Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS aren't morons....today.Follow

#52 Jul 01 2014 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama is either the do-nothing, disengaged president who takes no responsibility or else the imperialistic president constantly overstepping the Constitution and snubbing Congress to seize additional power depending on which way the coin flip lands that day.

Wake up, spin the talking point wheel and see if it lands on "Lost Community Organizer!" or "King George III, Stalin and Hitler all in one!" before starting your day.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Jul 01 2014 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Yes; no other president was quite as black while bending the Constitution.
That's rude. It's just a coincidence that problems and issues that have been going on for decades, if not centuries, are suddenly such huge issues during this specific administration.
Well to be fair some of them were issues back when Clinton was President as well.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#54 Jul 01 2014 at 9:52 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,925 posts
So, only issues during Democrat administration's. That sounds about right.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#55 Jul 01 2014 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,975 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I considered replying to your post, but then I decided to take the high road and just laugh at how astonishingly poorly you understand the law.

____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#56 Jul 01 2014 at 11:27 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Well to be fair some of them were issues back when Clinton was President as well.
He's covered in the "decades, if not centuries" section.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57 Jul 01 2014 at 1:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
Uh huh. Some of us recognized that the court created this very problem with the horrifically bad decision on the mandate itself a couple years ago. Had they ruled correctly on that case, there would be no reason to tap dance around with finding justifications for rulings like this one (and others that are still to come). By allowing the mandate to stand at all they put in place a condition where there will be an endless list of different group of people, businesses, organizations, corporations, etc that will each say "what about this case?".
The court created this problem with this ruling.


No. They created it with the previous one. Unless the court is willing to say that there is *zero* religious grounds at play (which effectively means you kiss the 1st amendment goodbye), then there must be some point at which the government can't force a member of a religion to take an action which violates their beliefs. There must be. Therefore, by ruling that the mandate was constitutional in the first place created a circumstance where the court would be forced to deal with dozens of additional cases regarding each particular religious prohibition and how it applies to the law.

Had they simply ruled that the government has no authority to force people to purchase a product as a basic rights issue (ie: not resting on any specific enumerated right, but the basic idea that people should be free to do with their property what they wish), then the problem of having to delve into each possible interaction between the mandates and various religious believes does not occur. They absolutely created the problem by failing to recognize that the right to not be forced to buy something is an innate right that we all should have regardless of religion.

Quote:
Blaming the ACA is a cop-out.


I'm not blaming the ACA. I'm blaming the failure of the court to rule that the mandates contained within it were unconstitutional. The resulting problems were inevitable once they handed down that ruling. No way to avoid them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Jul 01 2014 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No previous president has ever used recess appointments in the way Obama did.
Yes; no other president was quite as black while bending the Constitution.


That's seriously your response? Ignore everything I wrote and just proclaim "You don't like it because Obama is black!"? Way to think for yourself there sparky!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Jul 01 2014 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Way to think for yourself there sparky!
Says the **** that constantly cries about people not asking the questions he prepared for.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Jul 01 2014 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
So it ends up basically being the same as the whole civil rights thing. There's a point you can't deny service to someone based on their skin color, and there's a point where you're allowed to express your beliefs. There's a point where you can't force someone to provide services they disagree with, and there's a point you can do so. It's like the same thing, just fast forward 50-odd years.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#61 Jul 01 2014 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,302 posts
It's like the same thing

Oh definitely, being born with an unchangeable skin color and deciding to "believe" in an arbitrary set of rules codified in a book written by the prophets of the invisibly man in the sky. Nearly identical.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#62 Jul 01 2014 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
So it ends up basically being the same as the whole civil rights thing. There's a point you can't deny service to someone based on their skin color, and there's a point where you're allowed to express your beliefs. There's a point where you can't force someone to provide services they disagree with, and there's a point you can do so. It's like the same thing, just fast forward 50-odd years.


I disagree. There's a massive difference between the government saying "If you provide Service X, you must provide it to all customers who walk through your door regardless of gender, race, etc." and "You are required to provide Service X". The former is about discrimination against individual (or groups of) people and can be justified as a rights issue. The latter isn't about rights at all (except the infringement of the rights of the provider).

If we start with the assumption that we all innately have the right to control how we use our own property (and we should, since that's a core concept of liberalism), then we should conclude that the government can only infringe this right if there is another competing right which outweighs it. In the case of discriminating against customers of a good or service based on their race, gender, or religion, this is pretty clear cut. And in the case of discriminating against employees (for hiring, pay, or advancement) based on those same criteria is also pretty clear cut. But what is the competing right which requires that a business provide a good or service that they don't want to involve themselves in at all? Even to their own employees? If they say "this is the benefits package which all employees receive", it's not discrimination. They aren't saying "white folks get these benefits, while black folks get a different set". Every employee gets the same benefits, so there's no discrimination.


Ah, but you say: But isn't refusing to provide contraceptive coverage a discrimination against women? Not really. Discrimination has to be viewed in a direct manner. Do male employees get a better deal than females? It's not such a clear issue, given that men and women have different health care needs overall. There are numerous differences and we could probably go crazy trying to bean count them all. Plus I suspect that if we did bean count, we'd find that women tend to get a better "deal" overall from health benefits than men. Also the issue of spouses and dependents further muddies the waters. Point being that you can't really point to a clear discrimination against a given group of employees in this case. Certainly not one that outweighs the infringement of the business owners innate property rights.


The irony here is that the ACA mandates actually create a good portion of the problem. By forcing employers to provide health care benefits (and/or forcing everyone to purchase the same via some methodology), the government is actually putting employees in the position of having to "pay" for health care that may not exactly match what they need. For example, prior to the passage of the ACA, an employee was free to opt out of the employer coverage and use the difference in funds to purchase just the insurance he/she wanted (or none at all, pocketing the difference). Most wouldn't, because you could usually get a better group rate going through your employer, but the option was there. I'm not sure how much harder the ACA has made that choice (and it's absolutely eliminated the "no care at all" option), but this is more tricky to do than it used to be. Certainly, the employee will find that the mandates on coverage will ensure that there are fewer choices out there.

Point being that prior to this, you could have chosen to purchase just emergency coverage and pocketed the difference to use to directly purchase any form of contraception you wanted. Now, you either get it with the coverage, or you have to pay a greater cost out of pocket for the same thing. It's a matter of degrees, of course, but if buying contraception directly is a financial burden, then odds are this change is impacting you negatively. And that's the real problem. The ACA reduces the freedom of choice of everyone involved. That's the problem. This particular case is just one effect of that problem. There are many many others.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Jul 01 2014 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
But isn't refusing to provide contraceptive coverage a discrimination against women? Not really.
Because to gbaji women aren't people.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 Jul 01 2014 at 4:01 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No previous president has ever used recess appointments in the way Obama did.
Yes; no other president was quite as black while bending the Constitution.
That's seriously your response? Ignore everything I wrote and just proclaim "You don't like it because Obama is black!"? Way to think for yourself there sparky!
I do. I've read your posts for years now, and if you aren't racist (as you claim, which I doubt) the people you support so hard sure are.

Guilt by association and all that.


Edited, Jul 1st 2014 4:01pm by Bijou
____________________________
Sandinmygum wrote:
VorxDargo1 wrote:
who the h3ll do you think you are anyway?
According to your logic, I'm like an FFXIV God. You can call me Sand. I want sand, buckets of it. And Everclear..lots and lots of everclear.
#65 Jul 01 2014 at 4:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No previous president has ever used recess appointments in the way Obama did.
Yes; no other president was quite as black while bending the Constitution.
That's seriously your response? Ignore everything I wrote and just proclaim "You don't like it because Obama is black!"? Way to think for yourself there sparky!
I do. I've read your posts for years now, and if you aren't racist (as you claim, which I doubt) the people you support so hard sure are.

Guilt by association and all that.


It honestly doesn't occur to you to question that associative reasoning? So if someone just repeats "conservative are racists" over and over, then you assume it must be true, and even if there is nothing at all racist in what a conservative is saying right at the moment, you'll dismiss it because either he's a racist, or those he associates with are?

That's a completely bizarre thought process. You've managed to create a method by which you never have to assess your own positions. Doesn't that bother you? I mean, you do have a brain and can think for yourself. Don't you at some point think that "they're all racists so I wont listen to them" might just be something someone might convince you of because they don't want you to listen to or consider the other guy's position?

