Stealthycat
Footballguy
yes, so you can live in your own echo chamber and ignore anyone who disagree's with any viewsUpdate your ignore list, asap
that's the smart thing to do
yes, so you can live in your own echo chamber and ignore anyone who disagree's with any viewsUpdate your ignore list, asap
That story has a section in it with a technique that I am seeing more and more these days. Annoys me like crazy.Especially considering that the people who tell us it doesn’t matter are often the same people simultaneously telling us that white skin does matter when a profession, area, etc. has too much white skin and too little other skin.
Completely related politics story in the news.
The recently promoted DCCC official in that middle paragraph is a black woman. They absolutely just want you to assume it is a white person and not click on the hyperlink to the story.According to the Washington Post, many were surprised when Bustos took the job and brought on a slew of mostly white senior staffers. Given the importance of growing representation among House members, Democratic lawmakers were concerned, they told the Post.
As a Politico story detailed last week, those worries didn’t exactly go away, and only grew after a media report uncovered some unsavory tweets by a recently promoted DCCC official. These revelations culminated in even broader outcry from members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
“There is not one person of color — black or brown, that I’m aware of — at any position of authority or decision-making in the DCCC,” Rep. Marcia Fudge, a former CBC chair, told Politico.
Screw the media.lead a new multimillion-dollar initiative to connect with "people of color and younger Americans"
It's 2019. If you're still upset over the lack of a White History Month, then you're not worth engaging on any level.no, because having a different view than your is simply impossible isn't it ?You're being a joke.
"Where's our white history month" is next, right?
You have no valuable understanding of what's going on in this thread.
My God, this is inconceivably dense.The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
where is the Congressional White Caucus or would that be racist ?
is it racist that 70% of the NFL is black ? i mean diversity right, there should be a lot more white right?
Stealthy in the Kaepernick thread kept referring to Kaep as being half-white implying that being of mixed race disqualified him from speaking out on discrimination against African Americans and other minorities.It's 2019. If you're still upset over the lack of a White History Month, then you're not worth engaging on any level.
". . . and what's up with black people using the N-word when white people can't use it?"It's 2019. If you're still upset over the lack of a White History Month, then you're not worth engaging on any level.
White isn't a race.why don't you believe white people's skin color matter?
it does - a lot
What are you saying here?why don't you believe white people's skin color matter?
it does - a lot
I was certain going in that your punch line was going to be the Republican Party. I was wrong.There is a Congressional White Caucus. It goes by a different name...Congress.
DAMMITI was certain going in that your punch line was going to be the Republican Party. I was wrong.
You have a warped worldview. I don't feel that everyone is entitled to a debate. You are so far removed from reality from my POV that you may as well be trying to engage people on flat earth theory, but more dangerous.yes, so you can live in your own echo chamber and ignore anyone who disagree's with any views
that's the smart thing to do
I'm sure that translates to coaches and GMs right?Stealthycat said:The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
where is the Congressional White Caucus or would that be racist ?
is it racist that 70% of the NFL is black ? i mean diversity right, there should be a lot more white right?
Thanks. Don’t know him but I will look him up when I get a chance.@timschochet I'm not sure if you follow Kevin Kruse (American History Professor at Princeton) on twitter, but I highly recommend doing so. Very eye opening, to say the least.
One of the best follows on twitter. Because you’re a thoughtful guy, I know you would enjoy him. Cheers!Thanks. Don’t know him but I will look him up when I get a chance.
The daughter of the late former US President Ronald Reagan has said there is "no defence" for racist comments he made in a 1971 phone conversation.
Newly unearthed tapes reveal Reagan - then Governor of California - described UN African delegates as "monkeys".
His daughter Patti Davis condemned the remarks in a newspaper article.
"There is no defence, no rationalisation, no suitable explanation for what my father said," she wrote.
Ms Davis wrote in an article for the Washington Post that she was preparing to defend her father before she heard the tapes, but was appalled to hear what the former president said.
"I can't tell you about the man who was on the phone," she writes. "He's not a man I knew."
It’s been a while since I’ve seen you trot this out. I have to hand it to you...no matter how many times you’ve been shown that this is an incredibly obtuse way of looking at history you still stick to your guns.I find it incredible that people call Trump a racist when looking back on what was done and said ..... especially Democrats who literally were the face of slavery, KKK and Jim Crow days.
Reagan and Nixon, stalwart left wing DemocratsIt’s been a while since I’ve seen you trot this out. I have to hand it to you...no matter how many times you’ve been shown that this is an incredibly obtuse way of looking at history you still stick to your guns.
That is the Democrat history. It is obtuse to deny it. The point he made was not all that good, but it does not change the fact the most racist policies in our nation's history were supported by mostly Democrats.It’s been a while since I’ve seen you trot this out. I have to hand it to you...no matter how many times you’ve been shown that this is an incredibly obtuse way of looking at history you still stick to your guns.
Until they left for the GOP.jon_mx said:That is the Democrat history. It is obtuse to deny it. The point he made was not all that good, but it does not change the fact the most racist policies in our nation's history were supported by mostly Democrats.
But they didn't. Almost all southern Democrats politicians remained Democrats.Until they left for the GOP.
I see how you subtly changed what Apple Jack said.But they didn't. Almost all southern Democrats politicians remained Democrats.Until they left for the GOP.
Plenty of northern Democrats were racist too.But they didn't. Almost all southern Democrats politicians remained Democrats.
Democrats were generally more racist than Republicans during the Civil War era and the period that followed. Therefore, Trump is not a racist.OrtonToOlsen said:It’s been a while since I’ve seen you trot this out. I have to hand it to you...no matter how many times you’ve been shown that this is an incredibly obtuse way of looking at history you still stick to your guns. I find it incredible that people call Trump a racist when looking back on what was done and said ..... especially Democrats who literally were the face of slavery, KKK and Jim Crow days.
Nobody is denying any history here.jon_mx said:That is the Democrat history. It is obtuse to deny it. The point he made was not all that good, but it does not change the fact the most racist policies in our nation's history were supported by mostly Democrats.
It's also a very subtle non-denial denial."I can't tell you about the man who was on the phone," she writes. "He's not a man I knew."
There's the trap again. Even well-meaning people offering no defense for a family member's racism fall into it.
It's also a very subtle non-denial denial.
She's not saying "I was never aware of any racist beliefs." She's saying "I didn't get acquainted with that side of him."
And this thread is about something that happened 50 years ago. It is all pretty pointless.Nobody is denying any history here.
Nobody is disputing what the Democrats may or may not have done 60 or 160 years ago.
Not really.And this thread is about something that happened 50 years ago. It is all pretty pointless.
Right". . . and what's up with black people using the N-word when white people can't use it?"It's 2019. If you're still upset over the lack of a White History Month, then you're not worth engaging on any level.
Well ok, let's make threads about all the racial slurs politicians have made over the years.Not really.
She has a “D” next to her name. Nothing to see hereWell ok, let's make threads about all the racial slurs politicians have made over the years.
A book out today claims that 26 years ago Hillary Clinton called Paul Fray, her husband's campaign manager at the time, a "####### Jew *******".
Mrs Clinton denied the allegation and pressed the president into supporting her, but the author, Jerry Oppenheimer, said: "Three witnesses have now publicly acknowledged that she said it."
Seems the Democrats more recent history has been of anti-semitism.
You’re trying to drag me into some debate that I have no interest in.Well ok, let's make threads about all the racial slurs politicians have made over the years.
A book out today claims that 26 years ago Hillary Clinton called Paul Fray, her husband's campaign manager at the time, a "####### Jew *******".
Mrs Clinton denied the allegation and pressed the president into supporting her, but the author, Jerry Oppenheimer, said: "Three witnesses have now publicly acknowledged that she said it."
Seems the Democrats more recent history has been of anti-semitism.
BTW...Well ok, let's make threads about all the racial slurs politicians have made over the years.
A book out today claims that 26 years ago Hillary Clinton called Paul Fray, her husband's campaign manager at the time, a "####### Jew *******".
Mrs Clinton denied the allegation and pressed the president into supporting her, but the author, Jerry Oppenheimer, said: "Three witnesses have now publicly acknowledged that she said it."
Seems the Democrats more recent history has been of anti-semitism.
nobody ever said thatDemocrats were generally more racist than Republicans during the Civil War era and the period that followed. Therefore, Trump is not a racist.
I can buy that reasoning.
The Democratic Party wasn’t founded until 1828 so not “like ever since this nation was founded”.nobody ever said that
what has been said, is that historically, like ever since this nation was founded, Democrats are the party of racism, its who they have been
now, the very party that for 200 years has been racist is convincing people that the other party that has historically NOT been racist, is racist
when Trump shows me racism I'll call it what it is like I do with anyone anytime. He's rude, crude, an ##### ... he calls things what they are .. . he's not racist IMO
It is quite a legitimate point since in this echo chamber it is oblivious to the fact that their own sides sucks too. A bunch of self-righteous condemnation of one-side with zero fair-mindedness in looking at the whole picture. It is quite easy to just look at the worst of the other side and only smell the roses on your side. We need to look at the whole picture with balance and understanding. Otherwise we will just keep getting more divided and the discussions will get uglier.And someone is back saying BOFF SIDEZZZ
But again, somebody can do good and bad things. Some things aren’t obvious - for example, I think you are a really good poster and you and I frequently agree on a lot of things. Somebody else could come in and say you are a bad guy because you have a Washington Redskins helmet in your avatar and “Skins” in your alias.Right. To her, as it never manifested in a way that affected her, it didn't exist in the man she knew. Goes right back to what I was talking about earlier in this thread.
One of those Democrats was a guy named Strom Thurmond. In response to a pro civil rights position taken in the 1948 Democratic convention he ran as a 3rd party candidate for the Dixiecrats in the Presidential election that year. He actually carried some Southern states but then returned to the Senate as a Democrat. In 1964 LBJ (of all people) was able to put together enough votes to pass the Civil Rights Act despite the opposition of Southern conservative Democrats and Goldwater Republicans. Strom Thurmond quit the Democratitic party immediately after that and becme a Republican because he realized that they were more in tune with his racist beliefs than the (Northern) Democrats were.jon_mx said:That is the Democrat history. It is obtuse to deny it. The point he made was not all that good, but it does not change the fact the most racist policies in our nation's history were supported by mostly Democrats.
I think about this a lot.But again, somebody can do good and bad things. Some things aren’t obvious - for example, I think you are a really good poster and you and I frequently agree on a lot of things. Somebody else could come in and say you are a bad guy because you have a Washington Redskins helmet in your avatar and “Skins” in your alias.
Always true of historical figures--but it was horribly racist at the time as well. There's a reason he said this in a private phone conversation with a like-minded person and not where it could be publically attributed to him at the time.And to be clear - that is no defense of Reagan’s comments. They are horrible but need to be viewed through the prism of the time the were said.
They were objectively horrible in 1971 as wellAnd to be clear - that is no defense of Reagan’s comments. They are horrible but need to be viewed through the prism of the time the were said.
I must have missed that episode of "All In The Family" where Archie calls Africans "monkeys" and everyone laughs.And to be clear - that is no defense of Reagan’s comments. They are horrible but need to be viewed through the prism of the time the were said.
What part of horrible are you not getting?I must have missed that episode of "All In The Family" where Archie calls Africans "monkeys" and everyone laughs.
Right, that’s why I said they are horrible.They were objectively horrible in 1971 as well