View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

What about the black racists and bigots?

Posted: May 15, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: May 15, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

In The Signal there was a letter from Lois Eisenberg, responding to a column by Steve Lunetta in which he discussed Donald Sterling’s racist rant and its consequences to Sterling.

Some of what Eisenberg states in her LTE is true. Human nature being what it is, there certainly are at least some people who are bigots, and always will be.

But here’s where her own blind spot evidences itself. She writes: “Obama being a black man and becoming the president has galled borderline racist and bigots.”

Maybe so, but what about the black racists and bigots who hate everything white, or who vote for Obama and other politicians only because they’re black?

Racism and bigotry aren’t limited to white people.

Many of us hated the exact same policies and ideology when they came from the lips of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, but it’s only “racist” when it applies to Obama, seemingly.

And it’s also funny how Clarence Thomas and Larry Elder and Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell and Colonel Allen West and a whole host of others can be absolutely trashed by the Dem/socialists, and somehow or another that’s not “racist.”

I guess it’s not “racist” if the “person of color” embraces conservative values.

 

 

Comments

Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 11:49 a.m.

I guess we’ll leave it to the LTE writer’s imagination as to what happened during the civil war . . . and how many ‘whites’ were enslaved . . .

We all know of the tremendous wealth inequality that was created from slavery and persists even today.

Yet, as we see form this poster, it is the ‘white man’ that is suffering . . .


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 11:58 a.m.

The Civil War?

Well, since we're reaching for the completely irrelevant, why limit ourselves? Why don't we go back to the Peloponnesian Wars?


"Yet, as we see form this poster, it is the ‘white man’ that is suffering..."

Only in Indy's... "mind" ... could anything I wrote here be interpreted in that way.

LOL!

Hilariously ridiculous.


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 12:13 p.m.

Tu quoque.


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 12:15 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: The Civil War?

Well, since we're reaching for the completely irrelevant, why limit ourselves? Why don't we go back to the Peloponnesian Wars?

Indy: Gee, again, you’d thought the poster would grasp the notion of slavery in the US which is overly several generations old . . . and until recently we still had some Americans ‘alive’ that lived under slavery.

And notice the poster completely ignores the economic consequences that persist today from the Civil War.

In any event, when Fox made Clive Bundy, the deadbeat rancher who refuses to pay his federal grazing fee, Fox had to do a ‘180’ when Bundy started talking about the ‘Negro’ . . . who would better served ‘picking cotton’.

Racism sadly is part of the American legacy, even some of our Founding Fathers including Thomas Jefferson ‘owned slaves’ . . . the 'originalist' Constitution treated these black Americans as ‘3/5s’ a person for ‘representation’.

And let’s not forget the current republican push in ‘voter suppression’ by doing things like ‘closing early voting” in inner city areas or requiring ‘state IDs’ for people that have been voting their entire lives without them. There is no voter fraud issue in America . . . this is all contrived to keep the ‘Negro’, as Bundy like to refer to black Americans, and other 'minorities' from voting . . .

Sadly, this issue to Fox watchers is all too often termed ‘Hilariously ridiculous’ as this poster suggest but he does convey the feelings of the Americans that think like Clive Bundy or even the recent disclosure of the LA Clipper owner that sees blacks on this team as ‘property’.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but none of this is ‘Hilariously ridiculous’.


17trillion: Posted: May 15, 2014 12:26 p.m.

What is hilariously ridiculous is your ability to completely miss Brian's point. Perhaps that MBA isn't as meaningful as you, and only you, think it is.

"There is no voter fraud issue in America"

For someone who claims he's so in tune with events, you sure have an amazing ability to miss the obvious.

"North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate Leader Phil Berger released a statement announcing the findings that the NC State Board of Elections presented to the NC Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee. The initial findings showed:

•765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.
•35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.
•155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C."

"Nope, nothing to see here. Move along, because I'm Indy and I "claim" to have a MBA and I "claim" to be a businessman among the titans of business. I am not the laughingstock others think I am."


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 12:28 p.m.

Yes, Indy, what you wrote is exactly as I characterized it: hilariously ridiculous.

I'll again repeat myself: You: "'Yet, as we see form this poster, it is the ‘white man’ that is suffering...'

Me: "Only in Indy's... 'mind' ... could anything I wrote here be interpreted in that way."


Now, point out where I wrote ANYTHING bout the "white man suffering".

In fact, all you're doing is rationalizing why it's OKAY for minorities to be bigoted and racist.

Really? It IS okay, because somehow it's "justified"? Historically warranted?

So, let's see. Back in the Ottoman Empire, my grandfather (Armenian) survived the Armenian Genocide. So... I should hate Turks? Is that what you're saying? Even though it happened 100 years ago?

I don't want anything to do with living in YOUR world, bubba.

One more reason I loathe and despise leftism/socialism. Reason # 16,493.



therightstuff: Posted: May 15, 2014 3:01 p.m.

Indy: """I guess we’ll leave it to the LTE writer’s imagination as to what happened during the civil war . . . and how many ‘whites’ were enslaved"""

How many hundreds of thousands of whites gave their lives to help end slavery? Why is it so easy to stay focused on the evil slave owners but ignore the nobility of so many who died to help blacks?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 3:37 p.m.

TRS: "Why is it so easy to stay focused on the evil slave owners but ignore the nobility of so many who died to help blacks?"

Because that's what fits the narrative.


Indy: Posted: May 15, 2014 4:52 p.m.

gadfly - a person who persistently annoys or provokes others with criticism, schemes, ideas, demands, requests, etc.
therightstuff wrote: Indy: """I guess we’ll leave it to the LTE writer’s imagination as to what happened during the civil war . . . and how many ‘whites’ were enslaved"""

How many hundreds of thousands of whites gave their lives to help end slavery? Why is it so easy to stay focused on the evil slave owners but ignore the nobility of so many who died to help blacks?

Indy: I’m sure there were man ‘northern’ soldiers and embedded people in the south that ran the ‘underground railway’ . . . but the point is that racism among older white people still exists . . . and if you’re black and discriminated against, I can understand the anger you feel . . . just ask the players on the LA Clippers . . . who had the owner referring to them as ‘property’.

The bigger question, however, is how many 'Clive Bundy' people do we have in America?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 5:05 p.m.

Nope, Indy, the "bigger question" is exactly what I posed to you: "... all you're doing is rationalizing why it's OKAY for minorities to be bigoted and racist... Really? It IS okay, because somehow it's 'justified'? Historically warranted?"

Well? Is it? Should I be hating the Turks because they wiped out my Grandpa's family, and he just barely survived... 100 years ago?

Is it okay for Islamic extremists to still be babbling about the Crusades while they're killing people with explosive devices? That okay with you, because the Crusades actually DID take place, even though it was hundreds of years ago?

How about Rwanda? That bigotry and genocide okay with you because it's based on a long-running tribal feud?

WELL???

Just as I wrote in my LTE, "Human nature being what it is, there certainly are at least some people who are bigots, and always will be."

I also wrote, "Racism and bigotry aren’t limited to white people."

But you seem to think that when White people are bigots it's a very bad thing, but when Black people are bigots it's okay, because their ancestors were slaves.

Guess what, bubba. I think ALL bigotry is bad, no matter who's practicing it... but I also accept that its existence is always going to be part of the human experience to art least some degree because it's part of human nature.

But that doesn't mean it's EVER acceptable, regardless of who's doing it, or what "excuse" they have.

You need to find yourself some new focus-group tested talking points, because the ones you're using are pretty damned lousy.




therightstuff: Posted: May 15, 2014 5:48 p.m.

Indy: """but the point is that racism among older white people still exists . . . and if you’re black and discriminated against, I can understand the anger you feel"

No one is arguing that racism doesn't exist among white people, regardless how old they are. But racism and prejudice comes in all shapes, sizes, backgrounds, and yes, colors.



"""how many 'Clive Bundy' people do we have in America?"""

Probably about as many 'Al Sharpton' people. Only MSNBC would give this racist charlatan a voice.


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 6:14 p.m.

"I think ALL bigotry is bad, no matter who's practicing it... "

Says the guy who opposes marriage equality and calls gays "tyrants".


hopeful: Posted: May 15, 2014 6:27 p.m.

Racism in any form is deplorable, but whites aren't the only ones who are racist. I just wish we could live Martin Luther King Jr.s words because his dream is MY dream too!

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!"

Compare Martin Luther King Jr.s dream to Jamie Fox's words, and it becomes obvious that some blacks are just as racist as whites.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/black-racism-unchained/


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 6:38 p.m.

"But here’s where her own blind spot evidences itself. She writes: “Obama being a black man and becoming the president has galled borderline racist and bigots.”

Maybe so, but what about the black racists and bigots who hate everything white, or who vote for Obama and other politicians only because they’re black?

Racism and bigotry aren’t limited to white people.
"

You know, I re-read her letter, and nowhere in it did I find any exculpation of non-white racists, nor even a hint that such beliefs don't exist.

Why did Baker feel the need to fabricate this accusation?


hopeful: Posted: May 15, 2014 6:42 p.m.

Stevehw: ""[TRS said]I think ALL bigotry is bad, no matter who's practicing it... "

Says the guy who opposes marriage equality and calls gays "tyrants".

Hopeful: Says the guy, who is intolerant of Christians...


therightstuff: Posted: May 15, 2014 6:42 p.m.

Steve: """Says the guy who opposes marriage equality and calls gays "tyrants"."""

I'd like to see that quote about gays as tyrants. Was he referring to anyone who is gay or gay activists who act like tyrants? Big difference.

And would anyone who is against polygamy also be opposed to "marriage equality"?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 15, 2014 7:35 p.m.

Steve: "You know, I re-read her letter, and nowhere in it did I find any exculpation of non-white racists, nor even a hint that such beliefs don't exist... Why did Baker feel the need to fabricate this accusation?"


I didn't "fabricate" any "accusation". In fact, steve, I didn't "accuse" her of anything.

I pointed out that she was curiously silent on the issue, quite explicitly, to wit: "But here’s where her own blind spot evidences itself. She writes: 'Obama being a black man and becoming the president has galled borderline racist and bigots...'

"Maybe so, but what about the black racists and bigots who hate everything white, or who vote for Obama and other politicians only because they’re black?"

Is a question now an "accusation" in your...... mind?

Are you still stuck on..... something else?

What's the deel-io, steve?

I also pointed out the logical absurdity of her statement, to wit: "Many of us hated the exact same policies and ideology when they came from the lips of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, but it’s only “racist” when it applies to Obama, seemingly."

Oh, snap, bub...


TRS raises another point, too, bub. Where have I called gays "tyrants"?

Now, I DID call some extremists "radical dictatorial gay activists" on the other thread. In your .... mind.... is that the same as saying that all gays are "tyrants"?

No wonder discussing anything with you is such a laughably ridiculous experience.

But I gotta say, you DO have the SOP of Dem/socialists down pat. If you can't fight the message, try to shoot the messenger. Too bad it's become such a hackneyed cliché nowadays that no one even cares anymore, if anyone ever did.

Personally, I never did. I figured if I wasn't ticking off leftists every time I said or wrote something, I must not have been as clear as I thought.

I LOVE watching you guys make fools of yourselves!


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 8:36 p.m.

"I'd like to see that quote about gays as tyrants. "

http://www.signalscv.com/section/35/article/119756/


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 8:39 p.m.

"Are you still stuck on..... something else?

What's the deel-io, steve?"

What are you hinting around at? Out with it.


stevehw: Posted: May 15, 2014 8:41 p.m.

"If you can't fight the message, try to shoot the messenger. "

So what's your message? Yes, racism by whites exists, but hey, there are blacks and other minorities who also have racist views, so...what? It's okay? Or is your message that you abhor prejudice, except for, say, certain kinds of prejudice (like against gays)?

What IS your "message", anyway?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 9:29 p.m.

That's it? That's all you've got?

Too lame to bother with.


BTW, in case you have trouble reading, you didn't need to bother pasting the link. I put the quote right here. Let me help you out, and do it again:

"Now, I DID call some extremists 'radical dictatorial gay activists' on the other thread. In your .... mind.... is that the same as saying that all gays are 'tyrants'?"

Why didn't you answer that question, steve? Hmmmm.....?

Don't bother even trying. As usual, you were stumped, and all you had was your usual lame nothingness.

Guess we're done again, steveie. This is getting tres boring.


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 9:45 p.m.

"Now, I DID call some extremists 'radical dictatorial gay activists' on the other thread. In your .... mind.... is that the same as saying that all gays are 'tyrants'?"

Based on your history, I'd say yes...you consider any gays who believe they deserve equal rights are "extremists" or "tyrants".


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 9:57 p.m.

Really?

"Based on your history, I'd say yes...you consider any gays who believe they deserve equal rights are 'extremists' or 'tyrants'."

Really? "Based on (my) history?" You claim you can read minds, do you? Are you Carnak?


Well, then. Two can play at that game. Based on YOUR history, I'd say you're a socialist, if not a communist, who'd like to see the downfall of the United States and/or its conversion to an outright socialist form of government similar to the old USSR.




BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 9:58 p.m.

PS, stevie, it's all teed up for you now. Feel free to start whining about how you're a victim.




stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 10:07 p.m.

Here's a simple question for you...do you believe that gays and lesbians have the right to marry whomever they wish?


therightstuff: Posted: May 16, 2014 10:15 p.m.

Steve, it's clear Brian never considered all gays as tyrants. Why not just admit you misspoke?

And you chose not to answer my second question about equality. Though you have been consistent in your belief about marriage equality, there are millions of people who support gay marriage but not polygamy. Would you also condemn these folks as opposed to marriage equality as well?


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 10:26 p.m.

I think that Baker has a definite anti-gay bias, based on what he writes. Whether he thinks they are *all* "tyrants" or whatever, it's clear that he does not believe they deserve equal rights.

As for those who support gay marriage but not polygamy, no, I wouldn't "condemn" them. I'd just say that their position is illogical, and I believe if they applied rational thought (and were able to set aside religious beliefs or "traditional marriage" fallacies), they'd have to agree that there's no reason for a *civil* contract to exclude multiple person signatories to the contract, er, marriage license.


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 10:30 p.m.

BTW, I base my assessment of Baker's viewpoint not on a single thread, but on his continued assertions that gays and lesbians are somehow "forcing" their "redefinition of marriage" on society, that "gay activist judges" are complicit in their efforts to secure equal protection under law, etc.

I'm quite sure he'll assert that he doesn't harbor any animus towards LGBTs, but he just doesn't want them to have the same rights he has. I can almost hear it now: "some of my best friends are gays and lesbians".


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 6:20 a.m.

Sorry, stevie, but you don't get to set the debate, nor "decide" what constitutes bias. Who died and made you king? I didn't get the memo.

I base MY assessment on everything I've ever seen you write, all of which is straight-line collectivist dogma.

So, it looks like I'm a homophobe in your eyes and you're a commie in mine.

Feel better now?



BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 6:30 a.m.

TRS, steve was simply resorting to that clichéd but SOP Dem/socialist tactic of screaming "RAAAAACIST!!!" or "gay basher!!!" or whatever at whomever they're losing an argument with. They do it all the time, from the lowliest KoolAid slurper (like steve) to the ObaMessiah himself.

They're counting on the entire conversation being derailed into the other guy wasting time trying to defend himself against baseless "when did you stop beating your wife" accusations. The usual deflection and obfuscation strategy.

I've never fallen for that bullpuckey, mainly because I never cared what anyone else thought of me or my politics. And it's become such an old chestnut that pretty much no one else bothers dealing with it either anymore.


ricketzz: Posted: May 16, 2014 6:46 a.m.

Obama is a corporatist, not a leftist. Bernie Sanders is a leftist.

"I'm not Black but there's a whole bunch of times I wish I could say "I'm not white" too." -Frank Zappa August 1965


therightstuff: Posted: May 16, 2014 7:47 a.m.

So Steve, your position is that traditional marriage is a fallacy and that the LGBT community is not forcing their definition of marriage on anyone else. You further believe that anyone opposed to multiple marriage partners is being illogical and irrational.

ooooo....k-a-y. What are your thoughts about Spiderman?


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 9:05 a.m.

I didn't say "traditional" marriage is a fallacy (although "traditional" has meant quite a lot of things *other* than what you want it to mean today). The LGBT community is not "forcing their definition" on anyone else, either. They're only insisting that they have the same rights as everyone else.

But yes, if one believes that *civil* marriage is essentially a contract, then there should be no reason why it is limited to two people. Can you name another type of civil contract which is?


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 9:07 a.m.

Notice how Baker avoided answering my very simple question?

Watch...now he'll play the "I'm taking my ball and going home" card, rather than actually answer questions or respond rationally to posts.

MUCH easier to hurl insults, then run away, isn't Brian?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 9:42 a.m.

"Notice how Baker avoided answering my very simple question?"


Hahahahahahaha! That from the guy who NEVER answers questions, instead resorting to obfuscatory tactics of personal defamation. Now it's the old "I guess I'll accuse the other guy of doing what I'm actually doing" tack. Yet another Moldy Oldy from the dusty Playbook For Lefties.

Oh, please, stevie. Isn't this the point at which you start kvetching about being a victim?

I do have to hand it to you, though. You did manage to make this thread more interesting. You're no longer boring me into a coma with your endless circular "logic", at least for the moment.


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 9:50 a.m.

And still no answer.

Gee, I wonder why? I wonder...


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 9:59 a.m.

Already clearly 'splained it for you, Lucy.

Twice.

Reading-challenged?


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 10:40 a.m.

Nope. It was a simple question, and you ducked and dodged and avoided answering it.

Do you think gays and lesbians have the right to marry whomever they want, or not?

Why so trepidatious, Baker? Why not just answer it for us all to see?

(Of course, what else would one expect from a guy who pulls the old "what's next? marrying your pet?" canard).


therightstuff: Posted: May 16, 2014 11:02 a.m.

(Of course, what else would one expect from a guy who pulls the old "what's next? marrying your pet?" canard).

Actually...I think the "marrying your pet" is a canard of the left. You guys bring it up every time someone brings up gay marriage. Kind of like the "racist" canard when criticizing Obama or the "war against women" canard when talking about abortion or the "homophobic" canard when talking about homosexuality. These are tactics to stop the debate and shame people into silence when the other side cannot discuss the argument based on it's merit.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 11:03 a.m.

Pffffffttt.....

Nope, stevie, not playing your silly and irrelevant game.

BTW, according to YOUR premise, there must be a lot of gays who are homophobic, too, since a lot of THEM don't support same-sex "marriage", either.

How do you conform THAT to your myopic world view?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....?

Let me guess.... the usual Dem/socialist claim that they're "secretly self-loathing" or something similarly inane like that?

The same kind of loony claims made about Blacks that don't stay on the leftist plantation?

See, that's the problem with people like YOU, who are collectivists, and don't understand that people can actually think for themselves, and as individuals, without the Groupthink. The whole idea is like some form of cognitive dissonance. It blows your ..... minds.

EVERYTHING to you is based on blocs. If one objects to a policy that affects some subset of a group, one automatically hates that entire group. It's not only sloppy thinking; it's not actual thinking at all.

So... it's not "trepidation", stevie. I just don't bother wasting my time on inane nonsense. AND I don't let you guys get away with trying to change the subject just because you're losing the argument.

I stay on point.


BTW, interesting that you should talk about "the old 'what's next? marrying your pet?' canard", when just a little bit further up this thread you wrote that you even support polygamy.

So, on the one hand you reject the "slippery slope" argument almost immediately after endorsing and acknowledging its legitimacy. All without your head spinning at all. Quite the feat!

Because, after all, as you yourself said "But yes, if one believes that *civil* marriage is essentially a contract, then there should be no reason why it is limited to two people. Can you name another type of civil contract which is?"

There it is. So, according to you, it's all good for Mom to marry her son, or daughter, or for Sis to marry Bro, or whatever. It's just a "civil contract".

Are you ever even aware of your own hypocrisy? Or is it just so much a part of your nature that your oblivious to it?

Just curious...


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 11:04 a.m.

There ya go, TRS. Bingo.


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 11:13 a.m.

You must have missed the dozens of other times that I said as long as the parties involved are consenting adults, there shouldn't be any restrictions...including consanguinity. So where's the hypocrisy? Where's the "slippery slope"?

Consenting. Adults. Remember?

Not to be confused with your view:

"I’m waiting for people to be able to “marry” their pets."

FYI, TRS, that would be your buddy Baker who said that.

So all those words from Baker, and he still avoids the simple question. Could it be because he doesn't believe gays and lesbians have the right to marry whomever they wish?

Well, given his complete avoidance of providing a clear and simple yes or no, I think the answer is obvious to everyone.

If you remove all of the personal attacks and name-calling and such from his latest post, you get the equivalent of "ummmm uhhhh ummmm" because he won't answer a simple yes or no question. We all know why he won't, of course...


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 11:34 a.m.

Oh, gaaaawd, stevie, you really DO crack me up!

You really can't distinguish between a rhetorical device and an actual position?

But let's address your question, to wit: "So where's the hypocrisy? Where's the 'slippery slope'?"

I thought I clearly stated it. Still having those reading difficulties?

All during the debates about Prop 8 and same-sex "marriage" all we hear about is how same-sex "marriage" won't lead to other attempts to redefine the establishment...... and yet, there you are, willing to do exactly that! You're perfectly fine with polygamy.

And talk about "avoiding the issue", what about those other examples I raised, which ARE on point once we're willing to do that? "Incestuous" marriages, as I enumerated?

You don't consider ANY of that part of the "slippery slope"?

Now, having spent your time scrambling around through ALL the things I've written on this site, between comments, columns and LTEs, how come you never found my clear statements -- repeated MANY times -- of exactly my position on same-sex "marriages"? Was it because the actual answer simply wasn't comfortable for you; an inconvenient truth?

Because here it is, stevie: I believe the definition of marriage is rightfully a state issue to decide, just like every other aspect of marriage such as age of consent, and there's no federal constitutional issue involved. Like YOU said, it's a contractual matter, and varies widely from state to state.

Now, you never answered one of MY latest questions: what about the gay people who happen to agree with me, and/or DON'T agree with the idea of same-sex "marriage"? Are THEY homophobic, too?

WELL?




stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 3:19 p.m.

You don't think gays have a right to marriage. Got it.

Your question is nonsensical...no, a homosexual who doesn't support gay marriage is not homophobic. However, just where *are* these mythical people?

Do I think that marriage equality will lead to calls for polygamy and incestuous marriages to be legalized? Honestly, no. That is a slippery slope argument. However, even if they did, I wouldn't care. Because marriage is a *contract* in the eyes of the law. Nothing more.


stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 3:45 p.m.

"I believe the definition of marriage is rightfully a state issue to decide, just like every other aspect of marriage such as age of consent, and there's no federal constitutional issue involved."

So if a state passed a law which prohibited interracial marriage, there'd be no federal constitutional issue involved, is that what you're saying?


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 16, 2014 4:12 p.m.

Go to Cougar stadium at COC while the football team is on the field practicing (or, for that matter, any college or high school team). Stand on the sideline for 10 minutes and just listen. If you are concerned about racism, tell me what you hear.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 5:06 p.m.

"Your question is nonsensical...no, a homosexual who doesn't support gay marriage is not homophobic. However, just where *are* these mythical people?"

Ah. I see. In the Universe of Steve, support for same-sex "marriage" is completely universal among gays. There are probably about 9 million of them in this country (assuming 3% of the population), and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM supports same-sex "marriage". Right?

I'm glad you wrote that, because it's a crystal clear illustration of the absurdity of the positions you take.

And just as I wrote on the other thread, you have no sense of proportion, or rational appraisal. In fact, to quote from there:

You: "I think the Prop 8 supporters, the KKK and other organizations which believe in depriving people of their rights are just variations on a theme, different points along a continuum of hatred."

Me: "And there you are. Exactly why talking with people like you is a complete waste of time, because YOU are the tyrants who act like dictators, a complete antithesis to how a successful democracy can function. You're so full of self-righteous sanctimony that you're completely blinded to your own hypocrisy.

"Your country would be the American Soviet, and just like I wrote before, I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

"There's only one of the two of us standing at the bad end of a 'continuum of hatred', bud, and it ain't me."


I never waste my time talking to tyrants or wanna-be dictators. We are definitely through now.



stevehw: Posted: May 16, 2014 5:43 p.m.

Tsk, tsk. Such anger over a simple thing like equal rights, Baker.

Tell us why you don't support equal rights. You claim to be an American, but you berate and belittle and denigrate anyone who doesn't fall in line with *your* beliefs.

And, again, we are witness to your diatribes as a way to avoid answering a very simple question.

We can only surmise from your unwillingness to answer that you believe a state could pass a law prohibiting interracial marriage (since, as you yourself stated, " the definition of marriage is rightfully a state issue to decide, just like every other aspect of marriage such as age of consent, and there's no federal constitutional issue").

States' rights. We all know what *that* means, too, don't we?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 16, 2014 6:35 p.m.

You've managed to prove the point I made in my letter, bubba. Thanks.

The Left, as perfectly represented by you, the self-professed protectors of "diversity and tolerance", are absolutely INtolerant of ANY diversity of opinion if it strays from the dogma of your doctrine. Anyone who's off the socialist/collectivist plantation must be hunted down by Simon Legree and lashed soundly. Got it.

As I SO accurately phrased it in my LTE, and which you wonderfully personified:

"And it’s also funny how Clarence Thomas and Larry Elder and Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell and Colonel Allen West and a whole host of others can be absolutely trashed by the Dem/socialists, and somehow or another that’s not 'racist.'

"I guess it’s not 'racist' if the 'person of color' embraces conservative values."



The icing on the cake: "States' rights. We all know what *that* means, too, don't we?"

Yes, at least I do (you clearly don't). It's the Tenth Amendment. But for YOU, it's obviously some kind of "dog whistle" terminology for something bad.

It's okay, stevie. You can 'fess up. You hate the Constitution. And frankly, given your attitudes and proclivities, I would, too, if I were you. It's such a pesky and irrelevant barrier to SO much that you and your fellow elitists want to impose on us hoi polloi....... all for our own betterment, of course.


Welcome to Soviet Amerika.


stevehw: Posted: May 17, 2014 9:01 p.m.

LOL! My, my, my...such a lot of verbiage and faux outrage over a simple thing like equal rights. I think we're finally seeing the real Baker show himself here. The one who avoids questions which, if he answered them truthfully, would clearly show his bigotry. The one who, when backed into a corner, simply throws up strawmen so he can claim his opponent "hates America" or similar such silliness. The guy who accuses others of what he himself is guilty of. The person who attempts to "shout down" anyone with an opposing point of view by denigrating them, vilifying them, making false accusations against them (btw, isn't there something in the bible about bearing false witness?), slandering them, putting words in their mouths and making outlandish claims about what they think (because it's much easier to do that than actually answer questions and debate topics rationally and logically).

Yep...I think we're seeing the real, heretofor "hidden" Baker. Quite enlightening.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 17, 2014 10:42 p.m.

Da, Kamrade Stevie!

Not even a nice try. On the other thread, TRS pegged your sorry hypocritical self, and I'll add to that shortly.

There's no "faux outrage" here, stevie, though I'm sure you'd like to flatter yourself that you're that effective. Contempt? Sure. Disgust? Yep.

And I've never "hidden" anything. Hell, I'm about the most outspoken person on these threads. What YOU hate is that I don't give a rip about your opinion. That REALLY galls your kind, doesn't it?



You've revealed yourself for what your kind is: hypocritical sanctimonious elitists who, just like I said, claim to be the protectors of "diversity and tolerance" while being anything but.

Res ipsa loquitur, bubba.


stevehw: Posted: May 17, 2014 11:08 p.m.

What galls YOU is that people like me don't "tolerate" your bigotry.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 17, 2014 7:57 a.m.

Da, Kamrade Stevie.

And you'd know, because of your unique mind-reading ability.

The self-appointed Czar Of Thought Police.


Too funny.


ricketzz: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:11 a.m.

Is that your "go to" universal weapon, Brian? Strongly infer that someone is a communist, like that is inherently a bad thing? I would think that a commissioned officer in my military would have more sophistication; I guess what they say about the military and standards is true.

People who go to great lengths to show that others are more bigoted than they are, are still nonetheless bigoted. I am bigoted against bullies, be they personal or institutional.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:26 a.m.

What makes you think I was ever a commissioned officer? I wasn't; I was a non-com.

You know how sergeants are. Or maybe not, if you never actually served yourself.

"Is that your 'go to' universal weapon, Brian? Strongly infer that someone is a communist, like that is inherently a bad thing?"

I wasn't "strongly inferring" anything. I was making an outright point that Stevie is acting like a tyrant, and used the USSR as a metaphor.

And yeah, communism IS a bad thing. Inherently.


stevehw: Posted: May 18, 2014 11:18 a.m.

"I was making an outright point that Stevie is acting like a tyrant"

The only one acting like a tyrant around here is you, flinging around insults and personal attacks, name-calling and berating anyone who doesn't accept your excuses for being a bigot.

Most of the rest of us understand that intolerance of bigotry and hatred is not being "tyrannical".


BrianBaker: Posted: May 18, 2014 1:07 p.m.

Da, Kamrade stevie.

But WHICH one of us claims to be able to read minds, and KNOW what the other person is thinking?

That would be YOU, Commissar, the Czar Of Thought Police.

I see we've reached the point where it's time for you to pull out the victim card, eh?

LOL


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 3:21 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: "If you can't fight the message, try to shoot the messenger. "

Indy: Yes, that techniques is taught in ‘Conservatism 101’ . . . it’s a core requirement.

The course realizes that many conservatives have little background in many topics so it's just 'easier' to demean anyone that 'dares' to confront their ignorance in these areas . . .


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 3:26 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Nope, Indy, the "bigger question" is exactly what I posed to you: "... all you're doing is rationalizing why it's OKAY for minorities to be bigoted and racist... Really? It IS okay, because somehow it's 'justified'? Historically warranted?"

Indy: I understand the temptation to place your beliefs by inserting them into my words . . . but that’s a fail on every level . . .

In any event, most of the tribalism that is killing millions of innocents around the global is based on ‘ancient beliefs’ that are not applicable in the modern world.

Then we see people who believe such nonsense being ‘too proud’ to admit the failure of their ideology beliefs and the rest we see here with many of the same folks telling ‘others’ like me ‘what we really mean’! LOL . . .

So anyway, bud, it’s a nice try but as you see here in this forum, you’re basically reciting things to please yourself . . . and that’s Ok . . . since most rational thinking people don’t act as you do here or anywhere else for that matter.

In any event, you can return to your babbling . . . I think someone even wrote a song called ‘babbling on’ . . .


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 3:31 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """but the point is that racism among older white people still exists . . . and if you’re black and discriminated against, I can understand the anger you feel"

No one is arguing that racism doesn't exist among white people, regardless how old they are. But racism and prejudice comes in all shapes, sizes, backgrounds, and yes, colors.

Indy: But you can’t use that as an excuse . . . the only ones we see being ‘roasted’ for racism in the media are ‘old white people’ like Bundy who wants to tell us about the ‘Negro’.

There’s no question that many black folks in the US who’ve suffered from the contentious condescension from white people are understandably ‘angry’ for being treated in this manner.

Fortunately for the ‘old white people’, they haven’t experienced this . . . and thus using the ‘reverse’ racism argument really falls flat on its face here.

Therightstuff wrote: """how many 'Clive Bundy' people do we have in America?"""

Probably about as many 'Al Sharpton' people. Only MSNBC would give this racist charlatan a voice.

Indy: What has Al Sharpton said to you that is racist?


tech: Posted: May 18, 2014 3:33 p.m.

"In any event, most of the tribalism that is killing millions of innocents around the global is based on ‘ancient beliefs’ that are not applicable in the modern world." - Indy

Were you referring to Communism and Fascism?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 18, 2014 3:44 p.m.

Indy: "Stevehw wrote: 'If you can't fight the message, try to shoot the messenger.'"

LOL.... Jeeez, Indy. Steve didn't write that. He was quoting ME, bub.

"Indy: Yes, that techniques is taught in ‘Conservatism 101’ . . . it’s a core requirement."


Hahahahahaha

Dude, since I wrote that, you KNOW that I was quoting "The Lefty Playbook For Dummies".


Let's move on, Shall we?

You: "BrianBaker wrote: Nope, Indy, the 'bigger question' is exactly what I posed to you: '... all you're doing is rationalizing why it's OKAY for minorities to be bigoted and racist... Really? It IS okay, because somehow it's "justified"? Historically warranted?'

"Indy: I understand the temptation to place your beliefs by inserting them into my words . . . but that’s a fail on every level . . ."

Wrong again, Indy. Unlike your buddy stevie, I don't claim to be able to read minds. That was a legitimate question, which you REFUSED to answer.

