Moderator: Community Team

It is mostly white people that say "I am not racist, unless you prove I am." Those who experience racism each day know better.thegreekdog wrote:I must be? What gave you that impression?mpjh wrote:You must be white.
... You throw that out here, "Bush is a racist", and have zeo, nada, nothing whatsoever to back that up.mpjh wrote:It is mostly white people that say "I am not racist, unless you prove I am." Those who experience racism each day know better.thegreekdog wrote:I must be? What gave you that impression?mpjh wrote:You must be white.
I got something to back it up. Your political savvy is usually dead on, so you must have actually liked that phoneyTexasaccent cheesewanker for your judgement to be so cloudy here.Nobunaga wrote:... You throw that out here, "Bush is a racist", and have zeo, nada, nothing whatsoever to back that up.mpjh wrote:It is mostly white people that say "I am not racist, unless you prove I am." Those who experience racism each day know better.thegreekdog wrote:I must be? What gave you that impression?mpjh wrote:You must be white.
... Anybody else notice how race is ALWAYS brought up by the left as a means to malign just about anybody they dislike / disagree with. They'll twist and make contort any issue, slap a race tag on it, and squeeze it into an argument. If you're white, you're a racist, period. Unless you prove yourself otherwise (like channeling billions in AIDS relief to Africa... wait, that was Bush).
...
... Kitrina was a Federal disaster but I am not so ready to classify that ineptness as being based on race. Lack of preparedness, lack of understanding, lack of coordination... we saw all that, but I would hesitate to start throwing the race word around.b.k. barunt wrote:I got something to back it up. Your political savvy is usually dead on, so you must have actually liked that phoneyTexasaccent cheesewanker for your judgement to be so cloudy here.Nobunaga wrote:... You throw that out here, "Bush is a racist", and have zeo, nada, nothing whatsoever to back that up.mpjh wrote:It is mostly white people that say "I am not racist, unless you prove I am." Those who experience racism each day know better.thegreekdog wrote:I must be? What gave you that impression?mpjh wrote:You must be white.
... Anybody else notice how race is ALWAYS brought up by the left as a means to malign just about anybody they dislike / disagree with. They'll twist and make contort any issue, slap a race tag on it, and squeeze it into an argument. If you're white, you're a racist, period. Unless you prove yourself otherwise (like channeling billions in AIDS relief to Africa... wait, that was Bush).
...
If you or anyone else need backup on the racist tendencies of that cowardly rat bastard, you must have missed hurricane Katrina. It took this nation a fooking week to get food and water to the poor black population in New Orleans. Men, women and children packed into the superdome with no bathroom facilities, no food and little water. Men women and children wandering on the open interstate blacktop in the Louisiana summer heat with virtually no food and little water for five fooking days!
I live across the lake from New Orleans, and no one around here has the slightest doubts as to Bush and Chaney's racist tendencies. I know republicans usually hate watching any non-conservative films, but take a look at Spike Lee's "The Day the Levees Broke". Strangely enough, the white population did ok, probably because the only police to be found were on the Mississippi Bridge, the Causeway Bridge, and a couple points on the parish line manning armed barricades that kept the negroes contained in New Orleans and out of the white folks hoods.
And please don't give me the usual crap about how it was all the fault of local politicians - it was a federal fucking disaster.
Honibaz
So has it been your experience that everyone is rascist unless they prove that they are not? Do you assume that everyone that is white is rascist vis-a-vis blacks?mpjh wrote:It is mostly white people that say "I am not racist, unless you prove I am." Those who experience racism each day know better.thegreekdog wrote:I must be? What gave you that impression?mpjh wrote:You must be white.
Wow... that's freaking nuts. Why didn't the police let everyone into the safe spots? You'd think the police wouldn't barricade hungry, thirsty people whose homes were just washed away. I don't think there's enough of an outcry about that shit.b.k. barunt wrote:Strangely enough, the white population did ok, probably because the only police to be found were on the Mississippi Bridge, the Causeway Bridge, and a couple points on the parish line manning armed barricades that kept the negroes contained in New Orleans and out of the white folks hoods.
holy shit did i just fall into the negaverse, where you are capable of holding a correct opinionb.k. barunt wrote: I got something to back it up. Your political savvy is usually dead on, so you must have actually liked that phoneyTexasaccent cheesewanker for your judgement to be so cloudy here.
If you or anyone else need backup on the racist tendencies of that cowardly rat bastard, you must have missed hurricane Katrina. It took this nation a fooking week to get food and water to the poor black population in New Orleans. Men, women and children packed into the superdome with no bathroom facilities, no food and little water. Men women and children wandering on the open interstate blacktop in the Louisiana summer heat with virtually no food and little water for five fooking days!
I live across the lake from New Orleans, and no one around here has the slightest doubts as to Bush and Chaney's racist tendencies. I know republicans usually hate watching any non-conservative films, but take a look at Spike Lee's "The Day the Levees Broke". Strangely enough, the white population did ok, probably because the only police to be found were on the Mississippi Bridge, the Causeway Bridge, and a couple points on the parish line manning armed barricades that kept the negroes contained in New Orleans and out of the white folks hoods.
And please don't give me the usual crap about how it was all the fault of local politicians - it was a federal fucking disaster.
Honibaz
Unlike most, Honibaz doesn't let others do his thinking for him.SultanOfSurreal wrote:holy shit did i just fall into the negaverse, where you are capable of holding a correct opinion
quickpoll: do hamburgers eat people now?
and since when do ithegreekdog wrote:Unlike most, Honibaz doesn't let others do his thinking for him.SultanOfSurreal wrote:holy shit did i just fall into the negaverse, where you are capable of holding a correct opinion
quickpoll: do hamburgers eat people now?
I'm not sure. I was not referring to you in any event. Believe it or not, I don't really like attacking people for no reason.SultanOfSurreal wrote:and since when do i
now come on, i only attack people when they are incorrectthegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure. I was not referring to you in any event. Believe it or not, I don't really like attacking people for no reason.SultanOfSurreal wrote:and since when do i
No, you're full of shit.mpjh wrote:You are not looking hard enough.
The claim was that Bush has a history of making racist comments. There has yet to be a reference to one racist comment he has made.lgoasklucyl wrote:
And George Bush, if you want to play the 'omg but he's the preeeeesident card', has had his VERY fair share of idiotic, racist, and insensitive quotes.
Stop hitting yourself!SultanOfSurreal wrote:now come on, i only attack people when they are incorrectthegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure. I was not referring to you in any event. Believe it or not, I don't really like attacking people for no reason.SultanOfSurreal wrote:and since when do i
it is not my fault that there is a lot of incorrectness around here
you don't know what an ad hominem attack isGabonX wrote:Stop hitting yourself!SultanOfSurreal wrote:now come on, i only attack people when they are incorrectthegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure. I was not referring to you in any event. Believe it or not, I don't really like attacking people for no reason.SultanOfSurreal wrote:and since when do i
it is not my fault that there is a lot of incorrectness around here![]()
In all seriousness though, your ad-hominem attacks indicate that your position on the issues is actually quite weak.
The underlined portion, like most of your "attacks," is an example of ad-hominem attack.SultanOfSurreal wrote: you don't know what an ad hominem attack is
also you are stupid
no it isn'tGabonX wrote:The underlined portion, like most of your "attacks," is an example of ad-hominem attack.SultanOfSurreal wrote: you don't know what an ad hominem attack is
also you are stupid
sure i doGabonX wrote: That seems to be about all you do here. You don't really make points on the issues.
And once again you attack my credibility instead of pointing out any kind of flaw in my debateSultanOfSurreal wrote:sure i doGabonX wrote: That seems to be about all you do here. You don't really make points on the issues.
but anyway, maybe you should read around a bit about what constitutes an ad hominem fallacy before pretending you're some sort of master of debate
tia
no i very much did point out a flaw in your argument. the flaw is that you don't know what an ad hominem attack isGabonX wrote:And once again you attack my credibility instead of pointing out any kind of flaw in my debateSultanOfSurreal wrote:sure i doGabonX wrote: That seems to be about all you do here. You don't really make points on the issues.
but anyway, maybe you should read around a bit about what constitutes an ad hominem fallacy before pretending you're some sort of master of debate
tia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemwikipedia wrote:An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.