United States of Racism

[Locke]

Could you explain to me what the word "racist" even means to you??
rac·ism (r
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
s
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
z
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
m)n.1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Let me ask you another question. If a homosexual calls another the "F" word does that mean it isn't an insult?? Can a woman call another "cun*"?? Your idea that one race can use part of the English language and it is not offensive but if anyone not of that same race, can't use the same word or it IS offensive, IS THE VERY DEFINTION of racist. The idea that one race is to be treated differently, or allowed different rights, that is what RACISM IS !!!!! Come on you have to be smarter than that. What do you think racist even means?? Give me your definition, please!! I am not trying to insult you, I just really want to understand what you are thinking.

I'm not playing this game. You know the context of all these words. Although, judging by the pure ignorance of your posts before your hiatus, I guess it's possible you don't. Either way, I'm not being drawn in to your bull****. If you can't understand these simple concepts, then this entire conversation is above your head anyways...

[Statler Waldorf]

Yet you continue to argue that you know what you're talking about. You used the term incorrectly, that is fact. Deal with it waldork.

Nice logical non-sequitur, simply because something doesn’t interest me much doesn’t mean I am not knowledgeable in that field. The fact is I did use that term correctly, the fact is that you didn’t know the basic biological qualifications for life, and the fact is you were trying to take the discussion down rabbit holes because you couldn’t defend your position.

Your claim was that the Obama won because women bought a phony notion that the Republican Party had initiated a "war on women". Your view as to the rightness of the positions on these issues is irrelevant to that claim. What is relevant is that women don't agree with the Republicans' stance on those issues... and aren't going to be persuaded. It's hardly necessary for the Democrats to invent the notion that Romney wants to cut funding for Planned Parenthood when he comes right out and says that he does.

The point is not whether you can “un-dupe” women out of believing there is a war on women, the point is that they fell for a false narrative and it got Obama elected. Essentially he won because his campaign lied.

It's interesting to me you don't seem to be able to grasp something so exceedingly simple.

It’s interesting to me that you insist on bringing up points that are logically irrelevant.

Why on earth would it matter if they can be persuaded?? Pedifiles will never agree with laws that keep them from raping innocent children, should we honestly give a crap if they can be persuaded or not??

FINALLY! Someone else who is at least familiar with how logical reasoning works, an argument’s soundness is in no way measured by its ability to persuade. People are often persuaded by invalid arguments.

Which varies from group to group. The group with the most votes gets their version of what's right made into law. Tell me this isn't news to you.

Are you really trying to suggest that blacks were in fact not human when a majority of American voters didn’t view them as human? That’s the point we are making, a majority of people believing something does not make that thing true. A majority of women believing abortion is not killing their baby doesn’t mean it’s not killing their baby, a majority of women thinking the GOP has initiated a war on women doesn’t mean the GOP has actually initiated a war on women. A majority of voting single women fell for a total lie by the Obama campaign, that’s all that happened.

I'm not playing this game. You know the context of all these words. Although, judging by the pure ignorance of your posts before your hiatus, I guess it's possible you don't. Either way, I'm not being drawn in to your bull****. If you can't understand these simple concepts, then this entire conversation is above your head anyways...

You can be a PhD candidate in America and not know it’s important to define your terms? You’re a living testament to the failures of our education system; we can do better than this in America!

[Locke]

You can be a PhD candidate in America and not know it’s important to define your terms? You’re a living testament to the failures of our education system; we can do better than this in America!

Hey look, the religious lunatics looking out for each other. Aren't you 2 due in CT with the rest of Westboro...?

[TheWalrus]

The point is not whether you can “un-dupe” women out of believing there is a war on women, the point is that they fell for a false narrative and it got Obama elected. Essentially he won because his campaign lied.

Are you really trying to suggest that blacks were in fact not human when a majority of American voters didn’t view them as human? That’s the point we are making, a majority of people believing something does not make that thing true. A majority of women believing abortion is not killing their baby doesn’t mean it’s not killing their baby, a majority of women thinking the GOP has initiated a war on women doesn’t mean the GOP has actually initiated a war on women. A majority of voting single women fell for a total lie by the Obama campaign, that’s all that happened.

Do you honestly believe women are persuadable on the abortion issue? Because that would seem to be the central question in this debate. I don't think they are (even though I'm against abortion in most cases), so the question becomes one of Republican electoral tactics and message strategy (given women are 53% of the electorate).

If you think they are persuadable, then good luck to you. But for now, when the issue is important with women and is popular generally, it's a electoral loser. The more strident the Republicans are, the more it will hurt them. And Romney and the Republicans generally were particularly strident this cycle. It wasn't necessary for Romney to come out so forcefully for ending funding to Planned Parenthood. That was a conscious and strategic choice. Whether you agree with ending Planned Parenthood as a policy position or not, placing the issue front and center has consequences, both good and bad. They bet it would be more good. It appears to have been more bad.

[Statler Waldorf]

Hey look, the religious lunatics looking out for each other. Aren't you 2 due in CT with the rest of Westboro...?

