Liberal Race Baiting page 6

140 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Here’s a nice tasteful read about how blacks supporting Romney were treated by libs: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/08/actress-stacey-dash-endorses-romney-liberals-fling-racist-insults

Lib =/= liberals.

Also, there’s the obligatory part about how Twitter and the Internet in general isn’t always host to the most well-thought out and sincere opinions, sometimes there’s just flat-out trolling, in which case you can’t take the posts seriously.

And like below, I do like some of the posts. Well, not the one’s that are basically “Libs be E.V.I.L,” obviously but that goes for everyone who does something similar.

Here’s a nice tasteful read about the history of the KKK, an organization by and for Democrats: http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/the-racist-bloody-truth-about-democrats/

Personally, I like the comments more than the article itself, partially because some unabbashedly state Repub’s are full of shit.

The author of that article, though, seems almost like he’s being a stereotype more than anything else, in regards to some of the things he said in some of his articles.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
If i would say conservatives are racist(or have been racist a long time now). Then thats okay because more than 20% are in fact racist?

No, because that means that 4/5 of conservatives aren’t. If 50% + 1 of conservatives are racist, then you have a point.

Your not making sense. 50% + 1 would be a majority. You have stated that MyTie is not wrong in saying that “liberals have slammed republicans for racism”, even though he did not mean to say or imply that a majority of the liberals have been doing so.

Also your math is wrong. I said more than 1/5 are racist. That does not mean that the other 4/5 are not racist, for all i know it could be that 2,5/5 + 1 are racist.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by MyTie:

Here’s a nice tasteful read about how blacks supporting Romney were treated by libs: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/08/actress-stacey-dash-endorses-romney-liberals-fling-racist-insults

Lib =/= liberals.

Also, there’s the obligatory part about how Twitter and the Internet in general isn’t always host to the most well-thought out and sincere opinions, sometimes there’s just flat-out trolling, in which case you can’t take the posts seriously.

And like below, I do like some of the posts. Well, not the one’s that are basically “Libs be E.V.I.L,” obviously but that goes for everyone who does something similar.

Here’s a nice tasteful read about the history of the KKK, an organization by and for Democrats: http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/the-racist-bloody-truth-about-democrats/

Personally, I like the comments more than the article itself, partially because some unabbashedly state Repub’s are full of shit.

The author of that article, though, seems almost like he’s being a stereotype more than anything else, in regards to some of the things he said in some of his articles.

Thanks for your comments.

If Lib =/= liberals, then what is a “lib”? I thought it was short for liberal.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

If Lib =/= liberals, then what is a “lib”? I thought it was short for liberal.

It’s what happens when you run ad-blocker while someone ad-libs their line.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by MyTie:

If Lib =/= liberals, then what is a “lib”? I thought it was short for liberal.

It’s what happens when you run ad-blocker while someone ad-libs their line.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by MyTie:

If Lib =/= liberals, then what is a “lib”? I thought it was short for liberal.

It’s what happens when you run ad-blocker while someone ad-libs their line.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

When you take away or “block” the “ad” part of the ward “ad-lib” you get “lib.”

I’m being clever, dammit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:I’m being clever, dammit.

Too clever for me.

 
Flag Post
Your not making sense. 50% + 1 would be a majority. You have stated that MyTie is not wrong in saying that “liberals have slammed republicans for racism”, even though he did not mean to say or imply that a majority of the liberals have been doing so.

You’ve missed my point. My Tie said that liberals are slamming conservatives. What he meant is that liberals, not other ideological groups are doing the slamming (at least that’s how I interpreted the OP). He never meant that most liberals race bait. You asked if it would be ok to say that conservatives are racists since 20% don’t agree with interracial marriage. I said no because it isn’t a majority since 4/5 aren’t racist.

Also your math is wrong. I said more than 1/5 are racist. That does not mean that the other 4/5 are not racist, for all i know it could be that 2,5/5 + 1 are racist.

You’re right, we don’t. But I think we can assume that the number is closer to 1/5 than it is to 1/2.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by MyTie:

If Lib =/= liberals, then what is a “lib”? I thought it was short for liberal.

It’s what happens when you run ad-blocker while someone ad-libs their line.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

When you take away or “block” the “ad” part of the ward “ad-lib” you get “lib.”

I’m being clever, dammit.

If it makes you feel better, I chuckled.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Your not making sense. 50% + 1 would be a majority. You have stated that MyTie is not wrong in saying that “liberals have slammed republicans for racism”, even though he did not mean to say or imply that a majority of the liberals have been doing so.

You’ve missed my point. My Tie said that liberals are slamming conservatives. What he meant is that liberals, not other ideological groups are doing the slamming (at least that’s how I interpreted the OP). He never meant that most liberals race bait. You asked if it would be ok to say that conservatives are racists since 20% don’t agree with interracial marriage. I said no because it isn’t a majority since 4/5 aren’t racist.

Not very convincing since A) other groups than liberals make claims of racism against conservatives and B) conservatives likewise make claims that others have a racist agenda and are being racist.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/26/coulter-liberals-cant-break-200-year-racism-habit/

http://de.sodahead.com/united-states/are-liberals-who-believe-that-voter-id-laws-hurt-black-people-racist/question-3148515/

The 2nd one is a clearer example for those who don´t see exactly where and how coulter makes false claims of racism.

Also your math is wrong. I said more than 1/5 are racist. That does not mean that the other 4/5 are not racist, for all i know it could be that 2,5/5 + 1 are racist.

You’re right, we don’t. But I think we can assume that the number is closer to 1/5 than it is to 1/2.

Not really. I think the number of people who are racist but would claim to (and possibly do) have no problem with interracial marriage is higher than the number of People that admit that they have a problem with it.

 
Flag Post
Not very convincing since A) other groups than liberals make claims of racism against conservatives and B) conservatives likewise make claims that others have a racist agenda and are being racist.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/26/coulter-liberals-cant-break-200-year-racism-habit/

http://de.sodahead.com/united-states/are-liberals-who-believe-that-voter-id-laws-hurt-black-people-racist/question-3148515/

The 2nd one is a clearer example for those who don´t see exactly where and how coulter makes false claims of racism.

You’re still missing my point and I can’t think of any other ways to make it clearer.

 
Flag Post

Please allow me to approach this issue from a new perspective….going all the way back to 2005 when it appears the term race baiting became a complete distortion of its original meaning by conservatives eager to address the questioning by “liberals” of the GOP’s ideological stance on racial issue.

It is my understanding of the area MyTie is trying to address isn’t so much “race-baiting” as it is playing the race card.

“Race – Card – In the less critical sense, the phrase is commonly used in two contexts. In the first, and more common context, it alleges that someone has deliberately and falsely accused another person of being a racist in order to gain some sort of advantage. In the second context, it refers to someone exploiting prejudice against another race for political or some other advantage.”

I’m of the opinion that Johnny (as well as others, including me) is trying to demonstrate that any “race-baiting” is likely done simply because of the “where there is smoke..there is usually fire” aspect of the racial issues associated w/ conservatism.

That last link gives this at the end: “By the way, I love to Flyfish…..and the one thing that I learned about that sport is that you need to use the right kind of “Bait” to catch a fish…..the fish will only bite that particular bait if he is predisposed to do so…..I think the same applies to Race-Baiting….its like fishing…if you don’t like the bait…..don’t bite it!"

NOW, give this a look and see how it sets up my next point.

In life, and esp. in politics & business, ppl are “competitive” over a lot of things for a lot of reasons in all manner of ways. Depending on whose “side” ya’re listening to OR taking, ya’re very likely to see someone “crossing-the-line” of reason in how they “play” the competition game.

This is what MyTie is trying to show here w/ his thread: that liberals “race-bait”.
Well, as my above posting shows….we really need a better contextual base line to be sure we all are in the same stream using the same bait for the same fish. I like the “race-card” definition much better for what it is that MyTie is trying to hang on “liberals”.

Anyway….as I said before: do “liberals” play the race-card? SURE. Is it ALL “liberals” who do it? HELL NO…duh. Do we even have a clue, beyond complete subjectivity & context, of who, what, where, when, why any of the racial issues are touched upon? It becomes a monkey-shit-flinging free-4-all that NO ONE will ever be able to dig deep enough to find the truth of it all.

AND, just like Danae says in the comic….there is ALWAYS the “small-print” disclaimer one can fall back on when enough shit is shoveled away an a modicum of truth is found. Plus, there is the ol’: you didn’t understand what I said. Or, I wasn’t doing a good job of saying it. Or, you put words in my mouth. Or, blah…blah…blah ad nauseum.

 
Flag Post

{{sorry, guys…I had to make two posts so the links would present right. My capability w/ tech is very limited.}}

This manner of saying shit long & loud enough that ppl eventually deem it worthy of consideration is used by all of us in one way or another from time to time in differing situations. Politicians do it greatly because it works greatly. Both side do it. Deal with it. That’s life.

This idiotic shit-talk about “race-baiting” or race-card-playing by liberals would best be handled by “conservative” if they stopped yelling that it is happening and actually respond to the smoke by finding the fire and doing something constructive about putting it out.

BUT, as we all know….currently, the GOP is burning while the extremists are fiddling (around w/ the ideology planks of the party). Sadly, those who are addressing the racial issues of these extremists fail (just as MyTie did early on in his thread) to be explicit about who they mean when in their remarks. So, the criticism inappropriately ends up being a “one-size-fits-all” unfortunate rebuke of a large segment of ppl who are in no way racist.

One can apply this scenario to most any issue. It’s called by many names: generalities…hyperbole…streeeetching the truth (just a weee little…white lie). The form used is whatever is needed at the moment to yield the greatest results. Clever ppl are so adept at it that they can run the shit-gauntlet and come out clean as a whistle. This is why we are so suspect of politicians….why we call them “slick”,,,,shit won’t stick to them.

So, as I tried to point out earlier, all the shouting shit is simply a waste of time, energy, & other resources in respect to ACTUALLY SOLVING THE PROBLEMS.

It appears that race-baiting isn’t solely an American event. Even England gets into the fray of it.

 
Flag Post

Socioeconomic class is the new race gap. Neither party is doing anything to help the poor.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

Socioeconomic class is the new race gap. Neither party is doing anything to help the poor.

Yup, it is simpler put as being “class warfare”….rich vs. poor, w/ the rich winning handily…of course.

Ya might like what I had to say on this a few days back when the subject was Obamacare:

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Ya know, they” say the same fucking bullshit nonsense when the MINIMUM wage is raised.
A hard kick in the nutsack to all those who piss, whine, moan, wail, sob about SHARING this country’s great wealth (wealth, by the way, that also IS CREATED BY the working poor) w/ those who have no REAL, SENISBLE health care.


All this crap about Obamacare is just the new bigotry.
Ya can’t hate niggers,,,,
ya can’t hate faggots,,,
ya can’t hate Jews,,,
ya can’t hate Pollocks,,,


SO, let’s hate those fucking POOR PEOPLE who ought to be pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. YEAH. They are the cause of all the problems in America. Let’s blame them.


Sound familiar?