RE: Quote of the Week (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DomKen -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 9:21:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Who said anything about "officially". Although it isn't hard to establish that the founders are bigots.

Dale Robertson (owner of teaparty.org)
http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader

Dick Armey (Head of FreedomWorks i.e. creator of the tea party movement)
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/02/opinion/journal-closet-clout.html

So I assume that the you will now acknowledge being wrong.


Dream on.

I requested "official".  I'm tired of you blowhards on here spouting off your biased opinions and expecting everyone else to take them as fact.

Actually you just threw out official as a non sequitur. It was easy enough to show so I did so but it wasn't the topic.

The topic was whether a significant plurality of tea party supporters are racists and if that racism is the driving force behind their support of the tea party movement. You couldn't deny those facts so you tried to change the subject.




DomKen -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 9:23:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy
Just another piece of shit racist tea bagger like Rand Paul. I know only 77 people follow Mark Williams as well, right Treasure?

Give it a rest. the movement is sponsored by racist fucks.

Rand Paul ......He says that he does support the civil rights acts but doesn't want to have government getting into the affairs of private business.

Of all of the analogies he could have used to prove this point he chooses the civil rights movement?

Questioner: But...?

Rand Paul: (nervous laugh) You had to ask me the "but." um.. I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind.

Questioner: And then it was extended by most to most localities to include all... Would you be in favor of just local--

Rand Paul: On a local basis it might be a little different. The thing is I would speak out in favor of it. (pause) I mean, I look at the speeches of Martin Luther King, and I tell you I become emotional watching the speeches of Martin Luther King. I love it because he was a transformational figure... [...] (goes on to talk about Martin Luther King for a few moments)

Questioner: But under your philosophy it would be okay for Dr. King to not be served at the counter at Woolworths?

Rand Paul: I would not go to that Woolworth's, and I would stand up in my community and say it's abhorrent. um... But the hard part, and this is the hard part about believing in freedom is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example, you to, for example-- most good defenders will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things, and we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom (sic) and I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment, so I'm sure you understand people can say bad things. It's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society we will tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people we publicly criticize that and don't belong to those groups or associate with those people.

Questioner: But it's different with race, certainly a hundred years, discrimination based on race was codified under federal law.

Rand Paul: Exactly, it was institutionalize and that's why we had to end all of the institutional racism in um.. I was in favor of completely of that .
..

Anybody ever heard of Pickrick's Cafeteria? What about Lester Maddox? Rand Paul just put himself in support of Lester Maddox and Pickrick's.




TheHeretic -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 9:31:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Anybody ever heard of Pickrick's Cafeteria? What about Lester Maddox? Rand Paul just put himself in support of Lester Maddox and Pickrick's.



Did he put himself in support, Ken, or did he question the methodology of addressing the problem? Using the same logic you seem to be applying, I could say that you support rapists and muderers because you don't think they should be executed by the state.




DomKen -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 9:39:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Anybody ever heard of Pickrick's Cafeteria? What about Lester Maddox? Rand Paul just put himself in support of Lester Maddox and Pickrick's.



Did he put himself in support, Ken, or did he question the methodology of addressing the problem? Using the same logic you seem to be applying, I could say that you support rapists and muderers because you don't think they should be executed by the state.

Bullshit.

Paul quite clearly stated that he thinks private businesses should be allowe to discriminate. Which is what Lester Maddox stood for.

I believe murderers and rapists should be punished I just don't believe the state should be killing anyone. Nice try at a non sequitur though.





TheHeretic -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 9:46:48 AM)

The only thing I'm looking to derail, Ken, is your effort to turn Rachel's nice "gotcha" of luring Paul into a philosophical discussion where he said something un-pc, into a broad brush you can use to splatter bullshit as widely as possible.

The analogy is apt, and stands.




DomKen -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 11:52:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

The only thing I'm looking to derail, Ken, is your effort to turn Rachel's nice "gotcha" of luring Paul into a philosophical discussion where he said something un-pc, into a broad brush you can use to splatter bullshit as widely as possible.

The analogy is apt, and stands.

Ms Maddow didn't do anything but request a clarification of the videotaped statement he made to a local newspapers editorial board. That is not a 'gotcha.' Or maybe you think asking for a clarification of such an outrageous statement, giving him the chance to retract it, is somehow unacceptable.

It comes down to this simple fact, on two seperate occasions Rand Paul made clear he supports Lester Maddox's position.




TheHeretic -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 12:35:49 PM)

So let's be clear here, Ken. Are you suggesting that Lester Maddox invented the concept of property rights, and that anyone who believes in those, including Paul, is therefore a racist supporter of Maddox, or are you running on the theory that anyone who ever espouses a value is automatically stained by anyone else who abuses and twists that value to suit their own hate-filled agenda? Feel free to elaborate.

Wow. The way I support free spech, I must be eligible for every label in the book, huh?




TreasureKY -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 12:39:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

If you want to discuss something then do it honestly.

Somehow I don't think anyone has made a formal study of teabaggers, though I would think that would be a psychologist's dream.

But there is enough anecdotal evidence to conclude that the tea party events draw a disproportionate number of those who appear to have race as one of their primary issues.

As far as backing down, I've always stated the same, which I've restated in the last sentence.


Honestly... you can continue to sputter out your biased views all you want, but it won't make them come true.




TreasureKY -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 12:47:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Actually you just threw out official as a non sequitur. It was easy enough to show so I did so but it wasn't the topic.

The topic was whether a significant plurality of tea party supporters are racists and if that racism is the driving force behind their support of the tea party movement. You couldn't deny those facts so you tried to change the subject.


Actually, I used the word "officially" for the specific reason of requesting some legitimate proof of your claims outside of your own jacked-up opinion.

You've continually proved you cannot provide it.

If you're so concerned about staying on topic and you feel I've strayed, then just don't bother responding to me.   [8|]




DomKen -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 1:41:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So let's be clear here, Ken. Are you suggesting that Lester Maddox invented the concept of property rights, and that anyone who believes in those, including Paul, is therefore a racist supporter of Maddox, or are you running on the theory that anyone who ever espouses a value is automatically stained by anyone else who abuses and twists that value to suit their own hate-filled agenda? Feel free to elaborate.

Wow. The way I support free spech, I must be eligible for every label in the book, huh?

No. I'm stating that Lester Maddox was the most prominent opponent of the specific title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prior to Rand Paul.




Owner59 -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 2:13:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I disagree with the article's premise that the Tea Party is defined by racism.  IMO the Tea Party is defined by anti-DC sentiment, especially regarding government spending, although I will admit that it does have a tinge of racism.

After having been to several tea party events it is quite clear to me that the driving force behind the movement is racism. A significant portion, a majority it appeared, of attendees at the events I witnessed were birthers which is also a fairly blatantly racist movement.


bull crap.



I  too call bullshit, ain't it funny that the people who cry racism every time someone speaks out against the Messiah, are the most blatant, loony lefties on the planet?

I've attended four events here and in Chicago, and Obama's race wasn't brought up one single time, by anyone I spoke with...Go figure.[8|]


Sorry subrob,sanity,PA has acknowledged that the movement has been co-opted by the bigots and every other radical part of the republican/conservative spectrum.That`s just known fact.We remember the guns,the signs,watering of the tree of liberty code words,death panels,etc.Normal people`s memories aren`t as short as the neo-cons.

And PA hunk is the only here with any integrity at all because he`s felt this way for years and years,not just since Obama was elected.And PA is right,this is about throw the bums out,like we did with bush less than two years ago.PA was w/ the tea-party long before sore loser republicns crashed the party.

No hiding behind PAhunk,you cons.PA resembles the GOP about as much as Obama does.

And PA is right,this is about throw the bums out,like we did with bush less than two years ago.







domiguy -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/22/2010 4:06:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

The only thing I'm looking to derail, Ken, is your effort to turn Rachel's nice "gotcha" of luring Paul into a philosophical discussion where he said something un-pc, into a broad brush you can use to splatter bullshit as widely as possible.

The analogy is apt, and stands.


Rich, here is the problem.

He could have used any analogy he chose to illustrate that gov't should stay away form the interest of private enterprise.

He used the civil rights movement and the right to discriminate to prove this point.

You and I both understand what it is that Rand is trying to communicate.

The problem with the teabaggers is they seem to have a real disconnect with social issues and they seem to far routinely trounce over the line to at least displaying racial intolerance if not outright racism and bigotry.

All that one can be certain is that Rand Paul was an idiot in his response to Rachel. She didn't "get him." He got himself...

Those are his words. Poorly chosen? Absolutely. He chose them he has to live with the consequences. But there is a running theme and he is just the latest to remind people of that fact.

I doubt that Rand Paul is a racist, he is insensitive and he surely needs to think out his responses before he opens his mouth in the future.

How could anyone be so dumb to use that, the stopping of businesses discriminatory practices, as the analogy for the gov'ts interference in private business?

The more you think about it the more you have to question what type of a man is Rand Paul?


What about the "Monkey God" guy? What a complete tool. Another Teabagger big whig asshat.

It is truly baffling.




domiguy -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/23/2010 9:42:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


Once again *sigh* it's like explaining things to a 3 year old.

A certificate of live birth is NOT a birth certificate, that phony document Obama submitted doesn't list a hospital where he was born, the delivery doctor, or other items a real birth certificate lists, and seeing how Obama's grand parents lived in Hawaii, I really can see why the local newspaper would announce the birth of their grandson, that's what local newspapers do.




Idiot, lying, douchetrap birther...Piece of crap.




heartcream -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/23/2010 9:56:25 AM)

Rue Paul?




domiguy -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/23/2010 12:00:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


Honestly... you can continue to sputter out your biased views all you want, but it won't make them come true.



Person after person who is in the public eye and identified themselves as being a teabagger has shown themselves to be at least racially insensitive if not totally intolerant.

In lieu of trying to pretend it does not exist you should be acknowledging it.

But you can continue your uneducated sputterings. They seem to fly in the face of what is actually transpiring within the teabagger movement.




TreasureKY -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/23/2010 1:22:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Honestly... you can continue to sputter out your biased views all you want, but it won't make them come true.


Person after person who is in the public eye and identified themselves as being a teabagger has shown themselves to be at least racially insensitive if not totally intolerant.

In lieu of trying to pretend it does not exist you should be acknowledging it.


Who says I haven't acknowledged that there are some douchebags who claim to belong to the Tea Party movement?  Heck... I can identify myself to be a member of the Royal Family, if I want, but that doesn't mean the Queen is going to embrace me.

See my separate post for more information.




domiguy -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/23/2010 2:01:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Honestly... you can continue to sputter out your biased views all you want, but it won't make them come true.


Person after person who is in the public eye and identified themselves as being a teabagger has shown themselves to be at least racially insensitive if not totally intolerant.

In lieu of trying to pretend it does not exist you should be acknowledging it.


Who says I haven't acknowledged that there are some douchebags who claim to belong to the Tea Party movement?  Heck... I can identify myself to be a member of the Royal Family, if I want, but that doesn't mean the Queen is going to embrace me.

See my separate post for more information.



Who claim to belong? Are you nuts? what about Rand Paul? What about Mark Williams? They "claim" to be part of the movement?

You better reevaluate your post. It has no credibility.

You contend that Rand Paul and Mark Williams only claim to belong? treasure, try and post something of worth and intelligence in your next response if it is possible for you.

You are missing the mark of late.




Termyn8or -> RE: Quote of the Week (5/23/2010 11:04:47 PM)

FR

Fact is though, anybody with a half a brain who is in business would not limit their possible scope of clientele in such an arbitrary manner, racist or not. But that is still not the whole point. If the management of a business would actually be that stupid, what of their hiring practices ? I mean if, for example you are not going to let Black people patronize your establishment it would be quite the foregone conclusion that you would similarly discriminate in hiring practices, would it not ?

Now we have a societal impact, something tangible. "Only White folk is allowed at that bar, but I works there", that may have flew down in the old south, but how does it sound today ? So in reality, even if they hire Blacks to work at an all White club for example, do you think that Black is going to get similar pay, treatment and opportunity for advancement ? Doubtfull at best.

This is even thicker : the civil rights act also covers gender correct ? Well how would Men react to male Playboy bunnies, or waitresses at Hooters ? And there are things that have not even been brought to the table as of yet. What about a restaurant hiring only good looking waitresses ? Have a look at TV. How about Univision. It seems they want you to think there are no Hispanics with brown skin. What is on their job applications ?

This is a huge can of worms and anyone can get tripped up on it. Right now Rand is still young, and he clearly did not think very well on his feet. If they asked me about this shit I would just say "It's the law, what of it ? ". The fact that he fell into this has cost him my confidence actually, but not because of his standpoint. His standpoint should not even be known on this matter.

I'll admit that in the past some things I've done were racist or bigoted (don't start Ken, for I'll surely have your head). I have changed. But even then I was not stupid. When you are in business the only color that matters is green.

When I was in business, and actually too young for it, I knew this. I hired a Black guy for a technical position. He was qualified and his pay demands were within what I had budgeted for (for anyone) so he got the job. He was productive and competent, and punctual enough for my standards so things went well for a time.

We eventually got friendly and would hit the bars from time to time. We get to this one bar and he says "I been told about this bar, I dunno". I asked what he meant and that was he had heard the Blacks were not welcome there, with my hubris I said "Fukum, my money spends anywhere". "OK then".

Well IIRC this was a Saturday night so we closed the place, but had a surprise in the parking lot. We both got our asses kicked and I got shot in the face because I was a "Nigger lover". That is attempted murder folks and all over this ? This is all true. We were both injured very badly and really, if there had been a sign up the said "Whites Only", perhaps we would've just moved on, or if a bouncer would have asked him to leave we would leave. I would not sit in there leaving him standing outside of course, we would just move on. Actually mea culpa because this whole night of bar hopping was by my invite. But I obviously had no idea anything like this was going to happen.

Hindsight being 20/20, I should've taken him to places I know (except Felice's, you never take ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE to Felice's), and at least this would've never happened. Quickly to surmise, I was full of pith and vinegar, I was of the attitude that I go wherever I fucking want. You are with me. From his point of view he was having a couple of beers with the boss (that was me).

So where does that bring us on this issue, morally and ethically ?

T




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625