Home | Community | Message Board


Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #13524119 - 11/22/10 02:20 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
If the alternatives were

1) vote for an openly racist candidate I believed would govern constitutionally
2) vote for a non-openly racist candidate I believed would govern like, say, Obama/Reid/Pelosi

I would choose option 1) in a heartbeat. That's a total no-brainer decision if ever there was one.


Way to bring partisanship into a discussion that has nothing to do with it. :thumbup:

So, as long as the candidate governs constitutionally, then you'd be alright with voting for them? What if they implement policies that are constitutional, but which make things unfair for certain races?



Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Indeed that is what we are seeing in the Obama Justice Dept.


Can you give an example, or would you like me to sift through your super-amazing posts to find one?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

No, it is not racist, racism is a type of hatred--affirmative action isn't fueled by hatred. At all. :lol:




Complete bullshit.  Paternalism can be just as racist as hatred.  You're too stupid to care for yourself, black man, so I must care for you.  Racism.  Ask the Abos.


Racism - Wikipedia
Quote:

Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.


Sure, I would agree that that sort of "paternalism" fits the definition of racism, but that is nothing like affirmative action. At all.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Further, affirmative action is deleterious to members of a race.  (Actually, it is deleterious to all races.  Any benefited class is instantly under suspicion for whatever it achieves)


White people are, in general, a benefited class, and affirmative action exists to combat the effects of what is known as white privilege:

Quote:

In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color experience. Most such theories focus on American and European societal condition, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature of these academic areas. White privilege differs from conditions of overt racism or prejudice, in which a dominant group actively seeks to oppress or suppress other racial groups for its own advantage. Instead, theories of white privilege suggest that whites view their social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that must be maintained at the expense of others. This normative assumption implicitly constrains discussions of racial inequality within the dominant discourse: such explanations are limited to factors specific to disadvantaged racial groups - who are viewed as having failed to achieve the norm - and solutions focus on what can be done to help those groups achieve the 'normal' standards experienced by whites.

In essence, theories of white privilege assert that discourses on racial inequality do not truly discuss differences between white and non-white social status, but only discuss the failure of non-white groups to achieve normal social status, effectively turning race into an issue that does not involve whites. In this sense it is similar to confirmation biases and the fundamental attribution error in social psychology.

The general claim of theories of white privilege is that racial inequity cannot be resolved solely by looking at the life conditions of disadvantaged groups. They suggest that solutions to problems of racial inequality can only be achieved by explicitly discussing the implicit advantages that whites as a group hold in society.



And who gives a shit if they are under suspicion? What does that matter? :undecided:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Again, racism is a form of hatred; using the phrase "white man's greed" doesn't necessarily make one racist. Did he say "Because of the white man's greed, I hate all white people."? :shake:




So you didn't bother to look up the quote or anything else regarding Wright.  No surprise.


You didn't bother to back up your own claims with your own sources--no surprise. :lol:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
That was just the beginning.  I also reported that Obama cited this racist swine as an important mentor.  If I said David Duke was an important influence in my life you can damn well bet that I'm a racist.


Is this Wright fellow part of an openly anti-white group?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Further, it is not necessary to hate all people of a particular race to be a racist.  That is an idiotic criteria for being racist.


If you hate one person merely because they have a certain color of skin, then it is implied that you hate all people with that same color of skin--this is similar to how, if you hate one sour apple because it is green, then you hate all other green sour apples for the same reason.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Otra vez, no it doesn't; I don't hate you for being a typical white guy, I just think you are one. Saying that calling you a typical white guy means I'm racist is like saying that calling a banana a typical yellow banana means I hate bananas.




You are making a judgment based on race.  Racist.  Plain and simple.


That is an idiotic criteria for being racist. :rofl2:

What if I make the judgment "Some white people have slightly lighter skin than others."--is that racist, IYO? :flowstone:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I don't think there are typical white guys or typical black guys.  But you're a racist so that makes no sense to you.


I'm not a racist, at all--having the opinion that there are typical people of a certain race/ethnicity/culture does not imply that one also thinks that the said people are inherently inferior due to their race/ethnicity/culture.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

So? Maybe he hates what he perceives as typical white people, this doesn't necessarily mean he hates them merely because they're white.




If he hates typical white people then he is a racist.


No, he isn't--if he thinks that these "typical white people" are inferior simply because they are white, and if he hates them for that, then yes, he would be racist. But this, obviously, is not the case, is it?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
If he characterizes what he hates as white then he is a racist.