Where did you learn this? As you say, I've been posting here for years, and you've been reading my posts for years. When did I post something that was racist? Ever?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Jul 01 2014 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's a completely bizarre thought process.
Did you just admit your own thought processes are bizarre, or are you going to sit there and try to dismiss how often you repeat "DEMOCRATS ARE BAD!" over and over again?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#67 Jul 01 2014 at 4:21 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
When did I post something that was racist? Ever?
Every time you've attacked the president with a lie you heard on FOX.

Modern racists, such as yourself, are minimally self-aware enough that they don't just shout out slurs. They couch their racism with fancy catchwords like "urban youths" and "welfare queens".

And where do you get off assuming I never interact with human beings? I do. Quite often. And every single "conservative" I've met who slavishly adheres to the rhetoric of FOX and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, ad nauseum are blatantly racist. I'd say YMMV, but as you never see any fault in your cronies, it won't.

EDIT: Just so were clear : The racists mentioned above self-identify as "conservative", not "Republican".

Edited, Jul 1st 2014 4:25pm by Bijou
____________________________
Sandinmygum wrote:
VorxDargo1 wrote:
who the h3ll do you think you are anyway?
According to your logic, I'm like an FFXIV God. You can call me Sand. I want sand, buckets of it. And Everclear..lots and lots of everclear.
#68 Jul 01 2014 at 4:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When did I post something that was racist? Ever?
Every time you've attacked the president with a lie you heard on FOX.


Setting aside the "with a lie you heard on FOX" bit, I would make the exact same attacks on Obama if he were white. Would you call an attack on a white president racist? No? then by calling it racist only when he's black, it makes *you* the racist. Not me.

Quote:
Modern racists, such as yourself, are minimally self-aware enough that they don't just shout out slurs. They couch their racism with fancy catchwords like "urban youths" and "welfare queens".


I think you're really really looking for an excuse to call something racism.

Also, I assume you have a quote of me using those terms? Cause I'm still waiting for an example of something I've posted that was racist.

Quote:
And where do you get off assuming I never interact with human beings? I do. Quite often. And every single "conservative" I've met who slavishly adheres to the rhetoric of FOX and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, ad nauseum are blatantly racist. I'd say YMMV, but as you never see any fault in your cronies, it won't.


The irony here is that you've almost certainly never spent any significant time watching Fox, or Rush, or Coulter, so you actually have no clue when any conservative you meet is repeating their rhetoric or not. And hell, you don't even know what their "rheotirc" is. You've been told by hosts of liberal talking heads to identify anything that sounds conservative with this invented assumed group of evil people so as to dismiss what they say out of hand without listening to them.


Seriously. Stop and actually listen to conservatives instead of dismissing them. You might just find that what they have to say isn't racist, and actually makes a **** of a lot of sense.

Quote:
EDIT: Just so were clear : The racists mentioned above self-identify as "conservative", not "Republican".


Again with the whole racist angle. I'm not going to defend every world anyone on Fox has ever said, but how about we stop with the broad generalizations, and look for specifics. Can you find a single quote from me, on this forum, saying something that is racist. Not holding a position that you associate with other people or groups that you have been taught to consider racist, but an actual racist statement?

Can you do that? If not, maybe you need to reassess your assumptions and associations.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Jul 01 2014 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
**
501 posts
I drive for hours and hours everyday, so I listen to a lot of talk radio. It usually goes like this.

"Teabaggers!!"

Flip station

"Nazi Pelosi!!!"

Flip station

"War on Women!!"

Flip station

"Imperial Tyrant!!"


Don't get me wrong, it's highly entertaining. Much like watching 3rd graders fight. Actually, scratch that, it's more like watching monkeys fling poo.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#70 Jul 01 2014 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
I'm an idiot, so I listen to a lot of talk radio.


I hear you.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#71 Jul 01 2014 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
**
501 posts
Kavekk wrote:
CoalHeart wrote:
I'm an idiot, so I listen to a lot of talk radio.


I hear you.


So we're both listening to idiots.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#72 Jul 01 2014 at 9:05 PM Rating: Good
**
562 posts
Quote:
So if someone just repeats "conservative are racists" over and over, then you assume it must be true, and even if there is nothing at all racist in what a conservative is saying right at the moment, you'll dismiss it because either he's a racist, or those he associates with are?


Uhh, no one here has to repeat it; the conservatives ( almost completely useless label btw ) just do things that, to a relatively educated, not even intelligent, person, seem mildly racist.

You know, action speaks louder than words and all that.

Edited, Jul 1st 2014 11:06pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#73 Jul 01 2014 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
angrymnk wrote:
I have successfully dehumanised Republicans.

The next stage, presumably, is some kind of atrocity.


Good luck with that.

Haha, I can make people say whatever I like! I am rhetorically invincible.

If only someone had thought of this before.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#74 Jul 01 2014 at 9:15 PM Rating: Default
**
562 posts
Kavekk wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
I have successfully dehumanised Republicans.

The next stage, presumably, is some kind of atrocity.


Good luck with that.

Haha, I can make people say whatever I like! I am rhetorically invincible.

If only someone had thought of this before.


Yeah, unless someone actually reads more than just one post; otherwise flawless plan. Ever thought of patenting this?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#75 Jul 01 2014 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
flawless plan. Ever thought of patenting this?


Honestly, the state of patent law I could probably get one.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#76 Jul 01 2014 at 10:58 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,302 posts
So if someone just repeats "conservative are racists" over and over, then you assume it must be true, and even if there is nothing at all racist in what a conservative is saying right at the moment, you'll dismiss it because either he's a racist, or those he associates with are?

Depends on who is repeating it, really. When the chairman of the GOP national committee explains how best to appeal to racists, then yes, I assume it must be true.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#77 Jul 02 2014 at 7:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,223 posts
It was hardly the Enigma code, but nice of Atwater to lay it out so neatly.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#78 Jul 02 2014 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,840 posts
No one has to say it gbaji, GOP party leaders as well as followers have time and again been caught, on record, making alarmingly racist comments.

You can deny it all you want, but it's not healthy. It's also completely irrelevant.




____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#79 Jul 02 2014 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Well golly, that can't be right with how specific and committed to his critically thought out his opinions are. Just a line of coincidences. A very long line of coincidences.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#80 Jul 02 2014 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji has argued with a straight face before that Atwater was actually laying out the plan there to attract voters in the face of Democratic racism. Of course, he also argued that the Southern Strategy was completely made up by Democrats despite multiple GOP party heads admitting to it and apologizing for it.

What I'm saying is, don't listen to Gbaji.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2014 8:40am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Jul 02 2014 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What I'm saying is, don't listen to Gbaji.
That's like 63% of what makes Asylum amusing 53% of the time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#82 Jul 02 2014 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Elinda wrote:
No one has to say it gbaji, GOP party leaders as well as followers have time and again been caught, on record, making alarmingly racist comments.

You can deny it all you want, but it's not healthy. It's also completely irrelevant.
I blame mob mentality, this whole perceived dilution of individual responsibility brings out the worst in people. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#83 Jul 02 2014 at 3:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Elinda wrote:
No one has to say it gbaji, GOP party leaders as well as followers have time and again been caught, on record, making alarmingly racist comments.


As have plenty of Dem party leaders and followers (arguably more frequently). There are asshats to be found everywhere. That does not mean that there is any inherent connection between racism and the GOP.

Quote:
You can deny it all you want, but it's not healthy. It's also completely irrelevant.


Deny what? That *I* am a racist? I'll absolutely deny that. The idea that because I'm a member of a party which has had a member or two who have said racist things makes me a racist by association? Guess what? We all are. If you are a Democrat you also are a member of a party which has had a member or two who have said racist things. Does that makes *you* a racist?

It's meaningless rhetoric, designed to avoid discussing the actual issue at hand. Instead of responding to my points about the rulings, I get called a racist, so my opinion apparently doesn't count. Isn't that a ridiculous way to argue? We can all sit here and call each other names, but that isn't terribly productive. And if the best response someone can come up with is to call the other person a racist, maybe that someone ought to stop and think about how weak their position must be.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Jul 02 2014 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji has argued with a straight face before that Atwater was actually laying out the plan there to attract voters in the face of Democratic racism. Of course, he also argued that the Southern Strategy was completely made up by Democrats despite multiple GOP party heads admitting to it and apologizing for it.


Read the **** thread. I didn't say it was "made up". I said that it was an idea that was proposed by one guy one time back in 1968, and was rejected by Nixon and never used. The GOP never adopted it, never used it, and forgot about it. But the Democrats have latched on to it as some kind of noose to hang around the necks of modern Republicans for some bizarre reason and have proceeded to selectively quote people out of context in order to create the perception that this has been some kind of driving strategy by the GOP for the last 40 years.

It hasn't. The only people who talk about the Southern Strategy are liberals attempting to hang it on Republicans.

What's funny is that your quote from Atwater has him saying that there's no need for the GOP to use such tactics to win votes in the south. We can win on positive platform issues like "... fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster". Notice how none of those issues involved "scare white people about black people". It's like you didn't bother to read the quote. He's saying "we don't need to use racial scare tactics to win because our platform itself resonates with voters". And guess what? It still does. It's the Left which uses race to scare people, not the Right.

Southern Strategy indeed.

Quote:
What I'm saying is, don't listen to Gbaji.


Sure. Because people might just realize that what I'm saying has merit and you wouldn't want that to happen!

Edited, Jul 2nd 2014 2:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Jul 02 2014 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
I think in general the Republican Party's positions generally favor the white population over minorities. Minorities will often see less relatively less benefit from Republican legislation, and feel negative affects more strongly. It's pretty much an unfortunate and unavoidable symptom of a traditionalist position. Things were generally worse for minorities in the past, and they had less political power. Any attempt to hold on to older moral values or fiscal practices is more likely to benefit the white population, as they were in a greater majority when those laws and ideas were put into practice in the first place.

There are certainly those that favor traditional values for reasons that have nothing to do with racism. However if those policies fall more heavily on the minority population, they are certainly racially-biased positions. That doesn't necessarily mean the people that hold those positions are racist, the degree to which that constitutes racism is going to be open to interpretation, and will vary from individual to individual. But there's a point where one should really acknowledge the disparity, and work to modify the law or whatever to minimize any unintended consequences.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#86 Jul 02 2014 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
What's funny is that your quote from Atwater has him saying that there's no need for the GOP to use such tactics to win votes in the south. We can win on positive platform issues like "... fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster". Notice how none of those issues involved "scare white people about black people". It's like you didn't bother to read the quote. He's saying "we don't need to use racial scare tactics to win because our platform itself resonates with voters". And guess what? It still does.

You don't know what a euphemism is, do you?

He's doing exactly what I said. The video clip outlined the concept by basically saying "don't say ni**er, say 'tough on crime' or 'cut welfare spending' because the folks we want votes from knows what we mean (do things that harm blacks, on purpose).

And, for the jillionth time, I not a Democrat, so you can't toss the racist by association label on me.Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Sandinmygum wrote:
VorxDargo1 wrote:
who the h3ll do you think you are anyway?
According to your logic, I'm like an FFXIV God. You can call me Sand. I want sand, buckets of it. And Everclear..lots and lots of everclear.
#87 Jul 02 2014 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,805 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What's funny is that your quote from Atwater has him saying that there's no need for the GOP to use such tactics to win votes in the south. We can win on positive platform issues like "... fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster". Notice how none of those issues involved "scare white people about black people". It's like you didn't bother to read the quote. He's saying "we don't need to use racial scare tactics to win because our platform itself resonates with voters". And guess what? It still does.

You don't know what a euphemism is, do you?

He's doing exactly what I said. The video clip outlined the concept by basically saying "don't say ni**er, say 'tough on crime' or 'cut welfare spending' because the folks we want votes from knows what we mean (do things that harm blacks, on purpose).


"You get so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you are talking about are totally economic things and the byproduct of them is; Blacks get hurt more than Whites"

You don't have to say outright that you hate them, just being a Republican hurts them, so it works.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2014 6:13pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#88 Jul 02 2014 at 4:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As I was saying... Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Jul 02 2014 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
**
562 posts
Gbaji,

I am honestly not sure why you are getting so defensive. You do realize that most people a little racist?

Are you telling us you do not belong to the subset of most people?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#90 Jul 02 2014 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
angrymnk wrote:
Gbaji, Are you telling us you do not belong to the subset of most people?
Have you somehow missed his many posts extoling his genius and overall superior (X200!!!!) knowledge about -well- everything?
____________________________
Sandinmygum wrote:
VorxDargo1 wrote:
who the h3ll do you think you are anyway?
According to your logic, I'm like an FFXIV God. You can call me Sand. I want sand, buckets of it. And Everclear..lots and lots of everclear.
#91 Jul 02 2014 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
ALSO: gbaji has told us many times that most conservatives are not racist because...

because...



hmmm.........
____________________________
Sandinmygum wrote:
VorxDargo1 wrote:
who the h3ll do you think you are anyway?
According to your logic, I'm like an FFXIV God. You can call me Sand. I want sand, buckets of it. And Everclear..lots and lots of everclear.
#92 Jul 02 2014 at 5:23 PM Rating: Default
**
562 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Gbaji, Are you telling us you do not belong to the subset of most people?
Have you somehow missed his many posts extoling his genius and overall superior (X200!!!!) knowledge about -well- everything?


Uhh..it is kinda hard to admit, but after first post I just skim through. In my defense, I do that on a daily basis with corporate emails so I kinda know what to pass.

That is also how reached my conclusion that Gbaji is in middle management.. Nugget of sense in a sea of verval bs
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#93 Jul 02 2014 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
The idea that because I'm a member of a party which has had a member or two who have said racist things makes me a racist by association?
No one believes you're racist by association any more than they believe you're an engineer by association. They believe you're racist by how you present yourself.

Personal responsibility, etc.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2014 10:12pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#94 Jul 03 2014 at 5:02 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,805 posts
It has begun...


Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#95 Jul 03 2014 at 5:34 AM Rating: Good
Indeed http://www.moonmontchronicle.com/supreme-court-rules-jcpenney-allowed-to-sacrifice-employees-to-appease-cthulhu.html
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#96 Jul 03 2014 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
TirithRR wrote:
article wrote:
there is certainly demonstrable harm being done to these animals that are denied the tasty, nutrient-rich Christians that their diet requires
All that fatty and cholesterol filled meat is sure to do more harm than good to those poor cats.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#97 Jul 03 2014 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,302 posts
What's funny is that your quote from Atwater

Completely shatters your worldview, entirely, leaving broken pieces of your integrity scattered on the floor?

Because that's the only thing it does.

Edit: I agree, though, it's pretty fucking comical watching your defense of it. To be clear, "integrity" is the ability to admit mistakes when proven wrong in large part. I mean it's more than that, but that's what someone of your intellectual ability is able to understand about it. People take seriously those who haven't been proven wrong, and those who modify positions once proven wrong. We just at laugh at people like you and small children who hold their breath and insist they are right regardless.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 9:54am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#98 Jul 03 2014 at 3:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I think in general the Republican Party's positions generally favor the white population over minorities.


I disagree. The Democratic Party positions favor minorities. So by comparison a position which favors no one based on race appears less favorable to minorities. But that's not the Republican party being racist. That's the Democratic party being racist. The problem is that somewhere along the line the political Left has managed to redefine racism to mean "fails to help racial minorities", so by that bizarre definition the GOP is racist, while the Dems are not.

Quote:
Minorities will often see less relatively less benefit from Republican legislation, and feel negative affects more strongly.


Of course. The party that is *not* passing legislation that directly targets minority groups for benefits will always appear this way. But that's because the GOP is *not* being racist, not because we are. The problem is that we're being judged by a standard that is itself inherently racist.


Quote:
It's pretty much an unfortunate and unavoidable symptom of a traditionalist position. Things were generally worse for minorities in the past, and they had less political power. Any attempt to hold on to older moral values or fiscal practices is more likely to benefit the white population, as they were in a greater majority when those laws and ideas were put into practice in the first place.


This has nothing to do with anything though. The GOP isn't calling for a return to Jim Crow, or to segregation, or anything remotely like that. What we do is oppose the idea that the way to counteract those historical inequalities in our system is to balance them out with new inequalities today. We believe that equality under the law means just that: everyone is treated the same. Those are the kinds of traditional ideas we want this country to return to. Because we believe that we can't ever achieve anything remotely resembling actual racial equality as long as we're constantly rigging the system to benefit or disadvantage groups of people based on race. We believed this a hundred years ago when the Democrats were arguing for segregation, and we believe this today when the Democrats argue for affirmative action.


Quote:
There are certainly those that favor traditional values for reasons that have nothing to do with racism. However if those policies fall more heavily on the minority population, they are certainly racially-biased positions.


Except they only fall more heavily on the minority population in contrast to policies which actively target benefits to those minority populations. That's an incredibly unfair criteria to use though.


Quote:
That doesn't necessarily mean the people that hold those positions are racist, the degree to which that constitutes racism is going to be open to interpretation, and will vary from individual to individual. But there's a point where one should really acknowledge the disparity, and work to modify the law or whatever to minimize any unintended consequences.


How about we start the discussion with a workable definition of "racism" though. To me, racism involves treating people differently primarily based on their skin color. Period. Does not matter why it's done. Doesn't matter what the skin color is (cause that would violate the rule, right?). Doesn't matter what historical context may be present or what excuses are used. And by that definition, it's the Democrats positions which are racist, not the Republicans. The only way the Democrats come out as non-racist is by using a definition of racism which is itself racist.

And that's why I bristle a bit when people parrot the assumption that Republican positions are racist, and therefore those who support them are racist as well. It's just completely ridiculous from start to finish. There's no logical ground for it, but it's so politically valuable to repeat that it just keeps getting repeated. And sadly, most people don't stop and ask if it makes any sense.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 2:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Jul 03 2014 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Translation: Everyone else is just stupid and don't realize how non-racist the GOP is. Also: 47%, Party of Santa Claus, blacks were better off on the plantation because they had jobs, Obama wants to end welfare regulations, illegal immigrants are just like criminal pedophiles and axe-murderers, Obamaphone Outrage and don't forget that Cadillac Queens are stealing all your tax money.

But look at it logically! Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 4:58pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Jul 03 2014 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,302 posts
Translation: Everyone else is just stupid and don't realize how non-racist the GOP is. Also: 47%, Party of Santa Claus, blacks were better off on the plantation because they had jobs, Obama wants to end welfare regulations, illegal immigrants are just like criminal pedophiles and axe-murderers, Obamaphone Outrage and don't forget that Cadillac Queens are stealing all your tax money.


You forgot about women's automatic rape sensing fallopian tubes.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#101 Jul 03 2014 at 4:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
How about we start the discussion with a workable definition of "racism" though. To me, racism involves treating people differently primarily based on their skin color. Period. Does not matter why it's done. Doesn't matter what the skin color is (cause that would violate the rule, right?). Doesn't matter what historical context may be present or what excuses are used. And by that definition, it's the Democrats positions which are racist, not the Republicans. The only way the Democrats come out as non-racist is by using a definition of racism which is itself racist.
I'll just do this for now, the rest if I have the energy later on.

To start I'm not accusing Republicans of acting any differently than any other group in the world. Every ethnic group has a set of morals and values which are intrinsically beneficial to them. Traditional American values reflect moral stances that your stereotypical WASP would find very agreeable and preferable. That's the reason they became laws in this country in the first place. Every other culture in the world has a similar set of values that make the most sense to them.

However those same values aren't held by other groups to the same degree. Many things about WASP values will not sit well with people from a different background and they'll find adapting to those values more difficult. If given a voice in government they'll use that voice to attempt to alter the laws of the region to be more inline with values they feel are natural and intrinsic. This in turn will put more pressure on the WASP who now finds themselves adapting to cultural values they don't share.

In one sense this isn't racism perse, people aren't setting out to kill each other, deprive each other of jobs, etc. On the other hand it's very passive aggressive as these value conflicts weight more heavily on other groups. On the first hand though, many of these things are held as important beliefs that define a particular culture, and members of a group can hardly be blamed for upholding the things they believe in.

On the other hand again though, we all have to live together. Changing demographics will always result in people changing laws in ways that are more reflective of the current ethnic mix of the population and their new set of shared beliefs. Simply put the values that our country is founded on aren't as universally agreeable as they once were. Those who share the older set of values will view the intrusion of new laws as an attack on them, as it necessitates they act in ways that aren't natural to them. On the other hand those who have been struggling to adapt to values that aren't reflective of their own culture will view the older set of values as oppressive.

Myself, I would view this as passive racism.

However, it's also something that's universal across ethnic groups (as I mentioned earlier), and not necessarily evil. It's simply human nature, and something we're all guilty of to one degree or another. The best we can hope for is to minimize the parts of the different cultures that negatively impact others outside the group, while at the same thing trying to celebrate the things that make the different groups unique. There's no clear black line here, and people are often terrible at assessing things in their own culture that negatively impact other groups.

So that's the kind of "racism" I'm talking about, whether or not you'd consider that racism. I would certainly understand why someone would view it in a different manner.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 63 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Allegory, Elinda, Anonymous Guests (60)