by the way, the accepted term when such classifications were used were Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongaloid, so “Negro” isn’t the right term. Getting that out of the way . . .
Re-read the quote above cdor. Carefully. I understand your “I shall never concede a mistake” mojo is working on full tilt, but take a deep breath and think reeeeeeeealy hard about why I read that and couldn’t help laughing out loud at you.

“I have never offended a Negro by calling them by their proper name when such designations are appropriate.”

Why, how omniscient of you.

One of those self-defeating behaviors, in my opinion, is re-naming themselves as Blacks. Why not Browns, which is much more accurate if we are going to reduce our race and resulting society simply to a color, at least use the correct color. Even if the color black were accurate, which of course it isn’t, it happens to invoke emotional connotations that are often negative. The term black is associated with evil, sinister, the dark side, lack of light (understanding), and many more. Then, of course, there is the polar opposite color, white. So now by using these two highly innaccurate colors to describe the two races, we have created a dichotomy where one doesn’t exist. We are all various shades of brown. If race is to go away, as you say it will, funny man, then using accurate descriptions of our skin colors will be quite helpful. I, for one, have decided that particpating in the popular jargon of the moment is not helpful in improving human relations. I hope you now understand my reasons.

Admittedly, the Republicans had a very weak Presidential candidate. But his gravitas so far outweighed Barack Obama in both length (time) and quality, that even though most conservatives (which means probably not you) had to hold their collective noses do to McCain’s views on immigration, drilling in Anwar, and the Gang of 14, we still supported him because of the obvious ultra liberal candidate that was his opposition. He seemed the perfect moderate that the Frum’s and the Colin Powell’s , perhaps the Rick Morans (not sure on that), maybe even you, and certainly the media, could get behind. Instead Mr Frum decided to attack Palin. Why at that time was it necessary to throw cold water on a hot spark? Did he attack Biden? Did he ever write a column criticzing Obama?

All parties have disagreements within. Our internal antagonists give me every indication ( I am speaking of Frum and Powell…don’t get me started with him) of fighting for the other side. I understand calling him a traitor is evocative. But go look up the definition for yourself.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/feb/24/00025/

I’m not a big fan of Frum either because he was a big proponent of the Iraq war. However, at present he is right in criticizing the anti-intellectual streak of some on the right. I don’t have a problem with you endorsing your view but I have a problem with you calling people traitors etc. There is no ‘conservative’ view e.g you could be on both sides of the Iraq issue. Sure, there are a few principles we agree on e.g. role of government, taxes etc. but a meaningful debate also means you respect your opponent. Palin is a good example; if some people think she is our great next hope, fine. Just don’t throw a temper tantrum if I’m not that convinced about her intellectual capabilities.
If you think it is helpful to the Republican cause to insist calling people Negroes and mongoloid, I rest my case because then you can’t be helped. Whatever you might bring up like that is the proper name, is not going to alter the (probably correct) impression that the tone is racist. Haven’t really heard that many Asian Americans chanting ‘proud to be mongoloid’. Why do you insist on terms that were common a 100 years ago when the American society was clearly racist? Helping the cause? Come on, you know better.

The only reason Frum is ever discussed is because he criticized some Republican. When has anyone ever mentioned him in a discussion of Democrats promoting some wacked out big government legislation or because he has criticized a Democrat acting stupidly (using our President’s terminology)? If he “made his bones” promoting Republican and conservative philosophy and occassionally took exception to something a Republican said, well ok. But it seems to me that after being an unknown speechwriter for Bush, he quit or was fired and wrote a book that probably sold about 10 copies critical of Bush. He’s done not much more than criticize Palin and Levin since. Where am I wrong funny man and what do you believe that makes you a conservative?

I don’t care what terminology you use — I do find it amusing and horribly dating, but irrevelant. I understand you are standing behind behind your scientific objectivism (despite the fact that the scientific community has moved away from it since at least the 1970s) , but as this is a discussion on a political website (with occasional detours into that eternal optimist realm known as “Chicago sports”) and not Racial Classification 101, I use the common parlance. I would be amused though to see your strict adherence to classifications from several decades ago become the norm — watching the skinheads scream “Caucasian Power!” would be worth the price of admission.

Out of curiosity — since Obama is 50% Caucasian and 50% Negro . . . why is he “classified” as a Negro? Why not Caucasian? Have fun with that. Free hint: any implication of “dilution” will really, really not end well.

. . . and yet again, the question of the racially-tinged (I’m sorry, “classificationaly-oriented”) fears about Obama I ask about again and again fly completely under your radar. At this point, I have to assume you are implicitly conceeding that my fears are justified. Shame. I was honestly hoping I was simply being paranoid.

Anyways, if you don’t want to discuss it, lets get back to what you do want to discuss.

