IGX

Sua Sponte wrote:All well and fine except the idea portrayed was one that before Obama such things were okay and they're not now.

Nobody says that.

While one needn't look hard to find racists who will hate anything the man says or does on that point alone, it does not mean that anybody who finds fault with his administration is de facto racist.

For sure. I'm only saying that Obama's election increased the amount of open racism. Trump wouldn't have won the nomination if not for a pretty significant uptick in racism on the right (the left has it's own racial problems).

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Sua Sponte wrote:All well and fine except the idea portrayed was one that before Obama such things were okay and they're not now.

Nobody says that.

Yes I Have Balls wrote: Yeah, anytime the Drumph says something suffers due to being political correct, his mouth-breathing trogs dream of the days before a black president and when they could stop off at the 7-11 on the way home from church and beat up some faggots.

Perhaps I can be forgiven for construing YIB's statement as such.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Sua Sponte wrote:While one needn't look hard to find racists who will hate anything the man says or does on that point alone, it does not mean that anybody who finds fault with his administration is de facto racist.

For sure. I'm only saying that Obama's election increased the amount of open racism. Trump wouldn't have won the nomination if not for a pretty significant uptick in racism on the right (the left has it's own racial problems).

It would be as foolish to say Trump's constituency doesn't have a whole bunch o' racists in it as it would be to say that's all it is. There simply are people who are justifiably pissed. The wall is laughable but that some people are upset about *illegal* immigration and see Trump as their only resort has weight to it. The same people are very fed up with being called racists because they're against *illegal* immigration just because some people are against it because of racism. There are legitimate reasons to be against it that have nothing to do with racism. I would guess, and it's a guess, that no small amount of Trump's supporters aren't really racist white men, but white (and other) men (and women , too) who tired of being called racist simply because they disagree. Similar arguments over other issues might be made. Marginalizing people over made up accusations is no better than marginalizing them because of race, religion, creed, sex or.....The intellectual left has given way to the intellectual-wannabe left. Open mindedness has transitioned from a reasoned consideration of all ideas to "my ideas ARE the open minded ones."

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Sua Sponte wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:
Yeah, anytime the Drumph says something suffers due to being political correct, his mouth-breathing trogs dream of the days before a black president and when they could stop off at the 7-11 on the way home from church and beat up some faggots.

This is too dumb to let pass by. The emergence of a black president didn't bring about nor did it bring to an end hatred of any flavor. Painting others who disagree with you as caricatures makes you one.

I believe you believe that, but there was even a clear shift here. A pretty good number of Americans in general were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a black President, and the not-so-subtle dog whistling since has had an impact.

Now, in part, maybe it's because a large portion of Americans were already more racist than I thought and just got more comfortable expressing it, since their political party was telling them it's OK. But the idea that the election of Obama had zero impact on racism on the right is flatly not true.

My personal experience with very politically incorrect people I know who hate Obama is that not a single one of them hates him for the color of his skin. They hate him about the same as they hated Bill Clinton and now hate Hillary Clinton and it's based on HIM not his race.

They may take his Justice Department's ignoring Black Panther's restricting the right of white people to vote in Philadelphia followed by his tacit "white people are racist" dog whistles with the Louis Gates, Trayvon Martin & Michael Brown Obama comments more personally because he's black and it plays into their expectations and stereotypes. Holder's comments that white people are cowards regarding race discussions didn't help. Neither did the complete fuckedness of how Obamacare affected them.

I think the vast majority of blaming whites for being racist regarding Obama is a Progressive red herring and a political dog whistle. There's certainly some truth there but it's not even in the same galaxy as the amount of blaming that's going on.

Larry Correia satirizing the Daily News reporter :http://monsterhunternation.com/2016/06/16/ask-kuntzman/

After the wildly successful feature where ace reporter Gersh Kuntzman gave us the straight scoop on what it is like to shoot the terrifying AR-15 “Black Mamba Star Killer Base” rifle, we here at the New York Daily News are happy to present our new feature ASK KUNTZMAN!

