****Why is Star Parker so fucking stupid???****

Mr. Met

So Amazin
BGOL Investor
Everytime I read one of her articles, it's complete right wing propaganda.

It's like she never does any research on what she's writing about.

How much does this bitch get paid?

Check the hatchet job on Michael Eric Dyson's book.

click here

I have critique on some of Dyson's assertions, but did the bitch even read the fucking book. ( By the way, she was taken to task in the book. )

Or the MMM.

click here

What excuses? Did she watch it through like I did?

On more than one occasion, I've seen this from her.

Am I wrong?
 
No you're not wrong. Star Parker is just one of that group of self-hating "kneegros" that want so badly to prove to the oppressors that they're not one of "them". Don't sweat the Aunt Jemima bitch. Try as she might to them she is and always will be a ****** first.
 
ronmch20 said:
... just one of that group of self-hating "kneegros"
Why do I get the feeling that "Self-Hating" is just another cliche we use
against us without stating exactly and with particularity what problem we
have with others of us ??? We bash each other more than anyone else does
and hold us all to a standard that has yet to define with any specificity.

I don't know, the woman might be "self-hating" and a lot of other things as
well. But, what is the "Ideal" against which she and we are measured ???
More importantly, exactly how does she deviate from that standard ???

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
Why do I get the feeling that "Self-Hating" is just another cliche we use
against us without stating exactly and with particularity what problem we
have with others of us ??? We bash each other more than anyone else does
and hold us all to a standard that has yet to define with any specificity.

I don't know, the woman might be "self-hating" and a lot of other things as
well. But, what is the "Ideal" against which she and we are measured ???
More importantly, exactly how does she deviate from that standard ???

QueEx
You should have stopped at, "I don't know..."
 
QueEx said:
Why do I get the feeling that "Self-Hating" is just another cliche we use
against us without stating exactly and with particularity what problem we
have with others of us ??? We bash each other more than anyone else does
and hold us all to a standard that has yet to define with any specificity.

I don't know, the woman might be "self-hating" and a lot of other things as
well. But, what is the "Ideal" against which she and we are measured ???
More importantly, exactly how does she deviate from that standard ???

QueEx


I KNOW YOU'RE THE MODERATOR, BUT IT MUST BE HARD AS HELL 4 U TO PLAY THE FENCE SOMETIMES.
 
9X3inch said:

I KNOW YOU'RE THE MODERATOR, BUT IT MUST BE HARD AS HELL 4 U TO PLAY THE FENCE SOMETIMES.
No, I actually believe what I said in response to ronmch20's comment.
And, what he has said since that in this thread goes along way towards
substantiating my belief.


QueEx
 
QueEx said:
No, I actually believe what I said in response to ronmch20's comment.
And, what he has said since that in this thread goes along way towards
substantiating my belief.


QueEx


I'm not for healthy debate or healthy crtique from both sides.

This cunt dosen't do that. She's a damn hack who lacks cred. period.

I can understand disagreeing with Jesse Jackson and others. These mofos hate his ass with the most bitterest bile.

Was Jesse involved in Cointelpro with J. (gay ) Edgar Hoover? Did his family directly benefit from the slave trade?

I mean, Bitch, get a grip........do some research.......please.
 
9X3inch said:
I'm not for healthy debate or healthy crtique from both sides.
If that works for you -- but I don't care much for one-sided critiques.

This cunt dosen't do that. She's a damn hack who lacks cred. period.

I can understand disagreeing with Jesse Jackson and others. These mofos hate his ass with the most bitterest bile.

Was Jesse involved in Cointelpro with J. (gay ) Edgar Hoover? Did his family directly benefit from the slave trade?

I mean, Bitch, get a grip........do some research.......please.
If you'll look back, my comment related directly to the self-hating "kneegros" comment. Whether that characterization is made against Star Parker on any other "negro" -- I want to know the basis for it and exactly what it (self-hating) entails. We make up so much definitionless shit it ain't funny. Then we start labeling each other with those loosely defined terms as if they've been in the dictionary from time immemorial. As I said before, Star Parker might be every bit of a "self hater" -- but I would much rather see a critique that stands the subjects character/view/ideology on its head than using loose conclusions. Its just my opinion, but I think intra-ethnic-name calling without serious understanding and critique of our own is itself a form of self hating.

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
If that works for you -- but I don't care much for one-sided critiques.

That was a typo :D, my bad. I meant that 'I am' for healthy debate or healthy crtique from both sides.


We make up so much definitionless shit it ain't funny. Then we start labeling each other with those loosely defined terms as if they've been in the dictionary from time immemorial. As I said before, Star Parker might be every bit of a "self hater" -- but I would much rather see a critique that stands the subjects character/view/ideology on its head than using loose conclusions. Its just my opinion, but I think intra-ethnic-name calling without serious understanding and critique of our own is itself a form of self hating.

QueEx

That's what I'm accusing her of doing. In fact, that paragraph proves my point.
 
After much ado, we appear to be saying much the same thing. My comment, however, was directed to ronmuch20 to tell us what a "self-hating kneegro" is.

QueEx
 
The first time I heard about Star Parker was somewhere in the 1990s. She was blathering how liberal policies kept her getting food stamps in the LA projects. I thought conservatives where suppose to take personal responsibility for their actions. She never figured out that it was her selfish, greedy, lazy ass that kept her in the projects. And the Right offered her a better hustle. Hustle for them. Their is always a better deal for the greedy!
 
QueEx said:
After much ado, we appear to be saying much the same thing. My comment, however, was directed to ronmuch20 to tell us what a "self-hating kneegro" is.

QueEx
Clarence Thomas, Armstrong Williams, Niger Innis, Ward Connerly, "Rev" Jesse Lee Petersen, and Star Parker are just a few of that group of "self-hating Kneegros" who in spewing their self loathing rhetoric always use descriptive pronouns like "they" or "them", never "we" or "us".

Now why is that, are "they" not part of "us"? Of course they are, but they try so very hard not to be, at least in eyes of white people. You tell me the reason people of this ilk overwhelmingly describe the black experience in such negative terms. The rationale is they're just conservatives telling the truth. But just listen to them and you'll soon realize their rhetoric when it comes to talking about black folks is replete with half-truths and generalities. However, they know their rhetoric, as hurtful as it may be, will be heartily embraced by "the man", and in the man's eyes they will thought of as equals. How foolish. Posturing and running down one's own black race for the enjoyment of, and acceptance by, white people makes one a "kneegro" because figuratively that is the position most easily associated with such pronouncements of self loathing.

Where the balance in pointing out only the negative things that beset black society? How can one be against affirmative action, yet be a product of it, i.e., Clarence Thomas? Why do Ms. Parker and her fellows by their words feed into prevailing white thought that most blacks are only interested in welfare, are shiftless and lazy, have little or no morals, etc. Sure that could be honestly said about some black people, but it's also true about some white people. Yet you'll never hear them point that out in the same breath they're busy trashing us.
 
ronmch20 said:
Clarence Thomas, Armstrong Williams, Niger Innis, Ward Connerly, "Rev" Jesse Lee Petersen, and Star Parker are just a few of that group of "self-hating Kneegros" who in spewing their self loathing rhetoric always use descriptive pronouns like "they" or "them", never "we" or "us".

Now why is that, are "they" not part of "us"? Of course they are, but they try so very hard not to be, at least in eyes of white people. You tell me the reason people of this ilk overwhelmingly describe the black experience in such negative terms. The rationale is they're just conservatives telling the truth. But just listen to them and you'll soon realize their rhetoric when it comes to talking about black folks is replete with half-truths and generalities. However, they know their rhetoric, as hurtful as it may be, will be heartily embraced by "the man", and in the man's eyes they will thought of as equals. How foolish. Posturing and running down one's own black race for the enjoyment of, and acceptance by, white people makes one a "kneegro" because figuratively that is the position most easily associated with such pronouncements of self loathing.

Where the balance in pointing out only the negative things that beset black society? How can one be against affirmative action, yet be a product of it, i.e., Clarence Thomas? Why do Ms. Parker and her fellows by their words feed into prevailing white thought that most blacks are only interested in welfare, are shiftless and lazy, have little or no morals, etc. Sure that could be honestly said about some black people, but it's also true about some white people. Yet you'll never hear them point that out in the same breath they're busy trashing us.

If there's one thing I've learned when studying these assholes is that not all Black conservatives are the same. *thank goodness*:yes:

Check this blog to make distinctions......Click here
 
<font size="3">
In your <u>best</u> attempt at objectivity:

■ Whats wrong with what Star Parker says below ???

■ Is there anything right with what Star Parker says below ???

■ And, most importantly, what did Star Parker say below thats "Self-Hating" ???



<font size="5"><center>In defense of Bill Cosby</font size></center>

By Star Parker
Posted: June 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


If we gave ratings to books like we give to films, I would urge that Michael Eric Dyson's new book, "Is Bill Cosby Right? Or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?" be given a triple X. Parents, particularly black parents, should read this material with the greatest caution.

Dyson wrote this book to take on Bill Cosby and his campaign to talk about personal responsibility in the black community. The book is wrong about everything. But in addition to being uniformly wrong, it is uniformly dangerous. Any degree to which blacks buy into Dyson's message will translate directly into exacerbating and perpetuating the well-known social and economic problems in our community that prompted Cosby's campaign.

