millerx Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Ever since the Christmas day attempted bombing in Detroit, I seem to be hearing the word terrorist(s) ALOT. Even from the "man". (Funny to think of a black guy as being "the man", as in "the man is bringin' me down", but I digress...). Anyway...WHAT UP WIT DAT?!? Wasn't the new PC term handed down from 'the machine" suppose to be man-caused disaster? Like, "there was an attempted man-caused disaster on a Delta flight who was trained by the man-caused disasters we released back to Yemen from Gitmo..."....or something to that effect?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 (Funny to think of a black guy as being "the man" The right wing issue in a nutshell. Thanks for the candor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 The right wing issue in a nutshell. Thanks for the candor. Nice try, Urs, but you are completely wrong as usual. Can't you see the irony in his statement (which is what he was getting at)? Or are you colored so far left that EVERYTHING is an attack by the right? Why don't you answer his question about "man made" disasters instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I don't recall the term "man-caused disaster" ever being used. And I have the news on most of the day. When was the term in vogue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 (edited) Nice try, Urs, but you are completely wrong as usual. Can't you see the irony in his statement (which is what he was getting at)? Or are you colored so far left that EVERYTHING is an attack by the right? Why don't you answer his question about "man made" disasters instead? Irony my ass. Probably in vino veritas. Edited January 6, 2010 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboysDiehard Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Reference from interview in Spiegel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Irony my ass. Probably in vino veritas. si Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 The right wing issue in a nutshell. Thanks for the candor. Do you really believe that is what it's about? Your really don't think it has anything to do with unprecedented spending, or government power grabs. No, nobody objects to his policies, it's his skin color. You are really lowering your self with comments like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 The right wing issue in a nutshell. Thanks for the candor. This is ludicrous and you know it. Are you so embarrassed and tired of defending your guy that you're lazily using "they're all racists" as a defense? C'mon, Man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I don't recall the term "man-caused disaster" ever being used. Me neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 (edited) I don't recall the term "man-caused disaster" ever being used. And I have the news on most of the day. When was the term in vogue? Me neither. From the HHS website: Man-made disasters are events which, either intentionally or by accident cause severe threats to public health and well-being. Because their occurrence is unpredictable, man-made disasters pose an especially challenging threat that must be dealt with through vigilance, and proper preparedness and response. Information on the major sources of man-made disasters is provided here to help educate the public on their cause and effects as they relate to emergency planning. And this is from a blog, but the citation is right there: SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country? NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur. Edited January 6, 2010 by westvirginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 From the HHS website: The first thing I notice are two terrorism links on the top of the page amongst 4 other links. What am I supposed to be offended or worked up about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 The first thing I notice are two terrorism links on the top of the page amongst 4 other links. What am I supposed to be offended or worked up about? I was just showing you where it came from. I don't think anyone was offended - it's just that it was silly to be PC in calling terrorism anything other than what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Wasnt this country founded on acts of terrorism against the British Empire? Who cares if it is called terrorism or not? Even though the word has been used as a banner for everything in the last administration, it sure as hell doesnt mean it should not be used by the current administration. What a silly idea . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Wasnt this country founded on acts of terrorism against the British Empire? . . shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Wasnt this country founded on acts of terrorism against the British Empire? Who cares if it is called terrorism or not? Even though the word has been used as a banner for everything in the last administration, it sure as hell doesnt mean it should not be used by the current administration. What a silly idea . . . Yeah, ole GW sure sent over tons of suicide bombers to attack innocent women and children in the streets of London. This is an idiotic statement and you know it bp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 (edited) Wasnt this country founded on acts of terrorism against the British Empire? Well sure, because if you try to peacefully leave the idjuts, they will attack you and burn your house down and rape yer chickens. You're just better off attacking them and killing them all from the start if you want to get your own way really. Wait, what the hell are we talking about? Edited January 6, 2010 by TimC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Yeah, ole GW sure sent over tons of suicide bombers to attack innocent women and children in the streets of London. This is an idiotic statement and you know it bp. I am actually calling the new PC term stupid and worded my previous comment poorly. If it is terrorism, then call it terrorism. You are too smart to pigeon-hole terrorism to only mean suicide bombers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Do you really believe that is what it's about? Your really don't think it has anything to do with unprecedented spending, or government power grabs. No, nobody objects to his policies, it's his skin color. You are really lowering your self with comments like that. Am I? Then why mention it at all? I get the political differences, that has been made quite plain. Again, why did MillerX bring it up? I didn't. He did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I am actually calling the new PC term stupid and worded my previous comment poorly. If it is terrorism, then call it terrorism. You are too smart to pigeon-hole terrorism to only mean suicide bombers. I would have to agree that is inappropriate. However, I guess it could be argued that "terrorism" would be a subset of "man-made disasters", since accidents like Chernobyl or the Exxon-Valdez could fit under that title as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Yeah, ole GW sure sent over tons of suicide bombers to attack innocent women and children in the streets of London. This is an idiotic statement and you know it bp. um you may wan to read up on history. they did it over hear. so it isn't terrorism if it doesn't happen in the right place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I am actually calling the new PC term stupid and worded my previous comment poorly. If it is terrorism, then call it terrorism. You are too smart to pigeon-hole terrorism to only mean suicide bombers. Ahh, gotcha. I misunderstandededed. :loco: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted January 7, 2010 Author Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) Am I? Then why mention it at all? I get the political differences, that has been made quite plain. Again, why did MillerX bring it up? I didn't. He did. You got me...I'm busted. I'm just one big racist. Yep, you nailed the REAL subject matter of the post. Everything else I wrote was just a cover up to get out the real agenda... RACISM. And here I thought I was hiding it behind sarcasm so well. But you saw right through it. It wasn't that as I was typing " Even from the man" into the original post, it actually dawned on me the irony that it use to be a coined phrase that blacks chose to say about those in power... and now would be used in describing someone with similar pigmentation in such a manner. I honestly thought about deleting that part out before I posted. However, upon further consideration, I decided that the members here at the Huddle (on either side of the aisle) had proven they were smart enough to understand the sarcasm, look beyond the blatant observation, and discuss how this administration and congress decided to de-emphasize terrorism. (Much like it became PC to not use muslim or islamic in front of the word terrorism; even though the majority of it comes from those groups). And yet, now that something of this magnitude had happened on their watch, the change in terms went back to what it should have been all along. So, with that being said, since you have figured out my grand scheme to avert your eyes while I talk about racism, you can cease your posting on this thread and feel good that you have outed me for what I am. Edited January 7, 2010 by millerx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) Do you really believe that is what it's about? Your really don't think it has anything to do with unprecedented spending, or government power grabs. No, nobody objects to his policies, it's his skin color. You are really lowering your self with comments like that. I don't think this is a race thing, but the right made up lies against his religion, place of birth and tried to paint him as hating whitey long before he was ever president - and - they made a point to say that the only reason he was elected was because he was black and got the mindless - I'll vote for you because you have the same skin color as me - black vote. Edited January 7, 2010 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I don't think this is a race thing, but the right made up lies against his religion, place of birth and tried to paint him as hating whitey long before he was ever president - and - they made a point to say that the only reason he was elected was because he was black and got the mindless - I'll vote for you because you have the same skin color as me - black vote. All this is very, very true. And only exacerbates innocent discussion into race wars. A LOT of right wing pundits were/are guilty of this . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.