For 8 years the right has been called racist.

[AntonToo]

For 8 years the right has been called racist.

For eight years many on the right have been talking about how Obama is a secret Kenyan and a Mulsim, a foreigner who illegally snuck into Presidency.

You get what you put in.

Do you think that a person's childhood environment has any influence on them?

Whooop, there you go again.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Now if Hillary is elected that meme will change to sexist.
Liberals just can't fathom that people vehemently disagree with their positions. Their tunnel vision blinds them completely to the fact that their train of thought is but one narrow view of the world.

can you fathom that at least some of thr opposition to obama and driving force behind the 'tea party' was racism?

Can you fathom that some of the support for Obama was racist? The Senate Majority Leader at the time called Obama an attractive African American presidential candidate because he "is light-skinned and has no Negro dialect".

 

[rightwinger]

Ya think voter ID or making sure only eligible citizens are registered will help?

Only eligible citizens are registered already, idiot.

And given there were ZERO cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud in Texas, this year will be a continuation of the 140 year old tradition of suppressing black votes through racist laws, sheer brutality, and a whole host of ways that white cowards keep power over people who are a little smarter and far more righteous than you and your ilk.

I bet all that lying really makes you really really tired. I know of two registration fraud convictions in my county last election. But let's not little things like facts get in the way of good propaganda, right? I think your mommy is getting mad because you're up past your bed time.

Your state had ZERO case of in-person voter impersonation fraud.

Ergo, the photo ID's can't stop voter fraud. Because you can't get less than zero.

So the thousands of people you disenfranchise are all crimes against your own citizens. That is pretty sick and cowardly.

i trust you have some viable documentation that there was ZERO cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud.

You do, right?

Right?

Dude, if someone committed in-person voter impersonation fraud, YOU HAVE THE BURDEN TO PROVE IT.

My proof is the NONEXISTENCE of the evidence of that kind of fraud in Texas.

In person voter impersonation is easy to confirm

Someone voted in your name and you show up and are told you already voted
A person shows up and gives a name and that person had voted already

NEVER happens.

 

[Correll]

It has been scientifically demonstrated that liberals are the WORST at understanding others, while believing they are the best at it.

A combination of ignorance and arrogance that is infuriating to deal with and depressing that it is such a powerful force in the world today.

lol - Source?

Here you go.


Born This Way?



"Crossing the Divide

The two narratives are as opposed as they could be. Can partisans even understand the story told by the other side? The obstacles to empathy are not symmetrical. There is no foundation used by the left that is not also used by the right. Even though conservatives score slightly lower on measures of empathy and may therefore be less moved by a story about suffering and oppression, they can still recognize that it is awful to be kept in chains. And even though many conservatives opposed some of the great liberations of the 20th century—of women, sweatshop workers, African Americans, and gay people—they have applauded others, such as the liberation of Eastern Europe from communist oppression.

But when liberals try to understand the Reagan narrative, they have a harder time. When I speak to liberal audiences about the three “binding” foundations—loyalty, authority, and sanctity—I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia.

In a study I conducted with colleagues Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than 2,000 American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right. Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the care and fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with statements such as “one of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or “justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He is more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of loyalty, authority, and sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in care and fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal weekly The Village Voice, when he wrote in 2004: “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet.…Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic—who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living—to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own."

 

[Correll]

Only eligible citizens are registered already, idiot.

And given there were ZERO cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud in Texas, this year will be a continuation of the 140 year old tradition of suppressing black votes through racist laws, sheer brutality, and a whole host of ways that white cowards keep power over people who are a little smarter and far more righteous than you and your ilk.

I bet all that lying really makes you really really tired. I know of two registration fraud convictions in my county last election. But let's not little things like facts get in the way of good propaganda, right? I think your mommy is getting mad because you're up past your bed time.

Your state had ZERO case of in-person voter impersonation fraud.

Ergo, the photo ID's can't stop voter fraud. Because you can't get less than zero.

So the thousands of people you disenfranchise are all crimes against your own citizens. That is pretty sick and cowardly.

i trust you have some viable documentation that there was ZERO cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud.

You do, right?

Right?

Dude, if someone committed in-person voter impersonation fraud, YOU HAVE THE BURDEN TO PROVE IT.

My proof is the NONEXISTENCE of the evidence of that kind of fraud in Texas.

In person voter impersonation is easy to confirm

Someone voted in your name and you show up and are told you already voted
A person shows up and gives a name and that person had voted already

NEVER happens.

If the people running the voting are as convinced as you are that Republicans are Evul Racist Nazis who need to be stopped, do you really think they would take steps to protect the rights of the "nazis"?

 

[Correll]

For 8 years the right has attempted to avoid accountability for their bigoted, hate fueled rhetoric by accusing liberals of overplaying the race card. For 8 years the right has proved wholly inadequate for the task of demonstrating these accusations are worth the time it takes to spew them.

Looks like the zero accountability party intends to play off their previous 'success' by doing the same with their hate fueled, misogynous rhetoric for the next 8 years.

What a surprise.

For decades the Left has, instead of making the case for it's policies based on their merits, have instead focused on dishonestly smearing their enemies in order to discredit and marginalize them.

 

[Correll]

The KKK endorsed Trump.

No one is making anything up, this is a large part of the Republican base.

16 million people voted for Trump in the primaries ---- there are 5000 - 8000 members of the KKK nationwide. Here's How Big the KKK is in 2016

That means, at most, 0.03125% of Trump supporters (who voted) were KKK members.

I would suggest that probably doesn't qualify as "... a large part of the Republican base."

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You get called racist because of all the racist shit you say !

5 min in this place is all you need to get a good dose of deplorables.

FAIL

"This place" didn't block Obama. Congress did, and not very well at that.

The liberals here have forgotten to mention that Nancy Pelosi had such a difficult time convincing "blue dog" democrats to get on board to pass legislation for President Obama's Affordable Care Act. They had enough Democrat votes to get it done despite all the republicans that stood opposed to the idea of a government taking so much control of our nation's healthcare. I just want to see how many liberals here, Seawytch, Timmy, ogibillm and others will come forward and say, the difficulty Nancy Pelosi had was due to the blue dog democrats having such a strong racial view of President Obama.

Is it based on their political ideological views on government policy or racism, which is it?

 

[Correll]

We're seeing racism and misogyny everywhere in the Republican party. There is no denying it.

Trying to cry foul--and say OH no we're not like that, is actually laughable.

...

Google Groups

That claim is denied ALL THE TIME, and very credibly by people who should know, as they are often personally accused.


Meanwhile you lefties pretend to know what we are thinking even better than we do ourselves while being so Vulcan that the incredible self interest you have in defining us as "racist" magically does not effect your analysis.



THAT Is what is absurd. Your claims.

 

[Correll]

can you fathom that at least some of thr opposition to obama and driving force behind the 'tea party' was racism?

No, because there are Black's who agree with US. They're attacked by your side.

David Clark. Alan West. We accept them. You HATE them. So no. Obama is hated because he hates America.

Sheriff Clark is always under attack from the left because he openly discusses the many flaws in their thinking. He deals with people on the streets every day and he know what's going on. Allen West, Ben Carson, Walter Williams, Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell and others are praised by the right because they talk sense. The left can't give any of them an ounce of credit and simply dismiss them because they are black.

Is it fair to say that liberals bash the above people because they are racist? The left calls them names that they reserve for blacks only, like puppet, Uncle Tom or ventriloquist's dummy. They don't believe those men can form an opinion on their own because they are black. The left seems to think that no black can possibly hold an opinion that wasn't fed to them by liberals.

When people disagree with Obama, they list specific things. It was no different than criticizing any other Dem president and the reasons are the same. Liberal policies fail.

Beautifully said.

 

[Correll]

Why is it considered racist to demand verification of a candidate's eligibility?

Because that was already IMMUTABLY SETTLED by the state of Hawaii THREE YEARS BEFORE Trump went on his charade, moron.

Try reading the constitution, and look up the word, immutable.

Nothing about that proves racism. Doesn't even really suggest it.


You are assuming racism as a motive, based on nothing but your feelings.

 

[rightwinger]

So you embrace different standards for different races, proof you are a racist.

I embrace the fact that using certain terms to someone can have different meaning according to the person using those terms, like I said you trying to deny that fact makes you dishonest, or the most ignorant person in this thread. So what is it dishonest or ignorant?

You mean according to the RACE of the person using the terms, it's you that's too ignorant see and to dishonest to admit, that position is racist.

