View Poll Results: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

Voters
43. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    21 48.84%
  • No, because...

    22 51.16%
Page 21 of 42 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 418

Thread: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

  1. #201
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:46 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,315
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Except in this case, as -none- of that matters.

    Who said it doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
    Why it was said doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
    Where it was said doesn't matter Disagree? Why?
    That anyone said it at all -- doesn't matter.

    All -you- want to do here is -avoid- the question.
    Yes, in this case context does matter. Does it mean "mongrel" as in dog, or does it mean "mongrel" as in mixed ancestry. That is a pretty significant difference, and without knowing, we cannot properly judge.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #202
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Dude. There's no way you didn't understand my point.
    Your "point" is a red herring if it does not provide evidence in favor of your affirmitive response to my previous question about Obama being to blame for other people freaking out over certain words being used.

    I understand your "point" but I reject it because it patently ignores the one I was making when I first posed the question.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #203
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Yes, in this case context does matter. Does it mean "mongrel" as in dog, or does it mean "mongrel" as in mixed ancestry.
    I suggest you visit post #5 where the specific meaning of the term was clarified, as requested by someone else.

    So, back to...

    Who said it doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
    Why it was said doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
    Where it was said doesn't matter Disagree? Why?
    That anyone said it at all -- doesn't matter.

    All -you- want to do here is -avoid- the question.

  4. #204
    wʜɪтe яussɪaи Tashah's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ישראל • אמריקה
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 04:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,379

    Re: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Thus, context doesnt matter.
    Context does matter. It is the framework upon which interpretation is based.

    To posit otherwise is disingenuous and dishonest.

    אשכנזי היהודי • Белый Россию

  5. #205
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:46 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,315
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I suggest you visit post #5 where the specific meaning of the term was clarified, as requested by someone else.

    So, back to...

    Who said it doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
    Why it was said doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
    Where it was said doesn't matter Disagree? Why?
    That anyone said it at all -- doesn't matter.

    All -you- want to do here is -avoid- the question.
    So you stop with the madness...

    Who said it does not matter in this case.
    Why it was said does matter, it's context. What is the person trying to say.
    Where it was said in this case did not matter. It may in other cases.
    That any one said it at all does matter, since without some one saying it, you would never have made this thread to try and trap people.

    All -you- want to do here is try and -trap- people so -you- can say -gotcha-. If it was not the case, you would have supplied the context. I repeat, you cannot judge any comment properly without the context.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #206
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tashah View Post
    Context does matter. It is the framework upon which interpretation is based.
    To posit otherwise is disingenuous and dishonest.
    Who said it doesn't matter. Disagree? Why?
    Why it was said doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
    Where it was said doesn't matter. Disagree? Why?

    That anyone said it at all -- doesn't matter.
    Disagree? Would your answer to the question change depending any of the above things?

  7. #207
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    But you're doing the same thing. Lott says that's not what he meant. There's nothing comparable in Lott's repertoire to support that the segrationist platform is what he meant. They glommed onto a sentence, assumed he meant something, and that became the narrative. The context says he should get the benefit of the doubt, exactly as the context says Harry Reid should get the benefit of the doubt for his "light-skinned negro" comments, or Clinton and his "bringing us coffee" comment.
    The Dixiecrats had 8 planks to their platform (not counting the 9th which simply stated who they endorse).

    Of those 8 planks two dealt DIRECTLY with segregation by name saying it should be in place.

    Of the other 6 are reasonable to assume, based on the Dixiecrat's legislative goals and their comments on the campaign trail and prior to the campaign, dealt greatly with their views in regards to segregation and their belief that it was harmful to human rights and a danger to the country.

    The entire platform of the Dixiecrats was pretty much rooted in the notion that segregtation was needed and the government should not have the power to tell the states they must stop segregation.

    Trent Lott choose to make a generalized, BROAD statement, on his own accord that endorsed Strom Thurmonds run during that time stating that if he had won the country wouldn't have the problems we face now.

    Strom Thurmonds parties platforms spefically was for segregation and was broadly focused almost singularly on it. Whether or not Trent Lott was speaking specifically about segregation, he choose to speak broadly about Strom Thurmond and broadly would HAVE to include the segregationist views becuase that was the CORE of Strom Thurmonds presidential run. This would be like suggesting that if someone said we'd have been better off with Republicans in power that they aren't actually endorsing limited government. Segregationism was the core of the Dixiecrat philosophy and their motivating factor in wanting more powerful state rights.

    This is a case of Trent Lott endorsing someone whose history during the time period Lott was referencing was unquestionably known as being focused around segregationism. It is incumbant about Trent, if he doesn't want the OBVIOUS and reasonable context to be what is considered, to clarify his comments.

    If Strom Thurmand had won the Presidency the main focus of said presidency would've been the strengthening of states rights to assure that segregation continued. This was the entire point of the Dixiecrats. One can not possibly say we would be better off had they won without clarifying that they're not speaking about segregationism and expect people to believe you mean anything other than that. That was their BIGGEST singular issue and influenced their ENTIRE platform, its completely reasonable to assume if you're supporting said platform then you're supporting the core thing motivating it.

  8. #208
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So you stop with the madness...
    Why it was said does matter, it's context.
    Really?
    Knowing this, how does your answer change?

    What is the person trying to say.
    This was clarified. Sorry that you werent paying attention, but that's on you.

    That any one said it at all does matter...
    Knowing that someone did or did not say it, how does your answer change?

    All -you- want to do here is...
    ... avoid the question.
    All you ARE doing is embarassing yourself.

  9. #209
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,548

    Re: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The Dixiecrats had 8 planks to their platform (not counting the 9th which simply stated who they endorse).

    Of those 8 planks two dealt DIRECTLY with segregation by name saying it should be in place.

    Of the other 6 are reasonable to assume, based on the Dixiecrat's legislative goals and their comments on the campaign trail and prior to the campaign, dealt greatly with their views in regards to segregation and their belief that it was harmful to human rights and a danger to the country.

    The entire platform of the Dixiecrats was pretty much rooted in the notion that segregtation was needed and the government should not have the power to tell the states they must stop segregation.

    Trent Lott choose to make a generalized, BROAD statement, on his own accord that endorsed Strom Thurmonds run during that time stating that if he had won the country wouldn't have the problems we face now.

    Strom Thurmonds parties platforms spefically was for segregation and was broadly focused almost singularly on it. Whether or not Trent Lott was speaking specifically about segregation, he choose to speak broadly about Strom Thurmond and broadly would HAVE to include the segregationist views becuase that was the CORE of Strom Thurmonds presidential run. This would be like suggesting that if someone said we'd have been better off with Republicans in power that they aren't actually endorsing limited government. Segregationism was the core of the Dixiecrat philosophy and their motivating factor in wanting more powerful state rights.

    This is a case of Trent Lott endorsing someone whose history during the time period Lott was referencing was unquestionably known as being focused around segregationism. It is incumbant about Trent, if he doesn't want the OBVIOUS and reasonable context to be what is considered, to clarify his comments.

    If Strom Thurmand had won the Presidency the main focus of said presidency would've been the strengthening of states rights to assure that segregation continued. This was the entire point of the Dixiecrats. One can not possibly say we would be better off had they won without clarifying that they're not speaking about segregationism and expect people to believe you mean anything other than that. That was their BIGGEST singular issue and influenced their ENTIRE platform, its completely reasonable to assume if you're supporting said platform then you're supporting the core thing motivating it.
    You're just repeating the same thing you said in the last post. My answer, therefore, is the same.

    I don't disagree with you about Thurmond. It's not about Thurmond.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #210
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    You're just repeating the same thing you said in the last post. My answer, therefore, is the same.

    I don't disagree with you about Thurmond. It's not about Thurmond.
    Could someone have voted for Thurmond and not been supporting segregation, given Thurmond's platform at the time?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 21 of 42 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •