• 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!

Racism

Glen Contrarian;1062071635but no minority should bear in mind how a politician sees him or her as part of that minority when deciding whether to vote for that particular politician.[/QUOTE said:
1) I suggest looking up a straw man argument. You seemingly lack the ability to debate and possibly comprehend what you are reading, and so constantly make claims about what I wrote, when ANYONE can simply scroll through my old posts and see I said nothing of the sort.

Not the most productive application of strategy on your end

2) No, I said nothing of the sort. But feel free to quote the *specific* text in question and prove me wrong
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1) I suggest looking up a straw man argument. You seemingly lack the ability to debate and possibly comprehend what you are reading, and so constantly make claims about what I wrote, when ANYONE can simply scroll through my old posts and see I said nothing of the sort.

Not the most productive application of strategy on your end

2) No, I said nothing of the sort. But feel free to quote the *specific* text in question and prove me wrong
Click to expand...

BTW, it's not voting based on their skin color - it's voting based on many generations of hard-won knowledge of how other people viewed their skin color. There's a difference.

And one more thing - you keep referring to why blacks voted so strongly for Obama over Hillary. The previous sentence is one half the reason why...and the other half is a place called Arkansas. Arkansas isn't as racist as Mississippi is, but it's still more racist than most places north of the Mason-Dixon. As such, most whites - even Democrats - are assumed to be racist to some extent, and for good reason (as this white guy who was raised in the MS Delta can attest). Blacks voted for Bill Clinton over Bush and Dole because he was (by a long shot) the lesser of two evils, but having been raised in Arkansas, it's highly unlikely that he was never racist at least to some extent. You might not like that reasoning, but it's real.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
BTW, it's not voting based on their skin color - it's voting based on many generations of hard-won knowledge of how other people viewed their skin color. There's a difference.
Click to expand...

What? This does't really make sense. Do you care to explain it?

And one more thing - you keep referring to why blacks voted so strongly for Obama over Hillary. The previous sentence is one half the reason why...and the other half is a place called Arkansas. Arkansas isn't as racist as Mississippi is, but it's still more racist than most places north of the Mason-Dixon.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure voting against people because they are white really resolves the issues under discussion. Which is voting for people due to being black.


In fact, the same issue exists for both

As such, most whites - even Democrats - are assumed to be racist to some extent, and for good reason (as this white guy who was raised in the MS Delta can attest).
Click to expand...

LOL!

Blacks voted for Bill Clinton over Bush and Dole because he was (by a long shot) the lesser of two evils, but having been raised in Arkansas, it's highly unlikely that he was never racist at least to some extent. You might not like that reasoning, but it's real.
Click to expand...

Shadowy, unsubstantiated accusations of racism, based on nothing more than the guy being white, are not really credible, mate.


PS so I should assume you can't actually provide any quotes for the accusation you made here?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/165677-racism-33.html#post1062071677
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
While their actions may be "reasonable and justifiable" your mere declaration to such doesn't actually establish it as true. As for my end, I actually outlined why such thinking was stupid and it dealt with how skin color is irrelevant when considering ability and performance

Oh, and attacking my character (which is an ad hom) does little to address such logic





No, nothing I wrote suggests anyone should ignore slavery or jimcrow. It suggests people should vote based on actual merit, not skin color



1) I have made no indication on how they should vote, besides not basing it on skin color

2) again, nothing I wrote suggest anyone should turn a blind eye to racism
Click to expand...

93% of blacks voted for Obama, 92% for Gore, and 88% for Kerry ... they vote Dem, whether the candidate is black or white ... What I found interesting was that Romney got only 47% of the vote and nearly 60% of the white vote ... He would've gotten more if the GOP had not alienated so many young people and especially young women. Obama got 52% of the vote, but only 40% or less of the white vote ...
 
windowdressing said:
93% of blacks voted for Obama, 92% for Gore, and 88% for Kerry ... they vote Dem, whether the candidate is black or white
Click to expand...

Which is why I have been discussing the democratic primary ...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Which is why I have been discussing the democratic primary ...
Click to expand...

Of course there are racists in the Democrat party. But there are far more in the Republican party. One need look no further than the U.S. Congress to see that where out of about 42 blacks, one is Republican.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Of course there are racists in the Democrat party. But there are far more in the Republican party. One need look no further than the U.S. Congress to see that where out of about 42 blacks, one is Republican.
Click to expand...

Umm... how many blacks run as republicans as opposed to blacks running as democrats.

Can't vote in republican blacks if blacks aren't running as republican.

Mind = Blown.... right?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Of course there are racists in the Democrat party. But there are far more in the Republican party.
Click to expand...


What are you even replying to? Someone claimed that racial considerations played no part in the amount of support Obama received from the African American Community. Since voting patterns concerning republicans is a dubious metric for judging such, I pointed to the democratic primary, but never made a claim about either party being "more racist"

seriously, are you another knee-jerk individual who argues against political lean, as opposed to what people write, or are you just really confused?

One need look no further than the U.S. Congress to see that where out of about 42 blacks, one is Republican.
Click to expand...

That doesn't automatically amount to one party being more racist, it amounts to one party being more aligned with the interests of a minority community. Which could exist for any number of reasons. But with that said, there is much more open racism within republican ranks. But the democrats have their baggage in the area, often tolerating, openly associating, and even honoring members of groups like NOI.

Who is "worse" though strikes me as the type of partisan stupidity I really have no interest in. So it's something you need to take up with someone else
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Ah, and it's only the Dems who do it, huh? Not
the Republicans, though - they're squeaky clean, huh? Guy - this is a skill of all politicians of any stripe.



Yes, you're also referring to people who are susceptible to false narratives like "the DHS is buying billions of rounds of ammos and lots of armored vehicles" and "Obama's a Kenyan Muslim" and "global warming's a hoax, a liberal conspiracy to subvert America to the UN" and "Obama's got a deep-seated hatred of white people" and "rape victims can't get pregnant" and "we've got to pass laws against Sharia" and "Obamacare Death Panels" and "Obamacare guv'mint-run health care" and "...

...need I go on?



Please see the manufacture issues of the Right above.



Never mind that he was handed a s**t sandwich the day he was initially sworn in, and the night before he was sworn in the leading Republicans in Congress met and agreed to block anything and everything he would ever try to do...and as a result, a quarter of ALL filibusters in American history have taken place during Obama's presidency, and we've had the most obstructionist Congress since the Civil War.

MOST OBSTRUCTIONIST CONGRESS SINCE THE CIVIL WAR. Think about that, guy - who's really to blame for more not getting done?



In your context, then, the "lowest common denominator" must mean anyone who's not a middle-aged or elderly white male.
Click to expand...

Your'e seriously comparing cartoon characterizations by the left of right wingers to the central campaign issues of Obama's 2012 campaign ?

How desperate are you ?

And the sandwich Obama recieved in 2008 was simply the effects of the Democrat mandated subprime collapse.

The one where for nearly 8 years Bush tried to fend off a growing and corrupt Fannie and Freddie while Democrats sat in front of Republican chaired comittee's lying about the health of the GSEs.

Remember ?

Obama's made it much worse, hell he even hired central players in the Construction of the bubble. Eric Holder and Franklin Raines

The truth is all he's done is buy time, literally ( 7 Trillion in increased debt ) and increased dependence.

And lowest common denominator specifically refers to blind ideologues and low information people who are easily manipulated. Its a distinction withot a difference.

The Democrats haven't yet learned their lesson that there is a price to pay for appealling to those types of people.
 
MaggieD said:
No, I think people rushed to his defense because blacks were wildly protesting that he hadn't been charged and throwing around racist charges of their own.
Click to expand...

Maggie I agree with you. However I believe these same people that rush to his aid also associated GZ as a white male.
 
That was the whole problem I think. The RW was all in before they realized. It sure wasnt a clear cut case of self defense.
rcart76 said:
Maggie I agree with you. However I believe these same people that rush to his aid also associated GZ as a white male.
Click to expand...
 
rcart76 said:
Maggie I agree with you. However I believe these same people that rush to his aid also associated GZ as a white male.
Click to expand...

(My heart stopped when I saw you quoted me. Ha!)

