Skip to main content

He pretty much nailed it.

 

 

Why I Do Not Like The Obamas

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obamas? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obamas. It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.” The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.

I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists; they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds; and, for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

 

I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no, I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians, and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie; but, even using that low standard, the Obamas have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge, and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them because they both display bigotry overtly: as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates when Obama accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and as in her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely; but he could rise to the highest, most powerful position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met; he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance; Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 in bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.

[adsanity id=8405 align=alignleft /]He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children — that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.

His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements – he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race card.

It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton and for refusing to label the Obamas for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)

Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04)

 

 

 

About Mychal Massie

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry.  He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.”  He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. Read the entire Bio here
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by David L.:

The 16 million with healthcare insurance is bogus because it counts those who had healthcare insurance, but were forced out of their policies and those, mostly young, who could afford it but chose not to. The climate deal with China is based on bad data, data changed retroactively with no basis for doing so, and conclusions that have not born fruition.  Millions more untrained illegals were brought into the country to compete with US citizens for insufficient jobs. Illegals who  draw upon the public welfare system and the private welfare system, which is strained to provide for US citizens.  Cheap gas is the result of private enterprise working against Obama policies, not because of his policies.  Yes, there are new wars, just not announced, Overthrowing Qadaffi armed ISIS and Boko Haram with Libyan weapons.

What about the war on America..?? Millions of illegal slaves for voting

democrat..Just as many millions lost or can't afford insurance any longer..

 

The idiot had nothing to do with the price of gas..See illegals above, that

come in with ISIS over the border... Invented sodomy and called it marriage.

We have nothing with china,, we were sold down the river for iran like we

were for china. We're broke with no way to pay our debt and kick down to

a third world status, credit rating, crappy american reputation, orphaned

Israel.. My regret is being flushed down the socialist sewer with all the turds

that were/are stupid enough to vote for him, knowing then what you know

now, that can't make you more stupid than you are now. History will bear

this out...............  

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

David, tell us why that 16 million wasn't covered before, and then tell us what that coverage will cost that 16 million and the taxpayers. Tell us again how if people like their doctors they can keep them. How about some REAL facts david.

================

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, 16 million? David, got a link??

Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

What about the war on America..?? Millions of illegal slaves for voting

democrat..Just as many millions lost or can't afford insurance any longer..

 

The idiot had nothing to do with the price of gas..See illegals above, that

come in with ISIS over the border... Invented sodomy and called it marriage.

We have nothing with china,, we were sold down the river for iran like we

were for china. We're broke with no way to pay our debt and kick down to

a third world status, credit rating, crappy american reputation, orphaned

Israel.. My regret is being flushed down the socialist sewer with all the turds

that were/are stupid enough to vote for him, knowing then what you know

now, that can't make you more stupid than you are now. History will bear

this out...............  

__________________________________________________________________

The US has been in the same shape national debt wise three times before -- after the war for independence, after the civil war and after WWII. Fortunately, all three times were followed by impressive economic progress,  Such progress will not be possible if the present administration's policies are allowed to continue -- worst recovery in 100 years.  Most economists believe we have 12 to 15 years before calling ourselves Greece II

 

BTW, England had the same national debt problem after defeating Napoleon and went on to build her empire. 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

What about the war on America..?? Millions of illegal slaves for voting

democrat..Just as many millions lost or can't afford insurance any longer..

 

The idiot had nothing to do with the price of gas..See illegals above, that

come in with ISIS over the border... Invented sodomy and called it marriage.

We have nothing with china,, we were sold down the river for iran like we

were for china. We're broke with no way to pay our debt and kick down to

a third world status, credit rating, crappy american reputation, orphaned

Israel.. My regret is being flushed down the socialist sewer with all the turds

that were/are stupid enough to vote for him, knowing then what you know

now, that can't make you more stupid than you are now. History will bear

this out...............  

__________________________________________________________________

The US has been in the same shape national debt wise three times before -- after the war for independence, after the civil war and after WWII. Fortunately, all three times were followed by impressive economic progress,  Such progress will not be possible if the present administration's policies are allowed to continue -- worst recovery in 100 years.  Most economists believe we have 12 to 15 years before calling ourselves Greece II

 

BTW, England had the same national debt problem after defeating Napoleon and went on to build her empire. 

_________________________________________________________

The wars that created the past debt had ended in those times. LBJ's "War on Poverty" continues and Obama has doubled down on dumb, so I don't see any better days ahead until reality smacks us up the side of the head.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/in...php?Article_ID=25288

The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion

January 23, 2015

Since the War on Poverty began under President Lyndon Johnson, welfare spending has exploded to sixteen times its original size. In a new report from the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield tackle the welfare system, explaining how spending has skyrocketed since the 1960s.

  • America has spent more on welfare than defense since 1993.
  • The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history.
  • Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
  • One-third of all Americans receive benefits from at least one welfare program.
- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/in...sthash.STH1cAxQ.dpuf

This is what I have posted so many times. So much money has been paid in that there should be no hint of poverty in this country. But with all the fraud and waste we are way worse off than when we first started throwing money at it. If we didn't have to support all the illegal and foreign trash we support we'd be in better shape too.

Originally Posted by Contendahh:

Are you sure this conservative spokesperson is not named "Tom"?

Mychal Massie could've been talking about you. I'm sure your name is

con alinsky, and you're as a pathetic piece of trash I'm thankful I've never

met. Everything he said about the two of them is absolutely true and could

have been more revealing of them if he wished. You should read it again.

I do wish you weren't so easily duped and mindlessly, ignorantly misled.

 

Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:

Are you sure this conservative spokesperson is not named "Tom"?

And you have the audacity to call others on this forum racist?  you my friend are the epitome of a hypocrite.

____

 Not really

 

A person of color, especially a black person who acts in a way so as to come across as trying to please or gain approval of the white-dominated establishment."
 
This descriptor is used by both blacks and whites and it does not connote racism.
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:

Are you sure this conservative spokesperson is not named "Tom"?

And you have the audacity to call others on this forum racist?  you my friend are the epitome of a hypocrite.

____

 Not really

 

A person of color, especially a black person who acts in a way so as to come across as trying to please or gain approval of the white-dominated establishment."
 
This descriptor is used by both blacks and whites and it does not connote racism.

You did the dance but doesn't make you any less a lying hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:

Are you sure this conservative spokesperson is not named "Tom"?

And you have the audacity to call others on this forum racist?  you my friend are the epitome of a hypocrite.

____

 Not really

 

A person of color, especially a black person who acts in a way so as to come across as trying to please or gain approval of the white-dominated establishment."
 
This descriptor is used by both blacks and whites and it does not connote racism.

_______________________________________________

However, the term does signify hatred of the person as a race traitor.  Not exactly a term of endearment is it Comtenduhh -- cracker.

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:

Are you sure this conservative spokesperson is not named "Tom"?

And you have the audacity to call others on this forum racist?  you my friend are the epitome of a hypocrite.

____

 Not really

 

A person of color, especially a black person who acts in a way so as to come across as trying to please or gain approval of the white-dominated establishment."
 
This descriptor is used by both blacks and whites and it does not connote racism.
 
+++
 
I've never heard a white guy called an "Uncle Tom."  Nor an Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern . . . .
 
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:

Are you sure this conservative spokesperson is not named "Tom"?

And you have the audacity to call others on this forum racist?  you my friend are the epitome of a hypocrite.

____

 Not really

 

A person of color, especially a black person who acts in a way so as to come across as trying to please or gain approval of the white-dominated establishment."
 
This descriptor is used by both blacks and whites and it does not connote racism.
 
+++
 
I've never heard a white guy called an "Uncle Tom."  Nor an Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern . . . .
 
So you don't have any problem calling a black man Tom?  To his face, I mean.
 
How about "boy?"
 
Last edited by budsfarm
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:

Are you sure this conservative spokesperson is not named "Tom"?

And you have the audacity to call others on this forum racist?  you my friend are the epitome of a hypocrite.

____

 Not really

 

A person of color, especially a black person who acts in a way so as to come across as trying to please or gain approval of the white-dominated establishment."
 
