Tavis, you don't like President Obama, you never have and you will find ANYTHING to bring him down.  Your mother is a preacher, I can only imagine she can see through your ruse to bring the President down.  You will find any thing to do just that.  You say it is because he is not doing anything for black people.  Well what about the Health Care program.  What about the tax incentive.  Now the Republicans want to repeal that.  Why don't you put your efforts into that.  Listen Tavis, you need to back off.  Take up your cause for Black people and DO something.  Your conventions aren't doing a darn thing but a lot of talking and NO action.  I have put more things into place in my community and I have a mentee who is still on the right path.  There are other young Black people who are accomplishing fantastic things.  STOP trying to get the President to do your job...YOU DO IT!  I am tired of your stuff.  LEAVE MY PRESIDENT ALONE!!!

Views: 2784

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Bravo! The two of them like to engage in 'mental masterbation' for the purposes of currying the favor of whites. They say, " See we can be critical of the head niggra to regardless of our common enemy being the white supremist intellect". All criticism should be constructive, and since I don't see them out there discussing the need for 'All' poor and less fortunate americans to unite 'Against', the hoarding of wealth and opportunity for the few. The President needs the help of the people, not empty, un-informed criticism.
WELL SAID!  Thank you.

Osirian said:
Bravo! The two of them like to engage in 'mental masterbation' for the purposes of currying the favor of whites. They say, " See we can be critical of the head niggra to regardless of our common enemy being the white supremist intellect". All criticism should be constructive, and since I don't see them out there discussing the need for 'All' poor and less fortunate americans to unite 'Against', the hoarding of wealth and opportunity for the few. The President needs the help of the people, not empty, un-informed criticism.

I am very proud of you, Sister Ikalean. Please continue to let your light shine. I have mentored many young men and women through their middle-level careers in banking. I just received an update from one of them today and I was happy at his progress report. The last time I saw this particular individual was in 1989, but the bond has not diminished one bit. There are people who open their eyes in the recovery room and the first person they ask for is little me, even though we are not related by blood or marriage. More people should talk less and do greater things for others, preferably outside their blood and marital connections, then we can have brighter hope of a better world. I run free clinics in Maths and English, educate many folks on banking, financial, investment, and mortgage-related matters. Many have actually wondered aloud by asking me directly (in private) why I do not charge for "these services." I tell them I am blessed in other ways that are superior to charging for what they call 'these services.' And I still remain blessed. Keep up the good work, sister and God continue to bless you and your lovely daughter-mentee. 

Ikalean Wilkerson said:

As President of Jack and Jill at one time and President of Concerned Black Women, started Mentor/Mentee programs which my committee had guidelines and we had to stick with the girls for at least 2 years.  The girls were in 5th grade at one point.  Then in the high school the women had to sign up for a 2 year follow up and see the girls for at least once a week.  Then we had youth programs with Black Men as speakers.  We had forums with classes with breakfast and lunch offered and kids contacted from various neighborhoods.  We had to have parents attend one class and we picked them up.  There were other programs too.  My mentee is now 25 years old and has been with me since she was in the 5th grade.  I have exposed her to reading, gone to her schools when there were problems and her parents were not there, took her to musical and dance concerts, libraries and just anything I took my own children.  She has become a member of our family like their little sister and they all keep in touch with her.  She has been to births of my grandchildren, graduations and many other family functions.   She has gone on family trips and met my uncle who was a WW11 war vet and he gave her books he had written and talked to her.  I have bought her a car and computer and helped to inspire her to continue college.  She has a family which is VERY different from my lifestyle.  But she sticks with me because she knows I love her and my children keep up with her.  She is now a registered LPN and going on to higher medical field.  These are some of the things I have done.  This is my baby!



safirah chinwe ibenana ofoegbu said:

Ikalean,  how were you inspired to actually do something for your community? i admire your passion. i was just asking cause i went to one of smiley's forum today and although there was a lot of talk, i'm hoping maybe someone in that auditorium can get inspired how you were.

Please Read:

http://blackagendareport.com/ Black Politics Atrophies Under Obama.

 

Hi James,

I would be disappointed if you were to subscribe to the yellow journalism that a site like Black Agenda Report dished out routinely. Even Fox News would fare better. There is nothing worth countenancing in the Black Agenda Report; the site is seeking those who have enough idle time on their hands to wallow in paid polemics.

GS (Graduate Studies) 101 teaches new intakes to learn to construct and deconstruct texts for hidden meanings. The faking Black Agenda Report hardly does a good job of even hiding behind a finger in its barefaced display of drab partisanship. Some partisanship can be understood and accommodated as such when delivered with sense and sensibility. The site does not come any close.   

President Obama has millions of fans and continues to get them in droves; he does not need fanatics. The latter are largely a liability in the long run. The major difference between fans and fanatics is that the former do not hesitate to exercise their rights and unquestionable autonomy to criticize any policies or practices of any administration (Obama's inclusive) adjudged to merit criticism and demand a review; the latter simply and blindly follow a script, no matter how lame and dumb.
james wilson said:

Please Read:

http://blackagendareport.com/ Black Politics Atrophies Under Obama.