Sure race. Like I said when a black person uses n1gger he isn't being derogatory to the guys race. How could he be he has that same race? A white person can't claim the same. That's why it depends. It isn't racist but simply a different context. If you don't realise that I guess you have answered my question. You are not dishonest, simply ignorant, thanks for clearing that up.

Run along racist with your moral relativism, if a white uses the term in the exact same context they would still be called a racist. Of course if a black calls a white a cracker, they can't be racist right?

Remember when Zimmerman got slammed for answering a question about the subject's race while Martin got a pass for calling Zimmerman a cracker?

Zimmerman got a pass for killing Martin

 

[Correll]

"For 8 years the right has been called racist."

The right has only itself to blame, the consequence of the Southern
Strategy and the fact that racists and bigots have found refuge among the ranks of Republicans for decades.

Most racists identify as conservative, most racists vote Republican - this is not to say that conservatives and Republicans endorse racism and bigotry, but clearly there's a problem with rightist dogma that attracts racists and bigots.

And when racism and bigotry manifest on the right, such as unwarranted hostility directed at Muslims, those conservatives engaging in racism and bigotry will be appropriately and accurately identified as racists and bigots.

The Southern Strategy is a myth.

Nixon, the supposed father of the Southern Strategy is the one who desegregated the South's schools.

He did it as quickly and aggressively as possible so that it would be a done before the election.

That was as close as he came to pandering to the racists, to crush their resistance as far away from the election as he could.

 

[rightwinger]

I bet all that lying really makes you really really tired. I know of two registration fraud convictions in my county last election. But let's not little things like facts get in the way of good propaganda, right? I think your mommy is getting mad because you're up past your bed time.

Your state had ZERO case of in-person voter impersonation fraud.

Ergo, the photo ID's can't stop voter fraud. Because you can't get less than zero.

So the thousands of people you disenfranchise are all crimes against your own citizens. That is pretty sick and cowardly.

i trust you have some viable documentation that there was ZERO cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud.

You do, right?

Right?

Dude, if someone committed in-person voter impersonation fraud, YOU HAVE THE BURDEN TO PROVE IT.

My proof is the NONEXISTENCE of the evidence of that kind of fraud in Texas.

In person voter impersonation is easy to confirm

Someone voted in your name and you show up and are told you already voted
A person shows up and gives a name and that person had voted already

NEVER happens.

If the people running the voting are as convinced as you are that Republicans are Evul Racist Nazis who need to be stopped, do you really think they would take steps to protect the rights of the "nazis"?

Nazi's? Maybe a little extreme
Do I think the motivation of Republicans is to turn away voters who are unlikely to vote for them?

Absolutely

 

[rightwinger]

"For 8 years the right has been called racist."

The right has only itself to blame, the consequence of the Southern
Strategy and the fact that racists and bigots have found refuge among the ranks of Republicans for decades.

Most racists identify as conservative, most racists vote Republican - this is not to say that conservatives and Republicans endorse racism and bigotry, but clearly there's a problem with rightist dogma that attracts racists and bigots.

And when racism and bigotry manifest on the right, such as unwarranted hostility directed at Muslims, those conservatives engaging in racism and bigotry will be appropriately and accurately identified as racists and bigots.

The Southern Strategy is a myth.

Nixon, the supposed father of the Southern Strategy is the one who desegregated the South's schools.

He did it as quickly and aggressively as possible so that it would be a done before the election.

That was as close as he came to pandering to the racists, to crush their resistance as far away from the election as he could.

Southern Strategy is still going strong

 

[AntonToo]

It has been scientifically demonstrated that liberals are the WORST at understanding others, while believing they are the best at it.

A combination of ignorance and arrogance that is infuriating to deal with and depressing that it is such a powerful force in the world today.

lol - Source?

Born This Way?

In a study I conducted with colleagues Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than 2,000 American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire.

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the care and fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with statements such as “one of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or “justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He is more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of loyalty, authority, and sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in care and fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal weekly The Village Voice, when he wrote in 2004: “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet.…Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic—who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living—to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own."

Ok fine, study looks more or less legit, but concentrates on MORALITY valuation questions where Liberals misunderstand conservatives, over-vilifying their answers. But that is not the same as misunderstanding arguments conservatives make when it comes to actual issues of debate.

The shit conservatives say around here is so often straight lunacy with a side of consistent disrespect for basic rational, evidence based thought patterns.

I just don't see as much conspiratorial, baseless nonsense from the left.

I don't think conservative are morally evil, I think they operate under their own preferred set of facts and have, willingly or not, developed a whole self-perpetuating machinery to fabricate them.

 

[Correll]

I embrace the fact that using certain terms to someone can have different meaning according to the person using those terms, like I said you trying to deny that fact makes you dishonest, or the most ignorant person in this thread. So what is it dishonest or ignorant?

You mean according to the RACE of the person using the terms, it's you that's too ignorant see and to dishonest to admit, that position is racist.

Sure race. Like I said when a black person uses n1gger he isn't being derogatory to the guys race. How could he be he has that same race? A white person can't claim the same. That's why it depends. It isn't racist but simply a different context. If you don't realise that I guess you have answered my question. You are not dishonest, simply ignorant, thanks for clearing that up.

Run along racist with your moral relativism, if a white uses the term in the exact same context they would still be called a racist. Of course if a black calls a white a cracker, they can't be racist right?

Remember when Zimmerman got slammed for answering a question about the subject's race while Martin got a pass for calling Zimmerman a cracker?

Zimmerman got a pass for killing Martin

You do realize that you completely failed to challenge my point, right?


My point stands. I provided a fine historical example of what OKTexas was saying and you can't deny it because it is undeniable.


That's why you instead tried to change the subject.



Zimmerman got slammed for answering a question about the subject's race while Martin got a pass for calling Zimmerman a cracker

 

[ogibillm]

Now if Hillary is elected that meme will change to sexist.
Liberals just can't fathom that people vehemently disagree with their positions. Their tunnel vision blinds them completely to the fact that their train of thought is but one narrow view of the world.

can you fathom that at least some of thr opposition to obama and driving force behind the 'tea party' was racism?

The tea party is more of a difference in the ideological role of government. Can you comprehend the difference between clear racial statements, from those who demonstrate and protest a different political view of our government? Do you have any links to actual statements that are made from those leaders of the tea party movement, that show nothing else but a clear racial hatred statement towards the president?

you aren't really asking for this, are you?

 

[Correll]

"For 8 years the right has been called racist."

The right has only itself to blame, the consequence of the Southern
Strategy and the fact that racists and bigots have found refuge among the ranks of Republicans for decades.

Most racists identify as conservative, most racists vote Republican - this is not to say that conservatives and Republicans endorse racism and bigotry, but clearly there's a problem with rightist dogma that attracts racists and bigots.

And when racism and bigotry manifest on the right, such as unwarranted hostility directed at Muslims, those conservatives engaging in racism and bigotry will be appropriately and accurately identified as racists and bigots.

The Southern Strategy is a myth.

Nixon, the supposed father of the Southern Strategy is the one who desegregated the South's schools.

He did it as quickly and aggressively as possible so that it would be a done before the election.

That was as close as he came to pandering to the racists, to crush their resistance as far away from the election as he could.

Southern Strategy is still going strong

Note how I supported my claim with strong historical evidence.

Then note how you did NOTHING but voice your unsupported opinion and completely failed to even attempt to challenge my provided evidence or my reasoning.


I challenge you to trump the historical example I provided.

Hint: YOU CAN'T.

But you are too dishonest to admit that.

 

[Correll]

It has been scientifically demonstrated that liberals are the WORST at understanding others, while believing they are the best at it.

A combination of ignorance and arrogance that is infuriating to deal with and depressing that it is such a powerful force in the world today.

lol - Source?

Born This Way?

In a study I conducted with colleagues Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than 2,000 American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire.

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the care and fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with statements such as “one of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or “justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He is more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of loyalty, authority, and sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in care and fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal weekly The Village Voice, when he wrote in 2004: “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet.…Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic—who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living—to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own."

Ok fine, study looks more or less legit, but concentrates on MORALITY valuation questions where Liberals misunderstand conservatives, over-vilifying their answers. But that is not the same as misunderstanding arguments conservatives make when it comes to actual issues of debate.

The shit conservatives say around here is so often straight lunacy with a side of consistent disrespect for basic rational, evidence based thought patterns.

I just don't see as much conspiratorial, baseless nonsense from the left.

I don't think conservative are morally evil, I think they operate under their own preferred set of facts and have, willingly or not, developed a whole self-perpetuating machinery to fabricate them.

Give me your top example.

ONE, so that I can seriously address it.


(ps kudos for not denying the study)