DescentBB

Looks like Rutgers profs and students are not only racist but perhaps also sexist. Seems they do not want Condoleeza Rice to give the commencement address. Why?:


"In a resolution to the university’s board of governors, the New Brunswick Faculty Council said that “Condoleezza Rice … played a prominent role in the administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction"

Students added
"Do the positive aspects of her personal accomplishments really outweigh the destruction of war she contributed to during her political career? She was a major proponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which has been arguably the worst and most destructive decision in the history of U.S. foreign policy."

Let me remind you good folks, before you chime in, that the congress voted for the Iraq war:

"The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution,

And let me remind you at the time Ms Rice was the National Security Adviser, not the Secretary of State. She had no power to make policy or enforce policy. Now, since all factors considered, Rutgers must really be a hot bed of white robes looking for excuses not to have a black conservative women speak. This seems reminiscent of the old dark south days where black folk were forced to keep their silence upon pain of burning crosses and lynchings. Back in those days Democrats were good at that sort of thing. Before you get ready for a scathing rely, if a conservative school wanted to bar Obama from speaking for any reason, watch the fur fly. Doubt me? I can just refer you to the latest attacks against Issa when he cut the mic from Elijah Cummings.

Well, at least their willing to call a spade a spade. I figure that's a step in the right direction. She was one of the heads and at the very least complicit. To publicly indict here is to indict all those above her.

This the dumbest thread I've seen here in months. And that's saying something.

2003 invasion of Iraq, which has been arguably the worst and most destructive decision in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

Must have skipped American history.

actually, my Dad, Spidey, who is 93 years young, and a keen student of history as well, has stated since it occurred that the invasion of Iraq was the single most stupid foreign policy act in his lifetime, and perhaps ever. I'll go with his perspective. And, for the record, I see nothing racist, nor sexist at all in the statement from the Rutger's Students. Good to see they aren't as brainwashed nor narrowly focused as some here.

Funny, I didn’t see anything about “stupid”.

I believe the student said…worst & destructive.

At least one comes to mind that was worse than Iraq, and at least 2 that were more destructive.

Yea, screw history…lets go with the personal opinion of one person.

Spidey wrote:Funny, I didn’t see anything about “stupid”.

I believe the student said…worst & destructive.

well, 'worst', to me, is the stupid one.

At least one comes to mind that was worse than Iraq, and at least 2 that were more destructive.

Yea, screw history…lets go with the personal opinion of one person.

I'd hate to see how stupid history makes the US look for the mess in Iraq. Good on the Rutgers staff and students for rejecting an apologist for the perpetrators.

You have to sleep in the bed you make. I personally find it hilarious that Dick Cheney might not leave the country again lest he be arrested for war crimes. I'm sure he doesn't care, but it's pretty funny.

As for the OP, the student body literally says why they didn't want her to give the address, why did you just make up the other stuff woodchip?

*Is telling someone they made something up considered a personal attack on this forum? I routinely forget that a forum with a majority of 30+ years here must talk to each other like we're children. Please let me know. I'll use more emoticons if I must.

Z.. wrote:As for the OP, the student body literally says why they didn't want her to give the address, why did you just make up the other stuff woodchip?

I've been asking him the same question, at least weekly, for months. Seems to me you don't have much of a political or even rhetorical position, if you have to lie to illustrate it.

*Is telling someone they made something up considered a personal attack on this forum? I routinely forget that a forum with a majority of 30+ years here must talk to each other like we're children. Please let me know. I'll use more emoticons if I must.

if someone wants to post BS, why would it be wrong to call them on it?

Just precisely what did I make up?

Pretty much everything in your OP minus the stuff you quoted from someone else.

So Rice was not a NSA to bush and Issa was not vilified by the left for cutting Cummings mic. Are you that seriously out of touch with reality?

woodchip wrote:So Rice was not a NSA to bush and Issa was not vilified by the left for cutting Cummings mic. Are you that seriously out of touch with reality?

linking the two is the 'out of touch' part. You implied both racism and sexism from a statement that had neither in it. Then you toss in the rude behavior by Issa, who has been making a mockery of the Congressional hearing process(think McCarthy for precedent). Never in my adult life can I remember a member, let alone a ranking committee member, ever treated in such a fashion. It has become typical of the right-wing mindset.....if you don't wish to hear a different opinion, shout them down or shut them off.

seriously, Woody, do you NOT see the difference in choosing a commencement speaker and floor protocol in a House committee?

callmeslick wrote: Never in my adult life can I remember a member, let alone a ranking committee member, ever treated in such a fashion. It has become typical of the right-wing mindset.....if you don't wish to hear a different opinion, shout them down or shut them off.