Join us as Gersh Kuntzman gives valuable life advice. Send us your questions, from lifestyle choices to product reviews, and together we may peer deep into his earth mother like wisdom. From his lilac scented crying pillow to you, rejoice as Gersh Kuntzman let’s you know what’s really going on in the world.




Dear Kuntzman, big fan. I am trying to go green in order to save the Earth. Dying polar bears make me sad. Should I buy a Toyota Prius?

– Carbon Neutral in Carson City

Dear Carbon, I drove a Prius once and it changed me forever. As soon as I climbed inside the minimalist brutalist interior of this carbon fiber Japanese death machine it was as if I was driving a monster truck. I pushed start. The engine was a throaty roar like a thousand nuclear jet bombers. I immediately soiled my trousers to prevent this beast of the land of hentai from raping me. Tentacles are NOT OKAY. In my haste to escape, I touched a lever, and the windshield wipers began beating like a reaper’s sickle threshing horror. Trying to reach the escape handle, I struck a phallus-like pole, and lights began to blink. Blink. Blink. A light. A terrible, red, light! BLINK BLINK! Shrieking and flailing, I clutched desperately at the door, and tumbled, helpless, into the street. In the cold New York City rain, I lay there helpless and soiled in the gutter. The terrifying Prius looming over me, asserting its alpha dominance, and I crawled away. Forever.

Also, you may want to check out the new Nissan Leaf.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Hell if each of the amendments had a watch dog group I'd be happier still.

Is the implication here that the NRA is the watchdog for the 2nd Amendment?

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Hell if each of the amendments had a watch dog group I'd be happier still.

Is the implication here that the NRA is the watchdog for the 2nd Amendment?

Whether they're the watchdog for the 2nd Amendment or whether they're lobbyists for the firearms industry depends very much on where you're standing.

Sua Sponte wrote:This is too dumb to let pass by. The emergence of a black president didn't bring about nor did it bring to an end hatred of any flavor nor was any act of such description legal before the current administration. Painting others who disagree with you as caricatures makes you one.

You know what the emergence of a black president did? It made uneasy white people MORE uneasy about "them" getting a larger piece of the pie. That pie, that up until now had been in the hands of white people forever. If it's not racism, it's "racial resentment." Talk radio has been calling Obama a Muslim, a spy, unAmerican for 10 years. You don't think that compromises the opinions of white people?

The American working class is about 40% nonwhite. Blacks, Latinos and Asians account for about 40% of the Americans who identify themselves as working class. They have seen the same kind of dire economic problems as whites and yet they do not see anything appealing about Donald Trump. Trump supposedly represents these people (middle class America). We have one group that backs him and one group that does not and the only difference between those two groups is one groups is white and one group is not.

You think I'm "painting" Trump followers as a caricature? You should get out more:

https://storify.com/case_face/a-trump-r ... e-is-palpa

WildGorillaMan wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Hell if each of the amendments had a watch dog group I'd be happier still.

Is the implication here that the NRA is the watchdog for the 2nd Amendment?

Whether they're the watchdog for the 2nd Amendment or whether they're lobbyists for the firearms industry depends very much on where you're standing.

You can't really protect the ability to possess a thing without also protecting the ability to manufacture and sell a thing. That doesn't make you an industry lobbyist, it's necessary strategy.

Thank you all for fixing up my post. Did I mention the big stick I have? I have it with me at all times. People just think I'm old and need a walking stick. They don't know it's a bludgeon.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:They may take his Justice Department's ignoring Black Panther's restricting the right of white people to vote in Philadelphia

i think there is more racism than you do, but i don't know how one measures it and settles the dispute.

i am struck by your example. republicans in red states have tried to restrict voting under the pretention that it will eliminate voter fraud, which has not been demonstrated to be a material problem. pennsylvania is one of those states where r's have tried to limit voting. my view is your single example pales in comparison to the broad effort of the republican party to roll back voting. i think that effort on the part of republicans is at least racially focused. fewer black voters means r's have a better chance of winning, i.e. gaining and holding power.

if nothing else, the issue of voting rights reflects the great mistrust between whites and blacks.

it is not obvious to me that a multi-cultural society can cohere. too many tribes, too many rivalries.

as for a watch list, damned if you do (big brother) and damned if you don't (soft on terror).

dead man walking wrote:republicans in red states have tried to restrict voting under the pretention that it will eliminate voter fraud

Or you could say Dems in Blue states refuse to restrict voting to those eligible, because having illegals, felons, and other non eligible voters benefits them.