Several hundred pages of whining, excuses and personal attacks on Bill Cosby really just boil down to the following: "Cosby's overemphasis on personal responsibility, not structural features, wrongly locates the source of poor black suffering ... Cosby's insistence on self-help lets society off the hook."

For the last 40 years, blacks have heard nothing from their leaders except blaming an unjust and racist America for our problems and prescribing political action and government spending programs as the only way to solve them. The result has been the creation of what is fast becoming a permanent black underclass, devoid of the very attitudes and values that are critical for anyone of any background or color to make it in this world.

Cosby emerges and suggests that if there is going to be hope and a future for this black community, it can only come by forgetting the blame game and accepting that, regardless of what was, every black tomorrow will directly reflect the personal responsibility that every African-American takes for his or her life today. For Dyson, this is an "overemphasis on personal responsibility."

Dyson's pretense at insight is to point out that the world is complicated. Is it reasonable, as Cosby is doing, to tell a single black mother, who herself may well be the product of a broken home, and arguably lives in a society that still reeks of racism, that she should assume personal responsibility for her life? Dyson says no. I say yes.

Not only must we transmit this message, but to not do it is to shirk our own personal responsibility. Perhaps the difference between me and Michael Eric Dyson is that I believe that at the end of the day, life has rules and values that are absolutely true. I believe these rules and values sustain life itself. What I call perversion, Dyson will call an alternative lifestyle. What I call dysfunctional behavior, Dyson will call personal or cultural expression crucial for self-esteem.

I, of course, cannot speak for Bill Cosby. But it is certainly clear to me that to point out that poor African-Americans need to take personal responsibility does not imply that others have no responsibility in trying to help. The difference in opinion between what Cosby is saying and what Dyson claims is not whether to help, but how.

Cosby, after all, is trying to help. He is saying "Here is what you need to know. Here are the rules. Take them and live by them." Dyson, from all I have heard from him, rejects traditional rules and values. He thinks he's helping by educating young blacks to remember that where they are is not their fault and where they will be depends on our ability to get government programs to get them there.

In contrast to Dyson's book, a new book that is actually interesting is Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty First Century." Friedman chronicles how technology is shrinking our world and the intense competitive pressures this is placing on an America around which the welfare state has already wrapped its tentacles.

Friedman points out that good parenting and good education is crucial if Americans are going to be ready to take on this new world. Instead of asking "Is Bill Cosby Right?" Dyson might ask "Is David Baltimore Right?" Here is what Baltimore, the Nobel prize-winning president of Caltech, conveyed to Friedman:


I look at the kids who come to Caltech, and they grew up n families that encouraged them to work hard and to put off a little bit of gratification for the future and to understand that they have to hone their skills to play an important role in the world ... Their parents nurtured them to make sure they realize their potential. I think we need a revolution in this country when it comes to parenting around education.


Sure, blacks can listen to Michael Eric Dyson and make a million excuses why this isn't possible for them. And while they're doing it, they can watch their communities fall farther and farther behind.

Star Parker is president and founder of CURE, the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education, and is author of the WND book "Uncle Sam's Plantation," where she offers five simple yet profound steps that will allow the nation’s poor to go from entitlement and slavery to empowerment and freedom.

If you'd rather order by phone, call WND's toll-free customer service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44625
 
ronmch20 said:
Clarence Thomas, Armstrong Williams, Niger Innis, Ward Connerly, "Rev" Jesse Lee Petersen, and Star Parker are just a few of that group of "self-hating Kneegros" who in spewing their self loathing rhetoric always use descriptive pronouns like "they" or "them", never "we" or "us".

Now why is that, are "they" not part of "us"? Of course they are, but they try so very hard not to be, at least in eyes of white people. You tell me the reason people of this ilk overwhelmingly describe the black experience in such negative terms. The rationale is they're just conservatives telling the truth. But just listen to them and you'll soon realize their rhetoric when it comes to talking about black folks is replete with half-truths and generalities. However, they know their rhetoric, as hurtful as it may be, will be heartily embraced by "the man", and in the man's eyes they will thought of as equals. How foolish. Posturing and running down one's own black race for the enjoyment of, and acceptance by, white people makes one a "kneegro" because figuratively that is the position most easily associated with such pronouncements of self loathing.

Where the balance in pointing out only the negative things that beset black society? How can one be against affirmative action, yet be a product of it, i.e., Clarence Thomas? Why do Ms. Parker and her fellows by their words feed into prevailing white thought that most blacks are only interested in welfare, are shiftless and lazy, have little or no morals, etc. Sure that could be honestly said about some black people, but it's also true about some white people. Yet you'll never hear them point that out in the same breath they're busy trashing us.

You forgot about his mouli.

<iframe name="bgol" style="border:0px red" width=700 height=800 src="http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/steele.html"></iframe>
 
Back
Top