Royd 0 #26 February 10, 2007 QuoteThanks. She sounds like a true progressive. Funny how so many poster's immediately condemned her. What's that old saying about judging a book by its cover? With a veiw like her's, the victim mentality goes by the wayside. God forbid! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,486 #27 February 10, 2007 QuoteCaucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid How about we just go with "Earthling" and call it a day.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #28 February 10, 2007 I prefer human, or homo sapiens, because earthling seems so very broad. I suppose if you mean sentient earthling (assuming dolphins and mice are not in fact smarter than us), that'd work. At least we're on the same page. Different cultures? Sure. Different races? Not this species.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,486 #29 February 10, 2007 Humans. I'm there. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #30 February 10, 2007 42.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #31 February 10, 2007 Maybe the Senator should eat more watermelon in front of the cameras ? Or start saying "sho' nuff" ? Or smoking Kools ? Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #32 February 10, 2007 who cares if he is black or not? Why would that even matter? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #33 February 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteTwo short quotes taken out of the context of the whole book are basically meaningless. Only reading the entire text would provide enough background information to the author's intentions. One COULD say exactly the same about a book review. A review of Mein Kampf or Das Kapital can be made to sound quite reasonable. _______________________________ I'll be damned! I guess, a turd can be polished! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #34 February 11, 2007 Quotewho cares if he is black or not? Why would that even matter? Dickerson meant "politically black", not physically. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #35 February 11, 2007 QuoteAccording to Debra Dickerson, author of The End Of Blackness, in her comments on The Colbert Report "black" is defined as "the descendant of west African slaves brought here to labor in the United States," and that because Barack Obama's father immigrated here from Kenya he is "African African-American" and not "black." She also said that embracing a black person who is not actually a black person is "white self congratulation." Thoughts? We can argue blood quantum of the American Indians, usually 25%. We can argue blood quantum of Hawiians, we can argue all kinds of semantics, let's just argue why you don't want Obama for pres. BTW, if Obama walked down teh street and was unidentified, the garden variety white American would call him black 100 of 100 times and you know it. A guy in the 60's/70's had pigment injected into his skin, walked in society and wrote a book entitled, "Black like me." Granted, this was the 60's-70's, but he was 100% whitey and he was considered black by way of his appearance. Let's face it, 2 things are present here: - Obama is black - You don't want Obama for pres for whatever reason (not calling you racist) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #36 February 11, 2007 QuoteYes, it's based on skull shape, or Craniofacial anthropometry. I list it only to show how ridiculous spliting the human race into races or subspecies. Does skull shape really show any difference other than skull shape. Is skin color anyhting other than skin. Some people from the Indian subcontinent have very dark skin but have features that are essentially "white," or Caucasiod. Another similar (and useless) system uses five races: Caucasian race, Mongolian race, Ethiopian race, American race, Malay race. If you want to distinguish based on a physical trait, why use skin color? Why not hair color? or eye color? How about hand shape? It's all so very arbitrary and illogical that you can't even really aruge against it, because proponents can only say "Yuh-huhhh," and "Is too!" Homo Sapiens can accurately be described as Monotypic. There was another guy in history that used skin, hair and eye color as a way of distinguishing people..... what was his name????........... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 February 11, 2007 Quotewho cares if he is black or not? Why would that even matter? Because it's supposed to diminish teh alleged novelty factor and relieve a few votes from him. I'd much rather talk of the great ideas he has. Funny how Dem haters could find all kinds of inherent fodder to slam Hillary over, but enter Obama and now it's, "OH SHIT!!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteTwo short quotes taken out of the context of the whole book are basically meaningless. Only reading the entire text would provide enough background information to the author's intentions. One COULD say exactly the same about a book review. A review of Mein Kampf or Das Kapital can be made to sound quite reasonable. _______________________________ I'll be damned! I guess, a turd can be polished! Chuck And shellacked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #39 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteTwo short quotes taken out of the context of the whole book are basically meaningless. Only reading the entire text would provide enough background information to the author's intentions. One COULD say exactly the same about a book review. A review of Mein Kampf or Das Kapital can be made to sound quite reasonable. _______________________________ I'll be damned! I guess, a turd can be polished! Chuck And shellacked. __________________________________ Ain't that the truth! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #40 February 11, 2007 I remember from an anthropology class that the genetic difference between so-called races is so minor it is virtually ignored, if not considered non-existent. Am I remembering correctly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #41 February 11, 2007 QuoteFunny how Dem haters could find all kinds of inherent fodder to slam Hillary over, but enter Obama and now it's, "OH SHIT!!!" I don't like Hillary because of her track record, her ability to speak like an emotionless automaton, the way that she squints when she lies, her betrayal of the American woman. It has nothing to do with her being a Dem. Obama is the perfect candidate. He has very little political/personal track record to dissect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #42 February 11, 2007 >Different races? Not this species. We do have different distinct races with their own issues they have to deal with. A doctor who did not factor race into someone's cardiac risk would be a poor doctor indeed, and one who prescribed BiDil for a white patient would risk a malpractice suit. The issue is not using those differences to make foolish pre-judgements on people. Skin color is about as important as eye or hair color when it comes to judging people's motives, or ethics, or political acumen. Unfortunately, we still do. Fifty years ago, Obama's opponents would have been calling him names based on his color; now they will call him names and blame others for racism. Same basic issues but couched in a more politically correct form. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 February 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteFunny how Dem haters could find all kinds of inherent fodder to slam Hillary over, but enter Obama and now it's, "OH SHIT!!!" I don't like Hillary because of her track record, her ability to speak like an emotionless automaton, the way that she squints when she lies, her betrayal of the American woman. It has nothing to do with her being a Dem. Obama is the perfect candidate. He has very little political/personal track record to dissect. Or is it that you dislike Hillary due to her being a Clinton? What part of her track record? WHat has she done in a congressional sense that yu dislike? SEMANTICS: her ability to speak like an emotionless automaton....................she squints when she lies.................her betrayal of the American woman OK, so now that we've come back to earth, what has she done as a senator that makes her a bad presidential candidate? As a first lay she had no political control, so what has she done politically to make you think she is a bad pres other than she squints and does so in an emotionless way? Remember, people w/o an argument argue semany=tics, I would like to hear a substantive argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindercles 0 #44 February 12, 2007 Quote- You don't want Obama for pres for whatever reason (not calling you racist) Wow, you try to get some opinions on something that piques your interest, and people automatically assume they know everything about your political leanings. I'd forgotten why I usually stay away from this forum. For the record, you're wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #45 February 12, 2007 Hillary was the topic of discussion on two public tv panel-style talk shows this weekend. Both of them discussed her robotic personal demeanor, so I wasn't the first to notice it. It makes her seem impersonal and emotionless. Since I was discussing MY personal tastes, I can state that I find that disturbing. Her "history" that I mentioned was related to one question: Does anyone believe that she was unaware that her husband was constantly cheating on her when she blamed it all on a "right-wing conspiracy". In light of his admissions, either she was lying or totally oblivious for 15 years. (Both poor traits for a Pres) I favor the "lying" answer. Does anyone believe that she was not knowingly, repeatedly lying? (I understand that other politicians since Adam and Eve have lied. That does not, in any way, excuse her actions.) My original comment was related to a discussion of Hillary because it probably is a predictor of her future actions. No semantics at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 February 12, 2007 So if you were interviewing a peson for a job, their actually job performance, education and job experiences have no relevance. What is important is that he/she is fucking whom, if he/she looks like they have dirty drawers, and the sort. Can you blame me for being critical of that kind of logic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #47 February 13, 2007 QuoteSo if you were interviewing a person for a job, their actually job performance, education and job experiences have no relevance. What is important is that he/she is fucking whom, if he/she looks like they have dirty drawers, and the sort. Can you blame me for being critical of that kind of logic? Why is it that Dems can't answer a simple question about character? You did not list character as one of the factors that you consider relevant. You will probably be very comfortable with her as your representative. There are so many times that she has been involved in questionable events, yet her supporters always try to avoid a discussion by redirecting it as a discussion of sex. As if that was the only event, so the question is avoided. Her whole career has been a tissue of lies and avoidance. Education? Yes, she is an educated lawyer. She uses the law to avoid justice. I can't say that her education has benefited anyone but her. Job performance? As a political figure, she foments divisiveness. It effectively avoids conversation if you merely interrogate others and expect an answer without replying to anyone else. You use excellent political technique. However, don't take that as a compliment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #48 February 13, 2007 QuoteWhy is it that Dems can't answer a simple question about character? OK, she's a dirty slit-licking cunt. There, ya happy? She has the poorest character of all. Now let's talk about her platform, her perfomance. I understand you don;t understand what an Ad Hominem argument is, but guys like Lawrocket can tell you it's an argument based upon a character attack. I also understand you think it's viable and reasonable to base your arguments on these character assessments and attacks, but inthe world of professional debate, this is considered a failure. QuoteWhy is it that Dems can't answer a simple question about character? You did not list character as one of the factors that you consider relevant. You will probably be very comfortable with her as your representative. I don't even think of her character either way when deciding if she's a good pres candidate. People who have zero else to debate about a person resort to character, I can say plenty of things that I like about her performance and her platform. If I was about character assassinations with Bush, I could bring in his criminal record, his military record and several things that are unsavory, but I'm not that desperate and I can bring in substantive, performance-related things. QuoteThere are so many times that she has been involved in questionable events, yet her supporters always try to avoid a discussion by redirecting it as a discussion of sex. As if that was the only event, so the question is avoided. What questionable events and how do they affect her ability to lead the country? You guys are so about the facade of people and not about the core, yet you claim to be of some moral fiber; quite a paradox. QuoteHer whole career has been a tissue of lies and avoidance. HOW?????? And what makes you think via her performance that she wuld make a poor pres? QuoteEducation? Yes, she is an educated lawyer. She uses the law to avoid justice. I can't say that her education has benefited anyone but her. OK, and her education wouldn;t benefit the country? Why? QuoteJob performance? As a political figure, she foments divisiveness. And she did this when ____________________________. And that time when________________________. Please don't bring in the Clinton hit list. Find somethng substantive and actual that has been established that she has done that would make her a poor pres. QuoteIt effectively avoids conversation if you merely interrogate others and expect an answer without replying to anyone else. You use excellent political technique. However, don't take that as a compliment. OK, why not say, 'That bill she signed in Congress, it is bad for the US?' Why not..... Oh, I know, cause you don;t study Congressional decisions, you just say things ike, she has dirty underwear, etc. Very sad that you can't even enter 1 act that she has done in a legislatve sense that make syou think she would be a bad pres, let alone 10 or 15. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #49 February 13, 2007 Quote I also understand you think it's viable and reasonable to base your arguments on these character assessments Yes, I do. You consider a discussion of character to be a failure. I find that truly sad. You eagerly accept any transgressions on the part of the Virgin Hillary as ok. I hope that, in the interests of fairness, you equally apply this to all political figures as unimportant. Quoteyou just say things ike, she has dirty underwear I have never considered her underwear. The horror. One item that would affect her candidacy is her memory. It seems to fade in and out. When writing her memoirs, it was detailed and acute. When testifying about Whitewater, she "had no clear recollection" quite often. There is a difference between innocent and not-guilty. One of the examples of her using her education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 February 13, 2007 QuoteSo if you were interviewing a peson for a job, their actually job performance, education and job experiences have no relevance. What is important is that he/she is fucking whom, if he/she looks like they have dirty drawers, and the sort. Can you blame me for being critical of that kind of logic? It's the same logic as drives quotas and set-asides.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
