perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
[quote name='Msut77']You toss around "far-left" (which you never bother define either) in almost every post you make. We all know what you are saying.[/QUOTE]
black people?
black people?
The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread
- Thread starter Strell
- Start date
[quote name='thrustbucket']Can you honestly look at those definitions and read news headlines the last 2 years and not think they apply more often than they did 10 years ago?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
The United States has been a socialist nation to greater and lesser degrees since the Land Ordinance of 1785. Since Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man." To argue otherwise is ridiculous nonsense.
The problem isn't with the dictionary definition of "Socialism", it's with the ridiculous connotations that you and your ilk try to make it contain. The NAZI party called themselves the "National Socialist" party not because socialists like to kill Jews and conquer Europe, but because socialism is the support and defense of all men. The word sounds good, and it fueled the movement.
Yes.
The United States has been a socialist nation to greater and lesser degrees since the Land Ordinance of 1785. Since Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man." To argue otherwise is ridiculous nonsense.
The problem isn't with the dictionary definition of "Socialism", it's with the ridiculous connotations that you and your ilk try to make it contain. The NAZI party called themselves the "National Socialist" party not because socialists like to kill Jews and conquer Europe, but because socialism is the support and defense of all men. The word sounds good, and it fueled the movement.
LOLZ...dumb cons. I can't speak for other people, but when I call someone racist, I 
ing mean it. It's you guys that don't care about being called a racist. You're the ones that make light of it. It's the dumb cons that call anyone on the left the real racists when they talk about racism. That's like saying anyone with an anti-war stance a war monger. Makes not one lick of any kind of sense. ing morons.
ing mean it. It's you guys that don't care about being called a racist. You're the ones that make light of it. It's the dumb cons that call anyone on the left the real racists when they talk about racism. That's like saying anyone with an anti-war stance a war monger. Makes not one lick of any kind of sense. ing morons.perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
Great post, really enlightening.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Say someone describes a group of "entitled" persons - pointing directly at a welfare mentality. If they picked and pointed to 10 random people on various forms of maligned public assistance (SSI, TANF, food stamps, unemployment) - not to be confused with embraced forms of public assistance like disproportionate tax cuts, removal of tax systems entirely in the case of estate taxes or capital gains taxes, tax breaks for corporations, subsidies for large corporations, etc...
Anyway, if you picked 10 random people on the kind of public assistance the republicans despise, 2 to 3 of them would be black. The vast majority of people receiving public assistance, and therefore embracing the "entitlement mentality," are whites.
So when someone posts *three* videos that is their attempt to argue (I didn't say it was a good argument, but there's no doubt it is an argument) that feature nothing but the minority group and omits a full 65-70% of all public assistance recipients...it's difficult to see that as coincidence. It certainly wasn't random selection, that's for sure, as that's mathematically impossible.
So it's one of two things:
1) thrustbucket is racist. He may not think so, and some of you may not think so. That's fine, but that's just rhetorical parrying, and not really looking at the images conveyed in the message he posted. He may not be *aware* of his being racist (and this is probably the point where the average white privilege person gets apoplectic, thinking that only overt, conscious actions are racist, and anything that lacks racist intent can not be racist; this is demonstrably untrue, as that's the very origin of the notion of stereotypes, but I digress), but that doesn't mean he isn't racist. Racism need not be overt or unintentional. Which leads me to my second point:
2) In doing a YT search, he lazily and without any scrutiny published the first three videos he found. They're up there in the search due to popularity (views), and reflect on people actively seeking out videos that satisfy their internalized racist stereotypes (black = welfare, black = lazy, black = dependent). So while there was no racist malice on thrust's part, just the laziness of someone who would prefer to quickly make a point with the help of a search engine instead of carefully make a point with thought and precision. He overlooked the racist message of these videos in collaboration with his post, because he's taken for granted in his own mind that black = welfare such that he wouldn't view it with a critical eye = that same critical eye he might have used if they were all white.
Anyway, if you picked 10 random people on the kind of public assistance the republicans despise, 2 to 3 of them would be black. The vast majority of people receiving public assistance, and therefore embracing the "entitlement mentality," are whites.
So when someone posts *three* videos that is their attempt to argue (I didn't say it was a good argument, but there's no doubt it is an argument) that feature nothing but the minority group and omits a full 65-70% of all public assistance recipients...it's difficult to see that as coincidence. It certainly wasn't random selection, that's for sure, as that's mathematically impossible.
So it's one of two things:
1) thrustbucket is racist. He may not think so, and some of you may not think so. That's fine, but that's just rhetorical parrying, and not really looking at the images conveyed in the message he posted. He may not be *aware* of his being racist (and this is probably the point where the average white privilege person gets apoplectic, thinking that only overt, conscious actions are racist, and anything that lacks racist intent can not be racist; this is demonstrably untrue, as that's the very origin of the notion of stereotypes, but I digress), but that doesn't mean he isn't racist. Racism need not be overt or unintentional. Which leads me to my second point:
2) In doing a YT search, he lazily and without any scrutiny published the first three videos he found. They're up there in the search due to popularity (views), and reflect on people actively seeking out videos that satisfy their internalized racist stereotypes (black = welfare, black = lazy, black = dependent). So while there was no racist malice on thrust's part, just the laziness of someone who would prefer to quickly make a point with the help of a search engine instead of carefully make a point with thought and precision. He overlooked the racist message of these videos in collaboration with his post, because he's taken for granted in his own mind that black = welfare such that he wouldn't view it with a critical eye = that same critical eye he might have used if they were all white.
Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism but at least it's an ethos...
While I only got through about a page and a half of that pizza article, one thing really stands out to me in the notion of quality vs simplicity. The US has decided to add more and more simplicity to everything (assembly line, fast food, etc...) and it's actually ended up creating even more complexity in the long run. Now we need giant corporate farms whose bottom line isn't as dependent on quality as it is quantity since they can just add preservatives and such to the food to help it keep longer. For some reason it's cheaper to add chemicals later on than to just grow and produce in a sustainable fashion. Then you get your BK & McDonald's where I'm more than sure that some
While I only got through about a page and a half of that pizza article, one thing really stands out to me in the notion of quality vs simplicity. The US has decided to add more and more simplicity to everything (assembly line, fast food, etc...) and it's actually ended up creating even more complexity in the long run. Now we need giant corporate farms whose bottom line isn't as dependent on quality as it is quantity since they can just add preservatives and such to the food to help it keep longer. For some reason it's cheaper to add chemicals later on than to just grow and produce in a sustainable fashion. Then you get your BK & McDonald's where I'm more than sure that some
Last edited by a moderator:
I love that defense.
"There are soooo many more white people on welfare than other minorities"
Then two posts later
"whites have it so much better than any other class. They are the rich entitled ones out of the races. We need to knock them down a notch so that the impoverished minorities can be given that chance exclusivly"
"There are soooo many more white people on welfare than other minorities"
Then two posts later
"whites have it so much better than any other class. They are the rich entitled ones out of the races. We need to knock them down a notch so that the impoverished minorities can be given that chance exclusivly"
[quote name='nasum']Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism but at least it's an ethos...
While I only got through about a page and a half of that pizza article, one thing really stands out to me in the notion of quality vs simplicity. The US has decided to add more and more simplicity to everything (assembly line, fast food, etc...) and it's actually ended up creating even more complexity in the long run. Now we need giant corporate farms whose bottom line isn't as dependent on quality as it is quantity since they can just add preservatives and such to the food to help it keep longer. For some reason it's cheaper to add chemicals later on than to just grow and produce in a sustainable fashion. Then you get your BK & McDonald's where I'm more than sure that some
While I only got through about a page and a half of that pizza article, one thing really stands out to me in the notion of quality vs simplicity. The US has decided to add more and more simplicity to everything (assembly line, fast food, etc...) and it's actually ended up creating even more complexity in the long run. Now we need giant corporate farms whose bottom line isn't as dependent on quality as it is quantity since they can just add preservatives and such to the food to help it keep longer. For some reason it's cheaper to add chemicals later on than to just grow and produce in a sustainable fashion. Then you get your BK & McDonald's where I'm more than sure that some
[quote name='dohdough']You're confusing simplicity with profitability.[/QUOTE]
Chicken or the egg really.
[quote name='dohdough']I believe we may have a breakthrough here. You are essentially correct in this accessment. Racism isn't just an act, its an entire system based on control/oppression/supremacy based on race/colorism. As we are all parts of the system, we are all socialized, to a certain extent, to function within it's cultural framework. To put it simply: racism is engrained in our laws and our culture. It is/was the modus operandi for how everything is structured for hundreds of years. Just because there's a Civil Rights Act doesn't that there aren't ways around it or other ways to reinforce the status quo.[/QUOTE]
So what purpose does it serve to yell at all of us here on the board?
it, who wants pancakes?
Chicken or the egg really.
[quote name='dohdough']I believe we may have a breakthrough here. You are essentially correct in this accessment. Racism isn't just an act, its an entire system based on control/oppression/supremacy based on race/colorism. As we are all parts of the system, we are all socialized, to a certain extent, to function within it's cultural framework. To put it simply: racism is engrained in our laws and our culture. It is/was the modus operandi for how everything is structured for hundreds of years. Just because there's a Civil Rights Act doesn't that there aren't ways around it or other ways to reinforce the status quo.[/QUOTE]
So what purpose does it serve to yell at all of us here on the board?
it, who wants pancakes?[quote name='Knoell']I love that defense.
"There are soooo many more white people on welfare than other minorities"
Then two posts later
"whites have it so much better than any other class. They are the rich entitled ones out of the races. We need to knock them down a notch so that the impoverished minorities can be given that chance exclusivly"[/QUOTE]
No. You are, unsurprisingly, incorrect in your assessment. Not only are you incorrect, but you completely brush aside any programs that were literally and virtually gone to whites even within the last 100 years. Do you know what that means? It means that people of color were purposely kept impoverished so that whites could be given a chance exclusively.
And no one is saying that we should abandon poor whites to their poverty. People are saying that we need specific programs specifically targeted to people of color to deal with their unique circumstances.
Here's a cartoon to illustrate my point
So not only to you totally miss the mark, but you don't know enough about the issues to even use it's concepts correctly. I can't wait to see your mental diarrhea of a reply.
"There are soooo many more white people on welfare than other minorities"
Then two posts later
"whites have it so much better than any other class. They are the rich entitled ones out of the races. We need to knock them down a notch so that the impoverished minorities can be given that chance exclusivly"[/QUOTE]
No. You are, unsurprisingly, incorrect in your assessment. Not only are you incorrect, but you completely brush aside any programs that were literally and virtually gone to whites even within the last 100 years. Do you know what that means? It means that people of color were purposely kept impoverished so that whites could be given a chance exclusively.
And no one is saying that we should abandon poor whites to their poverty. People are saying that we need specific programs specifically targeted to people of color to deal with their unique circumstances.
Here's a cartoon to illustrate my point
So not only to you totally miss the mark, but you don't know enough about the issues to even use it's concepts correctly. I can't wait to see your mental diarrhea of a reply.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='nasum']Myke:
"anything that lacks racist intent can not be racist; this is demonstrably untrue"
There's a problem with this statement that is at the core of why you're so wrong. If this statement is the case, you're essentially saying that there's no way for anyone to not be racist.[/QUOTE]
keep going, i'm not sold on this argument yet.
"anything that lacks racist intent can not be racist; this is demonstrably untrue"
There's a problem with this statement that is at the core of why you're so wrong. If this statement is the case, you're essentially saying that there's no way for anyone to not be racist.[/QUOTE]
keep going, i'm not sold on this argument yet.
Nigeria: Dick Cheney To Be Charged Over Alleged Bribery Case
First Posted: 12- 2-10 10:37 AM | Updated: 12- 2-10 01:26 PM
Nigerian authorities will charge former Vice President Dick Cheney over a bribery scandal that is alleged to involve Halliburton, BusinessWeek reports. An arrest warrant "will be issued and transmitted through Interpol," said Godwin Obla, the prosecuting counsel at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in Nigeria.
The charges center on an alleged $180 million bribery payment used to secure a $6 billion liquefied natural gas contract. Prosecutors are also looking into international companies Saipem and Technip. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, before becoming George W. Bush's running mate. "As the CEO of Halliburton, he has the responsibility for acts that occurred during that period," Obla told the AFP.
Nigeria arrested 12 employees of Halliburton earlier in the week, reports Reuters. The firm's offices in Nigeria were raided by anti-corruption police, although the company said that the detentions "had no legal basis and that its employees had since been freed."
Nigeria's Guardian newspaper reported that charges against Cheney were confirmed by the government and included "criminal conspiracy."
Kepping it classy as always
First Posted: 12- 2-10 10:37 AM | Updated: 12- 2-10 01:26 PM
Nigerian authorities will charge former Vice President Dick Cheney over a bribery scandal that is alleged to involve Halliburton, BusinessWeek reports. An arrest warrant "will be issued and transmitted through Interpol," said Godwin Obla, the prosecuting counsel at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in Nigeria.
The charges center on an alleged $180 million bribery payment used to secure a $6 billion liquefied natural gas contract. Prosecutors are also looking into international companies Saipem and Technip. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, before becoming George W. Bush's running mate. "As the CEO of Halliburton, he has the responsibility for acts that occurred during that period," Obla told the AFP.
Nigeria arrested 12 employees of Halliburton earlier in the week, reports Reuters. The firm's offices in Nigeria were raided by anti-corruption police, although the company said that the detentions "had no legal basis and that its employees had since been freed."
Nigeria's Guardian newspaper reported that charges against Cheney were confirmed by the government and included "criminal conspiracy."
Kepping it classy as always
[quote name='nasum']Chicken or the egg really.[/quote]
Actually it isn't. Is it simpler for a farmer to grow some tomatoes on a small plot of land or is it simpler for a multinational to have genetically engineered tomatoes on huge farms considering the infrastructure needed.
Btw, the chicken or the egg is a dead analogy. The egg always comes first. The thing that laid it was something that was almost a chicken, but not quite one. Evolution ftw.
Oh, and I hate pancakes.
Actually it isn't. Is it simpler for a farmer to grow some tomatoes on a small plot of land or is it simpler for a multinational to have genetically engineered tomatoes on huge farms considering the infrastructure needed.
Btw, the chicken or the egg is a dead analogy. The egg always comes first. The thing that laid it was something that was almost a chicken, but not quite one. Evolution ftw.
I'm not going to coddle someone that plays dumb, I'm going to hound them like they deserve for their disingenousness and intellectual dishonesty.So what purpose does it serve to yell at all of us here on the board?
Oh, and I hate pancakes.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
leave pancakes out of this, they're the best.
[quote name='mykevermin']keep going, i'm not sold on this argument yet.[/QUOTE]
Let's take Thrust out of the equation since you're not a fan and just use John Doe for example. How does John go about conducting his daily affairs in a way that isn't racist, if his intent in life is to just go about his business? You've stated that John's actions, even if devoid of racist intent, would still be racist even if completely unconscious to him. Dohdough then chimes in that society itself is racist and since we're social and part of society we're all racist.
So John Doe, a member of a racist society, is just walking his dog, eating his breakfast, going to work, coming home, watching some porn, etc... At what point is he forced to be racist in any of this? He's got his modest income of "average blue collar dude", he's married, has two kids a mortgage and bills to pay. He's in no position of power, just some random average dude that punches the clock and maybe gets a christmas bonus every three years or so. Why is he racist because of this if he's racist even without intent? More importantly, how would you say he go about being demonstrably NOT racist?
Let's take Thrust out of the equation since you're not a fan and just use John Doe for example. How does John go about conducting his daily affairs in a way that isn't racist, if his intent in life is to just go about his business? You've stated that John's actions, even if devoid of racist intent, would still be racist even if completely unconscious to him. Dohdough then chimes in that society itself is racist and since we're social and part of society we're all racist.
So John Doe, a member of a racist society, is just walking his dog, eating his breakfast, going to work, coming home, watching some porn, etc... At what point is he forced to be racist in any of this? He's got his modest income of "average blue collar dude", he's married, has two kids a mortgage and bills to pay. He's in no position of power, just some random average dude that punches the clock and maybe gets a christmas bonus every three years or so. Why is he racist because of this if he's racist even without intent? More importantly, how would you say he go about being demonstrably NOT racist?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Good questions - I'm busy and must run off until late tonight, but I will address them at some point. Because that's how I do.
[quote name='nasum']Let's take Thrust out of the equation since you're not a fan and just use John Doe for example. How does John go about conducting his daily affairs in a way that isn't racist, if his intent in life is to just go about his business? You've stated that John's actions, even if devoid of racist intent, would still be racist even if completely unconscious to him. Dohdough then chimes in that society itself is racist and since we're social and part of society we're all racist.
So John Doe, a member of a racist society, is just walking his dog, eating his breakfast, going to work, coming home, watching some porn, etc... At what point is he forced to be racist in any of this? He's got his modest income of "average blue collar dude", he's married, has two kids a mortgage and bills to pay. He's in no position of power, just some random average dude that punches the clock and maybe gets a christmas bonus every three years or so. Why is he racist because of this if he's racist even without intent? More importantly, how would you say he go about being demonstrably NOT racist?[/QUOTE]
A person is more than their job or some mindless person in a family unit, they're social creatures in a social environment that interacts within a culture. You're still operating on the premise that one needs actively seek to be racist and overtly be oppressive. On a certain level, that's true, but we're not at that stage where we can discuss white denial...yet anyways. So we'll operate on the premise that some people are ignorant of the unconcious biases each of us holds.
That said, how is seemingly non-racist Joe Whitey not racist due to working a blue collar job and having a family with two kids? Those in themselves are innocuous and almost meaningless examples. Tell me more about this innocuous non-racist Joe Whitey.
Either way, you gave a disingenuous example. How about you tell us how racist he isn't. You obviously have an idea of what inequity and racism is or else you wouldn't have avoided giving descriptions that we could construe as racist. Hell David Duke clocked in at a job at one point and has a family too. Based on those two pieces of information, you can't conclude shit.
So John Doe, a member of a racist society, is just walking his dog, eating his breakfast, going to work, coming home, watching some porn, etc... At what point is he forced to be racist in any of this? He's got his modest income of "average blue collar dude", he's married, has two kids a mortgage and bills to pay. He's in no position of power, just some random average dude that punches the clock and maybe gets a christmas bonus every three years or so. Why is he racist because of this if he's racist even without intent? More importantly, how would you say he go about being demonstrably NOT racist?[/QUOTE]
A person is more than their job or some mindless person in a family unit, they're social creatures in a social environment that interacts within a culture. You're still operating on the premise that one needs actively seek to be racist and overtly be oppressive. On a certain level, that's true, but we're not at that stage where we can discuss white denial...yet anyways. So we'll operate on the premise that some people are ignorant of the unconcious biases each of us holds.
That said, how is seemingly non-racist Joe Whitey not racist due to working a blue collar job and having a family with two kids? Those in themselves are innocuous and almost meaningless examples. Tell me more about this innocuous non-racist Joe Whitey.
Either way, you gave a disingenuous example. How about you tell us how racist he isn't. You obviously have an idea of what inequity and racism is or else you wouldn't have avoided giving descriptions that we could construe as racist. Hell David Duke clocked in at a job at one point and has a family too. Based on those two pieces of information, you can't conclude shit.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='nasum']Let's take Thrust out of the equation since you're not a fan and just use John Doe for example. How does John go about conducting his daily affairs in a way that isn't racist, if his intent in life is to just go about his business? You've stated that John's actions, even if devoid of racist intent, would still be racist even if completely unconscious to him. Dohdough then chimes in that society itself is racist and since we're social and part of society we're all racist.
So John Doe, a member of a racist society, is just walking his dog, eating his breakfast, going to work, coming home, watching some porn, etc... At what point is he forced to be racist in any of this? He's got his modest income of "average blue collar dude", he's married, has two kids a mortgage and bills to pay. He's in no position of power, just some random average dude that punches the clock and maybe gets a christmas bonus every three years or so. Why is he racist because of this if he's racist even without intent? More importantly, how would you say he go about being demonstrably NOT racist?[/QUOTE]
You could argue that anyone in the middle class is a position of power. Average middle class workers were responsible for Republicans taking the House last month. Together, they refuted the "liberal agenda." Ask an average middle class worker what the liberal agenda is and they'll probably tell you, "Legalize gay marriage, abortions on demand, amnesty for 'spanics, and reparations for Blacks."
How does he prove himself not to be racist? Actually picking up a book that isn't fantasy football or video game related. Taking a drive through the hood instead of actively avoiding anything that might be uncomfortable. Maybe then he'll find out that a tank of gas is always a few pennies more.
Oh, never mind. You're not going to read this anyway. Rich, white, Christians (of any party) don't want poor coloreds to succeed because there's no money in it unless you're selling designer gear, jewelry, car stereos, or overpriced cell phones
So John Doe, a member of a racist society, is just walking his dog, eating his breakfast, going to work, coming home, watching some porn, etc... At what point is he forced to be racist in any of this? He's got his modest income of "average blue collar dude", he's married, has two kids a mortgage and bills to pay. He's in no position of power, just some random average dude that punches the clock and maybe gets a christmas bonus every three years or so. Why is he racist because of this if he's racist even without intent? More importantly, how would you say he go about being demonstrably NOT racist?[/QUOTE]
You could argue that anyone in the middle class is a position of power. Average middle class workers were responsible for Republicans taking the House last month. Together, they refuted the "liberal agenda." Ask an average middle class worker what the liberal agenda is and they'll probably tell you, "Legalize gay marriage, abortions on demand, amnesty for 'spanics, and reparations for Blacks."
How does he prove himself not to be racist? Actually picking up a book that isn't fantasy football or video game related. Taking a drive through the hood instead of actively avoiding anything that might be uncomfortable. Maybe then he'll find out that a tank of gas is always a few pennies more.
Oh, never mind. You're not going to read this anyway. Rich, white, Christians (of any party) don't want poor coloreds to succeed because there's no money in it unless you're selling designer gear, jewelry, car stereos, or overpriced cell phones
[quote name='depascal22']You could argue that anyone in the middle class is a position of power. Average middle class workers were responsible for Republicans taking the House last month. Together, they refuted the "liberal agenda." Ask an average middle class worker what the liberal agenda is and they'll probably tell you, "Legalize gay marriage, abortions on demand, amnesty for 'spanics, and reparations for Blacks."
How does he prove himself not to be racist? Actually picking up a book that isn't fantasy football or video game related. Taking a drive through the hood instead of actively avoiding anything that might be uncomfortable. Maybe then he'll find out that a tank of gas is always a few pennies more.
Oh, never mind. You're not going to read this anyway. Rich, white, Christians (of any party) don't want poor coloreds to succeed because there's no money in it unless you're selling designer gear, jewelry, car stereos, or overpriced cell phones[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...and now you have restored balance to the force!
I was weaksauce with my last post.
How does he prove himself not to be racist? Actually picking up a book that isn't fantasy football or video game related. Taking a drive through the hood instead of actively avoiding anything that might be uncomfortable. Maybe then he'll find out that a tank of gas is always a few pennies more.
Oh, never mind. You're not going to read this anyway. Rich, white, Christians (of any party) don't want poor coloreds to succeed because there's no money in it unless you're selling designer gear, jewelry, car stereos, or overpriced cell phones[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...and now you have restored balance to the force!
I was weaksauce with my last post.
There is the argument that racism as a concept is a completely natural thing. That to some degree it is inherent in all of us, we just have to consciously fight against our baser instincts. That goes deeper than sociological factors and more into psychology I suppose.
Anyway, on another note: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...ires-back-at-mccains-dont-ask-criticism/print
Anyway, on another note: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...ires-back-at-mccains-dont-ask-criticism/print
Keep classing the joint up Johnny.
[quote name='dohdough']No. You are, unsurprisingly, incorrect in your assessment. Not only are you incorrect, but you completely brush aside any programs that were literally and virtually gone to whites even within the last 100 years. Do you know what that means? It means that people of color were purposely kept impoverished so that whites could be given a chance exclusively.
And no one is saying that we should abandon poor whites to their poverty. People are saying that we need specific programs specifically targeted to people of color to deal with their unique circumstances.
Here's a cartoon to illustrate my point
So not only to you totally miss the mark, but you don't know enough about the issues to even use it's concepts correctly. I can't wait to see your mental diarrhea of a reply.[/QUOTE]
That cartoon just goes to show how ignorant you are, that you only see black versus white, not just plain old people.
The cartoon should go more like this.
Right after the 3rd frame it says "some time later" and the white person is back on the ground, and the black person is climbing up on a minorities only ladder. I mean geez you just said that there are a lot of impoverished white people and yet they are a step above black people in your cartoon.
Well....it should go like that if you are willing to deal in the absolutes of saying if you are white you had your chance, and if your black you are owed your chance. Which is exactly what you consistantly say on this forum.
And no one is saying that we should abandon poor whites to their poverty. People are saying that we need specific programs specifically targeted to people of color to deal with their unique circumstances.
Here's a cartoon to illustrate my point
So not only to you totally miss the mark, but you don't know enough about the issues to even use it's concepts correctly. I can't wait to see your mental diarrhea of a reply.[/QUOTE]
That cartoon just goes to show how ignorant you are, that you only see black versus white, not just plain old people.
The cartoon should go more like this.
Right after the 3rd frame it says "some time later" and the white person is back on the ground, and the black person is climbing up on a minorities only ladder. I mean geez you just said that there are a lot of impoverished white people and yet they are a step above black people in your cartoon.
Well....it should go like that if you are willing to deal in the absolutes of saying if you are white you had your chance, and if your black you are owed your chance. Which is exactly what you consistantly say on this forum.
in McCain's defense, he may be completely senile at this point...
depascal22:
I meant more along the lines of hiring power or anything to that effect within John Doe's employ.
When you use a loaded term like "liberal agenda" then you're going to get a dumbass Rush/Beck approved response. You're basically goading your audience at that point.
I fail to see what reading books has to do with not being racist, unless you get into specific authors. I mean hell, I'm apparently honkey #1 round these parts and I read far more than the average person. Just not what you apparently want me to read. But hey, give me something and if my library has it I'll hand you a book report.
Going through the hood, well what purpose does that serve? I'm still crowned in a pointy hat and have bedsheets on even though my practice space is in SW Minneapolis where I am most certainly a minority. Gas is a bit more? I just checked www.twincitiesgasprices.com and lo and behold but the most expensive gas in town is in my cushy western suburb! Your ghetto gas is currently as much as thirty cents less per gallon, looks like I even have enough to buy a burrito while I'm there!
What about rich white atheists/satanists/jews/catholics/southern baptists/etc...? Or is it just the rich and white part that you're so concerned about? And if so, does not that make you just as racist as me?
depascal22:
I meant more along the lines of hiring power or anything to that effect within John Doe's employ.
When you use a loaded term like "liberal agenda" then you're going to get a dumbass Rush/Beck approved response. You're basically goading your audience at that point.
I fail to see what reading books has to do with not being racist, unless you get into specific authors. I mean hell, I'm apparently honkey #1 round these parts and I read far more than the average person. Just not what you apparently want me to read. But hey, give me something and if my library has it I'll hand you a book report.
Going through the hood, well what purpose does that serve? I'm still crowned in a pointy hat and have bedsheets on even though my practice space is in SW Minneapolis where I am most certainly a minority. Gas is a bit more? I just checked www.twincitiesgasprices.com and lo and behold but the most expensive gas in town is in my cushy western suburb! Your ghetto gas is currently as much as thirty cents less per gallon, looks like I even have enough to buy a burrito while I'm there!
What about rich white atheists/satanists/jews/catholics/southern baptists/etc...? Or is it just the rich and white part that you're so concerned about? And if so, does not that make you just as racist as me?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03cong.html
Extending middle class tax cuts is supported by a huge majority of people. Yet 168 Republicans voted against extending middle class tax cuts.
Why? Who the
knows. Whatever. Stay classy.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
What the heck got moderated? BTW this thread kept me occupied at work today for quite some time. I can't post there though because I am pretty sure they have key loggers.
I think Myke was saying that ignorance of white privilege is discreet racism, but still racism.
I think Myke was saying that ignorance of white privilege is discreet racism, but still racism.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']Actually it isn't. Is it simpler for a farmer to grow some tomatoes on a small plot of land or is it simpler for a multinational to have genetically engineered tomatoes on huge farms considering the infrastructure needed.
Btw, the chicken or the egg is a dead analogy. The egg always comes first. The thing that laid it was something that was almost a chicken, but not quite one. Evolution ftw.
I'm not going to coddle someone that plays dumb, I'm going to hound them like they deserve for their disingenousness and intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, and I hate pancakes.[/QUOTE]
Bull, everyone know the chicken came first, or at least that is what science says.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Btw, the chicken or the egg is a dead analogy. The egg always comes first. The thing that laid it was something that was almost a chicken, but not quite one. Evolution ftw.
I'm not going to coddle someone that plays dumb, I'm going to hound them like they deserve for their disingenousness and intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, and I hate pancakes.
[/QUOTE]Bull, everyone know the chicken came first, or at least that is what science says.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/
[quote name='IRHari']http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03cong.html
Extending middle class tax cuts is supported by a huge majority of people. Yet 168 Republicans voted against extending middle class tax cuts.
Why? Who the knows. Whatever. Stay classy.[/QUOTE]
We already had a topic on here where it was decided that politicians shouldn't vote based solely on the will of the people, but on what they think is best for the country. Has this changed already?
Extending middle class tax cuts is supported by a huge majority of people. Yet 168 Republicans voted against extending middle class tax cuts.
Why? Who the
knows. Whatever. Stay classy.[/QUOTE]We already had a topic on here where it was decided that politicians shouldn't vote based solely on the will of the people, but on what they think is best for the country. Has this changed already?
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='IRHari']http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03cong.html
Extending middle class tax cuts is supported by a huge majority of people. Yet 168 Republicans voted against extending middle class tax cuts.
Why? Who the knows. Whatever. Stay classy.[/QUOTE]
40 percent of people want them extended to all, while 44 want them extended only to the middle class. Republicans know that the 40 is coming all from their side of the aisle, and as many in the US want, they are merely listening to their constituency. You can't fault a politician for listening to the will of the people can you?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/144989/Vast-Majority-Wants-Aspect-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Extended.aspx
Edit- Had not read bob's post when I posted.
Extending middle class tax cuts is supported by a huge majority of people. Yet 168 Republicans voted against extending middle class tax cuts.
Why? Who the
knows. Whatever. Stay classy.[/QUOTE]40 percent of people want them extended to all, while 44 want them extended only to the middle class. Republicans know that the 40 is coming all from their side of the aisle, and as many in the US want, they are merely listening to their constituency. You can't fault a politician for listening to the will of the people can you?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/144989/Vast-Majority-Wants-Aspect-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Extended.aspx
Edit- Had not read bob's post when I posted.
[quote name='UncleBob']We already had a topic on here where it was decided that politicians shouldn't vote based solely on the will of the people, but on what they think is best for the country. Has this changed already?[/QUOTE]
No, you're right it hasn't changed. I should have said that almost all Democratic politicians and Republican politicians agree that middle class tax cuts should be in place permanently, and they should act on the thing they all agree on. Sorry about that, I still believe what you just said.
You'd think they'd vote on something both parties generally agree on. Vote to extend middle class tax cuts, then if you really want to, extend rich people's taxes later on.
No, you're right it hasn't changed. I should have said that almost all Democratic politicians and Republican politicians agree that middle class tax cuts should be in place permanently, and they should act on the thing they all agree on. Sorry about that, I still believe what you just said.
You'd think they'd vote on something both parties generally agree on. Vote to extend middle class tax cuts, then if you really want to, extend rich people's taxes later on.
[quote name='IRHari']http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03cong.html
Extending middle class tax cuts is supported by a huge majority of people. Yet 168 Republicans voted against extending middle class tax cuts.
Why? Who the knows. Whatever. Stay classy.[/QUOTE]
Have to get that tax break for the 1.5% of households on the top! Who cares if they have to over everybody to get it, they deserve it.
Extending middle class tax cuts is supported by a huge majority of people. Yet 168 Republicans voted against extending middle class tax cuts.
Why? Who the
knows. Whatever. Stay classy.[/QUOTE]Have to get that tax break for the 1.5% of households on the top! Who cares if they have to
over everybody to get it, they deserve it.[quote name='Knoell']That cartoon just goes to show how ignorant you are, that you only see black versus white, not just plain old people.
The cartoon should go more like this.
Right after the 3rd frame it says "some time later" and the white person is back on the ground, and the black person is climbing up on a minorities only ladder. I mean geez you just said that there are a lot of impoverished white people and yet they are a step above black people in your cartoon.
Well....it should go like that if you are willing to deal in the absolutes of saying if you are white you had your chance, and if your black you are owed your chance. Which is exactly what you consistantly say on this forum.[/QUOTE]
Look you simpleton, whites on average still have it better than people of color within the same socio-economic class. Why the are you focused on a minorities only ladder anyways? Did you somehow forget the multiple hi-speed double-wide escalators for white people right next to it?
The cartoon should go more like this.
Right after the 3rd frame it says "some time later" and the white person is back on the ground, and the black person is climbing up on a minorities only ladder. I mean geez you just said that there are a lot of impoverished white people and yet they are a step above black people in your cartoon.
Well....it should go like that if you are willing to deal in the absolutes of saying if you are white you had your chance, and if your black you are owed your chance. Which is exactly what you consistantly say on this forum.[/QUOTE]
Look you simpleton, whites on average still have it better than people of color within the same socio-economic class. Why the
are you focused on a minorities only ladder anyways? Did you somehow forget the multiple hi-speed double-wide escalators for white people right next to it?[quote name='IRHari']No, you're right it hasn't changed. I should have said that almost all Democratic politicians and Republican politicians agree that middle class tax cuts should be in place permanently, and they should act on the thing they all agree on. Sorry about that, I still believe what you just said.
You'd think they'd vote on something both parties generally agree on. Vote to extend middle class tax cuts, then if you really want to, extend rich people's taxes later on.[/QUOTE]
I think if we look at this honestly and realistically, what you propose will NEVER happen. The only way the extension for everyone's tax cuts will pass if it's tied to everyone's tax cuts at the same time.
You'd think they'd vote on something both parties generally agree on. Vote to extend middle class tax cuts, then if you really want to, extend rich people's taxes later on.[/QUOTE]
I think if we look at this honestly and realistically, what you propose will NEVER happen. The only way the extension for everyone's tax cuts will pass if it's tied to everyone's tax cuts at the same time.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']I think if we look at this honestly and realistically, what you propose will NEVER happen. The only way the extension for everyone's tax cuts will pass if it's tied to everyone's tax cuts at the same time.[/QUOTE]
Due to the Republican controlled congress? What you say is the odds-on favorite, but it's not a done deal.
Due to the Republican controlled congress? What you say is the odds-on favorite, but it's not a done deal.
[quote name='UncleBob']I think if we look at this honestly and realistically, what you propose will NEVER happen. The only way the extension for everyone's tax cuts will pass if it's tied to everyone's tax cuts at the same time.[/QUOTE]
Yeah you're probably right. The argument that Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage in order to get tax cuts for rich people is pretty much coming to fruition.
Remember Democrats need Republicans (2 at least, I believe) to pass what the House passed, since it's almost guaranteed Republicans will filibuster middle class tax cuts.
Yeah you're probably right. The argument that Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage in order to get tax cuts for rich people is pretty much coming to fruition.
Remember Democrats need Republicans (2 at least, I believe) to pass what the House passed, since it's almost guaranteed Republicans will filibuster middle class tax cuts.
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah you're probably right. The argument that Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage in order to get tax cuts for rich people is pretty much coming to fruition.[/QUOTE]
Of course, it all depends on what side of the aisle you're on. You could say that Democrats are screwing over the middle class on principle alone.
Of course, it all depends on what side of the aisle you're on. You could say that Democrats are screwing over the middle class on principle alone.
[quote name='dohdough']Look you simpleton, whites on average still have it better than people of color within the same socio-economic class. Why the are you focused on a minorities only ladder anyways? Did you somehow forget the multiple hi-speed double-wide escalators for white people right next to it?[/QUOTE]
So white people who are impoverished should be denied help because they have it slightly better in their class than black people? Of which according to you guys is an unacceptable standard of living for anyone. White people have double wide escalators yet you consistantly point out that it is impossible for anyone to move up in the US.
Let's put your arguments together.
Black people have it worse than white people.
Black people on welfare is too stereotypical and racist to depict at all.
More white people are on welfare than other minorities.
You despise the fact that an entire race of people were denied social programs to help them while another race utilized them.
You encourage the fact that an entire race of people should be denied particular programs because of their skin color.
are you focused on a minorities only ladder anyways? Did you somehow forget the multiple hi-speed double-wide escalators for white people right next to it?[/QUOTE]So white people who are impoverished should be denied help because they have it slightly better in their class than black people? Of which according to you guys is an unacceptable standard of living for anyone. White people have double wide escalators yet you consistantly point out that it is impossible for anyone to move up in the US.
Let's put your arguments together.
Black people have it worse than white people.
Black people on welfare is too stereotypical and racist to depict at all.
More white people are on welfare than other minorities.
You despise the fact that an entire race of people were denied social programs to help them while another race utilized them.
You encourage the fact that an entire race of people should be denied particular programs because of their skin color.
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah you're probably right. The argument that Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts hostage in order to get tax cuts for rich people is pretty much coming to fruition.
Remember Democrats need Republicans (2 at least, I believe) to pass what the House passed, since it's almost guaranteed Republicans will filibuster middle class tax cuts.[/QUOTE]
The Republicans will stick it to the kind of rich to help out the really rich.
Although they are threatening shutting down everything if they don't get what they want.
Because a tax policy that has been in place for almost 10 years is now the key to recovery.
The Congressional Republicans are just lying at this point.
As for anyone who actually believes such utter crap one must question whether their mothers smocked crack while riding a mechanical bull during their gestation period.
Remember Democrats need Republicans (2 at least, I believe) to pass what the House passed, since it's almost guaranteed Republicans will filibuster middle class tax cuts.[/QUOTE]
The Republicans will stick it to the kind of rich to help out the really rich.
Although they are threatening shutting down everything if they don't get what they want.
Because a tax policy that has been in place for almost 10 years is now the key to recovery.
The Congressional Republicans are just lying at this point.
As for anyone who actually believes such utter crap one must question whether their mothers smocked crack while riding a mechanical bull during their gestation period.
[quote name='UncleBob']Refusing to compromise on a bill that includes middle class tax cuts. making the current Bush tax cuts permanent for the top 1.5% (what happened to the whole cut the deficit thing? oh that's right we'll do that by cutting things that help lazy minority leeches the poor and middle class.)[/QUOTE]
fixed for reality
fixed for reality
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Refusing to compromise, in this case, is fiscal responsibility.
Again, the question so many on the right are afraid of with regard to this bill: are you more concerned about tax cuts for a minority of the population, or balancing the budget?
Again, the question so many on the right are afraid of with regard to this bill: are you more concerned about tax cuts for a minority of the population, or balancing the budget?
[quote name='mykevermin']Refusing to compromise, in this case, is fiscal responsibility.
Again, the question so many on the right are afraid of with regard to this bill: are you more concerned about tax cuts for a minority of the population, or balancing the budget?[/QUOTE]
If the concern is only in regard to a balanced budget, then shouldn't *all* tax cuts be off the table?
Again, the question so many on the right are afraid of with regard to this bill: are you more concerned about tax cuts for a minority of the population, or balancing the budget?[/QUOTE]
If the concern is only in regard to a balanced budget, then shouldn't *all* tax cuts be off the table?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
fiscal responsibility was the mantle of *one* party that ran this year. that's why I bring it up.
there's zero disagreement on extending the tax cuts for 98.5% of the nation's earners. the remaining tax cuts are the source of contention - the party that did not run on 'fiscal responsibility' is against extending them, and the party that insisted spending was 'out of control' wants to continue them.
your team is up to bat, hombre. i know I can't expect a straight answer out of you, as you hemmed and hawed at a softball question the other day, refusing to admit you'd prefer the higher wages and benefits of being a Costco employee if given the opportunity over your current gig, so I don't expect a straight answer out of you here - but I do simply want to point out that it is your side that wants to add another $30 Billion - an unnecessary $30 Billion - to the deficit.
Seriously; you're so devoid of dignity you couldn't even answer a question about "hey, if you were offered the same job you have now, but with better pay and benefits." That's quite telling about your ability to debate and how little you deserve to be a part of honest discourse.
there's zero disagreement on extending the tax cuts for 98.5% of the nation's earners. the remaining tax cuts are the source of contention - the party that did not run on 'fiscal responsibility' is against extending them, and the party that insisted spending was 'out of control' wants to continue them.
your team is up to bat, hombre. i know I can't expect a straight answer out of you, as you hemmed and hawed at a softball question the other day, refusing to admit you'd prefer the higher wages and benefits of being a Costco employee if given the opportunity over your current gig, so I don't expect a straight answer out of you here - but I do simply want to point out that it is your side that wants to add another $30 Billion - an unnecessary $30 Billion - to the deficit.
Seriously; you're so devoid of dignity you couldn't even answer a question about "hey, if you were offered the same job you have now, but with better pay and benefits." That's quite telling about your ability to debate and how little you deserve to be a part of honest discourse.
[quote name='mykevermin']fiscal responsibility was the mantle of *one* party that ran this year. that's why I bring it up.
there's zero disagreement on extending the tax cuts for 98.5% of the nation's earners. the remaining tax cuts are the source of contention - the party that did not run on 'fiscal responsibility' is against extending them, and the party that insisted spending was 'out of control' wants to continue them.
your team is up to bat, hombre. i know I can't expect a straight answer out of you, as you hemmed and hawed at a softball question the other day, refusing to admit you'd prefer the higher wages and benefits of being a Costco employee if given the opportunity over your current gig, so I don't expect a straight answer out of you here - but I do simply want to point out that it is your side that wants to add another $30 Billion - an unnecessary $30 Billion - to the deficit.
Seriously; you're so devoid of dignity you couldn't even answer a question about "hey, if you were offered the same job you have now, but with better pay and benefits." That's quite telling about your ability to debate and how little you deserve to be a part of honest discourse.[/QUOTE]
You mean the part where I answered your question? Where I said I'm happy where I'm at now? Yeah...
And, again, "my team" is hardly up to bat.
[quote name='mykevermin']and the party that insisted spending was 'out of control' wants to continue them.[/QUOTE]
But regardless, the main concern that most Republicans seem to have with the deficit/national debt isn't an issue of income - it's an issue of spending. Fiscal responsibility isn't "let's go out and make a crap ton of money and blow it all on hookers and coke, but let's leave enough for the bus fare home."
there's zero disagreement on extending the tax cuts for 98.5% of the nation's earners. the remaining tax cuts are the source of contention - the party that did not run on 'fiscal responsibility' is against extending them, and the party that insisted spending was 'out of control' wants to continue them.
your team is up to bat, hombre. i know I can't expect a straight answer out of you, as you hemmed and hawed at a softball question the other day, refusing to admit you'd prefer the higher wages and benefits of being a Costco employee if given the opportunity over your current gig, so I don't expect a straight answer out of you here - but I do simply want to point out that it is your side that wants to add another $30 Billion - an unnecessary $30 Billion - to the deficit.
Seriously; you're so devoid of dignity you couldn't even answer a question about "hey, if you were offered the same job you have now, but with better pay and benefits." That's quite telling about your ability to debate and how little you deserve to be a part of honest discourse.[/QUOTE]
You mean the part where I answered your question? Where I said I'm happy where I'm at now? Yeah...
And, again, "my team" is hardly up to bat.
[quote name='mykevermin']and the party that insisted spending was 'out of control' wants to continue them.[/QUOTE]
But regardless, the main concern that most Republicans seem to have with the deficit/national debt isn't an issue of income - it's an issue of spending. Fiscal responsibility isn't "let's go out and make a crap ton of money and blow it all on hookers and coke, but let's leave enough for the bus fare home."
[quote name='UncleBob']I was referring more to the second half of your comment. The snippy half.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='UncleBob']But regardless, the main concern that most Republicans seem to have with the deficit/national debt isn't an issue of income - it's an issue of spending.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='me fixing UncleBob']Refusing to compromise on a bill that includesmiddle class tax cuts. making the current Bush tax cuts permanent for the top 1.5% (what happened to the whole cut the deficit thing? oh that's right we'll do that by cutting things that help lazy minority leeches the poor and middle class.)[/QUOTE]
...
[quote name='UncleBob']But regardless, the main concern that most Republicans seem to have with the deficit/national debt isn't an issue of income - it's an issue of spending.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='me fixing UncleBob']Refusing to compromise on a bill that includes
...
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I never thought I would live to see the day where macro economics is reduced to hookers, coke, and bus fares home.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
^ Bob only speaks in analogies, cinder. you should know that. He doesn't understand things, so he has to fabricate "something similar" to pretend he does. He's the political equivalent of that annoying person who has to relate every story, every incident you experience in life to a quote from "The Simpsons" or a scene from "Seinfeld."
It's hardly an issue of spending, seeing as how all but 16 Republicans were more than happy to allocate themselves billions in earmarks this week - not to mention that no Republican (Eric Cantor in particular, since he and Paul Ryan were the most sought-after 'fiscal hawks') has been willing to offer *any* substantial policy proposals to reign in spending, outside of a vague declaration to reduce discretionary spending to 2008 levels.
It is indeed your side's internal contradiction - a contradiction you are unwilling to consider resolving. That is why you have no respect among people here; you are as devoid of substance as your political peers.
It's hardly an issue of spending, seeing as how all but 16 Republicans were more than happy to allocate themselves billions in earmarks this week - not to mention that no Republican (Eric Cantor in particular, since he and Paul Ryan were the most sought-after 'fiscal hawks') has been willing to offer *any* substantial policy proposals to reign in spending, outside of a vague declaration to reduce discretionary spending to 2008 levels.
It is indeed your side's internal contradiction - a contradiction you are unwilling to consider resolving. That is why you have no respect among people here; you are as devoid of substance as your political peers.
bread's done