Conquer Club

AAFitz wrote:Id write more, but Im having a little santorum issue I feel I need to deal with, thats more .....pressing than this one.

Ha!

john9blue wrote:

AAFitz wrote:
I fully agree, the only reason to even mention black people is if you're under the assumption that it is they who are the only ones who are seeking money for welfare.

is it true that black people as a group are disadvantaged in our society? if so, then what is wrong with addressing them as a group?

I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength. Can I offer a hypothetical situation that runs parallel to this discussion?

In this hypothetical situation, you have sent me a PM which says that you're ok with me posting a hypothetical.

Furthermore, we have a politician, who we will cal Dick Pantorum. He is running for one of the most important political offices in the world. In this parallel situation, Mr Pantorum has been asked about his position on the bail out for bankers- a position he is known to oppose.

During his answer, however, he says that he thinks Jewish bankers should earn their own money.

If you saw that and thought, huh, this is a dude with some fairly deep-seated issues against Judaism, would that really be unreasonable? Wouldn't you also wonder why he would single out a particular group like that? Would you defend him against accusations of anti-semitism?

Symmetry wrote:
I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength. Can I offer a hypothetical situation that runs parallel to this discussion?

In this hypothetical situation, you have sent me a PM which says that you're ok with me posting a hypothetical.

Furthermore, we have a politician, who we will cal Dick Pantorum. He is running for one of the most important political offices in the world. In this parallel situation, Mr Pantorum has been asked about his position on the bail out for bankers- a position he is known to oppose.

During his answer, however, he says that he thinks Jewish bankers should earn their own money.

If you saw that and thought, huh, this is a dude with some fairly deep-seated issues against Judaism, would that really be unreasonable? Wouldn't you also wonder why he would single out a particular group like that? Would you defend him against accusations of anti-semitism?

the only reason you would post that hypothetical is if you thought i had some kind of bias towards santorum which skewed my judgment. the f*ck? really?

anyway, i'm of the opinion that the video was taken out of context. if the topic of discussion was minorities, then it would be natural for him to mention blacks. we never got to hear the question he was answering, and judging by his response and the crowd's positive reaction, the question had something to do with minorities.

that, or every person in that room was a racist- which would be the stupider assumption, but who needs critical thinking when you can play the race card?

your situation would only be comparable if someone in the crowd specifically asked about jews, AND if jews were being disproportionally benefited by welfare.

Dang, I can hear both "black people's lives" and "white people's lives"
It doesn't get more tolerant than that

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength. Can I offer a hypothetical situation that runs parallel to this discussion?

In this hypothetical situation, you have sent me a PM which says that you're ok with me posting a hypothetical.

Furthermore, we have a politician, who we will cal Dick Pantorum. He is running for one of the most important political offices in the world. In this parallel situation, Mr Pantorum has been asked about his position on the bail out for bankers- a position he is known to oppose.

During his answer, however, he says that he thinks Jewish bankers should earn their own money.

If you saw that and thought, huh, this is a dude with some fairly deep-seated issues against Judaism, would that really be unreasonable? Wouldn't you also wonder why he would single out a particular group like that? Would you defend him against accusations of anti-semitism?

the only reason you would post that hypothetical is if you thought i had some kind of bias towards santorum which skewed my judgment. the f*ck? really?

anyway, i'm of the opinion that the video was taken out of context. if the topic of discussion was minorities, then it would be natural for him to mention blacks. we never got to hear the question he was answering, and judging by his response and the crowd's positive reaction, the question had something to do with minorities.

that, or every person in that room was a racist- which would be the stupider assumption, but who needs critical thinking when you can play the race card?

your situation would only be comparable if someone in the crowd specifically asked about jews, AND if jews were being disproportionally benefited by welfare.

I posted that hypothetical in order to ask you for your reaction, and so that you would understand the points of view that you were dismissing.

The obvious next question is why you would state that his statement was about stealing:

John9Blue wrote:he said he did not want to make black people's lives better by stealing from another group.

Which is obviously a more racist statement than Santorum's original comments, and is also clearly not what he said, but, at best, your interpretation of what he said. No?

john9blue wrote:

AAFitz wrote:
I fully agree, the only reason to even mention black people is if you're under the assumption that it is they who are the only ones who are seeking money for welfare.

is it true that black people as a group are disadvantaged in our society? if so, then what is wrong with addressing them as a group?

No. As a group, black people occupy all levels of the economic and political chain and one is president.

The group that receives welfare, is the disadvantaged group of all races including blacks whites and virtually all other races.

There is one possible way that this statement was not racist however, and Im surprised no one mentioned it. If He was suggesting that our current Presidents goal, was simply to make black peoples lives better by taking it from another group, than that would simply be a critique of the current Presidents policy, and was simply lacking a few more words in its delivery. That could have been what he was trying to get at, and it is public speaking to assume every thought will be delivered perfectly is a bit much to ask. Of course, it is a stupid attack and since I am almost positive welfare does not give more money to any one race, but instead uses income and number of children as its criteria, its fairly ridiculous, but its really just a stupid thing to say then, and not overtly racist.

That being said, I don't think that was how he meant it, and I fully believe from the context he simply meant what he was suggesting and that blacks were taking money from other people and was racist and purposely so. Hell, it might even work in Iowa, who knows, but that doesn't diminish the fact that its deplorable.

Symmetry wrote:I posted that hypothetical in order to ask you for your reaction, and so that you would understand the points of view that you were dismissing.

The obvious next question is why you would state that his statement was about stealing:

John9Blue wrote:he said he did not want to make black people's lives better by stealing from another group.

Which is obviously a more racist statement than Santorum's original comments, and is also clearly not what he said, but, at best, your interpretation of what he said. No?

wait, so now i'm a racist too? you are fast with that race card.

taking money from one person and giving it to another person is stealing. whether it's right or wrong is a different question, but it is most definitely stealing. you can rewrite my previous posts without the word "stealing" and they would mean the same thing.

the race card is all they got...

which is why I don't post in these racists threads. These threads are scrapin the bottom of the barrel.

Phatscotty wrote:the race card is all they got...

which is why I don't post in these racists threads. These threads are scrapin the bottom of the barrel.

Yeah. Not like a war has ever been fought over race. It's silly to consider it when voting for a countries leader.

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:the race card is all they got...

which is why I don't post in these racists threads. These threads are scrapin the bottom of the barrel.

Yeah. Not like a war has ever been fought over race. It's silly to consider it when voting for a countries leader.

Considering that this is 2012, yes, it is VERY silly to try to trump up false charges of racism just to defeat an opponent in an election.

Haven't y'all heard? Racism was eradicated back in the 90's.

Santorum's Racist ploy must have worked with older white simple country folk...he is running neck and neck with Romney and is only one percentage point behind Ron Paul.

So which racist do you want?

Well, here are your choices:

1. He is a doctor and warned about the housing collapse 5 years before it happened.

2. He took his dead baby home and made his kids watch him play with it on the floor. Then, he took it to bed with him and his wife and slept and cuddled with it all night!

3. He believes that if black people are really good Mormon's in this life time, God will allow them to turn Caucasian. Also believes God lives on a planet that orbits the star Kolob.

So, if you are going to pick a racist...those will be your choices.

Hey don't forget, Santorum thinks the world is only 6,000 years old.

pimpdave wrote:Hey don't forget, Santorum thinks the world is only 6,000 years old.

Also, his name! His name makes me laugh every single time I read or hear it.

Thanks, Dan Savage.

Speaking of Dan Savage, maybe his threat to give "Rick" a new meaning if Mr. Frothy Mixture attacked the gays during this campaign, is the reason why Ricky has turned his attention to the Blacks.

Homophobia gets his name re-purposed. I wonder what racism will do for him.

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I posted that hypothetical in order to ask you for your reaction, and so that you would understand the points of view that you were dismissing.

The obvious next question is why you would state that his statement was about stealing:

John9Blue wrote:he said he did not want to make black people's lives better by stealing from another group.

Which is obviously a more racist statement than Santorum's original comments, and is also clearly not what he said, but, at best, your interpretation of what he said. No?

wait, so now i'm a racist too? you are fast with that race card.

taking money from one person and giving it to another person is stealing. whether it's right or wrong is a different question, but it is most definitely stealing. you can rewrite my previous posts without the word "stealing" and they would mean the same thing.

Obviously, your statement is wrong. Taking money from one person and giving it to another is pretty much the purpose of money.

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:
wait, so now i'm a racist too? you are fast with that race card.

taking money from one person and giving it to another person is stealing. whether it's right or wrong is a different question, but it is most definitely stealing. you can rewrite my previous posts without the word "stealing" and they would mean the same thing.

Obviously, your statement is wrong. Taking money from one person and giving it to another is pretty much the purpose of money.

no. the purpose of money is taking YOUR OWN money and giving it to another. it is stealing when you take SOMEONE ELSE'S money and give it to another. you're just trying to avoid the truth at this point...

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I posted that hypothetical in order to ask you for your reaction, and so that you would understand the points of view that you were dismissing.

The obvious next question is why you would state that his statement was about stealing:

John9Blue wrote:he said he did not want to make black people's lives better by stealing from another group.

Which is obviously a more racist statement than Santorum's original comments, and is also clearly not what he said, but, at best, your interpretation of what he said. No?

wait, so now i'm a racist too? you are fast with that race card.

taking money from one person and giving it to another person is stealing. whether it's right or wrong is a different question, but it is most definitely stealing. you can rewrite my previous posts without the word "stealing" and they would mean the same thing.

Obviously, your statement is wrong. Taking money from one person and giving it to another is pretty much the purpose of money.

... Symm, go rob somebody and send me a check!!

... Dollars, please. Not much use for pounds here.

...

Timminz wrote:Haven't y'all heard? Racism was eradicated back in the 90's.

When they fired Don Imus, I thought for sure racism was over forever.

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:
wait, so now i'm a racist too? you are fast with that race card.

taking money from one person and giving it to another person is stealing. whether it's right or wrong is a different question, but it is most definitely stealing. you can rewrite my previous posts without the word "stealing" and they would mean the same thing.

Obviously, your statement is wrong. Taking money from one person and giving it to another is pretty much the purpose of money.

no. the purpose of money is taking YOUR OWN money and giving it to another. it is stealing when you take SOMEONE ELSE'S money and give it to another. you're just trying to avoid the truth at this point...

How would I take my own money? I generally take it from other people, typically an employer, or somebody who supports my research. Occasionally from people who offer me gifts, or loans. This is apparently theft in your definition. I regularly give that money to other people, shop keepers, my landlord, etc. and bizarrely don't think of them taking my money as stealing either.

So, essentially, I'm taking money from people and giving it to others. That is not stealing, It's economics.

Nobunaga wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I posted that hypothetical in order to ask you for your reaction, and so that you would understand the points of view that you were dismissing.

The obvious next question is why you would state that his statement was about stealing:

John9Blue wrote:he said he did not want to make black people's lives better by stealing from another group.

Which is obviously a more racist statement than Santorum's original comments, and is also clearly not what he said, but, at best, your interpretation of what he said. No?

wait, so now i'm a racist too? you are fast with that race card.

taking money from one person and giving it to another person is stealing. whether it's right or wrong is a different question, but it is most definitely stealing. you can rewrite my previous posts without the word "stealing" and they would mean the same thing.

Obviously, your statement is wrong. Taking money from one person and giving it to another is pretty much the purpose of money.

... Symm, go rob somebody and send me a check!!

... Dollars, please. Not much use for pounds here.

...

I was going to, but UPS wanted to take my money and give it to someone else. Which is obviously stealing.

Symmetry wrote:I was going to, but UPS wanted to take my money and give it to someone else. Which is obviously stealing.

... BASTARDS!!

...

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:no. the purpose of money is taking YOUR OWN money and giving it to another. it is stealing when you take SOMEONE ELSE'S money and give it to another. you're just trying to avoid the truth at this point...

How would I take my own money? I generally take it from other people, typically an employer, or somebody who supports my research. Occasionally from people who offer me gifts, or loans. This is apparently theft in your definition. I regularly give that money to other people, shop keepers, my landlord, etc. and bizarrely don't think of them taking my money as stealing either.

So, essentially, I'm taking money from people and giving it to others. That is not stealing, It's economics.

it's not theft. theft is involuntary for the victim.

an employer giving you money is voluntary for both parties. you giving money to your landlord is voluntary for both parties. you giving money to UPS for them to send a package is voluntary for both parties.

anything else?

What governmental transactions shall we consider theft and which ones shall we not? If theft is, by your definition, "[involunatrily] taking money from one person and giving it to another person," aren't all transactions the government partakes in theft?

We are to assume theft is bad and must be prevented, right? If so, all governmental transactions must be prevented.

I'd have no reaction if this were coming from someone like BBS or saxi, but you've never once indicated that you were an anarchist.

GreecePwns wrote:What governmental transactions shall we consider theft and which ones shall we not? If theft is, by your definition, "[involunatrily] taking money from one person and giving it to another person," aren't all transactions the government partakes in theft?

We are to assume theft is bad and must be prevented, right? If so, all governmental transactions must be prevented.

I'd have no reaction if this were coming from someone like BBS or saxi, but you've never once indicated that you were an anarchist.

a government that gives its citizens the freedom to choose whether to live there and contribute tax money is giving its citizens a choice. in the US, for example, you can only give money to the government by voluntarily taking an action that you know will give your money to the government, such as taking certain kinds of jobs or purchasing certain items. you also have the freedom (ignoring any personal constraints) to move to another country. the US government is essentially a business; it operates based on voluntary transactions. it's not theft.