[images.wikia.com]

I wish I could add this to some of my messages...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2013 01:13AM by banana who.

I don't understand why you don't contribute threads with topics that interest you.

HH I don't quite understand what your issue with that topic was... Lots of people contributed to the conversation, it was certainly a unique discussion. Lots of open-hearted sharing, pretty good talk I thought. Interesting. Not the same-old-same-old.

Banana Who, lol! I can see that cross stitched on something .

You claimed that this board had always been lighthearted. That's not true. I can dig through the archives and find plenty of non-lighthearted discussions similar to what we see now. Gaslighting as a topic, whether or not people took part in it, is NOT lighthearted.

You falsely created a happy-go-lucky past for this forum that does not exist. You even took part in making it not lighthearted. That was my point.



coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HH I don't quite understand what your issue with
> that topic was... Lots of people contributed to
> the conversation, it was certainly a unique
> discussion. Lots of open-hearted sharing, pretty
> good talk I thought. Interesting. Not the
> same-old-same-old.
>
> Banana Who, lol! I can see that cross stitched on
> something .

That sounds to me like a bit of reaching. My point was that this forum used to be full of an interesting diversity that seems to have waned. That thread was interesting and not particularly negative of depressing unlike the bulk of what has been posted lately. I thought that discussion dealt with a heavy topic in as light-hearted and friendly way as is possible for such an issue. And notice when it might have veered into politics it Didn't! That was awesome.

Sorry, but I find when nothing controversial is discussed, and there's (only) a 'light-hearted' feel to the board, it's boring, and the comments often deteriorate to the inane and then it becomes a ghosttown. I find my MSN homepage more interesting - they and most other sources post a variety of everything from politics to weather to sports to celebrity gossip to 'feel-good stories' to topics I'm not interested in, but others are. I also don't want to waste my time reading the board if it's boring. And there have been times on the other topics forum that I've just posted a lot to keep the board going because it was limping along and dying out. I know the bulk of my posts on the other topics board is bordering on or just plain political and economical, but that's what I find interesting and I think there are others who share that interest and we've gotten along well together. I post on the other forums, too, about other topics. I had stopped posting on the main forum for quite a few years for certain reasons and did continue to post over here so I guess it creates the impression that all I post is politics.

There has been a shortage of 'light-hearted' topics on this board at times because of those few who think it's either their way or the highway so they've left this forum alone. I just don't see why they can't ignore what they're not into - like I would ignore stuff I can't be bothered with - or ignore those posts by someone they don't like - and post and comment to their own discretion.

What I take issue with is complaining to the authorities because you don't want to give a voice to someone with the opposing position; you want to squelch dissent and so go to the government to use Force. I don't like that style. Some you expect that from, but others you're disappointed in.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2013 12:18PM by KidRaw.

Here's the deal, politics are not supposed to get discussed here. This is not the place for it. There have been firestorms between members in the past that got extremely ugly and that is the reason that it's just avoided now. Believe me, if we all got into those discussions on here it wouldn't be a happy show. It's just impossible to keep that sort of disagreement "nice", it's too hot of a topic and frankly we are too diverse of a group to manage it. History has shown .
There are PLENTY of other places to have that sort of chat, it's literally All Over The Entire Freaking Internet, sheesh. This is a forum about food and while this is the "Other Topics" board it's not intended for politics At All. Seriously, I don't get why this is So Hard for people to deal with. It's a very simple guideline. And it's not even hard and fast, if a topic naturally touches on something political or economic that's ok, a mention is not off-limits. Going down that path or starting off on it is though and I don't see a lot of respect for that in here lately.

Also, there are a lot of people here that are not American. I don't care about your politics, we have our own group of crazy fcuktards running the show up here. Don't care to discuss it. I mean, have you Heard of Rob Ford? OMG, enough.

HH,

Actually, we've had a blast around here in the past.

The many, many photo threads, (kr posted a bunch of stuff on those) Who can forget the infamous "bump" thread of 2003, all of the creative writing by la_veronique (she deserves loud applauds), the group creative thread that we all took part in. I think that went on for a couple of months.

A lot of that was lost in the crash, but there have been plenty more since. Discussions about solar, home projects, art, music, books, movies, science, math, countries, cultures, history....it goes on and on.

Here's one where I played with some creative writing myself (after reading a certain popular book). It was a continuation of another story thread from a while back: [www.rawfoodsupport.com]

Not to make it about me. Do a search you'll find a lot.

