Rivers enjoyable
In contrast to letter writer Joe Lucero’s derisive comments about Reggie Rivers that appeared in the Sept. 8 Rocky Mountain News (“Rivers a shameful hire,” Talk Back to the Media), I find Rivers to be a brilliant, positive-minded person, with high integrity and strong humanitarian values. I’ve enjoyed listening to him over the years, and have never heard him make a derogatory statement about our servicemen and servicewomen.
Being a critical thinker, Rivers has found a great deal of fault and hypocrisy with our leadership, and rightly defines these problems, and brings them out into the open so that they can be exposed and, I hope, one day remedied.
Brian Boyarko, Littleton
You're right on the mark, Brian. Reggie taught me by example what critical thinking is. I listened to his radio show as often as possible and admired how he would stick to a point while callers would be stooping to name-calling. Anybody, regardless of political affiliation, who wants to debate a point would do well to follow his example.
Posted by Diana on September 15, 2007 02:04 AMIn my 17 years living along the Front Range, Reggie is the only black man (private and public sector), out-tside of myself, I would label a "black leader". I've never actually met him, just spoke to him in a local grocery store and I heard him speak at a Qwest employee cook-out. Dynamic to say the least.
Reggie has written books and columns in our local newspapers. I might team up Reggie and write a book, " My Journey Through the American Taliban". It won't be like Gen. Powell's rag. My story will entail my escape from behind "The Cotton Curtain" (SC/NC), where I was treated like a slave while bigots were Bible-thumping me. I would also address the Vietnam War where I served in 3 deployments, and saw other black men pimped and exploited. It is no accident that 55% of the "soldier-draftees" killed in Vietnam (in-country) were black, while we only comprised 12% of the nation's entire population.
PAUL REVERE's steed came up lame. The federal law stating only one son had to serve in combat never made it to my "hood". During my 3rd deployment to Vietnam, unbeknownst to me, my younger brother was drafted by the Detroit Tigers (MLB), however, his draft was superceded by NAM draft, and when I knew anything he had been shot in the face during a NAM fire fight (USMC). Today he is blind, PTSD, Agent Orange infected, diabetic, and need his legs amputated. Mucho thanks to the likes of Bush, Chips Barry, BoPeep, Owens, Tancredo, Allard, K. Salazar, Rudy, Mitt, Huckabee, Boehner, Frist, Lott, J-Loop, Cheney, etc.
The dixiecrats as a whole, and in the particluar the 42 MT suits and dresses, that comprise the Congessional Black Caucus, actually fear the criminal illegal Mexican advocates. I don't. I want to outline in my book the negative impact criminal illegal Mexicnas have on blacks with regards to stealing our jobs, federal contracts, resegregating our neighborhoods, and "vaporizing" our gains made in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In N.E. Denver, they actually registered and vote, bnullifying black votes. For the first time in decades we now have no blacks on RTD's board of directors (13 whites and 2 Latinos).
James J. Tenant
Lt. Commander, USN, Ret.
Served in 3 nuclear powered submarines and 4 surface combat ships.
Yeah Diana, he'd stick on topic with name calling of his own - you obviously didn't listen for more than a commercial break, "King Ashcroft", "Illiterate Bush", where two of his favorites - yeah he was on topic and never stooped to name calling you hypocrite
Posted by on September 15, 2007 09:09 AMAs usual with the nicely safe anonymous posters, the supporters of the Right cry FOUL! - in loud and stentorian voices - when something such as "King Ashcroft", which he often acted as if he were, and "illiterate Bush", which he certainly proves himself to be quite regularly, are used to describe their idols and celebrety personalities.
Of course, when those of us who don't happen to worship at their shrines post, the replies calling us - among the more printable - names such as "pukes", "cowards", "liars", "socialists", "traitors", etc., are perfectly all right, and merely evidence of the poster's "superior position", either "morally" or . . . well I won't abuse the word "intellectually", since there is no intellect involved there.
Rather typical of the Republican/"conservative" postings as a whole; and to be noted accordingly.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 09:39 AMFunny, as if "Old Grouch" tells us who you are. Get off your throne! Reggie is only interesting to the liberals.
Posted by on September 15, 2007 10:22 AMGrouch-
So in your world dem posters are always civil and never name call?
Do you even READ anything from anti keith,charles b, 40 acres,richard grimes,cord,mary,wes,karl cheney,Repugnants are liars,bango,...?
Ive also noticed in the last couple of days a trend where conservative posters screen names are hijacked with hateful derogatory false posts attributed to them.
What does that say about your little theory Grouch?
Maybe you should "note" that?
z
Z,
I read regularly. And a number of those you list are quite clearly REPUBLICAN/"conservative" in their orientations and presentations, especially the 2 little yappy puppies and their constant insulting epithets - much of which used to also be profane - used towards Democrats and "liberals" in every posting they put up.
Certainly, they - and their confreres - are responded to in kind. Generally, I prefer to ignore them completely. But, they ARE most representative of the anonymous posters, and screen names, who present the "Right position", as if that were the only position.
Go back over the past few months, and then ask about "my little theory"; especially the past few weeks, since the one whose name starts with "K" came back.
As to the "hijacking" bit, just how do you arrive at the distinction of what is theirs and what isn't? Especially with the anonymous ones who don't even bother with a screen name?
Pots and Kettles. But, I'd make a bet - if I were a betting man - that if you "conservatives" made some effort to clean up your Architypical spokes-persons, you would see a big difference all round.
Not that anyone on that side will make the effort, of course.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 11:37 AMJames J. Tenant
Lt. Commander, USN, Ret., states:
“…no accident that 55% of the "soldier-draftees" killed in Vietnam (in-country) were black, while we only comprised 12% of the nation's entire population.”
One can only imagine why a retired naval officer continually uses blatantly wrong facts to support this thesis. Many times this man has claimed that 55% of those killed in action in Viet Nam were black while they only comprised 12% of the population; and many times he has been corrected. The true statistics are below. Source:
http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html
Deaths by race, Viet Nam War
Negro…………….……………….. 7,264……12.48%
Caucasian ………………………..50,120……86.13%
Malayan……………………………. 252……>0.10%
Mongolian …………………………..116……>0.10%
American India………………….….. 226……>0.10%
Unknown, Not Report……………… 215……>0.10%
Total …………………………….58,193
NOTE: Americans of Hispanic heritage included in Caucasian
Mr. Tenant, whether using his real name or his screen mane(s), i.e., 40acres, behindthecottoncurtain…etc., repeatedly falsifies these statistics to gain sympathy for his position of the exploited and abused black American.
Perhaps his claims would be more believable if he used correct facts in place of fabricated exaggerations.
Old Grouch said with a not so straight face,
"As to the "hijacking" bit, just how do you arrive at the distinction of what is theirs and what isn't? Especially with the anonymous ones who don't even bother with a screen name?".
I'm not talking about anonymous posts,I'm talking about libs forging posts under conservative posters screen names.
Here is an example from a previous thread where you yourself posted just a view comments down from this fraud attributed to and supposedly signed by Keith-
"dem dumocrats make me sick, we should jus kill em all and get it over wid, like our high lord Osama wants.
an american, thanx for the praise in me writings. i am so proud to be your lover. last night was wonderful my darling, i cant wait till i turn 18 so we can announce our special manlove and peeps wont think you are a pedophile for loving me."
There are two more,one speaks of a can of "Crisco" and the other mentions a "bulge in my pants".
Now Grouch,I'd hope you will be man enough to admit this is wrong and re-think your position that Repubs are hate filled and not dems.
Or will you continue playing dumb and claim those posts are legit?
Any credibility you may have left is riding on this.
z
Posted by on September 15, 2007 06:16 PMZ,
I don't particularly stake my credibility on trivia such as who is playing silly games with whom. I really could not care less.
The presence of this kind of thing just wastes space; and few, if any, give it much of the time of day, much less concern themselves over it. Maybe they even think it will persuade the "originals" to do something about their own presentations. Fat chance!
My point in the first place was - and still is - directed to the way in which the "originals" present - something which continues to deteriorate; and which no one who claims to be a "responsible" writer for the Republican/"conservative" side seems to either notice or rebuke. Indeed, if YOU read many of the past weeks of posting, you will find that what I call the "second bananas" often seem to just echo the yappy puppies, rather than speak for themselves.
You may think this is fine and dandy. O.K. Good for you! I'll take for granted that the next set of "lies/liar/liberal" and "coward/liberal/take-away-our-guns" postings are expressive of YOUR point of view, for what that's worth; and move on.
I'll take care of my own integrity when posting.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 06:56 PMOld Grouch,
My original post was in response to your refusal to concede that libs also display hate, and in my opinion,much more so.
I've given you an ironclad example, from a thread you were on, of hateful liberals in action and all you do is just what you claim conservative posters do, that being not rebuking and ignoring.
How then, are you any different than they?
And how can you take care of the integrity of your postings if hateful others hijack your screen name and write ridiculous crap on your behalf?
Rebuke and condemn this practice or be perceived as a hypocrite.
I'm beginning to think you have no problem with this.
Are you responsible?
z
z:
What a little whiny-ass-titty-baby you are.
I imagine a lone violin playing as you speak..
Now go cry about the hateful liberals into your mummy's breast.
Posted by Charles B on September 15, 2007 08:33 PMI Think he's just made your point Z
Posted by FW on September 15, 2007 10:18 PMZ,
In the first place, those "hijacked" screen names are stereotypical in their own ORIGINAL presentations. They, themselves, have used the very same presentations in response to the postings of others as are now being lampooned by using them as being "between themselves".
Are you, then, defending their remarks about others to begin with? It certainly appears that you are, from your vigorous insistence upon someone else's "responsibility" being dependent upon criticizing the lampoons, rather than accepting the fact that those "hijacked" started the nastiness and insults in the first place, and are now getting a form of "pay-back" in their own formats.
You are quite typical of those for whom it is perfectly all right to slam, slander, insult, and otherwise deride those who present a position that disagrees with YOU, while always insisting that the othe side must refrain from reply in kind, or from the use of YOUR tactics.
My responsability is mine. My presentations are mine. And any way in which I too, might at times, use the tactics of others is also mine. As with anybody coming to, or posting on, the website, you are under no obligation whatsoever to read what I write; and, conversely, I am under no obligation whatsoever to change my position, or "unsay" what i have said, because you don't approve.
Your crocodile tears - shed over the "hijacking", and other lampoons of some who are rather outstanding examples of the kind of postings that are pointless wastes of time, and nothing more than childish nastiness - are wasted on me.
Post something of substance, or interest, or response to a point of the topic; and I'll exercise my right to respond, or not, as I choose. The rest of this has already been hashed out, many times before now.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 16, 2007 10:20 AMGrouch and Charles,
So since neither of you have a problem with libs posting under others names, how would you feel if it was you that was misrepresented?
How about a false post describing your man love for each other complete with disgusting sexual acts?
If a conservative made derogatory false posts under your names describing your man love for each other complete with references to disgusting sexual acts, you would demand The RMN intervene and you both know it.
The thing is,and my point was,liberals on this site are the only ones doing this crap.
Your repeated failure to recognize and condemn this practice speaks volumes towards your character and agenda.
z
OG,
Once again you dodge my whole point.
What's wrong is wrong.It is not the end of the world and I really could care less.If someone posted under my nick I wouldn't go crying to the RMN.
The only problem I have is that for some unknown reason you refuse to admit this false posting IS wrong.
You have had multiple opportunities to do so and stubbornly choose not to.
You have been crying for the last couple of weeks about conservative posters not calling out fellow cons for retarded comments.
Now you refuse to practice what you preach.
And then go on to insult me numorous times.
Can I play too?
How does it feel kicking back on the taxpayers dime with your lavish PERA bennies,after a career indoctrinating young impressionable minds with your biased liberal "character and agenda"?
I can see you as being like the many tenured lefty professors I dealt with in grad school. Totally incompetent and full of themselves,power trippin with no fear of getting canned thanks to the teachers union. Now your trip is thankfully over and you have a real problem.
After retiring,and not having a captive audience of students,it must have sucked when you first realized people would avoid talking to you, with your senile ,stubborn ,paranoid, ramblings and all, and you were strictly limited to corresponding with regular humans via the internet.I'd bet your family and probably your pet even avoids you.
I've read many of your posts,and being I work for a govt agency you most likely fear,must say my favs were the absolutely gut splitting, paranoid ,govt out to get me ones.You remember the ones about the Patriot Act? I can see you all holed up in a little home -made lead lined bunker, in your protective tin foil suit, just waiting for my evil Bush govt thugs to come haul you away.
Why so paranoid Grouch?
What could an insignificant old POS like yourself have to hide?
Hmmmmmm....
Here is a little tidbit for you.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/wiretap?currentPage=all
Sleep tight old man, WE ARE WATCHING.
z
Z
Your word, "wrong", as used here, is meaningless. "Wrong" in what way? And, "wrong", to YOU, seems to be quite the oppsoite to those posting differently; where it is "right" for them.
My comments concerning the way in which the "conservative" side lets some post are fully supported, and fully exemplified by your current posting. You tell us yourself that you are a useless government drone, with your snout fixed in the tax payers' trough; and that those of us who support the Constitution and Bill of Rights are "paranoid" - along with other insults and smart-ass remarks - because we oppose your kind of crypto-fascist attempts to take over.
As with most - if not all - "conservative" government drones, you do not understand - probably because you don't have the smarts to have learned it - the basic and fundamental principle of, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
You were probably much too busy getting drunk, or stoned, or playing mutual mental - and other - masturbation games in one of those adolescent Greek Letter tom-cat houses - or cemetery crypt playpens - to have attended that class. Weren't you boy?
Are you proposing to set yourself up as the blog's censor? If you are, you should go back and at least have someone read, and explain, to you - since you obviously cannot understand what is written - the previous postings I have made on that subject.
As with the rest of the Right-wingnuts, you seem to think your subjective ideas are, somehow, universal; and that others are obligated to take your point of view as being necessarily the only one. On the other hand this is - at least presently - a forum of ideas, NOT an indoctrination by some ignorant, snotty, smart-ass little government bureaucrat.
And, by the way, sonny, your ideas of government are exactly what I will continue to fight, in support of the Constitution of the United States, so long as I am able. I've been "watched" by your kind before, kiddy. It's your little crypto-fascist claque that is exemplary of the dangers honest Americans still face from the "conservative" wing.
Play away, sonny. You're far from the first at that geme.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 17, 2007 09:09 AMZ, I think Old Grouch didn't like a comment in one of my posts and instead of calling me names he went after my children.
He is a true liberal.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on September 17, 2007 01:55 PMCigaAMEN,
Perhaps you will cite this event for me. I have, as memory serves, expressed disagreement with YOU, on occasion; but I have no memory at all of any "going after your children".
I believe we do disagree on some parts of the matter of education, such as vouchers and/or private schools and the quality of one form of schooling over another. But that doesn't in any way whatsoever touch upon the children themselves.
Besides which, lady, Z indicated he wanted "to play"; and posted a line of what he "thought I would/did/do/was/taught/etc." That's a game that's quite old; and he is far from the first in playing it, with me or anybody else. His opinions of my being a "professor", and what happened - or was supposed to have happened, in his imagination - in that position, are his own fictions, my dear. Fictions that very clearly delineate and project his own experiences in college; but have nothing at all to do with me in the real world, or in my life.
I respond with some characterization of his own status of being a government worker - an area in wich I have had some experience with his kind over a good many years; including the Viet Nam era.
I have always been a Constitutional Conservative. If that's too "liberal" for you - as it certainly appears to be for him, in his remarks - than that's too bad. Whatever "agency" he supposedly works for, or claims to work for, that is "watching" me - as he puts it - is nothing new to me, lady.
Maybe you should . . . butt out here . . . and/or go back and re-read HIS posting before you suggest that I attack children unwarrantedly.
On the other hand, however, you may, if you wish, fire away! I let the intelligent people who read the whole of a series judge for themselves what is mere fantastic hyperbole and what is response in context.
And, just to keep matters clear in context, nothing here is any of your business anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 17, 2007 02:30 PMOld Grouch , I stand corrected. It was not you that went after my children,it was someone else.
Please accept my apology for accusing you of something you didn't say.
Sincerely,
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on September 17, 2007 03:59 PMOld Grouch,
Christ old man,can you read?
The" wrong" that I have been speaking of is
THE PRACTICE OF FALSE POSTING UNDER ANOTHERS SCREEN NAME!!!!!
That was the only problem I had and explained that REPEATEDLY!
All I'm after is an admission from you that this "hijacking" crap is lame.
This never had anything to do with me disagreeing with others opinions.
Maybe you might want to re-read any posts before responding.
Apparently, your comprehension skills are fading.
BTW, since you re such a strong Constitutionist, do you agree the second amendment is absolute?
z
Posted by on September 17, 2007 07:11 PMZ,
On the contrary you have been demanding assent to a whole lot of different definitions of what you consider "wrong". And, you have also been giving your opinions - derived from your fevered imagination - of what you felt was "wrong" about my refusal to be intimidated by your rather nonsensical pretensions to some kind of position of importance as well.
I fail to see what you need as an "admission from me". I've written, clearly, how the "hijacking" mirrors exactly what the originals you are crying about as being "hijacked" started in the first place. Now, someone seems to be - at least according to you - doing to them what they did to others. So what? What the hell business is it of YOURS to begin with? And why is that supposed to be of any concern to me?
You say it's "lame". O.K. Your opinion has been expressed, and duly noted.
I don't give a damn in hell what your opinion is.
And, I don't give a damn in hell about the so called problem either. It's not MY problem; and I don't propose to try to make it mine now, or at any time in the future.
Is that simple enough for you?
As to the Second Amendment: Define "absolute". If you really are asking a legitimate question, that is.
I have posted before - several times - on the subject of weapons ownership, as well as the matter of Carry Permits. Perhaps you can try to exercise your own "comprehension skills", and see if you understand what I have already written, before you try trick questions.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 18, 2007 12:26 AM