Passing the Buck and Missing the Point: Don Imus, White Denial and Racism in America

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by identity-X, Apr 17, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    I haven't said much on the subject, but wow...I think this guy just did it all for me.

    http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/Imus.html

    Passing the Buck and Missing the Point: Don Imus, White Denial and Racism in America

    By Tim Wise


    Let us dispense with the easy stuff, shall we?

    First, Don Imus's free speech rights have not been even remotely violated as a result of his firing, either by MSNBC or CBS Radio. The First Amendment protects us against state oppression or legal sanction for our words. It does not entitle everyone with an opinion to a talk show, let alone on a particular network. To believe or to demand otherwise would be to say that Imus's free speech rights outweigh the rights of his employers to determine what messages they will send out on their dime.

    Secondly, those who are telling black folks to "get over it," when it comes to racial slurs, such as those offered up by Imus, are missing an important point: namely, the slurs are not the real issue. The issue is that these slurs (be they of the "nappy-headed ho" variety, or the semi-psychotic string of vitriol spewed by Michael Richards a few months back) take place against a backdrop of systemic and institutional racism. And that backdrop--of housing and job discrimination, racial profiling, unequal health care access, and a media that regularly presents blacks in the worst possible light (think the persistent and inaccurate reports of murder and rape by African Americans in New Orleans during the Katrina tragedy)--makes verbal slights, even if relatively minor, take on a magnitude well beyond the moment of their issuance.

    Those who so easily let slip dismissive cliches, such as, "sticks and stones," have rarely themselves been the ones for whom slurs signaled a pending or extant campaign of oppression. So, for those whites who seek to change the subject to slurs used occasionally against us--like honky or cracker--please note: it is precisely the lack of any potent, institutional force to back up those words, which makes them so much easier to shrug off. But people of color are well aware that the slurs used against them, particularly when verbalized by whites, are often the tip of a much larger and more destructive iceberg, beneath which tip lies an edifice capable of shattering opportunities, of damaging and even destroying lives. In truth, even the words themselves can injure, especially the young, for whom an insistence on the development of thick skin seems especially heartless.

    Third, and please make note of it, this is not the first time Imus had done something like this. In the past he's referred to black journalist Gwen Ifill as "the cleaning lady," a Jewish reporter as, a "boner-nosed, beanie-wearing Jewboy," and Arabs as "ragheads." Furthermore, he handpicked a sidekick who called Palestinians "animals" on the air, and suggested that Venus and Serena Williams would make fine centerfold models for National Geographic. Imus is a serial offender, and his contrition now, while perhaps genuine, has been long overdue.

    So, a quick review: Imus is a racist, words can wound, and his employers had both the right and responsibility to fire him. But such is hardly the stuff of which meaningful commentary is made. So now, let us consider a few other matters as they relate to the Imus affair: matters that have been largely under-explored amidst the coverage of this story in recent weeks.
    test
  2. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    White Hypocrisy, Personal Responsibility, and Shifting the Blame to Black Folks

    One thing has been made clear by the Imus incident: namely, white folks are incapable of blaming other whites for white racism and racist behavior. Despite all the demands by whites that blacks take "personal responsibility" for their lives, their behaviors, and the problems that often beset their communities--and especially that they stop blaming whites for their station in life--the fact is, we can't wait to blame someone else when we, or one of ours, screws up. So please note, from virtually every corner of the white media (and from black conservatives who are quick to let whites off the hook no matter what we do), the conversation has shifted from Imus's racism to a full-scale assault on rap music and hip-hop. In other words, it's those black people's fault when one of ours calls them a name. After all, they do it themselves, and of Imus really can't be expected not to say "ho" if Ice Cube has done it. At this point, I'm halfway expecting to hear Bill O'Reilly say that white folks wouldn't have even heard words like •••••• if it weren't for 50 Cent.

    But this kind of argument is not only absurd on the face of it, even more to the point, it's a complete affront to the concept of "personal responsibility." It ranks right up there with telling your mom that "Billy did it too," back when you were ten, and playing ball outside, and broke your neighbor's window. As I recall, mom didn't really give a rat's ass, and responded by saying something about Billy, a bridge, and whether his desire to jump off like a damned fool would inspire similar stupidity on your part.