So this place was around BEFORE 2006? That is when I see some of the more veteran posters as having signed up. I signed up in 2009. When did some of you join (before 2006)?

Kid Raw, if you are suggesting that I "complained" to Prana, you are mistaken. I might have used a slightly weasel-ish tactic of bringing it up without officially complaining but I was content to let the board continue the way it was. I guess I was just wondering if they were going to shut it down altogether because they seemed very off-hands recently and with the PMs not going thru...

I was here before the crash.

The bump thread, OMG, LMAO!

Remember the chat room? Oh la, that was a crazy fun time alright. I miss Narz. and Pio, tho I saw him in BC a couple years ago, that was so awesome.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2013 06:40PM by coco.

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Kid Raw, if you are suggesting that I "complained"
> to Prana, you are mistaken.

Nice Try. In what alternative universe do you live where this Thread that you posted on the Main Forum is Not a Complaint to Bryan and John -

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

Subject: About this forum--for Prana and John

*********************

> I just logged in after a long time and noticed that the PM function
> is still not working. Is it correct to assume that it was
> disabled to prevent people from COMPLAINING TO THE MODS and/or
> talking behind fellow members' backs?

> My question is to find out exactly what is going on with the
> forum in terms of moderation and the like. If the PM function was
> disabled in order to increase transparency, then it would have been
> nice to know about it. I am wondering if there is talk of getting rid of
> the board altogether, hence the lack of concern about what is being said on here.

> I stopped posting because I found that the misc. forum was going
> in a direction that I did not like. There is something about the attitudes
> on there and the tone that are completely opposed to my way of viewing
> people and the world. I no longer identify with either political party
> so the dualistic labels of Left and Right don't hold sway with me anymore.

> I am uncomfortable with the broadbrushing that I see in that forum;
> the way some (gee, I wonder who banana who is referring to...) seem to
> want to pigeonhole and Other-ize fellow souls. For any participation I
> had in that very behavior, I do apologize.

so you either are guilty of the same or you think you should be given a free pass for recognizing the error of your ways and apologizing...

> I would just stick to the general forum but then there is the endless
> debating about oxalic acid and vegetables in general and how much fruit.
> I just want to be inspired to eat RAW!

A shame you felt the need to Complain About the main forum also, when we should be grateful for those who have been valiantly trying to keep it afloat, but hey, now that You're Back, you can bring it up to your standards

> I hope that Kwan doesn't mind if I paste what she wrote yesterday below.
> It was worded so well that I would be doing a disservice to her by
> paraphrasing it. It spoke to me You Own It Now

in other words, you agree with Kwan, who is COMPLAINING TO BRYAN...

> and prompted me to write this OP.

**************

(This is what Kwan wrote that banana who agrees with)

<<<<<<PRANA, why don't you ban this kind of trype from the forum? So by agreeing with Kwan's words, you are NOT ONLY COMPLAINING TO BRYAN, BUT CALLING FOR A "ban" of some of the posters (gee, I wonder who....)
It's ugly and demeaning, and not based in 'the real world,' where the corporations are not hiring, and the few that ARE hiring do not pay anything close to a living wage. These libertarian low information sheep who hold sway on the forum are going by the ALEC/Koch Brothers playbook, promoting the propaganda and lies of FOX Fake News and the politicians (Republican AND Democrat) who are doing the bidding of Wall Street and the corporate elite.
The hatred and vitriol toward the poor, disabled, elderly and others who are having a tough time thriving in the present reality of government sanctioned serfdom and economic slavery is a disheartening testimony to the culture of small-minds that seem to be disproportionally prevalent in the raw food community.
Good luck, folks. It's clear to me that the raw food movement is on its way out, fading into nutjob obscurity. And the fact that the rawfoods.com 'off topic' forum has been taken over completely by extreme right wingers isn't helping the movement to attract intelligent, thoughtful people in search of the truth.>>>

--Kwan--

**************

> To clarify: although Kwan seems to be showing a frustration in her post,
> I agree with bringing up these forces that try and oppress the least
> of these.

> Where does this need to judge come from?

Pot meet Kettle

***************

> The problem is when we pit one against the other.

like you're doing by complaining about someone

> I am sure people can dredge up examples to paint me as a hypocrite.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

> For any instance in which I was divisive, I do apologize.