Seriously, how many voting-age people in your circle of acquaintances have no state-recognized ID?

johno wrote:

dead man walking wrote:Seriously, how many voting-age people in your circle of acquaintances have no state-recognized ID?

Old, poor, (often black) people in rural locations don't need ID. They might not have birth records or the names on birth records may be misspelled, or damaged. Closing DMVs in rural areas all over the south sure isn't helping them to GET ID either.

*shrug*

dead man walking wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:They may take his Justice Department's ignoring Black Panther's restricting the right of white people to vote in Philadelphia

i think there is more racism than you do, but i don't know how one measures it and settles the dispute.

i am struck by your example. republicans in red states have tried to restrict voting under the pretention that it will eliminate voter fraud, which has not been demonstrated to be a material problem. pennsylvania is one of those states where r's have tried to limit voting. my view is your single example pales in comparison to the broad effort of the republican party to roll back voting. i think that effort on the part of republicans is at least racially focused. fewer black voters means r's have a better chance of winning, i.e. gaining and holding power.

if nothing else, the issue of voting rights reflects the great mistrust between whites and blacks.

it is not obvious to me that a multi-cultural society can cohere. too many tribes, too many rivalries.

as for a watch list, damned if you do (big brother) and damned if you don't (soft on terror).

The greater number of people that vote, equals the fewer Republicans that get voted for.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Sua Sponte wrote:This is too dumb to let pass by. The emergence of a black president didn't bring about nor did it bring to an end hatred of any flavor nor was any act of such description legal before the current administration. Painting others who disagree with you as caricatures makes you one.

You know what the emergence of a black president did? It made uneasy white people MORE uneasy about "them" getting a larger piece of the pie. That pie, that up until now had been in the hands of white people forever. If it's not racism, it's "racial resentment." Talk radio has been calling Obama a Muslim, a spy, unAmerican for 10 years. You don't think that compromises the opinions of white people?

The American working class is about 40% nonwhite. Blacks, Latinos and Asians account for about 40% of the Americans who identify themselves as working class. They have seen the same kind of dire economic problems as whites and yet they do not see anything appealing about Donald Trump. Trump supposedly represents these people (middle class America). We have one group that backs him and one group that does not and the only difference between those two groups is one groups is white and one group is not.

You think I'm "painting" Trump followers as a caricature? You should get out more:

https://storify.com/case_face/a-trump-r ... e-is-palpa

Leaving aside that your response doesn't address either my post or yours, I hope this is tongue in cheek and that you realize you made my point.

I have neither the inclination nor the time to address this lack-of-point by lack-of-point but here's a few things to ponder. We have a black president. Not all whites voted against him and not all minorities voted for him. The country can't be as racist as you describe and have him there by your own admission. Powerless people, those with no piece of the pie as you describe them, can't influence outcomes. That's the definition of powerless.

Also recall that when Hillary lost the Dem nom in the last election many of her supporters said it happened because of sexism, no way Obama was more or better qual'd then her. No winning there because you're either a racist or a sexist. So the Deomcratic party is full of racists and sexists. Interesting. See the problem with that sort of thinking? Your opinion here-we have a black male president because of sexism, yes or no? In this campaign, there are those in the Clinton court who've essentially said that if a woman votes for Bernie she's a sell out to women everywhere. That's sexism there, buddy.

Pick some good idea and I'll find you somebody who follows it for the wrong reason. Pick some bad idea and I'll show you somebody who subscribes to it for a good reason. Pick a point of view and I'll find you somebody who backs it. Want to find a racist, you can find one with inexplicable animose toward some person of any description. In short, anecdotally I can prove anything you want. As described in an earlier post, your form of bigotry is no better than that of others. Bigotry is precisely choosing the evidence that supports your view and ignoring anything that doesn't.

Which brings us to your tweeter. This is your idea of getting out more. Title: "A Trump Rally in Greensboro "Anger in here is palpable" in which a sane man live tweets insanity". First tweet: "Will be live tweeting from Trump's rally in Greensboro tonight. I'm sure it'll be measured and thoughtful." We have now been told, he's sane, others aren't, and he even foreshadowed what was to come....how prescient and unbiased. You make this just too easy.

WildGorillaMan wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Hell if each of the amendments had a watch dog group I'd be happier still.

Is the implication here that the NRA is the watchdog for the 2nd Amendment?

Whether they're the watchdog for the 2nd Amendment or whether they're lobbyists for the firearms industry depends very much on where you're standing.

Not always clear who's controlling who... http://www.businessinsider.com/smith-an ... ing-2013-1

Sua, don't bother with YIB. He's a complete partisan hack. Hated Bush for Iraq war and loves Obama despite starting 2 new wars. Hates republicans because they "support Wall Street", even though Obama suspended his campaign until Banker Bailout was passed and had the most campaign money from Wall Street in 2012 than any president ever. In short, the dudes a clueless shit turd.

WildGorillaMan wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: Hell if each of the amendments had a watch dog group I'd be happier still.

Is the implication here that the NRA is the watchdog for the 2nd Amendment?

Whether they're the watchdog for the 2nd Amendment or whether they're lobbyists for the firearms industry depends very much on where you're standing.

Oi..

The ACLU gets most of it money from the Ford Foundation, and liberal foundations as well as trial lawyers. Regardless of what you think about teh blue oval, vampires in neckties and liberals, they do critical critical deep in the weeds work on Civil Liberties. You can cast the same jaundiced eye at them and you'll be just as forest for the trees fuct in your thinking....so, you can both go fuck yourself with the simplistic implication. Schegel covered it but let's play it further.

The slickest way to undermine the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not to go after the right itself, or even state laws on time place and manner use restrictions..the slick way is to go after after Supply. The NRA as well as everyone else knows this. Gun makers, gun buyers and owners, ammo makers. ammo users and ammo buyers and suppliers of all stripes. If you wish to be taken seriously you have to acknowledge, everyone with skin in the game has to play under these ROE. You can't protect the right without lookign at how the right is exercised.

Now I've throttled back on some of my support for them becuase I believe there are other ways to approach this situation that the NRA consistently stifles, as does the Brady Bunch, Moms agaisnt all things and the CTSGV. There's middle ground to be explored that we are flatly not..and that's stupid...but casting the NRA as a villain is as tired as it is dumb.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The slickest way to undermine the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment...

This is a subtle but important point. The NRA doesn't protect the 2nd Amendment. It protects a particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, one that doesn't have all that long of a life in our republic. Because it cares about absolutely nothing else in the entire universe other than it's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it pretty much over-matches any opposition that has more than one thing to ponder in this life.

nafod wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The slickest way to undermine the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment...

This is a subtle but important point. The NRA doesn't protect the 2nd Amendment. It protects a particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, one that doesn't have all that long of a life in our republic. Because it cares about absolutely nothing else in the entire universe other than it's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it pretty much over-matches any opposition that has more than one thing to ponder in this life.

It is an important point...in that the current interpretation is the one most soundly vetted by 200 years of case law and common law before that and is therefore..the most correct.

Now you may develop additional case law which undermines this version.(Scalia can fuck his bony rotting ass with a fork, the Constitution is absolutely a living document) but until that time, the prevailing understanding is the one that is "legally correct" regardless of how we feel about it.

Herv100 wrote:Sua, don't bother with YIB. He's a complete partisan hack. Hated Bush for Iraq war and loves Obama despite starting 2 new wars. Hates republicans because they "support Wall Street", even though Obama suspended his campaign until Banker Bailout was passed and had the most campaign money from Wall Street in 2012 than any president ever. In short, the dudes a clueless shit turd.

Your entire post is a fairy tale. Considering everything you lack however, it is nice to see you able to put a couple sentences together.

Sua Sponte wrote:Painting others who disagree with you as caricatures makes you one.

