We need to nominate, then elect Herman Cain!

DamnYankee said:
So you admit that you make up your own definition of conservatism, ignoring the written platform of those that you choose to disagree with. Then you attribute undesirable, even heinous, traits to them.
Click to expand...

I would not say I make it up, Its my opinion based on positions they take on issues. I agree that I ignore the written platform.
 
DamnYankee said:
Why should I explain what a political movement is inherently racist when you have not? I've used your words to demonstrate the absurdity of your position, which is "high art".

The musings of some folks on Facebook is not relevant to the position of a political movement. :)
Click to expand...


Oh, see, you don't get to "call the shots". It's not your party. You're trying to figuratively, "tar and feather" liberals and blacks, by the way, for taking Herman Cain, Rick Perry and the GOP to task for their inherent and overt displays of racism and bigotry. So who do we go to, to counter your claims? Other white conservatives? Hell to the no. We go to liberals, Democrats and blacks. I listed the commentary of some of my black connections, on Facebook, who are intelligent, political, and deeply concerned about the topic, currently "in play" on FB. How would it not be relevant? Are you more relevant, than they? I rather think not.
And you haven't done anything, but mocked and plagiarized my comments, in lieu of any substance of your own.
I know you want to go to your fall back position that the Democratic Party is the party of racist and the KKK, and that it was the Republican Party that voted in favor of civil rights.
We have already addressed that , ad nauseam. The parties, literally switched ideologies during and after JFK...as it was Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat and successor to JFK who pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And during the presidential elections from '68-'76, the former racist Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats) , pissed because of inroads made by blacks, and the failure of George Wallace to gain any traction, left the Democratic Party to the open arms of the Republican Party...the parties essentially switching ideologies, almost overnight. Ever since then, Republicans have supported policies which favor whites over blacks, men over women, the rich over the poor, and have become the absolute biggest whores for big business. Shall I post the link, supporting my claim?
 
DamnYankee said:
Being "indifferent" in this case is the same as being "color blind", which is completely non-racist. Promoting one segment of society over another because of a condition that they were born with is bigoted; if the condition is race then it is racist. :)
Click to expand...

Really? Do you think a mother, being indifferent to the cries of her newborn, is non-destructive and intuitive? See how logic works?
And excuse me, but a society which inherently favors one (white) over any other is a fucked up society to begin with. Affirmative Action, precisely, seeks to address that unbalance and attempts to rectify an "inherent wrong". Your commentary makes no sense.
 
DamnYankee said:
That's hilarious, using a "personal essay" as a definition for a group. Is this your standard for debate? If so it opens up myriad possibilities for me to diss liberals. :)
Click to expand...

Refute it, if you can.....otherwise it stands as fact. How can you summarily dismiss it, if you've failed to read it, and further, dispute it, point for point. The fact that you're lazy, is not my problem. The fact that you cannot dispute it, renders your argument "a moot point".
 
poet said:
Really? Do you think a mother, being indifferent to the cries of her newborn, is non-destructive and intuitive?
Click to expand...

possibly.....if she is acting on the knowledge that the child merely wants attention and is not in need of anything physical she may be applying the same standard we apply to you.......ignoring plaintive cries for attention......
 
DamnYankee said:
So you form your opinion based on looking at one side of an issue.
Click to expand...

That's what you've done by summarily dismissing the article I submitted as a description of conservatism. Dick Cheney's tome is a "personal essay". Are you all-too-willing to dismiss that as well, despite it being his testimony? Well, now. Your hypocrisy looms large. Again.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
possibly.....if she is acting on the knowledge that the child merely wants attention and is not in need of anything physical she may be applying the same standard we apply to you.......ignoring plaintive cries for attention......
Click to expand...

Uh, your credibility, for speaking for "an actual mother", is shot all to hell. S'matter? No one wanting to play with or entertain you over at P & C?
 
Jarod said:
I do not belive Bush II, Obama, Clinton or Bush I, had religous litmus tests. Cain said he would not consider a muslum for any cabnent position or judship, simply due to them being Muslum. To me that is about as unamerican as it gets.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't appoint a Muslim to my cabinet either. Not while Muslims are at WAR with America, it would be like appointing a Nazi during WWII, wouldn't it?

Oh, that's right... you live in the little moronic brainwashed world that doesn't believe the Muslims are at war with us, and do believe Islam is a religion of peace! Until the Mullahs, Clerics, Ayatollahs, and whatever... start preaching TOLERANCE and respecting FREEDOM, the religion remains an intolerant hate group disguised as a religion. If you want to think in some other rational terms, we're not on the same page and never will be.

Don't call me un-American... Anti-Sharia? you bet!

Every president that has ever been elected or will ever be elected, will have their own "litmus test" for every position they appoint, moron! I don't know where we ever got to this whole "litmus test" buzzword phraseology and understanding of how things work... but for all intents and purposes, the choice is the president's choice to make, and he can base that decision on any damn thing he pleases, and it doesn't matter what you think of that or call it. Now that is about as much of a true 'litmus' as you could ever have for someone, and to suggest that it doesn't exist, that a president never even thinks of how a potential appointee views a given issue, is the epitome of dumbness. IF you want a president who has no 'litmus test' what do you want them to go by in making appointments? Whether the left or right think they are the best choice? If they go by the constitution or if they challenge it... and if they challenge it, are they good or bad? I mean, I really don't know how a president could make any appointment to any position, without SOME kind of consideration on how the person views the world, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that, it's the choice the president has to make, and that's why he is elected.
 
Dixie said:
The president CAN'T make abortion illegal any more than they could have made it legal before Roe V. Wade. If they could, everyone elected president since Roe, would have tried, since they all went on record as being opposed to abortion. (Even pro-choice presidents have opposed the practice of abortion.) The simple fact of the matter is, and what the stupid and ignorant people of the world don't comprehend, is the president has very very little to do with abortion or whether it is legal or illegal or to what degree. This is determined by Congress and the Supreme Court, not the President. So, it really doesn't matter what Herman Cain is personally for or against, regarding abortion.
Click to expand...

Clinton and Obama have tied foreign aid to countries in order to apply pressure on them to allow "family planning" and "population control" which includes abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top