This descriptor is used by both blacks and whites and it does not connote racism.
 
+++
 
I've never heard a white guy called an "Uncle Tom."  Nor an Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern . . . .
 
So you don't have any problem calling a black man Tom?  To his face, I mean.
 
How about "boy?"
 

_____________________________________________________

If I were a modern black male, I might take "Uncle Tom" as a complement. The people who get called that term tend to be black men of high intellect and morals who point out to blacks living the hip-hop ghetto gangsta "lifestyle" that they are being used by the usual democrat slavers and plantation owners. I might also note that in Harriet Beecher Stowe's work, Uncle Tom was a hero:

 

At the time of the novel's initial publication in 1851 Uncle Tom was a rejection of the existing stereotypes of minstrel shows; Stowe's melodramatic story humanized the suffering of slavery for White audiences by portraying Tom as a Christlike figure who is ultimately martyred, beaten to death by a cruel master because Tom refuses to betray the whereabouts of two women who had escaped from slavery.[3][4] Stowe reversed the gender conventions of slave narratives by juxtaposing Uncle Tom's passivity against the daring of three African American women who escape from slavery.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry.  He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.”  He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research

====================

Beternnun is a bitter old pill gimmethat democrip that cries about gay rights and Amish heaters, and a member of a "can't think straight" tank that calls others haters, and then insinuates in a  silly childish post that a black man is an "uncle tom".

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:

Are you sure this conservative spokesperson is not named "Tom"?

And you have the audacity to call others on this forum racist?  you my friend are the epitome of a hypocrite.

____

 Not really

 

A person of color, especially a black person who acts in a way so as to come across as trying to please or gain approval of the white-dominated establishment."
 
This descriptor is used by both blacks and whites and it does not connote racism.
 
+++
 
I've never heard a white guy called an "Uncle Tom."  Nor an Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern . . . .
 ___
 
Well, budsfarm, there is a reason for that.  The name comes from a book you might or might not have heard of.  It is called "Uncle Tom's Cabin," and that particular  Uncle Tom was black. For an Asian, Hispanic, or Middle Eastern application, you might try search terms such as "Uncle Chang's  Cabin," "Uncle Jose's Cabin," or Uncle Abdullah's Tent."

 

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:

Are you sure this conservative spokesperson is not named "Tom"?

And you have the audacity to call others on this forum racist?  you my friend are the epitome of a hypocrite.

____

 Not really

 

A person of color, especially a black person who acts in a way so as to come across as trying to please or gain approval of the white-dominated establishment."
 
This descriptor is used by both blacks and whites and it does not connote racism.
 
+++
 
I've never heard a white guy called an "Uncle Tom."  Nor an Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern . . . .
 ___
 
Well, budsfarm, there is a reason for that.  The name comes from a book you might or might not have heard of.  It is called "Uncle Tom's Cabin," and that particular  Uncle Tom was black. For an Asian, Hispanic, or Middle Eastern application, you might try search terms such as "Uncle Chang's  Cabin," "Uncle Jose's Cabin," or Uncle Abdullah's Tent."
 
+++
 
"Well?"
 
Why the need to take a breath there, Condendahh?
 
I know perfectly well the origin and meaning of "Uncle Tom."  And it's demeaning connotation.  And have heard it in use - blacks on blacks within my career fields - but probably not as many times as you have used it behind their backs.
 
Your cherry picking in your response to my post questions are the same as your cherry picking your link.
 
Racist.
 
Last edited by budsfarm
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:

Are you sure this conservative spokesperson is not named "Tom"?

And you have the audacity to call others on this forum racist?  you my friend are the epitome of a hypocrite.

____

 Not really

 

A person of color, especially a black person who acts in a way so as to come across as trying to please or gain approval of the white-dominated establishment."
 
This descriptor is used by both blacks and whites and it does not connote racism.
 
+++
 
I've never heard a white guy called an "Uncle Tom."  Nor an Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern . . . .
 
So you don't have any problem calling a black man Tom?  To his face, I mean.
 
How about "boy?"
 