Pretty sure I addressed this. I can't make things more layman-accessible for you if I tried. I used a storify because you can read it. If you'd prefer you can take my word for it that the Trump rally I was at was near blow-for-blow of what that guy tweeted.

Or you can not believe me. That's on you.

nafod wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The slickest way to undermine the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment...

This is a subtle but important point. The NRA doesn't protect the 2nd Amendment. It protects a particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment...

The NRA and others have put a tremendous amount of time and money in getting the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment from what Scalia said in DC vs. Heller, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited" all the way to people red-facedly screeching into TV cameras that their rights "shall not be infringed" and fetishizing the AR-15.

IMO of course.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Herv100 wrote:Sua, don't bother with YIB. He's a complete partisan hack. Hated Bush for Iraq war and loves Obama despite starting 2 new wars. Hates republicans because they "support Wall Street", even though Obama suspended his campaign until Banker Bailout was passed and had the most campaign money from Wall Street in 2012 than any president ever. In short, the dudes a clueless shit turd.

Your entire post is a fairy tale. Considering everything you lack however, it is nice to see you able to put a couple sentences together.

I believe you

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Sua Sponte wrote:Painting others who disagree with you as caricatures makes you one.

Pretty sure I addressed this. I can't make things more layman-accessible for you if I tried. I used a storify because you can read it. If you'd prefer you can take my word for it that the Trump rally I was at was near blow-for-blow of what that guy tweeted.

Or you can not believe me. That's on you.

Pretty sure you didn't. I did address the above assertion in great detail, however. I didn't deny and fully accept there are racists in the Trump camp. Here again, some anecdote doesn't a point make. So too are there racists and sexists in Hillary's corner. Think there's any trouble finding Hillary supporters who are overtly racist? Who spew venom and hatred? Think there aren't any "black lives matter" people who think exactly that; black lives matter and nobody else, white, Hispanic, Asian, does? I know such people. Doesn't make everybody so. How about the feminist line that if a woman says she was raped she should be believed on that alone-we've seen that before when black men were lynched for having consensual sex with white women, haven't we? Another suspension of due process by simply expanding from black men to all men. Funny how history repeats itself under the guise of enlightenment. How about those working class whites, 60% of the demographic if what you tell me is true-are they all a bunch of racists or in a decidedly tough market are they perhaps concerned about unfairly losing their jobs as cut-backs seek to meet federal guidelines? Democrats aren't speaking up for them, why should they go in that direction? Twenty some odd years ago, Newt Gingrich days, when there were cries of the Repubs dismantling welfare, the left came up with the previously rarely mentioned statistic that more whites than blacks were on welfare and that oughta stop the racist Repubs. 'Cept it didn't, not rying anyway, and 20 years on we don't see much coming out of the Dems about poor whites. That disenfranchised group is Trump constituency, not because they're racists, hell, not even because they agree with most of what he says, but at least they feel they are getting a voice.

The true stupidity of the left is that great strides have been made in advancing previously disenfranchised groups and they downplay it because there are still haters, as if they must rule until the impossibility of the demise of hatred. One only need notice we have a black president and had a black head of DoJ. Continuing to pretend no advances have been made because some are still racist, will always be racist, and concentrating efforts there while ignoring the others whose lot in life hasn't been improved in the meantime, and ignoring them because of their color or sex, is what gives Trump much of his pull with them. Calling them all racists simply affirms what they knew all along. The left has nothing against bigotry, they just don't like it when it's no their version. The great lie of the left is that all whites are advantaged and bad people and all others are accepting and good people. That's almost childlike to see the world in such simplistic terms.

Am I to understand from your statement about putting it in layman's terms that you are a professional at this sort of thing? Do tell.

Or that your intellect has to be reduced to something I can understand? Is that what you mean by the statement about storify being readable- it's simply accessible to a guy like me?

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

johno wrote:

dead man walking wrote:Seriously, how many voting-age people in your circle of acquaintances have no state-recognized ID?

Old, poor, (often black) people in rural locations ...

Your non-answer tells me your real answer would be, "Zero."