So you forgot about Pelosi back in 08 cutting the lights and killed the mics during a offshore drilling debate to silence the republicans. You suffering from selective amnesia ?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: Never in my adult life can I remember a member, let alone a ranking committee member, ever treated in such a fashion. It has become typical of the right-wing mindset.....if you don't wish to hear a different opinion, shout them down or shut them off.

So you forgot about Pelosi back in 08 cutting the lights and killed the mics during a offshore drilling debate to silence the republicans. You suffering from selective amnesia ?

link please? No, I don't recall shutting anyone off in midsentence, ESPECIALLY the ranking minority member. Not to fear, this sort of stupidity just engenders a payback, which might well come starting next January.

And, I note, Woody, you come up real small in answering my question about equating a commencement speaker and a Congressional committee. Cat got your tongue? Or, just your brain?

callmeslick wrote:seriously, Woody, do you NOT see the difference in choosing a commencement speaker and floor protocol in a House committee?

I see the simple act of cutting a mic led to calls of racism by the Dems. On the other hand, trying to deny a black woman to speak is not racism. slick, you don't get to cherry pick your accusations. Trying to say its not rude to deny one person to speak is just as rude as cutting a mic. at least Ms Rice was not going into a "rude" rant like Cummings was. Cummings deserved to have his mic cut.
Still haven't heard where I am incorrect in my statements yet. And I see you are back to rude statements yourself.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:seriously, Woody, do you NOT see the difference in choosing a commencement speaker and floor protocol in a House committee?

I see the simple act of cutting a mic led to calls of racism by the Dems.

First off, I've been following the Cummings/Issa story and have yet to hear ONE reputable person accuse Issa of racism. Not one. Where you dig that one up is beyond me. It does speak to misuse of power, but hardly racism.

On the other hand, trying to deny a black woman to speak is not racism.

denying her to speak? No, they choose not to have her as their commencement speaker. That is their absolute right.

slick, you don't get to cherry pick your accusations.

and you don't get to make up reality.

Trying to say its not rude to deny one person to speak is just as rude as cutting a mic. at least Ms Rice was not going into a "rude" rant like Cummings was. Cummings deserved to have his mic cut.
Still haven't heard where I am incorrect in my statements yet. And I see you are back to rude statements yourself.

your bias is clearly showing, and you are in denial of reality. Others saw it, so it isn't just ole 'Slick here.

Then I guess Rev Jackson is not a Democrat:



SAN DIEGO, March 8, 2014 — “Congressman Darrell Issa’s behavior was crude, wrong, racist and mean towards Congressman Elijah Cummings.

http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/ ... ism-11836/

Oh and if want to use Zurdick to bolster your points then you have really hit the bottom of the pickle barrel.

Spidey wrote:

2003 invasion of Iraq, which has been arguably the worst and most destructive decision in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

Must have skipped American history.

Yeah, The Vietnam and Korean Wars come to mind in more recent history.

But I have to agree with Rutgers. Rice had to be complicit, or at least had to know, all about the lies that were being perpetrated by the leaders above her, all to justify entering an illegal war. If she didn't, that's just as bad because she's never walked back her support for her part in whole mess. A lie is a lie and that alone stains her credibility. That's not being racist, or sexist. It's about integrity, and Rice's lack of it.

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:

2003 invasion of Iraq, which has been arguably the worst and most destructive decision in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

Must have skipped American history.

Yeah, The Vietnam and Korean Wars come to mind in more recent history.

But I have to agree with Rutgers. Rice had to be complicit, or at least had to know, all about the lies that were being perpetrated by the leaders above her, all to justify entering an illegal war. If she didn't, that's just as bad because she's never walked back her support for her part in whole mess. A lie is a lie and that alone stains her credibility. That's not being racist, or sexist. It's about integrity, and Rice's lack of it.

And yet, Obama as a Senator, voted for the war. Rutgers has no problem with him speaking.