Why is that, Indy? Why did you dodge the question instead of answering it?



You: "Then we see people who believe such nonsense being ‘too proud’ to admit the failure of their ideology beliefs and the rest we see here with many of the same folks telling ‘others’ like me ‘what we really mean’!"

You mean like steveie, who thinks any view or policy contrary to his own is automatically a badge of "bigotry" and "racism"? That what you mean?

You guys are simply hilarious in your utter oblivion to your own hypocrisy and fake sanctimony.




Priceless...


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:02 p.m.

Tech wrote: “In any event, most of the tribalism that is killing millions of innocents around the global is based on ‘ancient beliefs’ that are not applicable in the modern world." - Indy

Were you referring to Communism and Fascism?

Indy: Dude . . . you’ve got to get away from the libertarian politics and start seeing the ‘reality of the world’.

Had Bush W done that before going into Iraq, perhaps the mess he created there including the sectarian violence could have been avoided . . .

As we saw, the US looked clumsy . . . including securing ‘weapon’ sites that were ‘raided’ and ammunitions from same were used against us.


Indy: Posted: May 18, 2014 7:10 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Indy: "Stevehw wrote: 'If you can't fight the message, try to shoot the messenger.'"

LOL.... Jeeez, Indy. Steve didn't write that. He was quoting ME, bub.

Indy: Yes, pal, I know how tough it is to see that your ideology and beliefs are failing us . . .

BrianBaker wrote: "Indy: Yes, that techniques is taught in ‘Conservatism 101’ . . . it’s a core requirement."

BrianBaker wrote: Hahahahahaha

Indy: Hmmmmmm . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Dude, since I wrote that, you KNOW that I was quoting "The Lefty Playbook For Dummies".

Indy: Yes, character assassination is used by conservatives since again, they can’t defend their failed polices . . . that’s in the book you noted . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Let's move on, Shall we?

You: "BrianBaker wrote: Nope, Indy, the 'bigger question' is exactly what I posed to you: '... all you're doing is rationalizing why it's OKAY for minorities to be bigoted and racist... Really? It IS okay, because somehow it's "justified"? Historically warranted?'

"Indy: I understand the temptation to place your beliefs by inserting them into my words . . . but that’s a fail on every level . . ."

Wrong again, Indy. Unlike your buddy stevie, I don't claim to be able to read minds. That was a legitimate question, which you REFUSED to answer.

Indy: It’s interesting for all the grandstanding that conservatives do about taking ‘responsibility’, that to see you run from this like the ‘world is on fire’ is embarrassing and pathetic.

When you state conservative ideology in the framework of a question, why should I write about it . . . I already know it doesn’t work.

BrianBaker wrote: Why is that, Indy? Why did you dodge the question instead of answering it?

Indy: Yes, I can see you’ve taken ‘conservartism 101’ and graduated with honors . . . well done!

BrianBaker wrote: You: "Then we see people who believe such nonsense being ‘too proud’ to admit the failure of their ideology beliefs and the rest we see here with many of the same folks telling ‘others’ like me ‘what we really mean’!"

You mean like steveie, who thinks any view or policy contrary to his own is automatically a badge of "bigotry" and "racism"? That what you mean? You guys are simply hilarious in your utter oblivion to your own hypocrisy and fake sanctimony. Priceless...

Indy: The conservative approach to make ‘white people’ victims in the history of racism in the US is not only laughable, but inappropriate and simply wrong . . . I know that a tough one to swallow . . . but perhaps get a glass of water as you try . .


BrianBaker: Posted: May 18, 2014 8:27 p.m.

And what I gathered through all that blather is that you STILL refused to answer the question.

Pathetic.

Unless you have something actually GERMANE to add to the discussion, I think we're done here. I really can't waste time with your endless repetition of the same old bullpuckey just repeated ad nauseum.

B-o-o-o-o-ring....


therightstuff: Posted: May 18, 2014 8:53 p.m.

Indy: """What has Al Sharpton said to you that is racist?"""

Attached is a link of Sharpton - in his own words. You are on a kick with Clive Bundy because he was featured on Fox News. Here's the difference. Once it was clear that Bundy was a racist, he was strongly condemned and no longer appeared on Fox News as a guest. Everyone knows Sharpton is racist...and he's an ANCHOR ON MSNBC!!

http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrTcdzDfHlTa0AAAdAPxQt.?ei=UTF-8&type=W3i_SP%2C221%2C0_0%2CStartPage%2C20131148%2C19670%2C0%2CFF12%2C7635&fr=sfp&hsimp=yhs-synd1&hspart=w3i&p=al+sharpton+racist&SpellState=&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 9:22 p.m.

"And what I gathered through all that blather is that you STILL refused to answer the question.

Pathetic."

This from the guy who refuses, more than just about anyone else, to answer simple questions. Ever heard of the term "projection"?

"Unless you have something actually GERMANE to add to the discussion, I think we're done here. I really can't waste time with your endless repetition of the same old bullpuckey just repeated ad nauseum."

In other words..."WAAAH! I'm taking my ball and going home!"


BrianBaker: Posted: May 19, 2014 9:43 p.m.

No, stevie, I did answer your question. You just didn't like the answer and decided to attach your own clairvoyant interpretation.

Due, of course, to your absolutely stunning ability to read minds.

That being one of the big differences between you and me. If someone DOESN'T answer a question ask, I'll simply point out their refusal to do so. YOU, on the other hand, and again due to your amazing psychic abilities, simply put words in the other person's mouth.

So...... unless YOU have something actually new or intelligent to add -- which would be quite the new phenomenon -- I can't be bothered with you anymore, either.

Anything else, Kamrade stevie?


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 10:03 p.m.

You're not half as clever as you think you are. The question was quite simple, and you did not answer it:

"So if a state passed a law which prohibited interracial marriage, there'd be no federal constitutional issue involved, is that what you're saying? "

Because you quite forcefully said " I believe the definition of marriage is rightfully a state issue to decide, just like every other aspect of marriage such as age of consent, and there's no federal constitutional issue involved."




stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 10:21 p.m.

http://www.xkcd.com/1357/


ricketzz: Posted: May 19, 2014 7:14 a.m.

There was a war between Communism and Fascism in 1938-1945. The United States was on the Communist side, which won. We almost immediately flipped sides. Now, the Soviet Empire, with its well behaved Islamists and Das Kapital is no more. Brian B. thinks by using Russian words as an insult it will stir some banked coals of Cold War Fervor; it will not. Russia is an oligarchy, a plutocracy, or whatever you want to call it. Vietnam, China and Cuba are about it for Communists, Brian. And 2 of those are just going through the motions.

Capitalism is as evil as Communism in my world. I don't believe in any vertical personal power.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 19, 2014 8:14 a.m.

"I don't believe in any vertical personal power."

Well, then, I'd say you're in for a lifetime of complete frustration.

It's in the nature of humankind to organize his societies into structures that have a hierarchy. In fact, when done right it's what makes all of our achievements possible.

We enjoy the fruits and benefits of our modern conveniences. Do you think our technological achievements would have been possible without some kind of order -- created by that hierarchy -- to society?

We've seen what happens when there is no social order: anarchy. Anarchist settings don't provide the elemental security that makes advancement possible, because people are all scrambling to simply survive.

Unfortunately for your belief system, we're not bees or ants, genetically programmed from birth to perform a simple function, and be satisfied with whatever our "portion" of the communal pot is. In fact, even in those insect societies, there's STILL a top entity running things: the queen insect.


tech: Posted: May 19, 2014 11:07 a.m.

I love xkcd. I also don't think people should be preemptively "shown the door" without due consideration of different perspectives.

Humorously illuminated by P.J. O'Rourke here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/18/my-commencement-speech-to-rutgers-geniuses-go-forth-and-fail.html


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 11:41 a.m.

"I love xkcd. I also don't think people should be preemptively "shown the door" without due consideration of different perspectives."

And I think that's the point. Racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and other bigoted "perspectives" have been given their "due consideration", and found to be abhorrent.

I don't think it's necessary to accept or tolerate bigotry or hatred.

I dig P. J. O'Rourke, btw :).


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 12:44 p.m.

Here's a good example:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/19/police-commissioner-in-n-h-town-resigns-over-obama-slur/?hpt=hp_t2

Now, do we "tolerate" this guy holding public office? Or do we, as a society, say that it's NOT acceptable?


tech: Posted: May 19, 2014 1:18 p.m.

"I don't think it's necessary to accept or tolerate bigotry or hatred."

Who classifies the behavior? I frequently witness misapplication of these terms.

Examples:

• Some Libertarians support open borders and consider those who don't xenophobic.
• Partisans and some media critters equate opposition to Obama Administration policies with racism.

Reasonable people can disagree without being labeled with epithets.


17trillion: Posted: May 19, 2014 1:37 p.m.

"Now, do we "tolerate" this guy holding public office? Or do we, as a society, say that it's NOT acceptable?"

"We" don't get to pick Steve. If anything, he should have lost his job for misclassifying the President. He should have used words like incompetent, socialist, tone-deaf, ego maniac, hyper-partisan, buffoon, and other such words. Besides, I'm of the opinion that as long as black people continue to widely use the word, then it must not be so bad. It's kind of like liberals lecturing me on tolerance.

Here is a good question for your Steve: Do you think we should "tolerate" Rep. Ryan Winkler for calling Justice Thomas an uncle Tom? How about Sharpton, should we tolerate him? How about Dianne Watson who said inter-racial marriage was "icky"? How about Biden talking about Indians at 7/11 or Harry Reid saying Obama was clean? Oh no, your phony and completely fake outrage is only saved for the "wrong" people saying things towards the "right" people. You would weep like a little baby if I said Obama was clean and didn't speak with a negro dialect unless he wanted to. But Reid and Biden get a pass and instead your outrage is directed at some yokel in Dogpatch New Hampshire who you've never heard of and never will again. "Oh, I'm so outraged, a white person said the N word! Will my ears ever recover?"


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 2:18 p.m.

So you're okay with the guy who runs the police department calling the President a n****r. Got it.


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 2:20 p.m.

"Partisans and some media critters equate opposition to Obama Administration policies with racism."

By the way, I've never equated simple disagreement over policy decisions or opposition to policies with racism.

If I were to do that, I'd have to call myself a racist, since I disagree with a number of things this administration has done.

It's not disagreement that makes one racist...it's when racism drives the disagreement (q.v. tea party).


17trillion: Posted: May 19, 2014 2:34 p.m.

He didn't "run" the police department. And frankly Steve, the president is a big boy and I'm sure he can handle it and to be honest anyone calling any president anything really doesn't change my life one way or the other anyway. Now, if the concerned citizens of Dogpatch NH want one of their 3 commissioners to go, then that is up to them. But lets be honest, if everyone was fired for saying some stupid racist comment, nobody would be working at anything in this country. Why do white people get so outraged when another white person says something racist and stupid? How did his words change your life?

So I guess you're ok with the Vice President insulting a billion Indians? I guess you're ok with the Senate leader saying the President is clean? I guess you're ok with a thousand examples of liberals being racist that I could quote here for a hundred years? No, instead your outrage is directed at....who is this guy again?

Liberal outrage would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Can you prove the Tea Party is racist? You know, racist in the way Barack Obama and Eric Holder are racist?


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 2:53 p.m.

"Why do white people get so outraged when another white person says something racist and stupid?"

I'm curious. What makes you think I'm white?


therightstuff: Posted: May 19, 2014 3:48 p.m.

"Obama is a light-skinned African-American with no negro dialect, unless he wants to use it." Senator Harry Reid

Steve, do we "tolerate" this guy holding public office? Or do we, as a society, say that it's NOT acceptable?

Funny how Democrats try to dismiss criticism of Obama with charges of racism but always look the other way when it's from one of their own.

Sterling is being crucified for privately telling his girl friend that she didn't want her bringing black people to basketball games. What happened to Jesse Jackson when he said he wanted to "cut Obama's nuts off"? No wait...Jackson is a Democrat. That's OK.


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 3:52 p.m.

We shouldn't tolerate such statements. They're not acceptable. And you won't find me defending them, either.

That's no hall pass for anyone else, though, to spout racist or sexist or homophobic comments.

The whole premise here seems to be "well, THEY DO IT, TOO, so therefore it's okay for me and my team to do it". I seem to recall being taught when I was a little kid that that's not an excuse, and I'm surprised to see grown-ups using it now.

Well, maybe not, considering the grown-ups in question.


tech: Posted: May 19, 2014 4:15 p.m.

I'm not arguing tu quoque, Steve. There are hypocritical buffoons of every sort on the political spectrum.

The crux is, who classifies statements, i.e. racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. (the list is seemingly endless when flacking grievance politics)? I provided a couple of examples I view as irrational.

Your assertion that the Tea Party platform (a variable) positions are based on racism is amusing and untenable. It's not central to my point, however.


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 4:31 p.m.

Oh, gee, I don't know...maybe calling someone a n****r isn't racist in your book, but it sure is mine. Denying equal rights to someone because your religion says they're not "normal", despite a professed belief in the Constitution, counts as some level of bigotry, I'd say.

I don't think there's a great mystery as to what constitutes racism, sexism, homophobia (a not very good word, by the way, for what we're talking about...I wouldn't say being anti-marriage-equality is the same as being *afraid* of homosexuals in the "phobia" sense...I'd prefer a better word, but I don't know what the equivalent of "racist" or "sexist" is here).

Anyway...this isn't difficult. And it shouldn't be difficult to say that it's not *right*, and shouldn't be tolerated. However, as I said, the whole premise of the author's letter seems to be "See! See! They do it, too!", which IS a tu quoque fallacy.

Instead of condemning racists of one stripe, he uses racism of another to, in essence, defend it.

'She writes: “Obama being a black man and becoming the president has galled borderline racist and bigots.”

Maybe so, but what about...?'

What about it? The last time I checked, someone *else's* poor behavior was no excuse for one's own.


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 4:34 p.m.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html


tech: Posted: May 19, 2014 4:50 p.m.

"Anyway...this isn't difficult. And it shouldn't be difficult to say that it's not *right*, and shouldn't be tolerated."

I disagree. The police example you provided was an obvious one, it would seem. However, how is it appropriate for African-Americans to use the term? Does that make them racist? It appears Brian's main point was the illogic of socially "intolerable" behavior/speech that's predicated on who you are, what "group" you are part of or what you look like, etc. isn't principled. Rather, it's frequently an attempt to politically delegitimize those who don't share a given perspective.

It isn't simple. Discernment is required.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 19, 2014 4:51 p.m.

"However, as I said, the whole premise of the author's letter seems to be 'See! See! They do it, too!', which IS a tu quoque fallacy.

"Instead of condemning racists of one stripe, he uses racism of another to, in essence, defend it."

Nonsense. Utter sheer nonsense, of the kind I've come to expect from you on a daily basis.

Pointing out someone's hypocrisy is NOT the same thing as defending racism. In fact, quite the contrary, as I clearly point out in the LTE, and which -- as usual -- you can't seem to comprehend:

"And it’s also funny how Clarence Thomas and Larry Elder and Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell and Colonel Allen West and a whole host of others can be absolutely trashed by the Dem/socialists, and somehow or another that’s not 'racist.'

"I guess it’s not 'racist' if the 'person of color' embraces conservative values."

Oh, but I forgot. You have those amazing mind-reading skills, and you can tell that what I REALLY meant was something other than what I actually wrote.

You really are something.
.
.
. --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 19, 2014 4:53 p.m.

BTW, I guess this is how you've come to the conclusion that the tea party is "racist", even though there's not one thing they're concerned about that has anything at all to do with race.

As I said earlier, to you the idea of "small government" seems to be some kind of "dog whistle" code for "racism".

Pffttt...


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 4:59 p.m.

No, it appears Baker's main point was to excuse certain behavior using, as you noted, the tu quoque argument.

There's also some victim card playing going on, too.


tech: Posted: May 19, 2014 5:01 p.m.

Tea Partiers Racist? Not So Fast

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/25/tea_partiers_racist_not_so_fast_105309.html


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 5:03 p.m.

Ah, he's back. The guy who won't answer questions, but resorts to lengthy diatribes and personal attacks on his opponent, then runs away with his toys when it becomes apparent what his real views are.


tech: Posted: May 19, 2014 5:05 p.m.

What's your opinion on use by African-Americans of what's considered a pejorative term. Is "intolerable" conditional, Steve?


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 5:08 p.m.

About the same as homosexuals calling themselves or their friends "queer"...


tech: Posted: May 19, 2014 5:16 p.m.

Noted on conditional use, Steve. It does require discernment and subtlety.


therightstuff: Posted: May 19, 2014 5:18 p.m.

"""Ah, he's back. The guy who won't answer questions, but resorts to lengthy diatribes and personal attacks on his opponent, then runs away with his toys when it becomes apparent what his real views are."""

Where did Indy go?


therightstuff: Posted: May 19, 2014 5:25 p.m.

Steve, Reid's idiotic comments were not posted to excuse anyone else's idiotic comments. I'm glad you don't defend them but neither will you condemn them....if it's a fellow Democrat. I was just exposing your double-standard. Again.

And the guy who constantly uses the "what about Bush" line for every foible of Obama is the last person to be lecturing others about excusing bad behavior because of someone else's bad behavior. Get real.








BrianBaker: Posted: May 19, 2014 5:28 p.m.

Da, da, da, Kamrade Stevie.

Can't respond to what I wrote, huh? Instead, and as usual, just slinging around more of your patented irrelevant drivel.


Well, I'll let you and the other guys battle it out, because they're posing the same questions, which so far you've continued to dance around.

In what way is the Tea Party "racist"?

Guys, I'll leave it to you to press the issue.

(PS, stevie, it's pretty funny to see YOU whining about "personal attacks". Isn't that your stock in trade? Your first and last tactic at all times?)


stevehw: Posted: May 19, 2014 6:49 p.m.

Let's try this again:

"I believe the definition of marriage is rightfully a state issue to decide, just like every other aspect of marriage such as age of consent, and there's no federal constitutional issue involved."

So if a state passed a law which prohibited interracial marriage, there'd be no federal constitutional issue involved, is that what you're saying?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 19, 2014 8:13 p.m.

Stevie, that's completely irrelevant. Which is why I've ignored it, and will continue to do so.

The 15th Amendment bars voting discrimination based on race; Brown v. Board of Education extends that to broader applications; the basic principle is established that one can't be discriminated against based on the color of their skin, or their ethnicity. Therefore no such state law could ever be enacted, making your question moot.

All of that is about the state of one's existence, a happenstance of melanin, which has nothing to do with behavior. One can't choose their skin color, but they CAN choose how they're going to act. That can be legislated within constitutional bounds.

Now again, look at the legal groundwork I've laid. There's no "right" anywhere in there to same-sex "marriages".

So let's take the next step. As I've said, the definition and conditions of marriage are properly a state issue to define, just as they do in all other aspects such as age of consent, etc.

And let's acknowledge that gay people want to have some kind of formal recognition and/or sanction for their committed monogamous relationships. Perfectly understandable and commendable.

But once a state has put into place such a system, as this state did with the institution of "civil unions", and properly amended the state constitution to define "marriage" as being one man and one woman, then the issue has been successfully resolved to accommodate all concerned, as far as I can see.

But then what happened? "Civil unions" weren't good enough, and all of a sudden same-sex unions had to be "marriages". But if "civil unions" are on the books, no one's "equal rights" are being violated. A state-recognized and -sanctioned union exists for people of the same sex, with all the same rights, privileges, and status as hetero couples who are "married".

All of which led to my answer when you asked the question: whatever a state determines their laws to be on same-sex "marriages" is properly within their legal purview to define.

NOW, I'll ALSO add that if a state DOESN'T have some kind of accommodation for same-sex couples, MAYBE then there might be some kind of legal basis for a challenge based on discrimination.

Maybe.

I'll tell you something else, to which you alluded. If this issue is somehow "settled" by SCOTUS (and a SCOTUS review seems unavoidable), it's definitely going to come up again with some other subset of "loving couples" that don't currently have "marriage rights" and want them.

I know you scoff at the idea of a "slippery slope", but even the most cursory examination of this country's history will show such skepticism to be unfounded.

You wanted an answer such as I'd give to someone I was in a conversation with and whom I respected? Now you've got it.

Ball's in your court.


stevehw: Posted: May 20, 2014 9:21 p.m.

OK, I'll return that volley.

The *14th* Amendment provides for equal protection under the law. No state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Brown v Bd of Educ dealt with segregation, not marriage. Loving v VA, a case which *does* deal with marriage and overturned antimiscegenation laws, quite clearly said " The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888)."

The Supreme Court has found in no fewer than 14 cases that marriage is a "fundamental right".

See, e.g., Meyer v Nebraska "Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, ****to marry****, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. "

This isn't even a debatable question at this point. Time and again, SCOTUS has held that marriage is a fundamental right.

Couple that with the 14th Amendment's prohibition on denying equal protection, and it becomes obvious that even gays and lesbians have a right to marry.

Every argument against same-sex marriage has been laid out in the dozens of recent cases, and every has been found lacking: "protection" of "traditional" marriage, encouraging responsible procreation by heterosexual couples, "think of the children", and so on. None of them stand up to any rigorous legal analysis.

You seem fixated on behavior as some allowable criteria for determining who may get married, but there's no rational reason behind that. Religion is *entirely* a personal choice, and it would be entirely unconstitutional to prohibit inter-sect marriages, or require that one marry someone of their own faith.

(more in next post...)


stevehw: Posted: May 20, 2014 9:27 p.m.

The second failure in your reasoning is that civil unions are "equal". They are not.

There are many, many benefits, priviledges, rights and obligations which someone who has a marriage license has which people who are "civil unioned" do not. Read any of the recent opinions overturning bans on same-sex marriage for listings of these. Taxes, health care, employment benefits, social security benefits, childcare, inheritance...the list is quite long.

And even if they *were*, I think the case you referred to answered that question back in 1954...separate is inherently Unequal.

