If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Arkansas Republican defends slavery. This is NOT a repeat from last week   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 322
    More: Sick, Loy Mauch, Arkansas, Gene Mauch, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Carl Paladino, League of the South, premeditated murder, hot springs  
•       •       •

15984 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Oct 2012 at 3:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



322 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-09 03:20:19 PM
Actually, it is a repeat of the last 140-some years. Racists have been saying this shiat for a long, long time.
 
2012-10-09 03:28:31 PM

intelligent comment below: cman: It's human nature. We are biological machines programmed in a survivor mode. We are still paranoid creatures, and because of that, we twist facts to fit our distorted point of view. At the same time we have an ability of abstract thinking, meaning that we can invent our own fears to fit our preconceptions. Until we evolve from our ancestors traits of survival mode, we will always fall for bullshiat like this.


More people talking about "biological and "natural" and just making up nonsense. It is nothing but bullshiat. Your brain is nothing of the sort. Any mental defects you see is because of your upbringing and outside forces. There is no survivor mode because we are not hunted day and night. You have fears and preconceptions because you were for example insulted and ridiculed as a kid growing up so you are very shallow and desperately need a comfort blanket like religion.


Yeah, this.
 
2012-10-09 03:32:06 PM

Profedius: If he loves slavery so much he is in the wrong party. The Republic party came about over the divide of the Democratic party on the issue of Slavery with the Republic party mainly against it. The main reason the Republic party was against slavery wasn't due to the plight of the black man, but because they did not want slave owners to enter into the new western states with their slaves. Having slave owners allowed to bring their slaves into the western states would allow them a decide advantage in working the land.

If we never practiced slavery in this Nation we would have very few if any black people living in this country since they would have never migrated in mass on their own.


And again, i will point out the obvious weak link in your republican history chain...

1964...

All those people who were pro-slavery, and their children/grandchildren who were pro-segregation felt betrayed by their democratic leaders, who for years they relied upon to keep the power and laws to favor whites, felt betrayed when those leaders picked up the flag of civil rights. The democratic party officially adopted civil rights and equal rights as a plank in their platform. This turned many white democratic voters into republicans and by 1980 the Democratic stronghold of the south was flipped to Red...

The Democrat party, trying to capitalize on the inevitable outcome of the civil rights movement and bolster the new black voting population, alienated its core voters, and thus cause the great shift from blue to red in the south and midwest.

You might want to read a little more about it... Hell even wikipedia covers it...
 
2012-10-09 03:38:07 PM

CeroX:
The Democrat party, trying to capitalize on the inevitable outcome of the civil rights movement and bolster the new black voting population, alienated its core voters, and thus cause the great shift from blue to red in the south and midwest.


...and led the conquered morons to join the party that destroyed them led by Lincoln himself.

/Democrat party?
//really?
 
2012-10-09 03:38:17 PM

CeroX: Profedius: If he loves slavery so much he is in the wrong party. The Republic party came about over the divide of the Democratic party on the issue of Slavery with the Republic party mainly against it. The main reason the Republic party was against slavery wasn't due to the plight of the black man, but because they did not want slave owners to enter into the new western states with their slaves. Having slave owners allowed to bring their slaves into the western states would allow them a decide advantage in working the land.

If we never practiced slavery in this Nation we would have very few if any black people living in this country since they would have never migrated in mass on their own.

And again, i will point out the obvious weak link in your republican history chain...

1964...

All those people who were pro-slavery, and their children/grandchildren who were pro-segregation felt betrayed by their democratic leaders, who for years they relied upon to keep the power and laws to favor whites, felt betrayed when those leaders picked up the flag of civil rights. The democratic party officially adopted civil rights and equal rights as a plank in their platform. This turned many white democratic voters into republicans and by 1980 the Democratic stronghold of the south was flipped to Red...

The Democrat party, trying to capitalize on the inevitable outcome of the civil rights movement and bolster the new black voting population, alienated its core voters, and thus cause the great shift from blue to red in the south and midwest.

You might want to read a little more about it... Hell even wikipedia covers it...


But what does Conservapedia have to say?
 
2012-10-09 03:52:37 PM

CeroX: Profedius: If he loves slavery so much he is in the wrong party. The Republic party came about over the divide of the Democratic party on the issue of Slavery with the Republic party mainly against it. The main reason the Republic party was against slavery wasn't due to the plight of the black man, but because they did not want slave owners to enter into the new western states with their slaves. Having slave owners allowed to bring their slaves into the western states would allow them a decide advantage in working the land.

