• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Regrets, He's Had A Few ...

An "example" is not an "overly broad generalization". It's an example to refute a straw man which derailed the OP.

Like this:
There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).
Click to expand...
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Imagining motives that people don't have and then tsk-tsking them for it, does not constitute a rebuttal. Nor is it related to the OP. Your perception as to whether a "significant percentage" of the North Carolina population is racist is completely irrelevant to what was said.
 
Last edited:
Correlation does not equal causation and I'm at a loss to see what that last post has to do with either the opening post or the discussion about the alleged quote.

I'll request a split so Dr Adequate's topic doesn't get lost.
 
gtc said:
Correlation does not equal causation and I'm at a loss to see what that last post has to do with either the opening post or the discussion about the alleged quote.

I'll request a split so Dr Adequate's topic doesn't get lost.
Click to expand...
Split it to what?

Crackers?
Jesus speaking English?
Ann Richards?

While it is true that this thread is all over the place, there is not a specific derail that I could split out. If Dr A want's to get it back "on topic" I'll leave it to him to do the directing.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Dr Adequate said:
Maybe it's a canard.

I was hoping we could look back on the Bush years.
Click to expand...

Well, looks like your not the only one who wants to look back on the Bush years.

In one of the first acts of the 111th Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers proposed legislation to create a blue-ribbon panel of outside experts to probe the “broad range” of policies pursued by the Bush administration “under claims of unreviewable war powers,” including torture of detainees and warrantless wiretaps.
Click to expand...

The proposed blue-ribbon panel would consist of nine members, with no more than five from the same political party. Appointed by the President and congressional leaders, the panel would have a budget of about $3 million and subpoena power to compel testimony from high-level members of the Bush administration.

The panel would file an initial report to the President and Congress within one year and a final report six months later. The report would include “any recommendations the Commission considers appropriate.” lt is unclear if criminal prosecution could be one of the recommendations of the panel.
Click to expand...

Don't have anytime to comment on the above, but I thought it may help "re-rail" your thread. Hopefully, this proposed legislation goes through.
 
Last edited:
Rika said:
.... Er. I thank you for the overly broad generalization and request that you never visit North Carolina.

Because I lived there for 14 years and I am at a loss to remember any significant percentage of the population being very racist.
Click to expand...
Now hold on a minute. I was just saying that it can happen that a Southerner can be racist, religious and stupid simultaneously, and that therefore we shouldn't doubt the veracity of an anecdote merely on the grounds that it represents a Southerner being so. Especially in 1924 --- what was North Carolina like back then, remind me?

Times have changed. And I should love to visit North Carolina.
 
Patriot4life said:
Well, looks like your not the only one who wants to look back on the Bush years.

Don't have anytime to comment on the above, but I thought it may help "re-rail" your thread. Hopefully, this proposed legislation goes through.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I think I'll start a new thread. This one doesn't even have rails.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Yes and no, it's a different sort of slang than redneck.

IMO, its etymology is southern in origin, in terms of southern whites specifically. While wiki seems to agree with me, I'll not try to get all OED over it. Since W has taken on the airs of a Texan, Carpet bagger or no, it's probably a fair shake to spread a little southern slang on him. He begs for it, at times.
Click to expand...

One of my favorite professors at USC Spartanburg was John Edmunds, one of the foremost authorities on the history of South Carolina. It seems "redneck" was a pejorative term used by those on the "low countries", especially around Charleston, to refer to the farmers of the upstate and Piedmont. It was a literal reference to the suntans they got on their necks from actually working their own farms.
 
gtc said:
Maybe. Was there a large number of Spanish speakers in those days?
Click to expand...

Uh, yes. Texas has had a large number of Spanish speakers since the early 18th century, when Spain actively colonized the area. Then Texas was part of Mexico, before seceding and eventually joining the US.
 
Cleon said:
Uh, yes. Texas has had a large number of Spanish speakers since the early 18th century, when Spain actively colonized the area. Then Texas was part of Mexico, before seceding and eventually joining the US.
Click to expand...

OK.

So did they teach Spanish in public schools in 1924?

That might help to show whether the alleged quote has any plausibility.
 
Foster Zygote said:
One of my favorite professors at USC Spartanburg was John Edmunds, one of the foremost authorities on the history of South Carolina. It seems "redneck" was a pejorative term used by those on the "low countries", especially around Charleston, to refer to the farmers of the upstate and Piedmont. It was a literal reference to the suntans they got on their necks from actually working their own farms.
Click to expand...
Since we're just randomly talking about stuff that pops into our heads, here's an interesting thing.

In South Africa, the rural Africaaners (i.e. Dutch farmers) have a word "rooinek", that literally means "red neck", but is not a derogatory term for themselves, but rather for an Englishman, specially a recent immigrant.

Why? Because those people do have red necks, 'cos their pallid skin has not been burnished by the sun, so they get nasty red sunburn; whereas the rural Africaaners who've spent their lives in the fields have nice healthy tans.

I can't help but think that their way makes more sense.
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
Uh, yes. Texas has had a large number of Spanish speakers since the early 18th century, when Spain actively colonized the area. Then Texas was part of Mexico, before seceding and eventually joining the US.
Click to expand...

I believe is went - Native American - Spanish - French - Mexican - We're our own nation - Crap, maybe that was a bad idea - Yehaw, we're rebels - Aww, shucks, the rebls lost. There's been native Spanish speakers there since the second flag.
 
In my opinion the only question remaining about GWB is whether he was the worst president of all time or whether some future president will surpass him.
 
gdnp said:
In my opinion the only question remaining about GWB is whether he was the worst president of all time or whether some future president will surpass him.
Click to expand...

Well - he set the bar so low that mining equipment will be needed to get under it.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Now hold on a minute. I was just saying that it can happen that a Southerner can be racist, religious and stupid simultaneously, and that therefore we shouldn't doubt the veracity of an anecdote merely on the grounds that it represents a Southerner being so. Especially in 1924 --- what was North Carolina like back then, remind me?

Times have changed. And I should love to visit North Carolina.
Click to expand...


Oh. See, I sorta thought you had a more broader application (As for 1924, I remember it very rarely, wasn't alive, and my history classes can be summarized to the following words.

"If you were poor or black, you hated pre 60's South."
 
Puppycow said:
Mistakes, I’ve Made a Few, Bush Says at Final News Conference

:D
Click to expand...
Yeah, Bush was a real piece of work there.

He regrets that they didn't find WMDs. Does that mean that he wanted Saddam Hussein to have WMDs, or that in spite of occupying the country for 5+ years, they still haven't found them. I don't know which is scarier.

Another great quote:
NYT said:
Mr. Bush said he was not certain why he had become so divisive. “I don’t know why they get angry,” he replied to a question about those who disagreed with his policies so vehemently that it became personal. “I don’t know why they get hostile.” He added that he had learned not to pay attention.
Click to expand...
That's almost sig material. Sounds to me like not paying attention was something he knew how to do right from the beginning.

Another less-than-brilliant moment was when he practically admitted authorizing torture.
GW Bush said:
One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. … And I’m in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him and they gave me a list of tools, and I said are these tools deemed to be legal? And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made.
Click to expand...

He also claimed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave information that "saved American lives", in spite of the testimony by numerous officials that KSM gave no useful information at all.

A lot of people have compared this speech to Nixon's defiant, disgruntled and practically unintelligible resignation speech. Indeed, they have a few things in common, notably their approval ratings upon leaving office.
 
Last edited:
gdnp said:
In my opinion the only question remaining about GWB is whether he was the worst president of all time or whether some future president will surpass him.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree. I still maintain James Buchanan, 1856 to 1860, was worse.
But Dubya is right down there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom