• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Epic bias from Salon

Meister said:
You might want to do a study on Eisenhower and Civil Rights.

Since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill, just look what it has for the Black person as a whole.
The democrats sure are long with promises and short on results.
Please don't hit me up with their civil liberties, that is a good thing.

But, they have high UE.........still.
The inner cities is rife with black gangs and crime, low education, and poverty.
And the promises just keep coming.
Click to expand...

And there was Truman and the Civl Rights Commission...

What's happened is that black neighborhoods have been driven from industry. There is nothing left for them. Democrats have doing what they can to keep poeple's heads above water.
 
BTW, I've said I don't think the political operatives in the GOP counting votes and assembling a coalition are 'racist.' I don't even believe the voting rules changes have a racist intent. The rule changes ARE intended to make it harder for poor people in the inner cities who typically don't have an acceptable PHOTO ID (and those folks are primarily black or brown), to vote, and efforts to eliminate Sunday early voting are directly targeted at blacks who have a cultural history of post Sunday church voting. If those folks were green, the GOP strategists would choose the same methods. If poor inner city WHITES voted 90+% for democrats, the GOP would work like heck to make it harder for THEM to vote.
 
Grant said:
They pander to the Black vote by claiming Republicans are denying them the right to vote while ignoring the underlying message that Blacks somehow can't navigate toward the voting booth like everyone else. If they were to say that White can't find their way to vote, or aren't bright enough to get a voting ID, we would laugh at it. But say it about Black people and Democrats are okay with that.
Click to expand...

No one is saying anything like that. The fact is POOR people have a harder time getting ID. They typically don't have a safe deposit box for all their important papers and don't need an ID in their daily lives to fly, bank, etc. So if you take a population that you KNOW going in 1) doesn't have acceptable ID, and 2) is more likely not to have the underlying documents (birth certificate, marriage license, SS card, etc.) in a handy place, and 3) are less likely to have a computer or the skill to easily get those documents, and 4) have less money to afford the $40 for a replacement, and then say these millions now have spend the time to get documents, travel to the DMV, wait for a couple of hours, and get this new ID they ONLY need to cast a vote once or twice a year, and what red states know is some large number of them will be unable to get the documents for various reasons, or don't want to spend the money or the time, and so will not vote.

Do you think the photo ID rules were put in place to make it EASIER for inner city people to vote? Of course not - no one is that naive. The red states nearly all embraced photo ID because they know it's a partisan advantage to republicans. So you're asking us to believe that a proposal that GOPers KNOW helps their candidates get elected (they say this) doesn't have any impact. It's incredible really.
 
JasperL said:
The members of the KKK were and are obvious racists. We agree on something. But the whole point is the KKK members in 1960 were all democrats. The KKK of the modern era vote GOP, unless you think they voted for Obama, and for the party of San Francisco values, gays, inner city blacks, etc.
Click to expand...
I have no idea which party they belong to but certainly Democrats would claim they are republican. And of course the KKK dont have near the power they had when people like Robert Byrd were involved. They are now a subject of ridicule.

You're making up strawmen here. The statement of history is the Southern whites who supported Jim Crow laws - what remains of those racists - switched parties. It's in the historical record. If the democratic party that included northern union workers (among other groups), and Southern former Confederates like Wallace standing in schools to prevent blacks from attending was a racist party, then the party that now includes Wallace's ideological descendants is also 'racist.'
Click to expand...
Wallace, of course, was a Democrat, and powerful enough to do well in the primaries, including the northern states. Does it make any sense to you that a political party who had fought against the rights for Black people, who started the KKK, who designed the Jim Crow laws, and so on, would suddenly, in a miraculous shift, switch parties?? We can still see the racism coming from Democrats today in fact. The only tack they have taken is to point fingers elsewhere, and that's been remarkably successful propaganda.

I guess you're pretending that the remaining white racists in the South have no party or something. They sure as hell aren't voting democratic these days for any national office, and if they're not voting republican then I guess they don't exist, don't vote, or you're assuming there are no more white racists in the South, which I know first hand isn't true.
Click to expand...
Neither of us know who the racists in the South are voting for because it's unlikely they would declare themselves racists while voting. But we should know the history, and I see no reason why racists would ever vote Republican rather than the party they have always voted for.
So, 90%+ of blacks belong to a party that is racist.
Click to expand...
Yes, and many Blacks who dare confront this are aware of that, and I hope more will join them.
And the non-racist party is the one with about as many blacks in elected office as my fingers and toes and whose national convention looks like an ad for White Lilly Flour.
Click to expand...
Many Blacks are convinced that it is the Republicans who are racist, like yourself, when all the facts say otherwise. And yes, there are more Whites at Republican conventions but all of that is changing. Many more Blacks are beginning to recognize the damage left wing politics have done to Black families and their neighborhoods over the years.
 
jet57 said:
And there was Truman and the Civl Rights Commission...What's happened is that black neighborhoods have been driven from industry. There is nothing left for them. Democrats have doing what they can to keep poeple's heads above water.
Click to expand...
They have made them dependent on welfare and any attempt to stop that destruction of the human spirit is labelled as 'racism'. That's been the tactic for a long while now and we can see the effect this has had on the Black people. With almost half the population receiving help from the government, including the incredible increase in food stamps, we can see that the Democrats are wanting an even more dependent society. And if the Republicans try to stop it they will be accused not of only of racism but a war against the the poor, women, minorities, and so on. This is the strategy of the left, and it works very well.
 
Grant said:
I have no idea which party they belong to but certainly Democrats would claim they are republican. And of course the KKK dont have near the power they had when people like Robert Byrd were involved. They are now a subject of ridicule.
Click to expand...

Well, you can look at counties that went for Wallace in big numbers and see who those counties vote for now. And you'd find they are solid republican.

Wallace, of course, was a Democrat, and powerful enough to do well in the primaries, including the northern states. Does it make any sense to you that a political party who had fought against the rights for Black people, who started the KKK, who designed the Jim Crow laws, and so on, would suddenly, in a miraculous shift, switch parties?? We can still see the racism coming from Democrats today in fact. The only tack they have taken is to point fingers elsewhere, and that's been remarkably successful propaganda.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to "make sense" it's what happened. And I guess blacks are too stupid to notice that the party that elects black legislators by 100-1 over the other party is the racist party, and the party with conventions that are as white as White Lilly Flour are the non-racists.

Neither of us know who the racists in the South are voting for because it's unlikely they would declare themselves racists while voting. But we should know the history, and I see no reason why racists would ever vote Republican rather than the party they have always voted for.
Click to expand...

Several reasons. The racists affiliation with the Democrats was an old holdover from post Civil War days - they were democrats because Lincoln was a republican. Blacks are now firmly entrenched in the Democratic party. The white southerners are mostly conservatives, religious, culturally conservative, and the GOP appeals to them for those reasons. Etc. What is it about the GOP agenda that would turn off a conservative white racist in Mississippi? Their anti-illegal positions? Cutting welfare for the welfare queens and young bucks buying T bone steaks? The less than a handful of black republicans in the House and Senate?

Yes, and many Blacks who dare confront this are aware of that, and I hope more will join them.
Click to expand...

OK. I'd love a GOP that wasn't devolving into a party of old white southern men as their core. Fact is to appeal to significant numbers of blacks and hispanics and others they'll have to take positions that appeal to them, and a lot of those positions will need to be economic. So for example, instead of just saying "HELL NO WE CAN'T" to the ACA, the GOP would have to actually develop some alternative that works for the working poor. I hope it happens.

Many Blacks are convinced that it is the Republicans who are racist, like yourself, when all the facts say otherwise. And yes, there are more Whites at Republican conventions but all of that is changing. Many more Blacks are beginning to recognize the damage left wing politics have done to Black families and their neighborhoods over the years.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all saying that "Republicans" are racist. I'm pointing out that the remaining losers in the South who ARE racists have switched parties post the Civil Rights era. I don't think you're a racist - nothing indicates that at all.
 
Karl said:
I don't think so... Newsmax is so far out there that they don't even get the facts right, or conveniently omit facts. For example:


First, what are the terms "heroic" and "trumped-up" even doing in a 'news' story?

Second, it appears that the Marine in question was not involved in/present at the battle discussed (his charges related to after-action investigative duties), so he could hardly be termed "heroic" in the traditional sense.


Grayson had been accused of telling a sergeant to delete photographs of the dead from a camera and laptop computer. This charge was dismissed on the allegation that Grayson did not know at the time that an investigation was in process. According to Grayson's defense it was not dismissed because the charge that he ordered the photos deleted was false[SUP][1][/SUP]. The claim that the incident was "fully reported in excruciating detail" is not a fact. Newsmax is playing with the easily discernible truth.

There are more outright lies on other topics if you want it. When you post a similar critique of a Salon article, then maybe you'll have something. Until then, your attempt to compare them (Salon) to a serial liar (Newsmax) is not only an ad hominem, it is unproven and rather preposterous.



__________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. SSgt. Justin [...] testified at the Lt. Col. Chessani hearing that 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson "pressured" him to erase photographs of the dead in Haditha from his computer. The reason was that they would not be part of a statement being prepared for top-ranking officers and a Time magazine reporter. (link)
Click to expand...

Search - Salon.com

Search - Salon.com

First, what was that saying about stones and glass houses?

Second

Blame Breitbart!: Salon.com Editor Joan Walsh Lies and Bullies on Weinergate

Third, don't presume that you've any type of authority on what is and isn't a legitimate critique. To do so, especially when defending such liberally biased tripe and attempting to use a renowned liberal rag for backup will only get you laughed at.

:lamo
 
JasperL said:
No one is saying anything like that. The fact is POOR people have a harder time getting ID. They typically don't have a safe deposit box for all their important papers and don't need an ID in their daily lives to fly, bank, etc. So if you take a population that you KNOW going in 1) doesn't have acceptable ID, and 2) is more likely not to have the underlying documents (birth certificate, marriage license, SS card, etc.) in a handy place, and 3) are less likely to have a computer or the skill to easily get those documents, and 4) have less money to afford the $40 for a replacement, and then say these millions now have spend the time to get documents, travel to the DMV, wait for a couple of hours, and get this new ID they ONLY need to cast a vote once or twice a year, and what red states know is some large number of them will be unable to get the documents for various reasons, or don't want to spend the money or the time, and so will not vote.

Do you think the photo ID rules were put in place to make it EASIER for inner city people to vote? Of course not - no one is that naive. The red states nearly all embraced photo ID because they know it's a partisan advantage to republicans. So you're asking us to believe that a proposal that GOPers KNOW helps their candidates get elected (they say this) doesn't have any impact. It's incredible really.
Click to expand...
I tend to stop reading when the hyperbole hits the fan, in this case it was 'safety deposit boxes'.
 
Grant said:
I tend to stop reading when the hyperbole hits the fan, in this case it was 'safety deposit boxes'.
Click to expand...

Well, if that makes your life easier to avoid addressing someone's point by selectively focusing on the trivial, I suppose that's fine.

But the bottom line is GOP states didn't bring in photo ID rules to make it harder for GOP candidates to win. They KNOW what the effect will be and the rules are intended to drive down the votes of democrats. It's why all of a sudden photo ID was pushed in nearly ever GOP controlled state to address the non-problem of voter impersonation fraud at the polls.

Heck, I'd be happy if republicans just admitted the obvious - it's hardball politics, which is as old as politics itself. Make it easier for your guys to vote, harder for the other side's people. Let's just be adults and admit that.
 
Salon is, of course, a Left-wing tabloid, often devoid of good analytics.

That being said, while the overt disdain of racial, ethnic, or other minorities might not be present in the rationale behind the voter ID laws, it is incredibly difficult to deny their intended impact.

Lastly, it is often difficult for modern conservatives and southerners to critically evaluate their own political histories. It's rather unfortunate.
 
JasperL said:
Well, if that makes your life easier to avoid addressing someone's point by selectively focusing on the trivial, I suppose that's fine.

But the bottom line is GOP states didn't bring in photo ID rules to make it harder for GOP candidates to win. They KNOW what the effect will be and the rules are intended to drive down the votes of democrats. It's why all of a sudden photo ID was pushed in nearly ever GOP controlled state to address the non-problem of voter impersonation fraud at the polls.

Heck, I'd be happy if republicans just admitted the obvious - it's hardball politics, which is as old as politics itself. Make it easier for your guys to vote, harder for the other side's people. Let's just be adults and admit that.
Click to expand...

In unguarded moments, they actually do!

Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast


Tea Partier Admits Republicans Don't Want African Americans To Vote. No Sh*t. | The Daily Banter

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason... | www.palmbeachpost.com

NC GOP Leader Admits Voting Law was Designed to Restrict African-American and Students | Advancement Project

6 Other Times Republicans Admitted Voting Restrictions Are Just About Disenfranchising Democrats | The National Memo
 
ChezC3 said:
[...] Second

Blame Breitbart!: Salon.com Editor Joan Walsh Lies and Bullies on Weinergate

Third, don't presume that you've any type of authority on what is and isn't a legitimate critique. To do so, especially when defending such liberally biased tripe and attempting to use a renowned liberal rag for backup will only get you laughed at.

:lamo
Click to expand...
I have no idea (nor care) what is going on in the "twitterverse" (the links in the Breitbart article don't work for me, but that is irrelevant), and certainly do not consider it to be anything remotely resembling published media.

As to your first point, that seemed to be a simple search query and as such I did not pursue it. If you want to make a point, it will require some type of cognizant message (e.g., a link to a search engine doesn't really make any sense).

Your third point is meaningless rhetoric. Therefore, considering the content and level of intellect in your post, I'm glad that you're laughing. If you were agreeing I would be concerned about my reasoning.
 
 
Karl said:
I have no idea (nor care) what is going on in the "twitterverse" (the links in the Breitbart article don't work for me, but that is irrelevant), and certainly do not consider it to be anything remotely resembling published media.

As to your first point, that seemed to be a simple search query and as such I did not pursue it. If you want to make a point, it will require some type of cognizant message (e.g., a link to a search engine doesn't really make any sense).

Your third point is meaningless rhetoric. Therefore, considering the content and level of intellect in your post, I'm glad that you're laughing. If you were agreeing I would be concerned about my reasoning.
Click to expand...

What you recognize as published media is irrelevant.

As to my first point it was simply a playful smack across your face from the gauntlet you threw down which I picked up.

My third point was most meaningful, therefore (oh, wonderful therefore!) its content and the level of intellect in said post must have been too much for you to grasp. That usually happens when you've gone past your reach.

I'm glad I'm laughing too, it's good for the heart. I'll meet you half way and admit I am concerned about your reasoning, or rather the lack there of...
 
Funny we talk about Salon - yet no mention of "Think Progress."
 
Mr.Nick said:
Funny we talk about Salon - yet no mention of "Think Progress."
Click to expand...
What's funny is the right's reliance on ad hominems in lieu of facts or reason... and even in the face of (disagreeable) facts and reason. That alone makes them clueless and, quite simply, unworthy of debate.
 
Meister said:
I just can't help laughing with your source sites. Incredible that you would even use them to broadbrush. :lamo
Click to expand...

Incredible that dismissing the messenger is the best you can do! :lamo
 
ChezC3 said:
What you recognize as published media is irrelevant. [...]
Click to expand...
Ah. Another episode of Right Wing Alternate Reality Theater. I suppose you're now going to inform everyone that the ravings and ranting on Twitter constitute a reliable/professional news source :2rofll:
 
Karl said:
What's funny is the right's reliance on ad hominems in lieu of facts or reason... and even in the face of (disagreeable) facts and reason. That alone makes them clueless and, quite simply, unworthy of debate.
Click to expand...

LAMO, so basically you don't want to talk about the **** or even think about the **** "Think Progress" actually is... Instead you would rather talk nonsense about Salon while Think Progress is spewing propaganda and garbage?
 
JasperL said:
Well, if that makes your life easier to avoid addressing someone's point by selectively focusing on the trivial, I suppose that's fine.
Click to expand...
I prefer straight ahead debate rather than hyperbole. Not everyone who votes has safety deposit boxes, for crying out loud! This gets tiresome and is all too common..
But the bottom line is GOP states didn't bring in photo ID rules to make it harder for GOP candidates to win. They KNOW what the effect will be and the rules are intended to drive down the votes of democrats.
Click to expand...
Why would it drive down the democratic vote?
It's why all of a sudden photo ID was pushed in nearly ever GOP controlled state to address the non-problem of voter impersonation fraud at the polls.
Click to expand...
Voter fraud is a problem and everyone should know it.
Heck, I'd be happy if republicans just admitted the obvious - it's hardball politics, which is as old as politics itself. Make it easier for your guys to vote, harder for the other side's people. Let's just be adults and admit that.
Click to expand...
Why would it make it difficult for anyone to vote? If they can get to the voting booth without ID why cant they make the same trip with ID? Or are you making the claim that Democrats rely on voter fraud in order to win elections?
 
