• 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!

Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

Are African-Americans a mongrel people?


  • Total voters
    33
Goobie, let's be real here.
You asked the question knowing full well that the comment was made by a Black person, specifically, the President. You had to know that had any Liberal come in here and disagreed with what the President said before realizing that he said it, you could use their comments against them by referring back to the President using his words against not only the Liberal poster but the President himself. To that extent, you've been disingenuous.
On the contrary -- the dishonesty and disingenousnessis among those that base their answer to the question on who made the statement. The question itself requires no context (which is different than a possible need to expain the terms as happened early on) as it would have been just as valid if no one had made a statement to that effect.
Those crying about context simply dont like that the question exposes people for what they are.

fact of the matter is you dont need to know who made the statement or what context he made it in order to answer my question.
 
From that perspective, I agree with you. But even you have to admit (to yourself atleast), you had hoped to bait a few folks with the question. Regardless, it's a good test of one's social integrity.
 
And as for CC and Redress -- if anyone OTHER than Goobieman had asked the question "Are African-Americans a mongrel people," would either of you have said, thoughtfully, "Hmmm. In what context do you mean that"? Be honest.
 
And as for CC and Redress -- if anyone OTHER than Goobieman had asked the question "Are African-Americans a mongrel people," would either of you have said, thoughtfully, "Hmmm. In what context do you mean that"? Be honest.

I am a big fan of context. The fact that Goobie loves trap threads just made the need more obvious.
 
Yeah, from WWII movies.
Um... sorta.
Flak (more properly, FlaK) is shorthand German for FliegerabwerKannon, or 'anti aircraft gun'. Pretty simple, eh? The FlaK-18 and the FlaK-36 were the famous 88mm AA guns we all know and love.
Pak (more properly, PaK) is shorthand German for Panzerabwerkannon, or 'anti armot (tank) gun', Examplesof these are the 75mm Pak40.
"Flak" caught on in popular useage, whereas 'PaK' did not.
 
I am a big fan of context. The fact that Goobie loves trap threads just made the need more obvious.
She huffs and puffs, but still can't blow down the house.

How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?

I cannot possibly see how any of the "context" issues have any relevance to someones' asnwer to the question. Show me how I am wrong.
The ONLY way they make any difference is if your answer to the question depends on who asks (or, in this case, who makes the statement).
Is that indeed the case?
 
Last edited:
Um... sorta.
Flak (more properly, FlaK) is shorthand German for FliegerabwerKannon, or 'anti aircraft gun'. Pretty simple, eh? The FlaK-18 and the FlaK-36 were the famous 88mm AA guns we all know and love.
Pak (more properly, PaK) is shorthand German for Panzerabwerkannon, or 'anti armot (tank) gun', Examplesof these are the 75mm Pak40.
"Flak" caught on in popular useage, whereas 'PaK' did not.

I'm guessing that the term "flak" took off because of all the WWII movies that featured dogfights and such. I learned about it from the movie "Memphis Belle"
 
I'm guessing that the term "flak" took off because of all the WWII movies that featured dogfights and such. I learned about it from the movie "Memphis Belle"
Oh... that's disappointing.
 
Yet another stupid thread started by conservatives to bash Obama over something so minor and insignificant.
Had a conservative said "africans Americans are a mongrel people" he would have been metaphorically crucified by the liberal media for saying the exact same stuff in the exact same context as Obama did. I do not think it is wrong to point that out. Jumping over Obama for saying "africans Americans are a mongrel people" is still petty and just doing the the same stuff stupid libs did when Bush was in office.


You would think after 8 years of partisan liberal hacks pulling this crap on Bush, conservatives would realize how stupid these sort of threads make people look.

This is why I find it absolutely ****en hilarious when some lib has the nerve to mock birthers and the Obama is am muslim crowd.
jamesrage-albums-stuff-picture67110696-those-damn-obama-birther-nuts.jpg
 
Last edited:
What's that? Still think your opinion is meanigful? Yawn.

How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?

I cannot possibly see how any of the "context" issues have any relevance to someones' asnwer to the question. Show me how I am wrong.
The ONLY way they make any difference is if your answer to the question depends on who asks (or, in this case, who makes the statement).
Is that indeed the case?

I already demonstrated how you failed to use context in what he said as a "trap" for liberals... without full information. You're just pissed because I exposed yet ANOTHER of your disingenuous and dishonest threads. Keep posting them, and I'll keep exposing them.
 
THis man gets a cookie.
Since CC has thusly been proven wrong, he is buying.

Nope. bubba is incorrect. You have STILL failed to address the context in which Obama made the comments... simply because it makes your thread look as dishonest as it is. No, Goobie, as always when we do this, the round is on you.
 
And as for CC and Redress -- if anyone OTHER than Goobieman had asked the question "Are African-Americans a mongrel people," would either of you have said, thoughtfully, "Hmmm. In what context do you mean that"? Be honest.

When I saw Goobie's thread, knowing his past history of posting dishonest bait and trap threads, I would have done what I did. Read the article to see in what context the comment was made. If it was someone else, I would have been far less skeptical, but still would have read the article to see in what context the comment was made. In either case, if context was not disclosed, I would have been just as confrontational. Goobie knows what he did. He does it all the time. Here's an example of what he did:

"I killed the ass". Tell me if this is an appropriate thing for a President to say?

Then, when you read the article, you find out that the President said this when he saw a donkey charging at 4 children, so he "killed the ass". Now, Goobie would say that context doesn't matter... because he would be creating a dishonest bait and trap thread to attack liberals. Of course, most people would see through this and understand that context creates a completely different meaning for the statement... something that Goobie denies. I find it quite bizarre that someone would deny the importance of context when discussing the meaning of statements. Goobie's purpose isn't to debate. It's to trap. And I'll keep exposing these traps whenever I see them.
 
She huffs and puffs, but still can't blow down the house.

How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?

I cannot possibly see how any of the "context" issues have any relevance to someones' asnwer to the question. Show me how I am wrong.
The ONLY way they make any difference is if your answer to the question depends on who asks (or, in this case, who makes the statement).
Is that indeed the case?

You STILL don't understand the concept of context and are STILL trying to dance away from the issue. Who said it is meaningless. In what context it was said is what matters.
 
She huffs and puffs, but still can't blow down the house.

How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?

I cannot possibly see how any of the "context" issues have any relevance to someones' asnwer to the question. Show me how I am wrong.
The ONLY way they make any difference is if your answer to the question depends on who asks (or, in this case, who makes the statement).
Is that indeed the case?

If you waned an honest discussion, instead of trying to not reveal what was said, in it's entirety, you should have opened with the full comment and asked opinions. When asking people to form opinions based on partial evidence, you are trying to set something up.
 
If you waned an honest discussion, instead of trying to not reveal what was said, in it's entirety, you should have opened with the full comment and asked opinions. When asking people to form opinions based on partial evidence, you are trying to set something up.

i think you are missing the point. whether that is by design, only you would know

let's replace the use of "mongrel" with "niggardly" and expose its useage, asking if it is an appropriate term to use
certainly both have legitimate uses, but both can be bent to convey negative connotations
by exposing those words as they were used by a public official deprives the person being polled of an ability to recognize that the context in which each word is used has significance. without the applied context, many may be inclined to have a knee jerk reaction. we saw this in the media a while back with the use of "niggardly" despite the word then being used in a benign manner

a couple of moderators seem to want to assign a malignant intent to the OP's thread and the way it was presented. you would have basis to know the forum member's posting history, and that very possibly colors your assumptions. but it should be recognized that even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while
 
i think you are missing the point. whether that is by design, only you would know

let's replace the use of "mongrel" with "niggardly" and expose its useage, asking if it is an appropriate term to use
certainly both have legitimate uses, but both can be bent to convey negative connotations
by exposing those words as they were used by a public official deprives the person being polled of an ability to recognize that the context in which each word is used has significance. without the applied context, many may be inclined to have a knee jerk reaction. we saw this in the media a while back with the use of "niggardly" despite the word then being used in a benign manner

a couple of moderators seem to want to assign a malignant intent to the OP's thread and the way it was presented. you would have basis to know the forum member's posting history, and that very possibly colors your assumptions. but it should be recognized that even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while

Except that did not occur here. If one uses the word niggardly, whether it be a public official or not, HOW the word is used in context is key in ascribing meaning. And that meaning, in context will be consistent regardless of who says it.

In this case, the blind squirrel still hasn't found the nut.
 
Except that did not occur here. If one uses the word niggardly, whether it be a public official or not, HOW the word is used in context is key in ascribing meaning. And that meaning, in context will be consistent regardless of who says it.

In this case, the blind squirrel still hasn't found the nut.

you have just made my argument, defending the OP's thread
had he inserted the actual useage as the moderators have suggested, recognition that context counts in the application of the word "mongrel" would have been lost
let the OP keep his nuts
 
you have just made my argument, defending the OP's thread
had he inserted the actual useage as the moderators have suggested, recognition that context counts in the application of the word "mongrel" would have been lost
let the OP keep his nuts

No, if he had inserted the actual usage, understanding the context would have portrayed the word honestly, rather than attempting to make a disintegritous connection. The speaker would have remained irrelevant... except to the OP who wanted to create the trap.

He can't keep what he couldn't find.
 
If you waned an honest discussion...
If you had an honest problem with all of this, you'd answer these questions:

How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?
 
Meh, I was like 13 when I saw that movie. They didn't go into too much military history before highschool when I was growing up.
Gotcha. I got into WW2 in '75 or '76.
 
Jumping over Obama for saying "africans Americans are a mongrel people" is still petty and just doing the the same stuff stupid libs did when Bush was in office.
Yeah... but who is doing that?
 
I already demonstrated how...
... you really dont have anything worthwhile here by refusing to answer these questions:

How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?

You'll continue to refuse to answer them and I'll continue to laugh at your pettiness and unwarranted self-importance.
 
No, if he had inserted the actual usage, understanding the context would have portrayed the word honestly, rather than attempting to make a disintegritous connection. The speaker would have remained irrelevant... except to the OP who wanted to create the trap.

He can't keep what he couldn't find.

You are missing the point CC.
Goobie is demonstrating how simply WHO says something is what is CREATING the "context" for many thread followers and participants, and sadly, for many people across the nation. One poster's example of the poor mr. Howard using the term niggardly even with proper context and being used in the proper manner for a dictionary fitting use of the word was not enough, because of WHO this word was coming FROM. The race of Mr. Howard was all the context far too many people needed to opine on the matter.
 
Back
Top Bottom