Again, complaining about others, while asking for yourself to be excused from the same behavior

I am not in favor of a heavily moderated board

you sure fooled me

> The reason for this post was just to ask what is happening on Prana and John's side?

Sure, like we can't see through the whole pretense

> Is there some other entity keeping this board going and it likes what it hears in that other forum?

throw in a bit of the conspiracy theory theory to give your Complaint more legitimacy

> There were posts of mine in the past that Prana removed ASAP but it amazed
> me the number of recent threads/posts with the vitriol and contempt so
> palpable it jumped off the screen and they were allowed to stand.

Blatantly Calling For Censorship

> Maybe they are now gone because I can't find some of them straight away. Truth be told, I don't wish to wade into that muck.

**************

This is funny, because it's where you've complained about someone else, then proceed to post your own "VITRIOL".

> The problem is, as you have stated, the nasty vibe. Exhibit A
> is Ann Coulter. She and Michelle Malkin and the blonde bim..er...women
> on Faux (just keeping it 100%) with the oodles of war paint
> and the slinky dresses, have such a hostility that it is quite
> ugly to me. As asshatterish as Rushbo and Mark can be, I don't
> sense it on that level. I think Rush is like Howard Stern--playing to
> his demographic of rabid working-class White males

Yes, people who Cheat the Welfare System are fine and not to be called out, but oh those "RABID WORKING-CLASS WHITE MALES", you can bash them to your heart's content.

> People like to demonize Rush because he makes crazy-ass
> comments and I totally am against him saying MOOchelle
> and that sort of hate speech

so pronouncing Michelle "MOOchelle" is 'bad', but calling Rush Limbough and Mark Levin "ASSHATTERISH", well that's OK, you can do that

***************

> I might have used a
> slightly weasel-ish tactic of bringing it up
> without officially complaining

I call this Post "Officially Complaining"

> but I was content
> to let the board continue the way it was.

No, you weren't - you wanted to make a big stink and have Bryan and/or John step in and shut out all dissent from your own point of view, or even better, ban certain voices (gee, I wonder who...) from the board, and then you come back in and take over as Miss Butter Wouldn't Melt in my Mouth.

> I guess
> I was just wondering if they were going to shut it
> down altogether because they seemed very off-hands
> recently and with the PMs not going thru...

OK, you can stop now, you've smoothed it over enough

Gotta say that KidRaw is on 100% on target. Well done.


KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> banana who Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Kid Raw, if you are suggesting that I
> "complained"
> > to Prana, you are mistaken.
>
> Nice Try. In what alternative universe do you live
> where this Thread that you posted on the Main
> Forum is Not a Complaint to Bryan and John -
>
> [www.rawfoodsupport.com]
>
> Subject: About this forum--for Prana and John
>
> *********************
>
> > I just logged in after a long time and noticed
> that the PM function
> > is still not working. Is it correct to assume
> that it was
> > disabled to prevent people from COMPLAINING TO
> THE MODS and/or
> > talking behind fellow members' backs?
>
> > My question is to find out exactly what is going
> on with the
> > forum in terms of moderation and the like. If
> the PM function was
> > disabled in order to increase transparency, then
> it would have been
> > nice to know about it. I am wondering if there
> is talk of getting rid of
> > the board altogether, hence the lack of concern
> about what is being said on here.
>
> > I stopped posting because I found that the misc.
> forum was going
> > in a direction that I did not like. There is
> something about the attitudes
> > on there and the tone that are completely
> opposed to my way of viewing
> > people and the world. I no longer identify with
> either political party
> > so the dualistic labels of Left and Right don't
> hold sway with me anymore.
>
> > I am uncomfortable with the broadbrushing that I
> see in that forum;
> > the way some (gee, I wonder who banana who is
> referring to...) seem to
> > want to pigeonhole and Other-ize fellow souls.
> For any participation I
> > had in that very behavior, I do apologize.
>
> so you either are guilty of the same or you think
> you should be given a free pass for recognizing
> the error of your ways and apologizing...
>
> > I would just stick to the general forum but then
> there is the endless
> > debating about oxalic acid and vegetables in
> general and how much fruit.
> > I just want to be inspired to eat RAW!
>
> A shame you felt the need to Complain About the
> main forum also, when we should be grateful for
> those who have been valiantly trying to keep it
> afloat, but hey, now that You're Back, you can
> bring it up to your standards
>
> > I hope that Kwan doesn't mind if I paste what
> she wrote yesterday below.
> > It was worded so well that I would be doing a
> disservice to her by
> > paraphrasing it. It spoke to me You Own It Now
>
> in other words, you agree with Kwan, who is
> COMPLAINING TO BRYAN...
>
> > and prompted me to write this OP.
>
> **************
>
> (This is what Kwan wrote that banana who agrees
> with)
>
> <<<<<>>
>
> --Kwan--
>
> **************
>
> > To clarify: although Kwan seems to be showing a
> frustration in her post,
> > I agree with bringing up these forces that try
> and oppress the least
> > of these.
>
> > Where does this need to judge come from?
>
> Pot meet Kettle
>
> ***************
>
> > The problem is when we pit one against the
> other.
>
> like you're doing by complaining about someone
>
> > I am sure people can dredge up examples to paint
> me as a hypocrite.
>
> "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
>
> > For any instance in which I was divisive, I do
> apologize.
>
> Again, complaining about others, while asking for
> yourself to be excused from the same behavior
>
> I am not in favor of a heavily moderated board
>
> you sure fooled me
>
> > The reason for this post was just to ask what is
> happening on Prana and John's side?
>
> Sure, like we can't see through the whole pretense
>
>
> > Is there some other entity keeping this board
> going and it likes what it hears in that other
> forum?
>
> throw in a bit of the conspiracy theory theory to
> give your Complaint more legitimacy
>
> > There were posts of mine in the past that Prana
> removed ASAP but it amazed
> > me the number of recent threads/posts with the
> vitriol and contempt so
> > palpable it jumped off the screen and they were
> allowed to stand.
>
> Blatantly Calling For Censorship
>
> > Maybe they are now gone because I can't find
> some of them straight away. Truth be told, I don't
> wish to wade into that muck.
>
> **************
>
> This is funny, because it's where you've
> complained about someone else, then proceed to
> post your own "VITRIOL".
>
> > The problem is, as you have stated, the nasty
> vibe. Exhibit A
> > is Ann Coulter. She and Michelle Malkin and the
> blonde bim..er...women
> > on Faux (just keeping it 100%) with the oodles
> of war paint
> > and the slinky dresses, have such a hostility
> that it is quite
> > ugly to me. As asshatterish as Rushbo and Mark
> can be, I don't
> > sense it on that level. I think Rush is like
> Howard Stern--playing to
> > his demographic of rabid working-class White
> males
>
> Yes, people who Cheat the Welfare System are fine
> and not to be called out, but oh those "RABID
> WORKING-CLASS WHITE MALES", you can bash them to
> your heart's content.
>
> > People like to demonize Rush because he makes
> crazy-ass
> > comments and I totally am against him saying
> MOOchelle
> > and that sort of hate speech
>
> so pronouncing Michelle "MOOchelle" is 'bad', but
> calling Rush Limbough and Mark Levin
> "ASSHATTERISH", well that's OK, you can do that
>
> ***************
>
> > I might have used a
> > slightly weasel-ish tactic of bringing it up
> > without officially complaining
>
> I call this Post "Officially Complaining"
>
> > but I was content
> > to let the board continue the way it was.
>
> No, you weren't - you wanted to make a big stink
> and have Bryan and/or John step in and shut out
> all dissent from your own point of view, or even
> better, ban certain voices (gee, I wonder who...)
> from the board, and then you come back in and take
> over as Miss Butter Wouldn't Melt in my Mouth.
>
> > I guess
> > I was just wondering if they were going to shut
> it
> > down altogether because they seemed very
> off-hands
> > recently and with the PMs not going thru...
>
> OK, you can stop now, you've smoothed it over
> enough

Thanks, Hon!

Kid Raw, I don't think that we have the same definition of complaining. What I was doing was asking for an update on the status of the forum and explaining why I was no longer posting.

I agreed with Kwan's sentiments regarding the overall feel of this forum currently. It seems to be overrun with certain subjects.

However, after I posted Kwan's message, I was a bit concerned because I know it's very emotional and could be interpreted as trying to control what is allowed.

My OP did NOT demand a change or even imply that I am furious over this. I just stated my issues with it and that I was wondering why the PM function wasn't working and if that was related to the current lack of moderation.

Some other raw forum is now defunct (I can't recall which one) and I read the comment from the moderator and s/he said that it was too much work trying to keep everyone in line. Apparently there was a lot of drama there. So it's common for this to occur, I guess.

You sound angry about this. I don't take responsibility for any restrictions made now. I never asked for restrictions. All those statements you highlighted were me sharing my feelings, not making demands. You should be able to tell the difference.

I just saw this:

<<<No, you weren't - you wanted to make a big stink and have Bryan and/or John step in and shut out all dissent from your own point of view, or even better, ban certain voices (gee, I wonder who...) from the board, and then you come back in and take over as Miss Butter Wouldn't Melt in my Mouth.>>>

Really? You are accusing me of asking for a heavily-moderated board?

No, the reason I mentioned vitriolic posts being left was NOT so that they would be censored but to compare them to mine, which WERE taken off. I was wondering why some are allowed to stay up but I have had more than one post removed. My feeling was that perhaps Prana had finally washed his hands of this place.

In any case, take care.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2013 12:54AM by banana who.

OMG I'm back in highschool. WTeverlovingF. What's with all the quoting?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2013 12:51AM by coco.

Please don't include me with that group (if you are). I quoted because I would get accused of putting words in someone else's mouth. I am not trying to be adolescent, catty, or whatever.

I never knew that the thread was removed until someone pointed it out to me. That was never my intention. I have asked Prana to remove one of my threads when I felt like it was attracting the sort of comments that were not helpful to my situation but I have never called for the removal of someone else's thread.

I am not one of those people who think that if you remove a thread, then everything is fine. I would rather keep the thread and discuss whatever is offending people within it. By removing it, it just obscures the issue.

I just cannot understand why any issue can't be discussed respectfully. For instance, discussing welfare without calling names and caricaturing people.

I have no desire to "take over" anything! I hadn't posted in a couple of months and I could have continued but after reading Kwan's post, I realized that by just going away I was not expressing my own views on how I feel things are going downhill on this forum. I feel like it's important that all views are expressed on here, not just those of the most vocal.

I would like to at least have civility. I don't think that is too much to ask. Even if we radically differ in certain areas, I don't think it's phony to still have peace as the goal.

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I just cannot understand why any issue can't be
> discussed respectfully. For instance, discussing
> welfare without calling names

still taking shots are ya....

> and caricaturing people.

You mean like this:

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The problem is, as you have stated, the nasty vibe. Exhibit A
> is Ann Coulter. She and Michelle Malkin and the blonde bim..er...women
> on Faux (just keeping it 100%) with the oodles of war paint
> and the slinky dresses, have such a hostility that it is quite
> ugly to me. As asshatterish as Rushbo and Mark can be, I don't
> sense it on that level. I think Rush is like Howard Stern--playing to
> his demographic of rabid working-class White males

Pot Meet Kettle - calling names and caricaturing......

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

Who knew Quotes were such an irritant

Maybe we should Ban Quotes

And all this time I thought we used Quotes so we would have the statement we're referring to - that we are replying to - immediately in our line of vision, so as to avoid any confusion.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2013 05:10PM by KidRaw.

Yep. It's all a-ok to take pot shots at white males who work, but according to Banana Who, we lose our souls if we even so much as question anyone else.

Maybe it did happen, but I have no memory of foul-mouthed tirades against welfare recipients or anyone else. Her campaign against some of us, as usual, is primarily characterized by hyperbole.

IMO, BW's complaining about content is simply a passive-aggressive way of saying that she doesnt like some of the kids who are playing in the sand-box. Time to learn how to get along with others.

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> banana who Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I just cannot understand why any issue can't be
> > discussed respectfully. For instance,
> discussing
> > welfare without calling names
>
> still taking shots are ya....
>
> > and caricaturing people.
>
> You mean like this:
>
> banana who Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The problem is, as you have stated, the nasty
> vibe. Exhibit A
> > is Ann Coulter. She and Michelle Malkin and the
> blonde bim..er...women
> > on Faux (just keeping it 100%) with the oodles
> of war paint
> > and the slinky dresses, have such a hostility
> that it is quite
> > ugly to me. As asshatterish as Rushbo and Mark
> can be, I don't
> > sense it on that level. I think Rush is like
> Howard Stern--playing to
> > his demographic of rabid working-class White
> males
>
> Pot Meet Kettle - calling names and
> caricaturing......

[newsbusters.org]
Pat Buchanan: 'Whites Are the Only Group That You Can Discriminate Against Legally in America Now'
By Noel Sheppard | August 24, 2013 | 12:59

Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan made a statement Friday guaranteed to make liberal media members' heads spin.