Meister said:
I just can't help laughing with your source sites. Incredible that you would even use them to broadbrush. :lamo
Click to expand...

So if I give you other sources for these well known quotes, you'll stop laughing and admit the GOP is a cynical bunch of creeps? Or will you go to plan B and find some other form of denial. Never mind. We know the answer.
 
Meister said:
Spoken like a true partisan.
These poor people who can't seem to get a free voter ID to vote can find some way to come up with an ID for social services. I don't see you liberals bitching about showing ID's for that.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the 'free' voter ID, which isn't free if you have to pay to get the underlying documents, spend hours traveling to the office, in Texas (as I recall) there were less than one office issuing the IDs per county, etc. And the 'ID for social services' is also great. Problem is many forms of ID that are used for that conveniently don't count for voting. Gosh, wonder why that might be.....

One other thing I would like to add into the mix.........there may not be a serious issue with voter fraud....that we know of right now, but with the influx of illegals coming across the border, it could very well be an issue in the future. Why not be proactive than reactive with the potential threat? Has nothing to do with voter suppression.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the one thing an illegal is likely to do is commit a crime to cast a vote, put himself or herself in the crosshairs, leave a permanent record of the crime, all to cast a single illegal vote. But I sympathize - you don't have much to argue and pulling the ILLEGALS!!! card is about as good as it gets.

Heck, we're adults here. We all know GOPers changed the voting rules to benefit GOPers. There's nothing really wrong with that - politics ain't beanball or something. I just get tired of people pretending the rest of us are stupid and can't figure out the motives have NOTHING to do with fraud that exists only in trivial numbers and everything to do with partisan advantage. Democrats expanded voting to benefit democrats, republicans want fewer voting because that helps them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsl_TuFdes

Paul Weyrich, GOP operative: "I don't want everybody to vote..... Our leverage in the election goes quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
 
Karl said:
Ah. Another episode of Right Wing Alternate Reality Theater. I suppose you're now going to inform everyone that the ravings and ranting on Twitter constitute a reliable/professional news source :2rofll:
Click to expand...

It amazes me how some people, in this case you, don't know when to leave well enough alone.

Yeah, right wing theatre it is, that's me, the big old UHC supporting, free cradle to grave education giving, Nordic Way advocating RIGHT WING HACK...:roll:

Jesus Christ man...
 
FaceofBachmann said:
So if I give you other sources for these well known quotes, you'll stop laughing and admit the GOP is a cynical bunch of creeps? Or will you go to plan B and find some other form of denial. Never mind. We know the answer.
Click to expand...

I could quote "Think Progress" all day....
 
Grant said:
Why would it drive down the democratic vote?
Click to expand...

States have done the studies. People who don't have drivers licenses (by far the most common form of ACCEPTABLE photo ID at the polls) are mostly poor and live in cities where they don't need them. Most of those folks are poor and minorities, aka likely democratic voters. If there are 700,000 of registered voters without an approved form of ID and the great bulk of them live in cities and are poor, then significant number either won't or cannot get the new ID in time, won't hear about the changes, etc. Let's say 90% DO spend the time and often money to get the ID. That's 70,000 fewer likely democratic voters. At 95%, that's 35,000 fewer.

The math is simple, straightforward, and you don't need a PhD in political science to understand how this helps republicans.

Voter fraud is a problem and everyone should know it.
Click to expand...

Easy to say, but when asked to present evidence of that in court where you have to do more than assert it without evidence, the GOP doesn't even TRY to prove fraud is the motivation. What they've generally said is voting rules are their prerogative to make, period. They certainly don't try to prove that there is any fraud - they've tried for years to find it and just cannot do it. For some reason, VERY few people are willing to risk a felony to cast an extra vote.

Why would it make it difficult for anyone to vote? If they can get to the voting booth without ID why cant they make the same trip with ID? Or are you making the claim that Democrats rely on voter fraud in order to win elections?
Click to expand...

Answered above. You're asking me to believe that GOP operatives pushed for voting rules changes in nearly all or all red states, and that wasn't done for partisan gain. Come on. Don't be silly. They did it as a group across the country because the rules were INTENDED to help elect more republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom