• 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!

Who is the most racist the left or the right? [W:353]

Who is the most racist the left or the right?

  • Total voters
    112
AGENT J said:
1.) seems like the same def for about 40+ years
2.) :
Click to expand...

Longer than that, it was the same definition back during the 1800's.

I have to invest in an old dictionary from the 1800's.

Not too many years ago I had a library pull the oldest dictionary they had in storage down in the basement. The oldest they had was published in 1932. I was curious why Nazis weren't right wing back then but left wing.
 
APACHERAT said:
Longer than that, it was the same definition back during the 1800's.

I have to invest in an old dictionary from the 1800's.

Not too many years ago I had a library pull the oldest dictionary they had in storage down in the basement. The oldest they had was published in 1932. I was curious why Nazis weren't right wing back then but left wing.
Click to expand...
As i understand it, they started out left-wing, became authoritarian left-wing, and then jumped the divide to authoritarian right-wing.

Although....

IMO, if you're authoritarian enough, right or left loses all meaning and becomes nothing more than a foil you use to trick your chosen sheeple into supporting you.
 
Kobie said:
So when presented with hard data, you simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I don't consider polls or surveys as being what you would call "hard data."

Studies usually could be considered to be "hard data."
 
APACHERAT said:
1.)Longer than that, it was the same definition back during the 1800's.

2.) I have to invest in an old dictionary from the 1800's.

3.) Not too many years ago I had a library pull the oldest dictionary they had in storage down in the basement. The oldest they had was published in 1932. I was curious why Nazis weren't right wing back then but left wing.
Click to expand...

1.) i just picked that time frame to be somewhere around my age thats all

2.) why? english changes and evolves, some changes, some dies just like society, movements, groups etc

3.) see #2
 
The Mark said:
As i understand it, they started out left-wing, became authoritarian left-wing, and then jumped the divide to authoritarian right-wing.

Although....

IMO, if you're authoritarian enough, right or left loses all meaning and becomes nothing more than a foil you use to trick your chosen sheeple into supporting you.
Click to expand...

Joseph Stalin always called Nazism a form of socialism.

Hitler always called himself a socialist.

But you also have to remember that right wing, left wing is a European political term which really can't be used in America. The only significant right wing political party in America were the Tories. All other American political parties in America, Whigs, Democrats, Republicans would be left wing in Europe.

A conservative in Russia today would be closer to a communist but in America a communist would be the extreme opposite of a conservative in America.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) i just picked that time frame to be somewhere around my age thats all

2.) why? english changes and evolves, some changes, some dies just like society, movements, groups etc

3.) see #2
Click to expand...

Dictionaries are cool.

If you're researching history having a dictionary used back during the time frame you're researching is a must to understand the meaning of words and how they were used back then.

Just the spelling of words have changed over time. Punctuation has also changed over the past couple hundred of years in English.
All you have to do is look at the Second Amendment.
 
APACHERAT said:
1.)Dictionaries are cool.

2.)If you're researching history having a dictionary used back during the time frame you're researching is a must to understand the meaning of words and how they were used back then.

3.) Just the spelling of words have changed over time. Punctuation has also changed over the past couple hundred of years in English.
4.) All you have to do is look at the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

1.) i like them myself

2.) at times this is true

3.) yep our country is so large it also changes in regions and sometimes even a regional dictionary is needed

4.) you dont have to tell me, bottom right of my avatar, pro-gun
 
Bodhisattva said:
No... but a large portion are dependent. 46 million is a lot.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released September 13, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% (46.2 million) in 2010

Welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%).

America's Ever Expanding Welfare Empire - Forbes

As you can see there is a lot of money in the "keeping people dependent business" and that means people jobs. There are a lot of people working in this industry.



Both sides do that...
Click to expand...



46 million out of a population of over 313.9 million is certainly not half of the population... 15% is not even a large segment of the population.....they are just conservative talking points.....and it's getting old....:roll:
 
Grant said:
Of course I am!

I see you won't dispute it though. The facts speak to it.
Click to expand...

dispute what your opinion? why its meaningless lol
 
AGENT J said:
1.) i like them myself

2.) at times this is true

3.) yep our country is so large it also changes in regions and sometimes even a regional dictionary is needed

4.) you dont have to tell me, bottom right of my avatar, pro-gun
Click to expand...

If your ever in a large public library or even better a university's research library have them pull the oldest dictionary they have in storage and check it out.

Most clergymen would meet the definition of being bigots.

We all know the definition of "awe." Something that you fear but respect.

We now hear the term "awesome." Used and rarely having anything to do with something you fear but respect.

The first time I ever heard the word used was during the early 70's when sailors were returning to Port Hueme on an observation ship that observed a French nuclear test in the South Pacific. Some sailors said the nuclear blast was "awesome." Were they the first to create this word ? I don't know but it was the first time I heard the word "awesome" being used and you will not find it in a dictionary that was published before 1976.
 
APACHERAT said:
If your ever in a large public library or even better a university's research library have them pull the oldest dictionary they have in storage and check it out.

Most clergymen would meet the definition of being bigots.

We all know the definition of "awe." Something that you fear but respect.

We now hear the term "awesome." Used and rarely having anything to do with something you fear but respect.

The first time I ever heard the word used was during the early 70's when sailors were returning to Port Hueme on an observation ship that observed a French nuclear test in the South Pacific. Some sailors said the nuclear blast was "awesome." Were they the first to create this word ? I don't know but it was the first time I heard the word "awesome" being used and you will not find it in a dictionary that was published before 1976.
Click to expand...

ive actually done similar things, what else i like doing is my great grandmother had an encyclopedia set and i like looking at it, just something right of the top of my head panther isnt in it, "puma" is though.

Like i said language evolves, some grows, some dies and i do find it interesting
 
APACHERAT said:
Longer than that, it was the same definition back during the 1800's.

I have to invest in an old dictionary from the 1800's.

Not too many years ago I had a library pull the oldest dictionary they had in storage down in the basement. The oldest they had was published in 1932. I was curious why Nazis weren't right wing back then but left wing.
Click to expand...

This is off topic but I hear that the word dinosaur isn't in an 1828 dictionary. I also heard the definition of unicorn in an 1828 dictionary is different that what we understand unicorns to be.
 
Ray410 said:
Why else would anyone vote Democrat?

That's the platform the Democrats always run on: The mean Republicans want to take away your freebies!
Click to expand...

With that logic either side can claim the other is greedy because Republicans always want their taxes cut.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
This is off topic but I hear that the word dinosaur isn't in an 1828 dictionary. I also heard the definition of unicorn in an 1828 dictionary is different that what we understand unicorns to be.
Click to expand...

How about the defenition of "siphon" ?

It seems both Oxford and Webster had the wrong definition for over 100 years.

Dictionary definition of 'siphon' has been wrong for nearly a century

A schoolboy error in the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of 'siphon' has come to light after nearly 100 years in print

Dictionary definition of 'siphon' has been wrong for nearly a century | Science | theguardian.com

>" The dictionary definition of the word "siphon" has been wrong for nearly a century - even in the ever-authoritative Oxford English Dictionary.

Physicist Stephen Hughes of the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, spotted the mistake while writing an article on the physics of siphoning, reports the Science Blog of British newspaper The Guardian..."<

Short Sharp Science: Dictionary definition of 'siphon' wrong for 99 years
 
APACHERAT said:
I don't consider polls or surveys as being what you would call "hard data."

Studies usually could be considered to be "hard data."
Click to expand...

Scientific polling (which is what the Pew Research Institute does) is as good as you're going to get.
 
APACHERAT said:
Democratic Party trends - The Washington Post


Democrats More Liberal, Less White Than in 2008

Democrats More Liberal, Less White Than in 2008


Liberals and nonwhites have come to make up a slightly greater percentage of the Democratic base since 2008, perhaps indicating that the decline in Democratic affiliation since 2009 was proportionately greater among conservatives and whites.
Click to expand...

Liberals and nonwhites are not mutually exclusive. But congrats on your weak attempt to move the goalposts.
 
APACHERAT said:
How about the defenition of "siphon" ?

It seems both Oxford and Webster had the wrong definition for over 100 years.

Dictionary definition of 'siphon' has been wrong for nearly a century

A schoolboy error in the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of 'siphon' has come to light after nearly 100 years in print

Dictionary definition of 'siphon' has been wrong for nearly a century | Science | theguardian.com

>" The dictionary definition of the word "siphon" has been wrong for nearly a century - even in the ever-authoritative Oxford English Dictionary.

Physicist Stephen Hughes of the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, spotted the mistake while writing an article on the physics of siphoning, reports the Science Blog of British newspaper The Guardian..."<

Short Sharp Science: Dictionary definition of 'siphon' wrong for 99 years
Click to expand...

You brought this up to me once. And I'd like to know what relevance this has, other than "dictionaries can sometimes get the historical origins of words wrong."

This is just another bull**** red herring.
 
Grant said:
Those were facts I referred to. You've gone off track.
Click to expand...

really?
then by all means please back up the claim you made, simple provide your FACTUAL evidence that government AA/EO is racist, Id love to read them.
 
Both political parties are racist. Both of them try to use race, and manipulate peoples racisms into getting votes. Both parties followers aren't much better. I'd say they are equally filled with people who hate/love people based on the color of their skin. This may be a shock to you Navy, but not everything comes down to D vs R.
 
AGENT J said:
really?
then by all means please back up the claim you made, simple provide your FACTUAL evidence that government AA/EO is racist, Id love to read them.
Click to expand...

You have read them. Maybe just move on.
 
Kreton said:
This may be a shock to you Navy, but not everything comes down to D vs R.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good luck with that. Navy, like a bunch of other members here, have thoroughly built their identities around the sole belief that D vs. R is equivalent to Lucifer vs. The Holy Trinity.
 
AGENT J said:
really?
then by all means please back up the claim you made, simple provide your FACTUAL evidence that government AA/EO is racist, Id love to read them.
Click to expand...

In order to do that you'd have to go back to where we had been given the definitions of racism, my response to it and your following non-response. You seemed to feel that your single line cliche of "That's your opinion" was a form of debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom