Evince is such a prolific poster here!

We've already established it's okay to arbitrarily assign intent and inference to what politicians actually say, that's acceptable now!
I don't know when you decided it was acceptable to make such leaps, but I have not made any such decision.
Click to expand...

It became acceptable to do this with Trent Lott. Regardless of the fact that Lott never once mentioned Strom Thurmond's stance on segregation, despite the repeated apologies and clarifications from Lott on what he actually meant by his statement, we still have pinheads running around here insisting that "100% of everyone" was certain he INFERRED support for Thurmond's 1948 segregationist plank.

Now, I didn't personally make this decision, I would much rather we go by what people ACTUALLY say and not what we "INFER" them to have said... but I was told in no uncertain terms, this was how we will do it from now on, so I am just playing by the rules as established by the left. If you don't like them, talk to the left!
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Dixie, you're the only person here who would confuse me for a Democrat. Yes, I think Harry Reid, much like yourself, is dumber than a sack of potato peels.

I know you love to take an opportunity like this to try and point to how the dialect of one group of people is ethnic, rather than regional, and point it out to try and widen the commonality gap between people. But ya see Dixie, you're wrong. The said "negro" dialect is more accurately known as "hood" or "ghetto". If you grew up in a urban area in the last 30 years, you know how to speak and understand most of it, whether or not you choose to partake or admit it. It's not confined to any one race, and I can safely testify. I grew up and currently live in Detroit. I've met hundreds of Poles, Italians, various Slavs, Mexicans, Greeks, Arabs, and Jews who speak ghetto, and plenty of Caribs, Jamaicans, Africans, Etc. who don't choose to speak ghetto. Ghetto even changes as you change regions, from north to south, east to west. It's a regional dialect, not an ethnic one.

Further, your assumption that people who choose to speak ghetto are less educated (or unable to present themselves coherently and intelligently) is ridiculous. One needs look no further than your own posts to see such assumptions fly in the face of empirical evidence, both anecdotal and statistical. And not to mention the combination of those two assumptions shows more than a hint of bigotry.

All in all, you're a failure here.
Click to expand...

Whoa.. hold on a minute... these are not MY assertions and assumptions, I obtained them from Harry Reid! I fully understand that people talk all kinds of ways, and it doesn't necessarily have beans to do with their level of intelligence or positions on issues important to the voters. It's HARRY REID who came up with all this 'negro dialect' and 'light-skin/dark-skin' stuff, not ME!
 
How many people here believe that you can go around in public speaking about "talking black," and that you will not be called a racist by the public at large? Particularly from the PC-meisters of the left?
 
I have talked about talking black in public with LOTS of black people around. We were talking about how my, then girlfriend, was treated in high school because she did not, wait for it, talk black enough. You see, for some people in this world, talking black makes you fit in. If you don't then you are not black enough, or trying to be white. We had this conversation for quite a while with black people having no problem with me talking about it. For others, talking black is a negative, it is associated with being less intelligent and thuggish. It was about the second group of people that Reid spoke, the "on the line" people who will vote for someone that they perceive as not TOO black, which President Obama seems to emulate. Republicans just don't like the fact that someone like T. Lott is also easily understood when he says things would have been better under Strom "Gotta hide my black child" Thurmond. Strom's racism was part and parcel of who he was for most of his political life, the fact that he had to hide that he had jungle fever is a pretty good indicator of his racism. I have a child whose mother is Hispanic. I have never tried to hide him, I take him places, he lives with me half of the time. I love him and can't imagine keeping him under wraps. For Thurmond, it appears he had no qualms.
 
Socrtease said:
I have talked about talking black in public with LOTS of black people around. We were talking about how my, then girlfriend, was treated in high school because she did not, wait for it, talk black enough. You see, for some people in this world, talking black makes you fit in. If you don't then you are not black enough, or trying to be white. We had this conversation for quite a while with black people having no problem with me talking about it. For others, talking black is a negative, it is associated with being less intelligent and thuggish. It was about the second group of people that Reid spoke, the "on the line" people who will vote for someone that they perceive as not TOO black, which President Obama seems to emulate. Republicans just don't like the fact that someone like T. Lott is also easily understood when he says things would have been better under Strom "Gotta hide my black child" Thurmond. Strom's racism was part and parcel of who he was for most of his political life, the fact that he had to hide that he had jungle fever is a pretty good indicator of his racism. I have a child whose mother is Hispanic. I have never tried to hide him, I take him places, he lives with me half of the time. I love him and can't imagine keeping him under wraps. For Thurmond, it appears he had no qualms.
Click to expand...

This isn't really about Strom Thurmond's 1948 view on segregation or Trent Lott's misunderstood praise for Thurmond on his 100th birthday. It's about the Senate majority leader making a racially offensive comment about 'negro dialect' and referencing the 'lightness' of Obama's skin, as if that matters in 2010 America. Just like when Sen. Byrd made the "white niggers" comment, it doesn't matter if what he was saying had some validity to some degree, it was racially offensive to say it.

The topic continues to get diverted back to 1948, as if our nation has not 'grown' and risen above that sort of ideology. Lefties want to paint all of the right with this racist brush from the past, and the ironic thing is, it wasn't ever something articulated by Republicans, and they were largely instrumental in passing Civil Rights!
 
