50 Cent Supports Hillary, Why?...

[luns101]

Oh, I call for it. Byrd is racist, though that's certainly not a good enough reason to tell West Virginians they're unqualified to choose their own Senator. But here's a good reason: he's 91 years old and essentially incompetent. Have you ever seen him on CSPAN? It's very, very sad.

A shame you don't apply the same standard when it came to Trent Lott and the people of Mississippi. I notice that at no time did you refute any point I made about either political party.

I'll make no further attempt to convince the liberals on CC on this. For those of you who just read the forums and don't post a lot...I'll direct this towards you. What DaGip & Meggy did was irresponsible and an outright lie. They are claiming that conservatives, by their very nature, are racists. The Republican Party, while not perfect, has a better overall record on race equality and civil rights legislation than the Democrats.

I count myself as a conservative Republican. I am not a racist and would be willing to stand up to (in a political sense) against anyone who would try to deny someone else their natural or civil rights simply because of their race. So yeah, I take it personal when someone smugly declares:

Conservatives would love a black President. "What!?! Racism!?! Racism doesn't exist! Don't you know we have a BLACK President!?"

I think an apology is in order, we'll see if we get one.

Simply trying to call the other side racist is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

[soka]

50 cent is retarded ....if we see one black man making it to the oval office
then they cant blame the "man" they will have to blame the "brotha"

[SolidLuigi]

Oh, I call for it. Byrd is racist, though that's certainly not a good enough reason to tell West Virginians they're unqualified to choose their own Senator. But here's a good reason: he's 91 years old and essentially incompetent. Have you ever seen him on CSPAN? It's very, very sad.

Watch all 3 parts, hilariously senile http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy5UanXCrxM

also irony for him making a 30 min speech on the barbarism of dogfighting when he was a KKK member

[got tonkaed]

luns while i dont think id out and out disagree with your claim, id be interested to see your evidence. Partly because im curious, but also because i think there are some assumptions that create contingencies that id probably be interested in discussing.

Im sure racism is the type of thing that doesnt know any particular typology above any other, but i certainly think there is still a home for racism in the republican party, that is at the very least harder to find in the democratic party.

Does that mean republicans or conservatives are inherently racist? no. Is the average conservative racist? probably not. On a sheer percentage or numbers basis are there probably more racists on the right side of the spectrum than the left? speculatively you could postulate there are

[luns101]

By the way, whether or not you support Barack Obama should be based on whether you believe/disagree with his political principles, ideologies, and record. It should have nothing to do with his race.

[got tonkaed]

By the way, whether or not you support Barack Obama should be based on whether you believe/disagree with his political principles, ideologies, and record. It should have nothing to do with his race.

of course it should....personally i dont think the positive is the notion that is really in question, though it probably gets more discussion.

The real question should be, and i think this thread in the 50 cent portion of it may hit on part of it....

Are there people who are not supporting him because he is black?

that imo is worse than those who support him because he is.

[SolidLuigi]

By the way, whether or not you support Barack Obama should be based on whether you believe/disagree with his political principles, ideologies, and record. It should have nothing to do with his race.

exaclty, it's the same as women shouldn't vote for Hil just cause she's a woman, as I shouldn't vote for McCain just because we are both white males

[Snorri1234]

Conservatives would love a black President. "What!?! Racism!?! Racism doesn't exist! Don't you know we have a BLACK President!?"

I think an apology is in order, we'll see if we get one.

Simply trying to call the other side racist is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

I think what meggy was saying was that a lot of conservatives have the tendency to deny there is any racism that exists nowadays. (Unless they're Nappy and think it's the white man who is being discriminated against..)

I don't think those conservatives are racist, I think they're idiots. Equal rights is not going to make racism magically dissappear, you have to do something about the root-causes of it.

[SolidLuigi]

By the way, whether or not you support Barack Obama should be based on whether you believe/disagree with his political principles, ideologies, and record. It should have nothing to do with his race.

of course it should....personally i dont think the positive is the notion that is really in question, though it probably gets more discussion.

The real question should be, and i think this thread in the 50 cent portion of it may hit on part of it....

Are there people who are not supporting him because he is black?

that imo is worse than those who support him because he is.

Yeah I mean what I said in my last post in both ways, race and sex shouldn't be used as a pro or con for your choice on candidate, although we all know many people will

[got tonkaed]

By the way, whether or not you support Barack Obama should be based on whether you believe/disagree with his political principles, ideologies, and record. It should have nothing to do with his race.

of course it should....personally i dont think the positive is the notion that is really in question, though it probably gets more discussion.

The real question should be, and i think this thread in the 50 cent portion of it may hit on part of it....

Are there people who are not supporting him because he is black?

that imo is worse than those who support him because he is.

Yeah I mean what I said in my last post in both ways, race and sex shouldn't be used as a pro or con for your choice on candidate, although we all know many people will

most people do mean them as interchangeable, but theres a bit of a distinction that does show up in a certain percentage of cases id assume.

[SolidLuigi]

This is Suggs, reporting from across the Pond, on a subject he knows nothing about. Back to you in the studio.

also, this made me lol

[Snorri1234]

By the way, whether or not you support Barack Obama should be based on whether you believe/disagree with his political principles, ideologies, and record. It should have nothing to do with his race.

exaclty, it's the same as women shouldn't vote for Hil just cause she's a woman, as I shouldn't vote for McCain just because we are both white males

Fun fact: There was a survey in my country which concluded that we think blacks, women, muslims, ex-drug addicts and virtually everyone are better fit for the job of MP than people over 70.

[got tonkaed]

By the way, whether or not you support Barack Obama should be based on whether you believe/disagree with his political principles, ideologies, and record. It should have nothing to do with his race.

exaclty, it's the same as women shouldn't vote for Hil just cause she's a woman, as I shouldn't vote for McCain just because we are both white males

Fun fact: There was a survey in my country which concluded that we think blacks, women, muslims, ex-drug addicts and virtually everyone are better fit for the job of MP than people over 70.

probably not atheists though...people really dont like atheists for political leadership i was told once.

[Grooveman2007]

By the way, whether or not you support Barack Obama should be based on whether you believe/disagree with his political principles, ideologies, and record. It should have nothing to do with his race.

of course it should....personally i dont think the positive is the notion that is really in question, though it probably gets more discussion.

The real question should be, and i think this thread in the 50 cent portion of it may hit on part of it....

Are there people who are not supporting him because he is black?

that imo is worse than those who support him because he is.

Yeah I mean what I said in my last post in both ways, race and sex shouldn't be used as a pro or con for your choice on candidate, although we all know many people will

I'd have respect for Hillary, but since about 60% of her base consists of white women...well I think we all know what her trump card is.

[Snorri1234]

By the way, whether or not you support Barack Obama should be based on whether you believe/disagree with his political principles, ideologies, and record. It should have nothing to do with his race.

exaclty, it's the same as women shouldn't vote for Hil just cause she's a woman, as I shouldn't vote for McCain just because we are both white males

Fun fact: There was a survey in my country which concluded that we think blacks, women, muslims, ex-drug addicts and virtually everyone are better fit for the job of MP than people over 70.

probably not atheists though...people really dont like atheists for political leadership i was told once.

Actually, the netherlands is probably one of the best countries to be an atheist in. People are more likely to vote for you here if you're an atheist then in many other countries. But then again that holds true for most of Europe.

[got tonkaed]

fair play to you guys then. Ive been told a few times here, not excluding my mum that being an open atheist is a bit of a poor choice.

[luns101]

luns while i dont think id out and out disagree with your claim, id be interested to see your evidence. Partly because im curious, but also because i think there are some assumptions that create contingencies that id probably be interested in discussing.

I already provided a list of things you could discover for yourself with even a half-hearted attempt. You're free to do so. Besides, as I stated before...

I'll make no further attempt to convince the liberals on CC on this. For those of you who just read the forums and don't post a lot...I'll direct this towards you.

Instead, I'll invite you to back up, with evidence, your irresponsible assumption which I will highlight in red and then the even more irresponsible one in blue...

Does that mean republicans or conservatives are inherently racist? no. Is the average conservative racist? probably not. On a sheer percentage or numbers basis are there probably more racists on the right side of the spectrum than the left? speculatively you could postulate there are

How you can arrive at these outrageous assumptions is beyond me. It really discourages me that you would choose to view people who happen to disagree with you politically in this light. I would never belong to any political party which would incorporate racism within its agenda. I want to see specific evidence where you could "postulate" such an outlandish statement. There's really no excuse for you to say such things, GT.

I think what meggy was saying was that a lot of conservatives have the tendency to deny there is any racism that exists nowadays.

