HEY! if Luda says she a hoe...then she must be a hoe. I like this clown, but who is he?

Andrew knows this guy by about 2 degrees away (i am not lying either, you all) I can easily see why Jim is in love with this guy. After listening to him argue watch this funny video

it is true about the few degrees of separation.

However the recent past part of that video(the one in johnny's comment) is alarmingly inaccurate.
To look back lets remember that Martin Luther King Jr was in fact a republican. That it was republican president Eisenhower who pushed the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, sent troops in to desegregate Arkansas schools and appointed justice Earl Warren who authored the verdict in Brown Vs Board of Education which desegregated public schools.

Also in the video it shows a shot of the fire hoses being turned on protesters as if to suggest that it was republicans doing it. It was actually black republican Phillip Randolph who organized the historic 1963 Dr King March on Washington in reaction to that and other police brutalities.

So don't be hoodwinked into believing that the civil rights movement was somehow a partisan affair of democrats vs republicans because its historically inaccurate.

hoodwinked...i like that.

And johny, it is THOUGHT, "I THOUGHT we should have something TO lighten up the mood"

haha. johnny's video was bs? really? you mean the democrats don't support slavery? also, is this martin luthor you speak about somehow related to lex luthor? sorry, just trying to (also) lighten the mood a little. obviously it is bs, although i tend to find the first video funnier than the one in johnny's comment. essentially the guy is saying 'im a republican because i share republican values and you guys are democrats because you're brainwashed'. his arguments are based on sheer anger and mostly on generalizations.
now, im not one to take politics as seriously as others, i'll have an opinion and vote without trying to shove it in anyone's face, but this fellow is really infuriating (sorry andrew, i realize you know someone who knows this guy)...he really is a bigot (and i don't use that word lightly) who thinks he makes sense because his viewpoint is not the most widespread among his race (talk about racist) and because he talks loud. essentially he is saying those who disagree with him are held at sway by the media and propaganda and that not only they, but also their families are products of brainwashing (also i find it laughable that he would suggest that family tradition has something to do with a good deal of the children of democrats being democrat but not with a good deal of the children of republicans being republican)
...seriously, if he wants to argue why he thinks his point of view is correct, then amen to that, it is democracy. but to do it in a way that does not even acknowledge your opponents viewpoint, just reduces it to the product of a media bias...well that is beyond pathetic. don't listen to celebrities, and don't listen to this guy. do research, watch some news and make up your own minds. and for this guy, in the words of yung joc: anywhere you meet me guaranteed it's goin' down.

haha VL didnt catch that spelling mistake although now it no longers exists

i don't like his hat.

shelby has the same one. no joke.

so victor writes a novel and makes some of the most amazing points i have seen on cr and this is what it is followed up with!?!? "i don't like his hat." and "haha VL didnt catch that spelling mistake although now it no longers exists" ?!

Good job Victor. He is obnoxious.

'I'm a republican because i share republican values and you guys are democrats because you're brainwashed'

Awful.

I should be a better editor.

Have a good week guys, Tuesday will be fun.

Ok in honor of your request Mr Nieves I will respond somewhat more seriously.

The foundation of VL's argument against Alphonso is that his views are based on "sheer anger" and generalizations. Which leads VL to the conclusion that Alphonso must be a bigot and then refers to him as racist.

So lets compare that to what Alphonso or "Zo" says in the video. I didn't remember him as being angry so I re watched the video and still don't see it. He is certainly enthusiastic, energetic, pumped up perhaps even a little bit crazy but he doesn't seem angry in fact almost the entire video is delivered with a smile. So while he does have an enthusiastic delivery style I have been unable to find evidence of anger.

It is true Zo often speaks in generalizations but so what? He makes a specific case for why he is the way he is despite being surrounded by influences which trend in the opposite direction. He then continues on to address people who have been attacking him for his previous videos in general terms.

Calling Zo racist or bigoted seems entirely unfounded to me as well. A bigot is somebody who is intolerant of other people because of their views. Do you really think that Zo is intolerant of his parents? Highly unlikely he probably not only loves them but in following his beliefs honors and respects them merely disagreeing with their views. Does that sound bigoted?

In addition Zo never says or hints that family tradition influences democrats and not republicans he merely says that despite that influence in his life HE chose differently.