So a) marriage is a fundamental right, b) states may not deny persons equal protection under the law (absent a compelling government interest, of which none has been shown), c) civil unions are not "equal", and d) even if they were, separate is unequal.

Lastly, as for the "slippery slope"...assuming, arguendo, that it does come about...so what? Other than the hopelessly complex financial and child custody issues that would come about with a polygamous "divorce", if grown-ups want to have multiple spouses, THAT actually would be more "traditional" than what the anti-SSM crowd keeps crowing about as being "traditional" marriage. Again...consenting adults should be able to enter into a contract.

Your turn.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 20, 2014 10:28 p.m.

I'm not interested in a debate. I told you my opinion. You disagree. That's that.

Now...... why is the Tea Party "racist"?


stevehw: Posted: May 20, 2014 10:34 p.m.

Oh, I see...you wanted to express your opinion, but you don't want to hear anyone else's (particularly those that demonstrate the holes in your reasoning). I think they call that the "La la la I can't hear you" technique of debate.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 20, 2014 7:21 a.m.

Perfect, stevie. I bet myself that your response would be something along those lines, and you lived right down to my every expectation. And whenever that happens you whine like Rodney Dangerfield about how you don't get no respect. Now you know why.

Look up at the top of the page. Whose name is up there? Mine. And what's the TOPIC? Lefties' constant and predictable hypocrisy in throwing around accusations of "racism".

I indulged your tangential and irrelevant detour into same-sex marriage and even treated you respectfully and as an adult. You, predictably, don't know how to handle that and instantly revert back to type.

So we're done with that, and we're getting back on topic.

You've accused the Tea Party of being "racist". In what way is the Tea Party "racist"?





ricketzz: Posted: May 20, 2014 7:49 a.m.

Tech has to go back 4 years to find an ambiguous article based on a sloppy survey. People will not cop to racism on the record. It is a well known phenom in polling that people lie about their racist feelings; that black candidates get less support in the elections than they get in opinion surveys.

When people go on and on for weeks on end about how they aren't something, chances are they really are the dreaded whatever. The Tea Party is virtually all white. That's racist enough for a lot of us.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 20, 2014 7:54 a.m.

"The Tea Party is virtually all white. That's racist enough for a lot of us."

Wow. There's some real in-depth "thinking" for you.

The NAACP is almost all Black. Is that a "racist" organization, too?


17trillion: Posted: May 20, 2014 8:23 a.m.

Mexico is full of Mexicans! That is a racist country!


BrianBaker: Posted: May 20, 2014 8:28 a.m.

LOL!


philellis: Posted: May 20, 2014 8:30 a.m.

17, I am not sure about being racist, but xenophobic certainly.


17trillion: Posted: May 20, 2014 9:23 a.m.

Obama is as big a racist as anyone. Just ask me for proof.....


tech: Posted: May 20, 2014 9:24 a.m.

"The Tea Party is virtually all white. That's racist enough for a lot of us." - ricketzz

The irony is heavy with this one.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 20, 2014 9:26 a.m.

Far be it from me to show favoritism to "my side".

So I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to stevie:

You've accused Obama of "racism". In what way is Obama "racist"?


stevehw: Posted: May 20, 2014 9:57 a.m.

'You've accused the Tea Party of being "racist". In what way is the Tea Party "racist"? '

I'll admit it's just my impression of them, based on anecdotal evidence...but there's a lot of it. The emergence of the "tea party" precisely at the moment of Obama's inauguration, the claim that it's only about taxes (but lots of talk about social conservative issues by tea party members), the misspelled signs about how Obama is Kenyan, the association with the birthers, etc.

Is there some definitive proof that the entire tea party and everyone who associates with it is racist? Of course not. But enough of them apparently are...when you lie down with dogs, you rise up with fleas, right?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 20, 2014 10:17 a.m.

Okay, so you made a baseless accusation. Kudos for owning up to it. That satisfies the question as far as I'm concerned. It's part of human nature to sometimes do such things, and you KNOW how I always go on about human nature.

But let me point something out that might affect your opinion. The Tea Party came into being when it did in reaction to government policies that had more to do, at that time, with Bush than Obama. Yes, some of that coincided with Obama's election, but he'd had time to do pretty much nothing by then. The economy collapsed under Bush's watch; the bailout was being debated, a bailout supported by the Establishment GOP hacks as much as the Dems; and THAT was pretty much the stimulus for the rise of the Tea Party.

The early "Tea Party" activities took place while Bush was still in office as far back as 2005. The first semi-"official" national stimulus is credited to Rick Santelli's on-screen "rant" in Feb 2009, less than a month after Obama took office.

So the reality is that the Tea Party has nothing to do with Obama, or any other individual politician. Hell, we (yes, I consider myself one, though there is no formal organization per se) dislike Establishment GOPers almost as much as Dems.

The Tea Party believes in limited government and fiscal responsibility; those are the most basic tenets of the group.

To point to individual fringe nutjobs and claim they represent the mainstream is intellectually dishonest in assessing ANY large group or organization.

So, to say "when you lie down with dogs, you rise up with fleas, right?" is wrong. Unless you want to claim every fringe whack in the Dem party as being "representative", too. Does Robert Byrd's membership in the KKK mean that the Dem party is all about the Klan?

Hmmmm?


CaptGene: Posted: May 20, 2014 10:18 a.m.

So, would you consider the Congressional Black Caucus a racist organization steve? The membership is entirely black, in fact, it's in the name, in fact, they denied membership to a white senator and said it was because he was white. Is the Tea Party as racist as that? What's your take?

Oh, and yes, Obama was a member. --edited.


CaptGene: Posted: May 20, 2014 10:22 a.m.

Search Google images for "black tea party members", then look at the membership page of the CBC and let me know which group is more racist.


17trillion: Posted: May 20, 2014 10:32 a.m.

Here is why Obama is a racist:

1. He defended his black professor buddy at Harvard after he got arrested by some white cops and said the cops acted stupidly. He said this without knowing any facts.

2. He said his son could be Travon Martin when Martin was killed by a white person, albeit a "white Hispanic" person and he has yet to EVER comment on the thousands of black kids being killed by other black kids or on a white kid killed by black kids or any kids killed by any other kids. He only interjects when race is the hot topic.

3. He made comments about peopled guns and bibles in middle America. This is code for white people.

4. He sat in Reverend Wrights church for years, decades?, listening to the most vile and racist talk anywhere. Not only didn't he object, but he embraced Wright until he became a liability.

5. He employs a black Attorney General who says America is cowardly for not talking about race despite the feeling of many who think we talk about nothing else.

6. He did nothing when his black Attorney General dropped charges against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation. Can you just imagine their reaction if it were the New White Panthers doing the same?

7. He called his grandmother a typical white person. Can you imagine a white person saying something to the effect of a black person being typical?

8 And finally, it's the repeated and stomach retching claim that anyone that has the temerity to disagree with this brilliance does so only because of race, which is in fact, racist!


BrianBaker: Posted: May 20, 2014 10:43 a.m.

FYI, here are links to a few pictures I shot at the first Tea Party gathering here in the SCV in 2008:

http://s243.photobucket.com/user/Brianb2970/media/2008-Tea-Party_001-web-2copy.jpg.html?sort=3&o=3

http://s243.photobucket.com/user/Brianb2970/media/2008-Tea-Party_024-web-2_copyright.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2


http://s243.photobucket.com/user/Brianb2970/media/2008-Tea-Party_009-web-2.jpg.html?sort=3&o=15

http://s243.photobucket.com/user/Brianb2970/media/2008-Tea-Party_032-web-2.jpg.html?sort=3&o=25

Two things to note: the object of protest is government excess; and it's a multi-racial crowd.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 20, 2014 10:44 a.m.

Persuasive list, 17trill.


17trillion: Posted: May 20, 2014 10:59 a.m.

How about this gem from his wife:

"We know that today in America, too many folks are still stopped on the street because of the color of their skin, or they're made to feel unwelcome because of where they come from, or they're bullied because of who they love."

Really? People stopped just because of their skin color? People made to feel unwelcome, I assume because they're from Mexico, simply because they're from Mexico and not because they are here ILLEGALLY, SPONGING OFF AMERICAN GOODWILL AND TAX RECEIPTS? Homosexuals being bullied? Really? Where? Show me one. I'm sure there is one out there, but enough to warrant mention by the High Priestess of All Knowing?

Screw you Michelle! People hate you and your husband because you're thin-skinned piles of dog poo who think they know everything and yet can't do anything. Just yesterday, again, Jay Carney tells the press that Obama learned of the latest VA mess on TV. This is what passes for leadership today. And let the record reflect that I don't necessarily blame every scandal on Obama personally, but I do blame him for deflecting, blaming others, ignoring, lying, and having the absolute balls to tell me, "there isn't a smidgeon of corruption at the IRS".

So yea America, lets have a conversation about race. Can I puke before we begin the conversation?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 20, 2014 11:01 a.m.

Quit holding back. Tell us how you REALLY feel...


17trillion: Posted: May 20, 2014 11:25 a.m.

How I really feel? Anyone that says I'm a racist or homophobe or someone opposed to equal pay or any of a thousand other ridiculous accusation and go ---- themselves. They are accusations, due entirely to the absurd and comedic overuse, that have lost any power over me. The only way to fight them is to turn their own BS against them. You want racism? How about he Black Congressional Caucus or the NAACP or the National Action Network or the Southern Law Poverty Center or La Raza? Those groups bleed racism and yet people like Steve whine about the Tea Party based entirely on his anecdotal observations?

I recall a white congressman from St. Louis getting elected in a district that was primarily black. He wanted to join the Congressional Black Caucus because his district was black and he thought it might be a good thing. He was denied entry! Because he was white! But at least we have Steve's anecdotal evidence......


17trillion: Posted: May 20, 2014 11:35 a.m.

Attorney General Holder warned that recent public episodes of racial bigotry should not obscure the greater damage done by more systemic forms of prejudice and discrimination….The greatest threats are more subtle. They cut deeper. And their terrible impact endures long after the headlines have faded and obvious, ignorant expressions of hatred have been marginalized.

Washington Post


Ahhh, more subtle! That's it! And they cut deeper than overt forms of racism? And the sheep just eat this bologna up. You go Eric! Subtle racism, that's the ticket. Oh yea, he said the above at Morgan State University where only 1.7% of the kids were white. Racist entrance policies anyone?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 20, 2014 11:40 a.m.

That being the point of my original LTE, of course.


CaptGene: Posted: May 20, 2014 6:31 p.m.

So, the CBC will not allow any white members, even if they serve a predominantly black district...hmmm... sounds a little racist to me. Let's see what the head of the CBC said when that situation came up:

"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." Clay also issued the following statement:"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."

-- William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-MO

Wow, if there was a white equivalent, I would think anyone that belonged to that organization would be a racist. How about you steve?


stevehw: Posted: May 20, 2014 7:33 p.m.

Yeah, I'd concur. If someone is genuinely interested in pursuing the policies of the group, or supporting the minority in question, they should be accepted.


CaptGene: Posted: May 20, 2014 7:56 p.m.

So, since Obama belonged to this racist organization, will you agree that he is a racist?

Oh, and as an added bonus, allbut one member of the CBC is GOP, membership is super majority (D). --edited.


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 10:03 p.m.

If, as you posited, he was white and belonged to a white supremacist organization, I'd feel pretty sure he was a racist.

Not sure about a minority in an organization whose purpose is to support minority rights, though.

Boy Scouts don't allow gay scoutmasters. Therefore, all Boy Scouts are anti-gay. Right?


CaptGene: Posted: May 21, 2014 2:47 a.m.

"Is there some definitive proof that the entire tea party and everyone who associates with it is racist? Of course not. But enough of them apparently are...when you lie down with dogs, you rise up with fleas, right?"

-- stevehw, May 20, 2014 9:57 a.m.

You're a hypocrite. But it's not like we didn't know that already.


therightstuff: Posted: May 21, 2014 7:26 a.m.

One thing I've never understood is the BET ((Black Entertainmnent Network). Can you imagine the holy hell that would be raised if there was a White Entertainmnet Network?


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 8:47 a.m.

I'm a hypocrite because I don't think the CBC or the NAACP is the same as a bunch of white people who demonstrate their views on race by holding up signs with Obama dressed as like an African native and the like, or an entire group who firmly believes he was born in Kenya and therefore shouldn't be President (or is it the other way around? LOL!).

Seriously?

I know the nice story about how the tea party stuff all got started back when the right wing was soooo upset about Bush's economic policies (you know, things like a trillion dollars off-budget for a war we didn't need to start, stuff like that). Funny how nobody heard of them until right around January, 2009, and then they showed up, replete with racist signs and concomitant with the birther movement. (http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/the-birther-manifesto)

I don't find this coincidental.

And though tea partiers will claim the movement is all about taxes and government spending, they sure spend a lot of time bringing up social issues like unions, civil rights, gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and so on.

Because all they are is the same old, evangelical, white Republicans as before.


17trillion: Posted: May 21, 2014 9:46 a.m.

"I'm a hypocrite because I don't think the CBC or the NAACP is the same as a bunch of white people who demonstrate their views on race by holding up signs with Obama dressed as like an African native and the like"

If only I could be so blissfully ignorant. So tolerant of this type of racism but not that type. Oh if only I could be a liberal. If only I could have voted for the most racist president since the 19th century.


CaptGene: Posted: May 21, 2014 9:51 a.m.

No, you're a hypocrite because you get all mealy mouthed when challenged to call a group that is clearly racist (the CBC) and it members racist, but you are perfectly comfortable calling the Tea Party and it members racist when they clearly are not racist.

On further consideration, it is clear that the racist is you.

The CBC is historically all black, and has made public statements proclaiming that. Your perception, which clearly does not comport with reality, is that the Tea Party is all white. Yet, your default position is that the perceived as all white group is racist, but when confronted with an all black group with an expressed racial bias, you are incapable of the intellectual honesty required to call them out as the racists they are.

Sad, pathetic.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 21, 2014 10:02 a.m.

Well, steve, it looks like you HAVE completely reverted back to type, seeing as how you referred to my factual recitation about the Tea Party, paraphrased it, then scoffed at it.

I notice how you didn't have the guts to respond DIRECTLY to it, too. Too many actual FACTS, I guess.

Ah, well. So much for treating you like a rational, courteous debater. I guess it's back to scorn and mockery from me.

You've earned it.

And it'll give you plenty of reason to revert back to your usual whining about your victimhood.


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 11:30 a.m.

"I guess it's back to scorn and mockery from me."

When did you ever leave it? It's pretty much the only "debate tactic" I've ever seen from you. Oh, there's always the "I don't care what you think" technique, or the "I don't want to talk about it anymore" method, too.


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 11:55 a.m.

"The CBC is historically all black, and has made public statements proclaiming that. Your perception, which clearly does not comport with reality, is that the Tea Party is all white. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/

"Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters. The vast majority of them -- 89 percent -- are white. Just one percent is black. "

"More than half (54 percent) identify as Republicans, and another 41 percent say they are independents."

"Nearly three in four describe themselves as conservative, and 39 percent call themselves very conservative. Sixty percent say they always or usually vote Republican. "

That college education didn't help them much, it seems:

"Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration. Thirty-four percent of the general public says the president has raised taxes on most Americans. "

And birtherism is alive and well in the tea party:

"Thirty percent of Tea Party supporters believe Mr. Obama was born in another country, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Another 29 percent say they don't know. "

on race:

"Just 16 percent of Tea Party supporters say whites have more opportunities to get ahead, compared to 31 percent of all Americans. Seventy-three percent say both have equal opportunity, compared to 60 percent of Americans overall.


Fifty-two percent believe too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Far fewer Americans overall -- 28 percent -- believe as much. Among non-Tea Party whites, the percentage who say too much attention has been paid to the problems of black people is 23 percent. "


BrianBaker: Posted: May 21, 2014 12:36 p.m.

"When did you ever leave it? It's pretty much the only "debate tactic" I've ever seen from you."

Good on ya, stevie! Right back into victim mode without missing a beat!


Now, let's see.... Robert Byrd was a big KKK mucky-muck. The Dems made him a big mucky-muck in their sorry excuse for a party. Ergo, the Dem Party is a Klan organization!

"Logic" per stevie, the Czar Of Thought Police.


Indy: Posted: May 21, 2014 1:04 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """What has Al Sharpton said to you that is racist?"""

Attached is a link of Sharpton - in his own words. You are on a kick with Clive Bundy because he was featured on Fox News. Here's the difference. Once it was clear that Bundy was a racist, he was strongly condemned and no longer appeared on Fox News as a guest. Everyone knows Sharpton is racist...and he's an ANCHOR ON MSNBC!!

Indy: Again, give me the examples . . . just a few that show he’s a racist . . .


Indy: Posted: May 21, 2014 1:07 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: And what I gathered through all that blather is that you STILL refused to answer the question.

Indy: I answered the questions . . . but you refuse to accept any positions different than your own.

The big issue you can’t grasp is the ‘reactions’ of black Americans who are the recipients of the racism that started with the civil war.

You assume that a race of people who were enslaved . . . just call it ‘Ok’ for no more slavery . . . and would accept the ‘separate but equal’ racism right up to the civil rights movement in the 60s.

Making whites out as the ‘victims’ here is pathetic . . .


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 1:58 p.m.

"and would accept the ‘separate but equal’ racism right up to the civil rights movement in the 60s."

Actually, according to polls, it wasn't until the *90s* that a bare majority of Americans believed interracial marriage was ok.


CaptGene: Posted: May 21, 2014 2:01 p.m.

What's your point steve? Because what you post only proves mine. Only 1% of Tea Party is black? Really, did they use the voter registration rolls to get that?

No matter, zero percent of the CBC is white, because they are not allowed, unlike the Tea Party.

All your blather does nothing to hide that you're a racist. --edited.


stevehw: Posted: May 21, 2014 2:14 p.m.

No, only 1% of the tea party is black.

Did you even bother to read what I posted?

"All your blather does nothing to hide that you're a racist. "

I'm hurt. No, really.


CaptGene: Posted: May 21, 2014 2:55 p.m.

Yeah forgot to hit the shift key, surprised you couldn't figure that out. What's not surprising is your feeble attempt to distract from your racism. Perhaps you'll luck out and find some grammar or spelling errors too.

Perhaps you think that the racism you perceive from the Tea Party and the racism that is real in the CBC is separate and not equal.

Either way, the lack of intellectual honesty displayed by liberal partisan hacks like you, ricketzz and of course Indy Nile never ceases to amaze. It's why nobody can take you seriously. --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 21, 2014 3:54 p.m.

Indy: "Making whites out as the ‘victims’ here is pathetic . . ."

Going on to prove your utter cluelessness yet again.

Maybe you should re-read the LTE, since to anyone with any reasoning ability, and any familiarity with the English language, there's not a word in there about white "victimization".

What IS in there is the idea that lefties are very inconsistent, and frankly hypocritical, in how they throw the "racist" label around, somehow never able to attach it to THEIR OWN actions when they do EXACTLY the same things conservatives do: criticize the politics of people who are minorities.

I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that, bubba. I thought you were the brilliant MBA who's the expert on everything. What happened? Forget to ever study reading comprehension?


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 21, 2014 4:01 p.m.

For my friend Indy. The Sharpton hit parade;

"You wanna be the only n.... on television, only n.... in the newspaper. Don't cover them, don't talk to them, 'cause you got the only n... problem. 'Cause you know if a black man stood up next to you they would see you for the wh... that you really are." Was he talking about Obama?

"Koreans sells us the watermelon." Geez

"White folks was in the caves when we were building empires." Yeah, but they were nice caves.

"We taught philosophy and astrology (LOL) and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." I am so offended. I am a real Socrates fan.

"Where de white wimmen at?" Oh, wait. Blazing Saddles.

Sorry, Indy. Point must be conceded.


therightstuff: Posted: May 21, 2014 5:25 p.m.

Thank you AlwaysRight. I actually posted the link where Indy could see Al Sharpton saying it from his own mouth. And now he asks for examples.

Indy never concedes a point that goes against his ideology, even when you provide physical evidence.


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 6:22 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Indy: "Making whites out as the ‘victims’ here is pathetic . . ."

Going on to prove your utter cluelessness yet again.

Indy: Yes, as I read the posts here from ‘old white conservatives’, it’s all too clear that they shed their responsibility for the positions many blacks find themselves in today . . . not to mention the ‘voter suppression’ activities going on nationwide by conservative partisans against minorities.

BrianBaker wrote: Maybe you should re-read the LTE, since to anyone with any reasoning ability, and any familiarity with the English language, there's not a word in there about white "victimization".

Indy: Dude, you apparently don’t read the comments here in this thread from your fellow conservatives.

You wrote: “but what about the black racists and bigots who hate everything white, or who vote for Obama and other politicians only because they’re black?”

It’s great to make such a statement and indeed there are blacks that feel that way . . . but you can’t see that in ‘isolation’ of the history . . . that’s your weakness . . . and one where many white old people who grew up with the ‘Negro’ as Bundy likes to refer to them, are still in denial regarding the consequences of racism . . . and still don’t believe they are racist!

BrianBaker wrote: What IS in there is the idea that lefties are very inconsistent, and frankly hypocritical, in how they throw the "racist" label around, somehow never able to attach it to THEIR OWN actions when they do EXACTLY the same things conservatives do: criticize the politics of people who are minorities.

Indy: Yes, you’re like TRS . . . the hypocrisy issue is so tired and worn out but it does tend to ‘hide’ the conservative hypocrisy . . . so I guess we’ll see more of this nonsense from you et al . .

In any event, the democrats prior to the civil rights movement indeed had themselves many racist. But that’s not the issue here today . . . although it does play to the history.

Do you think Clive Bundy is in the ‘modern world’ by comparing poor blacks on welfare that would be better suited to ‘picking cotton’? This is his words in 2014 not 1954 , . . and just look how the white supremacist militias flock to the clown . .


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 6:22 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that, bubba. I thought you were the brilliant MBA who's the expert on everything. What happened? Forget to ever study reading comprehension?

Indy: Yes, pal, your contemptuous notion of education is sadly all too typical of old white people that mainly rely on biblically scripture as a proxy for basic economics . . . then make the kind of meaningless remarks you keep grandstanding here as if you had a proverbial clue . . .

But indeed it’s important for me to explain to the guest readers the failings of conservatism and to help the public understand why conservatives ‘today’ ignore so much of the reality and yet still try to ‘rewrite’ history and the Constitution to ‘fit’ conservative ideology.


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 6:24 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: For my friend Indy. The Sharpton hit parade;

"You wanna be the only n.... on television, only n.... in the newspaper. Don't cover them, don't talk to them, 'cause you got the only n... problem. 'Cause you know if a black man stood up next to you they would see you for the wh... that you really are."

Indy: Where did you get this from?

I appreciate the quotes but just give me the links to I can look them over . . .


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 6:26 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Thank you AlwaysRight. I actually posted the link where Indy could see Al Sharpton saying it from his own mouth. And now he asks for examples. Indy never concedes a point that goes against his ideology, even when you provide physical evidence. e talking about Obama?

Indy: Yes, just give the ‘quotes’ you feel are racist . . . not a difficult task . . . then we can discuss them.

And also the respective links to same so I can read the remarks ‘in context’.


Indy: Posted: May 22, 2014 6:28 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: “The CBC is historically all black, and has made public statements proclaiming that. Your perception, which clearly does not comport with reality, is that the Tea Party is all white. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/

Indy: Thanks for the links and statistics.

The fact that that almost a third of the Tea Party members don’t believe Obama is an American speaks the ignorance that consumers this movement . . .


CaptGene: Posted: May 22, 2014 8:51 p.m.

Indy Nile: "The fact that that almost a third of the Tea Party members don’t believe Obama is an American speaks the ignorance that consumers this movement..."

I don't know where to begin...

All I can say is thanks for the laugh out loud moment.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 23, 2014 6:57 a.m.

Gotta agree, CG.

All he does is keep repeating the same gibberish endlessly, regardless of what's been said.

When my daughter was a little girl, she had a "talking" doll. When you pulled the cord, she "spoke" one of about six programmed phrases. He reminds me of that doll.

Someone: "Hey, Indy, the sky is blue."

Indy: "This is an example of a focus-group tested conservative talking point, and the poster is showing his own bias..."



Just hilarious!


ricketzz: Posted: May 23, 2014 7:25 a.m.

As NBA team owner Mark Cuban says we're all a little bigoted, and parts of "racism" are human nature. We work with the facts and we adapt; nothing insurmountable here. In fact this "controversy" is more idiotic misdirection of our attention away from the elephant in the home theater.

We have an all hands on deck global emergency under way and you argue about hurt feelings. No wonder your grandchildren curse you.


CaptGene: Posted: May 23, 2014 8:04 a.m.

BB, Indy Nile's unoriginal repeated parroting of his failed ideology wasn't even where I was going with that. I was laughing at how, in the same sentence, he calls a group ignorant while exhibiting an inability to form a coherent sentence.

I know it's a painful exercise, but read his gibberish again, the laugh at the end is worth it. To use IndyNileSpeak: "for all intensive purposes" it's the funniest thing you'll read all day!

"The fact that that almost a third of the Tea Party members don’t believe Obama is an American speaks the ignorance that consumers this movement..."

Stand by for Indy Nile to plagiarize my trademarked Comedy Gold®!


BrianBaker: Posted: May 23, 2014 8:12 a.m.

Oh, yeah. I'm so used to his mangled syntax and vocabulary -- not to mention spelling errors -- that I don't even see them anymore.

They're kinda like the chirping of the birds. You never notice them unless you're specifically listening for them.


tech: Posted: May 23, 2014 8:48 a.m.

Tell me again what constitutes Indy's educational background. There's no need for embarrassment. We need to know how we can help him.

In light of Indy's rampant copy and paste plagiarism, I note you're registering your trademarks too, CG. Those that have the ability to think and create need to protect their intellectual property.

11/4/14®


frankferryhater: Posted: May 23, 2014 2:16 p.m.

Everyone has been a slave to someone at some point in history. The Spanish enslaved the Mexican Indians and stole Billions in Gold and killed millions as well.

I never owned slaves, my family didn't own slaves, therefore I have no Black guilt like so many white people do.

Slavery is in the past, black people get over it!


BrianBaker: Posted: May 23, 2014 7:44 p.m.

Amen.


ricketzz: Posted: May 24, 2014 7:11 a.m.

My Mom's branch of the family moved West from Jamestown and records show we usually only had one or two "negro slaves" if any. By the 19th century we were Baptist abolitionists from N.Carolina to Illinois. My Dad's side of the family were merchant sailors, and they are notoriously superstitious and xenophobic. My latent racism comes from Dad's side of the family. I do not blame him, nor his father. They did not know any better. What is your freaking excuse?


tech: Posted: May 24, 2014 10:00 a.m.

"What is your freaking excuse?" - ricketzz

I don't need one as I'm not racist. Nor does anyone owe you an explanation.


ricketzz: Posted: May 25, 2014 6:59 a.m.

If Slavery is over why do we have more people imprisoned than any other country in the world? Why do the companies we spawn want factories on barges so they can tow them where the labor and taxes suits them? If Slavery is dead, why are there suicide nets outside the Chinese factories where our very shiny (yeah) trinkets are made? And even if our slavery is over we still treat urban communities like war zones. If I grew up in the ghetto, with helicopters and sirens all day and night, I'd be inclined to have a different perception of the American experience. And please don't forget that Reagan Admin people flooded the cities with weed and crack cocaine and made the 'hood a dangerous place. They had zero moral qualms about using certain peoples' lives to finance their right wing puppets in Latin America. These are awfully racist behaviors, if you look at the end results.


tech: Posted: May 25, 2014 9:03 a.m.

res ipsa loquitur


CaptGene: Posted: May 25, 2014 9:06 a.m.

"If Slavery is over why do we have more people imprisoned than any other country in the world?"

You are a complete moron.


SenseInCastaic2: Posted: May 25, 2014 9:09 a.m.

If people don't get their minds OUT OF THE PAST (i.e. the Civil War/Slavery) the FUTURE will never have a clean slate.

Lessons were learned - horrible ones - White men were bad... Now, ALL men (and women) are bad, so it is pretty equal!

♫♪♫ Let it go, Let it go... ♫♪♫ :)


ricketzz: Posted: May 26, 2014 7:06 a.m.

You are a complete name caller. I may be a moron but I'm still a trained observer with decent recall.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=prison+industrial+complex&t=lm


CaptGene: Posted: May 26, 2014 7:21 a.m.

Access to a search engine is not the same as recall...any moron knows that.


Indy: Posted: May 26, 2014 5:23 p.m.

C(omedy)aptG(old)ene wrote: Indy Nile: "The fact that that almost a third of the Tea Party members don’t believe Obama is an American speaks the ignorance that consumers this movement..."

Indy: Yes, that is correct . . .


Indy: Posted: May 26, 2014 5:25 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Someone: "Hey, Indy, the sky is blue."

Indy: Most days . . .

BrianBaker wrote: Indy: "This is an example of a focus-group tested conservative talking point, and the poster is showing his own bias..."

Indy: Yes, this is also correct.


Indy: Posted: May 26, 2014 5:32 p.m.

Tech wrote: Tell me again what constitutes Indy's educational background. There's no need for embarrassment. We need to know how we can help him.

Indy: Yes, a Bachelor of Science in Engineering and a Master of Business Administration (MBA).

Note: The MBAs back in my day were extended by an additional 18 semester units since at the time, the MBA was for students who didn't have a undergraduate business degree.

But as I noted, I can help you with the shortcomings in your ‘education’ (if you disclose, I can help you better . . . ) from science to basic business, economics, and management.

Tech wrote: In light of Indy's rampant copy and paste plagiarism, I note you're registering your trademarks too, CG. Those that have the ability to think and create need to protect their intellectual property.

Indy: I just get the biggest kick out conservatives that recite their ideology at forums like this . . . ‘ad infinitum’ and yet feel upset that when you counter such repetition, it is ‘Indy’ that does the ‘cut and paste’ . . . too funny!

Tech wrote: 11/4/14®

Indy: Can’t wait!

But please provide your reference to your ‘official’ trade mark . . . for it to be ‘valid’.

What are you waiting for? Or are you just ‘lying’ about it . . . hmmmm . . . but if it makes you feel good . . . you go boy . . .


Indy: Posted: May 26, 2014 5:34 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Oh, yeah. I'm so used to his mangled syntax and vocabulary -- not to mention spelling errors -- that I don't even see them anymore.

Indy: Blah, blah . . . blah . . .

When you conservatives can’t argue your points and ideology successfully, you go back to ‘grammer’! LOL . . .


CaptGene: Posted: May 26, 2014 5:42 p.m.

Tech, whatever Indy Nile's supposed education is, you know he just copied other people's work and took credit for it. Kook at this sentence from Indy Nile again:

"The fact that that almost a third of the Tea Party members don’t believe Obama is an American speaks the ignorance that consumers this movement..."

I doubt Indy Nile earned any of the degrees he claims. He can't put together a coherent sentence, and doesn't even recognize how bad that sentence is!

The smart money says, at best, Indy Nile has a GED, and maybe a year at Pierce.


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 9:28 p.m.

Indy:
Posted: May 26, 2014
5:32 p.m.

Tech wrote: 11/4/14®

Indy: Can’t wait! <---- Copied into Evernote for future use.


ricketzz: Posted: May 27, 2014 6:59 a.m.

The search term[s] are important. The subject was whether racism still exists.


tech: Posted: June 5, 2014 1:47 p.m.

When Lemon asked the actor whether he believed that race was a major contributing factor to income inequality, Freeman sternly disagreed.

“Do you think that race plays in a part in wealth distribution?” Lemon asked.

“No, no, no, I don’t. You and I are, we’re proof. Why would race have anything to do with it. Put your mind to what you want to do and go for that. It’s kind of like religion to me, it’s a good excuse for not getting there,” Freeman answered.

When Lemon complained about how much he has been forced to cover race and income inequality, Freeman asserted that he should stop making such a big deal out of the issue.

“If you talk about it, it exists,” Freeman said. “It’s not like it exists and we refuse to talk about it. Making it a bigger issue than it needs to be is the problem we have.”

- See more at: http://rare.us/story/morgan-freeman-nails-the-income-inequality-debate-in-this-powerful-1-minute-video/#sthash.V86XB4ho.dpuf


ricketzz: Posted: June 6, 2014 7:23 a.m.

Millionaire pooh-poohs dangerously top-heavy economy. Show business is not a good industry to use as an example of American exceptionalism.

The duo are correct, largely. The Plutocrats hate all poor people, not just the ethnic minorities.


tech: Posted: June 15, 2014 11:24 p.m.

The hate resides in your heart, ricketzz. You seek to settle scores for imaginary injuries.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...