I think you're probably right.
 
mak2 said:
That was the whole problem I think. The RW was all in before they realized. It sure wasnt a clear cut case of self defense.
Click to expand...

why would you say it wasn't a clear cut case of self defense?
 
Z in no way looked beat up enough to be in fear of his life. The jurors were split at first, could have went other way depending on the personalities.
Dr. Chuckles said:
why would you say it wasn't a clear cut case of self defense?
Click to expand...
 
Fisher said:
I am saying sometimes stereotypes are true to the circumstance. It isn't like people make these things up out of thin air--they are generalizations drawn from reality. For me the bigger issue isn't what your friends said, but that you are so sensitive that you expect them to parse their words around you and articulate politically correct qualifications in things they say. If you don't like what they say, find other friends.
Click to expand...

So by your P.O.V, black people are in the right for believing that the justice system is against us or that republicans are racist or southerners are racist correct?

I like that you are being honest and I respect that about you, even though I largely don't agree with you. I am always open to people speaking their mind because I want to understand where they are coming from. However, at the same time, I expect to get that same courtesy. Both sides have a lot to learn. The first lesson is to try to get to know the indivdual before stamping a label on them.

I admit, I had to learn that in here with Maggie. I initially saw her as a racist because of a few opinions she had. But I got to learn that she is a sweet lady with feelings who has different political opinions from me and nothing more.
 
mak2 said:
Z in no way looked beat up enough to be in fear of his life.
Click to expand...

That is completely irrelevent to a self defense claim. Case in point: I am chasing you down with a machete, you shoot me prior to being able to engage you.

Here there would be clear grounds for claiming a reasonable fear for one;s life and great bodily harm. The standard for self-defense. But also a clear lack of visible injury

The jurors were split at first, could have went other way depending on the personalities.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing how that is relevant, either: jurors make mistakes, have their mind changed by presentation of facts, and can even be biased. They are not unquestionable experts in the law. So citing their opinions doesn't actually establish anything as questionable.

Going into the case I was baffled at why this was even going to court, but left open the possibility that the prosecution had credible evidence that I was unaware of. Sadly, no such evidence materialized. It just reinforced the likelihood that this was more an exercise in shoddy politics as opposed to a reasonable exercise of the legal system
 
mak2 said:
That was the whole problem I think. The RW was all in before they realized. It sure wasnt a clear cut case of self defense.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I think that many of us on the left were just as guilty. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the verdict, but before I had my opinion I did research on my own to see what is going on.
 
If you have a machete I would shoot you in a second. If TM has a steak knife shoot him, if he was Mike Tyson, shoot him. Buy I dont beleive Z was completely dominated by Martin. I think this case sets a very dangerous precident. The jurors being split was just to demonstarte the RW could not possible have known the outcome at first.
Dr. Chuckles said:
That is completely irrelevent to a self defense claim. Case in point: I am chasing you down with a machete, you shoot me prior to being able to engage you.

Here there would be clear grounds for claiming a reasonable fear for one;s life and great bodily harm. The standard for self-defense



I'm not seeing how that is relevant, either: jurors make mistakes, have their mind changed by presentation of facts, and can even be biased. They are not unquestionable experts in the law. So citing their opinions doesn't actually establish anything as questionable.

Going into the case I was baffled at why this was even going to court, but left open the possibility that the prosecution had credible evidence that I was unaware of. Sadly, no such evidence materialized. It just reinforced the likelihood that this was more an exercise in shoddy politics as opposed to a reasonable exercise of the legal system
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
If you have a machete I would shoot you in a second.
Click to expand...

And you would lack any indication of "looking beat up enough to be in fear for your life"

If TM has a steak knife shoot him, if he was Mike Tyson, shoot him.
Click to expand...

The evidence, from the beginning, seemingly indicated that TM had him in a mounted position and was continuously hitting him. That's a position notoriously difficult to escape from and that clearly puts a person within the reaches of great bodily harm or even death

Buy I dont beleive Z was completely dominated by Martin.
Click to expand...

based on what?

I think this case sets a very dangerous precident.
Click to expand...

How? it involved nothing more than the standard of self-defense that is almost, if not is, universally embraced


The jurors being split was just to demonstarte the RW could not possible have known the outcome at first.
Click to expand...

No one could know the outcome of a trial (for the reason's I already outlined), that is why it's so dangerous for the legal system to abandon any attempt at objectivity and pursue prosecution based on political interests. But that doesn't change the facts before and after the trial indicating a rather clear case of self-defense.

You seemingly disagree with this but only can point to the opinions of your peers, which is not evidence of anything
 
If someone attacks you and is armed dont even work up a sweat, fire away. No where near the same argument. M was undenialby unarmed so talking about a machete is not germain. IF someone that can totally dominate you, like Mike Tyson, is aggrssively comeing toward you to work yo over, fire away. If someone is aboutthe same size and weight they really cannot just dominate you like Z claims. Z was not very beat up.
Dr. Chuckles said:
And you would lack any indication of "looking beat up enough to be in fear for your life"



The evidence, from the beginning, seemingly indicated that TM had him in a mounted position and was continuously hitting him. That's a position notoriously difficult to escape from and that clearly puts a person within the reaches of great bodily harm or even death



based on what?



How? it involved nothing more than the standard of self-defense that is almost, if not is, universally embraced




No one could know the outcome of a trial (for the reason's I already outlined), that is why it's so dangerous for the legal system to abandon any attempt at objectivity and pursue prosecution based on political interests. But that doesn't change the facts before and after the trial indicating a rather clear case of self-defense.

You seemingly disagree with this but only can point to the opinions of your peers, which is not evidence of anything
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
If someone attacks you and is armed dont even work up a sweat, fire away. No where near the same argument.
Click to expand...

I'm not following

M was undenialby unarmed so talking about a machete is not germain.
Click to expand...

The issue I was highlighting didn't rest around actually being armed, it concerned the claim that we can decern if there was "a reasonable fear of death, or great bodily harm" from injuries. because the standard isn't "is experiencing such" but "have a reasonable fear of"

Clearly one can be in such fear without experiencing some high degree of injury, or any at all.


IF someone that can totally dominate you, like Mike Tyson, is aggrssively comeing toward you to work yo over, fire away.
Click to expand...

The evidence before and after the trial indicated TM was totally dominating Zimmerman. As I said, he had him mounted and was raining blows down on him


If someone is aboutthe same size and weight they really cannot just dominate you like Z claims.
Click to expand...

lol, what is this based on? because it's certainly not based on experiance, knowledge, understanding, or anything else that has actual merit

Case in point: Gracie wowing an entire nation as he dominates guys 2-3 times the size of his scrawny ass on PPTV


Z was not very beat up.
Click to expand...

Again, totally irrelevant, as you even admitted above, with the machete incident
 
There is a difference between someone who is armed and someone who isnt. Is that what you are asking?
Dr. Chuckles said:
I'm not following



The issue I was highlighting didn't rest around actually being armed, it concerned the claim that we can decern if there was "a reasonable fear of death, or great bodily harm" from injuries. because the standard isn't "is experiencing such" but "have a reasonable fear of"

Clearly one can be in such fear without experiencing some high degree of injury, or any at all.




The evidence before and after the trial indicated TM was totally dominating Zimmerman. As I said, he had him mounted and was raining blows down on him




lol, what is this based on? because it's certainly not based on experiance, knowledge, understanding, or anything else that has actual merit

Case in point: Gracie wowing an entire nation as he dominates guys 2-3 times the size of his scrawny ass on PPTV




Again, totally irrelevant, as you even admitted above, with the machete incident
Click to expand...
 
rcart76 said:
Maggie I agree with you. However I believe these same people that rush to his aid also associated GZ as a white male.
Click to expand...

When I was originally told of this story from another person, I said, "That watchman was ****ed up"

After reading the story and then looking into all the information put out about the actual investigation.... it became clear to me that the news media account was bull****.

I cared not of his race..... as I am a big supporter of people having the right to defend themselves.
 
mak2 said:
Z in no way looked beat up enough to be in fear of his life. The jurors were split at first, could have went other way depending on the personalities.
Click to expand...

There is no standard level of beat-up-ness that one needs to be at in order to be in fear for their life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom