Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 14,511
- 4,837
- 210
The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....
- Thread starter Biff_Poindexter
- Start date
- Mar 11, 2015
- 77,068
- 34,259
- 2,330
"What percentage of that 45% that "say that blacks don't have the willpower to pull themselves out of poverty" are liberals who picked that option, because they think the forces of Evul Wacism are too strong for anyone to do it by themselves?"
Let's look at what MLK had to say about a comment like this:
The answer is none, because whites have been lifted out of poverty by a myriad of government programs that blacks and other non whites were excluded from. So today we have whites living in a delusion talking about that evul wacism when they were lifted up by the motherfucking government.
I guess I have to show this until some of these idiots understand the truth.
Let's look at what MLK had to say about a comment like this:
The answer is none, because whites have been lifted out of poverty by a myriad of government programs that blacks and other non whites were excluded from. So today we have whites living in a delusion talking about that evul wacism when they were lifted up by the motherfucking government.
I guess I have to show this until some of these idiots understand the truth.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 77,068
- 34,259
- 2,330
Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats meDid that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
What is not mentioned was that the fire department had not been meeting anti discrimination guidelines. That is the only reason they would have been worried after they gave a test the was a standard procedure for promotion.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 77,068
- 34,259
- 2,330
There is no such thing as anti white discrimnation. Only white supremacists believe that.
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 14,511
- 4,837
- 210
I see it this way. They were irrationally scared because the current test results only promoted whites. Irrationally because they had a union contract. One with all the "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed and double checked by expensive law firms representing both parties at the negotiating table. Resulting in a test that, as Judge Kennedy so eloquently summarized in the ruling, had AA built in. So to second guess the results, as the Second District and Correll desired, would in effect be asking to double the AA already applied.Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats meDid that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
What is not mentioned was that the fire department had not been meeting anti discrimination guidelines. That is the only reason they would have been worried after they gave a test the was a standard procedure for promotion.
No test is going to be perfect. A percentage range of error must be presumed. So given, after many years, the test didn't result in the intended amount of minority applicants being promoted, that would be the appropriate time to complain and possibly seek legal redress.
ALL the above hinges upon having that signed union contract. So when Correll cries about all employers living in fear of "disparate impact" - no, that would be all non-union employers above a minimum threshold of employees. They're living on the thin edge, all free and breezy. Well, there's a price for that. Beyond bribing government officials.. Can't take the heat..
Also, with no collective bargaining, no union, it's largely just "at will" employment out there any more. The courts will generally laugh off such complaints today. No standing. An employer can hire and fire "at will" with very few caveats. Corporatocracy baby. Gotta love it. So,.. all you Amazon whse lumpers, you "essential workers" being treated like shit out there.. stay home.. STRIKE! No point in delaying the inevitable any longer.. They're already killing you for peanuts.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #2,186
Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
There was no one there on the right but racists.
⁸
Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
How so?
None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
THey lied to you. They set you up.
You going to take that, and keep playing along?
Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
How did "they" "set me up"?
From my POV, no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
No one else is.
Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
[/QUOTE]
The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you. THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
"Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
[/QUOTE]
And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?
Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
You obviously achieved both.
I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal opinion.
We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.
It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.
Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
That's a "sky is falling" statement.
And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.
Attacking the media.
Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...
Last edited:
The point is, that you are assuming one possible motive to complex questions.
RACISM, is believing a RACE is inferior or superior because of inherent RACIAL characteristics.
I've seen a lot of people argue that success is primarily driven by WHO you know, not what you know. THose people are going to be in a weird place with this question, because they don't believe that ANYONE , BLACK OR WHITE, uses "willpower" to pull themselves out of poverty.
And you and your researcher would count them as "racist".
I see it this way. They were irrationally scared because the current test results only promoted whites. Irrationally because they had a union contract. One with all the "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed and double checked by expensive law firms representing both parties at the negotiating table. Resulting in a test that, as Judge Kennedy so eloquently summarized in the ruling, had AA built in. So to second guess the results, as the Second District and Correll desired, would in effect be asking to double the AA already applied.Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats meDid that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
What is not mentioned was that the fire department had not been meeting anti discrimination guidelines. That is the only reason they would have been worried after they gave a test the was a standard procedure for promotion.
No test is going to be perfect. A percentage range of error must be presumed. So given, after many years, the test didn't result in the intended amount of minority applicants being promoted, that would be the appropriate time to complain and possibly seek legal redress.
ALL the above hinges upon having that signed union contract. So when Correll cries about all employers living in fear of "disparate impact" - no, that would be all non-union employers above a minimum threshold of employees. They're living on the thin edge, all free and breezy. Well, there's a price for that. Beyond bribing government officials.. Can't take the heat..
Also, with no collective bargaining, no union, it's largely just "at will" employment out there any more. The courts will generally laugh off such complaints today. No standing. An employer can hire and fire "at will" with very few caveats. Corporatocracy baby. Gotta love it. So,.. all you Amazon whse lumpers, you "essential workers" being treated like shit out there.. stay home.. STRIKE! No point in delaying the inevitable any longer.. They're already killing you for peanuts.
The test was not the problem. The problem was that the blacks did not score well enough and thus the city could not promote blacks, which they correctly felt they needed to, or risk getting sued.
This issue is universal, with A the various problems in the black community, reducing qualified candidates below proportional levels, and B. people like IM2 and you in positions of power ready to assume racism at the drop of a hat.
And by universal I mean, EVERY EMPLOYER AND SCHOOL OR ANYTHING that could be sued for "Discrimination" has to discriminate against more qualified whites to meet expected proportional representation.
Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
There was no one there on the right but racists.
⁸
Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
How so?
None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
THey lied to you. They set you up.
You going to take that, and keep playing along?
Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
How did "they" "set me up"?
From my POV, no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
No one else is.
Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you. THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
"Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
[/QUOTE]
And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?
Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
You obviously achieved both.
I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal opinion.
We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.
It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.
Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
That's a "sky is falling" statement.
And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.
Attacking the media.
Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...
1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.
2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies. And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.
3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated. They deserve to be attacked. A lot.
Dude. I'm not going to waste time watching vids from you. You got a point to make, make it.
Your complaint is based on programs long gone, and ignores the massive government force brought to bear to help people like you for the last 50 years, at the expense of people like me.
So, go fuck yourself.
- Moderator
- #2,191
Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats meDid that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this
Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
There was no one there on the right but racists.
⁸
Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
How so?
None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
THey lied to you. They set you up.
You going to take that, and keep playing along?
Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
How did "they" "set me up"?
From my POV, no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
No one else is.
Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you. THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
"Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?
Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
You obviously achieved both.
I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal opinion.
We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.
It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.
Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
That's a "sky is falling" statement.
And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.
Attacking the media.
Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...
1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.
2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies. And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.
3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated. They deserve to be attacked. A lot.
[/QUOTE]
"You guys"? "People in MY half"? "People In YOUR half"?
How does one even attempt to have any dialogue with someone using that kind of language?
Civil dialogue is typically a very remote possibility with political zealots.
Especially when their party loyalty or loyalty to a politician permeates their every word.
You still have not answered what source did you check that validates that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
Last edited:
Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats meDid that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
What is not mentioned was that the fire department had not been meeting anti discrimination guidelines. That is the only reason they would have been worried after they gave a test the was a standard procedure for promotion.
Worried why? Oh, because if they did not promote enough blacks, they could get sued, and the people from the government would be people like you, from schools where people like you taught them,
so the city discriminated against the more qualified whites.
And the only reason we know about it, is the whites fought it all the way to the supreme court.
The motive the city had, are still universal in our society.
Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats meDid that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this
Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
There was no one there on the right but racists.
⁸
Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
How so?
None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
THey lied to you. They set you up.
You going to take that, and keep playing along?
Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
How did "they" "set me up"?
From my POV, no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
No one else is.
Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you. THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
"Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?
Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
You obviously achieved both.
I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal opinion.
We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.
It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.
Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
That's a "sky is falling" statement.
And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.
Attacking the media.
Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...www.commondreams.org
1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.
2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies. And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.
3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated. They deserve to be attacked. A lot.
[/QUOTE]
"You guys"? "People in MY half"? "People In YOUR half"?
His does one even attempt to have any dialogue with someone using that kind of language?
Civil dialogue is typically a very remote possibility with political zealots.
Especially when their party loyalty or loyalty to a politician permeates their every word.
You still have not answered what source did you check that validates that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
[/QUOTE]
1. I've repeatedly pointed out that my source is the full transcripts.
2. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like you are going to just accept such obvious lies about people like me.
3. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like me, are pissed off because we keep being held responsible for shit we never did or said, because people like you are believing really obvious lies.
4. This shit is tearing this country apart.
5. Party loyalty is an issue to communication and unity. It pales in comparison to shit like the lie of "very nice people".
- Moderator
- #2,195
Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats meDid that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this
Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
There was no one there on the right but racists.
⁸
Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
How so?
None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
THey lied to you. They set you up.
You going to take that, and keep playing along?
Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
How did "they" "set me up"?
From my POV, no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
No one else is.
Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you. THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
"Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?
Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
You obviously achieved both.
I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal opinion.
We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.
It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.
Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
That's a "sky is falling" statement.
And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.
Attacking the media.
Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...
1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.
2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies. And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.
3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated. They deserve to be attacked. A lot.
"You guys"? "People in MY half"? "People In YOUR half"?
His does one even attempt to have any dialogue with someone using that kind of language?
Civil dialogue is typically a very remote possibility with political zealots.
Especially when their party loyalty or loyalty to a politician permeates their every word.
You still have not answered what source did you check that validates that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
[/QUOTE]
1. I've repeatedly pointed out that my source is the full transcripts.
2. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like you are going to just accept such obvious lies about people like me.
3. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like me, are pissed off because we keep being held responsible for shit we never did or said, because people like you are believing really obvious lies.
4. This shit is tearing this country apart.
5. Party loyalty is an issue to communication and unity. It pales in comparison to shit like the lie of "very nice people".
[/QUOTE]
Seriously?
1. The transcripts of one isolated case is not indicative of an entire country......or even half of it.
2. Name what "lies" about you personally that I've "accepted". I don't know anything about you personally. Nor do you know me.
3. What am I "holding YOU responsible for"? Nothing to my knowledge.
4. Maybe you believe that YOUR part of the country is "being torn apart". But you don't speak for mine.
5. Trump stated "fine people on both sides" He didn't use the term "very nice people". As far as party loyalty goes, there is a difference between that and blind loyalty to one side. That's far more divisive than a difference of perception or interpretation of what a self serving politician says about a rally that people had various reasons for attending.
Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats meDid that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this
Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
There was no one there on the right but racists.
⁸
Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
How so?
None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
THey lied to you. They set you up.
You going to take that, and keep playing along?
Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
How did "they" "set me up"?
From my POV, no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
No one else is.
Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you. THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
"Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?
Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
You obviously achieved both.
I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal opinion.
We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.
It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.
Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
That's a "sky is falling" statement.
And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.
Attacking the media.
Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...
1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.
2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies. And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.
3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated. They deserve to be attacked. A lot.
"You guys"? "People in MY half"? "People In YOUR half"?
His does one even attempt to have any dialogue with someone using that kind of language?
Civil dialogue is typically a very remote possibility with political zealots.
Especially when their party loyalty or loyalty to a politician permeates their every word.
You still have not answered what source did you check that validates that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
1. I've repeatedly pointed out that my source is the full transcripts.
2. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like you are going to just accept such obvious lies about people like me.
3. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like me, are pissed off because we keep being held responsible for shit we never did or said, because people like you are believing really obvious lies.
4. This shit is tearing this country apart.
5. Party loyalty is an issue to communication and unity. It pales in comparison to shit like the lie of "very nice people".
[/QUOTE]
Seriously?
1. The transcripts of one isolated case is not indicative of an entire country......or even half of it.
2. Name what "lies" about you personally that I've "accepted". I don't know anything about you personally. Nor do you know me.
3. What am I "holding YOU responsible for"? Nothing to my knowledge.
4. Maybe you believe that YOUR part of the country is "being torn apart". But you don't speak for mine.
5. Trump stated "fine people on both sides" He didn't use the term "very nice people". As far as party loyalty goes, there is a difference between that and blind loyalty to one side. That's far more divisive than a difference of perception or interpretation of what a self serving politician says about a rally that people had various reasons for attending.
[/QUOTE]
Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.
The media has lied to everyone in the country, and those on your side of the divide believe (or pretend to believe) that the President of the United States said that neo-nazis are "fine people".
That reflects not only on him, but on everyone that supports him.
So many people on your side of the aisle believe that anyone who opposes them has to be stupid or evil.
ON our side, I can tell you, we are increasingly tired of being slammed based on bullshit like that.
As you play along with that lie, and others like it, you are tearing this country apart.
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 14,511
- 4,837
- 210
He probably was doubtful that the rally was all "white supremacist".
After all, such rallies rarely get into double digits.
Initial reports did not make much sense. A white supremacist rally in the hundreds? In this day and age?
- Moderator
- #2,199
Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal. What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats meDid that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this
Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
There was no one there on the right but racists.
⁸
Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
How so?
None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
THey lied to you. They set you up.
You going to take that, and keep playing along?
Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
How did "they" "set me up"?
From my POV, no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
No one else is.
Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you. THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
"Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?
Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
You obviously achieved both.
I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal opinion.
We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.
It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.
Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
That's a "sky is falling" statement.
And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.
Attacking the media.
Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...
1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.
2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies. And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.
3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated. They deserve to be attacked. A lot.
"You guys"? "People in MY half"? "People In YOUR half"?
His does one even attempt to have any dialogue with someone using that kind of language?
Civil dialogue is typically a very remote possibility with political zealots.
Especially when their party loyalty or loyalty to a politician permeates their every word.
You still have not answered what source did you check that validates that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
1. I've repeatedly pointed out that my source is the full transcripts.
2. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like you are going to just accept such obvious lies about people like me.
3. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like me, are pissed off because we keep being held responsible for shit we never did or said, because people like you are believing really obvious lies.
4. This shit is tearing this country apart.
5. Party loyalty is an issue to communication and unity. It pales in comparison to shit like the lie of "very nice people".
Seriously?
1. The transcripts of one isolated case is not indicative of an entire country......or even half of it.
2. Name what "lies" about you personally that I've "accepted". I don't know anything about you personally. Nor do you know me.
3. What am I "holding YOU responsible for"? Nothing to my knowledge.
4. Maybe you believe that YOUR part of the country is "being torn apart". But you don't speak for mine.
5. Trump stated "fine people on both sides" He didn't use the term "very nice people". As far as party loyalty goes, there is a difference between that and blind loyalty to one side. That's far more divisive than a difference of perception or interpretation of what a self serving politician says about a rally that people had various reasons for attending.
[/QUOTE]
Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.
The media has lied to everyone in the country, and those on your side of the divide believe (or pretend to believe) that the President of the United States said that neo-nazis are "fine people".
That reflects not only on him, but on everyone that supports him.
So many people on your side of the aisle believe that anyone who opposes them has to be stupid or evil.
ON our side, I can tell you, we are increasingly tired of being slammed based on bullshit like that.
As you play along with that lie, and others like it, you are tearing this country apart.
[/QUOTE]
So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? Those who saw some of the characters that were there as being there for other reasons than to save "harmless statues"?
So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
So you are contributing your share of "tearing the country apart"as well.
That is interesting.
What really should matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
Last edited:
As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
Who is being dramatic now?
If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names, or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
Similar threads