If we never practiced slavery in this Nation we would have very few if any black people living in this country since they would have never migrated in mass on their own.

And again, i will point out the obvious weak link in your republican history chain...

1964...

All those people who were pro-slavery, and their children/grandchildren who were pro-segregation felt betrayed by their democratic leaders, who for years they relied upon to keep the power and laws to favor whites, felt betrayed when those leaders picked up the flag of civil rights. The democratic party officially adopted civil rights and equal rights as a plank in their platform. This turned many white democratic voters into republicans and by 1980 the Democratic stronghold of the south was flipped to Red...

The Democrat party, trying to capitalize on the inevitable outcome of the civil rights movement and bolster the new black voting population, alienated its core voters, and thus cause the great shift from blue to red in the south and midwest.

You might want to read a little more about it... Hell even wikipedia covers it...


1964 if a far cry from the birth of the Republican party, but I see where you are going with the argument since we are speaking as to what the parties currently stand for. I just enjoy pointing out what they used to stand for and that they are both worthless on integrity.
 
2012-10-09 03:59:19 PM

Molavian: Of course, idiots like this don't hold a candle to the damage the Democrats have done to black people over the last 60 years.


Okay I'll bite. I'm black, 40 years old. Tell me what damage the democrats have done to me.
 
2012-10-09 05:02:57 PM

Profedius: I just enjoy pointing out what they used to stand for and that they are both worthless on integrity.


on this i couldn't agree more...
 
2012-10-09 05:15:55 PM

CeroX: The Democrat party


lol. you don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.
 
2012-10-09 05:39:50 PM

I Browse: Molavian: Of course, idiots like this don't hold a candle to the damage the Democrats have done to black people over the last 60 years.

Okay I'll bite. I'm black, 40 years old. Tell me what damage the democrats have done to me.


I know what some people will say... government handouts, welfare, blah blah blah, and there might be some truth in there, but more importantly, what do you, as a black man of 40 feel is the greatest injustice to the black americans since you've been born... we KNOW what the greatest injustice in history is, there's no denying that... but as a white man, i would really like to know a black man's feelings on the subject...
 
2012-10-09 05:42:58 PM

FlashHarry: CeroX: The Democrat party

lol. you don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.


grammar? that's all you got?

hey, i didnt properly punctuate or use capital letters in this sentence either...
 
2012-10-09 05:49:10 PM

jshine: my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Huh, I've seen that graph posted dozens of times at least, but this is the first time I ever noticed that the numbers are (presumably) wrong for the number of pirates, as it is actually showing an INCREASE in the number of pirates from 1820-1860 from 35,000 to 45,000. After that the numbers are sequentially smaller... Now I am left wondering if it was done intentionally to make the graph even more LULZworthy, or if it was just an honest mistake by the creator, who made a quick and dirty graph, never imagining that it would become a permanent meme posted and reposted across the intertubes.

...or maybe its correct? I don't know anything about the history of piracy, but I can't think of any reason why there absolutely *must* be fewer pirates in 1860 vs. 1820. Maybe there really was a temproary increase?


I guess it is odd to me that a graph that has such a clear linear progression, and indeed the whole intent/joke is to show that correlating trends don't necessarily mean the things being compared have any impact on one another. But to then force the graph into a linear regression by reversing the progression of the numbers on the axis, hilarity! Okay, LULZworthy is probably it then.
 
2012-10-09 06:15:04 PM

CeroX:

I know what some people will say... government handouts, welfare, blah blah blah, and there might be some truth in there, but more importantly, what do you, as a black man of 40 feel is the greatest injustice to the black americans since you've been born... we KNOW what the greatest injustice in history is, there's no denying that... but as a white man, i would really like to know a black man's feelings on the subject...



Honestly, I may not be the best black person to ask because I tend to put more weight into the class divide in this country as opposed to the racial divide. I think most of the really damaging things done to the black community (slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, self hatred propaganda, etc) took place prior to my birth.

But if I had to point to the two most damaging policies of my lifetime, I'd probably have to go with the War on Drugs (which again, I see mostly as a class issue), and the practice of Redlining, which I think has done more to hurt black advancement than almost any other factor since Jim Crow.

Linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
 
2012-10-09 06:23:48 PM

CeroX: FlashHarry: CeroX: The Democrat party

lol. you don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.

grammar? that's all you got?

hey, i didnt properly punctuate or use capital letters in this sentence either...


No, but your dog whistle is deafening.
 
2012-10-09 06:25:35 PM
I find it very amusing that a person that supports racism would call Lincoln and his generals Nazis.
 
2012-10-09 06:45:15 PM

CeroX: grammar? that's all you got?


it was a joke, einstein.

you're clearly misusing the noun "democrat" as an adjective on purpose, as republicans have done over the years. it may be childish and petulant, but it does serve a purpose: it immediately indicates that the person in question is a hyper-partisan whose opinion is worthless.

i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-09 07:10:50 PM

CeroX: Profedius: I just enjoy pointing out what they used to stand for and that they are both worthless on integrity.

on this i couldn't agree more...


Witness the false-equivalency.

One party commits grand theft, one petty theft, therefore they are equally criminals.
 
2012-10-09 07:55:54 PM

Aarontology: onfederate flag is "a symbol of Christian liberty vs. the new world order."

No. It's a symbol of treason and failure.



"Treason" is actually arguable. Was Robert E. Lee *actually* a traitor, or
were his loyalties made divided by circumstance?

Just sayin' - be careful. It's a bloody mess of a war.
Racists have just as much right to an opinion as we do.
 
2012-10-09 09:02:40 PM
I don't need read more than 3 posts in this thread.

Liberals, if you really think this is the GOP, then please, go right ahead and tell everyone. Go look up Ross Barnett and George Wallace and see what party affiliation they had.

bigotry transcends party affiliation. need I remind you of Robert Bryd?

So in short, all you self righteous liberals who think you have the monopoly on racial harmony, go fark yourselves
 
2012-10-09 09:18:30 PM
Is this the same Arkansas GOPer who thinks we should execute children for being disobedient?
 
2012-10-09 09:26:59 PM

Nadie_AZ: Finally. They are coming out. We get to see more and more GOP for what they are.


These letters have been around for a while and he was elected any way. My only question is how much further to the right can they go before people stop calling them "conservative" and start calling them the crypto-fascists and theocrats they are.
 
2012-10-09 09:27:51 PM

Aarontology: If slavery were so God-awful, why didn't Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn't there a war before 1861?

These are the actual beliefs of an actual elected official.


and him and his ilk want to replace the constitution with the Bible.
 
2012-10-09 09:32:02 PM

God-is-a-Taco: Oh come on.
Hasn't everyone defended slavery at one point in their lives?


Sure most of us like having cheap fruit and veggies in our supermarket.

That Jose' has to pick them for .01 cents an hour means he's *not* a slave, but gainfully employed. (And bootstrappy!)

/and there are zero sex slaves in America
//and child slaves.
///slavery is still very much around even in America
 
2012-10-09 09:32:35 PM

DrPainMD: MonkeyAngst: DrPainMD: From a link in TFA: Jon Hubbard, a Republican member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, has written a new book in which he says slavery was "a blessing" for African-Americans, among other questionable statements.

Why wasn't it questionable when Chris Rock said the exact same thing? I don't know this guy or anything he's said/written, but, in that case, how can he be condemned while Chris Rock isn't? And why are people quick to brand one person as evil for saying something, yet totally accept and agree with someone else who says the same thing?

What the hell? When did Chris Rock call slavery a blessing for African-Americans? I mean, I know you're a "black people do it, why can't white people?" troll, but still, I want to know where this is coming from.

They both said, basically, that if it wasn't for slavery, all the black people in the US would be starving in Africa. And let's face it... the worst in America live better than the vast majority in Africa. When Rock says it, people nod and say, "he's got a point," but this politician guy gets branded as being "pro-slavery" and a racist for saying the same thing.


Chris Rock was *joking* you numbnuts.
 
2012-10-09 09:37:27 PM

Doctor Jan Itor: Slavery isn't ALL bad.
[media.heavy.com image 650x489]


except when she strangles you with her chain
 
2012-10-09 10:57:56 PM

serpent_sky: And they think they're right.

How is ths solved WITHOUT some sort of civil war?.

 

We wait, and they die out.  We outlasted Jesse Helms. We'll outlast Paul Ryan.
 
2012-10-09 11:20:37 PM

DrPainMD: You're saying the our standard of living wouldn't be what it is, and theirs wouldn't either, if slavery had never existed? Ok, now it's my turn. Good luck proving that one.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]


I'm saying that history happened and that you can't cherry-pick one part of it (North America has a higher standard of living than another continent) to hand-wave away the rest (The United States has a long history of oppression and genocidal tendencies).

If you were having an intellectually honest discussion, or respectfully pursuing alternative-history fiction for the purpose of metaphor and entertainment, instead of trying to clothe your racist beliefs in pseudo-logic, I wouldn't need to explain this.
 
2012-10-09 11:36:01 PM

DrPainMD: Ok, I'll put the question to you: do blacks in the US have it better here than they would have had if their ancestors were never brought over here?

It's a simple question with a completely objective answer, and that answer is, "yes." If you agree, you are a racist apologist for slavery, and if you disagree, you are an idiot.


You've now posed two different questions: "Are blacks in America today better off than blacks in Africa today" and "do blacks in the US today have it better than they would have if their ancestors were never brought here?"


You act as if those two are the same question, and that's another indicator that - instead of an intellectually honest examination of history - you're trying to hide your racial supremacist beliefs under a veneer of scholasticism.
 
2012-10-09 11:38:33 PM

ciberido: serpent_sky: And they think they're right.

How is ths solved WITHOUT some sort of civil war?. 

We wait, and they die out.  We outlasted Jesse Helms. We'll outlast Paul Ryan.


We outlasted Jesse Helms and got Jim DeMint, Mitch McConnell, Joe Barton, Virginia Foxx, Louis Gohmert, Michelle Bachmann, Todd Akin, Paul Broun, Dana Rohrbacher, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Herman Cain...

and they just keep coming.
 
2012-10-09 11:39:50 PM

Bonzo_1116: DrPainMD: MonkeyAngst: DrPainMD: From a link in TFA: Jon Hubbard, a Republican member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, has written a new book in which he says slavery was "a blessing" for African-Americans, among other questionable statements.

Why wasn't it questionable when Chris Rock said the exact same thing? I don't know this guy or anything he's said/written, but, in that case, how can he be condemned while Chris Rock isn't? And why are people quick to brand one person as evil for saying something, yet totally accept and agree with someone else who says the same thing?

What the hell? When did Chris Rock call slavery a blessing for African-Americans? I mean, I know you're a "black people do it, why can't white people?" troll, but still, I want to know where this is coming from.

They both said, basically, that if it wasn't for slavery, all the black people in the US would be starving in Africa. And let's face it... the worst in America live better than the vast majority in Africa. When Rock says it, people nod and say, "he's got a point," but this politician guy gets branded as being "pro-slavery" and a racist for saying the same thing.

Chris Rock was *joking* you numbnuts.


No he wasn't. Do you really think that Chris Rock wishes that he had been born in Africa? Really? Maybe in Chad, where the average person makes $400 per year? Yeah, that's what he wants.
 
2012-10-09 11:41:36 PM

DataShade: DrPainMD: Ok, I'll put the question to you: do blacks in the US have it better here than they would have had if their ancestors were never brought over here?

It's a simple question with a completely objective answer, and that answer is, "yes." If you agree, you are a racist apologist for slavery, and if you disagree, you are an idiot.

You've now posed two different questions: "Are blacks in America today better off than blacks in Africa today" and "do blacks in the US today have it better than they would have if their ancestors were never brought here?"


You act as if those two are the same question, and that's another indicator that - instead of an intellectually honest examination of history - you're trying to hide your racial supremacist beliefs under a veneer of scholasticism.


No. It was always just one question. You're just an idiot. I guess I'll tag you "have to spell everything out like you're talking to a five-year old."
 
2012-10-09 11:49:35 PM

DrPainMD: HotWingConspiracy: DrPainMD: HotWingConspiracy: DrPainMD: And, really, it's not even a matter of opinion; it's totally and completely and objective fact; black people in the US have it much better than they do in Africa.

All of them?

You have a pretty cartoonish idea of what it's like in Africa.

I'm dealing with too many idiots in this thread already. You'll have to save it for another day.

Just driving a truck through the holes in your shiat arguments. Feel free to put me on ignore though.

Really? My argument is that Chris Rock said the same thing. You drove a truck thru the holes in that? When?


What did Chris Rock say? When and where? In what context?
You keep asserting that Chris Rock said the same thing, but there's no citation.
 
2012-10-09 11:50:38 PM

DrPainMD: When did I say that I cannot conceive of those things? I think you're having a separate conversation in your head... you think it's a conversation with me, but it's just you talking to yourself.


