(07-18-2019 04:17 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:10 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:33 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

I guess this wasn't part of your Powerline regurgitation.

A black and white photo? How old is it?

Dismantled in 1977 per The Charlotte Observer.

I would have placed it earlier, in 1957 to 1968 or so. Maybe back in 1977 it was useless relic of bygone days like "colored only" bathroom signs.

Observer article said the sign had stood for 10 years, so it looks more like 68 - 77 versus 57 - 68 for that particular sign. Possible there were others of earlier vintage.

I would have put it in the era of White Citizen's Councils.

Sign looks pretty old and decrepit in that picture. Did they have color film in those days?

In anything, it means what in the big picture of things? That the Klan used to be strong in some places? I could have told you that. Kind of like saying FDR was a racist. Why FDR did not support the anti-lynching bill I guess the Klan was the support he was afraid of losing.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...on/595102/

Not great, Bob.

(07-30-2019 10:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...on/595102/

Not great, Bob.

Yes, Virginia, there's hypocrisy and failure on both sides, but it is the left that has set itself up to the arbiter of all things moral and ethical, and the greatest sin is to be racist in any conceivable way. THAT's how you get to the "deplorables" speech.

Maybe it is worse to want to condemn millions to live in poverty and hopelessness in order to shame one man for minor transgressions. Better to repeal the tax cuts that help so many than to allow him to talk unimpeded about rodent-infested cities. Of course, there is no minor transgression when it comes to race politics - you are either a Democrat or a Nazi.

I haven't read the purported Nixon/Reagan discussion. I have no idea how egregious the racial statements are. But it does not surprise me that two men raised in the 20-30's would hold some such views. I am sure if they had been born 30 years later and having that discussion today, it would be different. Just as it would be if they were discussing it with Lincoln in 1858. Or 1862. Or 1865. It would be different if they were discussing it with Napoleon, or Caesar. Maybe it is time to stop holding the modern yardstick up against historical personages.

I think we are getting pretty close to racist = somebody who disagrees with a democrat.

That's very sad, because there is some real racism still exists, and needs to be combatted. But labeling every disagreement as racist is bordering on the boy who cried, "Wolf."

(07-31-2019 06:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think we are getting pretty close to racist = somebody who disagrees with a democrat.

That's very sad, because there is some real racism still exists, and needs to be combatted. But labeling every disagreement as racist is bordering on the boy who cried, "Wolf."

'[I]s bordering'? From what I've seen they have jumped that barrier lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.

They broke that barrier all the way down with Romney; they could have jumped back but they have quintupled down on that 'RACISM' card. I mean, they are literally infested with that bug now....

(07-31-2019 06:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think we are getting pretty close to racist = somebody who disagrees with a democrat.

That's very sad, because there is some real racism still exists, and needs to be combatted. But labeling every disagreement as racist is bordering on the boy who cried, "Wolf."

Like I have said before, I wish that the left would be more judicious when throwing around the "racist" label.

That being said... these comments were awful and racist. Even in the 1970s. Do you guys disagree?

Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

(07-31-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

Well... this seemed somewhat newsworthy and on-topic given how many posts have been devoted to this issue?

(07-31-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

In light of you having such a negative reaction to posts such that I made, perhaps you shouldn't click on new posts under the thread "Why do all these racists keep joining the GOP?"?

(07-31-2019 07:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

Well... this seemed somewhat newsworthy and on-topic given how many posts have been devoted to this issue?

All the posts given to examples half a fing century in the past? Not many from my recollection. How many of those have there been 93?

So in short, no point whatsoever. Thank you for clearing(?) that up for us. Just like that rationale to tagging the line about Trump (supporters, base, followers) on. No reason whatsoever. Sounds fun.

As for 'on-topic' there was the brief spurt about the twerp that went and tried to use his extensive research into the Rice yearbooks to cudgel-shame everyone, and that sub-thread seems about the only exemplar I can think of. You seemed to revel in that one as well, even when not having a clue what a 'Central Committee' was.

If instead the topic is the progs incessant usage of race at all times in any fashion, you are doing a smashing job of proving that point up. Thank you if that is the case.

I guess for you examples of racism 50+ years ago are so hot-centered you just cant resist the siren call, can you? Well to save *everyone* a lot of angst, I will agree with you. Those comments were not good. Half a century ago things were a helluva lot worse. Satisfied? Or do you still need to get your daily dosage in?

Or, if not, what is the added point here?

What do you think of LBJ calling them explicitly "n-ggers" on a daily basis? Perhaps you can go preachy-poo on that as well. I am sure the world of 50 years ago is ripe for great exemplars of that cudgel, my friend. Knock yourself out.

(07-31-2019 07:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

In light of you having such a negative reaction to posts such that I made, perhaps you shouldn't click on new posts under the thread "Why do all these racists keep joining the GOP?"?

I have no issue pointing out exemplars of progs using the 'race at any time and in any fashion'. I guess you find that 'negative'. Got it.

(07-31-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

Well... this seemed somewhat newsworthy and on-topic given how many posts have been devoted to this issue?

All the posts given to examples half a fing century in the past? Not many from my recollection. How many of those have there been 93?

So in short, no point whatsoever. Thank you for clearing(?) that up for us. Just like that rationale to tagging the line about Trump (supporters, base, followers) on. No reason whatsoever. Sounds fun.

As for 'on-topic' there was the brief spurt about the twerp that went and tried to use his extensive research into the Rice yearbooks to cudgel-shame everyone, and that sub-thread seems about the only exemplar I can think of. You seemed to revel in that one as well, even when not having a clue what a 'Central Committee' was.

If instead the topic is the progs incessant usage of race at all times in any fashion, you are doing a smashing job of proving that point up. Thank you if that is the case.

I guess for you examples of racism 50+ years ago are so hot-centered you just cant resist the siren call, can you? Well to save *everyone* a lot of angst, I will agree with you. Those comments were not good. Half a century ago things were a helluva lot worse. Satisfied? Or do you still need to get your daily dosage in?

Or, if not, what is the added point here?

What do you think of LBJ calling them explicitly "n-ggers" on a daily basis? Perhaps you can go preachy-poo on that as well. I am sure the world of 50 years ago is ripe for great exemplars of that cudgel, my friend. Knock yourself out.

It seems pertinent to multiple discussions that have taken place here that the ideological Jesus of the modern GOP felt this way. Sorry you find that so outrageous. Again... maybe not clicking new posts under this thread is the way forward for you?

(07-31-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

Well... this seemed somewhat newsworthy and on-topic given how many posts have been devoted to this issue?

All the posts given to examples half a fing century in the past? Not many from my recollection. How many of those have there been 93?

So in short, no point whatsoever. Thank you for clearing(?) that up for us. Just like that rationale to tagging the line about Trump (supporters, base, followers) on. No reason whatsoever. Sounds fun.

As for 'on-topic' there was the brief spurt about the twerp that went and tried to use his extensive research into the Rice yearbooks to cudgel-shame everyone, and that sub-thread seems about the only exemplar I can think of. You seemed to revel in that one as well, even when not having a clue what a 'Central Committee' was.

If instead the topic is the progs incessant usage of race at all times in any fashion, you are doing a smashing job of proving that point up. Thank you if that is the case.

I guess for you examples of racism 50+ years ago are so hot-centered you just cant resist the siren call, can you? Well to save *everyone* a lot of angst, I will agree with you. Those comments were not good. Half a century ago things were a helluva lot worse. Satisfied? Or do you still need to get your daily dosage in?

Or, if not, what is the added point here?

What do you think of LBJ calling them explicitly "n-ggers" on a daily basis? Perhaps you can go preachy-poo on that as well. I am sure the world of 50 years ago is ripe for great exemplars of that cudgel, my friend. Knock yourself out.

It seems pertinent to multiple discussions that have taken place here that the ideological Jesus of the modern GOP felt this way. Sorry you find that so outrageous. Again... maybe not clicking new posts under this thread is the way forward for you?

Wait... are you claiming that there were racist Republicans in the mid-20th century? I am outraged.

(07-31-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

Well... this seemed somewhat newsworthy and on-topic given how many posts have been devoted to this issue?

All the posts given to examples half a fing century in the past? Not many from my recollection. How many of those have there been 93?

So in short, no point whatsoever. Thank you for clearing(?) that up for us. Just like that rationale to tagging the line about Trump (supporters, base, followers) on. No reason whatsoever. Sounds fun.

As for 'on-topic' there was the brief spurt about the twerp that went and tried to use his extensive research into the Rice yearbooks to cudgel-shame everyone, and that sub-thread seems about the only exemplar I can think of. You seemed to revel in that one as well, even when not having a clue what a 'Central Committee' was.

If instead the topic is the progs incessant usage of race at all times in any fashion, you are doing a smashing job of proving that point up. Thank you if that is the case.

I guess for you examples of racism 50+ years ago are so hot-centered you just cant resist the siren call, can you? Well to save *everyone* a lot of angst, I will agree with you. Those comments were not good. Half a century ago things were a helluva lot worse. Satisfied? Or do you still need to get your daily dosage in?

Or, if not, what is the added point here?

What do you think of LBJ calling them explicitly "n-ggers" on a daily basis? Perhaps you can go preachy-poo on that as well. I am sure the world of 50 years ago is ripe for great exemplars of that cudgel, my friend. Knock yourself out.

It seems pertinent to multiple discussions that have taken place here that the ideological Jesus of the modern GOP felt this way. Sorry you find that so outrageous. Again... maybe not clicking new posts under this thread is the way forward for you?

Using "Jesus" is racist against Hispanics. (well, this kind of linking worked for rat-infested).

(07-31-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

Well... this seemed somewhat newsworthy and on-topic given how many posts have been devoted to this issue?

All the posts given to examples half a fing century in the past? Not many from my recollection. How many of those have there been 93?

So in short, no point whatsoever. Thank you for clearing(?) that up for us. Just like that rationale to tagging the line about Trump (supporters, base, followers) on. No reason whatsoever. Sounds fun.

As for 'on-topic' there was the brief spurt about the twerp that went and tried to use his extensive research into the Rice yearbooks to cudgel-shame everyone, and that sub-thread seems about the only exemplar I can think of. You seemed to revel in that one as well, even when not having a clue what a 'Central Committee' was.

If instead the topic is the progs incessant usage of race at all times in any fashion, you are doing a smashing job of proving that point up. Thank you if that is the case.

I guess for you examples of racism 50+ years ago are so hot-centered you just cant resist the siren call, can you? Well to save *everyone* a lot of angst, I will agree with you. Those comments were not good. Half a century ago things were a helluva lot worse. Satisfied? Or do you still need to get your daily dosage in?

Or, if not, what is the added point here?

What do you think of LBJ calling them explicitly "n-ggers" on a daily basis? Perhaps you can go preachy-poo on that as well. I am sure the world of 50 years ago is ripe for great exemplars of that cudgel, my friend. Knock yourself out.

It seems pertinent to multiple discussions that have taken place here that the ideological Jesus of the modern GOP felt this way. Sorry you find that so outrageous. Again... maybe not clicking new posts under this thread is the way forward for you?

Funny, I mentioned that I agreed that was terrible language. Did you miss that? It would be hard for fing Rice graduate to do so. How about them bones.....

My original guess is that it would be awesome fodder your your complete sanctimonious schtick. Looks like I hit that one dead on. Imagine that.

Where do you trade in your sanctimony points for proggie extra credit thse days?

(07-31-2019 08:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

Well... this seemed somewhat newsworthy and on-topic given how many posts have been devoted to this issue?

All the posts given to examples half a fing century in the past? Not many from my recollection. How many of those have there been 93?

So in short, no point whatsoever. Thank you for clearing(?) that up for us. Just like that rationale to tagging the line about Trump (supporters, base, followers) on. No reason whatsoever. Sounds fun.

As for 'on-topic' there was the brief spurt about the twerp that went and tried to use his extensive research into the Rice yearbooks to cudgel-shame everyone, and that sub-thread seems about the only exemplar I can think of. You seemed to revel in that one as well, even when not having a clue what a 'Central Committee' was.

If instead the topic is the progs incessant usage of race at all times in any fashion, you are doing a smashing job of proving that point up. Thank you if that is the case.

I guess for you examples of racism 50+ years ago are so hot-centered you just cant resist the siren call, can you? Well to save *everyone* a lot of angst, I will agree with you. Those comments were not good. Half a century ago things were a helluva lot worse. Satisfied? Or do you still need to get your daily dosage in?

Or, if not, what is the added point here?

What do you think of LBJ calling them explicitly "n-ggers" on a daily basis? Perhaps you can go preachy-poo on that as well. I am sure the world of 50 years ago is ripe for great exemplars of that cudgel, my friend. Knock yourself out.

It seems pertinent to multiple discussions that have taken place here that the ideological Jesus of the modern GOP felt this way. Sorry you find that so outrageous. Again... maybe not clicking new posts under this thread is the way forward for you?

Using "Jesus" is racist against Hispanics. (well, this kind of linking worked for rat-infested).

It is outrageous that you assume all Hispanics are Christians. How do you sleep at night?

{tongue-in-cheek if it wasn't clear}

(07-31-2019 08:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

Well... this seemed somewhat newsworthy and on-topic given how many posts have been devoted to this issue?

All the posts given to examples half a fing century in the past? Not many from my recollection. How many of those have there been 93?

So in short, no point whatsoever. Thank you for clearing(?) that up for us. Just like that rationale to tagging the line about Trump (supporters, base, followers) on. No reason whatsoever. Sounds fun.

As for 'on-topic' there was the brief spurt about the twerp that went and tried to use his extensive research into the Rice yearbooks to cudgel-shame everyone, and that sub-thread seems about the only exemplar I can think of. You seemed to revel in that one as well, even when not having a clue what a 'Central Committee' was.

If instead the topic is the progs incessant usage of race at all times in any fashion, you are doing a smashing job of proving that point up. Thank you if that is the case.

I guess for you examples of racism 50+ years ago are so hot-centered you just cant resist the siren call, can you? Well to save *everyone* a lot of angst, I will agree with you. Those comments were not good. Half a century ago things were a helluva lot worse. Satisfied? Or do you still need to get your daily dosage in?

Or, if not, what is the added point here?

What do you think of LBJ calling them explicitly "n-ggers" on a daily basis? Perhaps you can go preachy-poo on that as well. I am sure the world of 50 years ago is ripe for great exemplars of that cudgel, my friend. Knock yourself out.

It seems pertinent to multiple discussions that have taken place here that the ideological Jesus of the modern GOP felt this way. Sorry you find that so outrageous. Again... maybe not clicking new posts under this thread is the way forward for you?

Funny, I mentioned that I agreed that was terrible language. Did you miss that? It would be hard for fing Rice graduate to do so. How about them bones.....

I saw that and not sure how that pertains to my comments?

(07-31-2019 08:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, and so were FDR, Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and when you consider speech, even more so LBJ (whom used the term 'n-gger' more than most of my ancestors, who themselves used it fairly regularly.)

So what exactly is your point here 93? (that is, beyond your usual sanctimonious preachy ideal on making sure that everyone is beat over the head incessantly with the histories of racism.....)

Well... this seemed somewhat newsworthy and on-topic given how many posts have been devoted to this issue?

All the posts given to examples half a fing century in the past? Not many from my recollection. How many of those have there been 93?

So in short, no point whatsoever. Thank you for clearing(?) that up for us. Just like that rationale to tagging the line about Trump (supporters, base, followers) on. No reason whatsoever. Sounds fun.

As for 'on-topic' there was the brief spurt about the twerp that went and tried to use his extensive research into the Rice yearbooks to cudgel-shame everyone, and that sub-thread seems about the only exemplar I can think of. You seemed to revel in that one as well, even when not having a clue what a 'Central Committee' was.

If instead the topic is the progs incessant usage of race at all times in any fashion, you are doing a smashing job of proving that point up. Thank you if that is the case.

I guess for you examples of racism 50+ years ago are so hot-centered you just cant resist the siren call, can you? Well to save *everyone* a lot of angst, I will agree with you. Those comments were not good. Half a century ago things were a helluva lot worse. Satisfied? Or do you still need to get your daily dosage in?

Or, if not, what is the added point here?

What do you think of LBJ calling them explicitly "n-ggers" on a daily basis? Perhaps you can go preachy-poo on that as well. I am sure the world of 50 years ago is ripe for great exemplars of that cudgel, my friend. Knock yourself out.

It seems pertinent to multiple discussions that have taken place here that the ideological Jesus of the modern GOP felt this way. Sorry you find that so outrageous. Again... maybe not clicking new posts under this thread is the way forward for you?

Wait... are you claiming that there were racist Republicans in the mid-20th century? I am outraged.

He isnt 'claiming'. He is cudgeling. Big difference.

(07-31-2019 08:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 07:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... this seemed somewhat newsworthy and on-topic given how many posts have been devoted to this issue?

All the posts given to examples half a fing century in the past? Not many from my recollection. How many of those have there been 93?

So in short, no point whatsoever. Thank you for clearing(?) that up for us. Just like that rationale to tagging the line about Trump (supporters, base, followers) on. No reason whatsoever. Sounds fun.

As for 'on-topic' there was the brief spurt about the twerp that went and tried to use his extensive research into the Rice yearbooks to cudgel-shame everyone, and that sub-thread seems about the only exemplar I can think of. You seemed to revel in that one as well, even when not having a clue what a 'Central Committee' was.

If instead the topic is the progs incessant usage of race at all times in any fashion, you are doing a smashing job of proving that point up. Thank you if that is the case.

I guess for you examples of racism 50+ years ago are so hot-centered you just cant resist the siren call, can you? Well to save *everyone* a lot of angst, I will agree with you. Those comments were not good. Half a century ago things were a helluva lot worse. Satisfied? Or do you still need to get your daily dosage in?

Or, if not, what is the added point here?

What do you think of LBJ calling them explicitly "n-ggers" on a daily basis? Perhaps you can go preachy-poo on that as well. I am sure the world of 50 years ago is ripe for great exemplars of that cudgel, my friend. Knock yourself out.

It seems pertinent to multiple discussions that have taken place here that the ideological Jesus of the modern GOP felt this way. Sorry you find that so outrageous. Again... maybe not clicking new posts under this thread is the way forward for you?

Funny, I mentioned that I agreed that was terrible language. Did you miss that? It would be hard for fing Rice graduate to do so. How about them bones.....

I saw that and not sure how that pertains to my comments?

Considering your original fing (insincere I guess) question was 'how do you feel about this?' Because of *that* it seemed fing on point, sparky. I guess it wasnt.

There is a certain corollary, I guess, between a prog talking about racism and an utterly obese person wandering into an all you can eat candy store.