“That is exactly why guys like David Frum are traitors to my cause. They are used by people like you to defeat people like me. You don’t care about being free, you want government to lead your life. You are my enemy.”

WOW. Psychosis much? Let’s see . . . where to begin . . . first, I never referenced Frum, so I never used him to “defeat” “people like you” (by the way, does this mean you’ve been defeated?). “I’m not sure what either “people like me” or “people like you” mean. I’m an American citizen, and I presume you are as well. I thought we were on the same team.
So . . . anybody that disagrees with you is a traitor. An enemy. They must be vanquished. There is no dissent or debate. There can be no questions. To question is to become an enemy. Good to know.

(for anybody following this thread: if you wonder the Repubs are chasing away everybody but the whack-a-doodles . . . I give you exhibit A)

“It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists — to those who believe government has a legitimate right to regulate human affairs in every particular.”

So healthcare reform completely redefines the relation of citizens and their government . . . the government will now “regulate human affairs in every particular.” It must be a complete paradigm shift, because there is no program by the government currently that provides healthcare to citizens. This is a massive change, using MEDICal CARE to provide MEDICal AID to citizens . . . unheard of! Why next, they’ll start claiming they should providea SOCIAL SECURITY system. Of course, the very next step after that is dictating how many children you can have and what food you must eat.

You might sound more credible if you didn’t jump from “I don’t like this policy” immediately to “it is the end of all that is good the Apocalypse is nigh”. Just a suggestion. Of course, this is a suggestion from your enemy, whom you must destroy . . . so take it with a grain of salt.

“Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks — drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care, and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high.”

Again, you go to the ultimate extreme — “being relieved of ALL those tiresome choices”. That’s nonsense, and easily demonstrated as nonsense.
YOU, the great champion of freedom, use and rely on the government to aid you. Do you make your own roads and bridges? Socialist drone! Way to rely on the government to relieve you of all you messy choices. Police? Fire Departments? Product saftey? C’mon! quit being such a pathetic sheep! Do everything yourself. If you can’t . . . well, freedom is messy, isn’t it?

HOW MUCH you should be aided by the government is a legitimate question . . . but your nonsensical hyperbole demeans your position.

Whoops . . . just read the NRO article. I didn’t realize you entire healthcare comment was a quote (or actually multiple quotes). So I guess my response is directed to Steyn instead of you.
As apparently your argument is “cuz Steyn said so” . . . why should I believe him? His article is an opinion piece. It contains no facts. All politicians that aren’t actively working to keep the healthcare industry at the status quo are not to be trusted. Why? Because they aren’t working to keep the healthcare industry at the status quo. No explanation about WHY the current system is better than changing it. I also find it odd that he rails against national healthcare . . . while he HAS national healthcare. You do know he’s Canadian, right? Although he spends time in New Hampshire, he has never become an American citizen.
He’s not a political expert . . . he’s a writer. His background isn’t in political science, it’s in theater reviews. His opinion is fair, but why should I give him more credence than any other person? Aside from the fact that you agree with him, of course.

“The third front of the war I described as our Homeland. Have you been to the remains of the Twin Towers? Have you taken a plane trip? Yes, our Homeland is the third front.”

An attack 8 years ago by people that are not here does not a front make. For somebody that seems to revel in hyper-military imagery and terminology, I’m suprised you didn’t know that.

Back to the economy and Mr. Obama. We have been in numerous recessions over the last 80 years. The only one that led to a depression was caused by tremendous government interference similar in scope to what the current administration is attemmpting. You asked for reasons and I gave them. If they aren’t enough, so be it. That is exactly why guys like David Frum are traitors to my cause. They are used by people like you to defeat people like me. You don’t care about being free, you want government to lead your life. You are my enemy.

Concerning govenrment run health care, a few words from Mark Steyn:
The president needs to get something passed. Anything. The details don’t matter. Once it’s in place, health-care “reform” can be re-reformed endlessly.
If this seems a perverse obsession for a nation with a weak economy, rising unemployment, and a war on two fronts, it has a very sound strategic logic behind it. That’s its attraction for an ambitious president: It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists — to those who believe government has a legitimate right to regulate human affairs in every particular.
How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?
Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks — drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care, and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high.

Government health care would be wrong even if it “controlled costs.” It’s a liberty issue. I’d rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices.

To anyone who isn’t a certifiable lib like our busboy, read the entire article at NRO:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzlmYWZhMjZjZDAwYjMxOTZkZTNmODI5ZDAyZmExNDY=&w=MA==

ps

The third front of the war I described as our Homeland. Have you been to the remains of the Twin Towers? Have you taken a plane trip? Yes, our Homeland is the third front.

“However, busboy33, if you want to get this thread back to race baiting, let me ask you, how have the libs treated conservative Negroes and Hispanic/Latinos over the past 20 years?”

I certainly understand how shocked you must be as you interpret my question as race baiting. You managed to quote the first paragraph in my comment in #36, but for some reason you failed to quote the 2nd paragraph. You know, the one where I pointed out specific examples of people apparently going bananas over Obama’s race. I’m sure that’s only because you were so shocked at my 1st paragraph that you were unable to proceed any farther. I know you would never have deliberately ignored the uncomfortable examples on purpose, so it must have been my shocking question . . . you have my apologies.

Of course, you also missed the specific examples I gave in #33, the one that was specifically adressed you. Easy to miss.

“WHAT THE HELL DOES HIS SKIN COLOR HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?”

Funny . . . I thought that’s what I was asking.

Do please leap to the moral high ground. I’m sure you are shocked (SHOCKED, I say!) that I am “race baiting”. I thought I was asking why specific commenters were specifically making racial allegations that I specifically detailed . . . but I guess I was wrong.
Or, you’re ignoring the embarassing examples that I mentioned and are just bellowing to make them go away.
. . . Nah, that can’t be it. Must be my fault. Silly me.

“how have the libs treated conservative Negroes and Hispanic/Latinos over the past 20 years?”

To try and answer your question . . . who? Could you narrow down your “conservative Negro and Hispanic/Latinos” so I can answer? I hope you are not maintaining that every single “conservative Negro and Hispanic/Latino” has been treated in exactly the same way by every single “liberal”.
One does come to mind . . . Clarence Thomas. Was he shat on by “liberals”? Yes.
Was it because he was a “conservative Negro”? No.
I’m sure you disagree, and I’m also sure that some “liberal”, somewhere, called him an Uncle Tom. There is a difference between a person who is liberal and “Teh Libral Konspiracy”.
Let me give you an example. There are Conservatives who compare Obama to a monkey (see the Curious George dolls waved at McCain rallies during the campaign as just one exemple). That’s a pretty racist thing to do. Does that make conservatives racist? No. Does it make the dickheads waving the dolls and laughing racist? Yes.

“we were fighting a war on three fronts, Afghanistan, Iraq, and our Homeland . . .”

Sorry — I missed the last one there. When did the Homeland front open up, and exactly who are we fighting in the Homeland?

“. . . and Bush left with a 450 Billion dollar deficit after 8 years. Obama is quadrupling that. Are you comfortable? Is this how you would handle your own finances?”

Am I comfortable with debt? Of course not. But turning my smart-ass filter off for a moment, I respectfully think you’re playing games with the numbers.
Certainly, the health care reform is expensive, and I do put that at Obama’s feet — I also think it’s a good idea. I’ll certainly agree that the government is incompetent (not Obama . . . the government), but I believe that private insurance has failed more than the government. You are certainly free to disagree, but we’re talking about opinion now, not fact.
Aside from healthcare reform, what deficit-increasing measures has he taken that wern’t directly a result of the ecconomic situation he inherited from Bush (which you admit was a trainwreck)? If I drive a car at a brick wall, then throw you behind the wheel just before the crash, you’re going to cause damage to the car. Is that your fault, or mine?
You rail against Social Security and Medicare — how on Earth is that Obama’s fault?

“We have been lied to and cheated out of our money and trust.”

. . . and private, for-profit insurance companies haven’t?

“Everything he has done since taking office has been a huge rush. Why? What’s the hurry?”

The ecconomic stimulus measures were “rushed” because we were and still are in an ecconomic crisis. The healthcare reform is being “rushed” (although I fail to see how something that has been discussed for more than a decade qualifies as “in a hurry”) because he’s trying to get it done while it’s still possible to make it happen, before the lobbyists shut it down . . . and you damn well know it.

” Do you know him well enough to trust him with your life…your wife’s, your child’s?”

Never met the man, never “looked into his soul”, so I suppose the answer to that is no. Of course, I can answer that question with a no for every single president that has ever been elected . . . so what makes him special?

“No one need dislike Obama, but that doesn’t mean we know him well enough to trust him with our futures or our country.”

As I said above, I don’t know any president well enough to trust them with the lives of me and mine . . . do you? Did you know Bush well enough (and if so, did you expect him to be such a complete fu@k-up or were you betrayed)? Did you you know McCain well enough?
What “don’t you know” about Obama? What makes him so mysterious and shadowy? I assume you didn’t vote for Kerry or Gore. Was it because you didn’t know them well enough compared to Bush, or was it because you thought their policies sucked? What makes Obama different than any other Democratic politician?

(*smart-ass filter re-engaged*)

. . .y’know, aside from him being black. I’m sorry, a Negro. Which as you loudly declared is totally not an issue.