POTUS OBAMA has to lead with more than words. Nobody should be surprised by wing nut racism.
Maureen Dowd does a good job splainin this :
OP-ED COLUMNIST
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Boy, Oh, Boy
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: September 12, 2009
WASHINGTON
"The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men's club — Joe Wilson yelled "You lie!" at a president who didn't.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
The outburst was unexpected from a milquetoast Republican backbencher from South Carolina who had attracted little media attention. Now it has made him an overnight right-wing hero, inspiring "You lie!" bumper stickers and T-shirts.
The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina's state Capitol and denounced as a "smear" the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the '48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.
I've been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race[/u].
I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.
But Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted "liar" at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it.[/u][/u][/color]
"A lot of these outbursts have to do with delegitimizing him as a president," said Congressman Jim Clyburn, a senior member of the South Carolina delegation. Clyburn, the man who called out Bill Clinton on his racially tinged attacks on Obama in the primary, pushed Pelosi to pursue a formal resolution chastising Wilson.
"In South Carolina politics, I learned that the olive branch works very seldom," he said. "You have to come at these things from a position of strength. My father used to say, 'Son, always remember that silence gives consent.' "
Barry Obama of the post-'60s Hawaiian 'hood did not live through the major racial struggles in American history. Maybe he had a problem relating to his white basketball coach or catching a cab in New York, but he never got beaten up for being black.
Now he's at the center of a period of racial turbulence sparked by his ascension. Even if he and the coterie of white male advisers around him don't choose to openly acknowledge it, this president is the ultimate civil rights figure — a black man whose legitimacy is constantly challenged by a loco fringe.
For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both.
The state that fired the first shot of the Civil War has now given us this: Senator Jim DeMint exhorted conservatives to "break" the president by upending his health care plan. Rusty DePass, a G.O.P. activist, said that a gorilla that escaped from a zoo was "just one of Michelle's ancestors." Lovelorn Mark Sanford tried to refuse the president's stimulus money. And now Joe Wilson.
"A good many people in South Carolina really reject the notion that we're part of the union," said Don Fowler, the former Democratic Party chief who teaches politics at the University of South Carolina. He observed that when slavery was destroyed by outside forces and segregation was undone by civil rights leaders and Congress, it bred xenophobia.
"We have a lot of people who really think that the world's against us," Fowler said, "so when things don't happen the way we like them to, we blame outsiders." He said a state legislator not long ago tried to pass a bill to nullify any federal legislation with which South Carolinians didn't agree. Shades of John C. Calhoun!
It may be President Obama's very air of elegance and erudition that raises hackles in some. "My father used to say to me, 'Boy, don't get above your raising,' " Fowler said. "Some people are prejudiced anyway, and then they look at his education and mannerisms and get more angry at him."
Clyburn had a warning for Obama advisers who want to forgive Wilson, ignore the ignorant outbursts and move on: "They're going to have to develop ways in this White House to deal with things and not let them fester out there. Otherwise, they'll see numbers moving in the wrong direction."
POTUS OBAMA, FOTD implores you to start matching your fighting words with your fight!!
The Civil Rights Movement succeeded in becoming Civil Rights Laws because blacks and whites of good will and dreamers of equality put themselves physically on the line to move the nation into action. It wasn't a victory of Democrats (who were still transitioning from being segregationists in the South at the time) or Republicans (remember which party Lincoln belonged too).
"But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"
I think Mo is way, way off base. This is how the media succeeds in stirring the pot of rabid and divisive partisanship. That comment "You lie, boy" becomes the truth in people's minds who don't read news and commentary with a critical eye. It can't be long before those who don't pay attention to the actual account will think this idiot representative actually uttered: "You lie, boy!". Then the story will morph into something much more racially explicit somewhere out in the blogosphere.
If this had been the other way around and a black member of Congress had publicly called President Bush a liar during a speech, no one would have tried to manipulate it into a racial incident, now would they? Of course not. President Obama's spooners in the media who want to see his agendas move forward are willing accomplices in a campaign of racial intimidation. I think it's got dangerous implications, IMO.
If I were POTUS Obama, I'd be telling the media to back off the racial angle to any opposition to him or his policies. I am quite well aware there's a fringe group of people who are still racially ignorant and intollerant in this country, but that's NOT the reason why his proposed policies are objectionable.
Anyone posting stuff from Maureen Dowd should not complain about the other side posting from Faux News, or Limbaugh, or a host of others.
POTUS OBAMA has not brought up the issue so why should he tell the media to back down from doing their duty of reporting the background and the memberships of a bigot congressman or for that matter exposing the thinking behind so much of the attacking and so little of the opposition ideas?
