Conquer Club

notyou2 wrote:PS does it feel good to blow your own horn?

No. Is it ok if I announce the results though? Jeezzzz

Your going to announce your biased racist views anyways. Why ask me?

This is a silly borish question.

notyou2 wrote:PS does it feel good to blow your own horn?

notyou2 wrote:Your going to announce your biased racist views anyways. Why ask me?

wtf is this

are you going to say anything with actual meaning or just keep being a douche?

Phatscotty wrote:also interesting to note. the % of people who disagree, and are obviously WRONG, is a mirror reflection of the % of progressive Liberals?

Oh come on. I voted yes in the poll, but are you really gonna pull out the w-word?

Army of GOD wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:also interesting to note. the % of people who disagree, and are obviously WRONG, is a mirror reflection of the % of progressive Liberals?

Oh come on. I voted yes in the poll, but are you really gonna pull out the w-word?

Well, I think the issue of "manipulation of race, and of the terminology involved with racism" does a gross disservice to true, objective diversity and acceptance on an individual scale. I think those who manipulate the terminology, who blatantly reverse-discriminate and race-bait, defies all common sense and should be called out. The problem is that this sickness has infected the very presidency.

Look at the examples:

In Arizona, The entire administration basically called 1070b a racist law, only to find out weeks later under oath, not a single one of them had read the law(something even myself and many here in the community actually did for ourselves, in about 7 minutes...), despite many, MANY public interviews into exactly how racist a law it was. total perversion of reality.

I'm sure you are aware of the tea party/Naacp clash, no need to retype it here

Phatty, keep driving your wedge between the races. You can call an asshole a clever sumbitch, but he's still an asshole.

notyou2 wrote:Phatty, keep driving your wedge between the races. You can call an asshole a clever sumbitch, but he's still an asshole.

I continually call out race-baiters. there is a crystal clear difference, whether you can comprehend this or not.

Your very statement blows over all my evidence, and you circle it right back to racism, with no evidence. Has there been a better case to define ignorance?

on a side note. Have you ever seen a more decisive results in a poll with many voters? You know how I voted, I know how you voted. You are a wedge driver!!!

The ignorance here is any people that fall for your twisting of words and fail to see what you are really doing....inciting racial hate

notyou2 wrote:The ignorance here is any people that fall for your twisting of words and fail to see what you are really doing....inciting racial hate

bullshit! The question is 100% purely OBJECTIVE. You are full of it mate

OK, clearly and concisely define what you mean by your question. Also, advise how you interpret the data you have acquired on this question.

notyou2 wrote:OK, clearly and concisely define what you mean by your question. Also, advise how you interpret the data you have acquired on this question.

Its been said so many times...what the heck. The question is based on the reality, that if you refuse to vote for someone because of their race, that qualifies as racism. Example..."I won't vote for a purple person" ""why not?"" "because he is purple. I refuse to vote for a purple colored person"

granted? ok then

Flip the exact same question around. Only voting for someone because of their race. "I'm voting for him because he is purple" ""why?"" "because he is purple. I will only vote for a purple colored person"

in both examples, people are making judgments based on the color of skin. The point is that many people openly walk around admitting that they only voted for Obama because he is black. Meantime, all anyone can talk about is the guy with a swatstika sign at a tea party and labeling an entire people as racist.

You are the company you keep.

In answer to your question. Yes that would be racist. However I find it doubtful anyone votes purely upon skin colour .

Baron Von PWN wrote:In answer to your question. Yes that would be racist. However I find it doubtful anyone votes purely upon skin colour .

95% of black people voted for Obama

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:In answer to your question. Yes that would be racist. However I find it doubtful anyone votes purely upon skin colour .

95% of black people voted for Obama

In Obama's case there is more at play than a simple "he's black so I'm voting for him". There is the whole Historical build up from the beginning of US history which you know much better than I do. Obama's election signified the full overturning of those historical abuses. I think it is in that context that many voted for him, so I suppose at its most crass and reduced level you can say many voted for him because he is black. I think the true reason was because of the symbolic nature of overcoming the old biases of American society.

I think very few of those people voted for him purely because he is black, it may have influenced their choices (just as voting for McCain because he is white may have for others).

Reducing Obama's win to he won because people are racist doesn't really do much credit to the excellent campaign he ran and the rather poor one McCain ran, you know the real reason people voted for one or the other.

It required much more than just the black vote to get Obama elected. The people were fed up with the party in power. That is the single biggest reason the Democrats won.

Scotty, I suggest you build a bridge and get over this race issue. Life is far too short to harbour such ill feelings towards your fellow man.

So basically now both sides are taunting the other and saying "you're racist, not me". How about we judge by actions? Which side actively promotes the support or opposition of people base on race? Anyone honest with themselves knows the answer.

john9blue wrote:So basically now both sides are taunting the other and saying "you're racist, not me". How about we judge by actions? Which side actively promotes the support or opposition of people base on race? Anyone honest with themselves knows the answer.

Neither. The racism card is mostly a red herring. There might be the occasional racist or bigot on either side, but neither is being actively racist.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

john9blue wrote:So basically now both sides are taunting the other and saying "you're racist, not me". How about we judge by actions? Which side actively promotes the support or opposition of people base on race? Anyone honest with themselves knows the answer.

Neither. The racism card is mostly a red herring. There might be the occasional racist or bigot on either side, but neither is being actively racist.

I think disingenuous accusations is in the same ball-park. Knowingly making a false charge is malicious and hypocritical, and dare I say evil.

I'm a post-racist. There should be an answer that encompasses my worldview.

I, for one, was pleasantly surprised by the election of Obama (notwithstanding that I detest all show boat politics) - thinking that perhaps the U.S. had finally "grown up" and the politicking had outgrown the previous "Dynasty's" - then shortly after his inaugaration I came upon a piece written by a then, Chicago based, journalist, debasing Obamas' "cultural" background - "he's not really an African-American, no roots to slave stock" !!!!!?!!!!! F.F.S !!! (He must have been an old time Jesse Jackson supporter ! ), I realised then that things still have quite along way to go

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/co ... ml?sid=101

Blacks ask Senate to reject Kasich's all-white cabinet

Black state lawmakers blasted Gov. John Kasich yesterday over the absence of racial diversity in his cabinet and called on the Senate to reject his appointments until he takes steps to add minorities to his leadership team.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... _john.html

Are liberals and progressives seriously demanding that Kasich start making decisions based on skin color. Really. They are trying to force him to hire "a person, because their skin color is black" and "a person, because their skin color is brown".

Are these racists demands from the left?

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:In answer to your question. Yes that would be racist. However I find it doubtful anyone votes purely upon skin colour .

95% of black people voted for Obama

lol

What happened to the last 5%?!

Aradhus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:In answer to your question. Yes that would be racist. However I find it doubtful anyone votes purely upon skin colour .

95% of black people voted for Obama

lol

What happened to the last 5%?!

Mccain or "other"