_____________________________________________________

If I were a modern black male, I might take "Uncle Tom" as a complement. The people who get called that term tend to be black men of high intellect and morals who point out to blacks living the hip-hop ghetto gangsta "lifestyle" that they are being used by the usual democrat slavers and plantation owners. I might also note that in Harriet Beecher Stowe's work, Uncle Tom was a hero:

 

At the time of the novel's initial publication in 1851 Uncle Tom was a rejection of the existing stereotypes of minstrel shows; Stowe's melodramatic story humanized the suffering of slavery for White audiences by portraying Tom as a Christlike figure who is ultimately martyred, beaten to death by a cruel master because Tom refuses to betray the whereabouts of two women who had escaped from slavery.[3][4] Stowe reversed the gender conventions of slave narratives by juxtaposing Uncle Tom's passivity against the daring of three African American women who escape from slavery.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

 

+++

 

Stank,

 

If you were a modern black male and were employed as an LEO, I think know you might would have a different take on being called an "Uncle Tom."

 

FYI, I'm good on the history.

 

Last edited by budsfarm
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

The term started amongst the new left in the late sixties.  As I stated, used in derision to denote black race traitor,  Indians were called uncle tomahawks and hispanics uncle tacos.  Nasty term used by nasty minded people.

___

Kinda like "RINOS" and "Demoncraps" and "Demonrats"?

 

 

Sounds like you have shifted into the "So's yer Ol' Man" mode.

Racist!

Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

The term started amongst the new left in the late sixties.  As I stated, used in derision to denote black race traitor,  Indians were called uncle tomahawks and hispanics uncle tacos.  Nasty term used by nasty minded people.

___

Kinda like "RINOS" and "Demoncraps" and "Demonrats"?

 

 

Sounds like you have shifted into the "So's yer Ol' Man" mode.

Racist!

________________________________________

I think the correct term is demagogue. 

Are there no moderators on these Forums?

 

I have not really followed this Contedahs posts, but some have interested me. Enough to submit them to a "shrink", who did an analysis.

 

I posted his findings several weeks ago.

Spot on.

 

Contendah is one angry, White, Old, BIGOT.

 

He must have had some BAD experience, in his life, that has left him bitter.

 

He attacks...many religions. With Mormons and Catholics being his favorite targets.

He attacks ...all Conservatives...which I am not. I am "Middle Ground".

He attacks ANYONE who does not agree with him. There is no debate with him.

He constantly switches back and forth between Liberal policy, and, Puritan values.

He appears to be against Homosexuality...but supports the current Administration of Obama.

He has thrashed those who don't tow the line with Obama, as being racist, yet when any Black person speaks out against Obama, he labels them as an "Uncle Tom"????

He hates Jews...but rarely speaks out against Islam.

That really makes me mad.

I strongly support his First Amendment right to say what he thinks.

But, this Forum is supposed to be an outlet for civil discussion.

Contendah repeatedly spews out HATE, but my analysis ( and the Shrinks) is that he regularly attends some sort of Church...feeling good about it. Dropping the minimum amount possible into the collection plate.

Likely, drawing a hefty pension. Enough to live comfortably the rest of his life. 401K. Never tips a server when he dines out.

No concern for the plight of current/future American LEGAL citizens being swamped by the influx of ILLEGAL persons.

OK with the current Presidents disregard of the Constitution.

Hates the Republicans, but is OK with the Democrats...ALL one in the same.

Posts inflammatory crap, to see if he can get noticed.

Constantly attacks the person called Best on these Forums.

 

I don't suggest that He be banned, but someone needs to hint that he tone it down.

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Demonrats, democrits, democraps and such are racist words/terms? I'd love to see how he got there, but of course he can't tell us, he doesn't know himself. Watch, just like he calls gays perverts and such, no lefty will call him on this.

-----

 

no, they are NOT racist words, but they are "Nasty term[s] used by nasty-minded people," as I specifically characterized them.

Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:

Are there no moderators on these Forums?

 

I have not really followed this Contedahs posts, but some have interested me. Enough to submit them to a "shrink", who did an analysis.

 

I posted his findings several weeks ago.

Spot on.

_______

[Hardly anything like "Spot on," Harald.  For the edification of this forum, I reproduce in full your Hebrew headshrinker's analysis and my rebuttal, which clearly shows that he missed a lot of stuff by a wide margin. 

 

Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:

Ran this post by a Psychologist I know.

Well credentialed. 

Tel Aviv University.

 

Asked for a profile of you, per your posts.

He searched only Political, and Religion.

 

He pointed out, several things.

 

1. You are a White Guy.

2. Aged, late '60's.

3. Protestant. Southern Baptist, or Church of Christ.

4. You are a Rabid hater of Mormons and Catholics.

5. You secretly hate Jews.

6, You are a Democrat, and vote Democrat no matter what the Platform.

7. You are anti-Gay, but will not admit it, due to your Democrat stance.

8. You have been married to the same Woman, since "I do".

9. You berate your wife, and believe a Womans place is, in the Kitchen.

10. You tythe , only,as little as required, by your Biblical creed, and feel good about it.

11. You drive an expensive car,but do not contribute to charities. Loath homeless people.

12. You wear pants above you naval. Sometimes with suspenders.

13. You don't own guns.

14. You live in the city.

15. Your children don't come around much. 

16. You turn your porch lights off on Halloween, so you don't have to buy/give children candy.

17. If you spoke in public, as you do, sitting behind a computer, someone would beat you down.

18. Your Parents made you go to worship, every time the doors were open.

19. You had NO Negro friends while growing up.

20. You were always the last one picked, for a team, while in school.

 

He pegged you. Didn't he?

 

-----

Your credentialed scholar missed by a pretty wide mark 

 

 

1. You are a White Guy. Yes.  No apologies there; so are about 70% of U.S. citizens.

2. Aged, late '60's. No.  Older that that, but still good!

3. Protestant. Southern Baptist, or Church of Christ. Wow!  How did your Jewish genius figure that out?

4. You are a Rabid hater of Mormons and Catholics. Your Jewish friend plays the hate card. Strong disagreement with the religious views of others is NOT hatred. The Catholic Pope and his church are so critical of those who disagree with them on major doctrines that they still adhere to the Syllabus of Errors, a lengthy list of beliefs that, according to them are erroneous and must not be believed, in effect a condemnation of all who do believe the doctrines listed.  But I do not interpret this list as evidence that the Pope or the Catholic Church HATE all who hold to the listed alleged erroneous beliefs. Nor should your credentialed friend accord as hatred on my part the strong disagreements I have posted with respect to Catholic doctrines. It is an all-too-common practice among those with little polemical experience to characterize dissenting views as evidence of hatred. It is a cheap, shallow and shabby tactic and you should advise your  friend to that effect.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

5. You secretly hate Jews.  Total baloney!  In a quantity exceeding that in the Oscar Meyer

meat processing plant!

6, You are a Democrat, and vote Democrat no matter what the Platform.I am a Democrat and most often vote Democrat. but I have voted for Republicans and Independents and likely will do so again.

7. You are anti-Gay, but will not admit it, due to your Democrat stance. I have often posted statements strongly critical of homosexuality. If that makes me "anti-gay, so be it. Perhaps your credentialed psychologist friend believes  that it is an evil thing to oppose a practice that has been condemned by every human society that has existed until very recent times. I commend to you and your scholar friend an article written by a very literate Jewish journalist, Jeff Jacoby, which appeared in the Boston Globe some 15 years ago: 

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6566...-to-ban-gay-marriage

8. You have been married to the same Woman, since "I do". Yes, and I offer no apology for that.  And I have been 100% faithful to my marriage vows.

9. You berate your wife, and believe a Womans place is, in the Kitchen.Total bunk. My wife is an  independent person who has worked at two jobs outside the home.  Unfortunately she is suffering from a disability that precludes kitchen activity, and thus I now do all the meal preparation, dish-washing, etc. Housekeeping also. I do not berate her, since I find in her nothing to berate.