There aren't many like you Conan who offer up intelligent reasoning why POTUS OBAMA policies are objectionable. Please point out those proposed policies you object to and what you propose to do as an alternative. This would be a positive development.
And you may be aware of fringe groups who are racially ignorant and intolerant but why do you and those you prefer in government fail to stand against hate and obstinacy?
And Red Arrow, Maureen Dowd does not preach hate and divisiveness. To group her with Drug addicts, liars, and cheats from a foreign country is wrong. Grow up.
Quote from: FOTD on September 13, 2009, 01:49:27 PM
And Red Arrow, Maureen Dowd does not preach hate and divisiveness.
Sorry, must have been a different Maureen Dowd that I used to try to read in the TW.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 13, 2009, 02:21:21 PM
Sorry, must have been a different Maureen Dowd that I used to try to read in the TW.
Then you just go ahead and google a sample column on up here Reddy and we'll go from there in comparisons.
Maureen is not owned by foreigners...
Quote from: FOTD on September 13, 2009, 02:28:33 PM
Then you just go ahead and google a sample column on up here Reddy and we'll go from there in comparisons.
Maureen is not owned by foreigners...
I know I won't win a pi$$ing contest with the king so I won't waste my time. I remember reading columns from her that started out fine and then wound up blaming Bush for something completely off subject. I consider that spreading hate.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 13, 2009, 12:55:26 PM
President Obama's spooners in the media who want to see his agendas move forward are willing accomplices in a campaign of racial intimidation. I think it's got dangerous implications, IMO.
If Obama had media spooners on the scale that GWB did, there would have been almost no coverage of the teabagger rallies.
*yawn*
Rush explains how Obama is stupid and always wrong, Maureen Dowd explains how Obama is always right and the conservatives are stupid (and probably racist, even though they didn't really say anything racist).
A few years ago Maureen Dowd went on and on about how stupid Bush was and always wrong. Rush explained how the left was just jealous and were stupid (and probably jealous of wealth).
Not only is this not news, it isn't surprising. I could have written that column for her. Just as I could write Rush's next piece on a given issue. It's bland, largely unsupported, and predictable.
And the racist comments are pretty stupid. Does she think Al Gore would be treated better by right wingers? Hell no. Black, white, hispanic, or whatever . . . they hate his ideas and the letter next to his name (D). And yes, they will use personal attacks to disrupt his ideas and try to make his party look bad.
Of course there are racists included in the discussion. Hitler was a vegetarian, does that detract from other vegetarians somehow? Of course not. The inclusion of a group doesn't reflect the entire movement.
QuoteBut, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
....she said it herself, "what I heard", indicating her own bias, deficiency and racism.
Can't believe she decided to actually write it down.
But, in doing so, she's promoting the very thing to which she appears to object.
Personally, I believe that was the intent.
EDIT: Spelling, meant 'lack of' rather than 'full of', though, she's generally full of it, too.
Quote from: Wrinkle on September 14, 2009, 11:58:40 AM
....she said it herself, "what I heard", indicating her own bias, defficiency and racism.
Can't believe she decided to actually write it down.
But, in doing so, she's promoting the very thing to which she appears to object.
Personally, I believe that was the intent.
You forget one very important point, Wrinkle. It's not racist when
they do it.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 14, 2009, 01:40:51 PM
You forget one very important point, Wrinkle. It's not racist when they do it.
By "they" do you mean, those people?
I have observed that it seems that those that cry racist the most are the ones that tend to be the most racist.
Quote from: custosnox on September 14, 2009, 02:31:24 PM
I have observed that it seems that those that cry racist the most are the ones that tend to be the most racist.
Oh Bull Sh!t
Quote from: Trogdor on September 14, 2009, 02:30:53 PM
By "they" do you mean, those people?
Heh, I saw that one coming just as soon as I hit "post".
"Ain't that 'bout a b!tch!"
(http://www.movie-collection.com/uploads/movie/7/7-927b4.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 14, 2009, 02:53:37 PM
Heh, I saw that one coming just as soon as I hit "post".
"Ain't that 'bout a b!tch!"
(http://www.movie-collection.com/uploads/movie/7/7-927b4.jpg)
Sorry, I meant to say "you people"
Quote from: custosnox on September 14, 2009, 03:10:28 PM
Ahhhh denial
Whatever..FOTD does not find it hysterical when Rush Limbaugh calls Obama the magic n*gger nor when Glenn Beck pretends to poison Nancy Pelosi. Ha ha ha!
