Page 17 of 93 FirstFirst ... 715161718192767 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 921

Thread: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

  1. #161
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,149

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    All the way back to Abraham Lincoln?

    Or perhaps only as far back as Orval Faubus, George Wallace or maybe just to Robert Byrd.
    an examination of the reasons for moving to the republican party by jesse helms and strom thurmond might allow the truth to be explored
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #162
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Supporting race based hiring preferences and quotas makes one not a racist, but opposing race based hiring preferences and quotas makes on a racist or supporting racist policies?
    I know this is kind of counter-intuitive, but yeah, that's true. Overall the market gives whites a massive preference. If a white job applicant and a black job applicant apply for exactly the same job with exactly the same resume, the white applicant is a shocking 2.4 times more likely to get called up for an interview. That is a massive, overwhelming, disadvantage blacks face, and advantage whites get, just because of the color of their skin. So, programs designed to give preference to minorities are only a small, inadequate, step to counter balance that. They don't amount to giving blacks an advantage overall, they just amount to dialing the advantage whites are given and the disadvantage blacks are given back a bit. Say maybe without those programs overall whites would be getting called up for interviews 2.5 times as much instead of 2.4 times as much. So, they make the system overall less racially biased, so yeah, whatever the good motives, opposing those programs is supporting the continuation of a racist system.

  3. #163
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,905

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    And you found it chock full of angry racist out to restore white power in America didn't you?
    What I found was two different things. When I attended the first two tea Party events in 2009, both on the same day, I took an Obama election poster with me and held it as i walked around. I was met with lots of hostility and angry remarks, a few of them racist in nature. At one point, a police officer came and shadowed me and told me it was for my own good.

    When I attended the events at the Michigan capitol building this past Spring, I simply was there to photograph people, and asked their permission to do so. everyone I met was nice and friendly and cooperative. I saw no racial hostility at all.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  4. #164
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,400

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I strongly suspect that if I wore a T-shirt that said "I am a freedom killing Marxist" - and then on the back listed reasons why the far right perceives me as such, you and others would focus only on the front of it stating that it reveals truth in the disguise of satire.
    Paranoid, victim projection. And you gotta have "Yup," and "..." so as to indicate more is to be read; let's not lose context.

  5. #165
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,905

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    regarding opposition to Affirmative Action and racism:

    I believe that one can be opposed to AA and do so on grounds other than racist beliefs. I also believe that one can oppose AA as part of their racist beliefs. One cannot conclude that simple opposition to this one program makes one a racist.

    At the same time, I cannot help but notice that there are those who vehemently deny any personal racism but they still have a very long list of race based issues on which they come firmly down on the far right conservative side and AA is but one of them.

    I vividly remember one such poster on a different message board who
    *** supported the South in the Civil War
    *** opposed reconstruction and the 14th Amendment
    *** defended separate but equal and Plessey v. Ferguson
    *** found reasons to deny African Americans the right to vote for most of the 20th century
    *** was against all the various Civil Rights Laws of the last half of the 20th century
    *** supported Wallace for President
    *** had vitriolic and disparaging things to say about leaders such as King, Parks and many others

    and a bunch of other far right positions on all matters that touched on race.

    Does this persons stance against AA make them a racist? No. But consider the entire record and you get a different answer.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #166
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Eh, I'm bored of this conversation. Go read the history of the Republican Party and get back to me.
    The fact is....Obama is a racist. The MSM has given him a free ride with statements that would not have been allowed by a white politician

    Another thing....and it isn't just white and black. There is a large portion of the Hispanic population who are more prejudiced against blacks than any segment of the white population.

  7. #167
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Merriam Webster dictionary is not the authority which defines what the term racism means. For that claim to be true we'd have to discount other dictionaries which offer different definitions.

    The part in bold is false. All real dictionaries are legitimate authorities on the meanings of words. One does not cancel out the other. You may wish for that to be the case, but it isn't.


    Well, so much for your contention that an appeal to authority is valid when the authority is the entity which defines a term. Now he have conflicting authorities and meaning is muddled.
    They aren't conflicting. In order for their to be conflict, the definitions would have to oppose each other. One definition would not be able to coexist with the other. If we cannot consider a dictionary to be an authority on a word's meaning, then words lose all meaning.



    And below you claim that you're in academia. Give me a break. This addled thinking is good for comedic effect but really doesn't belong in a serious discussion. Now the people you're debating are supposed to know what your favored dictionary is.
    No, the people I'm debating only need to know my favored dictionary if they are going to make the claim that I was engaging in "selective referencing". In order to engage in selective referencing, I must be making my choices based on which definition I prefer, not which dictionary I prefer. The only evidence that could exist which showed that I am doing this would be if I used different dictionaries based on my personal preference regarding the definition in question.

    Someone who was actually in academia would actually research their hypothesis before claiming it as fact. I can see why you might form said hypothesis while remaining ignorant of the facts, but to claim that the hypothesis as true while remaining ignorant of the facts shows that you have zero credibility in your assessments. It sghows that you are willing to build your claims upon a foundation of ignorance.




    You asked and I delivered.
    You delivered nothing. You actually refused to provide sources for that particular post for me. Instead you provided a link to a totally different thread with many different

    Do you not recall our PM exchange. I followed the practice I use with everyone, so I'm not revealing any privileged information of our discussion. For arguments that I've already made in an earlier thread, I provide a link to that discussion and all of the supporting evidence I cite. I won't jump through hoops where the person I'm corresponding with wants me to repeat, for their benefit, all the work that I've already done. I would tell anyone, and I usually do, to get off their lazy butt and read the link(s) I sent them and then I inform them if they had any further questions that arose from that material that I'd be happy to engage them on those questions. I give you my permission to release that e-mail if you think it helps your case in this matter.
    And this incompetent understanding of how one cites sources in academia is absolute proof that you are not familiar with academia. Imagine what would happen to a doctoral student who decided to not cite sources for her dissertation and took the stance, when sources were requested, that she put all those sources in their master's thesis and if the lazy doctoral review board wasn't interested in sifting through all of her other work in order to find the sources used in this work, she wasn't about jump through hoops" citing sources with competence.

    I'll tell you what would happen. She'd never get that PhD. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't take this lazy, plagiarizing stance on providing citations for every post in which you cite sources. Your academic incompetence is not a reflection on those who wish for you to be academically competent, despite what you may claim from your foundation of ignorance.

    When your defense is an admission that you use citations incompetently, it isn't really a defense.



    If you're going to make accusations then you should at least TRY to base them on evidence:
    Irony. You has it.

    RiverDad: This is actually the least controversial point I've made in this entire discussion. Those numbers are seen all throughout the literature. No one is disputing them. The dispute, as it is, centers on whether the numbers arise from genes, environment or a combination of both factors. The extremist creationists argue for environment, the moderates argue for genes and environment. No one argues for genes alone.

    The part in bold is known to be a false claim because we know that you do argue for genes alone creating the variation between races because you claim that evolution causes the variance seen between races.

    While you might not actually understand what that means, when evolution is cited as the causal factor for variance it means that the only role that environment plays in the variance is in determining the genetic differences between races which, in turn, leads to the variance.


    There is a reason that I worded my statement to which you responded in the way that I did. Notice that I said, very specifically, the fact that environmental factors also exist hampers your evolution hypothesis.

    I very specifically did not say that the presence of environmental factors hampers the hypothesis that their is a genetic influence on overall IQ variation.

    I also carefully highlighted the word "also" in my post for a reason.

    Instead of taking a moment to assess what your response to that very carefully worded statement might say about your overall argument, you instead made it very clear that the variance between races was not caused by environment. You actually stated, very clearly, that you could "shoot down" any environmental factor.

    You clearly stated that the very thing that determines race is also the thing that causes the racial variance in IQs.


    The entire superiority-inferiority framework presupposes that it is possible to rank racial groups from superior to inferior. On what basis does this ranking occur? Therein lies the fallacy of this framework. We are all the sum of many parts. Are taller people superior to shorter people? How about the tall child molester, is he superior to the short nurse? How about smarter people, are they superior to less intelligent people? How about the smart serial killer, is he superior to the average intelligence person who is a cop working to put him in prison.
    Most of these are false analogies because what you are doing is ranking groups of people, not individuals. Individuals won't be similar across a multitude of characteristics that have clear inferior and superior classifications the same way that groups will. Comparing Bill to Tom directly will have many more differences between variables than comparing all of the world's Bills to all of the world's Toms would.

    Only one of your examples actually meets the criteria for a valid comparison and that would be the smarter people vs. less intelligent people example. when these groups are separated out by their intelligence, the other natural traits that they have will actually become far less varied. The average heights of both groups will only vary insignificantly, for example. Thus, the two groups will be for all intents and purposes identical save for one trait. In comparing the two groups, one can claim that one is superior to the other on this particular trait. With all other traits being equal or not having an inferior/superior dichotomy, the superiority of one group is based entirely on the single trait that can be considered one that has superiority or inferiority characteristics.

    Thus, those who believe in a rank ordering of races are racists.
    So are you claiming that you've never given a rank ordering of races based on IQ?
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-01-11 at 10:16 AM.

  8. #168
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,400

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I have no problem with I HATE OBAMA signs. I have lots of problems with OBAMA IS A NIGGER signs or their equal.
    People complain when you do that, right?

  9. #169
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,905

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Paranoid, victim projection. And you gotta have "Yup," and "..." so as to indicate more is to be read; let's not lose context.
    Still proudly defending that "I'M A RACIST" tea party shirt huh?

    Being a whole lot slicker and cleverer than Ross Barnett or George Wallace was fifty years ago is not something to give credit for.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #170
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,400

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    In the context of your "I'm a racist" = someone trying to say what they mean while covering it with supposedly making a point, how do we fit "OBAMA IS A NIGGER" posts.

Page 17 of 93 FirstFirst ... 715161718192767 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •