• 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!

Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224:1119]

Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Actually, it's because I'm not proposing solutions. I'm trying to let you know you have cancer and you don't want to believe it because you don't like the treatment. And you imagine yourself a 'victim' because of it. Poor you.

Glen Contrarian offered some reasonable solutions in this thread.


no he didn't

and calling gun ownership a cancer proves what I have been saying all along

and your treatment is to kill all the healthy cells and pretend you are getting rid of the cancer

just stop the dishonesty. crime control has nothing to do with your complaints about gun ownership
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I wouldn't be at all surprised, given that the Confederacy was aligned with the Democrats while the Republicans led a war against them. Why Democrats Avoid Confederate History While Republicans Embrace It.

Good gosh, what a stupid article. It actually compares the ACA to slavery.

I should have quit reading with "Democrat [sic] governor" - which is a helpful guarantee of hackery to come. And it just got worse.

BTW, if someone wants to reference "history" and then ignores the flipping of the white conservatives in the South from the Democratic party to the GOP starting with the CRA, then what follows is revisionist propaganda instead of actual history. And what it assumes is the overwhelming majority of blacks who vote Democratic are too stupid to notice that they're aligned with the pro-slavery party in this era. And since the latter isn't true, there must be something missing in this idiot's understanding of recent history.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

You mention Ann Coulter and have just one article by her, without pointing out any untruths. Why not take a quote of hers, in context, and then point out any errors in her logic?

Actually I just posted two links about Ann Coulter saying that stuff and in my previous post I posted a video of her saying it.

Anyways, you don't seem to actually be claiming that she doesn't push that meme, you're just saying that you agree with her on it, as did Dylann. So, you're actually proving my premise, right? You are a follower of right wing media and as a result, you perceive black men as white-woman-rapists. That proves what I've been saying, doesn't it?

Anyways, as for the validity of it, again: In reality, of course, interracial rape is extremely rare. Much of the hype about it historically came from cases where an interracial couple was caught having sex and the authorities just treated that as a rape because interracial sex was so unacceptable that they would coerce the women into saying it was rape, or just ignore what the women said entirely and lock up or kill the black person.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Oh yes it is!

Especially when you offer a picture to back up the bigoted claim, and not one single sociological study even hinting that the right is any more bigoted than the left. And, sir, in my experience and the blind attitude expressed in your post, I would say a possibly even bigger problem, only aimed at a different hate target.

What all Canadians know, is that everything, everything in America is race. Everything. Denzel Washington cannot be just a great actor, he has to be a "black" actor. What many of us know is that Americans hate each other, right vs left, Democrat vs Republican, them vs us. I, a long standing liberal who has supported causes you guys are getting arround to talking about immediately gets labelled a "con" or "neo con" simply for taking a stand similar to conservatives. That's bigotry with a capital ****ing "B".

We have ideological differences, not death threats over ****ing pizza. If there was ever an outright example of left wing hate that was it, and the fact I saw not one left winger in here denounce it. The left cannot point a bigoted finger at bigotry and claim the other guys are guilty.

Pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make it go away. Is it bigotry to say that fundamentalist Islam needs to deal with its terrorism problem? Or that radical environmentalism has a terrorism problem? Bigotry is not pointing out a problem in a community, it's pointing out a problem in some but not others.

True bigotry is applying different standards to the same thing because of reasons like race, religion, sexual orientation, or politics. It's bigotry to view every act of violence by a Muslim as an act of terrorism, but call this an "accident" or the act of a mentally disturbed person. This guy is no more or less disturbed than the 9/11 hijackers. Nine people died. Those people aren't any less valuable than the three who died in at the marathon bombing or the five who died in Benghazi.

If you're white, and have conservative friends, then you've heard lots of casual racism, to the point that it's not remarkable. It's no different than the way anti-us sentiments are casually thrown about in fundamentalist Islam.

You may think that these comments are innocent. But they're really not. They dehumanize groups of people. It's us the hardworking white person who contributes to society and them the welfare queen black person who just takes. Aside from being factually false, this dehumanization is what gives people the justification to kill. Monsters don't think they're being monstrous, they're sacrificing themselves to do what they think must be done.

If we expect Muslims to police their fringe elements, then we should no less from ourselves. Anything else is true bigotry.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Actually, it's because I'm not proposing solutions. I'm trying to let you know you have cancer and you don't want to believe it because you don't like the treatment. And you imagine yourself a 'victim' because of it. Poor you.

Glen Contrarian offered some reasonable solutions in this thread.

Actually, as an uninvolved observer of your give and take here, what I've seen is that you'd identified a "cancer" and assumed that because some "red meat" may lead to "cancer" in some individuals, "red meat" should be banned or severely restricted for all other individuals even though that "red meat" isn't a "trigger" for "cancer" in the vast majority of individuals in society.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I don't really know what you thought Ann Coulter was about... I mean, I guess if you just aren't familiar with her, that is probably a good thing, but yeah, that's her whole bit- she pitches white supremacy on conservative media outlets. That's the only thing she does. Limbaugh is more of a general-purpose right wing nut. He covers all kinds of things from economic policy to pushing white supremacy. I already gave you several examples of them and other right wingers pushing that meme, but here are some more:

Ann Coulter Says Immigrants Will Rape and Impregnate Your Little Girls
Ann Coulter - December 4, 2013 - LIBERALS TALK RACE AND CRIME - AND HILARITY ENSUES!
The truth about interracial rape
Black America's real problem isn't white racism

Etc.

It isn't a remotely new thing, that has been one of the main white supremacist talking points for literally hundreds of years. In reality, of course, interracial rape is extremely rare. Much of the hype about it historically came from cases where an interracial couple was caught having sex and the authorities just treated that as a rape because interracial sex was so unacceptable that they would coerce the women into saying it was rape, or just ignore what the women said entirely and lock up or kill the black person.

Coulter mentioned immigrants, not blacks. But more importantly, do you have even a shred of evidence that this kid was acting based upon what she may have said? No. you do not. So all you are doing is smearing people for no particular reason.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Actually I just posted two links about Ann Coulter saying that stuff and in my previous post I posted a video of her saying it.
I missed those.

Anyways, you don't seem to actually be claiming that she doesn't push that meme,
If you go by what i "seem to be saying" rather than what I am saying then you could get confused by any posting or article. Why not go with what is really being said rather than trying to decipher hidden messages?

you're just saying that you agree with her on it, as did Dylann.
In fact I never said that at all. You're hearing voices.
So, you're actually proving my premise, right? You are a follower of right wing media and as a result, you perceive black men as white-woman-rapists. That proves what I've been saying, doesn't it?
If those noises in your head get any louder you should turn yourself in immediately.
Anyways, as for the validity of it, again: In reality, of course, interracial rape is extremely rare. Much of the hype about it historically came from cases where an interracial couple was caught having sex and the authorities just treated that as a rape because interracial sex was so unacceptable that they would coerce the women into saying it was rape, or just ignore what the women said entirely and lock up or kill the black person.
Uh-huh.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Coulter mentioned immigrants, not blacks. But more importantly, do you have even a shred of evidence that this kid was acting based upon what she may have said? No. you do not. So all you are doing is smearing people for no particular reason.

Yep, that one was about immigrants. She's a white supremacist. That means she is not just anti-black, she is against all non-whites. The other two from her were specific to black people, but she says that sort of stuff about Hispanics, Muslims, Native Americans and blacks. Not Asians. White supremacists generally make an exception for Asians these days, although they didn't always.

Not sure what kind of evidence you would expect to be able to find.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Actually, as an uninvolved observer of your give and take here, what I've seen is that you'd identified a "cancer" and assumed that because some "red meat" may lead to "cancer" in some individuals, "red meat" should be banned or severely restricted for all other individuals even though that "red meat" isn't a "trigger" for "cancer" in the vast majority of individuals in society.

his solution, along with the solutions of other gun restrictionists, to "cancer" is to force people to undergo treatments that kill almost all the healthy cells in the HOPE that a few malignant cells will also die. and when the patient only gets sicker, his solution is to demand MORE of the treatment. after awhile, intelligent people no longer believe that curing the patient is the real motivation but rather killing him is the goal.
 
Last edited:
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Yep, that one was about immigrants. She's a white supremacist. That means she is not just anti-black, she is against all non-whites. The other two from her were specific to black people, but she says that sort of stuff about Hispanics, Muslims, Native Americans and blacks. Not Asians. White supremacists generally make an exception for Asians these days, although they didn't always.

Not sure what kind of evidence you would expect to be able to find.
She is not a white supremacist. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make it go away. Is it bigotry to say that fundamentalist Islam needs to deal with its terrorism problem? Or that radical environmentalism has a terrorism problem? Bigotry is not pointing out a problem in a community, it's pointing out a problem in some but not others.

True bigotry is applying different standards to the same thing because of reasons like race, religion, sexual orientation, or politics. It's bigotry to view every act of violence by a Muslim as an act of terrorism, but call this an "accident" or the act of a mentally disturbed person. This guy is no more or less disturbed than the 9/11 hijackers. Nine people died. Those people aren't any less valuable than the three who died in at the marathon bombing or the five who died in Benghazi.

If you're white, and have conservative friends, then you've heard lots of casual racism, to the point that it's not remarkable. It's no different than the way anti-us sentiments are casually thrown about in fundamentalist Islam.

You may think that these comments are innocent. But they're really not. They dehumanize groups of people. It's us the hardworking white person who contributes to society and them the welfare queen black person who just takes. Aside from being factually false, this dehumanization is what gives people the justification to kill. Monsters don't think they're being monstrous, they're sacrificing themselves to do what they think must be done.

If we expect Muslims to police their fringe elements, then we should no less from ourselves. Anything else is true bigotry.

I'm white, have Conservative friends and I'm not sure what you mean by " Casual racism ".

Because I have yet to hear any of my Conservative friends mention anything that would qualify as being racist on a casual level.

Maybe you can help me out. Let me know what comments qualify as being causally racist.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

no he didn't

and calling gun ownership a cancer proves what I have been saying all along

and your treatment is to kill all the healthy cells and pretend you are getting rid of the cancer

just stop the dishonesty. crime control has nothing to do with your complaints about gun ownership

It's an analogy.

Apparently your victim mentality doesn't allow you to process them.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Actually, as an uninvolved observer of your give and take here, what I've seen is that you'd identified a "cancer" and assumed that because some "red meat" may lead to "cancer" in some individuals, "red meat" should be banned or severely restricted for all other individuals even though that "red meat" isn't a "trigger" for "cancer" in the vast majority of individuals in society.

Nope. Read the analogy a bit closer, uninvolved observer.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

She is not a white supremacist. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh, god, yes she totally, openly, is a white supremacist. Well, unless you mean that she is a "white nationalist" as opposed to a "white supremacist." Personally, I don't think those distinctions matter, but if they do matter to you, I'd be fine with categorizing her as a white nationalist instead if you prefer.

Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Goes off on Disgusting Racist Rant, Compares Immigration Reform to Sexual Assault
Ann Coulter is a Sexist, Racist, White Supremacist Bigot!! And that's a fact. | jackandcokewithalime
Ann Coulter Credits White Nationalist As "Intellectual Influence" On Her Anti-Immigrant Book | Research | Media Matters for America
Columnist Ann Coulter Defends White Supremacist Group | Hatewatch
Ann Coulter: Mexican culture “is obviously deficient,” and Hispanics are “not black, so drop the racism crap” - Salon.com
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I'm white, have Conservative friends and I'm not sure what you mean by " Casual racism ".

Because I have yet to hear any of my Conservative friends mention anything that would qualify as being racist on a casual level.

Maybe you can help me out. Let me know what comments qualify as being causally racist.
Please. We ALL make racist comments and jokes in private. It's ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Nope. Read the analogy a bit closer, uninvolved observer.

No thanks, I got it right - you're basically trolling this thread with a bunch of unrelated games and smart ass comments that have nothing to do with the subject of the OP.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Those true police forces are the guardians of god(light) on earth. As I know those Africans are damned, as Germans and other blind races...
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Those true police forces are the guardians of god(light) on earth. As I know those Africans are damned, as Germans and other blind races...

What?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Really? Other nations have lots of drug abuse. And the U.S. Locks up people at a higher rate and for longer than most nations.

Next excuse?

However other countries lock up the drug addicts who commit violent crimes early in their careers and do not give them multiple second third and fourth chances before they do hard time. By the time violent offenders do any hard time in the US, they are hardened professional criminals.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

OR in other words: I know what I know and you damned liberal, socialist Marxists are trying to limit my personal arsenal!! boogety-boogety!!

I'll take that as an admission on your part that those in the gun control movement are going after all gun owners rather then restricting their efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

again, when the proponents of gun restrictions spend so much time ridiculing gun owners and their hatred is generally directed at lawful gun owners and the NRA, its rather unconvincing when you all pretend that its crime control you really want

You will never get them to admit that though. We have offered solutions such as enforcing the laws directing the law enforcement community and mental health counseling profession to report the mentally ill to the national background check database and fix the revolving door criminal justice system. All the gun haters can offer is: "Ban duh guns!".
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

He lives there. You read the internet. Think about that, then reply again.

I have. In determining the level of racism in a community, town, or state, the personal experiences of one individual--based on interaction w/a tiny, selectively chosen sample of the population there--is irrelevant.

Such samples are biased, esp. in this case since if Goshin himself isn't racist, it's unlikely he would voluntarily interact w/anyone who was, hence excluding them from the sample, even if they happen to be there.

For a description of the beliefs, attitudes of a group of people to be scientifically valid, it must be based on a representative sample, one chosen such that all potential sub-demographics (any smaller groups that could be potentially possess distinct sociological attributes) within the larger demographic are equally represented in the sample.

Even otherwise, the legally sanctioned flying of the confederate flag over the SC statehouse is a clear-cut example of institutional racism--the worst kind.

And in the case of SC, since the flying of the flag was authorized by the legislature, it must logically imply that those who elected those people to the legislature are themselves racist, since the pols in the legislature wouldn't be keeping it up unless their constituents were pressuring them to do so.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

and when the proponents of unlimited gun ownership spend so much time ridiculing those who would like to see some rationality inserted into the national debate, and when the NRA appears to be little more than a lobbying agency for gun manufacturers, it is rather unconvincing when you pretend that imposing any restrictions on gun ownership is the equivalent of imposing a dictatorship on Americans.

You are making it up as you go along. No conservative is suggesting unlimited gun ownership. And I have yet to see any rationality on the gun control side. And the NRA lobbies for enforcing the gun laws already on the books. If they were enforced, there would be alot less gun crime. The NRA is absolutely against for instance felons possessing firearms. And there are already common sense restrictions on gun ownership.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Thank you.


I don't know what "SC" that ... person.. is talking about... but THIS is MY South Carolina...

Your South Carolina is not the whole South Carolina. Even in the most racist communities on the planet, anyone could find pockets that don't represent the whole.

BTW, in your South Carolina, isn't the confederate flag still flying over the statehouse?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

The real world says the anti gun control folks refuse to acknowledge the multiple studies and examples that counter their position. It is impossible to "meet the test" when the goalpost are mounted on a highpowered moving van.

Which of the multiple studies addresses the fact that despite having the toughest gun control laws in the country, Chicago is about the most violent city in the country. Which of the multiple studies addresses the fact that the cities with the least restrictions on firearm posession have the lowest amounts of crime?
 
Back
Top Bottom