• 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!

Is being racist a right?[W:343]

Is being racist a right


  • Total voters
    80
If there is something in Sterling's contract he violated by having a personal conversation I would be surprised. Remember this taped conversation that was released was a private conversation.
What Nixon revealed in the Watergate tapes, was in what he thought were "private conversations".
 
So after I scold you like a little boy you crawl back saying "please mister, I'll be good, I really can debate and discuss like an adult'. I'll think it over but for now run along boy, ya bother me.

Yeah . . . you scolded me with your rapier wit.:lamo I've asked the same question over and over again in some for or other about the NBA owners protecting their brand . . . . you just won't answer it.

Lastly, I am not sure how you came up with the thought that I am saying, "Please mister, I'll be good", but once again you are dead wrong. I personally insulted you and I meant it . . . every word. And you still won't answer the question.
 
Last edited:
He calls anyone who doesn't agree with him a "fascist moron" and then scolds us for "not holding a respectful intelligent conversation".:lamo

Yeah, but he doesn't have any space rented in my head that allows for him to scold me. Oh, and you wrote, "He calls anyone who doesn't agree with him . . ." Again, I pretty much think that was what he was saying in general, but he will now tell you that you are putting words in his mouth. And he still won't answer the question.:)
 
Yeah, but he doesn't have any space rented in my head that allows for him to scold me. Oh, and you wrote, "He calls anyone who doesn't agree with him . . ." Again, I pretty much think that was what he was saying in general, but he will now tell you that you are putting words in his mouth. And he still won't answer the question.:)
He has clearly lost the debate and now he runs away because he couldn't protect the racist.
 
BS. She is no more a racist than she would be a rapist if she reported that he raped her.
Your convoluted, inside out, blame the victim thinking, tells us a lot about you and your warped values.
Thanks for that reveal...
.

I am not blaming any victim. The g/f was not a victim. What did he do to her? Nothing whatsoever other than trust her with his opinion or feelings about something in a private moment between the two of them.

I think you are entirely missing the whole point here that what we do in private, so long as we are not violating the rights of anybody else, is our own business and should be nobody else's business. If you disagree with that, make your best case for how I am wrong about that. But don't be a jerk and mischaracterize what I have said or accuse me of saying what I did not say.
 
I am not blaming any victim. The g/f was not a victim. What did he do to her? Nothing whatsoever other than trust her with his opinion or feelings about something in a private moment between the two of them.

I think you are entirely missing the whole point here that what we do in private, so long as we are not violating the rights of anybody else, is our own business and should be nobody else's business. If you disagree with that, make your best case for how I am wrong about that. But don't be a jerk and mischaracterize what I have said or accuse me of saying what I did not say.

Good luck, that is exactly what you can count on with libs in here.
 
Good luck, that is exactly what you can count on with libs in here.

With some of them for sure. And we should call them on it every single time they do it and make them prove their statements. They should not be allowed to dishonestly twist the discussion into something they can attack. But in some cases, we are dealing with the immature, the chronically stupid and/or hateful, and people that just aren't too bright. They honestly can't or won't distinguish between illegal acts or compromising the rights of others and somebody just expressing an unpopular opinion that violates nobody's rights.
 
What Nixon revealed was illegal. Being a racist is sad but as of yet not illegal. see the difference?
Both examples speak to what were expected to be private conversations that brought down men who thought their power was unimpeachable.
The similarities out weigh the differences.
 
I am not blaming any victim. The g/f was not a victim. What did he do to her? Nothing whatsoever other than trust her with his opinion or feelings about something in a private moment between the two of them.
She was absolutely the victim of a a man in power who felt he had the right to tell her not to associate with black men in public because she was on his payroll. You called the victim of racism a racist. Nothing new . I have seen republicons do this exact same thing dozens of times, calling anyone who reports racism , a racist, in an attempt to defuse the gravity of the charge.
It doesn't work and I will not let you get away with it.
Not this time ...not ever.
 
Last edited:
Only in the mind of a fascist.
You clearly do not comprehend the meaning of the word.

World English Dictionary
fascism (ˈfæʃɪzəm)

— n
1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism
You are in the wrong political wing to be throwing around the word fascist.:lamo
 
Last edited:
You clearly do not comprehend the meaning of the word.


You are in the wrong political wing to be throwing around the word fascist.:lamo

"Social fascism was a theory supported by the Communist International (Comintern) during the early 1930s,
which held that social democracy was a variant of fascism because, in addition to a shared corporatist economic model, it stood in the way of a complete and final transition to communism. At the time, the leaders of the Comintern, such as Joseph Stalin and Rajani Palme Dutt, argued that capitalist society had entered the "Third Period" in which a working class revolution was imminent, but could be prevented by social democrats and other "fascist" forces. The term "social fascist" was used pejoratively to describe social democratic parties, anti-Comintern and progressive socialist parties, and dissenters within Comintern affiliates throughout the interwar period."
 
Last edited:

. The term "social fascist" was used to describe social democratic parties, anti-Comintern and progressive socialist parties, and dissenters within Comintern affiliates throughout the interwar period."


Exactly as you have used the term pejoratively and erroneously to attack anyone who disagrees with your racism biased view.
You have merely demonstrated a history of the erroneous misuse of the word.
 
Last edited:
She was absolutely the victim of a a man in power who felt he had the right to tell her not to associate with black men in public because she was on his payroll. You called the victim of racism a racist. Nothing new . I have seen republicons do this exact same thing dozens of times, calling anyone who reports racism , a racist.
It doesn't work and I will not let you get away with it.
Not this time ...not ever.

She wasn't on his payroll. She was reported to be his mistress lavished with hugely expensive gifts which is why Sterling's wife is suing her. She has denied a bf/gf relationship and claims she had a professional relationship as his archivist--as a contractor, not an employee--which came as a huge surprise to all of Sterling's friends, all of her friends, and Sterling's wife who had a very different perception about that.

For Sterling to be subject to and suffering consequences for breaking NBA rules is one thing. That is between him and the NBA. But we all should be leery of this new thing of destroying people by intercepting and recording private conversations that are intended to be private and do not involve violation of anybody's rights or illegal activities. Next time it could be you. And that angry outburst intended for the ears of a trusted friend only and that might or might not have been the whole story could be used to ruin you, get you fired, destroy a relationship, etc.
 
Exactly as you have used the term pejoratively and erroneously to attack anyone who disagrees with your racism biased view.
You have merely demonstrated a history of the erroneous misuse of the word.

My racism biased view? Example please

As for your fascism being a product of the right comment, once again here it is. The DNC of today is a progressive socialist party.

.The term "social fascist" was used to describe social democratic parties, anti-Comintern and progressive socialist parties, and dissenters within Comintern affiliates throughout the interwar period."

edit: Thanks for proving rule number 1 in my sig with your racist comment.:lol:
 
Last edited:
She wasn't on his payroll. She was reported to be his mistress lavished with hugely expensive gifts which is why Sterling's wife is suing her. She has denied a bf/gf relationship and claims she had a professional relationship as his archivist--as a contractor, not an employee--which came as a huge surprise to all of Sterling's friends, all of her friends, and Sterling's wife who had a very different perception about that.

For Sterling to be subject to and suffering consequences for breaking NBA rules is one thing. That is between him and the NBA. But we all should be leery of this new thing of destroying people by intercepting and recording private conversations that are intended to be private and do not involve violation of anybody's rights or illegal activities. Next time it could be you. And that angry outburst intended for the ears of a trusted friend only and that might or might not have been the whole story could be used to ruin you, get you fired, destroy a relationship, etc.
He paid her plenty and he decided he could tell her what race of people she could publicly associate with because of that power of money he held over her.
If you are OK with that, it doesn't really matter, because the NBA isn't.
I personally am "leery" of the people who wish to protect racists and the secrecy of their racist opinions.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut out the personal stuff. Points are coming if further moderation is required in this thread.
 
My racism biased view? Example please
You are defending a racist in this thread.
There is a long history of people using the term fascist in an erroneously pejorative way. The term is universally seen as negative and as such makes a great slur for those who have run out of viable arguments.
 
All this media blitz on Bundy and The basketball guy has me wondering if we now have thought police in this country. I'm not racist myself but I don't see what the big deal is if you are. We have laws to protect people from racism so your opinion should be a right and you should not be punished for what you believe. IMO firing someone for being a racist is anti American and flies in the face of free speech.

If you don't like racists, why employ them. The government shouldn't be allowed to fire anyone for his/her opinions, but private individuals? Why not?
 
Buck Ewer;1063233583[B said:
]You are defending a racist in this thread.[/B]
There is a long history of people using the term fascist in an erroneously pejorative way. The term is universally seen as negative and as such makes a great slur for those who have run out of viable arguments.

I am defending freedom of speech and freedom to be a racist or a communist or a gay or ......
 
He paid her plenty and he decided he could tell her what race of people she could publicly associate with because of that power of money he held over her.
If you are OK with that, it doesn't really matter, because the NBA isn't.
I personally am "leery" of the people who wish to protect racists and the secrecy of their racist opinions.

And I have no desire to continue a conversation with somebody who insists on being non sequitur, ad hominem, and use red herrings and strawmen to avoid addressing the argument another person makes. I believe I made a very good argument that Sterling held no power whatsoever over Stiviano other than what she willingly accepted. You completely ignored that argument. Nor have I made a single argument in support of anybody's racism or acting out that racism. But the right of a person to be racist? That is sacrosanct if you believe in liberty at all. According to the poll on this thread, more than 90% of our fellow DP members agree with me on that.
 
And I have no desire to continue a conversation with somebody who insists on being non sequitur, ad hominem, and use red herrings and strawmen to avoid addressing the argument another person makes. I believe I made a very good argument that Sterling held no power whatsoever over Stiviano other than what she willingly accepted. You completely ignored that argument. Nor have I made a single argument in support of anybody's racism or acting out that racism. But the right of a person to be racist? That is sacrosanct if you believe in liberty at all. According to the poll on this thread, more than 90% of our fellow DP members agree with me on that.
Calling the recipient of racism a racist, is the greatest non sequitur, red herring and straw man I have ever heard.
I think you protest too much.
 
Calling the recipient of racism a racist, is the greatest non sequitur, red herring and straw man I have ever heard.
I think you protest too much.

Even the so-called recipient in this case agreed that his racism did not extend to her. And the only thing that would make her racist is if her race was her justification for outing him. And you are the one who suggested that, not me.
 
Back
Top Bottom