But often can be found just rolling on the floor laughing at the incredible jokesters from the Right Wing Nut brigade hiding in between the lines at TNF!
Quote from: FOTD on September 14, 2009, 03:16:24 PM
Whatever..FOTD does not find it hysterical when Rush Limbaugh calls Obama the magic n*gger nor when Glenn Beck pretends to poison Nancy Pelosi. Ha ha ha!
But often can be found just rolling on the floor laughing at the incredible jokesters from the Right Wing Nut brigade hiding in between the lines at TNF!
You act as if Racism goes only one way, and that it only shows in open acts of aggression (or verbal abuse). It can be as simple as someone who the first thing they notice is the color of ones skin. When someone speaks out against someone that happens to be of a differant ethnic background, and someone instantly claims it's racism without any grounds for such a claim, that, in it'self, is racism. Of course, these are, as stated before, my observations. Now, is "Oh Bull Sh!t" your final, eloquent answer?
There are no final answers unless you have worms crawling through you or are ashes to ashes.
The term "racism" can be "used" in an inappropriate manner. FOTD has seldom directly accused a TNF postie of racism.
But it is quite obvious the underbelly of the south has many proponents of a Jim Crow way of life and the repelling of anything that integrates rather than denigrates.
...and the forum goes one step closer to becoming a critical mass of ridiculous absurdity...
Not long back I came across an impressive little tidbit from Lee Atwater, Reagan's political strategist and what I consider one of the founders of modern political discourse. I can't remember where I came across the quote, but it shows up on his wikipedia page, too. The quote from wiki sums it up pretty well: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater)
QuoteAs a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to Political Scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP's Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964... and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps...?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N***er, n***er, n***er." By 1968 you can't say "n***er"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N***er, n***er."[7]
In a lot of ways it puts some context around the charges of racism. I think by this point, Nixon's (and by extension, the Republican) Southern Strategy is common knowledge among certain groups of internet smartypants, so it's easier to pinpoint those
conservative Republican codewords for what they are, in the Atwaterian sense.
Is all objection to Obama's policies race-based? Certainly not. Is a significant chunk of it race-based? You bet.
So based on one quote from Lee Atwater, a huge chunk of opposition to President Obama's policies is racist? Sorry I fail to see the connection. Try it again in "paint by nu
bees" because "connect the dots" didn't work so well for me. There's a very good argument to be made for statements like yours being racism.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 15, 2009, 12:57:13 PM
So based on one quote from Lee Atwater, a huge chunk of opposition to President Obama's policies is racist? Sorry I fail to see the connection. Try it again in "paint by nu
bees" because "connect the dots" didn't work so well for me. There's a very good argument to be made for statements like yours being racism.
I don't think the point is that some people are against his policy because
he is black. The point is that some people are against his policies because they might help poor black people. I think it's more about hatred of the poor in general these days, not hatred of the color of people's skin.
Whether that is due to black people being disproportionately poor, I won't hazard a guess.
What is overtly racist is a large part of the so-called Minuteman movement. (Way to tarnish a good name, guys!) I'd prefer people immigrate legally also, but the hatred on display often can't be explained by a distaste of how someone arrived here.
Basically I have the feeling that the racists have largely moved on from skin color and have redirected their bigotry to more socially acceptable targets. I don't blame them. When the cargo cult of unfettered capitalism is leaving you behind, you can't very well blame the prophets, so you have to direct your anger somewhere else.
Quote from: buckeye on September 15, 2009, 10:39:36 AM
...and the forum goes one step closer to becoming a critical mass of ridiculous absurdity...
Just self censor the absurdity. For instance, people claiming that Republicans disagree with this Democrat president because he is black. Presumably Clinton was somewhat black too, and that's why they treated him the same way. Additionally, one must assume Bush was treated poorly by the Democrats because he was white.
What? You don't like his healthcare reform? You racist bastard!
What? The government is going to execute old people? Facists!
Both parties are just playing a stupid game. It's all BS 2 party politics. And posting Photoshopped pictures calling for the white president isn't helping the situation. In fact, slapping the race card down every time someone disagrees with the President isn't helping at all either.
/kill the 2 party system
All I can say is WOW...
So much to say, just trying to find a way to be concise.
But, if I'm reading this right, there's anger at poor people, which happen to be more black, so it's racist. Or, at least anger at the policies which tend to help poor people?
I'd tend to agree there's anger about the policies, which do tend to favor the poor. But, to jump to racism from there requires a leap.
It's not wrong to be angry about policies which promote, reinforce and perpetuate poverty, especially when its one's own money being used to do so.
The US has always had a fairly significant market in what I'll just call 'assistance'. It was designed and originally intended to be a safety net for the unfortunate, not a way of life for those who don't want to do anything.
Politicians have used that leverage to achieve electorate for decades, and today we have a President and a majority of Congress who seems to think it's what we need and is doing everything in their substantial power to make it that way, all in spite of whatever those paying the bill think.
Much to my chagrin, I am inclined to think the majority of people who participated in the Obama origin of birth scandal are racist. Unfortunately the teabag people have many of the former scandal's members among their ranks. You can see this when people at the teabag event still hold that sign with the picture of obama in what appears to be jungle native clothing and everyone else cheers them on.
Quote from: nathanm on September 15, 2009, 06:49:09 PM
I don't think the point is that some people are against his policy because he is black. The point is that some people are against his policies because they might help poor black people. I think it's more about hatred of the poor in general these days, not hatred of the color of people's skin.
Whether that is due to black people being disproportionately poor, I won't hazard a guess.
What is overtly racist is a large part of the so-called Minuteman movement. (Way to tarnish a good name, guys!) I'd prefer people immigrate legally also, but the hatred on display often can't be explained by a distaste of how someone arrived here.
Basically I have the feeling that the racists have largely moved on from skin color and have redirected their bigotry to more socially acceptable targets. I don't blame them. When the cargo cult of unfettered capitalism is leaving you behind, you can't very well blame the prophets, so you have to direct your anger somewhere else.
Well don't lump me in with the poor=black=white rage thing. When I think of poor people I think of fat white people sitting in their single wide eating pork rinds and spam, smoking generic cigarettes and filthy little kids dragging sh!tty diapers across the floor.
You are incorrect on the Minutemen. They aren't racist. Being Mexican is not a race, it's a nationality. FAIK the whole Minutemen movement is all about legal immigration and protecting the rights of US citizens and our legal immigrants and has nothing to do with the country of origin or a particular ethnic group.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 16, 2009, 01:09:31 PM
Well don't lump me in with the poor=black=white rage thing. When I think of poor people I think of fat white people sitting in their single wide eating pork rinds and spam, smoking generic cigarettes and filthy little kids dragging sh!tty diapers across the floor.
You are incorrect on the Minutemen. They aren't racist. Being Mexican is not a race, it's a nationality. FAIK the whole Minutemen movement is all about legal immigration and protecting the rights of US citizens and our legal immigrants and has nothing to do with the country of origin or a particular ethnic group.
Careful now, I fall into the poor catagory right now, I just refuse to show it. However, in general I agree. I have a personal rule that I only help those who are willing to help themselves. Kinda like if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime. The problem we have is too many of the poor have figured out that we'll keep giving them fish, so they refuse to learn to fish. Until they are willing to do something for themselves, why should we do it for them?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 16, 2009, 01:09:31 PM
FAIK the whole Minutemen movement is all about legal immigration and protecting the rights of US citizens and our legal immigrants and has nothing to do with the country of origin or a particular ethnic group.
No, they're really all about "keep the fuckers out." Which is sad. As I said, I prefer legal immigration. Sadly, our immigration policies are largely to blame. We can build all the fences we like and we'll still have them coming over here. It stands to reason we ought to make it possible for them to do so legally.
The Minutemen, on the other hand, would be just as upset if we increased our immigration quota and made it easier for them to come here illegally as they are about the illegal immigration. There may also be an element of "they took our jobs" also, but it's really about fear of the day when whites are no longer the majority.
Now, I'm not saying it's not possible to have a big problem with illegal immigration and not have a problem with hispanics in general. It certainly is. But those aren't the people who get so upset about it that they feel the need to pull up a lawn chair at the border and sit around with their shotgun hoping to find some illegals making the crossing.
Quote from: custosnox
The problem we have is too many of the poor have figured out that we'll keep giving them fish, so they refuse to learn to fish. Until they are willing to do something for themselves, why should we do it for them?
You really think people don't want jobs? Perhaps a good way to find out is job insurance (http://realignmentproject.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/job-insurance-blueprint-for-full-employment/).
You also seem to be under the false notion that there is such a thing as cash welfare anymore. Food stamp benefits are strictly time-limited with the exception of families with children. Unemployment is
insurance. Medicaid again only applies to a small subset of the population. If you are, for example, a single man you can't get assistance, with the exception of a couple of months of food stamps once every few years. (And perhaps housing assistance, I'm not sure about that one)
I think you've fallen for Reagan's "welfare queen" lie.
Quote from: nathanm on September 16, 2009, 01:35:36 PM
No, they're really all about "keep the fuckers out." Which is sad. As I said, I prefer legal immigration. Sadly, our immigration policies are largely to blame. We can build all the fences we like and we'll still have them coming over here. It stands to reason we ought to make it possible for them to do so legally.
The Minutemen, on the other hand, would be just as upset if we increased our immigration quota and made it easier for them to come here illegally as they are about the illegal immigration. There may also be an element of "they took our jobs" also, but it's really about fear of the day when whites are no longer the majority.
Now, I'm not saying it's not possible to have a big problem with illegal immigration and not have a problem with hispanics in general. It certainly is. But those aren't the people who get so upset about it that they feel the need to pull up a lawn chair at the border and sit around with their shotgun hoping to find some illegals making the crossing.
Really? Did you get all that information from the Minutemen web site or are you just speculating?
Quote from: nathanm on September 16, 2009, 01:35:36 PM
You really think people don't want jobs? Perhaps a good way to find out is job insurance (http://realignmentproject.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/job-insurance-blueprint-for-full-employment/).
You also seem to be under the false notion that there is such a thing as cash welfare anymore. Food stamp benefits are strictly time-limited with the exception of families with children. Unemployment is insurance. Medicaid again only applies to a small subset of the population. If you are, for example, a single man you can't get assistance, with the exception of a couple of months of food stamps once every few years. (And perhaps housing assistance, I'm not sure about that one)
I think you've fallen for Reagan's "welfare queen" lie.
I am under no false notion. I also said too many, I did not say all. If you are going to try and tell me that all the poor are that way because of society, or some other situation other then the fact that they don't want to get off their hindends and work, then I'll say open your eyes. Go to North Tulsa and get to know people. I don't mean go say hi and ask a couple of questions about who they are. I mean really get to know them. Spend some time in the projects, hang out with them, get to know them. You will quickly learn how so many of them will make it by as simply as they can. As far as the not giving them cash, that doesn't stop them from selling $100 worth of foodstamps to someone else for $50 cash. I don't get my information from a politician who has never stepped foot into the wrong side of town without an armed escort, I get it from being there.
Nathan had a good point about a single man though. A single mother or a couple with a child, however, will get housing (section 8), food (food stamps & wic), transit vouchers, medical, and other things (job training, day care assistance, school lunches/breakfast for free). They get enough in benefits that they often have to sluff hours or work for cash to avoid losing benefits.
The welfare queen image is false. No one lives high on the hog. But they can live well enough that it isn't worth it to work. If the choice is live in a small apartment eating low-grade food and having no spending money with all the free time in the world . . . or working your donkey off to live in a small apartment, eating low grade food, and having enough spending money to catch a movie a few times a year - many people just choose to sit on their butt.
I'm all for helping people. It's in MY interest to get people back on their feet, to educate children and keep them healthy (so they can be productive in the future), to ensure the "bottom rung" doesn't resort to crime. But I don't want to encourage sloth and free loading. Finding that middle ground is the hard part.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on September 16, 2009, 02:29:52 PM
Nathan had a good point about a single man though. A single mother or a couple with a child, however, will get housing (section 8), food (food stamps & wic), transit vouchers, medical, and other things (job training, day care assistance, school lunches/breakfast for free). They get enough in benefits that they often have to sluff hours or work for cash to avoid losing benefits.
The welfare queen image is false. No one lives high on the hog. But they can live well enough that it isn't worth it to work. If the choice is live in a small apartment eating low-grade food and having no spending money with all the free time in the world . . . or working your donkey off to live in a small apartment, eating low grade food, and having enough spending money to catch a movie a few times a year - many people just choose to sit on their butt.
I'm all for helping people. It's in MY interest to get people back on their feet, to educate children and keep them healthy (so they can be productive in the future), to ensure the "bottom rung" doesn't resort to crime. But I don't want to encourage sloth and free loading. Finding that middle ground is the hard part.
Much better said then my ramblings. This is at the heart of the point I was trying to make. I just let my personal feelings get caught up in what I was saying. IT hits a personal note for me because I have an ex-wife that refuses to work and is living off of my child support and walfare, and the child support is enought to explain why I'm in the poor house.
Quote from: custosnox on September 16, 2009, 02:37:36 PM
Much better said then my ramblings. This is at the heart of the point I was trying to make. I just let my personal feelings get caught up in what I was saying. IT hits a personal note for me because I have an ex-wife that refuses to work and is living off of my child support and walfare, and the child support is enought to explain why I'm in the poor house.
Cheer up. Someday hopefully your kids will turn 18.