This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Universe Prince
Pages: 1 ... 232 233 [234] 235 236 ... 244
3496
« on: November 17, 2006, 03:02:34 PM »
It is the plan of the ruling elite in this country to beat down the middle class into a subservient bunch of wageslaves.
Utter nonsense.
There are major differences between the richest and the poorest: in education, mental health, physical health and lifespan.
So remind me again then why it is you want to interfere with people improving their economic position?
3497
« on: November 17, 2006, 02:54:41 PM »
The middle class is not disappearing because they are all becoming wealthy.
I didn't say they were all becoming wealthy. Some people do not seek to become wealthy, whatever 'wealthy' means to them. But some middle class folks do seek a level of economic success and stability that some people, you perhaps, might call wealthy. They're not out to trample on the poor, but merely to achieve an economic status that better than what they have, often for the sake of their families. Why would anyone want to interfere with that?
Non no no, they are being impoverished as part of a plan to enrich the small wealthy elite still further.
A plan? Are there meetings to decide on this plan?
Predictable pensions are replaces by pensions that are at the whim of the fickle stock market. Consumer debt grows and grows. People are encouraged to borrow more and more on ARM mortgages of their homes. Cars are leased, not owned, Credit card fees grow bigger and bigger. Casinos are legalized. The plan is to force the middle class to work more and more years just to stay alive.
For plan that is supposed force people into something, it sure seems dependent on an awful lot of entirely voluntary actions. Since the plan involves so many voluntary actions on the part of the non-wealthy elite, then I suggest you not take part in the plan, and then you can stay economically afloat while everyone else sinks into poverty. And then you can stand on your rooftop, shout "Neener, neener, neener," and do the I-told-you-so dance.
3498
« on: November 16, 2006, 10:19:05 PM »
Every time a Democrat mentions this growing problem, the Republicans acceuse him of "class warfare", when it is they, with their loopholes and tax breaks, that are causing the destruction of the middle class and the rise of a monetary oligarchy to occur.
Nonsense. First of all, the loopholes and tax breaks are not all Republican grown. Secondly, many of those loopholes and tax breaks are what keep the rising portion of the middle class from being overburdened in their pursuit of economic success and stablity. And quite frankly, if people becoming more wealthy, i.e. rising out of the middle class, is causing the destruction of the middle class then to want that to stop would be, at the very least, mean-spirited, if not enviously selfish.
3499
« on: November 16, 2006, 10:09:10 PM »
There are a lot of criticisms I could make about that opinion piece by Mr. Webb. But I'll simply ask one question. Why should Mr. Webb's opinions about economic fairness become the law of the land?
3500
« on: November 15, 2006, 01:53:39 PM »
At least with Simpson they tried to claim it wasn't double jeopardy because the charges in the civil case were not the same charges as in the criminal case.
But I know what you mean, Amianthus. It seems we are moving, or have moved, from "innocent until proven guilty" to "not guilty until accused".
3501
« on: November 15, 2006, 01:01:53 PM »
posted by Radley Balko over at Reason Hit & Run:| | Most people are still under the quaint assumption that you can't be punished for a crime for which you've been acquitted.
Not true. In cases where a defendant is convicted of some of the charges against him but acquitted of others, the state can pursue a sentence that includes punishment for the acquitted charges.
Yes. You read that correctly. A recent decision from a U.S. district court in Virginia is unusually candid in pointing out the absurdity of the practice, which is apparently pretty common:
| | After an eleven-day trial, a jury acquitted defendant Michael Ibanga of all of the drug distribution charges against him and one of the two money laundering charges against him in the Indictment. The single count of which defendant Ibanga was convicted typically would result in a Guidelines custody range of 51 to 63 months. However, the United States demanded that the Court sentence defendant Ibanga based on the alleged drug dealing for which he was acquitted. This increased the Guidelines custody range to 151 to 188 months, a difference of about ten years. …
What could instill more confusion and disrespect than finding out that you will be sentenced to an extra ten years in prison for the alleged crimes of which you were acquitted? The law would have gone from something venerable and respected to a farce and a sham.
From the public’s perspective, most people would be shocked to find out that even United States citizens can be (and routinely are) punished for crimes of which they were acquitted. |
The opinion itself is refreshingly abrupt and scathing, and seems to have come from the pen of a pretty fed-up judge. It includes a history of the right to a jury trial, and quotes from Dickens.