Calling people who destroy you on here over and over again “lunatics” hardly reflects well upon your ability to defend your position, you should be talking us up at the very least just to make yourself look a bit more competent.

Do you honestly believe women are persuadable on the abortion issue? Because that would seem to be the central question in this debate. I don't think they are (even though I'm against abortion in most cases), so the question becomes one of Republican electoral tactics and message strategy (given women are 53% of the electorate).

Many women are actually persuadable, but it usually happens when they actually see an ultra-sound of their baby (which is precisely why the Left doesn’t want to require women to see an ultrasound before they have an abortion). That being said, it doesn’t matter whether they are persuadable or not, I’d rather stand up for what is right than immorally alter my position just to get women’s votes. It’s very likely that the Left will screw things up so badly over the next few years that women will vote on other issues rather than abortion anyways. Fewer women voted for Obama this time around than did in 2008, so apparently it’s already shifting that way.

If you think they are persuadable, then good luck to you. But for now, when the issue is important with women and is popular generally, it's a electoral loser. The more strident the Republicans are, the more it will hurt them. And Romney and the Republicans generally were particularly strident this cycle. It wasn't necessary for Romney to come out so forcefully for ending funding to Planned Parenthood. That was a conscious and strategic choice. Whether you agree with ending Planned Parenthood as a policy position or not, placing the issue front and center has consequences, both good and bad. They bet it would be more good. It appears to have been more bad.

Are you really suggesting a person should distort their views on what is right and wrong just to get votes? Is this why you support a President who “evolved” on whether he thought gay marriage was right or wrong? I’d much rather support a candidate who states his principles and sticks to them than one who has built his house upon the sand. The younger electorate is actually far more pro-life than previous electorates, given that and a growing Hispanic community which is overwhelmingly pro-life and the GOP can hold the “winning” position without having to compromise on their principles. The real key is figuring out a plan on immigration that is fair to everyone.

[TheWalrus]

Many women are actually persuadable, but it usually happens when they actually see an ultra-sound of their baby (which is precisely why the Left doesn’t want to require women to see an ultrasound before they have an abortion). That being said, it doesn’t matter whether they are persuadable or not, I’d rather stand up for what is right than immorally alter my position just to get women’s votes. It’s very likely that the Left will screw things up so badly over the next few years that women will vote on other issues rather than abortion anyways. Fewer women voted for Obama this time around than did in 2008, so apparently it’s already shifting that way.

That's fine. Good for you. But at least you recognize that that's the choice. What you were saying earlier about women being "duped" was bull****.

Are you really suggesting a person should distort their views on what is right and wrong just to get votes? Is this why you support a President who “evolved” on whether he thought gay marriage was right or wrong? I’d much rather support a candidate who states his principles and sticks to them than one who has built his house upon the sand. The younger electorate is actually far more pro-life than previous electorates, given that and a growing Hispanic community which is overwhelmingly pro-life and the GOP can hold the “winning” position without having to compromise on their principles. The real key is figuring out a plan on immigration that is fair to everyone.

Good luck finding one, in the Republican or any other party.

[Statler Waldorf]

That's fine. Good for you. But at least you recognize that that's the choice. What you were saying earlier about women being "duped" was bull****.

No it wasn’t, there is no war on women, that’s a false narrative the Obama administration created to get elected and women fell for it. A person believing that abortion is murder and therefore a human rights issue has nothing to do with their view on women’s rights. I don’t think men or women should have the right to kill their babies, it has nothing to do with the gender of the killer.

Good luck finding one, in the Republican or any other party.

Rubio will get it done.

[TheWalrus]

No it wasn’t, there is no war on women, that’s a false narrative the Obama administration created to get elected and women fell for it. A person believing that abortion is murder and therefore a human rights issue has nothing to do with their view on women’s rights. I don’t think men or women should have the right to kill their babies, it has nothing to do with the gender of the killer.

The Obama administration invented the notion of abortion being a women's issue?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Rubio will get it done.

If you found a way to support Romney despite the criteria you mentioned earlier somehow I think you'll find a way to support whoever the Republicans nominate.

[Statler Waldorf]

The Obama administration invented the notion of abortion being a women's issue?

No, they popularized and repeated ad Nauseum the idea that those who are against abortion are therefore somehow against women’s rights. They know it’s a total lie, but it’s a lie they needed to tell in order to have a chance of getting re-elected with such a horrible economic record.

If you found a way to support Romney despite the criteria you mentioned earlier somehow I think you'll find a way to support whoever the Republicans nominate.

Not true at all.

[TheWalrus]

No, they popularized and repeated ad Nauseum the idea that those who are against abortion are therefore somehow against women’s rights. They know it’s a total lie, but it’s a lie they needed to tell in order to have a chance of getting re-elected with such a horrible economic record.

That has always been the way the issue has been framed by those who are pro choice. You know better than to say the Obama administration invented that framing. C'mon.

People who frame it that way legitimately believe that's the correct way to frame it. You can disagree about that but to say they know they're lying when they frame it that way is presumptuous, to say the least. On what are you basing it?