Dixie said:
This isn't really about Strom Thurmond's 1948 view on segregation or Trent Lott's misunderstood praise for Thurmond on his 100th birthday. It's about the Senate majority leader making a racially offensive comment about 'negro dialect' and referencing the 'lightness' of Obama's skin, as if that matters in 2010 America. Just like when Sen. Byrd made the "white niggers" comment, it doesn't matter if what he was saying had some validity to some degree, it was racially offensive to say it.

The topic continues to get diverted back to 1948, as if our nation has not 'grown' and risen above that sort of ideology. Lefties want to paint all of the right with this racist brush from the past, and the ironic thing is, it wasn't ever something articulated by Republicans, and they were largely instrumental in passing Civil Rights!
Click to expand...
Right you are and the conservative party was in the south and it was Democrat that then turned Dixiecrat and voted for Governor Wallace who later apologized and saw the err of his ways. Stom WAS a democrat then. That is the problem, you modern day conservatives want to paint yourselves as the heirs to the republican party of 1866 through 1960. You are not. You would not vote for Eisenhower now. You would not vote for Goldwater now. You have become the party of the Christian faith. You are the party of the intolerent. The party of "us versus them". The party that sees the need to legislate consentual adult relationships. Your party is as intrusive in the lives of Americans as is the Democratic party. Your party hates private consentual adult behavior and the dems hate private capital. A pox on both your houses!
 
harry wasn't being racist, but he did used a poor choice of words.
Most republicans know this, and realize this, but want to be hypocritical dicks anyway and tear him apart because he is a democrat.

The democrats that are circling the wagon would be calling for the resignation of any republican that said this. Republicans would have had to go on al sharptons radioshow and apologize to all of black america, and they would have to go to a beer summit with obama to get straightened out.

All in all, one big hypocritical fuck fest.
 
And conservatives, quit pretending you are not racist. you are, everyone knows republicans are extremely bigoted people. They are against gays, blacks, and latinos and would probably flip their shit if their kid married someone of another race.
 
Socrtease said:
Right you are and the conservative party was in the south and it was Democrat that then turned Dixiecrat and voted for Governor Wallace who later apologized and saw the err of his ways. Stom WAS a democrat then. That is the problem, you modern day conservatives want to paint yourselves as the heirs to the republican party of 1866 through 1960. You are not. You would not vote for Eisenhower now. You would not vote for Goldwater now. You have become the party of the Christian faith. You are the party of the intolerent. The party of "us versus them". The party that sees the need to legislate consentual adult relationships. Your party is as intrusive in the lives of Americans as is the Democratic party. Your party hates private consentual adult behavior and the dems hate private capital. A pox on both your houses!
Click to expand...

I think it is funny when libtards try to claim conservative republicans are responsible for what DEMOCRATS did in the 1960s! I am still uncertain when this mass transformation took place, or how life-long Democrats like Robert Byrd, Lester Maddox, and George Wallace, apparently gained some sort of divine liberal redemption for their racist past, while the stigma was shifted to the GOP in some sort of secret ceremony. Can you clue us in on when all of this supposedly happened, because it seems to me, the Democrats WERE the Dixiecrats, and it was Republicans who not only freed the slaves, but also passed Civil Rights, against the will of many Democrats!

As for "party of the intolerant" and "legislate consensual adult relations" ...again, you are confused. It is Democrats who advocate judicial rulings against the will of the people, legislating from the bench and completely intolerant of the democratic process or personal choice. It is the Democrat party who is being completely intolerant of Republicans and The People in the health care debate, despite the massive public protests against it, shutting the opposition out of the debate completely and ramming it down our throats by literally bribing for votes. I think your profound confusion is bordering on delusional, if you think it is Republicans who are intolerant.

As for your "Christian" slap, I don't recall the religious right ever proposing a law to enforce any Christian tenant of faith.... can you not cite some examples of this? Awww... I know, there aren't any! Most all of the so-called "religious right" supports democratic process and allowing the free will of the people to prevail. That's all they ask for... to have this stuff put forth on a ballot and let the people decide what they want to be "legal" on a state-by-state basis, rather than having a 'supreme ruler' in a black robe decide this for the people! I would say their actual position is a direct contradiction to the assertion of those 'intolerant' Christians.
 
AtheistGrind said:
And conservatives, quit pretending you are not racist. you are, everyone knows republicans are extremely bigoted people. They are against gays, blacks, and latinos and would probably flip their shit if their kid married someone of another race.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are extremely bigoted, does that mean you are now a Republican?
 
everyone knows republicans are racist that's why 90% of african americans dont vote for them. You would want to bring back slavery if you could
 
On a more serious note, what Harry said actually was racist. Whether he is actually racist as an individual would be an infinitely harder case to make, but his comments were racist, just as Biden's comments were during the primary...

On a less serious note, Harry's comments were also not PC, which means he should proabably be stoned to death by the left, as per its PC mania...
 
Dixie the racist mutha fucker,
he bath's in his stupidity and is proud to show off his racism in tone and in symbol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top