• 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!

Obama threatened, called 'monkey' by ex-Carson council candidate

Thunder said:
Father Coughlin was an anti-Semitic bastard. He was also a Conservative.

see? I can play the game too.
Click to expand...
No, he was a liberal.

No sides are free from hate - face it. Jack London was racist. So is Rush Limbaugh. Both sides need to be mature enough to recognize racism where it exists and to separate themselves from it.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
When do we do that?
Click to expand...

In this very thread, as a matter of fact.

Thunder said:
no, they didn't switch for reasons of racism.

they switched because they hated Johnson & the Democrats for pushing through legislation that protected the votings rights & civil rights of tens of millions of black Southerners, and for not allowing States decide for themselves that second-class citizenship for black people was okee-dokee.

but this had nothing to do with racism. it was about States' Rights, liberty, & freedom!!!!!

thunder-albums-pics-picture67120320-220px-confederate-rebel-flag-svg.png


;)
Click to expand...
 
MadLib said:
No, he was a liberal.

No sides are free from hate - face it. Jack London was racist. So is Rush Limbaugh. Both sides need to be mature enough to recognize racism where it exists and to separate themselves from it.
Click to expand...

The first step is to recognize real racism vice faux racism.
 
apdst said:
In this very thread, as a matter of fact.
Click to expand...
I don't support taking evidence from a century and a half ago and using it for political gain. However, people today do claim that the Civil War was about states rights, so it is still relevant today.
 
MadLib said:
I don't support taking evidence from a century and a half ago and using it for political gain. However, people today do claim that the Civil War was about states rights, so it is still relevant today.
Click to expand...

The point is, some Libbos use the Civil War to prove that Conservatives are racists and how evil white Southerners are.
 
apdst said:
The point is, some Libbos use the Civil War to prove that Conservatives are racists and how evil white Southerners are.
Click to expand...

no, you are lying.

Liberals use the Civil War to show how racist fans of the Confederate flag and other Conservatives are.
 
Calling BO a monkey is insulting to monkeys
 
apdst said:
The Nazis had the support of prominant French politicians, too. Were those Frenchmen any less responsible for the Holocaust? There were also Fins, Danes, Norwegians and Dutchmen who supported the Nazis. Are they excused, too?
Click to expand...

Your 'answer' if that is indeed what it pretends to be, has nothing what so ever to do with the issue.

Again , we are talking abotu you charge that W E B DuBois was a partner in genocide of his own race. My post was as follows

Could you please provide the support which proves this charge?

Sanger had the support of prominent African American leaders and those in the medical community at that time. Your charge is ridiculous.

And you have yet to provide anything on the charge against DuBois other than your own fallacious circular reasoning which fails miserably outside of other verifiable evidence.
Click to expand...

Do please at least attempt to reply to it.
 
hazlnut said:
...Despite the U.S. Constitution, and the 14th Amendment...
Click to expand...

Oh do explain to me how arresting people here ILLEGALLY violates the constitution and the 14th Amendment
 
Thunder said:
exactly!!!

Conservatives whine about faux racism while Liberals complain about real racism.
Click to expand...

then why do liberals support affirmative action which is real racism

then why do liberals only whine about "white racism" not black racism
 
Thunder said:
why is white racism in quotes? are you saying it does not exist?
Click to expand...

My good Thunder... of course it does not exist. Don't you realize that slavery ended in 1865 and its been all sunshine, roses and lollipops since that time? And puppy dogs... I forgot puppy dogs.... puppy dogs licking yoru face as the strawberry ice cream served up by smiling "others" singings Sweet Low Sweet Chariot as they happily serve it to you.

God Bless America free from prejudice and racism. :2wave:
 
haymarket said:
My good Thunder... of course it does not exist. Don't you realize that slavery ended in 1865 and its been all sunshine, roses and lollipops since that time? And puppy dogs... I forgot puppy dogs.... puppy dogs licking yoru face as the strawberry ice cream served up by smiling "others" singings Sweet Low Sweet Chariot as they happily serve it to you.

God Bless America free from prejudice and racism. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Civil Rights Act of 1964....made racism illegal in the USA. Therefore, racism ended in 1964.

;)
 
Moderator's Warning:
Personal attacks and off-topic discussion will result in thread bans and infractions being handed out.
 
apdst said:
Woodrow Wilson was a racist and a Leftist Democrat. FDR--another Leftist Democrat--opened America's concentration camps.

This is a game you will lose.
Click to expand...

There is nothing Leftists about the internment camps. There is nothing leftists about being racists.

That is faulty logic and is similar to a lot of "Liberal Fascisms" logic.

I can see why you think Goldberg proved his point if those type of arguments are valid to you!
 
iliveonramen said:
There is nothing Leftists about the internment camps. There is nothing leftists about being racists.

That is faulty logic and is similar to a lot of "Liberal Fascisms" logic.

I can see why you think Goldberg proved his point if those type of arguments are valid to you!
Click to expand...

Just like Righties don't own racism. So, why not stop with, "All Republicans are racists", crap?
 
TurtleDude said:
then why do liberals support affirmative action which is real racism
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any conservatives in congress trying to get rid of affirmitive actions. Seems they support it as well.

TurtleDude said:
then why do liberals only whine about "white racism" not black racism
Click to expand...

Racism is racism whether it is blacks or whites doing it. There is no such thing as black racism or white racism. All racism is wrong whether it is a black guy calling a white guy "cracker" or if it is a white guy calling a black guy "ni**er".
 
TheNextEra said:
I haven't seen any conservatives in congress trying to get rid of affirmitive actions. Seems they support it as well.



Racism is racism whether it is blacks or whites doing it. There is no such thing as black racism or white racism. All racism is wrong whether it is a black guy calling a white guy "cracker" or if it is a white guy calling a black guy "ni**er".
Click to expand...

Since it should be obvious that racism is racism, it should also be obvious that taking someone's race( even though I don't believe in the term ) into account for any reason( affirmative action ) is also racism.
 
Samhain said:
Since it should be obvious that racism is racism, it should also be obvious that taking someone's race( even though I don't believe in the term ) into account for any reason( affirmative action ) is also racism.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. However, racism was soo rampant at one time against minorities that affirmitive action was necessary to combat it.

While there is still some racism out there though, I don't think it is rampant enough to justify having affirmitive action. I believe that affirmitive action should go away as well.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
Politics IS ideology.
Click to expand...

I disagree. But if it is, then lets stop debating politics. Debate issues.

Enough of this "someone in your ideological club did this or thinks that, so all of them do." It's pointless, and it's the most basic faulty logic possible. Don't do it, and don't let anyone do it to you.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
I agree with you. However, racism was soo rampant at one time against minorities that affirmitive action was necessary to combat it.

While there is still some racism out there though, I don't think it is rampant enough to justify having affirmitive action. I believe that affirmitive action should go away as well.
Click to expand...

wrong. AA was created to deal with existing discrimination against minorities and to address the lasting-results of it.

I believe, these results still exist. However, I believe AA should take socio-economic status into account, as all blacks & Hispanics are NOT the same.
 
Thunder said:
wrong. AA was created to deal with existing discrimination against minorities and to address the lasting-results of it.

I believe, these results still exist. However, I believe AA should take socio-economic status into account, as all blacks & Hispanics are NOT the same.
Click to expand...

How about just get rid of the racial aspect altogether? There are poor whites too. Just have AA for poor people, of whatever race.
 
misterman said:
How about just get rid of the racial aspect altogether? There are poor whites too. Just have AA for poor people, of whatever race.
Click to expand...

poor whites never suffered from the kind of discrimination that poor & middle-class blacks have suffered from in the USA.

but I understand your point, and I agree that poor whites are more entitled to govt. assistance than wealthy blacks.

AA for wealthy blacks looks more like reperations than anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom