• 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!

Roy Moore in 2011: Getting rid of amendments after 10th would 'eliminate many problems'

AliHajiSheik said:
I don't dispute his status as a douche, but he doesn't meet the level of being a racist from what you post.
Definition: a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Click to expand...

He just wants to enslave blacks and disenfranchise women, and you're worried someone referred to him as a racist?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
It does give me pause, but it doesn't rise to the level of racism.
Click to expand...

I guess he has to get his lynch on to see the obvious? Does one have to pop out the racial slurs to be a member?

I know of no other politician walking the country that would declare that family values were better off during the Antebellum and that we would be better off had we only the first Ten Amendments, which reverts minorities back to chattel station and omits the women. Seems pretty obvious to me. Such statements fit comfortably among Clansmen, supremacists, and religious extremists.

The more curious question of the moment, however, is why you choose to be obtuse about it.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
He just wants to enslave blacks and disenfranchise women, and you're worried someone referred to him as a racist?
Click to expand...

Roy Moore is more the type that would erase blacks from society. His declarations suggest that he is more interested in a time when white society was separate from the rest and when men dominated women rather than an actual interest in slavery. He's more of the "get back on the boat" type.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Spend some time in the Deep South and find out why Alabama (26% black) and Mississippi (35% black) have almost solidly-white representation in Washington and always have (except for a little bit during Reconstruction). Most whites down there will not vote for a black guy - some will, but most won't. That's why it's a real gamble for Doug Jones to try to encourage the blacks to vote, because by doing so, there will be whites who switch over to Moore for that reason alone.

And no, this is not B.S.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have do doubts.

Glen Contrarian said:
Look, maybe you've lived in the Deep South...but that doesn't automatically mean you understand the Deep South. Racism informs so much of daily life there - you don't see it, but if you were raised there as I was (and I was raised racist), it can't be hidden from you. Anyway, that's why those "billion blacks" you referred to don't have more representation - the whites make doggone sure it doesn't happen. The whites are a strong majority, and by mostly refusing to vote for blacks, not many blacks get elected except for in urban areas or strongly majority-black regions such as the MS Delta...and very few blacks get elected for statewide offices.

You can try to deny all this if you want...but that really is the way it is Down South. Nixon's team knew it and acted on it, and that's why the Deep South is solidly Republican instead of remaining the Democratic "Solid South". The "negrophobes" outnumber the blacks, pure and simple.

One more thing - those "negrophobes" and racists...if you ask them, they'll swear up and down that they're not racist at all. That's the way it was with my family - we would have been greatly offended if someone called us racist, after all the food and clothing and money that we shared with our black neighbors, and we held no malice towards them. But we were racist indeed, because as soon as the blacks were out of earshot, out would come all the racist jokes, accusations, and allegations...and we never realized how our "secret racism" informed our social and political attitudes in ways that directly harmed the blacks. In other words, most racists don't even recognize their racism for what it really is...but blacks - and those of us who made the journey out of racism - can see it, we can see it plain as day, we can't help but see it. But those Down South who don't recognize their own racism can't see it at all, just as it's doggone hard for a lifelong smoker to be able to smell cigarettes.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't deny this. It makes sense to me. I just always imagined that the black population was greater than it is. I know a lot got the hell out after the Civil War and went West, but I figured a substantial amount remained.
 
MSgt said:
I guess he has to get his lynch on to see the obvious? Does one have to pop out the racial slurs to be a member?

I know of no other politician walking the country that would declare that family values were better off during the Antebellum and that we would be better off had we only the first Ten Amendments, which reverts minorities back to chattel station and omits the women. Seems pretty obvious to me. Such statements fit comfortably among Clansmen, supremacists, and religious extremists.

The more curious question of the moment, however, is why you choose to be obtuse about it.
Click to expand...

I believe that racism is evil and I reserve the assignment of that characteristic to someone who has actually demonstrated it instead of having people blindly using the word because it is the worst word one can come up with--even if the use is incorrectly.

Are you really letting him off the hook by saying accurately that he says mind-numbingly stupid things?
 
tres borrachos said:
Then what level does it rise to?
Click to expand...

Pick a term that applies. Racism should be a term reserved to someone that actually crosses that line, not someone who comes close to that line.
 
Mach said:
He just wants to enslave blacks and disenfranchise women, and you're worried someone referred to him as a racist?
Click to expand...

Stupid politicians say stupid things. Has he explicitly said either of those things? If you can point where he did, I'll agree that he crosses the line to being a racist.
 
RAMOSS said:
Only if you ignore everything else.. and want to deny it/
Click to expand...

I gave the definition I used, If you think he met the definition, or can provide another definition of the word, then we have something to debate.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I believe that racism is evil and I reserve the assignment of that characteristic to someone who has actually demonstrated it instead of having people blindly using the word because it is the worst word one can come up with--even if the use is incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Of course then there's the reference to Native Americans and Asians as "reds and yellows..."

At the same rally, he also referred to Native Americans and Asians as “reds and yellows,” the LA Times reported.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Nostalgic for the Antebellum Period? Prefers a Constitution where slaves and women knew their place? Reds? Yellows? Sounds like your definition to me. But, yeah, let's reserve "racist" for those lynchers where it can be used correctly. You are being "blindly" obtuse.
 
Last edited:
chuckiechan said:
Just how to you go about stopping someone from running for office? And BTW, no one ever drowned in Roy Moore's car!
Click to expand...

Wow. So desperate to counter the ugliness this guy represents you have to go back nearly half a century and drag up the record of a long dead politician.

So now that you have established that your hated enemies, those 'not conservative' have done nothing wrong in five decades....

Readers should be able to figure out what' wrong in the Excited States, no one ever forgets anything, no matter how minor, mediocre or moldy from age....

The only thing that matters is beating the other guys.

Forgetting Roy the rapist's side hobbies, can anyone on the right present three reasons anyone should vote for this pig? I mean like real reasons, issues taxes etc. What makes this serial sex offender soooooo special that HE has to be elected in place of another valid candidate?

Is it really only that you hate liberals?

Now I understand why the US has such absolutely disgusting politicians. That he lives in the 18th century?
 
tres borrachos said:
Roy Moore in 2011: Getting rid of amendments after 10th would 'eliminate many problems' - CNNPolitics

Yeah! Let's bring back slavery! And stop those dumb wimmenz from voting so they can get their asses right back to the kitchen!

Okay, seriously. Forget the credible accusers if you want (at your peril). How the hell could anyone support someone who says this kind of ****?


CNN) — Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore appeared on a conspiracy-driven radio show twice in 2011, where he told the hosts in an interview that getting rid of constitutional amendments after the Tenth Amendment would 'eliminate many problems' in the way the US government is structured.

Alabama's special election for Senate, in which Moore is facing Democrat Doug Jones, will be held Tuesday. Moore's controversial views on a variety of subjects -- including homosexuality, Islam, and evolution -- have come into sharper focus in the final days of the campaign, even as Moore has had to deal with multiple accusations from women who say that he sexually assaulted or pursued relationships with them as teenagers when he was in his 30s. Moore has denied all allegations.

Moore also faced criticism for comments he made in September at a campaign rally. According to the Los Angeles Times, when asked by a black member of the audience when he thought the last time America was great, Moore answered, "I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another. Our families were strong, our country had a direction."
Click to expand...

Getting rid of Roy Moore (and Donald Trump) would solve even more problems
 
chuckiechan said:
Just how to you go about stopping someone from running for office? And BTW, no one ever drowned in Roy Moore's car!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I am missing your point. It could be my bad, I may be looking for point that simply isn't there.
 
chuckiechan said:
Just how to you go about stopping someone from running for office? And BTW, no one ever drowned in Roy Moore's car!
Click to expand...

TEAPOT DOME!!!!1!!!!!!


This whataboutism **** is getting ridiculous
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Stupid politicians say stupid things. Has he explicitly said either of those things? If you can point where he did, I'll agree that he crosses the line to being a racist.
Click to expand...

No adult politician of sound mind would explicitly say they are racist, even if they are obviously racist.

The notion that to identify traits/beliefs of someone *requires* them to tell you explicitly, is dumber than ****ing dumb is dumb.

The corollary that if they are dumb enough to tell you, you still can't determine if it's true/false. Hey I'm not a human! Oops, with stupid-logic, you'll have to believe it, because you know...I explicitly said it! I suspect you know what you're typing is complete nonsense, and you have some other motive for saying such moronic things.
 
Taylor said:
So did John Lennon.
Click to expand...

John Lennon wasn't running for office. We are supposed to hold these people to a higher standard.

Well, we used to, anyway, until idiots elected a sexual predator to the highest office in the land.

You people. :lol:
 
Mach said:
No adult politician of sound mind would explicitly say they are racist, even if they are obviously racist.

The notion that to identify traits/beliefs of someone *requires* them to tell you explicitly, is dumber than ****ing dumb is dumb.

The corollary that if they are dumb enough to tell you, you still can't determine if it's true/false. Hey I'm not a human! Oops, with stupid-logic, you'll have to believe it, because you know...I explicitly said it! I suspect you know what you're typing is complete nonsense, and you have some other motive for saying such moronic things.
Click to expand...

This ties into congress/SCOTUS changing the law so that it's basically not a bribe unless they explicitly call it a bribe.

They can literally do quid pro quo without repercussions as long as they never make the intent of the exchange perfectly explicit.

They're leveraging uncertainty to solipsistic extremes when it benefits them, and to ridiculous conspiracy theory extremes when it doesn't (benghazi, emailgate, etc.).
 
Absentglare said:
This ties into congress/SCOTUS changing the law so that it's basically not a bribe unless they explicitly call it a bribe.
They can literally do quid pro quo without repercussions as long as they never make the intent of the exchange perfectly explicit.
They're leveraging uncertainty to solipsistic extremes when it benefits them, and to ridiculous conspiracy theory extremes when it doesn't (benghazi, emailgate, etc.).
Click to expand...

They are doing whatever they have to, to get what they want, which is an animal behavior literally older than humanity itself. That they are willing to do/say anything, scorched earth etc., does make it troublesome, but I think at the end of the day it has only been tolerated to a degree because we all got lazy/comfy. I think the next election people will be woke up ;)
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Pick a term that applies. Racism should be a term reserved to someone that actually crosses that line, not someone who comes close to that line.
Click to expand...

Pick a term to apply to someone who thinks times were good when blacks were slaves, and who would like to see the Amendment freeing the black slaves disappear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom