“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#214 Oct 8, 2012
Elohim wrote:
Yea...right..... "You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*%ger, n*%ger, n*%ger." By 1968 you can't say "n*%ger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*%ger, n*%ger." - Lee Atwater ,Republican King Maker
What's a King Maker? We don't have royalty in America, unless you count Burger King.

Why not argue the issue, that language is inappropriate, the Republicans treat minorities like everyone else. It's the Left that needs a permanent underclass, to buy the 1% rhettoric.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#215 Oct 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Now, Ann Coulter fearlessly explains the real his­tory of race relations in this country ...
Oh, please. Everyone know that Coulter will LIE through her teeth for a buck.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#216 Oct 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What's a King Maker? We don't have royalty in America, unless you count Burger King.
Why not argue the issue, that language is inappropriate, the Republicans treat minorities like everyone else. It's the Left that needs a permanent underclass, to buy the 1% rhettoric.
If "treat minorities like everyone else" means try and prevent them from having access to voting, then yes.

You guys should be ashamed to even have a candidate. If there was a shred of moral fiber anywhere in the party, they would disband the GOP entirely based on this voting scandal.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#217 Oct 8, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
If "treat minorities like everyone else" means try and prevent them from having access to voting, then yes.
The only minority we don't want voting are frauds. I don't think people who don't care enough to get an ID, pre-register or show up at the polls on election day show enough care to vote, but since I understand those folks are mostly Demorats; I'm willing to leave it up to States to make their own voting laws.

.
Nuggin wrote:
You guys should be ashamed to even have a candidate. If there was a shred of moral fiber anywhere in the party, they would disband the GOP entirely based on this voting scandal.
We've got nothing to be ashamed of; we're not Democrats.

.
Nuggin wrote:
You seem to think that this information effects the thinking of a Southern Racist.
Yes, Republican civil rights policy is why they were all Democrats.

.
Nuggin wrote:
You are seriously miscalculating the amount of thought that goes through their minds.
Projection.

.
Nuggin wrote:
The President is a Dem, he passes civil rights. Therefore, Dems are for civil rights. Therefore, I'm switching to Republican.
The Republicans had been pushing civil rights since the Civil War, the Democrats only got aboard because they were losing.

.
Nuggin wrote:
It doesn't matter if more Republican members of the house voted one way or another. These guys don't know who THEIR OWN representative is, you think they are doing an overall assessment partywide?
Of course it matters which party votes for civil rights. The Democrats had filibustered civil rights until the '60s. The Republicans had anti-lynching legislation on their platform but the Democrats kept blocking it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynchi...

“I could be Susan's sock!”

Level 8

Since: Jun 12

Lady J's Lead Acolyte

#218 Oct 8, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Me, too. I always bring her a sugar cube when I go for a ride
That's just mean. Just exactly what don't you like about Sarah Jessica Parker? Surely you don't know her IRL.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#219 Oct 8, 2012
_PrincessSusan_ wrote:
Hey! I like Sarah Jessica Parker.
Yeah, I like her too.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#220 Oct 8, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
If "treat minorities like everyone else" means try and prevent them from having access to voting, then yes.
You guys should be ashamed to even have a candidate. If there was a shred of moral fiber anywhere in the party, they would disband the GOP entirely based on this voting scandal.
The GOP is destroying itself. It is being taken over by revanchist conservatives and evangelical Christians.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#221 Oct 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The only minority we don't want voting are frauds. I don't think people who don't care enough to get an ID, pre-register or show up at the polls on election day show enough care to vote, but since I understand those folks are mostly Demorats; I'm willing to leave it up to States to make their own voting laws.
.
<quoted text>We've got nothing to be ashamed of; we're not Democrats.
.
<quoted text>Yes, Republican civil rights policy is why they were all Democrats.
.
<quoted text>Projection.
.
<quoted text>The Republicans had been pushing civil rights since the Civil War, the Democrats only got aboard because they were losing.
.
<quoted text>Of course it matters which party votes for civil rights. The Democrats had filibustered civil rights until the '60s. The Republicans had anti-lynching legislation on their platform but the Democrats kept blocking it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynchi...
I think you will find that a lot of those Republicans used to be Democrats. No matter how you slice it they were conservatives and civil rights meant you had to keep the mans cloths on when you strung him up.

