• 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!

Jihadist for White Hate

I choose B.

Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion. I guess we should now call this place OpinionPolitics.com? Maybe B.S.Politics.com since that's about what your claim amounts to; b.s.
 
Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion. I guess we should now call this place OpinionPolitics.com? Maybe B.S.Politics.com since that's about what your claim amounts to; b.s.

There's been thousands of hours spoken on radio and TV and millions of words written on the web of B. Ever hear of Colin Flaherty? Sure you have.
 
There's been thousands of hours spoken on radio and TV and millions of words written on the web of B. Ever hear of Colin Flaherty? Sure you have.

1) It is your argument. Don't ask me to support it. You'd think of the "thousands of hours" and "millions of words" available that you'd easily be able to support your assertion.
2) I actually have no idea who Colin Flaherty is. Is this relevant?


-- So, I looked up Mr. Flaherty on Google. Is he your big support that such views are common? A guy writes a couple of books and that is now the prevalent view of conservatives everywhere? I have not read his books. Have you? I have no idea what his thesis is or how he goes about supporting it. Maybe he's racist as hell. A complete a-hole. I'm just saying, I have no idea and even if he is, it does not prove your larger point regarding conservatives.

Really, your argument amounts to little more than gross generalization. You pick out a couple of sentences from a complete nut-job who shot up a church and base an entire theory around it. This theory is little more than an expression of your own confirmation bias supported by your gross generalizations as you pick and choose a quotes from one source or another and hold that up as though it is indicative of some larger trend or viewpoint. All you have demonstrated, thus far, is that there exists conservatives who are racists and/or a-holes. No argument from me. Just like it would be fair to state that there exists liberals who are both racists and a-holes. Is this revolutionary?

Now, here is the pathetic part in all of this. You have been called on what amounts to juvenile name calling. Rather than just being a big boy (or girl) and admit you're just generalizing and that, of course, it is not exactly true, you just keep on digging. Keep throwing the proverbial poop against the wall to see what sticks. You refuse to give up on your daft theory that Roofe's actions were somehow motivated by conservative news/media. White nationalist groups, no matter how hard you try to make the connection, are not an extension of the GOP nor are they inter-related to conservative libertarian groups or even Christian social conservative groups. Frankly, your theory that Roofe was motivated, or I think you are actually suggesting he was encouraged, by conservative media, is simply sick and twisted on your part.
 
1) It is your argument. Don't ask me to support it. You'd think of the "thousands of hours" and "millions of words" available that you'd easily be able to support your assertion.
2) I actually have no idea who Colin Flaherty is. Is this relevant?


-- So, I looked up Mr. Flaherty on Google. Is he your big support that such views are common? A guy writes a couple of books and that is now the prevalent view of conservatives everywhere? I have not read his books. Have you? I have no idea what his thesis is or how he goes about supporting it. Maybe he's racist as hell. A complete a-hole. I'm just saying, I have no idea and even if he is, it does not prove your larger point regarding conservatives.

Really, your argument amounts to little more than gross generalization. You pick out a couple of sentences from a complete nut-job who shot up a church and base an entire theory around it. This theory is little more than an expression of your own confirmation bias supported by your gross generalizations as you pick and choose a quotes from one source or another and hold that up as though it is indicative of some larger trend or viewpoint. All you have demonstrated, thus far, is that there exists conservatives who are racists and/or a-holes. No argument from me. Just like it would be fair to state that there exists liberals who are both racists and a-holes. Is this revolutionary?

Now, here is the pathetic part in all of this. You have been called on what amounts to juvenile name calling. Rather than just being a big boy (or girl) and admit you're just generalizing and that, of course, it is not exactly true, you just keep on digging. Keep throwing the proverbial poop against the wall to see what sticks. You refuse to give up on your daft theory that Roofe's actions were somehow motivated by conservative news/media. White nationalist groups, no matter how hard you try to make the connection, are not an extension of the GOP nor are they inter-related to conservative libertarian groups or even Christian social conservative groups. Frankly, your theory that Roofe was motivated, or I think you are actually suggesting he was encouraged, by conservative media, is simply sick and twisted on your part.

Hey, if Righties don't like being tied to racists, they could always, you know, start condemning the Right Wing racists among them instead of remaining silent or silently cheering them on. :shrug:
 
It is a bait thread because you are making a blatant attempt to use it to smear the entire right, on the graves of the victims, I might add. Very low.

Yes. Anything to smear non-democrats. Anything to smear Trump. Anything.
 
Yes. Anything to smear non-democrats. Anything to smear Trump. Anything.

Actually the answer to the op is to just admit that there is a lot of racism being promoted by the Right. And, then condemn it.
 
Pretty much, a minority of liberals are civil and decent, though. Just not many.

When it comes to racism and the promotion of hate toward the "other" by the GOP, only a minority of conservatives are civil and decent enough to condemn it. John McCain comes to mind.

He would know. He was a victim of it during the 2000 Republican Primary.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom