Princeton Protests: Removing Woodrow Wilson over Segregation Stance?

[Impenitent]

. . . and on and on and on., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseusm. Emily Ngheim is a great activist in Houston. One man said, if he were her husband, he would suicide. Sort of cruel.

If there is a Hell I imagine it would consist of being forced to read and do a book report on an entire thread match between Emily and David Jeffrey Specth. And you'd get an electric shock every time you fell asleep.


(Emily--- j/k you knows I love ya )

Although ostensibly a progressive, she has the ear of the Christian Right in Houston. I think they like what she says.

ha ha Impenitent except when it comes to defending Prochoice under Constitutional religious freedom.
Neither side feels comfortable when religious freedom is used to defend the other party's views.
They only want to use that to defend their views and keep the other out of govt.
But when the shoe is on the other foot, they yell and scream just as loudly about the other group's abuses.

Neither feels safe, because the Parties have NOT mutually committed to respecting the beliefs of the other. They both abuse the majority rule, media and political system to BULLY their way over the other.

So that is why there is mutual distrust. They've both crossed the line when it came to their own
beliefs, at the expense of others with conflicting beliefs.

Neither side feels comfortable when I start defending both views from each other.
It takes a while to trust me to see I'm not about imposing on them either.
I come across as "too sympathetic" and enabling of the "opposing view" so that's not good enough
to protect them from imposition. There would have to be a mutual truce, a Constitutional agreement
between major parties to respect each other's political beliefs and keep that out of govt
except where there is consensual agreement on points or policies to include

Your promotion of teenage girls giving birth to rape babies likely made the religious right squeal with glee.

 

[emilynghiem]

emilyng, that difference might make sense and is clear to you, but would you rewrite it more clearly and sensibly please, in 25 words or less. The new rewrite should be more than "Dems bad, Pubs good".

RE "Dems bad, Pubs good"
^ Your words, not mine ^
I totally DISAGREE JakeStarkey as this is labeling right and wrong by LABEL and
not by right and wrong, which all people are responsible for equally.

That is why I DON'T try to paint it in "convenient" sound bytes.
EXACTLY !!! To AVOID this bad habit of painting with a broad brush to discredit one group for another.

When you really examine things deeply to solve problems,
there is right and wrong on both sides, and both need to be recognized instead of attacked for it.

So of course, that's going to take more detailed brushwork! ;-)

 

[emilynghiem]

. . . and on and on and on., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseusm. Emily Ngheim is a great activist in Houston. One man said, if he were her husband, he would suicide. Sort of cruel.

If there is a Hell I imagine it would consist of being forced to read and do a book report on an entire thread match between Emily and David Jeffrey Specth. And you'd get an electric shock every time you fell asleep.


(Emily--- j/k you knows I love ya )

Although ostensibly a progressive, she has the ear of the Christian Right in Houston. I think they like what she says.

ha ha Impenitent except when it comes to defending Prochoice under Constitutional religious freedom.
Neither side feels comfortable when religious freedom is used to defend the other party's views.
They only want to use that to defend their views and keep the other out of govt.
But when the shoe is on the other foot, they yell and scream just as loudly about the other group's abuses.

Neither feels safe, because the Parties have NOT mutually committed to respecting the beliefs of the other. They both abuse the majority rule, media and political system to BULLY their way over the other.

So that is why there is mutual distrust. They've both crossed the line when it came to their own
beliefs, at the expense of others with conflicting beliefs.

Neither side feels comfortable when I start defending both views from each other.
It takes a while to trust me to see I'm not about imposing on them either.
I come across as "too sympathetic" and enabling of the "opposing view" so that's not good enough
to protect them from imposition. There would have to be a mutual truce, a Constitutional agreement
between major parties to respect each other's political beliefs and keep that out of govt
except where there is consensual agreement on points or policies to include

Your promotion of teenage girls giving birth to rape babies likely made the religious right squeal with glee.

^ Excuse me? My friend Juda IS on the far right with the prolife. That IS her nonprofit
that puts their money where their mouth is. If they say they are going to take care of
women who choose to have their babies, they mean it. Are you going to criticize people
who actually do what they claim they represent??? ^

ALSO, what is wrong if these mothers CHOOSE to have their babies instead of aborting them?

Are you only for prochoice when it is for abortion?

But when a mother chooses life "suddenly that means it is forced on them."

If you even read the website, Impenitent, it is full of stories of these mothers
CHOOSING to have their children despite the namecalling, bullying, harassment rejection and
threats they received from society and their own families.

Did you even read any of the testimonies?

NONE OF THEM WERE FORCED.

In fact, the pressure on them was to ABORT their babies, THAT WAS WHERE THE COERCION WAS COMING FROM!

???? Did you miss the point entirely?

see Choices4Life: Restoring Honor & Dignity to Women
Not a single person on there was FORCED to have their children.
The sad stories are about society trying to FORCE them to abort to hide the problems.

You have it backwards my dear!!

The "religious right" was not trying to embrace me, I was trying to support
women who truly defend the free choice of rape victims from being beaten into submission
when these mothers *DID NOT WANT* to abort their children, but had spiritual motivations
and connections that contradicted the social pressures and assumptions that abortion was the only choice.

Impenitent for a literary genius as you are,
I believe you misread that entire website, if you read it at all.

If you are reading with a bias in your mind, that might explain it.
I guess you would have to meet Juda and these women to know it really was for real,
and not a bunch of forced propaganda as you imagine in your mind.

Juda is so right to life, she alienates many of the Republicans and Conservatives
who are at least willing to back down on the issue of rape.

The point of Juda's nonprofit is to protect women's free choice, and not condone
pressuring, harassing, bullying and threatening these women into having abortions
when they want to have their babies, as a process totally separate from the rape.

Impenitent until you've been in such a situation, or you knew a woman who
was raped but felt inspired to have her child and then celebrated that decision later
when it turned out to be a blessing, how can you judge and assume they are all coerced???

 

[JakeStarkey]

^But when a mother chooses life "suddenly that means it is forced on them."^ Those are your words, not reality, Emily. When the laws do not permit a woman to have an abortion, she is forced to 'choose life.' That is not the role of the state.

 

[Impenitent]

Juda Myers advocates that ALL abortions should be illegal, including those for pregnancies caused by rape and incest.

She produces these "letters" as propaganda for her cause.

You have fallen (willingly?) victim to that propaganda.

 

[emilynghiem]

^But when a mother chooses life "suddenly that means it is forced on them."^ Those are your words, not reality, Emily. When the laws do not permit a woman to have an abortion, she is forced to 'choose life.' That is not the role of the state.

But that is NOT what that NONPROFIT does.
the NONPROFIT work and outreach of my friend Juda and her volunteers
is about supporting mothers NOT to be harassed, rejected, bullied etc. by society

My friend Juda does not have any ability or HOPE of legislating a ban using "force of law" to
stop someone from having an abortion.

All she has is her willingness to offer to help women not to compromise when they don't want to give in to that pressure to abort. She can offer through her nonprofit to raise the money and pay the costs the person is afraid they can't afford. It's all by offering freely.

NONE of the work they do is about pushing any such legislation banning abortion.
A NONPROFIT cannot push legislative agenda, unless they are set up to do so.

This "Choices for Life" group raises money to help the mothers who didn't want to abort their babies.
There is nothing "anti-choice" about that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Juda Myers advocates that ALL abortions should be illegal, including those for pregnancies caused by rape and incest.

She produces these "letters" as propaganda for her cause.

You have fallen (willingly?) victim to that propaganda.

Dear Impenitent OF COURSE she, as an individual, has the right to advocate for what she believes.
I have friends who believe in taking drugs and advocate for that.
If that person runs a nonprofit group that helps people with drug records to get jobs and assimilate back into society, am I going to SLAM their nonprofit group if their members or leaders preach about legalization?

I don't have to AGREE with them to support the outreach we DO AGREE helps people break the cycle of addiction and poverty that is the real problem.

Sorry I don't see the need to attack everything a person or group does
just because I disagree with them on that point. Juda and I agree that we don't agree if abortion should be legal in the meantime. We do agree all cases should be prevented, and I happen to believe that can be done by free choice.

There is no reason to slam, reject or discredit the good outreach her group does
just because I disagree with her views that abortion should not be a legal choice.

That does not threaten my beliefs.

What DOES threaten my beliefs is when BOTH sides of the abortion debate seek to abuse laws and political force to attack or exclude the other. The Democrats who claim to be prochoice have done equal harm to trample "free choice" under federal govt controls as the Republicans they blame.

It's NOT the "viewpoint itself" (where prolife or prochoice) that threatens to diminish or hijack freedom,
it's the bullying back and forth that divides and pits people against each other,

 

[Impenitent]

Juda Myers advocates that ALL abortions should be illegal, including those for pregnancies caused by rape and incest.

She produces these "letters" as propaganda for her cause.

You have fallen (willingly?) victim to that propaganda.

Dear Impenitent OF COURSE she, as an individual, has the right to advocate for what she believes.
I have friends who believe in taking drugs and advocate for that.
If that person runs a nonprofit group that helps people with drug records to get jobs and assimilate back into society, am I going to SLAM their nonprofit group if their members or leaders preach about legalization?

I don't have to AGREE with them to support the outreach we DO AGREE helps people break the cycle of addiction and poverty that is the real problem.

Sorry I don't see the need to attack everything a person or group does
just because I disagree with them on that point. Juda and I agree that we don't agree if abortion should be legal in the meantime. We do agree all cases should be prevented, and I happen to believe that can be done by free choice.

There is no reason to slam, reject or discredit the good outreach her group does
just because I disagree with her views that abortion should not be a legal choice.

That does not threaten my beliefs.

What DOES threaten my beliefs is when BOTH sides of the abortion debate seek to abuse laws and political force to attack or exclude the other. The Democrats who claim to be prochoice have done equal harm to trample "free choice" under federal govt controls as the Republicans they blame.

It's NOT the "viewpoint itself" (where prolife or prochoice) that threatens to diminish or hijack freedom,
it's the bullying back and forth that divides and pits people against each other,

I'm not bring up your support of anti- abortionists in order to debate the abortion issue, but only to illustrate your position differs from that of most progressives.

Your inability to acknowledge the significance of Wilson's civil rights issues, again, serves to differentiate you from other progressives.

You might say that you have one foot in each camp, yet I see both feet firmly entrenched with the Christian Right.

There is a story about a Chinese diplomat being interviewed by a western newsman, who is asked how can his country be communist, with its government encouraging so much capitalistic business activity?

The diplomat's answer was that, ' We will do whatever we want, and call it Communism.'

That you call yourself 'Progressive,' is the most bewildering point here, even more so than Wilson being called one.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wasn't Woodrow Wilson the guy who said, "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was Wilson who said, "I will have those racist fools like CrusaderFrank voting Democratic for the next 200 years. This is a white man's party."

 

[martybegan]

There is actually an intellectual conversation going on here, now go somewhere else and pretend to be a republican, you cheap, dime store hack.

Not when you are part of it. Libertarianism is nonsense. Run along.

WW was a progressive, and a racist, and yet did much good as well. I don't think he can be covered with the same analysis as a Jefferson C. Davis.

Where was I comparing him to Jefferson Davis?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It was Wilson who said, "I will have those racist fools like CrusaderFrank voting Democratic for the next 200 years. This is a white man's party."

LBJ said ****** like a Sunday Preacher says Jesus, it's just who he was.

Reactionary Jake defends any Progressive, its just who he is

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Students want Woodrow Wilson's name removed from Princeton

I get the point being contested by the Princeton students, but don't think the solution is removing people from history books and landmarks that are their legacy.

What are we going to do -- remove Leonardo da Vinci from history books because, at one point, he mistakenly theorized that the penis must have some internal tract connected to the lungs to provide the "breathe" to sustain an erection? Should he be axed for that?

And Jefferson axed for believing that Blacks should be deported back to Africa.
So forget all his other achievements and contributions to human political development.
Is that one point enough to strike the man out, bench him for the rest of eternity, and not include him on the team that helped to build the path to democratic governance?

If half of Congress voted for or against Civil Rights, or the Iraq War (or extending federal govt into health care without first Amending the Constitution)
Are we going to strike down that half of Congress from the history books for being on the wrong side?

WTF Who is going to be left?

If you are going to protest, then why not RESOLVE the conflicts to begin with.
Then you don't need to contest one side or the other if both reach agreement on solutions.
Gee Whiz! What next?

If we retroactively apply modern standards to our past figures of note, few will be left to learn about. Could omit many past Presidents for being racists for example, founders of the country owning slaves, Ben Franklin for being a horndog who'd give Charlie Sheen a run for his money.

As a fan of 'antique porn' I can tell you much of what was once acceptable, that isn't today, would paint a very different picture of our past leaders. And yet we still reverie these people though if we knew what they did during their offtime we'd probably curse and condemn them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was Wilson who said, "I will have those racist fools like CrusaderFrank voting Democratic for the next 200 years. This is a white man's party."

LBJ said ****** like a Sunday Preacher says Jesus, it's just who he was.