But go on, I am sure I am projecting or some other thing you can come up with to avoid the argument.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#222 Oct 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The only minority we don't want voting are frauds. I don't think people who don't care enough to get an ID, pre-register or show up at the polls on election day show enough care to vote, but since I understand those folks are mostly Demorats; I'm willing to leave it up to States to make their own voting laws.
.
<quoted text>We've got nothing to be ashamed of; we're not Democrats.
.
<quoted text>Yes, Republican civil rights policy is why they were all Democrats.
.
<quoted text>Projection.
.
<quoted text>The Republicans had been pushing civil rights since the Civil War, the Democrats only got aboard because they were losing.
.
<quoted text>Of course it matters which party votes for civil rights. The Democrats had filibustered civil rights until the '60s. The Republicans had anti-lynching legislation on their platform but the Democrats kept blocking it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynchi...
The Republican party started dying in the mid 60's and even Reagan couldn't save it. Now all that are left are ultra rightwing, revisionists that want to turn this country into the Christian Taliban.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#223 Oct 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The only minority we don't want voting are frauds. I don't think people who don't care enough to get an ID, pre-register or show up at the polls on election day show enough care to vote, but since I understand those folks are mostly Demorats; I'm willing to leave it up to States to make their own voting laws.
Except that that's not what's happening.

What's really happening is that people who have been registered for years are going to show up at the polls to discover that they've been removed. Retirees without cars are going to show up to vote as they have done for 40 years without needing an ID and discover they are being turned away.

And, in fact, that's EXACTLY the point. You've got GOP operatives who've openly said they are trying to prevent people from voting in order to win the election.

You should be ASHAMED to be a part of anything like that.
<quoted text>The Republicans had been pushing civil rights since the Civil War, the Democrats only got aboard because they were losing.
Actually, the parties switched positions. You are right that the Republicans were pushing for civil rights, a big central government over ruling the states, etc.

However, you currently hold NONE of the positions held by the party of Lincoln.

In fact, if Lincoln were running, he wouldn't even be allowed in the primary debates by the GOP.

Hell, REAGAN couldn't be a GOP candidate. You guys have swung so far to the Right that REAGAN is a pinko compared to your current agenda.
The Democrats had filibustered civil rights until the '60s. The Republicans had anti-lynching legislation on their platform but the Democrats kept blocking it.
And then you guys switched places and the democrats started looking out for the little guy while the Republicans are trying to re-instate the poll-tax.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#224 Oct 8, 2012
_PrincessSusan_ wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just mean. Just exactly what don't you like about Sarah Jessica Parker? Surely you don't know her IRL.
I don't know her, though I suspect I'm only 1 degree of separation from people that do.

My issue with her is not so much her but with the people that hold her up as a paragon of beauty when she clearly _CLEARLY_ is not.

We can have differing opinions on what makes someone beautiful. You may say that Heidi Klum is perfect. I might pick Olivia Munn. However, in either case, we'd both have to acknowledge that the other pick is, at the very least, pretty.

SJP isn't. Her face is a disaster. She may be a good actress, she may be funny, she may be in good shape, she may be the nicest person in the world. However, she is NOT beautiful.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#225 Oct 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Yes, Republican civil rights policy is why they were all Democrats.
Yeah, that's why you guys are so popular around the world.[/sarcasm]

Heck, even the US's most important allies think you guys are wacko.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#226 Oct 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
We've got nothing to be ashamed of; we're not Democrats.
George WMD Bush.

'Nuff said.

“I could be Susan's sock!”

Level 8

Since: Jun 12

Lady J's Lead Acolyte

#227 Oct 8, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know her, though I suspect I'm only 1 degree of separation from people that do.
My issue with her is not so much her but with the people that hold her up as a paragon of beauty when she clearly _CLEARLY_ is not.
We can have differing opinions on what makes someone beautiful. You may say that Heidi Klum is perfect. I might pick Olivia Munn. However, in either case, we'd both have to acknowledge that the other pick is, at the very least, pretty.
SJP isn't. Her face is a disaster. She may be a good actress, she may be funny, she may be in good shape, she may be the nicest person in the world. However, she is NOT beautiful.
So? Why are certain men still using beauty as a yardstick to define a woman? Shallow, yes.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#230 Oct 9, 2012
_PrincessSusan_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So? Why are certain men still using beauty as a yardstick to define a woman? Shallow, yes.
First of all, some men may use it as a yardstick, but ALL Women use it as a yardstick.

