The Flame Has Gone Out Under The Melting Pot

This was something I ran across, the author of which preferred to leave unattributed:



Welcome diners, to the first "Multicultural-hyphen-Diversity" dinner
sponsored by Al Gore, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al
Sharpton. Each is a co-chair of a non-501C3 foundation that seeks
political profit. It started during the presidential election when
Al Gore uttered his inspirational interpretation of:

E PLURIBUS UNUM-- "OUT OF ONE, MANY"

This new foundation is hereby named:

"UNTIED WE STAND"

Please sirs and madames, appreciate the wonderful repast we have designed
for you. Our chief chef, Pauline Corekt (we just call her "PC") is a
recent graduate of the Harvard school of political science and has a
Doctorate in Political Correctness and also a PHD in social nutrition!
Her latest prize winning dish has been named by the Reverend Jesse
Jackson...."The Diversity Dish"!

Please be seated and your "wait person" will deliver your meal in the
prescribed sequence with the appropriate pause between courses to allow
full appreciation of each.

1- First course consists of this wonderful cup of raw beef chunks.

2- When you finish that, enjoy one cup of beef broth.

3- Next, consume two savory tablespoons of rendered lard.

4- Your raw, but peeled onion (a vidalia!) is next.

5- The two teaspoons of salt can be ingested with the ½ cup of Cajun
hot-sauce.

6- Your two tomatoes can be eaten whole or sliced, whichever is
preferable.

7- The three raw potatoes can be sliced if you prefer, rather than just
biting, as an apple.

8- The two tablespoons of paprika are the next course.

9- We next ask you to enjoy the tasty celery that we've diced for you.

10- Our next gastronomical treat is six organically-grown carrots.

11- The three teaspoons of pepper on Ritz crackers is a daring departure.

12- Three ounces of sugar are mixed with ½ tsp. of horseradish for real
diversity.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen; a splendid example of
haute cuisine-representing the pinnacle of America's "DIVERSITY!"

The follow-up taste test will be held in 3 days to allow for absorption,
digestion and elimination of the Diversity meal.

Once there was a recipe for a simple, straightforward, and really tasty stew. It was a recipe that was very old, dating from the origins of this country, circa 1776. It was just a stew but it provided nourishment for many millions of people. It consisted of all the above ingredients but they were cooked slowly together and the individual flavors of the ingredients were allowed to mingle into the most
nutritionally beneficial stew the world had known.

It was called "AMERICA"

Unfortunately, the recipe been lost.

The divisive tactics of self promoting, race-baiting, class warfare,
rich vs. poor of the liberal/socialists are very close to destroying the
America that produced the kind of freedom that allows such an inane bunch
of bean-heads to exist. I'm sure if the meal they are offering to serve
Americans were described in the proceeding shirtsleeve English we'd be
rid of them.

You have nutters on both sides of the fence. Remember McCarthyism, the committee of unamerican activities, segregation etc? Is that the kind of "freedom" he was referring to?

Considering its 2003 and gay couples have only just won the right to have sex and not be arrested for it in 13 states, I find it hard to see why this guy thinks the liberals are "winning".

This load of tripe is far below your usual standard, j2.

Quote:

---

The divisive tactics of self promoting, race-baiting, class warfare,
rich vs. poor of the liberal/socialists are very close to destroying the
America that produced the kind of freedom that allows such an inane bunch
of bean-heads to exist. I'm sure if the meal they are offering to serve
Americans were described in the proceeding shirtsleeve English we'd be
rid of them.

---

This person would have us believe that conservative/republicans
are the champions of diversity?

Pshaw.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@1 July 2003 - 17:11
This load of tripe is far below your usual standard, j2.

---

As I understand it, I am conservative, therefore I have no standards.

However, you are correct-I hereby disavow it.

I too shall become a fan of political correctness.

"Thank you sir, may I have another!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@1 July 2003 - 17:29
"Thank you sir, may I have another!"

---

No, you may not.

Have an ice-cream cone instead.

To quote someone else (if that's not stating the obvious)

"It's all just political madness gone correct."

Let's create a society where everyone is the same and treated as such, whilst celebrating the fact that we are all different. How does that work then.

Let's create a society where the rule of law applies to everyone, except if their religious beliefs don't like specific laws, then let's give them an exemption.

Let's create a society which does not accept cruelty to animals, unless of course you prefer to slit an animals throat and watch it bleed to death slowly and painfully before you eat it.

Let's create a society where everyone who doesn't wear a crash helmet will be prosecuted unless .... see above. Or where you have to have a photographic driving licence .... see above

Let's make up our minds, are we all the same or all different. I think we are all the same. So let's make a society where the majority makes the rules and everyone has to follow them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@1 July 2003 - 17:43
To quote someone else (if that's not stating the obvious)

"It's all just political madness gone correct."

Let's create a society where everyone is the same and treated as such, whilst celebrating the fact that we are all different. How does that work then.

Let's create a society where the rule of law applies to everyone, except if their religious beliefs don't like specific laws, then let's give them an exemption.

Let's create a society which does not accept cruelty to animals, unless of course you prefer to slit an animals throat and watch it bleed to death slowly and painfully before you eat it.

Let's create a society where everyone who doesn't wear a crash helmet will be prosecuted unless .... see above. Or where you have to have a photographic driving licence .... see above

Let's make up our minds, are we all the same or all different. I think we are all the same. So let's make a society where the majority makes the rules and everyone has to follow them.

---

That is a great idea.

A response, please, from the Muslim/Mongol majority?

"Yes, please-let us vote immediately!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@1 July 2003 - 16:21
Considering its 2003 and gay couples have only just won the right to have sex and not be arrested for it in 13 states, I find it hard to see why this guy thinks the liberals are "winning".

---

Ironic this didn't occur under a democrat administration, huh?

Some people are afraid of our right-leaning court-more irony.

Are you implying that Bush had something to do with the Supreme courts decision?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@1 July 2003 - 18:27
Are you implying that Bush had something to do with the Supreme courts decision?

---

Not at all; nor did the previous administration, or the one before that.

EBP-it's not like I'm asking anyone to read between the lines here.

So if your not implying that the President has anything to do with the Supreme Courts decisions what was the meaning behind this then?

Quote:

---

Ironic this didn't occur under a democrat administration, huh?

---

For extra irony you could recall that Bush had the opportunity to get rid of this fascist law in Texas.

Instead he spent his time arguing that it is acceptable to put mentally retarded individuals on death row and have them executed.

What a guy...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@1 July 2003 - 22:21
You have nutters on both sides of the fence. Remember McCarthyism, the committee of unamerican activities, segregation etc? Is that the kind of "freedom" he was referring to?

Considering its 2003 and gay couples have only just won the right to have sex and not be arrested for it in 13 states, I find it hard to see why this guy thinks the liberals are "winning".

---

Not just gay couples!
Hooray for sodomy :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by S+A
Not just gay couples!

---

Wrong.

The law was changed in Texas in 1973 to allow heterosexual couples to engage in anal sex. So the change in the law in 2003 (lol!) relates to "just gay couples".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@1 July 2003 - 16:21
You have nutters on both sides of the fence.

---

There are nutters on your side of the fence?

This surprises me; can you name some?

Does this fence have a third side, somehow?

Quote:

---

There are nutters on your side of the fence?

This surprises me; can you name some?

Does this fence have a third side, somehow?

---

The fence has many sides of course. However going by the authors material in your original post there are only 2 sides. The "liberal/socialists" side and, I assume, the "conservative/republicans" side. Something refelected in the makeup of the major political parties in the US today. I was merely adhering to that "black/white no shades of grey" paradigm so as not to go OT. After all this thread is about that material you posted.. isnt it?

Of the "liberal/socialists", some think that a womans capability to have a child is sexism. Of the "conservative/republicans" some think that the banning of segregation was PC gone mad. These are the nutters I was referring to.

I havent seen you talk about the authors beliefs at all in this thread. What do you think? Do you believe that "liberal/socialists" tactics are "divisive", "self promoting", "race-baiting" and promote "class warfare"? Or was it the conservatives who demanded segregation be abolished? Would that count as "race-baiting"?

Or was that material so partisan as to be utterly useless as a basis for an informed debate?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@2 July 2003 - 18:11
Or was that material so partisan as to be utterly useless as a basis for an informed debate?

---

If I stipulate (for the sake of "debate") this is true, why are you posting, EBP?

You just bemoaned the lack of potential for informed debate.

The tee is yours, sir.

Enlighten us!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@2 July 2003 - 18:11
What do you think?

---

BTW-You'll never convince me you care what anyone here thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If I stipulate (for the sake of "debate") this is true, why are you posting, EBP?
[/b]

---

I did my very best with this....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You have nutters on both sides of the fence. Remember McCarthyism, the committee of unamerican activities, segregation etc? Is that the kind of "freedom" he was referring to?

Considering its 2003 and gay couples have only just won the right to have sex and not be arrested for it in 13 states, I find it hard to see why this guy thinks the liberals are "winning".
[/b]

---

You see I was pointing out the flaws in his viewpoint and attemting to highlight the partisan attitude.

You responded with this...

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Ironic this didn&#39;t occur under a democrat administration, huh?

Some people are afraid of our right-leaning court-more irony. [/quote]

Which just highlights your partisan attitude. Any chance to bash the democrats and you jump at it. It was also utterly irrelevant as the Supreme court is independent, as you conceded.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
BTW-You&#39;ll never convince me you care what anyone here thinks.[/quote]

And you&#39;ll never convince me that any of your replies to my posts arent motivated by personal dislike. I can only assume you think I give a shit as you continue to post provocative replies which usually have very little to do with the original point of the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@2 July 2003 - 19:52
You see I was pointing out the flaws in his viewpoint and attemting to highlight the partisan attitude.

---

At last I have discerned your modus operandi:

You don&#39;t suffer the restraints of partisonship, so in any debate into which you insinuate yourself you automatically are accorded the presumptive high-ground and superior forward, rear, and flanking position.

From here on, then, whenever we see your avitar, we should all immediately divest ourselves of our best arguments and give you a great big salaam, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>At last I have discerned your modus operandi:

You don&#39;t suffer the restraints of partisonship, [/b]

---

My beliefs are not partisan. For example Bush has just sent troops to Liberia, that imho is a good thing. If I were partisan I would be against that just because its Bush, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@

so in any debate into which you insinuate yourself you automatically are accorded the presumptive high-ground and superior forward, rear, and flanking position.

---

No. That is your assumption based on personal dislike. Get over it j2k4, your coming across as more than a little childish.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

From here on, then, whenever we see your avitar, we should all immediately divest ourselves of our best arguments and give you a great big salaam, yes?
[/quote]

1, You should ignore the avitar and focus on the content of the post. This is your problem. Every thread that involves me and you seems to degenerate into a personal battle with you throwing wild accusations around.

2, You should stick to the topic at hand, which you rarely do. You still havent talked about that authors material in this thread and now we are lost in the fog of "j2k4 vs EBP". All references to the inital topic are long gone. Why do you consistently go OT when people disagree with you? Is it to draw attention away from the fact that you cant even defend a view in a thread you started yourself?

Defend your views, stick to the topic, or get out of town.

I&#39;m sure I&#39;m not the only person who&#39;s sick of reading your &#39;poison posts&#39;.

It&#39;s all just eloquent (if that&#39;s the word) thread hijacking.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@3 July 2003 - 10:39
It&#39;s all just eloquent (if that&#39;s the word) thread hijacking.

---

JPaul-Uh, thanks, I think. :D



EBP-so you think this international "town" isn&#39;t large enough for the two of us?


Awful BIG of you to say so.

I think I&#39;ve behaved splendidly during our contretemps, though if you think otherwise, I&#39;d be willing to let my fellow members settle the question.

What say you? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>EBP-so you think this international "town" isn&#39;t large enough for the two of us?
[/b]

---

Read what I said again :) I gave you an ultimatum, stick to the topic and stop posting poison or piss off. Whether you accept that or not is up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@
I think I&#39;ve behaved splendidly during our contretemps

---

Hey I didnt know you were a comedian too&#33;

Show me one example in this thread of you behaving "splendidly". btw I define "splendidly", in this context, as sticking to the topic. Personal attacks dont cut it :)

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I&#39;d be willing to let my fellow members settle the question.

What say you?[/quote]

What&#33;&#33;&#33; And validate your lame attempts at getting this thread OT as quickly as possible and making sure it stays OT forever more....? Tempting.. but no :P

If you cannot bring yourself to post an on-topic reply I will not be participating in this thread any longer. So go for it BIG man. You&#39;ve got one free cheap shot which I wont be lowering myself to reply to. Use it well and remember to behave "splendidly" whatever that means in your twisted definition of things.

EBP,
Doesn&#39;t the idea of issuing a ultimatum in cyberspace strike you as faintly ludicrous? I mean really, running around pissing on digital trees to mark territory doesn&#39;t really work in here, does it?

EBP and J2,
This thread and the one concerning "US witholds Aid..." both violate what I would like to designate &#39;Hobbes Law&#39; regarding the best way to initiate a topic (yes Evil, I know you didn&#39;t start the second one, but you did jump right in ) i.e.-"Don&#39;t begin a thread by simply throwing a news article up in the air and see who responds".

Both of these threads began with articles written by someone other than the postee. Both began without an explanation by the poster as to why he/she thought it was important/relevant/ worth our time to discuss.

They were both the equivalent of tossing a stink bomb into a crowd and then ambushing those fleeing.

I would point to the thread on abortion as a model for a properly executed discussion.

Not to get prissy about it as I will no doubt stoop to my usual low tactics given the proper opportunity, but I don&#39;t think that this particular thread is worthy of either of your efforts.
Save the vitriol for something meatier.


Upon a reread, I seem to be channeling Jimmy Carter here....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker
Doesn&#39;t the idea of issuing a ultimatum in cyberspace strike you as faintly ludicrous? I mean really, running around pissing on digital trees to mark territory doesn&#39;t really work in here, does it?

---

Its not a matter of pissing on digital trees or marking territory.

That ultimatum was a symptom of my frustration with j2k4s refusal to stick to a topic he started, and his determination to make sure this thread consists of nothing but personal attacks and OT rubbish.

Perhaps I shouldnt be so quick to defend myself but it&#39;s pretty understandable given the provocation.

Just call him "smelly, smelly, smell smell".

That will settle the bar stewards hash.

I will continue my off-topic ways to say this:

I take this opportunity to render my most humble apologies to evilbagpuss and the rest of my board colleagues for my errant behavior in this and other threads in the forum.

I generally try to maintain a higher standard than I have exhibited the past couple of weeks.

I will re-dedicate myself to the attainment of that goal.

My regards to all.

Can we talk about "boobies", now?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@3 July 2003 - 22:30
Can we talk about "boobies", now?

---

Sure..... to the lounge with you, sir&#33;

http://www.ivu.org/news/3-98/breast.jpg