Reactionary Jake defends any Progressive, its just who he is

CrusaderFrank loves him some WoodrowWilson.

 

[Unkotare]

Are you only for prochoice when it is for abortion?...

Of course. You didn't think they really meant "choice" did you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

emilyng, that difference might make sense and is clear to you, but would you rewrite it more clearly and sensibly please, in 25 words or less. The new rewrite should be more than "Dems bad, Pubs good".

RE "Dems bad, Pubs good"
^ Your words, not mine ^
I totally DISAGREE JakeStarkey as this is labeling right and wrong by LABEL and
not by right and wrong, which all people are responsible for equally.

That is why I DON'T try to paint it in "convenient" sound bytes.
EXACTLY !!! To AVOID this bad habit of painting with a broad brush to discredit one group for another.

When you really examine things deeply to solve problems,
there is right and wrong on both sides, and both need to be recognized instead of attacked for it.

So of course, that's going to take more detailed brushwork! ;-)

Emily on rape babies. You don't know better. Juda does not know better. You interminably nattering about matters you fail to comprehend become utterly boring. Take your labeling and stuff it up your south side.

 

[emilynghiem]

Are you only for prochoice when it is for abortion?...

Of course. You didn't think they really meant "choice" did you?

Unkotare Yes, I believe the laws of human nature govern all people, left right, American citizens or those of other countries and cultures, all humanity.

And the Golden Rule is that if we want our free choice respected and enforced, that means we must respect and enforce the equal free choice of others.

So ultimately ALL people are fighting the same battle for free will or free choice, protected from imposition by the politics or religion of "other people and groups."

We are fighting this same battle, but don't recognize it.
One group fights for their freedom in terms of gun rights and right to life.
The other wants right to health care and reproductive choice.
It's the same concept but expressed in different terms, in different contexts.

The people like me who recognize it is the same desire for "consent of the governed" where NOBODY wants the "other group" abusing govt to impose their way on anybody else, see we are fighting the same battle. We are not each other's enemy, but the mutual fear and political division that separates us.

Eventually people on all sides will GET that in order to win the battle, everyone has to win. not one side over the other, but all people getting their way and protecting that from infringement from any other group imposing their beliefs either. Nobody wants their consent and free choice violated by govt.
they just don't trust each other's groups that abuse govt to impose their beliefs.

We need to call a TRUCE with parties to respect the BELIEFS of other groups, develop SEPARATE plans if we don't agree and keep those agenda out of govt. Only use govt for when our plans AGREE, where the entire public CONSENTS. Make that the basis of law, and keep the rest private for parties to manage for their own members instead of imposing it on everyone else. If we agreed on that, we'd resolve 98% of our political problems by solving things directly and quit bullying and pushing agenda through govt not everyone believes in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "consent of the governed" is done by the legislative precepts as laid down in our Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

The "consent of the governed" is done by the legislative precepts as laid down in our Constitution.

Yes, and as pointed out in our past discussions,
the problems are that left and right parties don't agree where to draw
the line with political BELIEFS. Both are seeking to impose BELIEFS
against the other group, instead of respecting EQUAL religious freedom and protection from discrimination by CREED. BOTH parties are guilty of imposing beliefs that the other party yells is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

If we remove those conflicts from govt, and resolve them separately in private as our other religious differences are kept out of govt, maybe we would have consensus on policies. Why don't we all agree to follow the Constitutional principles and ethics we are all yelling about? We know what we need to do, but only seem to yell at the other party we oppose, and aren't correcting our own parties we support. Why not hold ALL parties to correct these conflicts.

I AGREE with you the Constitution is enough of a centralizing and unifying ground to stand on to reach mutual resolutions.

What are the next steps to hammer that out, Jake?
You and I know well the points where people disagree.
Why can't we hammer out resolutions nailing these points down,
and quit fighting over the same issues we KNOW people disagree on and will never change their beliefs, why keep forcing beliefs through govt if we KNOW that will never be accepted, will always be contested, and is against the Constitutional rights and beliefs of the dissenting side. Do we really have to play this song over and over? Don't we get that it NEVER works to impose one's own party beliefs through govt over the other party's beliefs? like duh???

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, emily, I won't let you go there now anymore than I have in the past.

There does not have to be a spirit of universal agreement or reconciliation, the latter a wasted word in therapy if ever there was one.

Our system is not going to change for you.

Houston is not going to change for you, and neither are the word and the precinct.