As Cato's Tim Lynch explains, extra jail time for acquitted charges both encourages prosecutors to over-charge defendants, and encourages defendants to accept plea bargains -- knowing that at trial they could well be sentenced for crimes they didn't commit.
If you're wondering if all of this is a violation of the Sixth Amendment, well, if the Sixth Amendment means anything at all, it most certainly is. But we're talking mostly about drug crimes, here -- where the Bill of Rights doesn't apply. |
And a little more of my faith in the American justice system to be about justice is chipped away. More and more the system seems to be not about protecting the rights of people, but about making sure people get punished. Kinda like how law enforcement seems to be not about protecting the rights of people but about catching law breakers. But then, to be fair, we have to go back to the legislatures who are making up the laws not to protect the rights of people but to crack down on crime, to get tough on criminals, et cetera. But hey, if that is what the people want, I guess they don't care about having their rights protected.
Sixth Amendment? Constitution? Who really gives a damn anymore? Rights? What rights? The bastard probably had it comin'. Why should anyone care about the rights of criminals. They're not human beings, after all. They're criminals.
(For those watching at home, that last part was all sarcasm. If you try this at home, remember to wear safety goggles.)
3502
« on: November 10, 2006, 04:05:48 AM »
There's another straw man. Nobody criticized these Uncle Toms for "daring to disagree."
What is funny about this is that you spend the rest of your post criticizing them and defending criticizing them for disagreeing with you.
That's a pathetic attempt to make me, Knute, Gilliard and others look like intellectual martinets imposing a uniform code of thought on anyone with a black skin all across the ideological board on every imaginable issue.
Of course you're not. But you talk as though you want to be.
They are being criticized for one specific move they made, not for "daring to disagree." That one move was their support of the party of racism and privilege, a stab in the back to all black people in America and around the world.
Exactly. They disagree with your politics, or more specifically with the politics to which you believe they should adhere, and so you call them "Uncle Toms", "quisling traitors" and now accuse them of figuratively stabbing in the back "all black people in America and around the world." Your protestations are kinda like saying they're free to disagree, just not to act on their disagreement. You're running around in semantic circles, criticizing them for disagreeing with you while insisting you're not criticizing them for disagreeing with you. That you're willing to say they have a right to disagree does not alter the nature of your criticism.
What you can't seem to stomach is that when they exercise that right to choose and make a really disgusting choice, they are then going to be castigated for it and called some disgusting names. Well, if the shoe fits . . .
What you can't seem to stomach is that when you and others make the really disgusting choice to start the juvenile behavior of calling people disgusting names and trying to castigate them merely because they chose a political philosophy you don't like, you're going to get called on it. Or are you, Knute, Mr. Gilliard and those like you the only ones who get to comment on what may be considered disgusting behavior? Is this one of those issues where only liberals have the right to speak up?
If they can stomach being in the same party as Trent Lott and George Allen, they are either racists themselves or their anti-racist sentiment is so feeble as to be practically non-existent. In other words, if by some technicality they are not racists, they sure as hell don't seem to be all that opposed to racism either.
Gibberish. No matter what the individuals themselves may actually believe, they're racists because they're Republicans and some Republicans are racists? You look at the worst of a group, define the whole group by those worst folks, and so apply your definition to all other members of that group. It's racism by distant association, and it is a logically fallible argument. Some Democrats believe that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Some Democrats believe it does not. So which view should we ascribe to all Democrats? Some Democrats favor the "war on drugs". Some Democrats do not. Which view should we ascribe to all Democrats? How about neither one? How about letting individuals speak for themselves rather than trying to insist the mentalities of some represent the opinions of the whole?
You're either a part of the solution or you're a part of the problem.
I'll remember you said that.
<<You talk about joining with white supremacists, but the white supremacists are going to be agreeing with you that blacks should stick with their own race. >>
Something else I never said, so they can't be "agreeing with me" about it. Nice try.
Oh, right. African-Americans deciding to be Republicans is "a stab in the back to all black people in America and around the world", but you're not saying they should stick with their own race. Right. Sure. Now pull the other one.
The white supremacists of today can infiltrate the Republican Party and have done so. The smart ones work from inside the Republican Party like Lott and Allen, while only the losers talk like you think they would talk.
And your evidence for this white power movement with in the Republican party is what? Perhaps your evidence is their "seduction" of men like Steele and Swann? Those clever white supremacists, working to put black people in power just to cover up their hidden white supremacist agenda. Well, I did ask you to pull the other one.
<<You and he both tried to claim those who disagree with you were acting like Nazis, as if disagreeing with you is somehow morally evil.>>
There's another lie, again something neither one of us said. I never claimed that disagreeing with me in general was acting like a Nazi. I was quite specific about the Nazi rhetorical trick being used against us, that we, who speak out against racism, who call out a black man who goes over to the racist side, are being denounced as "racist."
One of you is confused. I did not say you claimed disagreeing with you was acting like a Nazi. I said you tried to claim those who were disagreeing with you were acting like Nazis. Which you did. In any case, your pious "we, who speak out against racism" is a real nice touch, as if you guys are the only ones who speak out against racism. Pooh yi. Perhaps you can explain why you get to call out someone who engages in behavior you find objectionable, but if some other person does it to you, then that other person is using a Nazi trick. You get to decide that those who do something you don't like "are then going to be castigated for it and called some disgusting names." But when someone decides to call you names you don't like, they're using a Nazi trick. Let's see now, what was it you said? "It's an old Nazi trick to accuse your opponents of doing exactly what you won't admit to doing yourself." Sort of like if you accuse people of racism enough times maybe no one will notice how bigoted you are? I mean, if you really want to start comparing behavior to Nazis, perhaps I should compare yours and Knute's and Mr. Gilliard's objections about African-American Republicans to Nazi objections about those who would sympathize with the Jews. How traitorous of someone to throw in with an enemy of the people, right? Isn't that what you're saying? After all, African-Americans have issues regarding which they need to stand in racial solidarity. Oh yes, I know, that comparison is completely absurd. But then, so is yours.
As if the act of denouncing racism, and traitors in the racial struggle, could ever be considered the equivalent of racism.
Traitors in the racial struggle? Maybe that comparison I made above was not so absurd after all. Anyway, what is this denouncing racism bit? As I recall what was denounced was merely African-Americans who dared to stand with Republicans. And that you claim to be denouncing racism doesn't mean your comments are not bigoted and disgusting. Frankly, insisting there is some sort of ideological solidarity that African-Americans must maintain because they're African-Americans looks racist to me. But let's say that it's not racist. You're still talking about all this in terms of "we who denounce racism" and "traitors in the racial struggle" as if you have the one and only way to fight against racism and all else is racism or support of racism. You're still judging what is an acceptable political stance for someone based on what is his or her racial ancestry. You're still using hateful language, "quisling traitors" (your words), "sell-out evil" (Knute's words), "gollums, chasing a ring you'll never have" (Mr. Gillard's words). Looking at all this hateful talk that smacks of bigotry, I'm supposed to excuse it all because somewhere you've denounced racism? No way.
I criticized the similar application of the same Nazi tactic, this time with allegations of "hatred" - - the party of war, racism, torture and militarism - - as hateful and hate-filled as any group of people can possibly be - - has the God-damn fucking gall to label opponents like me and Knute and Gilliard as "hateful" and "hate-filled."
What a lot of excrement. Most obviously, I am not Republican or a supporter of the war, torture, militarism or racism. And I am pretty sure JS is none of that as well. So even if you set aside the Republican responses, you still have people who are noticing that your comments, Mucho's comments and Mr. Gilliard's comments are hateful. And I might add, I was one of the folks arguing against the Republicans who were supporting a column by Thomas Sowell posted not that long ago. A column that I found hateful and that, if I remember correctly, JS referred to as racist in content. So this outrage of yours is nothing but one of those strawman arguments about which you keep complaining.
Turning the Republicans at the stroke of a pen into humanitarian do-gooders and benefactors of all humanity. Preposterous. Ludicrous.
Now who is doing the lying? No one sat around here lionizing the Republicans. Stop blowing smoke.
You are becoming a joke. Knute (Mucho) never said any such thing.
Perhaps you need a mirror for that plank in your eye.
Skin colour is not their whole personal identity and does not define their entire political identity, and nobody - - certainly not me, Gilliard or Knute - - ever claimed otherwise.
Sure you did. You do it every time you talk about African-American Republicans being "quisling traitors" and "a stab in the back to all black people in America and around the world."
But only a moron could claim that it forms no part of their personal identity and has no relationship to the way the political world affects and has affected them and their families and friends.
And oddly enough, no one made that argument. Hm.
Anyone who fights racism fights it on behalf of ALL its victims
Except those who choose to be Republicans, right?
Anyone who fights racism fights it on behalf of ALL its victims and anyone who turns his back on the struggle turns his back on all its victims.
There you go again, talking as if you have some sort of anti-racism gospel that is the one true way and all else is heresy. You apparently cannot or will not allow for the idea that someone might disagree with you on how to fight racism.
And that's not a good thing, but the far worse thing is not only to turn one's back on the struggle against racism, but to actually go over to the other side. To join the Trent Lotts and the George Allens in their under-the-radar fight against blacks and the other untermenschen, to actually undermine and betray that which generations of other blacks fought and died for.
Have you any proof, other than that they are Republicans, that Blackwell or Swann or any African-American Republican at all has actually engaged in this sort of anti-black behavior? Yes, I realize that the mere act of joining the Republican Party is enough for you to condemn them, but I'm a little more skeptical, and I'd like to see some evidence of all this anti-black behavior. Not that far back in this thread, JS was complaining about people claiming African-Americans who vote Democratic are voting against their best interest. He was correct to call it racist rhetoric. But you're making almost the same argument, the argument African-Americans who support the Republican Party are acting against their best interests. Hm. I wonder what sort of rhetoric that is.
He's free to do it, of course - - but everyone else is similarly free to express their scorn and contempt upon him who does.
With a position like that, don't you think you're being a tad hypocritical to complain when other express their scorn and contempt of the word of folks like you and Mr. Gilliard? Or is it only you liberals who get to express scorn and contempt?
I disagree with anyone who espouses racist ideas and policies.
What a coincidence. So do I.
If the person who espouses such ideas and policies happens to be black, I disagree with him AND I show him the particular contempt I feel for one who turns his back on his own people and joins the party of their racist enemies. Sure that's treating a black Republican different than a white Republican, but only because it would be impossible for me to say the same thing to the white - - who did he betray by becoming a racist? Certainly not his own people.
His own people? That doesn't really require further comment.
You don't get that because you claim to want to live in a colour-blind world. Nice when the day comes. But the day didn't come. The world isn't colour-blind. People who live in the real world know that. People who live in the pretend never-neverland of right-wing kook ideology look up their dictionary definitions of racism and try to fit it over anybody (except the real racists in their own party) who recognizes that a black man is not the same as a white man, particularly when considered in terms of victimhood of racism.
Bzzzz. No, but thank you for playing. You may not believe this, but I do understand exactly the notion of people making a united and unwavering stand against racism. I also fully understand the world isn't color-blind. If I didn't realize that, the asinine "close the border" arguments, the irrational anti-outsourcing arguments and the shameful Dubai Ports World ruckus would be enough to alert me to it. People who live in the pretend world of left-wing kook ideology apparently think that only liberals fight racism and anyone who disagrees with liberal thought is racist or supports racism. This is a fantasy. It would be entirely foolish to think that in a nation of 300 million people or in a world of over 6 billion people that everyone against racism is going to agree on how to fight racism.
You mentioned earlier the old adage that either you're part of the solution or part of the problem. (See, I told you I'd remember.) Seems to me that to shame people for not adhering to some sort of ideological racial purity is part of the problem, not part of the solution. In my opinion, anything that shores up racial divisions is part of the problem, not part of the solution. This doesn't mean I think you're really a racist. It does however mean that I think you're wrong. See how that works? I can disagree with you about the solution and still accept that your intentions are to fight racism.
I don't really know the definition of bigotry.
You could always try looking it up in a dictionary.
I'm not as focused on affixing labels as you seem to be.
Right. That's why you're defending calling African-American Republicans "disgusting names" like "traitor" and "Uncle Tom".
What I just said was right. If it's right, I don't give a shit what label you can fit to it. If "bigotry" fit accurately, then all I can say is, bigotry isn't as bad as I thought it was.
Spoken like a true defender of the faith. I'm sure your white supremacist pals would be proud.
3503
« on: November 09, 2006, 03:44:23 PM »
It is not condescending to understand that there have been and are racial, ethnic religious and others with situations beyond their contrl that are oppressed here
But it is condescending to speak of them as currently helpless.
I do not hate all people that disagree with me only the stupid and arrogant ones that continue to oppress and sometimes murder people either in thought or did. You can use that quote anytime you want and never forget it either.
Murder people in thought? Wow. You're hating people for thoughtcrime? Yes, indeed, I will not forget that.
There are folks that still fight blind hatred and stupidity.
Indeed. That is what I've been doing. Thanks for noticing.
3504
« on: November 09, 2006, 03:34:47 PM »
I've seen arguments in here (well, in the old fora) that implied that the majority of the African-American voters who vote for Democrats were voting against their best interests. The argument implied that the Democrats trick and decieve the African-Americans into voting for them which implies that African American voters are somehow not intelligent enough to see this alleged deception for themselves, yet a group of white right wing individuals can clearly see it for them.
I've seen arguments in 3DHS that anyone middle class voting Republican is voting against his best interests. The argument implies that Republicans deceive all manner of folks into voting for them which implies that Republican voters are some how not intelligent enough to see this deception or to think for themselves, and that Democrats were somehow smarter and better. I'm not saying this justifies the comments you're talking about, because it certainly does not. But sometimes it is hard to be motivated to condemn someone for doing something that someone else is doing to you.
And I'll say that sort of "voting against their best interests" reasoning is wrong all around. And you're right that it is subtly racist to use it about African-Americans in particular.
3505
« on: November 09, 2006, 03:22:19 PM »
Prince, you're becoming unhinged. You're rambling all over the place and it's hard to answer you concisely but I will try.
Don't patronize me. I answered you directly and clearly. Your lack of a substantive response is not my fault, and you know it. In any case, I really expected better of you.
Black people still have interests as black people in the U.S. today. The problems of racism have not all gone away. So there's a common interest they all have in fighting racism and in redressing the injustices of the past, most of which are still present today, although progress has been made.
I mostly agree with that. I'd say we all have have a common interest in fighting racism. But it is not fighting racism to insist there is some sort of racial ideology that is betrayed when someone dares to disagree. It entrenches race as a division between humans. That will never end racism.
It's a phony, straw-man issue to argue that any black man has the right to associate with any political party of his choice. No one denies that.
No, it isn't a straw man. You and Mucho and Mr. Gilliard are criticizing black men for choosing to associate with a party you don't like, and you're calling them traitors. That they have a right to chose their own political party is a valid point. By calling them traitors you have suggested that they do not have a right to choose for themselves, that they are obligated to remain Democrats, that they are to think only what you have approved for them to think as a race and any dissent is not to be tolerated. If this were not the point of the criticism, you would not call them traitors. You would call them wrong or misguided or some such. But that is not what you call them. You don't say they have come to the wrong conclusions about how to help others or about politics, you call them "Uncle Toms". You call them "quisling traitors". You are, in effect, saying that they do not have a right to decide for themselves to dissent from the liberal view or to associate with whichever political party they please. You deny they have that right every time you call them traitors or insist that they have turned their back on their race.
It's a phony straw man issue to claim that a black man has sufficient intelligence to choose the Party that he thinks best represents his interests. No one denies that.
I didn't claim anyone was denying that (though I could have), so I'm left wondering if you actually read what I said to you, or if you're just making a blanket reply because you don't want to address what I said.
The question is, what do we (Knute, Steve Gilliard, myself) think of a man who turns his back on his own people and embraces the cause of their enemies, the racists, the white supremacists, the Trent Lotts, the George Allens - - and quite frankly, we don't think much of him, and aren't shy about saying so. And if you want to call that racism and hatefulness - - I say thanks, because we needed a good laugh and we always can count on your childish rhetorical tricks and faked indignation for that.
Wow. So much stupidity there, I almost don't know where to start.
So now you're saying all Republicans are Trent Lotts and white supremacists? I'm sure folks like BT, Plane and Sirs would be interested in seeing you defend that one. What? You didn't say BT, Plane and Sirs were white supremacists? No, of course not. You merely equated the Republican Party as a whole with "the racists, the white supremacists, the Trent Lotts, the George Allens". And I would be really interested in seeing some evidence that Blackwell, Steele and Swann were embracing racism and white supremacists.
Is it hateful to say that any African-American who leaves the Democrats and joins the Republicans is embracing racists and white supremacists? To say that they are "quisling traitors" to their race? Yeah, it is. You're calling them "Uncle Toms" in the same manner that some people call them "niggers". You talk about joining with white supremacists, but the white supremacists are going to be agreeing with you that blacks should stick with their own race. They will not be agreeing with me that African-Americans should not be criticized about thinking for themselves and finding their own paths as individuals rather than as some piece of a racial collective.
Is it hateful to imply, as Mucho did, that anyone he doesn't agree with politically is oppressing and betraying African-Americans? Sure it is. You and he both tried to claim those who disagree with you were acting like Nazis, as if disagreeing with you is somehow morally evil. And you want me to believe you're not being hateful? My friend, all the "childish rhetorical tricks" are yours. As I said before, you need to take your own advice and "tone down the flaming hypocrisy."
Is it racism to claim, as you have, that people with dark skin should have their political identity defined by their skin color, by who their parents are, by their race? It sure seem racist to me. The way you and Mucho and Mr. Gilliard use language with the intent to shame any one of dark skin who dares to consider ideas other than those you have deemed acceptable for people with dark skin to think, is that racist? If it is not racist it is certainly bigoted. Your sanctimonious condemnations of those who disagree with you politically as all supporting racism certainly fits the definition of bigotry.
Faked indignation did you say? Faked? Since when are you a mind reader? Since when do you get to tell me what I feel about racism? I realize that a popular thing among liberals is to assume that they are the only ones with genuine feelings and everyone else is just callously selfish, but that is a load of horse hockey. You and I may not agree about the proper political response or the proper response of government to racism, but that doesn't mean I am not angered by racism when I see it. Nor does it mean that I do not seek to combat racism and to see it eliminated. Unlike the entrenchment of racial divisions that you seem to want, I want to see the day when skin color means nothing more than eye color or hair color. I want to see the day when words like 'interracial' disappear from the language because they no longer have any applicability. So don't you sit there and judge my response to racism as faked simply because I don't agree with you politically. You don't know me at all if you think I do not despise racism, and therefore you have no grounds to comment on the nature of my indignation.
3506
« on: November 09, 2006, 01:26:43 PM »
I hate no group that can not help its status,
Cannot help its status? Is that what you really think of African-Americans? You have a lower opinion of them than I gave you credit for. I suppose next you're going to tell me they should all be grateful for the privilege of being part of the Democratic Party.
I only hate the individuals that oppress and betray them.
Thanks for that comment. It'll come in handy later. And good for you for admitting that you're hateful toward people with whom you disagree. That is what you mean, right? The individuals who supposedly oppress and betray the African-Americans are really just the people who disagree with you, right?
3507
« on: November 09, 2006, 03:16:12 AM »
I am vaguely interested in what you think a bigot is.
A bigot is someone who is so biased toward his own group, creed, politics and/or opinions that he is intolerant of those who differ or disagree.
I am not judging these three weasels on the color of their skin , but the content of their soul which is sell-out evil.
I would ask if you were joking, but I know you're serious. You're judging them as "sell-out evil" because of the color of their skin. It is the color of their skin, their race that you claim they are selling out. You're not condemning them because they have dark skin, but because they have dark skin and dare to disagree with your politics. They have an African-American ancestry and have left the Democratic Plantation, er, the Democratic Party, and so to you they are selfish traitors to their race, as if there was some sort of ideological purity that people of dark skin had an obligation to maintain. You do not get away with acting like race is not part of your condemnation of African-American Republicans because clearly it is. If it was not, you would not be calling them sell-outs and traitors. But that is exactly what you are calling them. There is nothing about your rhetoric on the matter that is not intolerant contempt and therefore bigoted.
3508
« on: November 09, 2006, 01:30:06 AM »
I would never say any black person was not smart enough to decide for themselves.
Of course you wouldn't. But you would say that any black person who decides something other than what you like is a traitor to his race. You would call that African-American person greedy, selfish, and the next thing to Nazis and genocidal killers. So maybe you wouldn't say directly that African-Americans are not smart enough, but you're still trying to degrade any of them you don't like so you can feel morally and intellectually superior. You're a bigot. That much would be obvious even to a casual observer. Stop trying to deny it. Sheesh. Next you're going to tell me you can't be racist because some of your best friends are black.
3509
« on: November 09, 2006, 01:17:56 AM »
I'd like to ask our right wing posters to tone down the flaming hypocrisy.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That's funny. I'm watching Knute compare African-Americans who don't agree with him to genocidal killers while trying to position himself as tolerant, and you're asking the right-wing folks to "to tone down the flaming hypocrisy"? Wow.
The party of racism and bigotry - - the party of George Allen and Trent Lott - - does not have the right to accuse anyone of bigotry or racism.
I was not aware that the Republican Party itself had posted here. In fact, I'm pretty sure it hasn't.
The only blacks they ever stick up for are the tiny percentage of quisling traitors who turn their backs on their own people to seek their fortune with Whitey. Steve Gilliard and Knute were perfectly right on in calling them out on it.
That is just pure adult male bovine excrement. The racism charge is unfounded nonsense. The "quisling traitors" is bigoted nonsense. No, actually it's worse than that. It's bigoted language intended to shame any one of dark skin from daring to consider ideas other than those someone else has deemed acceptable for people with dark skin to think. If that isn't racism, seems to me it really is only a hair's breadth away.
It's an old Nazi trick to accuse your opponents of doing exactly what you won't admit to doing yourself.
Mucho, or Knute or whatever he calls himself these days, brought that up too. Interesting that you're both trying to insinuate those who don't agree with you are either traitors to their race or Nazis. Hm. Perhaps you can explain how that is tolerant and not bigoted, because I'm just not seeing it.
Just like Hitler falsely accused the Jews of aiming at world domination while he was actively planning for it himself, so the party of racism accuses its opponents of racism when those opponents go on the attack against turncoats and Uncle Toms.
Which of us is currently complaining about the political choices of people based on their skin color? That would be you, Mucho and Mr. Gilliard. And for those who disagree with that sort of thing, you're essentially calling them racists and Nazis. Hm. Seems to me you're the one accusing people of what you refuse to admit to doing yourself. So perhaps you need to consider taking your own advice and "tone down the flaming hypocrisy."
Oh - - and another thing. The "hate" issue. Anyone who fights to empower blacks, who fights against racism - - bonus points for any Republican who can accuse them of being "hate-filled." LMFAO. The party that chose war in Iraq and the death of 600,000 Iraqis is the party of "love" and its opponents, who are against war and against torture are "hate-filled" "angry" or "hateful." Blow it out your ass, guys, it doesn't work any more. (Psssst! It never did.)
That is the stupidest argument in your post. Anyone who calls Republicans "quisling traitors" to their race because they have dark skin is open to being called hateful, because the "Uncle Toms" and "traitors" bit is hateful language. Just because you say "Uncle Tom" rather than "nigger" doesn't mean you're not hateful or judging someone because of his race. In fact, few things come across to me as more patronizing than to insist that African-American Republicans have turned their backs on their race. You might not be saying that African-Americans are not allowed to think for themselves, to consider the issues and desire for themselves what they should be, but you are implying that they should not be allowed to do so. You are saying that people with dark skin should have their political identity defined by their skin color, by who their parents are, by their race, and not by being allowed to think and decide for themselves. That sure seems racist to me. And before you start telling me that you didn't actually say that, anyone who wants to tell me that the political right uses code words for racism, like "states' rights" or some such, has zero authority to insist that his words cannot be taken to have subtle implications of racism or hate. And I'm saying this as someone who has turned away from the Republican Party over the last 10 years or so, is against the war in Iraq, and is against torture. So all your stereotyping bombast intended to paint as hateful anyone not agreeing with you is wasted. If you want to defend yourself or Knute or Mr. Gilliard as not hateful, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better job.
Honestly, a "we're not hateful because you are" argument? What do you think this is? Sixth grade?
3510
« on: November 08, 2006, 07:11:13 PM »
I'd opine that any such "legislation" that the GOP might try wouldn't include the notion of raising taxes as an option. they'll leave that to the Dems to pull, and then let them explain that move to the electorate
If they can do that, I'd might not mind seeing them try. But I doubt their power to so limit the bill and get it passed before January.
Pages: 1 ... 232 233 [234] 235 236 ... 244
Show Posts
