• 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
Kobie said:
This is utterly insane. That you actually believe that either party is the "party of hate" is quite telling.
Click to expand...

It seems your having a problem with comprehension. It's the Democrat Party who has become the party of hate.
 
Kobie said:
Bob Blaylock said:
If you're going to dispute that claim, then it'd help to come up with evidence of widespread right-wing race baiting; and be able to support the claim that it is anywhere near as common as wrong-wing race-baiting.

That latter is going to be a very difficult claim to support, given the current pervasiveness of wrong-wing race-baiting in support of the current President, in the form of claiming that anyone who opposes him or his policies must be doing so because he's black.

You're going to have to face the fact, I think, that this form of race-baiting very rarely (if ever at all) comes from the right, and nearly always from those of you on the wrong. As much as those of you on the wrong like to paint those of us on the right as racists; this behavior of those on your side puts the lie to this claim, and clearly demonstrates which side is truly more racist.
Click to expand...

Rush Limbaugh Opens 2012 With More Race-Baiting Attacks | Research | Media Matters for America
·
·
·​
That took me about 20 seconds to find. And no matter how many more I find, you'll still say "nope, left does it worse."
Click to expand...

Really? That's all you've got? I expected a better attempt than that.

I did read the whole article, and all that it attributes to Limbaugh doesn't come anywhere near to adding up to one of the ubiquitous claims to be heard everywhere that “You only oppose Obama because he's black and you're a racist.” A mere mote in the eyes of us on the right, compared to a forest of beams in the eyes of those of you on the wrong.

Face it: Your side owns race-baiting, just as it owns the ObamaCare scandal, and just as your side owns pathetic attempts to blame the other side for your own side's failures and shortcomings.
 
APACHERAT said:
It seems your having a problem with comprehension. It's the Democrat Party who has become the party of hate.
Click to expand...

I comprehended just fine. You're just wrong.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Really? That's all you've got? I expected a better attempt than that.

I did read the whole article, and all that it attributes to Limbaugh doesn't come anywhere near to adding up to one of the ubiquitous claims to be heard everywhere that “You only oppose Obama because he's black and you're a racist.” A mere mote in the eyes of us on the right, compared to a forest of beams in the eyes of those of you on the wrong.

Face it: Your side owns race-baiting, just as it owns the ObamaCare scandal, and just as your side owns pathetic attempts to blame the other side for your own side's failures and shortcomings.
Click to expand...

Yes, those are clearly the only examples. I gave up after that. :roll:

This is your entire argument: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Click to expand...
 
APACHERAT said:
Hey Navy Pride :2wave:

What really saddens me is that the political party of my father and mother, the Democrat Party has become the party of hate.
Click to expand...

Always was. The Democratic part was the party of slavery. It was the party of the Ku Klux Klan.

Somewhere along the way, it came to make a policy of trying to portray itself otherwise, and to project its racism against the opposing party; but that pretense is falling away in more recent years.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
That you deny it, when it is so obvious, is very telling.
Click to expand...

Of course you think it's "obvious." Your entire schtick appears to be "Republicans/conservatives good, Democrats/liberals bad, 100% of the time."
 
Kobie said:
So you're going to make the completely unprovable (and undisprovable) claim that the "left" race-baits more than the "right," a claim that we know right off the bat that no standard of proof will be good enough to refute, and failure to disprove said undisprovable claim will be considered a victory for you and clear evidence of which side is the "real racists."
Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia topic and topic talk page. (Same link as you provided)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2010)

>"Article quality and sources[edit]This is pretty much an "article from ignorance" now, or perhaps "article by diversion" for it zig-zags between various (often less than logical) examples. And of course, it is mostly source free. John Locke who coined the term is mentioned in passing at the end, but the article is in need of serious clean up. A lot of it seems to have been written by user Agenzen who stopped editing 2 years ago. I seem to have left him a message 2 years ago with a pointer to negation as failure, now that I have looked, but that point is not discussed in the article except in see also. In any case, the best way would be to have a shorter, referenced and to the point definition with a couple of well known examples, instead of of the logical jambalaya that exists now.(talk) 10:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"<


:attn1: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

No formal peer reviewOur active community of editors uses tools such as the Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages feeds to monitor new and changing content. However, Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.

Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
APACHERAT said:
From the Wikipedia topic and topic talk page. (Same link as you provided)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2010)

>"Article quality and sources[edit]This is pretty much an "article from ignorance" now, or perhaps "article by diversion" for it zig-zags between various (often less than logical) examples. And of course, it is mostly source free. John Locke who coined the term is mentioned in passing at the end, but the article is in need of serious clean up. A lot of it seems to have been written by user Agenzen who stopped editing 2 years ago. I seem to have left him a message 2 years ago with a pointer to negation as failure, now that I have looked, but that point is not discussed in the article except in see also. In any case, the best way would be to have a shorter, referenced and to the point definition with a couple of well known examples, instead of of the logical jambalaya that exists now.(talk) 10:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"<


:attn1: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

No formal peer reviewOur active community of editors uses tools such as the Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages feeds to monitor new and changing content. However, Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.

Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Man, you're annoying.

Logical Fallacies» Arguing from Ignorance
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
 
Last edited:
Crosscheck said:
Some people wear their racism on their sleeve and some keep it hidden. What is the point of this poll? There is none.
Click to expand...
The implied assumption in the preceding statement is that all people must be racist.
I don't believe that is true.
 
Kobie said:
If "conservative" is how you identify yourself in your day-to-day life, you're probably not a lot of fun to be around.

Am I "left wing"? Sure. I'm a lot of things. I don't have the need to constantly run around branding everyone I meet as "left wing" or "right wing" and separating them into little groups. Would you refer to me as your "white" friend? Your "college educated" friend? Your "Buffalo Bills fan" friend? Probably not. So why the obsessive need to label me (and others, I've seen you drop the "left wing friend" line before)?
Click to expand...

Why are you so ashamed to be identified that way.........I will never understand that.
 
Navy Pride said:
Why are you so ashamed to be identified that way.........I will never understand that.
Click to expand...

You're missing my point entirely, apparently (and unsurprisingly). It's not "being ashamed" of anything.
 
NIMBY said:
Navy, as a conservative, do you conserve, as with T. Roosevelt and our resources and environment ??
Click to expand...

Nimby, I think you made an honest mistake and have confused conservation with conservatism.

In the past forty years I have worked off and on with the BLM. In the past when an area was set aside as a wildlife preserve, that what it became was you didn't touch nothing, you left it in it's natural state.

Over the past twenty years I have watched liberals use billions of taxpayers dollars to purchase millions of acres of land set aside as a wildlife preserve and then turn it into a recreational lands/parks by building roads, trails, picnic tables, burger stands, mountain bikers, dune buggies ripping up the land, etc. The bears, deer, even the skunks pack up and go looking for a new home. The mountain lions stick around to feed on the mountain bikers.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
The environmentalist movement is the biggest blight on american politics since slavery.
Click to expand...
Oh my--live next to a sanitary landfall--surely industry would have cleaned itself up after love canal and the rest of the superfund disasters--Another reason why fellow GOP members rate Nixon so poorly with his EPA and the rest of his progress--ive agenda--got thalidomide babies
 
Hamster Buddha said:
The environmentalist movement is the biggest blight on american politics since slavery.
Click to expand...
Oooh ooo can I play?...
...Ok I got one...
Republicanism is the greatest blight on America since slavery!
This is so much fun!
 
Buck Ewer said:
Oooh ooo can I play?...
...Ok I got one...
Republicanism is the greatest blight on America since slavery!
This is so much fun!
Click to expand...

NIMBY said:
Oh my--live next to a sanitary landfall--surely industry would have cleaned itself up after love canal and the rest of the superfund disasters--Another reason why fellow GOP members rate Nixon so poorly with his EPA and the rest of his progress--ive agenda--got thalidomide babies
Click to expand...

I was talking about today, not forty years ago. Back then, they were actually saying lives. Now they argue about "Global Warming" and are holding this country back from being an energy producing juggernaut, and putting this country back on the global scene. They believe Green Energy is here, when it is at least a two decades away from being a viable alternative to the resources now. And the "dirty" resources have considerably cleaned up their act long ago. Just like with the Unions and Civil Rights groups, the environmentalist movement have gone crazy trying to find the new bogey man.
 
APACHERAT said:
Nimby, I think you made an honest mistake and have confused conservation with conservatism.

In the past forty years I have worked off and on with the BLM. In the past when an area was set aside as a wildlife preserve, that what it became was you didn't touch nothing, you left it in it's natural state.

Over the past twenty years I have watched liberals use billions of taxpayers dollars to purchase millions of acres of land set aside as a wildlife preserve and then turn it into a recreational lands/parks by building roads, trails, picnic tables, burger stands, mountain bikers, dune buggies ripping up the land, etc. The bears, deer, even the skunks pack up and go looking for a new home. The mountain lions stick around to feed on the mountain bikers.
Click to expand...

Okay Apache--when you say the last 20 years, are you throwing GWB Under the Bus--you may as well go back 30 years to POTUS blowgun and tell me again how he ****ed up the military, reagans military-/not Americas--but Americas future debt
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I was talking about today, not forty years ago. Back then, they were actually saying lives. Now they argue about "Global Warming" and are holding this country back from being an energy producing juggernaut, and putting this country back on the global scene. They believe Green Energy is here, when it is at least a two decades away from being a viable alternative to the resources now. And the "dirty" resources have considerably cleaned up their act long ago. Just like with the Unions and Civil Rights groups, the environmentalist movement have gone crazy trying to find the new bogey man.
Click to expand...
Oooh ooo I just thought up another one ...
Conservatism is the greatest blight on America since slavery...
I could do this all night!
 
The Left - because many look at people and statements foremost in racial terms. The Media-left certainly is.

For example, in the Zimmerman-Martin case, the left - Media, Press and politicians - instantly declared in a racial incident; when George Zimmerman's personal life history (regardless of your feelings on the shooting itself) can more prove he is NOT a racist than virtually everyone on this forum. And declared the reason he was not arrested by the police also was for racial reasons. Week after month the media kept it up. Even altering tapes to "prove" the lie and racial smear against Zimmerman. President Obama certainly did so in declaring Martin could have "been his son." Why not Zimmerman too? Obama is as "white" as he is "black" - but I guess since Zimmerman is half Latino?

You see this happen on topics over and over on this forum as well.
 
Oooh ooo I just thought up another one ...
Zimmerman supporters are the greatest blight on America since slavery...
This political debate at it's finest ...
Yes?
 
Race is an arrow in both parties' quivers. It's used differently, yet equally frequent, by politicians, media personalities, pundits, and various other talking heads. Each believes they have the moral high ground, but high ground is evasive when someone's skin color (or lack thereof) is the primary topic. One group is painted as a victim, the other is painted as the aggressor.

In the end, race is often just the ball in a game of political Power Pong. It's as sad as it seems true.
 
NIMBY said:
Okay Apache--when you say the last 20 years, are you throwing GWB Under the Bus--you may as well go back 30 years to POTUS blowgun and tell me again how he ****ed up the military, reagans military-/not Americas--but Americas future debt
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the federal government but state, county and local municipalities who have changed the definition of what conservation is.

Re: Reagan's military. G.W. Bush went to war with Clinton's military. When Bush couldn't put 400,000 boots on the ground and went to war with only 200,000 boots on the ground the generals warned Bush. Bush failed to listen to his military advisers and a three month war turned into a six year war. As Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld said in 2003, "You go to war with the military you have."

G.H. Bush (41) went to war with Reagan's military and was able to put 500,000 boots on the ground.
G.W. Bush (43) went to war with Clinton's military and was only able to put 200,000 boots on the ground.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Oooh ooo I just thought up another one ...
Zimmerman supporters are the greatest blight on America since slavery...
This political debate at it's finest ...
Yes?
Click to expand...

You know, I already put my reasoning for my original statement. You could, I don't know, attempt to refute it. But I suppose you might not be up for a debate?
 
joko104 said:
Why not Zimmerman too? Obama is as "white" as he is "black" - but I guess since Zimmerman is half Latino?

You see this happen on topics over and over on this forum as well.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman's grandmother on his mother side was black, twice as black as Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom