• 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!

Rep. Jenkins: GOP looking for "great white hope"

Catz Part Deux said:
We may dance without class, but we can simultaneously maul your arguments with ease.



Actually, you did. You generalized a large subgroup of humans. And, you can't substantiate your generalization about them. We all know it. You look silly.
Click to expand...

You haven't "mauled" a thing.

But if patting yourself on the back makes you feel better, then by all means go right ahead.

I'm not in this to "win" anything.

That is the mentality of a child.
 
The_Limt said:
I disagree with you, but I'm not going to ask you for a link to prove your above opinion, ie your judgement call.

I find it totally ridiculous I am being asked for "proof" for what is essentially a judgement call.
Click to expand...

Alright, going to talk with you very seriously here and try to remain extremely respectful. This is the same thing I had to do with Devil505 about opinions.

Yes, anyone at all can make a statement that is a pure opinion, a judgement call, with absolutely zero evidence backing it up. Anyone can do that. I can say that people calling him a nazi are doing so because they actually think he's hitler reincarnated. People could say George Bush was actually put in power by a secret society specifically to use him to get oil from Iraq. People can say all kinds of wild out there opinion. Everyones free to do that and you're absolutely correct, opinions do not have to be backed up by fact.

But we are on a debate forum. We are on a forum where discussion, discourse, and exchange of ideas is the goal. Part of what goes with that is the ability to make a credible argument and to back up your opinion to spur forward a debate.

If I go "I believe they think he's hitler, reincarnated" and give absolutely zero proof to back up my claim the extent of the conversation would become:

Someone else goes "No they don't. People also called Bush a nazi, do you think they believed he was hitler re-incarnated? They specifically bring up individual plans of his that resemble some of the philosophies of nazi germany, couldn't that be why they do it?"

and then I'd go "Nope, I believe it, its my opinion."

End any sort of discussion. There's no ability for discussion there because one side is trying to have one and the other is just saying "I believe this way, that's the way I believe in, because I believe in it". There's no discussion there.

Opinions, on their own, are worthless. They're pointless. They're not worth talking about or giving credance to. For an opinion to be even worthy of DISCUSSING or accepting as potentially true it needs to have SOME KIND of credibility. This credibility can come about in two ways:

1) Coming from someone with a reputation that is respectable enough that people give their opinions credance even without facts.
2) Some kind of actual presented facts, even if its just anecdotal, that back it up.

We have a poster named DonSoutherland. He's one of, if not THE, most respected poster on this board. Part of this is because he almost never speaks an opinion without backing it up with fact. BUT, at this point, because he's so respected if he simply came out and gave his opinion on something with it being completely basis he'd probably have a number of people actually give it credance because he's developed a reputation and built up the credibility for his opinion to actually matter.

For those that haven't built that up, for your opinion, your judgement calls, to matter at all on this board, you need to do number 2.

Does this mean you can't have an opinion? Absolutely not. You're COMPLETELY free to have whatever opinion or judgement call you want. However, people are completely free to ridicule, deride, and ignore your opinion as baseless and not credible when its...well...seems to be baseless and not credible. You're coming into the forum and talking as you are is no different than someone coming up to you off the street and telling people that lizardfolk are controlling our government. You've not been here to build up credibility or respect in regards to your opinion so there's zero reason why any poster should take your opinion, when tis not backed up by anything, as something seriously worth considering.

To many people seem to have this mixed up notion that because an opinion does not NEED to be proven, means that there's no such thing as a POOR opinion. There is. And on a forum dedicated to political discussion you can't be surprised, offended, or upset when people call you to task for baseless opinions because frankly there'd be no use debating something where one person goes "This is my opinion because its my opinion" and the other side says "no, you're wrong, because of this this this" and the person responds "nope, its my opinion".
 
Hatuey said:
So it could be anybody who calls Obama a communist regardless of whether or not they're using it to replace the word nigger?
Click to expand...

Did not say that either.
 
The_Limt said:
Did not say that either.
Click to expand...

That's almost exactly what you said.

I mean, if you wanna backpedal out of it, by all means, do just that. It can't hurt our opinion of your argument at this point.
 
jallman said:
Just like calling a group of people crazy (and racist) for calling him a communist is an uninformed opinion. Because "communist" isn't a racial slur no matter how hard you wish it to be so.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, Jall. However, calling someone a "communist" or a "socialist" simply because you disagree with them does display ignorance.
 
disneydude said:
You are absolutely right, Jall. However, calling someone a "communist" or a "socialist" simply because you disagree with them does display ignorance.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree with that. I do think that Obama has some socialist ideas that I don't like being implemented. Communist is over the top.

But I think there is nothing more ignorant and asinine than trying to throw out some race card. It is demeaning to your opponent and it is demeaning to Obama to say that people disagree with him because he is black. It makes him so one dimensional, though I am sure that wasn't the intended purpose of throwing that barb out.
 
Zyphlin said:
Alright, going to talk with you very seriously here and try to remain extremely respectful. This is the same thing I had to do with Devil505 about opinions.

Yes, anyone at all can make a statement that is a pure opinion, a judgement call, with absolutely zero evidence backing it up. Anyone can do that. I can say that people calling him a nazi are doing so because they actually think he's hitler reincarnated. People could say George Bush was actually put in power by a secret society specifically to use him to get oil from Iraq. People can say all kinds of wild out there opinion. Everyones free to do that and you're absolutely correct, opinions do not have to be backed up by fact.

But we are on a debate forum. We are on a forum where discussion, discourse, and exchange of ideas is the goal. Part of what goes with that is the ability to make a credible argument and to back up your opinion to spur forward a debate.

If I go "I believe they think he's hitler, reincarnated" and give absolutely zero proof to back up my claim the extent of the conversation would become:

Someone else goes "No they don't. People also called Bush a nazi, do you think they believed he was hitler re-incarnated? They specifically bring up individual plans of his that resemble some of the philosophies of nazi germany, couldn't that be why they do it?"

and then I'd go "Nope, I believe it, its my opinion."

End any sort of discussion. There's no ability for discussion there because one side is trying to have one and the other is just saying "I believe this way, that's the way I believe in, because I believe in it". There's no discussion there.

Opinions, on their own, are worthless. They're pointless. They're not worth talking about or giving credance to. For an opinion to be even worthy of DISCUSSING or accepting as potentially true it needs to have SOME KIND of credibility. This credibility can come about in two ways:

1) Coming from someone with a reputation that is respectable enough that people give their opinions credance even without facts.
2) Some kind of actual presented facts, even if its just anecdotal, that back it up.

We have a poster named DonSoutherland. He's one of, if not THE, most respected poster on this board. Part of this is because he almost never speaks an opinion without backing it up with fact. BUT, at this point, because he's so respected if he simply came out and gave his opinion on something with it being completely basis he'd probably have a number of people actually give it credance because he's developed a reputation and built up the credibility for his opinion to actually matter.

For those that haven't built that up, for your opinion, your judgement calls, to matter at all on this board, you need to do number 2.

Does this mean you can't have an opinion? Absolutely not. You're COMPLETELY free to have whatever opinion or judgement call you want. However, people are completely free to ridicule, deride, and ignore your opinion as baseless and not credible when its...well...seems to be baseless and not credible. You're coming into the forum and talking as you are is no different than someone coming up to you off the street and telling people that lizardfolk are controlling our government. You've not been here to build up credibility or respect in regards to your opinion so there's zero reason why any poster should take your opinion, when tis not backed up by anything, as something seriously worth considering.

To many people seem to have this mixed up notion that because an opinion does not NEED to be proven, means that there's no such thing as a POOR opinion. There is. And on a forum dedicated to political discussion you can't be surprised, offended, or upset when people call you to task for baseless opinions because frankly there'd be no use debating something where one person goes "This is my opinion because its my opinion" and the other side says "no, you're wrong, because of this this this" and the person responds "nope, its my opinion".
Click to expand...

Again, and I grow weary of this, it is a judgement call.

I stubbornly believe some people are using the words, socialist, communist and fascist in the place of the N word. I said that it was in their tone and demeanor.

Again, a judgement call.

It is my call to make. You either like it, or do not like it.

It seems the problem, is that I have chosen to make this decision, and others have taken a rather wacky approach by asking for "proof" of this subjective interpretation.

That is, sorry to say, preposterous.

Like I said earlier, this is not a debate about a factual claim. It is quite clearly, a subjective claim.

It is akin to a person voicing their opinion of the latest 24 episode and then asking them for proof when you don't like their review.

However, I do agree with you on some points. Namely, if one makes an objective empirical claim, that person is bound to the onus of having the responsibility to provide substantiation.

But this is not the case with this topic.

Code language is used in politics all the time, repeatedly, historically and presently.


Obama used code language extensively throughout the campaign. Some obvious examples were the computer ad. Now, the Obama team did not flatly come out and say McCain is too old and feeble to be President.

But it was clear the message the Obama camp was trying to get across was indeed that McCain is too old and feeble, and there is no way he should be President.

On the other side, you had McCain/Palin ads and speeches that were all but saying Obama is a secret muslim terrorrist who is out to destroy America.

Again, code language.

Both ads, utterly ridiculous, but both were code language employed in the service of their respective campaigns.

How can one possibly provide a link to a source confirming that code language is a tactic often used in political ads and political discourse?

It is quite obvious.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
I didn't say you did. I'm asking you a question.
Click to expand...


I am not to going answer a question where you have setup the parameters.

I did not say those words, Period.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
I won't disagree with that. I do think that Obama has some socialist ideas that I don't like being implemented. Communist is over the top.

But I think there is nothing more ignorant and asinine than trying to throw out some race card. It is demeaning to your opponent and it is demeaning to Obama to say that people disagree with him because he is black. It makes him so one dimensional, though I am sure that wasn't the intended purpose of throwing that barb out.
Click to expand...

I'm not one to throw out the "race card" willy-nilly. However, there is no question that sometimes it exists. There are definitely many who oppose Obama because they have legitimate and credible arguments against his policies. However, there are absolutely a substantial number who oppose him strictly on racial grounds. I would put the "birther" crowd primarily in this group.
 
disneydude said:
You are absolutely right, Jall. However, calling someone a "communist" or a "socialist" simply because you disagree with them does display ignorance.
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally agree with this. In no way is Obama an actual Socialist or Communist. When people use that as a fallback, I have an engrained bias that makes me dismiss that person's beliefs out of hand. Not because they're a racist, but because they have faulty judgement and aren't very intelligent.
 
Last edited:
The_Limt said:
Make sure you don't use it with someone who is familiar with the Ad populum fallacy.
Click to expand...

You also seem intimately familiar with ad hominem as well. You have no proof, then you say it's a judgment call when forced on it. But other than that you're running around stating it like its fact, which isn't a "judgment" call then. So it's either fact or your opinion on the matter; either or believing some people mean the N word when calling Obama communist or socialist or whatever is dumb.

So what is it? Is it "fact" supported by some form of black history or is it your opinion? Because depending on who you're responding to, you seem to use one or the other.
 
disneydude said:
I'm not one to throw out the "race card" willy-nilly. However, there is no question that sometimes it exists. There are definitely many who oppose Obama because they have legitimate and credible arguments against his policies. However, there are absolutely a substantial number who oppose him strictly on racial grounds. I would put the "birther" crowd primarily in this group.
Click to expand...

I think anyone who would oppose a man strictly on his skin color would probably have no issue stating such. That type is not really known for having credibility to lose nor sense enough to avoid making their foolishness evident.
 
Ikari said:
You also seem intimately familiar with ad hominem as well. You have no proof, then you say it's a judgment call when forced on it. But other than that you're running around stating it like its fact, which isn't a "judgment" call then. So it's either fact or your opinion on the matter; either or believing some people mean the N word when calling Obama communist or socialist or whatever is dumb.

So what is it? Is it "fact" supported by some form of black history or is it your opinion? Because depending on who you're responding to, you seem to use one or the other.
Click to expand...

Careful. You might be getting a little insulting and then that will become his excuse for not supporting his arguments. :doh
 
The_Limt said:
How can one possibly provide a link to a source confirming that code language is a tactic often used in political ads and political discourse?

It is quite obvious.
Click to expand...

You could link to a scholarly article on racism in the U.S. You could post a survey of people's beliefs. You could even present an article from a reputable organization that makes this link. It would not be as difficult as you are implying, and if you are going to make these kinds of absurd claims, you should be prepared to back them up.
 
jallman said:
I think anyone who would oppose a man strictly on his skin color would probably have no issue stating such. That type is not really known for having credibility to lose nor sense enough to avoid making their foolishness evident.
Click to expand...

In many cases...true. However, there are a lot of people out there for which this is not the case. Hell...there were even people who claimed to support Obama but couldn't pull the lever in the voting booth.

I agree on one level that shouting things like "Communist" or "Socialist" is not necessarily attributable to "racism" in every case. However, I do believe that for some, it is a way to mask the racism in a more socially acceptable way.
Yelling something like "Go back to your country" is probably a more clear indication of racism though.
 
but surely you can't overlook the fact that some people do disagree with him simply becasue he is black, or his middle name is hussein?

and surely you can't believe that right wing talk radio/tv hosts don't use the word "hussein" as a code word for "arab"?
 
disneydude said:
In many cases...true. However, there are a lot of people out there for which this is not the case. Hell...there were even people who claimed to support Obama but couldn't pull the lever in the voting booth.

I agree on one level that shouting things like "Communist" or "Socialist" is not necessarily attributable to "racism" in every case. However, I do believe that for some, it is a way to mask the racism in a more socially acceptable way.
Yelling something like "Go back to your country" is probably a more clear indication of racism though.
Click to expand...

I think that arguments that include phrases like "a lot of people" or "socially acceptable racism" are just too subjective to give any credit. Look how little Limt had to backpedal out of his arguments because he couldn't substantiate them...first it was people that call him those names are definitely racists because they're crazy. Then it was only crazy people who call him those names are racist. Then it was crazy racists who call him those names are crazy racists. But never able to give a source or a number of these supposed crazy racists.

Then it became "it's all just a judgment call, I'm not doing your homework, the dog must've eaten mine which is why I can't show the calculations for my math homework blah blah blah".

All so much blather and so little substance. But that's what happens when you take a subjective view of a nebulous group that may or may not exist and start trying to apply undocumented concepts to prove your unsubstantiated opinion.
 
The_Limt said:
Again, and I grow weary of this, it is a judgement call.

I stubbornly believe some people are using the words, socialist, communist and fascist in the place of the N word. I said that it was in their tone and demeanor.

Again, a judgement call.

It is my call to make. You either like it, or do not like it.

It seems the problem, is that I have chosen to make this decision, and others have taken a rather wacky approach by asking for "proof" of this subjective interpretation.

That is, sorry to say, preposterous.

Like I said earlier, this is not a debate about a factual claim. It is quite clearly, a subjective claim.

It is akin to a person voicing their opinion of the latest 24 episode and then asking them for proof when you don't like their review.

However, I do agree with you on some points. Namely, if one makes an objective empirical claim, that person is bound to the onus of having the responsibility to provide substantiation.

But this is not the case with this topic.

Code language is used in politics all the time, repeatedly, historically and presently.


Obama used code language extensively throughout the campaign. Some obvious examples were the computer ad. Now, the Obama team did not flatly come out and say McCain is too old and feeble to be President.

But it was clear the message the Obama camp was trying to get across was indeed that McCain is too old and feeble, and there is no way he should be President.

On the other side, you had McCain/Palin ads and speeches that were all but saying Obama is a secret muslim terrorrist who is out to destroy America.

Again, code language.

Both ads, utterly ridiculous, but both were code language employed in the service of their respective campaigns.

How can one possibly provide a link to a source confirming that code language is a tactic often used in political ads and political discourse?

It is quite obvious.
Click to expand...

Mr. The -Lmt, I want to complement you on one of the best posts that I have read here lately. I particularly like and agree with your discussion about the 'code language’ that was used in the campaign. You are also extremely correct that both sides have used it.

There are and will be people who have and will use euphemisms for the N word. Sometimes the ‘socialist’ label is a euphemism. I would not say that it is always that because there are people who call President Obama a socialist because they either do not have an understanding of what socialism is or their definition is overly broad. Some people may believe that child labor laws are ‘socialist’ because they ‘impede’ the rights of a business owner to use the cheapest form of labor that the market can provide.

There are also others who call Mr. Obama a ‘socialist’ just because they know that ‘socialist’ is a pejorative term. The same can be said about using the label Nazi or fascist.

The other thing is on his board the tactic is used as a troll mechanism.
 
liblady said:
but surely you can't overlook the fact that some people do disagree with him simply becasue he is black, or his middle name is hussein?

and surely you can't believe that right wing talk radio/tv hosts don't use the word "hussein" as a code word for "arab"?
Click to expand...

I think it's overplayed, frankly. I think that most conservatives oppose Obama purely on political issues. I think that occasionally they take an easy shot, but I don't believe that most Americans are racist--these days.
 
liblady said:
but surely you can't overlook the fact that some people do disagree with him simply becasue he is black, or his middle name is hussein?

and surely you can't believe that right wing talk radio/tv hosts don't use the word "hussein" as a code word for "arab"?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are people who dislike Obama because of his race, hardly worth a mention tho. I do not think they make a significant group
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You could link to a scholarly article on racism in the U.S. You could post a survey of people's beliefs. You could even present an article from a reputable organization that makes this link. It would not be as difficult as you are implying, and if you are going to make these kinds of absurd claims, you should be prepared to back them up.
Click to expand...

One does not need any of the above to know code language exists in politics.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Mr. The -Lmt, I want to complement you on one of the best posts that I have read here lately. I particularly like and agree with your discussion about the 'code language’ that was used in the campaign. You are also extremely correct that both sides have used it.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I find it absolutely hilarious the political laymen of the board are asking for "proof" that code language exists in political discourse.

Absolutely hilarious.
 
The_Limt said:
Thank you.

I find it absolutely hilarious the political laymen of the board are asking for "proof" that code language exists in political discourse.

Absolutely hilarious.
Click to expand...

Must come as quite a shock to be asked to provide evidence for your claims :2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom