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.
Then why did you make them in response to a racial thread?
Because I was responding to a post about socialists in a thread about racists. Try going back through the links and reading for yourself. And it would be nice if you did that before you attacked next time.
Because I was responding to a post about socialists in a thread about racists. Try going back through the links and reading for yourself. And it would be nice if you did that before you attacked next time.
I could tell you to take your own advice about attacking, but you won't.
The question still stands, even though in a thread about racism, making your comments and then claiming that you meant nothing about racism is, at best, stupid. If you want to post a family history, fine. In another thread. But don't think you will not get called on it in a thread of this nature when you try to put it out there to support what you consider to be your point.
I don't have a definition. I use the ones in the dictionaries.
Quote:
Neither, but because what you meant is obvious. You just let it slip out.
No, you read into it.
Quote:
You do know the definition of bias, don't you? Stating a preference in your opinion to one side or the other. That is exactly what you do in your statement re: "birthers".
Ah, yeah.....not quite the correct use of "bias". "Bias" is a slant. I'm not biased or slanted in my opinion of birthers. I'm flat saying they are stupid, gullible, nuts or racist. No room for a slant or "bias" there, not at all.
I don't have a definition. I use the ones in the dictionaries.
No, you read into it.
Ah, yeah.....not quite the correct use of "bias". "Bias" is a slant. I'm not biased or slanted in my opinion of birthers. I'm flat saying they are stupid, gullible, nuts or racist. No room for a slant or "bias" there, not at all.
Perhaps you should fine-tune yours a bit.....
Can you say "wiggle, squirm and spin"? You are caught and trying to attack your way out of it. Typical liberal (my bias).
The question still stands, even though in a thread about racism, making your comments and then claiming that you meant nothing about racism is, at best, stupid. If you want to post a family history, fine. In another thread. But don't think you will not get called on it in a thread of this nature when you try to put it out there to support what you consider to be your point.
Oh, read the damn thread, realize you're wrong and move on.
Predos, I must admit that I am confused about your rant. Would you specifically clarify what you are attributing to Sagran? I have not found it in the thread.
most of the people I have heard speak against Obama seem to always employ the "N" word so seems in many cases in fact they are racist.
Seems many want to oppose him not for any reason but sound bites they have been feed from Fox entertainment. When you can't validate your complaint it would appear to have no validity which would lead one to think the opposition is for another reason.... Could it be the white majority simply doesn't like him because he is black?
It may be as simple as many of the complainers are in fact racists. But those that wish to sugar coat it never want to admit what their dislike is about. Sadly I havent met the person that objects that is done for nothing other than a political difference.
Seems some want to throw stones at him because he has spent some money, yet those same people never made as much as a whimper when Regan or Bush did it. each took us in to numbers never before heard of in national debt forums. It isn't like when a new president comes in he can turn the tap off and the debt stops flowing. We were on a path that was leading us to well over 10 T in debt (Bush took us to 10T). So Lets look at this in order. The cronies of the Bush administration caused issues in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that Wall street could get into the marketing of junk notes and they did it like no other. starting back in 2001. Then as the notes are going dreadfully wrong and these note holders are jacking the rates and terms to the sky, people start loosing their homes and the river of Red runs deep. Now you add the failure to bail out Lehman Brothers... also under Bush, and the financial markets implode.
So you are a new president, you are faced with the worse housing crisis, second worse employment crisis, greatest loss of businesses, with the largest American companies ready to fold, oh and you have the financial institutions ready to dry up an blow away. So under the republicans bailout packages were begun.
YOu are a new president tasked with stimulating the economy, saving the financial markets, competing at a world level and stimulating jobs.... What do you do?
He pumps money in the car companies to keep them afloat, with massive strings attached to the money, He continues the banking bailout, He stimulates the housing market, He requires lenders to mitigate loans....
So what different would you have wanted? Some say let the companies that can't survive fail... ok and the depression sets in 50 % unemployment, no jobs, no housing market, no car market... good choice?
Now that said, I did not vote for Obama as I wanted real change Obama and McCain would have given us the same thing, except we have an intelligent VP. Other than that no change in the war, the financial choices were pretty much a no choice item. we would not have had a national health care plan. So the only difference is Biden vs Palin and health care. oh and a president whose party doesnt control the Senate.
I think Nader would have brought the war to an end. I think he would be pointing us towards energy independence, Now the Chinese will be the leaders in this new industry. So I did not vote against Obama but for Nader. I don't think a national health care is our problem but rather the stangle hold the MD's and pharmaceuticals have on health care. Change that and things will get better.
So, I guess I don't see Obama's choices as bad for the ones he has made and I don't see it remotely an issue of his race.
If he is 1/2 white and 1/2 black why is he associated with the black side more? he is equal on both isn't he?
I hope he is successful at helping the economy as it is my a$$ in the sling if he doesn't So far things seem to be getting better and much faster than that stupid trickle down theory that didn't work under Regan.
And your support for this statement is what? Bear in mind, your opinion doesn't count.
First of all, I said the anti-war protesters did not turn into conservative Republicans as a sort of joke. However, none of the anti-war protesters I know have become conservative Repubs. That is not opinion, it is fact.
I voted for Obama (I am white and Jewish) but I do not assume that people who oppose him are racist. I am sure a few are, but I think partisan rancor has much more to do with it than his race.
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.
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.
