HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » TheOther95Percent » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Apr 21, 2010, 03:56 PM
Number of posts: 994

Journal Archives

Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio Featured on "Finding Your Roots" Tonight

Hubs wandered in and out of the den practically demanding to know why I am watching one of my favorite programs being desecrated by the likes of Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio. Here is a recap of his comments:

At the end of the show, each participant is given a family history chart going back as far as the ancestry can be traced. Hubs said of Paul Ryan, "I hope his earliest ancestor is listed as Satan." On Marco Rubio, "I just know he's got slave owners in his ancestry." This was confirmed later on in the program. Hubs remarked, "That bastard Rubio would still own slaves if he could."

On the big reveal of Paul Ryan's Jewish ancestry, Hubs smirked and said, "I'm going to make him a yarmulke that says schmuck." along with "Oy vey! What did it have to be Paul Ryan? Why couldn't it be Beto?" and since I'm doing a bit of research into Hubs' family history (Hubs family fled pogroms in Russia) , "If you find out I'm related to Paul Ryan, don't tell me."

Posted by TheOther95Percent | Wed Feb 13, 2019, 12:00 AM (5 replies)

I have 7 hearts left to give. If you do not have any and want one, reply to this message

First come, first served. You can give me your favorite name for the Cheetoh Bandit.
Posted by TheOther95Percent | Tue Feb 12, 2019, 02:34 PM (9 replies)

Amuse me with your favorite nickname for Cheetohlini and I will give you a star

Posted by TheOther95Percent | Thu Feb 7, 2019, 10:19 PM (173 replies)

My Commander in Crap Christmas Tree

I ordered 20 Trump toilet brushes and hung them (with festive ribbon, of course) from our Christmas tree. I would post a photo but I can 't figure out how to do it.

Posted by TheOther95Percent | Sat Dec 15, 2018, 03:05 PM (18 replies)

I need Help - Need List of Fox News Advertisers

I don't care what show. I'm going to write any advertiser that this white woman with a bigly amount of disposable income isn't going to buy products from any company that supports a "news" network that promotes the ludicrous idea that I hate white men (presumably, even my husband).

It's time for me to tell advertisers that I will not buy anything from companies that spend money underwriting shows that promoting hatred and bigotry. In fact, I'll go out of my way to buy from a competitor.

If you want to give me some G-rated sentences to include in my letter so much the better!

Fuck them all!
Posted by TheOther95Percent | Wed Dec 12, 2018, 02:06 PM (2 replies)

I think it may have something to do with Ben Johnson a/k/a Cooter

Ben Johnson has been very vocal about his support for the Confederate flag; going on an ALLCAPS Facebook rant and penned an opinion piece for the New York Times that appeared only a couple of days after the Charleston murders. Read the Times piece. It's a bit tone deaf especially in light of what happened two days earlier. His FB rant takes it to a whole 'nother level.

Timing is everything. I suspect it's what I'm calling the Rush Limbaugh Effect. For years, it seemed like Rush couldn't say anything that was too over the top for advertisers. Then his comments on Sandra Fluke reached a wider audience and companies didn't want to be associated with his brand. Trump is the latest idiot to get some serious blow back for his comments. I believe Limbaugh and Trump have made advertisers more sensitive to the prospect that there are people out there saying negative things about women or people of color. Now, when someone says something mildly controversial, the advertisers start running for the exits because they don't want to wait for you to say something really offensive.


Posted by TheOther95Percent | Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:53 AM (0 replies)

We Need Truth and Reconciliation

We need truth and reconciliation on the civil war. We need to remove the symbols of racism and American apartheid and have a frank and open dialogue on what hundreds of years of slavery and oppression have gotten us to where we are now as a nation.

Many factors inhibited bringing about the social changes needed in the post-Civil War period. Lack of leadership on the national level didn't help and neither did widely held views about African Americans inferiority. If you look at the period before and after the Civil War, it seemed that there was little consensus on what to do with freed slaves. Even some abolitionists supported policies of repatriating African Americans to Africa. When Jim Crow laws began to sprout in the 1880s and 1890s, the courts could have stopped it, but did not.

De-nazification wasn't the panacea either. It didn't work because a large part of the population - for one reason or another - was left untouched There were many obstacles that complicated the process. Membership in the Nazi party comprised maybe 7% of the German population or roughly about 6 million members. The sheer number of Germans and Austrians subject to de-nazification was overwhelming to the various Allies. The bulk of Nazi party members lost voting or other privileges for 3 or fewer years.
Some who weren't classified major offenders spent less than a decade in jail. There's a reason it's taken 70 years for some people working in concentration camps to be brought to trial. The formerly West German criminal justice system required proof that a person killed specific people. That requirement was only lifted about a decade ago. "Former" nazis played a role in the West German criminal justice system and didn't make it easy to bring people to justice.

There were also tens of thousands of ordinary Germans engaged in the mass murder of European Jewry and others Nazi ideology deemed unacceptable. Daniel Goldhagen's book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, basically destroys the myth that Hitler and his SS henchmen murdered millions of people all on their own.

Sexism also played a role. Some female guards were apprehended and prosecuted, but the vast majority of women who were complicit in carrying out war crimes were never brought to justice because of their gender. You know because women are genetically incapable of committing atrocities. Insert eye roll. Insert eye roll There's an excellent treatment of female nazis by Wendy Lower called Hitler's Furies. You can read a synopsis here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432620/Hitlers-Furies-The-Nazi-women-bit-evil-men.html

Posted by TheOther95Percent | Sun Jun 28, 2015, 07:41 PM (0 replies)

About that "they didn't own slaves and still fought" argument.

I will posit these possible explanations for why non-slave holders fought for the Confederacy:

* Quite possibly heard or read the various Secession Acts specifying any or all of the following: separation from the Union is necessary to preserve and maintain the supremacy of the white guy over all others; the basic "some day I can get me some slaves and be rich like that guy over there"; and freed slaves are going to rape the women in my family. In other words, the non-slave holder was of the same political bent as the slave-owner. You can read the causi belli for various states here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/

* God. Yes, God. God condoned slavery. It's in the Bible! God didn't condone slavery.That's in the Bible too! You can't go against the Almighty, now can you? There were few religious minorities in the United States in the run up to the Civil War. Most Americans were of one protestant denomination or another. The three main protestant sects: Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist split in the 1840s over the issue of slavery. So, for example, the Northern Baptist preacher would rail against slavery and its negative effects on society while his Southern counterpart spoke just as determinedly about maintaining human bondage because it was a good thing for everybody. This link has more on the impact of religiosity, personal belief systems and the echo chamber here: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html

* Conscripted and fought with the army.

* Joined a slave patrol and ended up in the army. In addition to the regular army units, local militias formed slave patrols. Now slave patrols had been a regular feature of Southern life for more than a hundred years. White Southerners feared slave rebellions and many more slave patrols were formed in the first year of the Civil War since - truth be told - a slave rebellion was feared more than the still far away Union army. As the war dragged on, slave patrols contributed more men to the war effort. Men with "20 negroes or more" were automatically exempted from military service. Rich man's war, poor man's fight.

Posted by TheOther95Percent | Fri Jun 26, 2015, 01:50 AM (0 replies)

Several Biographies Are Worth A Read

George Washington's views on the institution of slavery evolved over his lifetime. In his last years, Washington believed slavery was a mistake and should be abolished.

I can recommend several biographies. His Excellency by Ellis is the most comprehensive. IMHO, the best treatment of Washington and slavery comes from Wienchek's An Imperfect God.

A quicker read on the evolution of his views on slavery can be found here:

Influenced by the rhetoric of the American Revolution and constant contact with anti-slavery men from the northern colonies and states, George Washington became increasingly critical of the institution of slavery. Tracing the details of his changing views and the reasons for it may not be possible, but there can be no denying the change. He became increasingly eager to see slavery put on the path toward ultimate extinction, although he cautioned, "Time, education, and patience were needed" in the struggle.

"I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees."

After Lafayette purchased in 1786 a plantation in Cayenne to carry out his scheme of emancipating slaves, Washington praised the Frenchman: "Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country," he wrote, "but I dispair of seeing it. . . . To set the slaves afloat at once would, I really believe, be productive of much inconvenience and mischief; but by degrees it certainly might, and assuredly ought to be, effected."

"I wish from my soul that the legislature of this state could see the policy of a gradual abolition of slavery. It would prevent much mischief."

" No man desires more heartily than I do [the end of slavery]. Not only do I pray for it on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union." [And by the way, GW made clear that if slavery caused a break up of the union, he would cast his lot with the North!]

"The unfortunate condition of the persons whose labour in part I employed, has been the only unavoidable subject of regret. To make the Adults among them as easy & comfortable in their circumstances as their actual state of ignorance and improvidence would admit; and to lay a foundation to prepare the rising generation for a destiny different from that in which they were born, afforded some satisfaction to my mind, and could not I hoped be displeasing to the justice of the Creator."

These quotes, and others that could be given, while heartfelt, must be understood in context or one might reasonably conclude that the first President was an abolitionist. It is important to note that virtually all of GW's anti-slavery quotes were expressed in private correspondence or conversation. During his lifetime, the General never took a public stance against slavery or called for its end. If his growing opposition to slavery was genuine and internalized, why did he not take a more public stand against it and use his unparalleled prestige in the cause of human freedom? This was a calculated decision by the President. It was a matter of priorities. A critic might write, "the only true policy is justice; and he who regards the consequences of an act rather than the justice of it gives no very exalted proof of the greatness of his character," but George Washington knew it was not that simple. In Roger Wilkins words,

He was "politically shackled by the grating chain [racism and slavery] that snaked through the new republic and diminished every life it touched."


President Washington told Secretary of State Randolph that if the Union ever split, "he had made up his mind to remove and be of the Northern [side]."
Posted by TheOther95Percent | Wed Jun 24, 2015, 08:24 AM (1 replies)

Excellent Points

Although I would not put General Braxton Bragg in the category of celebrated Confederate generals. Not bad as a strategist as long as he didn't require a Plan B when his initial battle script went off the rails. He had horrible interpersonal skills and fought with his staff as much or more than he did his opponents. When asked, most historians would rank him more on the meh scale than anything else.
Posted by TheOther95Percent | Wed Jun 24, 2015, 12:35 AM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »