progressives. I mostly despise their arrogance and smugness.

@ scott #58

Wouldn’t you like to know
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 1850 hrs

Wouldn’t you like to know

Not really.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 1855 hrs

Are you a native american?

Actually, yes,

Too funny!

And you guys wonder at the fact that so many minority groups just don’t dig American conservatism. It’s just so puzzling!

Exactly how many years of occupancy does it take for a group to be considered “native” in your mind? Just wondering. Obviously many generations does not cut if…. so what are the parameters you use?

Keeping in mind that most ethnic groups have always migrated and spread… even inter-married, it must be quite confusing to look at the big board of Feldstein ethnic labels.

I have to ask because I know the liberal fondness for applying labels to groups… I’ve never been able to comprehend the need, myself.

Like I often say, one of our biggest problems is too much Pluribus, and not enough Unum
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 2036 hrs

Well I don’t think there’s another ethnic group in America who’s land was invaded and forcibly taken over, who were wiped out by the millions and who were pushed into ghettos, and who were openly mocked until just a few decades ago, etc. I don’t think you can make the case that your ancestors or mine have had that kind of American history. So stop demanding that your own story is somehow equivalent to theirs.

Just be more like everyone else (us)! is ever the cry of the historically privileged, majority ethnic group.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 2052 hrs

I know the liberal fondness for applying labels to groups… I’ve never been able to comprehend the need, myself.

Except if you’re the one applying labels on someone.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 2054 hrs

Really not an answer, Scott.

One group moving into another groups territory is pretty much the whole history of the world. Are you saying that only groups you feel were directly harmed by America are to be offered special status? What about the fact that many of the people in the US did not have a single family member present during the move west. Do we have guilt by mere association? My family came here in the late 50s and my children are from China…. do we all suffer some of that stain purely because of where we live? I’m pretty sure none of us forced any American Indians into ghettos. Would you label my kids children of privileged or victims of race? Really, you’ll have to tell me… I have no idea how to divide it all up by color.

Just be more like everyone else (us)! is ever the cry of the historically privileged, majority ethnic group.
Majority ethnic group? You mean the French? The English? The Germans? The Norwegians? The Chinese? The Italians? The Russians? Which one do you consider to be the majority group? I Don’t recall being historically privileged…. I recall my dad being unable to work a real job because he was German…. but I don’t recall him mentioning that we should feel under-privileged or consider ourselves victims.

Seems like that is the first argument the left falls back on… divide by shades of brown skin and subsets of ethnic origin, and then multiply by historical wrongs viewed through modern sensibilities to create numerous subsets of current victims. The equation of division and failure.

Perhaps the real problem again is too much Pluribus, not enough Unum.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 2214 hrs

I recall my dad being unable to work a real job because he was German…

Yeah, that’s exactly like growing up black in America.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 2225 hrs

My paternal family came to this continent before the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. They did not invade, they did not forcibly take land they did not push millions of people into ghettos.

Did the indigenous people get the short end of the stick? In the long run I’d say yes but I don’t see any of them going back to their old ways of essentially survival existence.

I don’t understand why people living today are blamed for the evils of history yet not credited for it’s advancements.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2010 at 2231 hrs

This isn’t about blame! Is that the problem, you think it is?
Posted by scott on July 28, 2010 at 2234 hrs

Yes scott. It is about blame. Blame every living caucasian person today for things that their ancestors probably had absolutely nothing to do with.

As far as the Indian “ghettos”. The Indians chose to remain on the reservations now. We afford them special status for casinos and sales tax exemptions and the such to do that. But if the “ghetto” is unpalatable, they are free to leave as they are US Citizens as well.

My great-grandparents settled in northern WI from Norway in 1893. We weren’t even remotely associated with the move West or slavery. Yet, I continue to be told that I “owe” somebody something as reparrations. A Son of Liberty has it dead-on in #70.

The only reason that someone is a victim today is if they chose to be. Even in the black community surveys have found that the majority believe that lack of success is based more on the individual than an oppressive white community and racism.

The race card has been played far too often - especially in the past 18 months. The word is now almost meaningless. To cry racism when there is none is an egregious crime. Because then, if and when it truly happens, nobody takes it seriously.

No, I don’t believe any person is harmed whatsoever by a sports team named the Warriors (be they Indian, Spartan, or Viking) or the Chieftans using the likeness of a local tribe member with permission. Whatever happened to trying to be proud of a warrior tradition? Seems that has been replaced by - the white man oppressed you and now you will be a victim class in perpetuity.

If someone truly believes that a team name/logo will prevent them from being successful, then the world will simply eat them when they get older and have to hold, a job. Life sucks sometimes. Sometimes its not fair. Its hard. You will be offended at times. It is not possible to coddle someone into self-esteem and prepare them for the outside world.

Yeesh - I was from Beaver Dam… You know. Home of the Golden Beavers. Somehow, I have survived.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 0716 hrs

Yeesh - I was from Beaver Dam… You know. Home of the Golden Beavers. Somehow, I have survived.

There’s a wall in Beaver Dam with an advertisement for Beaver Cleaners on it. I always wanted to get my picture taken by it wearing a miners hat and holding a chimney sweep brush.

Yes it’s juvenile, but still funny.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 29, 2010 at 0856 hrs

Yeah, that’s exactly like growing up black in America.
Does it need to be? Is that the gold standard of privileged majority oppression in your playbook?

We know what a “typical white person” is (your president explained that for us). but what is “black America” to you? I mean, what defines that stereotype in your mind? I suspect it’s not as easy to pigeon hole as the “perpetual victimization” folks (like you) wish it was. Some people who happen to be black grow up with opportunity, wealth and privileged, and some people who might happen to be of European decent (there are different races in Europe… you know that, right?) grow up in poverty with little in the way of hope. It’s not about black America, or your Indian “ghetto” (I wonder how American Indians would feel about your reference to their reservation? Well, you DO work for a place proudly named after that horrible Pere Marquette… so no surprise).

If you could only open your guilt ridden white liberal eyes, you’d see what neomom was trying to tell you. Every story is different. There is no need to assign level of guilt, blame and repression based upon the browness of your skin. It’s ignorant to make the type of assumptions that you do… which is why you can’t answer any of my questions about it. The answer would sound horribly racist…. and for good reason.

Erasing and vilifying a community’s reference to American Indians (or simply to “warriors” as Jay noted) because some perpetually offended person does not like it is a ridiculous exorcise. If anything, it drives more of a wedge between communities.

Feel free to explain why using warrior references is bad and using bastardized, mispronounced and inaccurate American Indian geographical references is ok? Should I be offended at the use of New BER-lin instead of New Ber-LIN?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 0908 hrs

@neomom #65

Maybe they dislike your ignorance and stupidity?

It’s like complaining about the educated “elites” because they don’t use chewing tobacco, wear mesh caps, or ride snowmobiles.

HYSTERICAL that GAMazy is making light of people being offended by the misuse of their background, but she can’t handle a lack of censorship in the libraries!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 0919 hrs

YES!!! Who are you to decide?
And why are those who aren’t offended ignored?

I am not deciding, I want to give that option to the people who were almost wiped off the face of the planet by the US government. I know most conservatives think words don’t have meaning, see socialist, but the do. Native americans were givin that name because the were either the first or earliest known people of a region.

#38, use a dictionary, PLEASE. When you come across a word that confuses you, look it up. “Perceived” underclass, have you ever been to a tribes reservation? Classic conservative ignorance on display.

To be consistant, then the native americans need to demand that cities with an Indian name need to change the city’s names, street names and every thing else that are Native American.

Last I checked, native americans don’t complain about street names or city names. They complain about the negative stereotypes that some schools use as mascots.

It is amazing the comments of some people here. Most of you have never been to a reservation, but are so able to pass of observations of what the life is like. I have been to one, it isn’t has great as you think it is. How is it a choice to stay there if you don’t have any money to move? Not all tribes get casinos too.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 0921 hrs

Most of you have never been to a reservation, but are so able to pass of observations of what the life is like.
I’ve been to quite a few…. though I must confess that I missed the ones with barbed wire and guard towers that force people to remain withing rather than seek success elsewhere. Seems to me that if a community has problems, then it’s the duty of that community to solve them. Indian reservations have many special rights assigned by treaty that would make success a far easier road than it would for…. say Janesville or Beloit. In the end they are free to go anywhere they like to find prosperity, if reservation residents find the conditions horrible (and that is far from being the case on many reservations… some do quite well, even if success is not an option listed on the liberal multiple choice test). Not having the money to move is a pretty lame excuse. I moved frequently when I was unemployed and broke. It can easily be done on a shoestring budget with a rusty pick up and a trip to Goodwill afterward…. unless you are simply in the market for convenient excuses.

