Berigan's Signature Image

[Jazzmoose]

Chris said....If it means whore, Baraka is absolutely right.

Thanks, berigan; I confess to being too darned lazy to look it up.

[shawn·m]

Apologies of the highest possible magnitude for my gaffe.

We both thought the gaffe was intentional, Sngry. It kinda fit within the theme of your post… Guess this means I’ll have to stop singing praise for Quartet Oops and Housing Live Meat.

[connoisseur series500]

Just came upon this thread this evening and have just cast my vote which has stalemated the controversy. I don't get offended that easily; and I'm always for as much freedom as possible, right Moose??

You guys coming down too hard on Beri.

[BERIGAN]

Just came upon this thread this evening and have just cast my vote which has stalemated the controversy.  I don't get offended that easily; and I'm always for as much freedom as possible, right Moose?? 

You guys coming down too hard on Beri.

Sniff!I love you man!!! Not in a gay way mind you...not that there is anything wrong with that....

16 to 16...and the electoral votes have not been counted yet!

Edited May 13, 2003 by BERIGAN

[Use3D]

This is sarcasm, right?

Bingo.

slsmcgrew said:

I find it utterly amazing and humorous that a bunch of grown men can have such a hissy fit and start arguing over whether or not the picture is offensive or should be someone’s signature.

Don't you guys know that mothers are always right?

connoisseur series500 said:

Just came upon this thread this evening...

Post fast, it may not be here in the morning.

[Rooster_Ties]

Post fast, it may not be here in the morning.

Let me preemptively say this, before anyone cries 'censorship'. This is b3-er's and Use3D's board, and they can do whatever they like with it.

Hey Use3D, any chance you could turn off graphics (IMG's) in signatures??? I don’t really care one way or the other about BERIGAN's current cute/ugly sig image, but in general I think images in signatures are a pain in the ass. I think there's nothing wrong with including graphics in an actual posting itself, but to have to see a graphic in every single post by someone (over, and over, and over), especially from someone who posts very often - (IMHO) is just a big visual distraction, to put it kindly.

I'm not picking on BERIGAN - if he likes the image that much, he can make it his Avatar for all I care.

Just something for you to consider, or not -- it's your board. Thanks!! -- Rooster T.

Edited May 13, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[Christiern]

For (seemingly sex-obsessed) "berigan's" edification, I submit the following common definition of "whore":

A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

That perfectly describes how many people feel about C. Rice.

[Dan Gould]

For (seemingly sex-obsessed) "berigan's" edification, I submit the following common definition of "whore":

A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

That perfectly describes how many people feel about C. Rice.

But only if it were true that she had held the principles before she "compromised" them.

What is always missing from these assertions is a willingness to accept that black Americans might actually, honestly, sincerely, and rationally come to the conclusion that they support the policies or principles of conservatives.

Instead, they must always be "traitors" or "whores" because, in the eye of certain people, the only rational explanation is that they are selling out their people for personal gain.

[Christiern]

Well, I don't know Ms. Rice personally, so you may be right, Dan--she may well have been unprincipled all along.

[Dan Gould]

Chris, Chris, Chris ....

Can't people have principles different from yours and still be principled?

You're just demonstrating what I am saying ... if you are black and don't adhere to the Jesse Jackson/Carol Mosely Braun/Al Sharpton agenda, then you are an unprincipled whore, selling out your people because the "man" throws you a few crumbs.

It is the worst example of how people try to enforce Politically Correct views or else destroy those who stray.

[pryan]

Hey Use3D, any chance you could turn off graphics (IMG's) in signatures??? I don’t really care one way or the other about BERIGAN's current cute/ugly sig image, but in general I think images in signatures are a pain in the ass. I think there's nothing wrong with including graphics in an actual posting itself, but to have to see a graphic in every single post by someone (over, and over, and over), especially from someone who posts very often - (IMHO) is just a big visual distraction, to put it kindly.

Hey, Rooster, you can actually turn off signatures yourself by clicking on 'My Controls', then going to 'Board Settings', and this will bring up an option to ignore or delete the signature feature.

[Rooster_Ties]

I'm very liberal in my opinions about social issues, women's rights, gay rights, etc... I consider myself a moderate democrat, although I usually answer that I'm an independent, when asked.

But I would have to agree with Dan here on this one. Just because someone is Black and conservative, doesn't mean that they've 'sold out'. Not everyone who is a Republican believes everything that the Far Right believes, but they might simply believe in less of what the Left stands for, than in what the Right stands for - looking across all issues.

For instance, Colon Powell is pro-choice, and more liberal than most of the current administration. But, when he looks at all the issues, and weights the plusses and minuses, he comes down on the conservative side.

I don't like the current administation much at all (boy, that's the understatement of the year), BUT, even now - I'd still rather have Powell as President, over Bush, any day of the week.

If only someone who was conservative on fiscal issues, but liberal on social issues could somehow get elected. (Actually, they could have a good chance of getting elected, if only they could get past the primaries.) I know, I know - a pipedream at best.

[Rooster_Ties]

Hey, Rooster, you can actually turn off signatures yourself by clicking on 'My Controls', then going to 'Board Settings', and this will bring up an option to ignore or delete the signature feature.

Hey, thanks!!!!!

Problem solved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Use3D]

Hey, Rooster, you can actually turn off signatures yourself by clicking on 'My Controls', then going to 'Board Settings', and this will bring up an option to ignore or delete the signature feature.

Two pages of posts and finally someone says it! Feel free to poke around in your user controls for things like this, you can't hurt anything. Oh and Dan, you're back I take it?

[Jazzmoose]

Post fast, it may not be here in the morning.

Let me preemptively say this, before anyone cries 'censorship'. This is b3-er's and Use3D's board, and they can do whatever they like with it.

I agree, but what the hell would be the point in deleting this thread?

[Jazzmoose]

Just came upon this thread this evening and have just cast my vote which has stalemated the controversy. I don't get offended that easily; and I'm always for as much freedom as possible, right Moose??

You guys coming down too hard on Beri.

Don't look at me; I voted the same way you did!

I wonder how often that has happened!

[Use3D]

I agree, but what the hell would be the point in deleting this thread?

Currently I'm not seeing the point of it existing in the first place.

[connoisseur series500]

I agree, but what the hell would be the point in deleting this thread?

Currently I'm not seeing the point of it existing in the first place.

Is that for you to determine?

[Christiern]

Chris, Chris, Chris ....

Can't people have principles different from yours and still be principled?

You're just demonstrating what I am saying ... if you are black and don't adhere to the Jesse Jackson/Carol Mosely Braun/Al Sharpton agenda, then you are an unprincipled whore, selling out your people because the "man" throws you a few crumbs.

It is the worst example of how people try to enforce Politically Correct views or else destroy those who stray.

Ok, Dan, so you find nothing wrong with a black person supporting a group that is less than supportive of black people--in fact, a group that is making a miserable life even more so for many blacks. (I do a lot of work with black early child care organizations, and I can tell you that current Republican policies and actions have severely cut into funding).

Now, whenever a Jewish person criticizes Sharon or finds fault with the current Israeli government, he/she is labeled a "self-hater." Why, then, is C. Rice not a self-hater? Do different standards apply?

BTW, to answer your question, people can, in my opinion have principles and totally disagree with my viewpoints. In fact, I think one can even be a principled whore (in the "berigan" definition of the term).

I know a couple of black Republicans, but neither supports Bush and his people--they remain Republican, however, because they see the current conservative christian right leadership as something that will pass. Rice, on the other hand, is an active member of that rather extreme right-wing group.

Have I clarified my perspective?

[connoisseur series500]

Just came upon this thread this evening and have just cast my vote which has stalemated the controversy.  I don't get offended that easily; and I'm always for as much freedom as possible, right Moose?? 

You guys coming down too hard on Beri.

Don't look at me; I voted the same way you did!

I wonder how often that has happened!

Yeah, Moose!! Go Moose!! Snort! Snort!

[Use3D]

Is that for you to determine?

Of course it is :rsmile:

[BERIGAN]

Ok, Dan, so you find nothing wrong with a black person supporting a group that is less than supportive of black people--in fact, a group that is making a miserable life even more so for many blacks. (I do a lot of work with black early child care organizations, and I can tell you that current Republican policies and actions have severely cut into funding).

Chris, are these black early child care organizations , city, state, or federally funded, or all of the above? I don't doubt what you say about being then being underfunded, but whenever you hear of federal cutbacks, it is usually a cut back of a planned increase in funding....

[Christiern]

Chris, are these black early child care organizations , city, state, or federally funded, or all of the above? I don't doubt what you say about being then being underfunded, but whenever you hear of federal cutbacks, it is usually a cut back of a planned increase in funding....

All three, actually, but mostly state and city. Even so, Federal cutbacks have a domino effect. The sad reality is that, despite campaign promises and subsequent assurances, a lot of children are being left behind.

[BERIGAN]

Bunny boy, I'm not a liberal. I'm just not dazzled, bought and seduced by the near-sighted wrong-headedness of this administration.

In my book, you're a schoolyard wannabe Greg as far as the way you talk to persons. It exhibits verbal violence, poor manners, and a bullying tendency. I'll never say that is okay.

So keep up. When you get to high school, you might get your comeuppance.

Lon, you are not a liberal???? Come now, anyone who says I read very few political threads because the tacit agreement with the imperialist stance and oligarchic trends of this present administration I found within them repelled me! Imperialist? Oligarchic? Thems liberals words! It's ok to admit to being one, honest! Set yourself free!

[jazzbo]

Berigan, a twelve-year-old mind seems unable to grasp that just because I do not endorse your extremist imperialist fascistic stance that you've absorbed from the image-making machine of our current administration that I am not on the other extreme. I don't know what I am but I don't view myself as a liberal. I would consider membership for myself in whatever party doesn't stand for American expansionism so that fat cats can become fatter and twelve-year-old minds can continue in their exuberant brainwash.

Edited May 17, 2003 by jazzbo