During a discussion about Affirmative Action on PBS's McLaughlin Group, Buchanan said, "Whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

...go to link to watch video...

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Are you saying college admissions should be based on diversity?

ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST: Yeah, I mean, I think lots of factors go into diversity. I think race can be one of them, and I think the Supreme Court so far agrees with that.

MCLAUGHLIN: 67 percent opposed it, 28, you’re in the minority. Only 28 percent are in favor of it.

PAT BUCHANAN: It should be based on excellence, John.

CLIFT: As long as the Supreme Court agrees with me, I’m fine.

BUCHANAN: It should be like the NFL: whoever’s the best player plays, and whoever does best academically should be advanced. What is wrong with that?

MICHELLE BERNARD: Here’s a question I have. One of the things I always say because I think you can measure diversity in a lot of ways, but I think there’s an argument to be said that the greatest Affirmative Action program that there is in the country is being born white. There is a natural assumption when you are applying to institutions of higher education that you are excellent or you are more superb than others.

BUCHANAN: With due respect, whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2013 05:30PM by John Rose.

<<<Some other raw forum is now defunct (I can't recall which one) and I read the comment from the moderator and s/he said that it was too much work trying to keep everyone in line.>>>

Hey BW,

Every time I see someone complaining I really feel sorry for Bryan. You could not pay me enough to moderate these boards and I’m sure Bryan is getting tired of reading Threads that he has no interest in, so I’m guessing that he’s NOT reading them, which explains why he deletes some Threads that SHOULD NOT BE DELETED!!!

So let’s be a little more respectful to Bryan. Let’s stop turning his passion into an annoyance. As many people have said, if you don’t like what you’re reading, do what Bryan does and don’t read it.

Peace and Love..........John

Regarding Racial Discrimination against Whites and Affirmative Action:

This is Not Fair -

Cheating is Rife in Colleges -- by Admissions Officers

[www.humanevents.com]

"“Admissions officers were careful not to mention gender, ethnicity and race during our training sessions,” she notes. But when she asked one privately, “What are we doing about race?” she was told it was illegal to consider it, but that they were looking at “the ‘bigger picture’ of the applicant’s life.”

Racial discrimination in state universities was made illegal in 1996 when California voters by a 55 percent margin passed UC Regent Ward Connerly’s Proposition 209.

At first UC admissions officers enforced the law, as Richard Sander (a UCLA law professor) and Stuart Taylor report in their book, “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.”

The result was that fewer blacks and Hispanics were admitted to the most selective UC schools, Berkeley and UCLA, but more were admitted to and graduated from less selective UC campuses.

But then admissions officers started to cheat. They declared that they were using “holistic” criteria, trying to gauge from students’ applications the “bigger picture” of their life.

In practice, this meant racial discrimination in favor of blacks and Hispanics, and against Asians and whites"


John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [newsbusters.org]
> /24/pat-buchanan-whites-are-only-group-you-can-dis
> criminate-against-legal#ixzz2cuHiqxo3
> Pat Buchanan: 'Whites Are the Only Group That You
> Can Discriminate Against Legally in America Now'
> By Noel Sheppard | August 24, 2013 | 12:59
>
> Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan made a statement
> Friday guaranteed to make liberal media members'
> heads spin.
>
> During a discussion about Affirmative Action on
> PBS's McLaughlin Group, Buchanan said, "Whites are
> the only group that you can discriminate against
> legally in America now" (video follows with
> transcript and commentary):
>
> ...go to link to watch video...
>
> JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Are you saying college
> admissions should be based on diversity?
>
> ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST: Yeah, I
> mean, I think lots of factors go into diversity. I
> think race can be one of them, and I think the
> Supreme Court so far agrees with that.
>
> MCLAUGHLIN: 67 percent opposed it, 28,
> you’re in the minority. Only 28 percent are in
> favor of it.
>
> PAT BUCHANAN: It should be based on
> excellence, John.
>
> CLIFT: As long as the Supreme Court agrees
> with me, I’m fine.
>
> BUCHANAN: It should be like the NFL:
> whoever’s the best player plays, and whoever
> does best academically should be advanced. What is
> wrong with that?
>
> MICHELLE BERNARD: Here’s a question I have.
> One of the things I always say because I think you
> can measure diversity in a lot of ways, but I
> think there’s an argument to be said that the
> greatest Affirmative Action program that there is
> in the country is being born white. There is a
> natural assumption when you are applying to
> institutions of higher education that you are
> excellent or you are more superb than others.
>
> BUCHANAN: With due respect, whites are the
> only group that you can discriminate against
> legally in America now.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <<>>
>
> Hey BW,
>
> Every time I see someone complaining I really feel
> sorry for Bryan. You could not pay me enough to
> moderate these boards and I’m sure Bryan is
> getting tired of reading Threads that he has no
> interest in, so I’m guessing that he’s NOT
> reading them, which explains why he deletes some
> Threads that SHOULD NOT BE DELETED!!!
>
> So let’s be a little more respectful to Bryan.


> Let’s stop turning his passion into an
> annoyance. As many people have said, if you
> don’t like what you’re reading, do what Bryan
> does and don’t read it.
>
> Peace and Love..........John


John, I don't know if you were directing that last comment at me or just in general. I was not trying to be disrespectful of Prana. I wasn't trying to MAKE him do anything. I wanted to know if he was even still there!!!

As for the welfare thread, I didn't complain about it, didn't campaign to get it off or even knew it was gone. I was actually surprised to hear that it was gone. But I will tell you this--if you think I would be satisfied having a thread disappeared, you don't know me very well. It's the ATTITUDE behind those remarks that I take issue with and NOT the discussion itself.

I would love to have in-depth conversations about social issues. But if people are going to call call other human beings names for being on welfare or what have you, then IMO it devolves into something else in which I do not wish to participate.

HH, I am not being passive-aggressive in the least. I am perfectly aware that you will do what you want to do and I have no interest in controlling what you do or say on here. Enjoy. But I have the right to my opinion. Passive-aggressive people don't state their opinion; they dance around things.

Now...on with the countdown!

Who assigned you to be the "ATTITUDE" poh-lice?

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for the welfare thread, I didn't complain about
> it, didn't campaign to get it off or even knew it
> was gone. I was actually surprised to hear that it
> was gone. But I will tell you this--if you think I
> would be satisfied having a thread disappeared,
> you don't know me very well. It's the ATTITUDE
> behind those remarks that I take issue with and
> NOT the discussion itself.
>
> I would love to have in-depth conversations about
> social issues. But if people are going to call
> call other human beings names for being on welfare
> or what have you, then IMO it devolves into
> something else in which I do not wish to
> participate.
>
> HH, I am not being passive-aggressive in the
> least. I am perfectly aware that you will do what
> you want to do and I have no interest in
> controlling what you do or say on here. Enjoy. But
> I have the right to my opinion. Passive-aggressive
> people don't state their opinion; they dance
> around things.
>
> Now...on with the countdown!

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would love to have in-depth conversations about
> social issues. But if people are going to call
> call other human beings (Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, Fox News Ladies, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin) names (bimbos and asshats) for being on welfare
> or what have you (part of the media, radio show hosts, TV News Persons)

You mean like you called the Fox News Ladies "Bimbos" because they look and dress attractively, etc., also see above....

Here is the Quote (sorry coco) by banana who in all its glory -


banana who Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------

> The problem is, as you have stated, the nasty vibe. Exhibit A
> is Ann Coulter. She and Michelle Malkin and the blonde bim..er...women
> on Faux (just keeping it 100%) with the oodles of war paint
> and the slinky dresses, have such a hostility that it is quite
> ugly to me. As asshatterish as Rushbo and Mark can be, I don't
> sense it on that level. I think Rush is like Howard Stern--playing to
> his demographic of rabid working-class White males

That Hostility and Attitude is quite ugly to me....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2013 07:05PM by KidRaw.

Give it up, banana who - it's over.

You read Kwan's rant, you smelled fresh meat, you went for it. It didn't work this time - I didn't get banned - because I'm not alone in my viewpoints on the board anymore, thank God.

BTW, speaking of Ann Coulter --

Here's the Blonde Bimbo's Bio:

Ann Coulter - My Life

[www.anncoulter.com]

She's no slouch



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2013 08:20PM by KidRaw.

I thought she was like that Sarah Palin woman, I have to tell you I had a good laugh over that election when I figured out it was for real and not a weirdly unfunny spoof show. I seriously thought it was like the Onion on tv, a joke, for like WEEKS! I still don't entirely believe it.
The Ann Coulter lady, she's a personality, like a commedian, right? Forgive me, I don't keep up with American tv or politics... She's not... real? She's not, right?