Just because some people he hates happen to be white doesn't necessarily mean that he hates them merely because they're white.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
What do you have to say about the Black Panther case?  Nothing.


What do you mean what do I have to say about it, and why do you assume that I have nothing to say? I have a lot of opinions regarding the Black Panthers--I don't believe they were 100% malevolent or benevolent, I feel like they were trying to combat the effects of white privilege "by any means necessary". :macdre:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Because you are arguing shite and trolling at this point.  Racist.


:ilold:

The hilarious thing about all this is you often times talk shit about the politically correct, but that's exactly how you're coming off on this issue--hypocrisy at its finest. :smirk:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (11/22/10 03:58 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13525345 - 11/22/10 06:39 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Way to bring partisanship into a discussion that has nothing to do with it.




It has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with government overreach. Kennedy was a Democrat, too, but his administration's policies cannot be compared to the hideous excesses of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime. For that matter, Clinton was a Democrat, too. Much as I despised the man as a human being, Billy Jeff's administration was about an order of magnitude more faithful to Constitutional principles than that of the Three Stooges currently in office.

Quote:

What if they implement policies that are constitutional, but which make things unfair for certain races?




Example, please.





Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13525440 - 11/22/10 06:54 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Way to bring partisanship into a discussion that has nothing to do with it.




It has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with government overreach.


Right, so why did you happen to only name Democrats? :rolleyes:

Do you really think that no current Republican politician is attempting to govern unconstitutionally?


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

What if they implement policies that are constitutional, but which make things unfair for certain races?




Example, please.


Why do you need an example to answer that hypothetical question? Are you saying that any policy that makes things unfair for (a) certain race(s) (whether directly or indirectly) is necessarily unconstitutional?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13525562 - 11/22/10 07:17 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Right, so why did you happen to only name Democrats?




Because they are the ones who have been running the show for the last four years (two years in Obama's case) and because they are the most blatant examples of unconstitutional governance in at least my lifetime and arguably in all of American history.

Quote:

Why do you need an example to answer that hypothetical question?




Because your post history has made it abundantly plain you do not always define words the way they are meant to be used. I want you to provide an actual example of a policy that you believe would be both constitutional (and it is far from clear that what you may believe to be a constitutional action by government actually is constitutional) and at the same time "unfair" to a specific race of American humans. I cannot think of one which would satisfy both requirements, which is why I challenged you to provide one. I have no doubt your example will fail either due to your misunderstanding of what meets the standard of "constitutional" or your own idiosyncratic interpretation of "unfair". Possibly both.







Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13525631 - 11/22/10 07:29 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Why do you need an example to answer that hypothetical question?




Because your post history has made it abundantly plain you do not always define words the way they are meant to be used.


No, I usually stick to dictionary definitions--I think it was you who at one time cited a definition from a dictionary that was over a decade old. But whatever, believe what you wish.


Quote:

Phred said:
I want you to provide an actual example of a policy that you believe would be both constitutional (and it is far from clear that what you may believe to be a constitutional action by government actually is constitutional) and at the same time "unfair" to a specific race of American humans.


What I believe is irrelevant--I want you to tell me whether or not you would support a politician who somehow implemented a policy that was technically constitutional, but that resulted (directly or indirectly) in certain races being treated more unfairly than others.


Quote:

Phred said:
I cannot think of one which would satisfy both requirements...


So what? It's a hypothetical question, with a yes or no answer; is that too difficult for you or something?


Quote:

Phred said:
I have no doubt your example will fail either due to your misunderstanding of what meets the standard of "constitutional" or your own idiosyncratic interpretation of "unfair". Possibly both.


Why do you assume that I have a misunderstanding of what meets the standard of "constitutional"? It's easy to understand, anything that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional. What makes you think that my interpretation of what is "unfair" is inaccurate? :undecided:




Poid


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13525702 - 11/22/10 07:43 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

No, I usually stick to dictionary definitions--I think it was you who at one time cited a definition from a dictionary that was over a decade old.




Right... because words lose all their meaning after a decade.

Quote:

What I believe is irrelevant--I want you to tell me whether or not you would support a politician who somehow implemented a policy that was technically constitutional, but that resulted (directly or indirectly) in certain races being treated more unfairly than others.




And that is an exercise in futility because you don't use words the way they are meant to be used. You have already made up your mind that following the Constitution necessarily means some races will be screwed over. I want you to sack up and provide an example of this so the audience can examine it.

Quote:

So what? It's a hypothetical question, with a yes or no answer; is that too difficult for you or something?




It is apparently too difficult for you to move from the hypothetical to the actual. Why do you refuse to do it? Be a man - give an example or drop it and move on.

Quote:

Why do you assume that I have a misunderstanding of what meets the standard of "constitutional"?




Your post history.

Quote:

What makes you think that my interpretation of what is "unfair" is inaccurate?




Your post history.





Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13525764 - 11/22/10 07:54 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

No, I usually stick to dictionary definitions--I think it was you who at one time cited a definition from a dictionary that was over a decade old.




Right... because words lose all their meaning after a decade.


It's not that, you preferred your definition over the one that I provided (which was more updated) because using it bolstered your argument; that's a sign of a very, very skillful debater. :lol:


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

What I believe is irrelevant--I want you to tell me whether or not you would support a politician who somehow implemented a policy that was technically constitutional, but that resulted (directly or indirectly) in certain races being treated more unfairly than others.




And that is an exercise in futility because you don't use words the way they are meant to be used.


No it's not, and yes I do (usually).


Quote:

Phred said:
You have already made up your mind that following the Constitution necessarily means some races will be screwed over.


No I haven't--reading comprehension much? :sad:


Quote:

Phred said:
I want you to sack up and provide an example of this so the audience can examine it.


Let's say, for example, a politician introduces a bill to cut funding for education in a city/town that happens to be predominantly populated by minorities; if you voted for this politician before s/he introduced this bill, how likely is it that you'll vote for him/her come next election day?




Poid


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13525898 - 11/22/10 08:17 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Let's say, for example, a politician introduces a bill to cut funding for education in a city/town that happens to be predominantly populated by minorities; if you voted for this politician before s/he introduced this bill, how likely is it that you'll vote for him/her come next election day?




Now see... that wasn't hard at all, was it?

You will notice my example politicians were federal politicians, not state or municipal ones, since your question had to do with the Constitution.

The Constitution does not list as one of the enumerated powers of the federal government involvement in education - that is left to the States or the People (amendment Ten). Therefore, the politicians who actually followed the Constitution were never in a position to cut educational funding to a particular state or town, since they were never allowed to hand money to a particular state or town in the first place.

However, even though the spending of taxpayer dollars by the federal government is de facto an unconstitutional use of said dollars, it is a sad reality that this abuse has been going on since the creation of the unconstitutional Department of Education by America's formerly worst (now second-worst) president, the execrable Jimmy Carter, so let's accept it as a given and look a bit further into your example. You will note that even under the current unconstitutional operation of the unconstitutional Department of Education, their (the feds) involvement in disbursing the pelf ends at the state government level, not the municipal level. The feds cut an annual check to the State government in question and that's the end of it. This means of course that even if your hypothetical racist federal politician wanted to starve a particular municipality of educational funds to further his own racist ends, he could not.

So, fail on at least two levels of your Example One. Got another?






Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 5 years, 17 days
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13526032 - 11/22/10 08:39 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Indeed that is what we are seeing in the Obama Justice Dept.


Can you give an example, or would you like me to sift through your super-amazing posts to find one?




I already posted it.  The Justice Department has a policy of not prosecuting voter intimidation cases if they are committed by a minority.
http://biggovernment.com/tfitton/2010/11/15/explosive-new-justice-department-black-panther-emails/
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

No, it is not racist, racism is a type of hatred--affirmative action isn't fueled by hatred. At all. :lol:




Complete bullshit.  Paternalism can be just as racist as hatred.  You're too stupid to care for yourself, black man, so I must care for you.  Racism.  Ask the Abos.


Racism - Wikipedia
Quote:

Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.


Sure, I would agree that that sort of "paternalism" fits the definition of racism, but that is nothing like affirmative action. At all.




Oh no?  I beg to differ.  Affirmative Action is exactly that kind of paternalism.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Further, affirmative action is deleterious to members of a race.  (Actually, it is deleterious to all races.  Any benefited class is instantly under suspicion for whatever it achieves)


White people are, in general, a benefited class, and affirmative action exists to combat the effects of what is known as white privilege:






Quote:

In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color experience. Most such theories focus on American and European societal condition, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature of these academic areas. White privilege differs from conditions of overt racism or prejudice, in which a dominant group actively seeks to oppress or suppress other racial groups for its own advantage. Instead, theories of white privilege suggest that whites view their social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that must be maintained at the expense of others. This normative assumption implicitly constrains discussions of racial inequality within the dominant discourse: such explanations are limited to factors specific to disadvantaged racial groups - who are viewed as having failed to achieve the norm - and solutions focus on what can be done to help those groups achieve the 'normal' standards experienced by whites.

In essence, theories of white privilege assert that discourses on racial inequality do not truly discuss differences between white and non-white social status, but only discuss the failure of non-white groups to achieve normal social status, effectively turning race into an issue that does not involve whites. In this sense it is similar to confirmation biases and the fundamental attribution error in social psychology.

The general claim of theories of white privilege is that racial inequity cannot be resolved solely by looking at the life conditions of disadvantaged groups. They suggest that solutions to problems of racial inequality can only be achieved by explicitly discussing the implicit advantages that whites as a group hold in society.







"Theories of white priviledge posit such and such"  No kidding.  I reject them.  They are historical anachronisms.
Quote:


And who gives a shit if they are under suspicion? What does that matter? :undecided:




Really?  If you know that Negroes are given a lesser standard to become a doctor or an airplane pilot would you feel the same about going to a Negro doctor or flying on a plane with a Negro pilot?  Even the Negroes who got in totally on their own merit are suspect.  I bet they love that.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Again, racism is a form of hatred; using the phrase "white man's greed" doesn't necessarily make one racist. Did he say "Because of the white man's greed, I hate all white people."? :shake:




So you didn't bother to look up the quote or anything else regarding Wright.  No surprise.


You didn't bother to back up your own claims with your own sources--no surprise. :lol:




Like I said, I posted that shit repeatedly over 2 years ago.  You missed class.  Look it up yourself.  It isn't that fucking hard.  Googleclue for you
Wright white man's greed.  Then you can just google rev. wright racism.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
That was just the beginning.  I also reported that Obama cited this racist swine as an important mentor.  If I said David Duke was an important influence in my life you can damn well bet that I'm a racist.


Is this Wright fellow part of an openly anti-white group?




Yes.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Further, it is not necessary to hate all people of a particular race to be a racist.  That is an idiotic criteria for being racist.


If you hate one person merely because they have a certain color of skin, then it is implied that you hate all people with that same color of skin--this is similar to how, if you hate one sour apple because it is green, then you hate all other green sour apples for the same reason.




Hate is not an essential element of racism.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Otra vez, no it doesn't; I don't hate you for being a typical white guy, I just think you are one. Saying that calling you a typical white guy means I'm racist is like saying that calling a banana a typical yellow banana means I hate bananas.




You are making a judgment based on race.  Racist.  Plain and simple.


That is an idiotic criteria for being racist. :rofl2:

What if I make the judgment "Some white people have slightly lighter skin than others."--is that racist, IYO? :flowstone:




If you believe that based on my race I am a god-like creature you are also guilty of racism.

No.  Your question has no relevance.  I had a Negro friend whose skin was lighter than mine (in the summer).  High yellow, they call them.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I don't think there are typical white guys or typical black guys.  But you're a racist so that makes no sense to you.


I'm not a racist, at all--having the opinion that there are typical people of a certain race/ethnicity/culture does not imply that one also thinks that the said people are inherently inferior due to their race/ethnicity/culture.




Yes you are.  You think there is a typical white person.  There is not.  And it is equally racist to believe one race is superior as it is to believe that one race is inferior.
Quote:




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

So? Maybe he hates what he perceives as typical white people, this doesn't necessarily mean he hates them merely because they're white.




If he hates typical white people then he is a racist.


No, he isn't--if he thinks that these "typical white people" are inferior simply because they are white, and if he hates them for that, then yes, he would be racist. But this, obviously, is not the case, is it?




If he thinks that they are superior because of their race he is a racist.  It makes no difference which way the arrow points. 
Quote:

 


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
If he characterizes what he hates as white then he is a racist.


Just because some people he hates happen to be white doesn't necessarily mean that he hates them merely because they're white.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
What do you have to say about the Black Panther case?  Nothing.


What do you mean what do I have to say about it, and why do you assume that I have nothing to say? I have a lot of opinions regarding the Black Panthers--I don't believe they were 100% malevolent or benevolent, I feel like they were trying to combat the effects of white privilege "by any means necessary". :macdre:




I said the Black Panther case and gave a link, which you didn't bother to click.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Because you are arguing shite and trolling at this point.  Racist.


:ilold:

The hilarious thing about all this is you often times talk shit about the politically correct, but that's exactly how you're coming off on this issue--hypocrisy at its finest. :smirk:




Bullshit. 

There are many forms of racism

1.  Hatred  (KKK and Malcolm X)
2.  Paternalism (Affirmative Action)
3.  Self censorship (Most journalists)

There is nothing politically correct about my position.  My position is that here is no genetic or legal systemic cause of racial differences in achievement.


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGabbaDj
BTH
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,580
Loc: By The Lake
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13526339 - 11/22/10 09:43 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

" Would you vote for an openly racist politician? "

Only if He/She hated Mexicans.










































And Gays.


--------------------
GabbaDj

FAMM.ORG          C8.com                    http://www.beatsopjefiets.com/   


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinejimbotron
Patty-Cake Enthusiast
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/24/09
Posts: 2,324
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: GabbaDj]
    #13526483 - 11/22/10 10:09 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Yes, because I voted for Obama, and as Glenn Beck sagely opined, he is "a racist" and "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people".


--------------------
BEST TEAM IN THE UNIVERSE


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: jimbotron]
    #13526526 - 11/22/10 10:16 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism]Racism - Wikipedia[/url]
Quote:

Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.


Sure, I would agree that that sort of "paternalism" fits the definition of racism, but that is nothing like affirmative action. At all.




Oh no?  I beg to differ.  Affirmative Action is exactly that kind of paternalism.


I disagree. :shrug:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
"Theories of white priviledge posit such and such"  No kidding.  I reject them.


Of course you reject them, you're White and you haven't experienced prejudice by other Whites. I recommend that you watch this guy's videos on the subject (it's OK, you can trust him, he's White :smirk:):




Quote:

zappaisgod said:
They are historical anachronisms.


That's bullshit, racism is still alive and well.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

And who gives a shit if they are under suspicion? What does that matter? :undecided:




Really?  If you know that Negroes are given a lesser standard to become a doctor or an airplane pilot would you feel the same about going to a Negro doctor or flying on a plane with a Negro pilot?


As long as they past the all the tests just like everyone else, what does it matter? It doesn't; they're not given a lesser standard, they're given help to enter college institutions. Affirmative Action does not give colored people a lesser standard to pass their classes, they have to do the work just like everyone else.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Even the Negroes who got in totally on their own merit are suspect.  I bet they love that.


Why are they suspect? Because racism is still alive and well, right? :strokebeard:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Like I said, I posted that shit repeatedly over 2 years ago.  You missed class.  Look it up yourself.  It isn't that fucking hard.  Googleclue for you
Wright white man's greed.  Then you can just google rev. wright racism.





It isn't that fucking hard to post the relevant quotes..well, maybe it is for you...


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Is this Wright fellow part of an openly anti-white group?



Yes.


Which group?


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

If you hate one person merely because they have a certain color of skin, then it is implied that you hate all people with that same color of skin--this is similar to how, if you hate one sour apple because it is green, then you hate all other green sour apples for the same reason.




Hate is not an essential element of racism.


I know.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

That is an idiotic criteria for being racist. :rofl2:

What if I make the judgment "Some white people have slightly lighter skin than others."--is that racist, IYO? :flowstone:




No.  Your question has no relevance.


Yes it does, you said that making a judgment based on race is racist, and you didn't mention any exceptions.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I had a Negro friend whose skin was lighter than mine (in the summer).  High yellow, they call them.


Cool story, brah. :thumbup:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

I'm not a racist, at all--having the opinion that there are typical people of a certain race/ethnicity/culture does not imply that one also thinks that the said people are inherently inferior due to their race/ethnicity/culture.




Yes you are.  You think there is a typical white person.  There is not.


Yes, there is; one trait that is typical for White people is that they have light skin. Another is that they have hair on their heads. Still one more is that they shit out the food they eat.

Oh, I'm sorry, was that racist of me? :blush:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
And it is equally racist to believe one race is superior as it is to believe that one race is inferior.


Derr.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

No, he isn't--if he thinks that these "typical white people" are inferior simply because they are white, and if he hates them for that, then yes, he would be racist. But this, obviously, is not the case, is it?




If he thinks that they are superior because of their race he is a racist.


Yeah, so what made you determine based on him saying "typical white people" that he thinks they are superior because of their race? :confused: 


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

What do you mean what do I have to say about it, and why do you assume that I have nothing to say? I have a lot of opinions regarding the Black Panthers--I don't believe they were 100% malevolent or benevolent, I feel like they were trying to combat the effects of white privilege "by any means necessary". :macdre:




I said the Black Panther case and gave a link, which you didn't bother to click.


I never saw any link. :justdontknow::cuckoo:


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

The hilarious thing about all this is you often times talk shit about the politically correct, but that's exactly how you're coming off on this issue--hypocrisy at its finest. :smirk:




Bullshit. 

There are many forms of racism

1.  Hatred  (KKK and Malcolm X)
2.  Paternalism (Affirmative Action)
3.  Self censorship (Most journalists)


What do you mean by self-censorship? May you explain how that is racist.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:
There is nothing politically correct about my position.  My position is that here is no genetic or legal systemic cause of racial differences in achievement.


So, what, IYO, is the cause? This should be good...:smirk:



Quote:

GabbaDj said:
" Would you vote for an openly racist politician? "

Only if He/She hated Mexicans.


And Gays.


I'm not gay. :shrug2:



Quote:

jimbotron said:
Yes, because I voted for Obama, and as Glenn Beck sagely opined, he is "a racist" and "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people".


Are you serious?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (11/23/10 04:08 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13526592 - 11/22/10 10:27 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Let's say, for example, a politician introduces a bill to cut funding for education in a city/town that happens to be predominantly populated by minorities; if you voted for this politician before s/he introduced this bill, how likely is it that you'll vote for him/her come next election day?




Now see... that wasn't hard at all, was it?

You will notice my example politicians were federal politicians, not state or municipal ones, since your question had to do with the Constitution.


Oh yeah, I forgot, state/municipal politicians are not obliged to obey the US Constitution...:what:


Quote:

Phred said:
The Constitution does not list as one of the enumerated powers of the federal government involvement in education - that is left to the States or the People (amendment Ten). Therefore, the politicians who actually followed the Constitution were never in a position to cut educational funding to a particular state or town, since they were never allowed to hand money to a particular state or town in the first place.

However, even though the spending of taxpayer dollars by the federal government is de facto an unconstitutional use of said dollars, it is a sad reality that this abuse has been going on since the creation of the unconstitutional Department of Education by America's formerly worst (now second-worst) president, the execrable Jimmy Carter, so let's accept it as a given and look a bit further into your example.


Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Quote:

The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government, according to Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). However, where Congress has the power to implement programs, or to regulate, there are sound reasons for the national government to encourage States to become the instruments of national policy, rather than to implement the program directly. One advantage is that state implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. Another advantage is that implementation of federal programs at the state level tends to limit the growth of the national bureaucracy.

For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws. See e.g. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).





Quote:

Phred said:
You will note that even under the current unconstitutional operation of the unconstitutional Department of Education, their (the feds) involvement in disbursing the pelf ends at the state government level, not the municipal level. The feds cut an annual check to the State government in question and that's the end of it. This means of course that even if your hypothetical racist federal politician wanted to starve a particular municipality of educational funds to further his own racist ends, he could not.


My hypotheical racist politician was not necessarily a federal one, you just insisted that s/he need be on the basis that state/municipal politicians are not obliged to obey US Constitutional law (which, BTW, is, and I quote, the "supreme Law of the Land"), which is of course blatantly untrue.




Poid


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (11/23/10 04:08 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13526808 - 11/22/10 11:00 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Try to follow along, Poid.

I first pointed out that your example couldn't apply to federal politicians, since the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to involve itself in the funding of education. So right there, your example fails. I had no need to go further than that - if the "constitution" you refer to is the Constitution of the United States of America. Your example can't work at the federal level because the politician can't cut funding because there is no funding to cut if the Constitution is being followed.

If you were not referring to the US Constitution (though we all know you were), you should have made it clear from the beginning that you considered any and all constitutions - from the State level down to the municipal level - to be applicable.

Getting back to your example, then, are we talking about a Statehouse-level politician? If so, which state, specifically, and what does that state's constitution have to say about the use of state funds to finance schools in that state's individual municipalities? It is my understanding that in most states, local property taxes fund the local school boards, not state-wide taxes. In which states is this not the case?




Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13526854 - 11/22/10 11:07 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
I first pointed out that your example couldn't apply to federal politicians, since the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to involve itself in the funding of education. So right there, your example fails. I had no need to go further than that - if the "constitution" you refer to is the Constitution of the United States of America. Your example can't work at the federal level because the politician can't cut funding because there is no funding to cut if the Constitution is being followed.


You totally ignored this; why? :undecided:Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Quote:

The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government, according to Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). However, where Congress has the power to implement programs, or to regulate, there are sound reasons for the national government to encourage States to become the instruments of national policy, rather than to implement the program directly. One advantage is that state implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. Another advantage is that implementation of federal programs at the state level tends to limit the growth of the national bureaucracy.

For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws. See e.g. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).





Quote:

Phred said:
Getting back to your example, then, are we talking about a Statehouse-level politician? If so, which state, specifically, and what does that state's constitution have to say about the use of state funds to finance schools in that state's individual municipalities? It is my understanding that in most states, local property taxes fund the local school boards, not state-wide taxes. In which states is this not the case?



A Guide to California's School Finance System
Quote:

About 61% of the total comes from the state’s budget: business, corporate and personal income taxes, sales taxes, and some special taxes.




--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13526972 - 11/22/10 11:31 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

You totally ignored this; why?




Because it doesn't change the fact that the federal government is not authorized by the Constitution to involve itself in education. It is not one of the enumerated powers.

Quote:

About 61% of the total comes from the state’s budget: business, corporate and personal income taxes, sales taxes, and some special taxes.




So you're gonna pretend we weren't discussing the US Constitution, even though my very first post on the subject makes it as plain as the nose on your face that what was under discussion was the US Constitution, not California's?

A clumsy dodge indeed, but let's run with it anyway. Your next step is to show how a member of the California State Legislature  who introduces a bill to reduce one particular municipality's state educational funds but not another's is doing so in accordance with the California State Constitution.






Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13530077 - 11/23/10 04:07 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

You totally ignored this; why?




Because it doesn't change the fact that the federal government is not authorized by the Constitution to involve itself in education.


Not even if the states agree to receive funding for education? It's called cooperative federalism.


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

About 61% of the total comes from the state’s budget: business, corporate and personal income taxes, sales taxes, and some special taxes.




So you're gonna pretend we weren't discussing the US Constitution, even though my very first post on the subject makes it as plain as the nose on your face that what was under discussion was the US Constitution, not California's?


Are you phucking retarded, Phred? Your first post only mentions that you would vote for an openly racist politician if s/he governed constitutionally, nowhere did you mention anything about the US Constitution; sure, you also mentioned 3 federal politicians, but based on that, why would you expect me to assume that you were only speaking about the US Constitution, especially when this thread isn't just about federal politicians? If you only mentioned state politicians, would you expect me to assume that you were only speaking about the constitutions of the states that the said politicians represent? :imslow:


You're the one who brought up constitutionality in the first place, not me. If we're going to talk about a certain politician and discern whether s/he governs, or will govern constitutionally, and if that politician happens to be a federal one, then sure, we will be talking about the US Constitution, but only in regards to that, and any other example of a federal politician.; this doesn't mean that we cannot discuss other politicians who happen to not be federal.

Also, who gives a shit if you want this discussion to be only about the US Constitution and federal politicians? This is my fucking thread, and I've decided that we're discussing all politicians.


Quote:

Phred said:
A clumsy dodge indeed, but let's run with it anyway. Your next step is to show how a member of the California State Legislature  who introduces a bill to reduce one particular municipality's state educational funds but not another's is doing so in accordance with the California State Constitution.



California Budget Cuts Endanger Childcare of 55,000 Children
Quote:

Families of 55,000 children in California will lose childcare support at the end of next January if the state legislature does not reinstate the 256 million dollars Governor Schwarzenegger line-item-vetoed from the Calworks program in October.

The program, stage 3, subsidized low-income families who had successfully worked themselves off welfare and had not received state aid for at least two years.

Early this October, working families across the state were blindsided. Parents were give nineteen days to change childcare. Children were abruptly pulled out of daycare and after school programs. At the start of November, an Alameda district judge granted temporary relief by ordering a reprieve, but the damage to many families had already been done.

The Chinatown Community Children Center in San Francisco offers affordable daycare and language development skills for children who do not speak English. When notice of the cuts reached parents three children were immediately uprooted from the program.

The court reprieve is set to expire on Dec. 10th, and families will once again lose their aid. State and local agencies are scrambling to provide bridge money to keep students in care until the next legislature can reinstate funding. But given the political climate in Sacramento, there is no guarantee that the legislation to refund the program will pass or that the depleted local and state education funds will be payed back.

In San Francisco, 960 families have been affected by the massive cut. First-5, a publicly-funded early education agency, has promised to loan 1.4 million dollars to ensure childcare for young children in the city isn't disrupted again. Executive Director of the San Francisco First 5, Laurel Kloomok, says if this money isn't paid back at the end of January the organization will have less resources to prevent a future childcare disaster.

Disrupting childcare hurts the education of children and the careers of working parents. The real-life effects of these disruptions need to be chronicled.






Poid


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (11/23/10 04:13 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13530310 - 11/23/10 04:51 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Not even if the states agree to receive funding for education?




Not even.

Quote:

Your first post only mentions that you would vote for an openly racist politician if s/he governed constitutionally, nowhere did you mention anything about the US Constitution; sure, you also mentioned 3 federal politicians, but based on that, why would you expect me to assume that you were only speaking about the US Constitution...




See bolded part. Did I mention three state politicians? Did I mention three municipal politicians? Why, no... no I didn't.

Quote:

Families of 55,000 children in California will lose childcare support at the end of next January if the state legislature does not reinstate the 256 million dollars Governor Schwarzenegger line-item-vetoed from the Calworks program in October.




What is the point of providing this? Is it your contention that cutting back on a state-run program due to financial necessity is an example of racism?







Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Phred]
    #13530357 - 11/23/10 04:57 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Not even if the states agree to receive funding for education?




Not even.


So what you're telling me is that you believe cooperative federalism is unconstitutional? Can you please provide the clause in the Constitution which you believe forbids it, and your own interpretation of how it forbids it?


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Your first post only mentions that you would vote for an openly racist politician if s/he governed constitutionally, nowhere did you mention anything about the US Constitution; sure, you also mentioned 3 federal politicians, but based on that, why would you expect me to assume that you were only speaking about the US Constitution...




See bolded part. Did I mention three state politicians? Did I mention three municipal politicians? Why, no... no I didn't.


So fucking what? We're not only talking about those three politicians--do you really think this thread is only about those three politicians? What on Earth gave you that idea? :cuckoo:


Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Families of 55,000 children in California will lose childcare support at the end of next January if the state legislature does not reinstate the 256 million dollars Governor Schwarzenegger line-item-vetoed from the Calworks program in October.




What is the point of providing this? Is it your contention that cutting back on a state-run program due to financial necessity is an example of racism?


It could be that the state politicians decided to cut back on state-run programs that benefited certain races instead of cutting back on other such programs that benefited other races.

Or do you believe that this isn't possible?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
Re: Would you vote for an openly racist politician? [Re: Poid]
    #13530444 - 11/23/10 05:13 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

So what you're telling me is that you believe cooperative federalism is unconstitutional? Can you please provide the clause in the Constitution which you believe forbids it, and your own interpretation of how it forbids it?




This request indicates why it was necessary for me to ask you to provide an example. You don't understand how the Constitution works. You have it exactly backwards.

Quote:

We're not only talking about those three politicians--do you really think this thread is only about those three politicians? What on Earth gave you that idea?




What on earth gave you the idea that we were talking about any constitution other than the US Constitution? Especially since at least 99.9% of the posts in this forum from the day it came into existence containing the phrases "the constitution" or "unconstitutional" or "constitutionality" are not referring to the Albanian constitution or the constitution of the Lion's Club Local Chapter 3442 in Bugscuffle Bottoms, Arkansas, but the US Constitution.

Quote:

It could be that the state politicians decided to cut back on state-run programs that benefited certain races instead of cutting back on other such programs that benefited other races.




Are you saying that is the case with the example you provided? Because I read no indication the program mentioned in that piece is limited to Californians of any particular race.









Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Why would anyone NOT vote 3rd party??
( 1 2 3 all )
LearyfanS 3,457 57 12/20/02 02:21 PM
by silversoul7
* to those that vote based on tax cuts
( 1 2 3 all )
1stimer 2,083 40 07/14/03 02:11 PM
by DoctorJ
* Lott is a racist
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Buddha5254 3,802 78 12/19/02 07:42 AM
by silversoul7
* why vote? uki 1,938 17 10/30/04 11:51 AM
by Viaggio
* Liberal politicians hate those uppity blacks. luvdemshrooms 553 1 11/03/03 07:24 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* fuck bush and kerry...vote nader!!!
( 1 2 all )
ABBAZABA 3,869 39 06/23/04 11:40 AM
by Ancalagon
* Am I a racist
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Ripple 5,425 92 01/08/03 03:09 PM
by Phluck
* To Americans here who don't vote:
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,836 39 03/14/03 04:32 PM
by Innvertigo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,416 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:
ElevationChemicals.com - Reagent Test Kits
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.051 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 17 queries.