Finally he never even claims (despite it being the case)that most black people are democrats he just said his family is. What he does do is draw contrast between generalized liberals and his own views. Perhaps the misconception came about in his terminology when referring to class envy when he says he broke away the chains which does bring to mind racial imagery. The point is he wasn't speaking of blacks compared to himself he was speaking of his generalized liberals compared to himself. That again hardly seems racist to me.

If mere terminology led VL to that conclusion all I can is video was a reaction as he stated. The reason he uses racially charged terms is because he was attacked as being an Uncle Tom, Racist and under the influence of a republican propaganda machine. His point in the video is simply that despite being surrounded by influences in one direction he made up his own mind based on his own values and that he is skeptical if the people who had been attacking him have done the same.

i just wanna say that just b/c you write alot doesnt mean its good! hahah i just bustin your chops, but both of you guys have good points, it was just strange to me that you here some really good comments and it got so easily overlooked.

Could anyone write a summary of Andrew's essay? I began to read it but got bored somewhere in the first paragraph.

darn...alright i'll make a couple other points taken verbatim from his argument...
"don't you all know that there's more money/propaganda in being against america, against the war, and against bush..."
first of all, don't place being against america and being against the war in the same sentence. ok, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he didn't mean that being against the war implies being against america (in terms of propaganda). in that case he should realize that the juxtaposition of these statements implies otherwise, and while the liberal media might in fact constantly criticize the war, i have yet to see how the media is 'against america' unless he is referring to the present administration as 'america'...

when he speaks of his liberal brainwashing levels, which somehow include sesame street (i mean, really?) he says that "i have escaped..." then looks straight into the camera and says "you haven't"...again he is putting all liberals in a generalized category and saying that he is somehow more open-minded/ more open to question the contents of media than liberals are, basically implying that if you are liberal it is because you haven't achieved a state of nirvana-esque questioning of your surroundings like he has...but wait...

ok, let's say that this is not the case. let's say that he is not referring to liberals in general. let's say he is only referring to the people who don't question their surrounding environment. then is he saying that liberals who are not questioning their context are somehow more deluded than the wyoming republicans who are not questioning their environment?

'i'm a free thinker y'all. it's you liberals who are submitted to pop-culture environment.' alright so he is talking about liberals in general. either that or he's taking aim to certain groups of society, generalizing and discriminating against their ability to think for themselves.

he then goes on some kind of insulting metaphor comparing liberals to cattle.

oh wait..he then says 'democrats keep their livestock fat with welfare cheques and food stamps...' funny, i don't recall the wealthy new york democrats he was talking about earlier taking welfare cheques and food stamps...oh wait, he's talking about a certain socio-economic group and questioning their ability to think! that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? to compare people of lesser means to cattle...

'they been had you...' that one is just grammatically incorrect.

then there's the crab thing, in which he implies that being a democrat is something you have to escape from and that 'haters will drag you back down into the mentality of victimhood...' which again, begins to sound kind of prejudiced (i won't use as strong a language as in my last rant)...also what is with all the animal metaphors?

'you got liberals that feel that a child should be put to death if he were to be wheelchair bound." what? when did this happen? im certain he's not making this up, yet it is probably some obscure case which does not represent the ideals of liberals or democrats. i mean, seriously, what is this guy talking about? i know many liberals, and i am positive nobody that i know follows this train of thought...

'my point is this y'all, your perspective from your point of view is just very skewed...' again, you can disagree with my perspective, but don't dismiss it as incorrect. i will respect your opinions, but you must respect mine...

'you're the party that celebrates drunken rebellion' excuse me?

'liberals are the ones who attack us in the first place...' false. it definitely goes both ways.

'those of you who are going to vote for obama are waiting for somebody to make you happy, when you have the power to do it yourselves...' again untrue. he may make the claim that he's speaking to a certain socio-economic class, but then not only is it untrue but also prejudiced and misleading.

so, basically the only part of his argument that i respect is the very first part, when he says he's voting for mccain/palin because he's a pro-life conservative republican. that's all you have to say, and then you can go on explaining your point of view on the matter in an intelligent way. okay, let's say he was pissed because he made some propaganda somewhere and liberals attacked his views. well, it happens all the time. i mean, how many democrats aren't labeled crazy conspiracy theorists, tree-huggers, hippies, etc etc etc from the right just for expressing their points of view or (albeit sometimes farfetched) theories? i mean, ed, come one, you know this...

all im saying is that this guy, in all his cocky 'i escaped' rhetoric and his jumping around between arguments like there's no proper way to construct a body of thought and his generalizations really does not appeal to my particular sensibilities of what a properly constructed argument is. and if it was just a reaction against something somebody else said, then he would do better reacting intelligently and making valid points to support his argument, not trying to question his opponents ability to think. you don't fight fire with fire, you use water (or that foam stuff)...if not people will just dismiss you and your arguments as easily as you dismissed those who were arguing against you.

VL the debate could continue forever and honestly I wouldn't choose to make my points in the fashion he does so defending him is a funny situation.
That being said you are still greatly misconstruing a lot of his statements. Does listing things together make them the same? The claim of juxtapositions doesn't have much grounding. Does saying I love hippies against the war and rednecks mean as a result of juxtaposition that rednecks are against the war? Clearly not, its a list of different independent things. On what basis does listing things imply that they are the same?

Also the independent thinking of republicans vs democrats is brought up in your case against him again. Except he still never addressed republican thinking only his own as opposed to groups of people who had attacked him. So yes of course there are republicans who aren't independent minded. It seems to me that you keep trying to imply that he suggested otherwise. Which is not the case. Also is the characterization of people in Wyoming any less prejudice then his characterizations of socioeconomic groups? Why are they more herd minded? Is it because they are rural? Do they cling to their guns and religion? (ok joking there)

But the point is good sir while he was indeed attacking fire with fire were not your original accusations of racism and bigotry not doing the same?

PS even though it is completely unrelated to this post our editor sucks.(thats you samboy) I mean somebody please read ColdIce's comments next to the the Peruvian video. Our job is to put on incompressible babble and your job is to turn it into eloquent prose. Clearly only one side of the equation here is doing their job.

so personally i think someone should copy this entire conversation and send it to a news paper or the news station or the pope or something. well we can take out all the parts that ed talks

yes. my initial accusations were not not doing the same. i was just saying that if you got something to say about your viewpoints you should do just that and leave the attacking behind, not attacking the political/intellectual creed which he is a part of. also, yes the manner in which you juxtapose your thoughts affects the way in which they are perceived. saying 'i love all people against the war and rednecks' has a different connotation from saying 'i love rednecks and all people against the war'...but that's besides the issue...
also the wyoming republican thing was an example of sarcasm mimicking this guy's argumentation...perhaps i should have made that clear by using italics or quotation marks or put some kind of disclaimer
the issue is that while you, mr. andrew, may be of the habit of constructing a sense-making argument backing your point of view with pointed facts or historical precedent, this guy is simply saying that those who don't agree with him are ignorant/brainwashed. and you know me, i typically don't get involved with political ramblings and such but just the way this guy constructs an argument and the cocky way he has of going about it is simply irritating...it's the whole 'better than thou' way in which he comes across that is kind of like that little pebble in your shoe, something slightly annoying that you can't take your mind off of until after the ninth minute of it saying how it's in your shoe and it's all great and stuff you just have to rant about it for a while...

PS however, in the interest of free speech i will allow this guy to live...for now. we'll discuss his foreseeable future when rameau/lorenzo are in office in 2012...

why does he have to wear that hat sideways?!!

the world may never know ed, the world may never know.

First 2012 Attack ad:

Mr. Lorenzo Said

"i was just saying that if you got something to say about your viewpoints you should do just that and leave the attacking behind. . . " - 11/03/2008 - 2:50pm

Leave the attacking behind sounds good doesn't it?
But what does Mr Lorenzo REALLY believe when just 24 hrs earlier he attacked a struggling African American artist and citizen journalist saying
"..he really is a bigot," and called him, "racist."

Mr Lorenzo then went on to threaten his very life by saying he would "allow this guy to live...for now. . ."

Do we want a politician who attacks and threaten people, that support the American auto industry, in the white house?

I think not. (all said in a really threatening and sarcastic voice)

Hello i'm Stephen Colbert, I support this message and on Nov 2 Vote Jindal/Ponce for America.

ps we cant use italics as far as i know which is why I said I was joking regarding that comment.

lol...it's a good thing johnny is the candidate and i'm just the running mate...

second 2012 attack ad:

johnny rameau: 'I love...peruvian shamans...'

dramatic voice:
do we really want this follower of the occult in the white house? (color video shot of johnny becomes cryptically black and white and slow mo as dramatic music plays)

paid for by nieves/hazen-hamilton 2012