You can live a long, miserable life huddled in the nest of progressive liberal excuses and nibbling on the lowest common denominator table scraps they offer in exchange for votes, or you can get the job done no matter how hard the task is. The former is far easier, but the latter is the only way to succeed.

In any event, being offended at some past harm and feeling that nullifying some community’s mascot will solve anything is a farce.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1006 hrs

anon:
HYSTERICAL that GAMazy is making light of people being offended by the misuse of their background, but she can’t handle a lack of censorship in the libraries!

What’s equally hysterical is how Liberals blatantly lie and misrepresent positions they disagree with.
There was no call for censorship of the material, GAMAZY merely wanted it moved from the “children’s section” of the West Bend Library to the Adult section. Liberals, lacking a “moral compass” find no problem exposing children to material that could affect normal development. It could be argued Liberals actively seek to do so in the hope of gaining another convert to the cause. In any case, the actions Liberals pursue speak volumes as to their intent to pervert American culture, and society. No one keep people from succeeding in America other than those who do not try.

Yeah, yeah, I know, more extremist talk.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1059 hrs

In any event, being offended at some past harm and feeling that nullifying some community’s mascot will solve anything is a farce.

If I had to guess, I bet you don’t understand why african americans don’t like the confederate flag.

Not having the money to move is a pretty lame excuse.

Could there be other reasons why someone can’t/doesn’t move? What if no one has ever moved off the reservation? What if you have no idea what it is like off the reservation? It is easy to dismiss people’s rational when you haven’t lived their life?

Can you tell me the difference between “reason” and “excuse”?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1120 hrs

What if no one has ever moved off the reservation? What if you have no idea what it is like off the reservation?
So these reservation are completely off the media grid as well? No one has ever moved and they have no idea what the world is like?

Do you realize how stupid that sounds? No, obviously not. We are not talking about the lost tribe of New Guinea. It is amazing to see the contortions that a liberal will resort to in order to shield their views from reality.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1241 hrs

@Scott(I-C) #80

This is a perfect argument for you because you can easily ignore the response.

See, I would suggest you go to the public library and access the OED to learn the definition of “censorship”. Unfortunately, being a hater of libraries, your type can simply remain ignorant!

Your type just doesn’t want to be a parent to your own kids. You want the government to do it for you.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1406 hrs

Glad to know everyone in the world has the same life experiences as “A Son of Liberty” and sees the world the exact same way.

There can be no differences!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1408 hrs

Glad to know everyone in the world has the same life experiences as “A Son of Liberty” and sees the world the exact same way.
Yeah, because that was what I said…

Well, thanks for at least backing up my other statement with your spin on my first one… namely ““It is amazing to see the contortions that a liberal will resort to in order to shield their views from reality.”“. It truly is amazing to watch.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1432 hrs

anon:
Your type just doesn’t want to be a parent to your own kids. You want the government to do it for you.

HA!! How absurd could you possibly be? Removing “unsuitable” material so children can not access it is the definition of parenting. And as far as the rest of #80 goes, it describes you to a tee.

My Type?? Unfortunately there aren’t enough of “my type”.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1448 hrs

Removing “unsuitable” material so children can not access it is the definition of parenting.

Except you want the library to do it because you don’t like the material. Why don’t you just look at what your kinds are getting from the library instead of forcing your ideals on everyone else? Actually being involved in your kids life sounds like parenting to me. Instead of asking the government to do it for you.

Do you realize how stupid that sounds? No, obviously not.

Kind of funny, I was thinking the same thing about your comments. So because something can be seen on tv means it is true? I didn’t realize Jersey Shore was a documentary on Italian-American behavior. For someone who supposedly has been to reservations, I would think you would understand there are differences between the cultures on and off the reservations. But then again, conservatives usually can’t look at a situation from position besides their own.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1543 hrs

Doncha love how someone who claims to not be arrogant and smug defines those s/he disagrees with? Lessee… we are uneducated, stupid, and ignorant. Our “type” evidently chews tobacco, rides snowmobiles, and wears mesh caps. We hate libraries, and are incapable of looking up the definition of a word in the dictionary.

btw - Merriam-Webster…

cen·sor·ship \ˈsen(t)-sər-ˌship\ noun
1: the action of a censor esp. in stopping he transmission or publication of matter considered to be objectionable

So no, moving items with adult content from the Children’s section to the Adult section is not censorship.

