• 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!

Joe Biden

CLAX1911 said:
unless of course I call it the Orient.

But I digress how did it decide its boundaries?

Bull****. The countries of Asia make up Asia for the Orient.

The concept of continent is some arbitrary political boundary.
Click to expand...

False. The countries of Asia could all cease to exist, and the continent would still be there. They are two different things. The continental landmass was there first, and it will be there after.

I actually don't mind that you think Asia and the Orient are the same. I'm not offended. You're just wrong.
 
Irredentist said:
False. The countries of Asia could all cease to exist, and the continent would still be there.
Click to expand...
we could change the continent of Asia to include Europe just as easily.
They are two different things. The continental landmass was there first, and it will be there after.
Click to expand...
so if it pre-existed man who named it a continent and who decided its boundaries? And how is it were able to know this?
I actually don't mind that you think Asia and the Orient are the same. I'm not offended. You're just wrong.
Click to expand...

I guess the dictionary is wrong to. I'm willing to bet everyone you disagree with is wrong. This is sjw narcissism.
 
CLAX1911 said:
we could change the continent of Asia to include Europe just as easily.
so if it pre-existed man who named it a continent and who decided its boundaries? And how is it were able to know this?


I guess the dictionary is wrong to. I'm willing to bet everyone you disagree with is wrong. This is sjw narcissism.
Click to expand...

Does that mean Europeans could be orientals too? At this point the term is just losing all relevancy as a descriptor. You see why I dislike it :lol:

You can go on believing that countries and continents are the same thing, that's fine with me. I've enjoyed our conversation, night night!
 
Diesel said:
Yet the NRA's members believe it. They sincerely believe that any discussion about gun regulation ultimately leads to the complete disarmament of the the civilian population -- rifles, handguns, slingshots, and all. It's confounding.
Click to expand...

And that's how propaganda from the NRA and the far right works. The far right minions will believe anything that their told; these are the same type people who worshiped Joseph Mccarthy and still believe that there are communists under their beds.
 
Irredentist said:
Does that mean Europeans could be orientals too? At this point the term is just losing all relevancy as a descriptor. You see why I dislike it :lol:
Click to expand...
it still means what it always meant. I don't care if you like it the fact that you don't like it is exactly why I use it I have zero respect for sjws.
You can go on believing that countries and continents are the same thing, that's fine with me. I've enjoyed our conversation, night night!
Click to expand...
I never said continents and countries are the same thing.
 
Irredentist said:
Does that mean Europeans could be orientals too? At this point the term is just losing all relevancy as a descriptor. You see why I dislike it :lol:
Click to expand...
it still means what it always meant. I don't care if you like it the fact that you don't like it is exactly why I use it I have zero respect for sjws.
You can go on believing that countries and continents are the same thing, that's fine with me. I've enjoyed our conversation, night night!
Click to expand...
I never said continents and countries are the same thing.
 
Crosscheck said:
Very true.

Remember in the past a long time ago when you would hear the words "big tent".

Now days they even have come up with the word "RINO" if you don't agree with them. And why would you want to alienate any possible voters??
Click to expand...

I grew up when the Democratic Party was known as the big tent party. Conservatives, moderates, Liberals all were welcome. It was known as the peoples party, the workers party. The Republicans was slyly called the country club party, the party of business. The GOP was always the smaller party, sometimes twice as small as the Democratic Party when it came to party affiliation. 1964 according to Pew Research, Democratic 51% of the electorate, Republicans 25%. Here's their graph if you want to take a gander at how party affiliation has changed over the years.

Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center

If not for Eisenhower deciding he was a Republican the Democrats would have held the presidency for straight years and controlled congress for 60 out of 62 years, 1932-1994. Reagan brought on a huge political realignment or was that when the Democrats stopped being the big tent party and decided to be the party solely of the left.
The Republicans stop being the country club for business and I should add farmers to becoming the party of the right.

I would also say, the animosity shown from both to the other party I don't think really got started until the late 90's. I think the introduction of the Hastert rule as the beginning. I guess it doesn't really matter, today we have both parties hating each other's guts. I do find it interesting that all the talk is about the Republican Party shrinking, but history shows it is the Democratic Party which has taken the biggest fall. Gallup puts party affiliation as of 4 June 2020 at 31% Democrat, 25% Republican. But since Eisenhower, the GOP has always be around 25-25%, at times a few points higher, sometimes a few point lower as in Nixon era of 21%. It's the democrats that have really shrunk, averaging 45% from FDR until Reagan, Then 35% until Obama and now at 31%.

Regardless, I do miss the big tent era. RINO's, yeah, it does seem the Republican Party wants to maintain their club even if it means alienating voters. But the Democratic Party has been doing close to the same, here lately driving pro-life democrats out of their party, trying to drive pro-gun righters out, drive out the religious, among other things. I do think both parties are now in the process of trying to get rid of all their moderates. As a former big tenter, I know I feel that way. Unwelcome in either party.
 
Crosscheck said:
Very true.

Remember in the past a long time ago when you would hear the words "big tent".

Now days they even have come up with the word "RINO" if you don't agree with them. And why would you want to alienate any possible voters??
Click to expand...

Republicans have gone out of their way to force people out of their party. When Paul Ryan isn't conservative enough, they have clearly lost their minds.
 
CLAX1911 said:
The Orient refers to eastern countries. The only reason rugs are called oriental is because they're from the Orient.

I don't respect PC nonsense.

You can call me all the names in the book for not being part of your stupid cult.
Click to expand...

No, you don't respect people. It's not about PC. It's about me asking you not to call me Oriental and you saying, "**** you, Oriental, I can do whatever I want." In my experience, the only people who insist on using that word to refer to people are severely advanced in age, so the problem will take care of itself pretty soon anyway.
 
Irredentist said:
That doesn't explain why you would call a person "oriental". A lot of them aren't even from "the east". So of course they don't like being called that.
Click to expand...

I very rarely hear anyone refer to people as Oriental. It's a white American thing. When I explain the appropriate usage of the word to them and ask them not to use it to describe me, I almost never encounter resistance. In fact, I can't remember the last time someone straight up said, as CLAX1911 did, "I don't care what you want to be called. I'm going to offend you on purpose."
 
Irredentist said:
Did they? Maybe they came from down the street.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but the term is simply outdated. It must be painful for septuagenarians to have to evolve with the rest of the world, but Asian is actually a shorter and more accurate word than Oriental. The only reason to insist on applying it to people is to be intentionally, repetitively offensive. That is a sad, sad life.

The term oriental is often used to describe objects from the Orient. However, given its Eurocentric connotations and shifting, inaccurate definition through the ages, in North American English, it is considered by some to be an offensive term to refer to people of East Asian,[1][2] and South East Asian descent.[3][4]

Orient - Wikipedia
 
CLAX1911 said:
so having hurting someone's name before means cultural connection????

I'm sorry there's no such thing as an obvious joke with people freaking out about the word Oriental.

I honestly thought that was a joke the first time I heard it.

What you are saying is absurd so you can't use absurdist humor and it be obvious
Click to expand...

When was the first time someone told you that people are not oriental? Yesterday? You claim you have lived your entire life as a racial minority (as a white American in the US no less) and to have a very diverse experience. Since oriental has not referred to people for half a century, I don't believe that both of those things can be true.
 
Diesel said:
Not only that, but the term is simply outdated. It must be painful for septuagenarians to have to evolve with the rest of the world, but Asian is actually a shorter and more accurate word than Oriental. The only reason to insist on applying it to people is to be intentionally, repetitively offensive. That is a sad, sad life.

The term oriental is often used to describe objects from the Orient. However, given its Eurocentric connotations and shifting, inaccurate definition through the ages, in North American English, it is considered by some to be an offensive term to refer to people of East Asian,[1][2] and South East Asian descent.[3][4]

Orient - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

While I can't quite accept it is inherently derogatory, the fact remains that you consider it personnally offensive and so there is no justification to continue to apply it to you.

Some NCOs in the Army are offended by the familiar term "Sarge." I wasn't so offended and didn't consider it offensive. But once someone made it clear to me that they found it offensive, I would refrain from using it. It's just a matter of mutual respect between people.
 
RF667799 said:
Just to muddle things more, the continent is an abstraction as well.
Click to expand...

I am so amused watching this exchange. It's a real page-turner; and I still have a couple more to go. I can't wait to see how it ends.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Indeed.

Don't worry about muddling things up this is just some sjw crap to try and justify why Oriental is a bad word but Asian isn't.

They mean the same thing as I proved but you got to play the game.
Click to expand...

No one said oriental is a bad word, although I have surely heard it used many times the same way I have heard the words "gook" and "chink" used. You have been thoroughly schooled that oriental is not a synonym for Asian. This started because I told you that someone should have told you in 1968 that people aren't oriental. Or you could have figured it out in 1980 when the US Census began using the racial designation "Asian American". Maybe in 2002 in Washington, in 2009 in New York, or in 2016 across the entire federal government, you might have noticed that the word oriental was disassociated from descriptions of individuals. Point being that you've had more than five decades to figure this out. You have an Asian telling you to your virtual face that I do not like to be called oriental. Yet you persist. What kind of a person does that?
 
jet57 said:
And that's how propaganda from the NRA and the far right works. The far right minions will believe anything that their told; these are the same type people who worshiped Joseph Mccarthy and still believe that there are communists under their beds.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting case study because the NRA has probably done the most effective job of anyone in convincing people that any regulation whatsoever is not only a constitutional violation but is also the inevitable path toward a total gun ban. Safety standards for food didn't end food. Speed limits didn't end cars. Child labor laws didn't end manufacturing. But, by god, if you suggest that some certain type of gun should not be available for individual ownership (I'm not), some people lose their damn minds.
 
CLAX1911 said:
it still means what it always meant. I don't care if you like it the fact that you don't like it is exactly why I use it I have zero respect for sjws.

I never said continents and countries are the same thing.
Click to expand...

That portion that I bolded is the foulest and most honest thing you have said in this thread. You use the word because it bothers people. It bothers people whom you describe with that word. Including a person who asked you not to. So I guess you can just call anyone whatever you want to call them regardless of the inaccuracy in your language (after all, you don't even know the difference between oriental and Asian and country and continent) and regardless of what those people want to be called. You've just given a master class in white privilege and then victimized yourself by complaining about SJWs. You really covered every base; and it's all pathetic.
 
RF667799 said:
While I can't quite accept it is inherently derogatory, the fact remains that you consider it personnally offensive and so there is no justification to continue to apply it to you.

Some NCOs in the Army are offended by the familiar term "Sarge." I wasn't so offended and didn't consider it offensive. But once someone made it clear to me that they found it offensive, I would refrain from using it. It's just a matter of mutual respect between people.
Click to expand...

That's right. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the word is inherently derogatory. In fact, in the first instance that he used the word, I wouldn't even accuse CLAX1911 of being intentionally offensive. Your "Sarge" example reminds me of a similar experience I had years ago with the word "retard". Although "Sarge", I think, is considerably more innocuous than "retard", I remember using the word as a general, imprecise insult toward people who either acted unintelligently or in a silly way. One day someone told me that the word greatly offended her and that she wished I wouldn't use it around her. Not only did I never say the word around her again, I also have never used it as an insult again. I'm not suggesting that CLAX1911 can never use the word "oriental" again, but when I ask that he not use it to refer to me and he insists on doing so page after page after page, I can only conclude that his intention is to offend. It's not a new phenomenon for any of us, but it is abhorrent human behavior.
 
Perotista said:
When Reagan asked that question of Carter, I was in Fulda Germany with the 11th ACR guarding the East German Border. I would say my life and status has improved some under every president to include this one. No gigantic improvements, just some improvement, a bit at a time as life moved on.

I'm more worried about the present polarization and super high partisanship being shown than about Trump individually. Trump is a result of that. We've always had partisanship, but not at this high level. I don't think getting rid of Trump will cure any of that. But we'll see.
Click to expand...

I think getting rid of trump will help cure some of that. Now its true.. trump is the SYMPTOM of hyperpartisanship. Notice that Trump eats his own republicans. Take a Mitt Romney, John Mccain, just about anyone that had any disagreement with trump.. usually because Trump wasn;t following traditional republican values and ideology. Trump and his cohorts turned on those folks with ESTABLISHED republican credibility.. and suddenly they weren;t republicans.. they were "rino's". This hyperpartisan ship started with the Tea party.. and its culminated in Trump. Thats why both parties but especially the repubican party.. listen to what the 4% of the party.. instead of what the majority of voters want. Its because they fear the primary.. more than the general election.

If trump loses.. and I mean he needs to lose BIG.. then.. the better people in the republican party.. the one that don't want to burn the whole thing down.. and actually want to do things for the people.. may be more emboldened.... because they can point to the Trump loss and say "see.. what you did? Now we know your way doesn't work"...
 
CLAX1911 said:
You "know" things that never happened. Sorry.
.
Click to expand...

No.. I know what he said.. because I watched him say it with the context in which he said it. You have added things that never happened.

In fact.. you can;t even take his comments out of context and get it wrong. IF he was talking about "mexican gangsters".. why did he finish the comment with "well some of them are good people".

Did he mean that some of the mexican gangsters were good people then? Please. You just want to make excuses.

Despite them not really being asylum seekers we heard them out.
Click to expand...
Actually they WERE asylum seekers... but you go ahead and post the evidence that the vast majority were not asylum seekers.

No they don't, that's not a protest.
Click to expand...
OF course they do.. how do you think we got rid of segregation? Because we asked nicely? Umm.. would you please stop segregation? OR was it because of bus boycotts.. and sit ins at lunch counters.. and other forms of civil disobediance that disrupted the economy? You need to check out some history.

I seem to recall the phrase "I have a dream" being the ethos of the civil rights movement, not "give me what I demand or I'll burn down cities, murder people and disrupt peace."
Click to expand...

Yeah.. well you need to check your history. From martin Luther King himself:

The following year, in delivering his “The Other America” speech at Stanford University, King returned to his idea about what goes unheard:

…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.
Click to expand...

Google BLM demands, or continue pretending.
Click to expand...
Translation: You have absolutely no evidence to back up any of your claims.

Trump didn't think about keeping the oligarchy in power. That's one of the reasons I like him.
Click to expand...
Right.. you like him for helping businesses.. and know you like him for causing problems with business.
 
Diesel said:
No, of course not. But the other one called me "Oriental". Apparently redneck hicks of any age can't distinguish between a wall hanging and a human being. That would explain their sex lives.
Click to expand...

LOL

I bet they wouldn't know the opposite of oriental either - things the relate to the West as opposed to the East..
 
CLAX1911 said:
I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.

Judaism is a religious practice not a race. There for all people who practice Judaism are Jewish.
Click to expand...


You dismiss claims of the Jewish race ?

https://ezermizion.org/bone-marrow-...A54O2XflMsI9FIwVqbzMhNH6eGZ2TbIgaAivkEALw_wcB

How racist of you

Judaism like Christianity and Islam are religious viewpoints where's the people within them generally agree about morality.
Black and white aren't religions.
Click to expand...

Neither is being female/gay/transgender



Still waiting for your response Btw:

They actually show the opposite. Per encounter with the police white people are more likely to be killed.
Click to expand...


That's quite a claim, as well as quite contradictory, please post your evidence for it


You PRETEND to be free from prejudice with a ridiculous "holier-than-thou" attitude



There is a world of difference between a racist (like Trump) and the rest of humanity who seeks association with people similar to them


This is why political analysts refer to the "Jewish vote", "evangelist vote", "women's vote" and yes the "black vote"



People will naturally favor other people who share attributes, they feel are important, that are similar to their own

So you call a black person voting for a candidate because they're black, racist

How do you categorize a Jewish person voting for a candidate because they're Jewish ?
Or a gay person voting for a candidate because they're gay ?
Or a woman, voting for a candidate because they're female ?


How dare you speak on behalf of people preferring candidates of their same race ?

It is nothing but bigotry and outright hypocrisy from you.



Might a black person not think that a black candidate would support black causes ? (like a Jewish candidate might support Jewish causes)
Like stand up to police brutality, literacy in ghettos, black people in the military/NASA/Congress, black people going to college ?

You saying that the black vote is "racist"


But the Jewish/Muslim/Christian/gay/women's vote is not prejudicial in ANY way?
How utterly racist of you to deride and condemn the black vote or Hispanic vote that way ?

Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself ?



And being female just gives you the "potential" to tap the female vote. It's no guarantee

Same with the black/Hispanic/Jewish vote

A downtown high earning Jewish stockbroker might prefer Trump to a Jewish proponent of Democratic socialism.
 
Rich2018 said:
You dismiss claims of the Jewish race ?

https://ezermizion.org/bone-marrow-...A54O2XflMsI9FIwVqbzMhNH6eGZ2TbIgaAivkEALw_wcB

How racist of you



Neither is being female/gay/transgender



Still waiting for your response Btw:




That's quite a claim, as well as quite contradictory, please post your evidence for it


You PRETEND to be free from prejudice with a ridiculous "holier-than-thou" attitude


There is a world of difference between a racist (like Trump) and the rest of humanity who seeks association with people similar to him


This is why political analysts refer to the "Jewish vote", "evangelist vote", "women's vote" and yes the "black vote"

People will naturally favor people who share attributes, they feel are important, that are similar to their own

So you call a black person voting for a candidate because they're black, as racist

How do you categorize a Jewish person voting for a candidate because they're Jewish ?
Or a gay person voting for a candidate because they're gay ?
Or a woman, voting for a candidate because they're female ?

How dare you speak on behalf of people preferring candidates of their same race ?

It is nothing but bigotry and outright hypocrisy from you.

Might a black person not think that a black candidate would support black causes ? (like a Jewish candidate might support Jewish causes)
Like stand up to police brutality, literacy in ghettos, black people in the military/NASA/Congress, black people going to college ?

You saying that the black vote is "racist"

But the Jewish/Muslim/Christian/gay/women's vote is not prejudicial in ANY way?
How utterly racist of you to deride and condemn the black vote or Hispanic vote that way ?

Aren't you even a little bit ashamed of yourself ?


And being female just gives you the "potential" to tap the female vote. It's no guarantee

Same with the black/Hispanic/Jewish vote

A downtown high earning Jewish stockbroker might prefer Trump to a Jewish proponent of Democratic socialism.
Click to expand...

Jewish race?

Sammy Davis Junior.
Beta Israel
Malabar Jews
Ashkenazi Jews
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom