U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-31-2018, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 14,266,872 times
Reputation: 7950

Advertisements

A local conservative host named Todd Herman is fond of saying, "where there's a double standard, there's a hidden agenda." It took me a while to figure that one out, but this is a good example. Why does the left, including Barack Obama, accept a guy like Sharpton into their bosom despite his lengthy history of inappropriate words and actions?


They accept him because there is a hidden agenda. In the case of Sharpton, his agenda is his bank account. In the case of Barack Obama and other left wingers, their agenda is that they don't want forward progress towards MLK's dream. They benefit politically from continued racial division. And Sharpton is useful in advancing that agenda. My hope is that as time goes on, more Democrats will figure that out.

 
Old 05-31-2018, 04:31 PM
 
Location: California
4,554 posts, read 5,467,791 times
Reputation: 9608
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
A local conservative host named Todd Herman is fond of saying, "where there's a double standard, there's a hidden agenda." It took me a while to figure that one out, but this is a good example. Why does the left, including Barack Obama, accept a guy like Sharpton into their bosom despite his lengthy history of inappropriate words and actions?


They accept him because there is a hidden agenda. In the case of Sharpton, his agenda is his bank account. In the case of Barack Obama and other left wingers, their agenda is that they don't want forward progress towards MLK's dream. They benefit politically from continued racial division. And Sharpton is useful in advancing that agenda. My hope is that as time goes on, more Democrats will figure that out.
You give the dems far too much credit to be able to figure it out.
 
Old 05-31-2018, 04:38 PM
 
26,532 posts, read 17,292,800 times
Reputation: 10421
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee View Post
"if it weren't for the dems, the kkk probably would never had existed"

My comment was aimed at an action that the dems had done more than 100 years ago, which was the founding of the kkk. There was nothing in my post that even hinted to current day dems, or repubs for that matter. Are you seriously trying to deny that it was the dems who had founded the kkk? wow!


Suuure
So you admit that it was the equivalent to the current day GOP that gave birth to the KKK and White Suprmamcy prior to the two partys switching stances Okay...good to know you get it.

Quote:
How many ways do those on the right...
In the above, please explain how "those" does not equate to "collectively?"
 
Old 05-31-2018, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
22,889 posts, read 16,262,779 times
Reputation: 12799
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144 View Post
How do you know what I thought about this? Ivanka doesn't need to enrich her family, they are already rich.
So she doesn’t need those trademarks she was just awarded in China?
Why’d she request them then?

“On Sunday, China granted the first daughter’s company final approval for its 13th trademark in the last three months, trademark office records show. Over the same period, the Chinese government has granted Ivanka Trump’s company provisional approval for another eight trademarks, which can be finalized if no objections are raised during a three-month comment period.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ths/649549002/

Personally, I agree that she is rich enough to be able to spend the rest of her life doing public works a la Eleanor Roosevelt, but apparently she does still feel that there’s enrichment to be had.
Them’s that got and all that.



I’ve been on this board a long time.
After a while, one knows which side of the aisle certain posters are strolling along.
Far too few on the other side ever expressed the least bit of disgust at the “ape in heels” and similar insults that were bandied about during the Obama administration.
Lots of the same sort of deflection and defense that we see in this thread though.

Of course if you have actively defended Mrs. Obama and/or Mrs. Biden or even Ms Jarrett against those sorts of slurs on this board, I genuinely apologize for my assumption.

 
Old 05-31-2018, 04:52 PM
 
Location: My House
34,590 posts, read 28,952,710 times
Reputation: 25573
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Jarrett is whiter than Rosanne. Not many Conservatives even knew her ancestry.
I sure didn't. She looks lily white to me.
Whatever.

Roseanne didn't think she was white.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
 
Old 05-31-2018, 04:53 PM
 
Location: My House
34,590 posts, read 28,952,710 times
Reputation: 25573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrw-500 View Post
Speaking of Twitter, there's some scans of her retweets posted on another forum(did the NY Times saw these retweets?) and one guy mentionned if they fired Roseanne for a racist tweet, why they hired a child molester?
So, since they hired this person for who knows what reason, they should now not cancel Roseanne's show or something?

How is this in ANY way relevant to this discussion?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
 
Old 05-31-2018, 04:54 PM
 
Location: My House
34,590 posts, read 28,952,710 times
Reputation: 25573
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
I am not a fan of this obnoxious low class woman, but I agree with you.

Plus, wasn't she a liberal? LOL

Anyway, there is a thread couple of days ago, some posters said Trump supporters deserve to be discriminated against.

There are people on BOTH sides choose to hate for no reasons in my opinion. So I agree with what you said here.
What? No. She's been an alt-right conspiracy nut for a very long time.

I guess she was somewhat into women's rights and such in the 90s, but I didn't like her then, either.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
 
Old 05-31-2018, 04:57 PM
 
Location: My House
34,590 posts, read 28,952,710 times
Reputation: 25573
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
Not true -- I do not support Trump but don't think everyone who votes for him is a racist.

Some liberals may say conservatives are racists.
But some conservatives say some pretty nasty things about liberals.


Ironically, folks who object to the sweeping generalizations often then make their own to label a whole group.
Me, either. I mean, yeah... he was pretty much the racist citizen's candidate of choice, but that surely does not mean ALL of his supporters are racists. Or that even MOST of them are.

He, however, has said and done some really questionable things that one could at the very least call prejudicial, so anyone who voted for him had to be willing to overlook those things.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
 
Old 05-31-2018, 04:58 PM
 
Location: My House
34,590 posts, read 28,952,710 times
Reputation: 25573
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineVA View Post
Yep, and done by the person you are responding to.

Simply, ABC did not like Roseanne's tweet.
Most people agreed that her tweet was in poor taste.
"Liberals" are not "mortified."
Most normal people just think that Roseanne is a loudmouthed a-hole from way back and the company that employs her doesn't want to employ her anymore. Their choice. She doesn't represent them. Just like the woman who flipped off Trump who lost her job.

It's rather sweeping to group people who don't like Roseanne's idiocy into a hive-like demographic labeled "liberals."
I saw quite a few of my more conservative friends that I am pretty sure voted for Trump complaining about Roseanne's tweet and how inappropriate it was.

I think this has united a lot of people in their disgust with this sort of behavior, really.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
 
Old 05-31-2018, 05:00 PM
 
Location: My House
34,590 posts, read 28,952,710 times
Reputation: 25573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine View Post
Meanwhile, Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a "feckless c*nt" on national television and the nation just goes on with its day.
Pretty sure that if Roseanne had called VJ that, people might have complained, but her show would still be on the air.

There's a difference between being rude and saying racist crap.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top