10. You tythe , only,as little as required, by your Biblical creed, and feel good about it. I do not interpret the New Testament as requiring tithing.  Tithing was an Old Testament practice,  The New Testament, by which I am directed, nowhere commands tithing, but encourages Christians to "give as [they} have been prospered." The tithing in the Old Testament was necessary to support the large and expensive priesthood associated with a theocracy.  Tithing also involved various sacrifices that are no longer incumbent on God's people (Christians)..I do not see this forum as a venue for any detailed account of my giving practices, but I will say that we give very generously by comparison with most of our peers.

11. You drive an expensive car,but do not contribute to charities. I drive a 14-year-old car, with fewer than 85,000 miles on it.  It is in excellent condition and I will continue to drive it for so long as it stays that way.  I could, if I wished, pay cash for a new car, but I do not need a new car, since the one I have serves me well. I also have a 10-year old truck.   Loath homeless people. I loathe no one.  We are all God's children. It is hard to like some of us, but "loath" is synonymous with "hate," so there your friend goes, Harald, playing the hate card again.  Pretty cheap stuff.

12. You wear pants above you naval. Sometimes with suspenders. That is "navel."  {N]aval" refers to military ships. I am looking at an even dozen belts hanging on a rod on my bathroom door.  About 98% of the time one of them holds my pants up.  I have some suspenders that stay attached to a single pair of pants, which I wear only rarely.  I am of normal weight and bodily configuration; thus I do not need suspenders to  overcome the difficulty of keeping one's pants on while going about with a protruding abdomen.

13. You don't own guns. I own a 12-gauge Italian-made shotgun and an ancient Harrington & Richardson 32-caliber pistol.  Have not fired the shotgun since I gave up hunting for fishing. Have not fired the pistol since about 1966 and have no ammunition for it..

14. You live in the city. I live in a small city.  SO?

15. Your children don't come around much. Wrong again. Both my children live in distant cities, but they both visit several times a year and we visit them several times a year.

16. You turn your porch lights off on Halloween, so you don't have to buy/give children candy. Dead wrong. For the 34 Halloweens since we first occupied this house, we have only once failed to offer treats to trick-or-treaters, and on that occasion we were out of town at a funeral. 

17. If you spoke in public, as you do, sitting behind a computer, someone would beat you down.Your friend's opinion--wrong again.  I have spoken in many public situations and have never yet been beaten down.

18. Your Parents made you go to worship, every time the doors were open.They did not need to make me or my sister go.  It was a normal and natural thing. 

19. You had NO Negro friends while growing up. While growing up, I lived in a southern city in an all-white neighborhood and attended racially segregated elementary and high schools. Frankly, there were no Negroes around to make friends with. In my  late teens and early 20s, during the peak of the civil rights movement, I was outspokenly in favor of integration of public schools and other public facilities and caught plenty of hostility from the segregationists I had to live and work with.

20. You were always the last one picked, for a team, while in school.  Seldom first, but never last; usually, as I remember in the first third.  I played varsity tennis in both high school and college and played the Number 1 position on both teams in the last couple of years. I was  recruited by the high school track coach, but declined his kind offer so that I could give full attention to my preferred sport. I still have the letter jacket I got in college and it still fits me, though I have not worn it for several decades.

 

As to other athletic accomplishments, I still hold the informal Florida record for throwing a standard 5-tine pitchfork and having it stick in the ground. 

 

Your psychologist friend gets a SOLID D-MINUS, Harald!

 

 

 

 

 

Last edited by Contendahh
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:

Are there no moderators on these Forums?

 

I have not really followed this Contedahs posts, but some have interested me. Enough to submit them to a "shrink", who did an analysis.

 

I posted his findings several weeks ago.

Spot on.

_______

[Hardly anything like "Spot on," Harald.  For the edification of this forum, I reproduce in full your Hebrew headshrinker's analysis and my rebuttal, which clearly shows that he missed a lot of stuff by a wide margin. 

 

Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:

Ran this post by a Psychologist I know.

Well credentialed. 

Tel Aviv University.

 

Asked for a profile of you, per your posts.

He searched only Political, and Religion.

 

He pointed out, several things.

 

1. You are a White Guy.

2. Aged, late '60's.

3. Protestant. Southern Baptist, or Church of Christ.

4. You are a Rabid hater of Mormons and Catholics.

5. You secretly hate Jews.

6, You are a Democrat, and vote Democrat no matter what the Platform.

7. You are anti-Gay, but will not admit it, due to your Democrat stance.

8. You have been married to the same Woman, since "I do".

9. You berate your wife, and believe a Womans place is, in the Kitchen.

10. You tythe , only,as little as required, by your Biblical creed, and feel good about it.

11. You drive an expensive car,but do not contribute to charities. Loath homeless people.

12. You wear pants above you naval. Sometimes with suspenders.

13. You don't own guns.

14. You live in the city.

15. Your children don't come around much. 

16. You turn your porch lights off on Halloween, so you don't have to buy/give children candy.

17. If you spoke in public, as you do, sitting behind a computer, someone would beat you down.

18. Your Parents made you go to worship, every time the doors were open.

19. You had NO Negro friends while growing up.

20. You were always the last one picked, for a team, while in school.

 

He pegged you. Didn't he?

 

-----

Your credentialed scholar missed by a pretty wide mark 

 

 

1. You are a White Guy. Yes.  No apologies there; so are about 70% of U.S. citizens.

2. Aged, late '60's. No.  Older that that, but still good!

3. Protestant. Southern Baptist, or Church of Christ. Wow!  How did your Jewish genius figure that out?

4. You are a Rabid hater of Mormons and Catholics. Your Jewish friend plays the hate card. Strong disagreement with the religious views of others is NOT hatred. The Catholic Pope and his church are so critical of those who disagree with them on major doctrines that they still adhere to the Syllabus of Errors, a lengthy list of beliefs that, according to them are erroneous and must not be believed, in effect a condemnation of all who do believe the doctrines listed.  But I do not interpret this list as evidence that the Pope or the Catholic Church HATE all who hold to the listed alleged erroneous beliefs. Nor should your credentialed friend accord as hatred on my part the strong disagreements I have posted with respect to Catholic doctrines. It is an all-too-common practice among those with little polemical experience to characterize dissenting views as evidence of hatred. It is a cheap, shallow and shabby tactic and you should advise your  friend to that effect.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

5. You secretly hate Jews.  Total baloney!  In a quantity exceeding that in the Oscar Meyer

meat processing plant!

6, You are a Democrat, and vote Democrat no matter what the Platform.I am a Democrat and most often vote Democrat. but I have voted for Republicans and Independents and likely will do so again.

7. You are anti-Gay, but will not admit it, due to your Democrat stance. I have often posted statements strongly critical of homosexuality. If that makes me "anti-gay, so be it. Perhaps your credentialed psychologist friend believes  that it is an evil thing to oppose a practice that has been condemned by every human society that has existed until very recent times. I commend to you and your scholar friend an article written by a very literate Jewish journalist, Jeff Jacoby, which appeared in the Boston Globe some 15 years ago: 

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6566...-to-ban-gay-marriage

8. You have been married to the same Woman, since "I do". Yes, and I offer no apology for that.  And I have been 100% faithful to my marriage vows.

9. You berate your wife, and believe a Womans place is, in the Kitchen.Total bunk. My wife is an  independent person who has worked at two jobs outside the home.  Unfortunately she is suffering from a disability that precludes kitchen activity, and thus I now do all the meal preparation, dish-washing, etc. Housekeeping also. I do not berate her, since I find in her nothing to berate.

10. You tythe , only,as little as required, by your Biblical creed, and feel good about it. I do not interpret the New Testament as requiring tithing.  Tithing was an Old Testament practice,  The New Testament, by which I am directed, nowhere commands tithing, but encourages Christians to "give as [they} have been prospered." The tithing in the Old Testament was necessary to support the large and expensive priesthood associated with a theocracy.  Tithing also involved various sacrifices that are no longer incumbent on God's people (Christians)..I do not see this forum as a venue for any detailed account of my giving practices, but I will say that we give very generously by comparison with most of our peers.

11. You drive an expensive car,but do not contribute to charities. I drive a 14-year-old car, with fewer than 85,000 miles on it.  It is in excellent condition and I will continue to drive it for so long as it stays that way.  I could, if I wished, pay cash for a new car, but I do not need a new car, since the one I have serves me well. I also have a 10-year old truck.   Loath homeless people. I loathe no one.  We are all God's children. It is hard to like some of us, but "loath" is synonymous with "hate," so there your friend goes, Harald, playing the hate card again.  Pretty cheap stuff.

12. You wear pants above you naval. Sometimes with suspenders. That is "navel."  {N]aval" refers to military ships. I am looking at an even dozen belts hanging on a rod on my bathroom door.  About 98% of the time one of them holds my pants up.  I have some suspenders that stay attached to a single pair of pants, which I wear only rarely.  I am of normal weight and bodily configuration; thus I do not need suspenders to  overcome the difficulty of keeping one's pants on while going about with a protruding abdomen.

13. You don't own guns. I own a 12-gauge Italian-made shotgun and an ancient Harrington & Richardson 32-caliber pistol.  Have not fired the shotgun since I gave up hunting for fishing. Have not fired the pistol since about 1966 and have no ammunition for it..

14. You live in the city. I live in a small city.  SO?

15. Your children don't come around much. Wrong again. Both my children live in distant cities, but they both visit several times a year and we visit them several times a year.

16. You turn your porch lights off on Halloween, so you don't have to buy/give children candy. Dead wrong. For the 34 Halloweens since we first occupied this house, we have only once failed to offer treats to trick-or-treaters, and on that occasion we were out of town at a funeral. 

17. If you spoke in public, as you do, sitting behind a computer, someone would beat you down.Your friend's opinion--wrong again.  I have spoken in many public situations and have never yet been beaten down.

18. Your Parents made you go to worship, every time the doors were open.They did not need to make me or my sister go.  It was a normal and natural thing. 

19. You had NO Negro friends while growing up. While growing up, I lived in a southern city in an all-white neighborhood and attended racially segregated elementary and high schools. Frankly, there were no Negroes around to make friends with. In my  late teens and early 20s, during the peak of the civil rights movement, I was outspokenly in favor of integration of public schools and other public facilities and caught plenty of hostility from the segregationists I had to live and work with.

20. You were always the last one picked, for a team, while in school.  Seldom first, but never last; usually, as I remember in the first third.  I played varsity tennis in both high school and college and played the Number 1 position on both teams in the last couple of years. I was  recruited by the high school track coach, but declined his kind offer so that I could give full attention to my preferred sport. I still have the letter jacket I got in college and it still fits me, though I have not worn it for several decades.

 

As to other athletic accomplishments, I still hold the informal Florida record for throwing a standard 5-tine pitchfork and having it stick in the ground. 

 

Your psychologist friend gets a SOLID D-MINUS, Harald!

 

 

 

 

 

You need to take a nap.

All of this back-paddling has got to have worn you out.

 

Above, Harald, you made this charge against me:

 

"He attacks ANYONE who does not agree with him. There is no debate with him.

 .

Above, Harald, you made this charge against me:

 

"He attacks ANYONE who does not agree with him. There is no debate with him."

 

Au contraire, Harald!  In the spirit of informed and responsive debate, I repled several weeks ago in great detail to the clumsy psychological profile prepared by your professor friend. All you posted in response was:  "OK. I'll pass it along."

 

Now, Harald, you assert above that your Hebrew Headshrinker friend's analysis was "spot on," but having been shown once again that your pet shrink missed the mark, you  have nothing to say except this:

 

"You need to take a nap.

All of this back-paddling has got to have worn you out."

 

Absurdity in the extreme, Harald.  About me you say, "There is no debate with him." But is YOU, Harald, who are shirking any obligation to debate.  All you have offered is the demeaning and insulting nothing of a response quoted immediately above. Shame!

 

Last edited by Contendahh
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Demonrats, democrits, democraps and such are racist words/terms? I'd love to see how he got there, but of course he can't tell us, he doesn't know himself. Watch, just like he calls gays perverts and such, no lefty will call him on this.

-----

 

no, they are NOT racist words, but they are "Nasty term[s] used by nasty-minded people," as I specifically characterized them.

===============

What's nasty about them? They're true. Chalk up another fail for beternnun.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×