    By seeking to shift blame for Imus's comments, or those of Michael Richards, or whomever, onto black folks, white America has shown our duplicity to be something over which we have no shame. Of course, we've been doing it a long time. Witness the way that whites are quick to point out--whenever the issue of slavery is raised--that "blacks in Africa sold other blacks into bondage," as if that would make blacks every bit as culpable as the folks whose wealth was built by the slave system; as if Europeans had only come to Africa for the weather, and had been coerced into the transatlantic slave trade. Or consider the way that whites blame indigenous people for the mass death they experienced after the invasion of the Americas, by saying, with no sense of misgiving, "Well, it wasn't our fault, I mean, they mostly died of disease," as if native folk would have contracted these diseases short of the desire by whites to conquer the planet for our own aggrandizement. Or consider the way that whites seek to rationalize racial profiling, by arguing that since blacks have higher crime rates, individual and perfectly innocent blacks really can't complain when cops target them, and should instead blame their own for the way blacks get viewed, and treated; same thing with Arabs and terrorism. It's their fault, in other words, personal responsibility be damned.

    Rap has been an especially useful scapegoat, such that whenever whites act out in a racist way we seem quick to blame rap. In fact, sometimes, when whites commit violence we blame rap too, as with the two school shooters in Jonesboro, Arkansas in the late 90s, who were reported to love rap music, as if that would explain their decision to ambush their classmates. When whites throw "ghetto" parties on college campuses, which denigrate the humanity of persons living in this nation's poorest and most marginalized communities, they routinely claim to be merely mimicking what they've seen on MTV. Snoop Dogg made 'em do it, see? Or perhaps it was Jay-Z, or Biggie, or 'Pac. Odd how the Sopranos never get blamed when white folks kill someone, nor the Saw movie trilogy, or, for that matter (since we're on the subject of music), Johnny Cash, who sang about shooting a man in Reno "just to watch him die." Hell, Johnny even sang that song in a prison to a bunch of inmates, with no apparent concern for inciting violence on their part.

    And speaking of Cash, the rush to blame rap is especially intriguing given the history of violent themes in country music--a genre that is never blamed whenever some white, NASCAR lover commits murder. Consider country legend Porter Wagoner, whose song "Cold Hard Facts of Life," tells of a man who kills his wife for cheating on him. Or better still, "The First Mrs. Jones," in which Wagoner's protagonist, speaking to his new wife--who has just left him--tells her how he stalked and murdered his former betrothed, after which killing he buried her body parts in the woods. In other words, unless the "second Mrs. Jones" comes back to him, she's going to join the first one, pushing up daisies in the forest. If Young Buck dropped a song like this, white America would be screaming about how he was encouraging violence against women. But for Wagoner, a revered member of the Country Music Hall of Fame, no such concern attaches. He's just "telling a story."

    Then there's Johnny Paycheck's classic, "Pardon Me, I've Got Someone to Kill," or Jimmy Rodgers who sang, "If you don't want to smell my smoke, don't •••••• with my gun," or several of the violent ditties recorded by Spade Cooley in the 1950s: a man who didn't just sing of violence, but also practiced what he preached, by beating his wife to death in front of their teenage daughter in 1961. That rap is viewed so much more negatively than any other genre of music--so many of which have had their fair share of disturbing, violent and sexist imagery--attests to the racialized way in which danger has come to be understood. Only a fool could think race wasn't the primary reason for the double standard. In fact, research has found that when lyrics with violent themes are presented to whites in a focus group, as being rap lyrics, the participants respond far more negatively than when the same lyrics are presented as the lyrics they actually are: from a folk song, sung by whites.

    But blaming rap is not only conveniently opportunistic, and intellectually dishonest, given all the pandering about personal responsibility. It also ignores the reasons why rap music sometimes--though not as uniformly as some seem to believe--peddles images of violence, or lyrics that are sexist. After all, if eighty percent of all rap music purchases are made by whites (and that is the conventional wisdom), then white consumers must be responding, via their purchases, to an already held impression of black people. Without such a pre-existing mental schema firmly in place, the images of blacks as gangstas, pimps, dealers and "hos" wouldn't resonate nearly so much as to make possible billions of dollars of sales annually. In other words, perhaps whites need to consider the possibility that the thug image has been marketable, and thus created a financial incentive for black artists to play to that trope because these images comport with the negative things that much of white America believes about blacks in the first place. Things which they believed, it should be noted, long before Cool Herc threw his first house party in the Bronx.
    test
  3. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    If white folks were interested in buying CDs by rap artists who sang about radical social transformation and community uplift--and yes there are many, many such artists out there--then that's the music that would be churned out in larger numbers. But white consumers aren't, by and large, looking to buy songs about overthrowing the system from which we benefit. White boys in the stale and lifeless 'burbs would rather listen to songs about guns and drugs, and being a thug, through which music they can live a more exciting life, if only in their fantasies. So in the ultimate irony, it is white buyers who make that kind of rap profitable, but instead of asking for any responsibility from them, we blame the artists for doing what they're supposed to do in a capitalist system, which is respond to market demand, no matter the social consequences. Naturally, of course, it isn't capitalism that gets the blame--a thoroughly European creation that has brought misery to millions, as did state socialism (another issue from the womb of Europe)--but rather, the black folks who have taken the bait offered by the market system. Even better is to read Cal Thomas's column from this week, in which he blamed liberal values and permissiveness for the coarseness of rap music, rather than the values trumpeted by the right, like profit-making.

    Sticking Our "Buts" in Where They Don't Belong

    In addition to trying to shift the blame for white racism onto black folks, we whites seem to be congenitally incapable of simply condemning racism, and after such condemnation, ending the sentence with a period. No indeed, after each condemnation it appears as though we are compelled to offer a comma, followed by a semi-exculpatory clause, which minimizes or outright nullifies the force of the condemnation itself.

    As in, "Yes, what Imus said was horrible, and mean-spirited" (and sometimes we'll even admit, racist, although several were unable to verbalize this word), "but he does wonderful charity work," or runs "a camp for kids with cancer."

    As in, "Yes, what Michael Richards said was awful and racist, but he was heckled and just lost control" (actually, witnesses say he started in on black audience members before they had said anything to him, so this excuse is not only flimsy, in any event, it's also a lie).

    As in, "Yes, Mel Gibson was wrong to say those things, but he'd been drinking."

    As in, "Yes, those white officers who shot Amadou Diallo were wrong, but it's tough being a cop in a dangerous neighborhood."

    As in, "Yes, the founding fathers mostly owned slaves and were racists, but they were just products of their time and can't be judged by the standards of today"--an argument that is thoroughly offensive, since, after all, admonitions against theft and murder (both of which were implicated in the slave system) have been around for thousands of years. Not to mention, the idea that "everyone felt that way back then" is false: the slaves certainly didn't, and neither did white abolitionists.

    Or, my favorite, as regards the Imus matter: "Yeah, Imus was wrong to say what he said, but the people criticizing him, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are even worse." One has to wonder what white folks would do if Jackson and Sharpton weren't around; who would we have to divert attention from our own biases? Attacking these two is the default position of white America whenever one of ours does something wrong: "Well what about Jackson? What about Sharpton?" This is then followed by a reminder of the former's "Hymietown" statement, and the latter's involvement in the Tawana Brawley affair.

    But even if one accepts the standard white critique of Jackson and Sharpton, the argument nonetheless amounts to a colossal failure to apply "personal responsibility" logic to oneself and one's community. It is yet another attempt by whites to change the subject. Not to mention, both men's past foibles exacted a price from them as well, from which it took several years to recover. It's not as if they received a free pass, and to be sure, had either man had a radio show at the time, there is no doubt that they too would have been canned by their employers for making racist, or anti-Semitic comments. Twenty-three years later, Jackson's comments about New York still haunt him, and no doubt had an impact on his political career, for example. As with Jackson and Sharpton, Imus should be able to redeem himself over time, to be sure. But as with both men, he shouldn't expect redemption to happen immediately, and without first paying a price.

    And truthfully, to say that Sharpton and Jackson are more offensive than Imus is almost incomprehensible. On the one hand you have two men who have spent their entire adult lives in the struggle for equal rights. On the other, you have a talk show host whose career has been about offending people and pushing the boundaries of good taste. A man who told 60 minutes in 1998 that he hired his co-host, specifically to tell "•••••• jokes." A man who calls tennis star Amelie Mauresmo a "big lesbo" on air. A man whose contribution to the world amounts to shocking people in morning drive time. Hardly comparable to registering voters, fighting for civil rights, running empowerment organizations that seek to build community unity, or any of the other endeavors in which Jackson and Sharpton have been involved.
    test
  4. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    But here's the bigger truth: if white folks are tired of seeing Jackson and Sharpton out front whenever white racism rears its ugly head, there's an easy way to solve that problem. Namely, all we have to do is do the work ourselves! If whites were willing to stand up and unapologetically, and without equivocation, condemn the racism in our community--following the lead of grass-roots folks of color with names far less known than the two men in question--perhaps Jackson and Sharpton wouldn't have to be the ones leading the rally. Maybe they could take a break. Maybe they could get a much-needed and earned vacation. But that's the problem: most whites do nothing in the face of racism. Most of us don't speak up, don't talk back, don't challenge family, friends, colleagues, or anyone else when they engage is racist actions or merely tell racist jokes. We sit back and remain largely silent, or condemn but only with caveats included. No wonder black leaders like Jackson and Sharpton end up being the visible faces of resistance: we aren't showing up at all, so what are they supposed to do?

    At the end of the day, it is white silence and collaboration that has always made racism--whether of the personal or institutional type--possible. If whites had, in larger numbers, joined with folks of color to challenge white supremacy, there is no way that such a system could have been maintained. There is no way that racist persons would be able to spew their venom without fear of reprisal, in most cases. They would know that such verbiage, or racist actions would be met forcefully, and that those engaging in such things would be ostracized. But white silence and inaction has given strength to the racists, whether on radio or in corporate offices, or government positions, or police uniforms; it has emboldened them to act out, since they have long had little reason to believe anything would happen. Slaveowners would have been powerless had the whites who didn't own slaves stood up to them and challenged their evil; so too with segregationists, those who lynched thousands of blacks from the late 1800s to the early 60s, and those who engage in discrimination today. The silent and passive collaborators with injustice are just as bad as those who do the deed, and have always been such. And too often, those folks have been us

    Only when whites decide to connect with the alternative tradition of resistance, as opposed to collaboration, will things change. Only when we choose to take our place in the line--however much longer it should be--of antiracist white allies, will we be in a position to lecture folks of color on how they come at the issue. And even then, we'll have far more to learn than to teach in that regard. But until that time, and for however long white folks decide to remain on the sidelines in this struggle, our entitlement to say much of anything sideways to the Jacksons or Sharptons of the world will remain virtually non-existent. Pay some dues, and then maybe you can talk. Until then, shut it down.

    And Yet, the Bigger Issue: Missing the Systemic Forest for the Individual Trees

    But perhaps the biggest problem with the coverage of this one man's racism, is the way in which the media rushes to cover individual acts of bigotry, a la Imus or Michael Richards, while largely ignoring the larger issue, and evidence of widespread systemic racism in health care, criminal justice, education or employment.

    So by now, pretty much everyone knows what Imus said, which is fine, so far as it goes. But why has there been no news coverage of the recent report that complaints of housing discrimination, including race-based complaints, are at an all-time high, and where is the outrage?

    Why no coverage of the new report from the United Church of Christ, indicating persons of color are far more likely to live in neighborhoods where hazardous waste sites are placed, and that the typical host neighborhood for such sites has twice as many people of color as the typical neighborhood without such a site? And where is the outrage over this kind of environmental racism?

    Where is the coverage of the recent study, which found that less access to high quality health care is the primary reason for higher prostate cancer death rates for black men, relative to white men? And how many have heard that according to research published in the American Journal of Public Health, nearly 900,000 blacks died from 1991 to 2000, who wouldn't have died had they had access to health care that was equal to that received by whites: roughly 90,000 African Americans each year? And where is the outrage over racial disparity in health care?

    Where is the media fanfare about the recently updated research from Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro, to the effect that the racial wealth gap between whites and blacks has remained huge, even as income gaps have fallen? Oliver and Shapiro report that even among college-educated black couples with middle class incomes, their wealth disadvantage relative to similar whites remains massive: on average, these African American couples have less than one-fourth the net worth of their white counterparts. In large measure, the wealth gap can be traced to policies that historically restricted black asset accumulation and gave whites significant head starts in the same area, yet their findings have been reported in virtually no white-owned media outlets.

    Or what about the research from Vanderbilt University, which finds that light-skinned immigrants to the U.S. have incomes that are significantly higher than those of immigrants who are otherwise similar--in terms of experience, education and skill levels--but who have darker skin. According to the research, which adds to a long line of data suggesting the role of colorism in the playing out of white supremacy, being one shade lighter than another immigrant is as beneficial to a person's income as an entire additional year of schooling. But where has the coverage been on this issue, and where is the outrage?

    In other words, perhaps the biggest problem with the Imus coverage is the way that even liberal commentary on the subject has tended to reinforce the notion that racism is a one-on-one kind of thing, an interpersonal problem, or a character flaw, for which the easy solution is banishment from the airwaves, or perhaps several sessions of counseling.

    So long as the bigger problem of institutional injustice remains off the radar screens of the media however, even victories against personal bias will remain largely irrelevant. And this is so because it is that larger racial inequity that so often contributes to personal bias in the first place, by giving the impression to weak-minded individuals that those on the bottom of the social and economic structure must have something wrong with them, or else they'd be doing better. That is what our society encourages us to believe, after all. Until we get a handle on racism as a social phenomenon, we'll be unlikely to make lasting progress on ending it as a personal one, whether for Imus, or anyone else.
    test
  5. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    "Whether for Imus or anyone else."

    What about black people? Are they exempt from their bullshit racism?
    This is horse-shit. It only pisses me off for three main reasons:

    1. Don Imus isn't a racist (He was mocking rapper talk)
    2. Black people say racist/sexist shit in the public all the time and nobody bothers to check them (including this moron)
    3. There is a much bigger motive behind Jackson and Sharpton's pursuing this and this is only the beginning of how far our government is going to take this. It's going to get ridiculous.

    I wonder if they'll be removing Hemingway from high school libraries soon?
    test
  6. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    They started with a white man.

    It's going to carry over into all races before it is finished and all sorts of language is going to be attacked. These vultures will swoop in now and try to delete words from the English language entirely. Watch.

    It began in Europe with insulting Muslims.

    They're going to be attacking so many freedoms here in America at once that people will be so wound up in the debates that they won't even pay attention to what is happening in the Middle East. It's a distraction. People are so fuckin stupid.

    Just a word of advice: Ignore all of it and pay attention to the Middle East. Bush is going to be breaking some major laws.
    test
  7. Ignorant

    Ignorant Village Idiot

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    17,755
    Define "racism"

    This is purely speculative... why can't the black dread be mocking 'black supremacist' talk?

    I'm sure conservatives have had field days attacking the 'black culture police'... you don't listen to Limbaugh or O'Reilly?

    But you have to consider the context, as well... and when have blacks and whites been on equal plane in this country?

    People keep mentioning those two... but NOW and that journalist group have pursued this, as well... why no qualms with them?
    test
  8. Ignorant

    Ignorant Village Idiot

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    17,755
    Do you think the NBA enforcing a dress code on its players is violating their freedoms or rights?

    As an employee, you're essentially the "property" of the business and they can direct how you perform for them.

    Ammendment rights can't be restricted by government.
    test
  9. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    What I find amazing is how cartoons like south park and family guy can get away with parts that are blantantly racist just because they happen to use cartoons as masks for what they (the writers/creators) are actually saying. I know they try to pass it off as making fun of racism, but given that kids watch these shows, I think they actually promote racist attitudes. And for some reason its become acceptable in these shows.

    Most of the stuff you hear on south park/family guy is 20X more offensive then what Imus said (though i'm definitely not apologizing for Imus).

    other movies/shows that blantantly racist are borat, agaisnt people of eastern european decent and people from the south. Also that 70s show, the Fez character is expressely designated to be subject to continual racist put downs by never identifying his specific race, the intent is so that no one ever complains. Yet racism is precisely something that is defined by the perceptions of those who are racist, not by the particular race a person happens to be.

    Its really important to fight racism in the media because it effects peoples perceptions, which in turn leads to individuals and groups facing racism in society, as racists perceptions are filtered through the stereotypes created by TV.
    test
  10. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Ignorant - Have you listened to the entire portion of the show and not just the clip, taken out of context? Yes or No? I personally don't care if black folks make fun of white folks. It's usually funny and often true . . . just like the fact that those girls have nappy hair and most of them are probably hoes. No, I don't listen to Rush or O'Riley. I don't like either one of them. Poor Blacks and Poor Whites are not on equal ground. Poor Blacks have advantages that Poor Whites don't have . . . if they can ward off the temptation to sell dope to one another, rob one another or pull a drive-by on one another and get good grades in school, that is. Journalists are going to support Jackson and Sharpton. Obviously. The NBA enforcing dress codes is not the same thing as Don Imus being blatantly taken out of context and attacked as a racist when he so clearly isn't. Don Imus has done more for the Black Community than both Jackson and Sharpton combined. They both work for the United States Government. Don Imus is a radio jockey and nothing more.

    Perhaps you should watch this:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=YBMbvEHPJJo


    And then watch this . . . because it is very much applicable:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=H7R1LJIVviI
    test
  11. ID-X

    Two personal questions

    Has a single black person ever gave you a personal thanks for all of your efforts to try to teach your white kin to be sympathetic to black problems?

    Followed up with

    Knowing what we know about you and your stances, what are your feelings when black people call you racist like every other white person?
    test
  12. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    I think if Tim Wise were to read your comment his response would be...

    "see what I'm sayin"

    no

    It would depend on what they mean when they say "you are racist".

    If they say that I hold racial prejudice, I'd do a bit of introspection to see if what they are saying is true. I'm not 100% free from racial (or gender/age/class/etc) prejudice, am the first to admit it to myself, and if the situation warranted it I'd have no problem admitting it to teh accuser.

    If they tell me that I am behaving in a manner that actively discriminates against members of another race - a manner in which I can, if I choose to, act differently or in a way that would NOT be seen as racist by those accusing me of doing so, my response would also vary. Introspection woud follow. Dialogue would follow. My deferring to their wishes might follow. My holding my ground might follow.

    If they told me that I benefit from having white skin, my response would be...."um...yeah, you're right".
    test
  13. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    surely someone has said this already, but...

    I find it interesting how many people talk about how the whole Imus issue is a distraction from "bigger issues" instead of an invitation to tackle and create dialogue about what many consider the biggest issue in their lives.

    systematic and/or institutional racism, white privilege and the like are, apparently, unimportant. these issues are a distraction that needs to be swept under the rug, rather than issues that affects EVERY single person in this country, many in life-altering or life-limiting ways.
    test
  14. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    my god identity. do you realize that people arent perfect? eerything with you is about a push towards this unrealistic ideal and its fucking you silly.
    test
  15. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935

    look at this perfect fucking answer. youre so fucking perfect its just fucking amazing.
    test
  16. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    um...what?

    are you hearing voices? seeing things maybe? dyslexic? [dunno]
    test
  17. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Tim Wise is welcome to say whatever he wants to say about me.

    I could care less. I don't kiss people's asses. I'm too honest for that.
    Even when I lie, I tell the truth.
    test
  18. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    as long as you don't see a problem with the "shifting the blame" and "but..." retorts that Wise speaks of, then cool...

    i just thought it funny that EVERYTHING he pointed out appeared in your response.
    test
  19. teq the decider

    teq the decider sexual predator

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    669
    You know identity x was attending some kind of march the day after those duke lacrosse players were accused
    test
  20. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    ^ Lmao Burn!

    and LOL@ Azues trying to be tony montona!

    Pure Comedy!
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)