If that's the case, then it is a statement based on ignorance. How can she, you, or anyone know what the motives of "a lot of" conservatives are? You would have to show specific citations of policies, quotes, or legislation passed which are specifically designed to deny blacks equality as part of our laws. I'm not trying to convince you, I just want you to be able to back up the assertion and prove it to me.

I don't think those conservatives are racist, I think they're idiots. Equal rights is not going to make racism magically dissappear, you have to do something about the root-causes of it.

Once again, I have no idea who you're referring to by "those conservatives". Do you have some clinical study showing that this is a trend? [If you quote the Ron Paul people I'm going to scream!...they're not Republicans, they're libertarians] You're right in one regard...equal rights legislation won't force people to accept others who they hate. For myself, I believe all men are created equal by God. This is something you can read for yourself in our founding documents.

[brooksieb]

got to Albania the 1st athiest state!

[DaGip]

WTF r u talking about! There ain't NOBODY in that friggin' administration that is qualified for freakin' anything! Unless you consider killing millions of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis a fucking qualification?

Just shut up DaGip

You shut up.

[DaGip]

Here ya go...Bush is a fucking racist NeoCOn fuckhead!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcj6-HGe9s0

[got tonkaed]

luns you are being far too defensive here. As always first and foremost i am a curious person, i assume as someone in your position who is always well thought out and reasonable, that you might have some insight about some specifics that i was unaware of. Furthermore, you may have different information or sources that i do not frequent, and would help me to better understand as a whole.

The red is simply a misunderstanding of terms, and perhaps me being sloppy. It is also an example of you being too defensive about something which clearly i would not accuse you of or individuals who share your way of thinking. The probably not was a conciliatory measure, not an example of doubt. Id chalk it up to an imperfect medium of communication.

The blue is not something of course that i have scientific proof for or the argument to end all arugments. It is simply a matter of intitution. If youd like where i derived tha assumption from....

consider a number of conservative stances related to things like national security, immigration, education, welfare, the size of gov. Sober minded analysts on every side of the coin have often argued that race is an element in many of these things, albeit to varying degrees. If we were to discuss stances that tend to be more favorable to many differnet groups of minorites (with important caveats and exceptions of course) liberals will tend to have stances that favor their interests more (for a variety of reasons - my own personal ones probably have to do with the way i have been educated and subsequently my class based understanding of society) whereas conservatives tend to favor their own self interest more, and tend to view societal good as a secondary concern, or as something that occurs if everyone does their own job (a simple example being trickle down economics).

Now if we reinsert practicality and get away from abstraction you could see how a group of people who taken on stances which are against the interests of a minorty group might hold more racists in that group. Does everyone who holds those stances therefore become a racist, certainly they do not. Do even the majority of people? in all likelyhood again the answer is a resounding no. However is it likely that those stances which affect the interests of said groups are more likely to hold racists when they are opposed than when they are argued on the behalf of...As stated previously before this seems to be speculatively true.

Again i apologize if i have offended, but i dont feel like this was a end all be all argument and i would question again whether or not you are being too defensive considering i certainly was not charging conservative or condeming them as that post has a rather mild tone to it.

I suppose i have to add this in as well....correlation does not assume casuality, but if we are trying to understand complex sets of human behavior and prediliction, it certainly does not have to be thrown out as a starting point.

[spurgistan]

Oh, I call for it. Byrd is racist, though that's certainly not a good enough reason to tell West Virginians they're unqualified to choose their own Senator. But here's a good reason: he's 91 years old and essentially incompetent. Have you ever seen him on CSPAN? It's very, very sad.

A shame you don't apply the same standard when it came to Trent Lott and the people of Mississippi. I notice that at no time did you refute any point I made about either political party.

I'll make no further attempt to convince the liberals on CC on this. For those of you who just read the forums and don't post a lot...I'll direct this towards you. What DaGip & Meggy did was irresponsible and an outright lie. They are claiming that conservatives, by their very nature, are racists. The Republican Party, while not perfect, has a better overall record on race equality and civil rights legislation than the Democrats.

I count myself as a conservative Republican. I am not a racist and would be willing to stand up to (in a political sense) against anyone who would try to deny someone else their natural or civil rights simply because of their race. So yeah, I take it personal when someone smugly declares:

Conservatives would love a black President. "What!?! Racism!?! Racism doesn't exist! Don't you know we have a BLACK President!?"

I think an apology is in order, we'll see if we get one.

Simply trying to call the other side racist is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

First off, if we're talking about compare-and-contrasts between 19th and 20th century politics, I feel it would be best to talk about what states-rights politicians did versus federalists. And federalists (who I feel are best embodied in the modern Democratics Party) were responsible for ending officially recognized discrimination in the United States.

And meggy wasn't labeling Republicans racist. Far from it. What she was saying (if I may speak for her) is that Republicans want to believe that racism is no longer a factor to be accounted for in public policy, i.e. cuts in welfare, no affirmative action, etc. Having a black president would reinforce that idea, that the US is truly free, with liberty and justice for all, that a black man can become president. No race-baiting intended.

[btownmeggy]

Luns, I think you need to apologize to me for your acting like a baby, a jerk, and an imbecile.

(Lemme just say before you accuse me of further intolerable prejudice, babies and imbeciles are ok by me, but not combined with jerkiness.)

[Napoleon Ier]

Luns, I think you need to apologize to me for your acting like a baby, a jerk, and an imbecile.

(Lemme just say before you accuse me of further intolerable prejudice, babies and imbeciles are ok by me, but not combined with jerkiness.)

No, you apologise. You and your liberal magic circus run around these forums and yes, people like you, the world, with a smug, self-intellectualizing sententious moralizing tone looking down from your high horse to conservatives being outright rude and insulting every step of the way, masturbating your neurones by posting incoherent, calumnious, diffamating slander about conservatives and libertarians and passing it off as fact. Now I sink to the level of retaliating to you people, mainly because I'm young and rash, even though that's probably just what you want, but luns is endlessly patient with you people, and has always remained courteous on these forums. And you know what? You just crossed a line here. You can't go gallivanting around squealing your head off about racism and prejudice and bigotry as if a Klansman had just invaded your house and carted off the illegals you're hiding in your basement every time someone exhibits a vague right-wing tinge. You show some respect.

leftist varmint.

[/end rant]

[btownmeggy]

Luns, I think you need to apologize to me for your acting like a baby, a jerk, and an imbecile.

(Lemme just say before you accuse me of further intolerable prejudice, babies and imbeciles are ok by me, but not combined with jerkiness.)

No, you apologise. You and your liberal magic circus run around these forums and yes, people like you, the world, with a smug, self-intellectualizing sententious moralizing tone looking down from your high horse to conservatives being outright rude and insulting every step of the way, masturbating your neurones by posting incoherent, calumnious, diffamating slander about conservatives and libertarians and passing it off as fact. Now I sink to the level of retaliating to you people, mainly because I'm young and rash, even though that's probably just what you want, but luns is endlessly patient with you people, and has always remained courteous on these forums. And you know what? You just crossed a line here. You can't go gallivanting around squealing your head off about racism and prejudice and bigotry as if a Klansman had just invaded your house and carted off the illegals you're hiding in your basement every time someone exhibits a vague right-wing tinge. You show some respect.

leftist varmint.

[/end rant]

Luns's initial ATTACK on me was based a lackadaisical failure to read my post and consider what it might actually mean. As less knee-jerking viewers have noted, my rationale was that Conservatives have a vested ideological interest in saying that racism is not a powerful force in contemporary American society. U.S. "conservative" ideology (almost exclusively centered in the Republican party, I'M willing to admit, and as Luns was so willing to appropriate in his attack) maintains that the system can and WILL work without intervention from the government, because people are motivated simply by profit, sometimes termed as "providing for one's family" or something involving bootstraps, and not by socio-cultural factors like racism--which naturally impede conservatives' ideally functioning system.

Luns then, YES LAUGHABLY, cites all these "facts" (oops, some are factually deficient) about how Republicans are less racist than Democrats... an issue that I never once prompted. Unfortunately, most of his evidence (all of his evidence, 'cept one that I mention below) is from a time that I easily explained was before the contemporary ideological identities of the U.S.'s two major political parties had emerged. I amiably conceded that 19th century Republicanism would have been the party for me and nearly every liberal-minded soul out there. The only contemporary issue that Luns brought up was Robert Byrd, who I agreed was a despicable person.

LONG AFTER I had left the debate, luns continued to attribute demonizing sentiments to me and anyone who rightly read my original statement.

Of course, I don't want an apology, really. But I do hope that Luns at least stops behaving so unreasonably, in a way that is almost altogether uncharacteristic of him. As for YOU, nappy, I hold no hopes.