My Dear Brother (assuming you are a brother, if not, my apology):

You appear to fall within the latter of the typologies you described. Black Agenda report is one of the most consistently accurate and informative websites in the Afrosphere. But no one can talk sense into a "zealot" no matter how accurate the information. Any mental health professional will tell you that the sicker the patient is, the greater the resistance to being helped. One reason for this, of course, is that the flight to fantasy land (the psychotic break from reality) is undertaken in the first place to avoid the rigor and pain of reality. That's why there's so much resistance to return to reality on the mentally ill person's part.

If you have been following my discussion with the zealous "professor," then you must be aware of the fact that I do not countenance ad hominem fallacies as substitute for sound, detailed, analysis.

Your assignment is to provide a sound factorial analysis of the inaccuracy of "ONE" point made in the article. Just ONE. One thing that was written in the article that you can provide sound evidence that proves it to be untrue.

I'm not interested in philosophy. Just factual evidence. The number of FANS someone may, or may not, have is immaterial to the facts of a policy analysis.

Give me one fact that you dispute--with facts. That's not asking too much.

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

Meanwhile, I add this because I may not respond to you again (which I will not if you do not respond with facts to support your position --I'm not interested in ads hominem -- any fool can do that): It is always good to help other people. But let's be sure we are doing it for the people we are "helping" and not for our own needs to feel superior to those we are "helping." For example, it is most inappropriate to post pictures of people we have "helped," or to boost about doing so, in the public sphere.

Before we do such a thing, we should ask the question: "How would I feel if I needed help, and the person who helped me ran and told everyone in sight about how they helped me?"

At least that's how I was raised to think.

 

Apparently, I gave you more credit than you deserved. Since no one throws pearl at swines, I am not going to try. It is clear that you have no idea what argumentum ad hominem means. Keep traveling down your wide road to nothingness and feeding fat on pseudo-intellectualism. It is not difficult to see how hard you are striving to convince yourself of belonging to some imaginary group of the respected. The worthy earn their membership; there is no back-door entrance.  

Obama is set to win a second term, regardless of the pontifications of a thinning-out pocket of professional haters such as the yellow journalists at Black Agenda Report and their befuddled sympathizers. Assuming Obama won no other election going forward, greater than 95% of his critics would still never match his records in and out of office, even if they were afforded 10 earth lives! Errand boys need to go and confess to their political masters that they are not up to the task of delivering intelligent messages.

Normally, I keep my word. In that regard, I would not have responded you. In fact, I'm not responding to you. Rather, I'm using you as an example of the very, very, sad mental state too many in the African American community are in specific to personality cult worship. But that's no reason for me to disrespect you, rather I pity you (your ad hominem against me notwithstanding).

Let's examine your arguments, which are prototypical ad hominem (agian, this is for the benefit of other readers, not you). 

First, you wrote that I do not know "what argumentum ad hominem means." But any one reading this can simply read the definitions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ad_hominem and they will not only find the definition(s) but also see why your comments are prototypically textbook examples of the definition(s).

But you never thought about that. I understand why you didn't.

Secondly, I asked that you give facts to support your claims against the website and the article that I posted. I asked that you  provide factual refutation of any specific points that were made in the article that you disagreed with.

What did you do? You responded with more ad hominem.

But what else can you do? Having no facts, all you can do is name call in order to avoid dealing with facts, e.g., "yellow journalism," etc. But why, and how is it what you say it is? You never tell the reader any of that. What in the article do you specifically disagree with, and why? You never tell the reader any of that.

Why do you fear, or more appropriately loathe, facts so intensely? Why do facts make you so uncomfortable? Why do you resist getting "well" so diligently?

In fact, were I your 4th grade teacher, and you submitted a paper to me filled with ad hominem name calling, ranting and raging without facts pertaining to the subject matter under discussion-- I'd flunk your hysterical, zealous, ass.

Goodbye.

The state of the world is based in facts.

Thanks for sharing the link, Brother Wilson. Black Agenda Report is on point!

"Rather, I'm using you as an example of the very, very, sad mental state too many in the African American community are in specific to personality cult worship." What was that?

Not hard to imagine what an ignoramus takes for mental states; another one in a burgeoning army of illiterates going around clutching compromised diplomas. When an individual's life-source of validation is Wikipedia, figuring out the rest of the equation cannot be rocket science. With his gibberish talk, James believes he has communicated, when all he succeeds in doing is talking to himself and betraying his ignorance.

The beauty of a blogging site, such as Smiley&West's, is that it allows charlatans to come out waxing philosophical. You are far from grounded in anything cogent enough to merit engaging in meaningful discourse with you; I advise that you stay true to your rantings of an ant. Otherwise, you risk losing membership of your cherished class(lessness).

There is a rationale for not suffering all fools gladly. Some fools can be conveniently ignored because they demonstrate prospects of recovering from their affliction. Other fools must be told of their foolery, failing which they keep trotting around forever reveling in the product of their deranged imagination. That is the way it is, Mr. James. Now, you can safely tuck away your Wikipedia. 

james wilson said:

Normally, I keep my word. In that regard, I would not have responded you. In fact, I'm not responding to you. Rather, I'm using you as an example of the very, very, sad mental state too many in the African American community are in specific to personality cult worship. But that's no reason for me to disrespect you, rather I pity you (your ad hominem against me notwithstanding).

Let's examine your arguments, which are prototypical ad hominem (agian, this is for the benefit of other readers, not you). 

First, you wrote that I do not know "what argumentum ad hominem means." But any one reading this can simply read the definitions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ad_hominem and they will not only find the definition(s) but also see why your comments are prototypically textbook examples of the definition(s).

But you never thought about that. I understand why you didn't.

Secondly, I asked that you give facts to support your claims against the website and the article that I posted. I asked that you  provide factual refutation of any specific points that were made in the article that you disagreed with.

What did you do? You responded with more ad hominem.

But what else can you do? Having no facts, all you can do is name call in order to avoid dealing with facts, e.g., "yellow journalism," etc. But why, and how is it what you say it is? You never tell the reader any of that. What in the article do you specifically disagree with, and why? You never tell the reader any of that.

Why do you fear, or more appropriately loathe, facts so intensely? Why do facts make you so uncomfortable? Why do you resist getting "well" so diligently?

In fact, were I your 4th grade teacher, and you submitted a paper to me filled with ad hominem name calling, ranting and raging without facts pertaining to the subject matter under discussion-- I'd flunk your hysterical, zealous, ass.

Goodbye.

The state of the world is based in facts.

"That is the way it is, Mr. James."

For those who know the difference or care for one, read that as 'Mr. Wilson' or simply James.

"The state of the world is based in facts" .... according to 'Prof. James Wilson.'

What? Get back to Grammar 101 to learn the correct use of basic prepositions before you start toying with fallacies (as in your argumentum ad nausea). Whatever state of the world you are imagining in your Fantasy Island cannot be "based in facts," but on facts! Just imagine folks with questionable and weak foundations trying to impress themselves and their ilk with big words and terms they know next no nothing about, when they should be focusing on the basics. Pathetic. You are not grounded in anything cogent enough to merit any serious-minded engaging in meaningful discourse with you. 

Talking about the state of the world and facts, what do you know about those? Before you come back here sounding like you know, first go and ask your Wikipedia instructors the meanings of epistemology and ontology. Sample the notions of reality and fact from the perspectives of social constructionism and objectivism, among others. It does not pay you or anyone else to talk first and attempt to think thereafter; sadly, that appears to be your penchant. 
Penguin Board of Directors said:

"Rather, I'm using you as an example of the very, very, sad mental state too many in the African American community are in specific to personality cult worship." What was that?

Not hard to imagine what an ignoramus takes for mental states; another one in a burgeoning army of illiterates going around clutching compromised diplomas. When an individual's life-source of validation is Wikipedia, figuring out the rest of the equation cannot be rocket science. With his gibberish talk, James believes he has communicated, when all he succeeds in doing is talking to himself and betraying his ignorance.

The beauty of a blogging site, such as Smiley&West's, is that it allows charlatans to come out waxing philosophical. You are far from grounded in anything cogent enough to merit engaging in meaningful discourse with you; I advise that you stay true to your rantings of an ant. Otherwise, you risk losing membership of your cherished class(lessness).

There is a rationale for not suffering all fools gladly. Some fools can be conveniently ignored because they demonstrate prospects of recovering from their affliction. Other fools must be told of their foolery, failing which they keep trotting around forever reveling in the product of their deranged imagination. That is the way it is, Mr. James. Now, you can safely tuck away your Wikipedia. 

james wilson said:

Normally, I keep my word. In that regard, I would not have responded you. In fact, I'm not responding to you. Rather, I'm using you as an example of the very, very, sad mental state too many in the African American community are in specific to personality cult worship. But that's no reason for me to disrespect you, rather I pity you (your ad hominem against me notwithstanding).

Let's examine your arguments, which are prototypical ad hominem (agian, this is for the benefit of other readers, not you). 

First, you wrote that I do not know "what argumentum ad hominem means." But any one reading this can simply read the definitions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ad_hominem and they will not only find the definition(s) but also see why your comments are prototypically textbook examples of the definition(s).

But you never thought about that. I understand why you didn't.

Secondly, I asked that you give facts to support your claims against the website and the article that I posted. I asked that you  provide factual refutation of any specific points that were made in the article that you disagreed with.

What did you do? You responded with more ad hominem.

But what else can you do? Having no facts, all you can do is name call in order to avoid dealing with facts, e.g., "yellow journalism," etc. But why, and how is it what you say it is? You never tell the reader any of that. What in the article do you specifically disagree with, and why? You never tell the reader any of that.

Why do you fear, or more appropriately loathe, facts so intensely? Why do facts make you so uncomfortable? Why do you resist getting "well" so diligently?

In fact, were I your 4th grade teacher, and you submitted a paper to me filled with ad hominem name calling, ranting and raging without facts pertaining to the subject matter under discussion-- I'd flunk your hysterical, zealous, ass.

Goodbye.

The state of the world is based in facts.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2014   Created by Smiley and West.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service