And I doubt they would have any problem with Hilary either, and if anybody was “complicit” in the war…she was.

And if she was fooled by Bush, then she doesn’t deserve to be president.

To their defense, both Obama and Hillary(along with the rest of the House and Senate, the American public and the United Nations) were basing decisions upon a stream of bogus information. Rice was complicit in that misinformation campaign. Oh, and for the record, Obama did NOT vote for the war(Hillary did). He was not in the Senate until after the resolution had been passed, having run for the seat in 2004.

Yes, everyone was fooled by the big dummy…shame on us.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:

2003 invasion of Iraq, which has been arguably the worst and most destructive decision in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

Must have skipped American history.

Yeah, The Vietnam and Korean Wars come to mind in more recent history.

But I have to agree with Rutgers. Rice had to be complicit, or at least had to know, all about the lies that were being perpetrated by the leaders above her, all to justify entering an illegal war. If she didn't, that's just as bad because she's never walked back her support for her part in whole mess. A lie is a lie and that alone stains her credibility. That's not being racist, or sexist. It's about integrity, and Rice's lack of it.

And yet, Obama as a Senator, voted for the war. Rutgers has no problem with him speaking.

That's pretty disingenuous. Neither Obama nor Hillary was part of the Bush/Cheney inner circle and had no idea the evidence was cooked up BS. They were feed the same crap everyone else was and stood there and waved their flags like every patriotic citizen was expected to do in the face of a major terrorist attack. Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld made sure of that and used that very incident to further their main goal, kill Saddam and get at the oil. Heck, back then, people were labeled commies and terrorist sympathizers for not wearing that stupid a flag pin.

Spidey wrote:Yes, everyone was fooled by the big dummy…shame on us.

You and every traumatized New Yorker. The American people were used to further a crooked agenda. Shame on the Bush/ Cheney/Rumsfeld and Rice cabal.

I’m confused, this was all a big conspiracy…don’t we have people in congress that get to see the actual evidence that the White House has.

nope, it didn't work that way, apparently.

And of course there is no possibility that the evidence itself was misleading, I’m amazed that reasonable thinking people can dismiss the conspiracy theory that Bush planned 911, but are ready to believe he forged evidence to justify a war…I’m sorry but you can’t pick and choose.

What this says to me is, people also believe Bush planned 911, but don’t want to be painted as wackos, where the war conspiracy doesn’t somehow carry the same connotations…so it’s safe.

This seems like an argument that was had for years but ten years ago. Are we really going to argue the start of the iraq war again?

yes, yes we are.

because when we don't have anything new to discuss, we always dredge up the same old stuff again.


Here we go 'round the merry go round, the merry go round, the merry go round...

Here's a thought Ferno, why don't you start a new and exciting thread instead of complaining.

Spidey wrote:And of course there is no possibility that the evidence itself was misleading, I’m amazed that reasonable thinking people can dismiss the conspiracy theory that Bush planned 911, but are ready to believe he forged evidence to justify a war…I’m sorry but you can’t pick and choose.

What this says to me is, people also believe Bush planned 911, but don’t want to be painted as wackos, where the war conspiracy doesn’t somehow carry the same connotations…so it’s safe.

If you want, you can watch Maddow's new take on why we went into Iraq. Don't dismiss what she lays out because she's a liberal pundit. She got quite a few people who were close to the Bush administration to talk about what went on behind the scenes, most of which can be found from other sources on the net. As for planning 9/11, who knows. But at the very least, Bush used that incident as that "political capital" he so eloquently spoke of, all to go after Saddam and take control of Iraq's oil fields, for our gain. Very convenient. Now we've lost that authority to stand up to another world power invading a sovereign country without looking like hypocrites.

woodchip wrote:Here's a thought Ferno, why don't you start a new and exciting thread instead of complaining.

I'll do that as soon as you stop complaining about Obama.

The war conspiracy is motive to suppress eye-witness testimony of first responders and stragglers.

Nice dodge.

woodchip wrote:Nice dodge.

This coming from someone who wants the world to be the soviet union run by corporations.

An even better dodge.

Well, in order for me to dodge, there has to be something to dodge. So far, I haven't seen anything aside the typical finger-pointing.

I asked you to start a thread and you dodged...and you are still dodging.