Notice that half of men's magazines are full of cars, watches, video games and sports news.

And yes, some girls in there too.

Now check out womens magazines. How to look pretty, am I as pretty as her, how to get in shape, clothes makeup jewelry.

Second of all, it's PERFECTLY acceptable to judge a person based on their beauty if that is how they make their living.

No one is using beauty as a yardstick for Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton. But SJP makes her money from being on television, being in ads, she's heralded as being beautiful.

If I was on a TV show about being the tallest man in the world, you would be perfectly within reason to point out that I'm 5'11".

Lastly, what makes it shallow to judge her based on her looks. I'm not judging her to be stupid based on her looks, or talentless, or worthless, or a bad person.

I'm am judging her LOOKS based on her LOOKS. That's not shallow, that's accurate.

It's shallow to judge a book by the cover, it's NOT shallow to judge a book cover by the book cover

“I could be Susan's sock!”

Level 8

Since: Jun 12

Lady J's Lead Acolyte

#231 Oct 9, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, some men may use it as a yardstick, but ALL Women use it as a yardstick.
Notice that half of men's magazines are full of cars, watches, video games and sports news.
And yes, some girls in there too.
Now check out womens magazines. How to look pretty, am I as pretty as her, how to get in shape, clothes makeup jewelry.
Second of all, it's PERFECTLY acceptable to judge a person based on their beauty if that is how they make their living.
No one is using beauty as a yardstick for Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton. But SJP makes her money from being on television, being in ads, she's heralded as being beautiful.
If I was on a TV show about being the tallest man in the world, you would be perfectly within reason to point out that I'm 5'11".
Lastly, what makes it shallow to judge her based on her looks. I'm not judging her to be stupid based on her looks, or talentless, or worthless, or a bad person.
I'm am judging her LOOKS based on her LOOKS. That's not shallow, that's accurate.
It's shallow to judge a book by the cover, it's NOT shallow to judge a book cover by the book cover
Nothing like a global statement. ALL women. I am sure, that you do NOT know ALL women. Perhaps some women who have very poor self esteem use those criteria but certainly NOT all. As for the advertisers, they've found that sex sells and that there are a lot of poor suckers who can't think for themselves.

As for Sarah Jessica Parker, her looks are completely subjective. Kind of a silly subject to discuss given how subjective it is.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#232 Oct 9, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What's a King Maker? We don't have royalty in America, unless you count Burger King.
Why not argue the issue, that language is inappropriate, the Republicans treat minorities like everyone else. It's the Left that needs a permanent underclass, to buy the 1% rhettoric.
Are you really that naive?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#233 Oct 9, 2012
I think, I'm not sophisticated enough to buy the misstatements from the left. I don't consider myself,'enlightened'; I value wisdom and experience, not intellectualism. I take a tragic view of history, the path isn't: up, up, up.

I think there's more to beauty than outward appearance. If that makes me naive, so be it.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#234 Oct 9, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
I think, I'm not sophisticated enough to buy the misstatements from the left. I don't consider myself,'enlightened'; I value wisdom and experience, not intellectualism. I take a tragic view of history, the path isn't: up, up, up.
I think there's more to beauty than outward appearance. If that makes me naive, so be it.
Not only do you (supposedly) value "wisdom and experience", those of you on the Right seem to have an actual DISDANE for "Intellectualism", is if it is a BAD thing.

And you think that one cannot value "wisdom and experience" PLUS simultaneously being intellectual?

If the Right does not value intellect, then it LACKS the same, and it therefore possesses the opposite mental qualities:

Willfully stupid.

Is that where you're going?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#235 Oct 9, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
I think, I'm not sophisticated enough to buy the misstatements from the left. I don't consider myself,'enlightened'
Don't worry, most don't.
Brian_G wrote:
I value wisdom and experience
Well, maybe one day, when you're a little older...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Humans DID evolve from apes! 18 min emrenil 45
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 30 min dirtclod 150,029
evolution of Eyes - size - skin color - shape -... 1 hr The Dude 13
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr The Dude 17,038
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 2 hr The Dude 734
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 2 hr The Dude 43
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 2 hr The Dude 1,383
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 3 hr One way or another 177,051
More from around the web