But thanks for proving, well, all of our points.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1737 hrs

lstw:
Except you want the library to do it because you don’t like the material.

What I want is for the Library to be responsible enough not to allow mine, or anyone else’s children to have access to harmful materials that could have an adverse effect on their development. Not allowing access in the first place is what a good parent would do, and being proactive with the situation is better than being reactive once it finds it’s way into a child’s possession. In effect it’s sort of like keeping loaded guns away from them. Maybe you can understand it in that context.
And tell me, how do you presume to think you know what I like or dislike? Don’t assume you know the slightest thing about me, jackass.
Liberals are the quintessential definition of people who push their ideals (or lack there of) on the rest of society. obamacare comes to mind, or how about the total removal of all references to religion, both public and private, just to name a couple? The situation at the West Bend Library is exactly what Liberals champion as a just cause, when all it really is is a tool for enticing impressionable innocents into the perversion known as the progressive movement.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 1745 hrs

What I want is for the Library to be responsible enough not to allow mine, or anyone else’s children to have access to harmful materials that could have an adverse effect on their development.

Again, who are you to ask the library to make decisions for other parents. I doubt you would like people making decisions for your kids you don’t agree with. Your decision is whether or not you take your kid to the library. I thought liberals wanted a “nanny state”.

Don’t assume you know the slightest thing about me, jackass.

So I said that you didn’t like the material currently available in the library. Which is what YOU said. If you don’t want people making observations on YOUR thoughts, here is an idea, get off blogs. Do you want some french cries for your whaburger?

Liberals are the quintessential definition of people who push their ideals (or lack there of) on the rest of society.

Cute. Have you heard of the religious right? I can’t remember how many times there were people handing out bibles on my college campus. Yeah, they seemed like liberals to me too. And last I checked, the health care law followed the law in how it was passed. But of course, you didn’t agree with it, so it was “people who push their ideals (or lack there of) on the rest of society”.

I haven’t heard of anyone complaing about private religious things. Maybe you could expand on this.

When you say public, I am assuming government operated places or the such. Could the liberals be against it because of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Or how about article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli?

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 0930 hrs

Glad that “neomom” has such a weak grasp on definitions. And THAT proves my point! Despite the fact that her definition completely proves that censorship was the intended goal.

Oh, and did I claim to not be arrogant and smug someplace? Education has afforded me that right!

Scott(I-C), that is definitely NOT the definition of parenting. I didn’t ask you to parent my children. How about you mind you and your family’s own business instead of trying to get the government to babysit all of us? Your definition of “harmful materials” is exactly that…YOUR definition.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1011 hrs

Actually being involved in your kids life sounds like parenting to me.

That sounds like a great idea. How about this, get a group together that will, whenever in the library, find those objectionable books in the kids section, and move them to some shelf in the adult section. See, active parenting.

Except you want the library to do it because you don’t like the material.

Well, the library does “OWN” the material… see my thought above… does that work for you?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1044 hrs

anon:
How about you mind you and your family’s own business instead of trying to get the government to babysit all of us? Your definition of “harmful materials” is exactly that…YOUR definition.

If you want to pervert your children you go right ahead. No one is stopping you from going to the Library to get the pornographic homosexual literature you obviously desire your children be exposed to, I just don’t want it available to my children. And while you’re at it keep your faggot kids away from mine. If I find out they are exposing them to pornography I’m going to do what you should have. As a parent I have a right to determine what is or is not good for my children, as do you. Should your lack of common sense put my child in danger it is my prerogative to do what is necessary to protect them. If that takes extreme measures so be it. I would hope you would do the same, but I’m beginning to believe you are the type who would be more likely to sexually abuse them. Being anon leads me to believe you’re a coward as well.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1214 hrs

It only took a couple replies to get him to reveal his bigotry. Easy.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1254 hrs

And your perversion.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1259 hrs

If you want to pervert your children you go right ahead…to get the pornographic homosexual literature…keep your faggot kids away from mine…you are the type who would be more likely to sexually abuse them.

If these statements were made by scott (I-C), it is awfully telling. I hope that they were not, given how imposters have shown up here from time to time.

I just don’t want it available to my children.

Then don’t take them. Stop forcing your ideals on other people. Which, by your statements, is what liberals do. Let me be the first to welcome you to the liberal side. Oh wait, thats right, your just a hypocrite.

Being anon leads me to believe you’re a coward as well.

And so does throwing around insults and threats on the internet. You like to do it as long as you can hide behind a monitor.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1317 hrs

If these statements were made by scott (I-C), it is awfully telling. I hope that they were not, given how imposters have shown up here from time to time.

I hadn’t thought of that, but you’re right. It could possibly be an impostor.

And your perversion.

You need an introspective mirror, ol’ chap!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1334 hrs

I’m still not sure why the name “Scott(I-C)” would be any less anonymous to me. I have no idea who that person is.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1335 hrs

There seems to be a lot of anonymous or impersonated comments going around recently. Most of them are pretty shitty and some are bordering on prosecutable.
Posted by scott on July 30, 2010 at 1342 hrs

I may use the name “anon” here, but I ALWAYS use the name “anon” here.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1343 hrs

OK anon… A couple of things..

How is moving some books to another section of the library “stopping the transmission or publication” of it?

Second. You have absolutely no idea what my education level is or anything about me. So your vaunted “education” really is making you nothing more than a smug ass. But I’ll let you in on a secret. I have a couple of degrees. Oops.

And I have been waiting for someone to pull the “conservatives want a theocracy crap” to share this. Thanks for obliging.

“So when my husband and I came to America, we heard a story about conservatives. We heard that these conservatives are a really really weird lot. Nutjobs, basically. And these conservatives, they’re obsessed with sex. They’re obsessed with sex and they’re obsessed with what you’re doing in your bedroom. It’s all they think about. They’re just constantly worrying about what you’re up to in your bedroom.

But you know something? Since we’ve moved here, we haven’t found that. But what we have found is that liberals, are in every other room in your house. They’re in the fridge. They’re in your car. They’re in your air miles. They’re in your clothes. They’re in your hair. They’re in your cleaning products, and your washing machine and the refrigerator. They’re all over the place! And they’re in your light bulb! And I want to say them .. This is America! Get out of my light bulb!!”

What she said.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1632 hrs

I stand by my posts, and if you want to know who I am just click on my name and send me an e-mail. I have no problem going face to face with those I disagree with any time any where. anon, do you really think I give a damn that my perspective of homosexuals is not politically correct enough for you? Bigot? So what? I don’t have to accept perverts as being normal, or respectable just because it suits your deviant view of the world. And I won’t kowtowed into using politically correct verbiage to express myself.

scott, if you feel my posts are prosecutable no one’s stopping you from reporting me to the “politburo” comrade. It is where we are headed is it not? But if you think your thought police intimidation is going to shut me up, you’re sadly mistaken. Until the day my free speech is denied me I will most assuredly speak my mind, and fight to my dying breath to regain it. You frikkin Liberals may think you’ve won the war of ideology, but all you have done is make an apathetic majority realize what it is you’re trying to do, and motivated them to action.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1859 hrs

neomom - perhaps you should put those degrees that you’re nonsensically defending to use. When you remove the books from the section for intended audience, you’re blocking the transmission. There’s a reason the libraries always win these cases.

Somebody tell Scott(I-C) that his Third Reich armband is sliding off. You don’t dare utter those words in everyday conversation, which makes you a coward. Free speech, but only if he agrees with the viewpoint!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2055 hrs

What are the chances Scott(I-C) would tell me his name, location, and employer if I were to e-mail him?

The combination of him not being anonymous and standing by his comments could be really interesting.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2105 hrs

perhaps you should put those degrees that you’re nonsensically defending to use.

What are the chances Scott(I-C) would tell me his name, location, and employer if I were to e-mail him?

The combination of him not being anonymous and standing by his comments could be really interesting.

brave posts from someone with an e-mail address of (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2109 hrs

Good job “getting it”, neomom! Read the rest of my comments, genius.

Wow…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 2142 hrs

...do you really think I give a damn that my perspective of homosexuals is not politically correct enough for you? Bigot? So what? I don’t have to accept perverts as being normal, or respectable just because it suits your deviant view of the world. And I won’t kowtowed into using politically correct verbiage to express myself.

Go ahead. Use whatever words you want. I do have a simple questions though. Is the use of the “N” word politically incorrect of socially incorrect?

But again, your rant proves my point. You are against these books. Got it. You want them taken out. Got that too. Why do you think the books should not be available to people who do not share your view?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1321 hrs

lstw:
Is the use of the “N” word politically incorrect of socially incorrect?

Not that I have a need to justify my opinions to the likes of you, but to answer the question is it’s socially inappropriate. I hold no ill will toward anyone because of their race. But as far as I’m concerned there is a great difference between being born any certain race, and the “choice” of sexual preference.

lstw:
But again, your rant proves my point. You are against these books. Got it. You want them taken out. Got that too. Why do you think the books should not be available to people who do not share your view?

You misrepresent my statement, I said “I believe they belong in the adult section”, and this is due to their content. I also said I didn’t care a whit if anon were to check them out and gave them to his children if that is his desire. Please don’t twist my words in an attempt to portray my viewpoint as an aberration.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 1955 hrs

there is a great difference between being born any certain race, and the “choice” of sexual preference.

Are you gay or straight?
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 1958 hrs

Why scott? Looking for a date?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2026 hrs

No I’d just like to know when and how you made the choice to be whichever it is.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2028 hrs

And you say your associated with Marquette? Surely the answer to that hasn’t escaped you, but if it has, it’s very telling as why the level of education is dropping nation wide. Don’t ask again, I won’t dignify it with an answer.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2047 hrs

So you’re straight. When and how did you make this decision?
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2052 hrs

Instead of trying to lead me why not just say what you’re going to say and be done with it? I know how you like to work, and I’m not going to be a part of it. If you’re not going to be forthright, don’t bother me with inane questions.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2208 hrs

Fair enough. You didn’t choose to be straight. You just are.

(Unless of course you’re a closeted gay man who chooses to live as if he were straight. But likely not.)

Therefore, people don’t, as you asserted, “choose” to be gay. They just are.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2211 hrs

Well, I guess Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t choose to be a homosexual, cannibalistic murderer either then, so do we just “get over it” and let it go as that’s just how he was? Nothing unusual about that either, eh? Or Jimmy Baker (of PTL fame) didn’t choose to be a philandering cheat, who talked gullible people out of millions while living the life of leisure while his followers starved. Any number of peculiarities can be explained as being part of a person’s makeup, but it still doesn’t make it “normal”. Yeah, there is such a thing as normal, and no I won’t explain to you what that might be.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 2248 hrs

Well did you or did you not choose to be straight? It’s a pretty simple question.
Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 2316 hrs

To be brutally honest, I guess it was the first time a homosexual came on to me. I found the experience to be very peculiar, and highly disturbing.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0812 hrs

So I guess we can conclude that you didn’t make a choice to be straight, you just are straight. Can we not also assume that gay people don’t choose to be gay? Earlier you wrote that sexual preference was a choice. You were wrong.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 0819 hrs

Noooo, what you can conclude is I chose not to pursue homosexuality. You can assume anything you want scott, it doesn’t make it so.

scott:
Earlier you wrote that sexual preference was a choice. You were wrong.

This isn’t quite the “got cha” moment you were trying for, and it wasn’t too hard to figure out this is where your last few posts were headed.
Now that we’re here tell me, is this a personal crusade for your comrades in the GLBT(gay, lesbian, bi, trans gender) community? If so why do you discriminate against pedophiles, rapists, and those who partake in beastiality? Surely these individuals didn’t “choose” their sexual preference, right?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0858 hrs

What I can conclude is that you’re gay but choosing not to act on it. I’ll make no more of an issue out of it. I’m not trying to stigmatize or embarrass you about it.

why do you discriminate against pedophiles, rapists, and those who partake in beastiality?

Because while it may be the case that they don’t choose their sexual preferences, as opposed to homosexuality these kind of people engage in sexual activity without consent, which is a heinous crime.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 0922 hrs

Not that I have a need to justify my opinions to the likes of you, but to answer the question is it’s socially inappropriate.

So I can’t ask you a question? All you want to do is b&m about how unfair it is when you don’t get your way? The reason I asked is, how can you draw a line at the “n” word by being socially inappropriate but not “faggot”?

And no, being gay is NOT a choice. Penn and Teller did a sho on this topic on their BS show on showtime. And they had a scientist on that said there is emerging research that shows homosexuals are that way by genetics, i.e. born that way. So again, not a choice.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0949 hrs

So what about people who engage in plural marriage? Do you then support that as well? I assume you must. How about communal marriage?

How about prostitution? Assuming there is consent, that must also be accepted openly.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0949 hrs

I don’t particularly care what any consenting adults do, as long as it doesn’t negatively affect others.

That’s the difference between me and the obviously closeted Scott(I-C). Some of you people just want big government intervention in our personal lives. You usually call yourselves “conservatives”.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 0956 hrs

If it can be shown that polygamy and polyandry are harmful to society, then they should be illegal too. Are they? I’m not sure. I suspect they maybe—but it has nothing to do with criminal acts of sex without consent.

Homosexuality isn’t harmful to society that I’m aware of.

How about prostitution?

Possibly. Nevadans seem to think so, anyway. I guess for me it would hinge on whether outlawing it actually reduced its harms or whether it made things worse. (See Drugs, War On.)

Outlawing homosexuality or preventing gay people from marrying isn’t harmful to society that I’m aware of.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 0959 hrs

Penn and Teller did a sho on this topic on their BS show on showtime. And they had a scientist on
Penn and Teller? And they had a scientist? Oh well, if two magicians and a scientist say so, then the consensus is in.

I believe Penn and Teller also said anthropogenic warming is a hoax… I think the had a scientist there too. Well, that’s two issues out of the way.
Homosexuality isn’t harmful to society
It’s also not illegal. So what’s your point? If that is the lifestyle people want to choose for themselves, they can. They are also free to marry in some states and not in others. So what’s your point there? States get to choose… Wisconsin voted on it, in fact. You are not suggesting we disenfranchise the voters, are you?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1007 hrs

They are also free to marry in some states and not in others. So what’s your point there?

I’m suggesting that gay marriage isn’t harmful, either. Which is why I’m for allowing it here. Why aren’t you?
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1010 hrs

Why no answer to my question? What is your special interest in this issue?

scott:

What I can conclude is that you’re gay but choosing not to act on it. I’ll make no more of an issue out of it. I’m not trying to stigmatize or embarrass you about it.

Yeah, ok scott, assume, conclude, do whatever you want. It’s sort of sad though that you feel a need to make unfounded accusations simply because I won’t fall prey to your debate style.

I’m not trying to stigmatize or embarrass you about it.

That’s pure unadulterated B.S. Being compassionate to homosexuals you wouldn’t have mentioned it. But it appears you don’t mind referencing it if you think your target would be upset by it. In any case, it says more about you than it does me, and further interaction with a person of such low caliber, such as yourself, is an exercise in futility. Please don’t take offense should I “choose” not to respond to you in the future.

Because while it may be the case that they don’t choose their sexual preferences, as opposed to homosexuality these kind of people engage in sexual activity without consent

But it’s the way they are! Where’s your compassion, Hypocrite!?!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1017 hrs

So I can’t ask you a question?

You can do whatever you want, it doesn’t mean I have to justify myself to you. I’m not going to change your mind, nor you mine. And no matter how much verbal dancing you do is going make me agree with you on any topic if I don’t hold those views already. You can play your silly assed games till the cows come home, in the end I’m still going to know where I stand.

Penn and Teller did a sho on this topic

That’s your point of reference, Penn and Teller?
Look, you can’t “magically” change the fact that homosexuality is clearly contrary to the concept of continuation of the species through procreation, which is the “natural” order. And you can get any “scientist” to agree with your view on any number of subjects. Just make sure your check to their foundation is in the mail.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1042 hrs

Please don’t take offense should I “choose” not to respond to you in the future.

People who live in gay houses shouldn’t throw bigoted stones, the way I figure it. But as I said, it’s better we drop it.

Hypocrite!?!

You’re deeply confused about something here. You seem to think that just because I’m accepting of homosexuality but not of bestiality (really?) that I’m a hypocrite. (Not that I think you really believe this, you’re just trying to be a dick.) Of course you know already the difference: one is a crime involving sexual acts without consent and the other is sexuality between two consenting adults which harms no one.

homosexuality is clearly contrary to the concept of continuation of the species through procreation, which is the “natural” order.

We seem to have switched topics. Previously we were discussing whether sexual orientation was a choice or not. Did we settle that one and move on to whether or not it’s “the natural order”? Just trying to keep up.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1055 hrs

And history will not look well upon you. If you want to make decisions on fear and not logic, that’s certainly your choice to make. It’s just too bad you want to legislate and condemn those who can see beyond such childish views.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1055 hrs

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Allah that my marriage and all activities that take place under the umbrella of my marriage are not reliant on the concepts of procreation or “natural order”.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1100 hrs

scott, ref: #129.

I’m done.

anon, Mohammad was a pedophile. He “took” a 13 year old girl.

I rest my case!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1121 hrs

Good thing I’m a filthy (logical) atheist!

I’m surprised you have internet access in your cave.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1124 hrs

We could have lots of fun finding perversion and immorality in the Judeo/Christian bible. Not that it would help…but we could.
Posted by scott on August 03, 2010 at 1127 hrs

You can do whatever you want, it doesn’t mean I have to justify myself to you. I’m not going to change your mind, nor you mine.
I wasn’t asking you to justify yourself. You don’t want me to verbal dance my way with words, but you are doing the same thing. All you really did is show you don’t know what politically incorrect means(shock). If you look it up, “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”

So I guess if scientists were able to prove that their is a gene the homosexuals have and straight people don’t, which is what I was stating, it would get dismissed out of hand because of the show it was presented on? I thought liberals were supposed to have a closed mind. Way not to attack the idea being presented, but the way it was presented. I wonder why? Oh wait, because it conflicts with your “choice” view. Which is, and forever will be, complete and utter garbage.

And how is rape a sexual preference?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1130 hrs

So, it appears that the ID Scott(I-C) actually stands for “Scott (I’m gay but trying to get out of the Closet)”….???
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1148 hrs

I meant…
So, it appears that Scott(I-C) actually stands for “Scott (I’m gay but trying to get out of the Closet)”….???
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1150 hrs

It’s sad the level to which you’ll sink. How tragically pathetic you three are.

Scott (I-C) in - closet, inhabits closets, inhabitatus closetus, see, if only you would put just a little effort into your innuendo it might even be funny.
Nice try though,..................................................... .......NOT!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1229 hrs

How tragically pathetic you three are.

So says the guy who said we are more likely to sexual abuse our children. I like to be more inclusionary, you like to be more exclusionary. I don’t know if you have noticed, but society usually moves forward, not backward or stall. So enjoy you exclusionary attitude, I wouldn’t be suprised if your kids buck your homophobic attitude as rebellion towards you close minded views. If not, I am sure you will find a life living on the fringe of society that you are already embracing.

And you are the one who said rape was a sexual preference.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1258 hrs

The irony is thick with Scott(I-C). If only (s)he could see it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1333 hrs

.lstw:
So says the guy who said we are more likely to sexual abuse our children.

No, actually I said that to anon, but I guess you know yourself well enough to know whether you should have been included.

I wouldn�t be suprised if your kids buck your homophobic attitude as rebellion towards you close minded views.

Well actually just my daughter has been drawn into the “lifestyle”, and I only have myself to blame for my lack of diligence. Surprisingly, I don’t despise her as you’d probably “assume”, and I care very much that she at least understand why I’m opposed to her choice.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1404 hrs

With your mindset, you’ve already admitted to abusing your children. Anyone who has those bigoted/hateful beliefs and is willing to use such vulgar language is doing their children a great disservice.

When did your daughter make the conscious “choice”? Why?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1423 hrs

but I guess you know yourself well enough to know whether you should have been included.

Yeah, include me in the freedom of choice group. Again, I thought conservatives wanted less government, i.e. not choosing what books to put where?

Well actually just my daughter has been drawn into the “lifestyle”, and I only have myself to blame for my lack of diligence.

Do you call your daughter a faggot? Did you ask her when she made that “choice”? I have never heard a homosexual ever say they chose to be gay. You know, who would actually chose to put themselves through all the harassment of “choosing” to be gay. I have only ever heard people who think homosexuality is a choice claim that.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2010 at 1519 hrs

tks for your sharing,The law allows the agency to order schools to drop their race-based nicknames and logos if they are deemed discriminatory.
Posted by Ray Ban sunglasses on August 23, 2010 at 0237 hrs

I’m sure somewhere in the past my ancestors were overrun by someone wearing a hat like that logo from Winona State. I object.
I think we need to get rid of all the logos and nicknames.
Posted by juicy couture on August 25, 2010 at 0446 hrs

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

No More Chieftains

Show all recent comments

September 2010
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

Total Entries: 17559
Total Comments: 112274
Total Trackbacks: 1069
Most Recent Entry: 09/02/2010 01:40 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 09/02/2010 01:06 pm
Total Members: 9748
Total Logged in members: 2
Total guests: 79
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 09/02/2010 01:45 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm

Current Logged-in Members: Owen Wendy

Syndication: RSS 2.0 | Atom

Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).