If you think your previous question was "simple" with only one "completely objective answer," when any question of alternate history is filled with an infinite number of variables, then what else could possibly explain your resolute adherence? I mean, either you're so naive you don't even begin to understand the implications of the hypothetical scenario you've created, or you're intellectually dishonest enough to shamelessly discard all the possibilities that detract from your wish-fulfillment conclusion.

Actually, it's looking more and more like it's a combination of both. You're both incredibly ignorant of how reality works, and you derive some manner of spiritual satisfaction from pseudoscientifically proving your racist hopes are "facts."
 
2012-10-09 11:52:54 PM

DataShade: DrPainMD: When did I say that I cannot conceive of those things? I think you're having a separate conversation in your head... you think it's a conversation with me, but it's just you talking to yourself.

If you think your previous question was "simple" with only one "completely objective answer," when any question of alternate history is filled with an infinite number of variables, then what else could possibly explain your resolute adherence? I mean, either you're so naive you don't even begin to understand the implications of the hypothetical scenario you've created, or you're intellectually dishonest enough to shamelessly discard all the possibilities that detract from your wish-fulfillment conclusion.

Actually, it's looking more and more like it's a combination of both. You're both incredibly ignorant of how reality works, and you derive some manner of spiritual satisfaction from pseudoscientifically proving your racist hopes are "facts."


That's an awful lot of words to say "racist liar."
 
2012-10-09 11:53:42 PM

DrPainMD: Hey, no need to call HotWingConspiracy, DataShade, et al, names.


The vaunted "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. is that the kind of avant garde logic you use to impress the girls who are your intellectual peers?
 
2012-10-09 11:55:08 PM

FlashHarry: Mauch, a first term legislator, wrote the letters starting in 2000. He has called Lincoln a "fake neurotic Northern war criminal" and said the 16th president committed "premeditated murder" on the Constitution. He called Lincoln and Civil War generals "Wehrmacht leaders" -- the name for the armed forces in Nazi Germany. He also praised his ancestors for standing up to "Northern aggression" and said the Confederate flag is "a symbol of Christian liberty vs. the new world order."

*Facepalm*


Pretty much
 
2012-10-09 11:58:50 PM

DrPainMD: Was that a "yes" or a "no?"


Plurium Interrogationum. How many logical fallacies would you like to commit to today?
 
2012-10-10 12:00:55 AM

DrPainMD: No, it doesn't make sense. Regardless of their occupations, they both were sincere when they said it.


Did you ever find a citation for the cornerstone of your argument?
 
2012-10-10 12:01:41 AM

DataShade: DrPainMD: You're saying the our standard of living wouldn't be what it is, and theirs wouldn't either, if slavery had never existed? Ok, now it's my turn. Good luck proving that one.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

I'm saying that history happened and that you can't cherry-pick one part of it (North America has a higher standard of living than another continent) to hand-wave away the rest (The United States has a long history of oppression and genocidal tendencies).

If you were having an intellectually honest discussion, or respectfully pursuing alternative-history fiction for the purpose of metaphor and entertainment, instead of trying to clothe your racist beliefs in pseudo-logic, I wouldn't need to explain this.


My racist beliefs? Then, you must think that Chris Rock is a racist, too. BTW, how do you know I'm not black? Maybe I'm Chris Rock. Can't tell from my posts, as I've just agreed to things that he's said.
 
2012-10-10 12:05:02 AM

DrPainMD: BTW, how do you know I'm not black? Maybe I'm Chris Rock.


You don't have a picture of yourself shirtless with gold-capped teeth and your pants hanging halfway off your ass in your profile. Pretty sure that's one of the requirements for black people to get on the internet.
 
2012-10-10 12:10:38 AM

DrPainMD: No. It was always just one question. You're just an idiot. I guess I'll tag you "have to spell everything out like you're talking to a five-year old."




Hah hah hah hah hah! So you're using logical fallacies and not even aware of it? I guess I can understand how someone as ignorant as you evolves to where you see all these people around you, struggling to understand the inchoate, incomprehensible, illogical nonsense you string together, and believe that you're the intelligent one, running circles around everyone else.

It's a dark moment for literacy and logic, but it is funny. Thanks for brightening my day.
 
2012-10-10 12:11:05 AM

DrPainMD: DataShade: DrPainMD: You're saying the our standard of living wouldn't be what it is, and theirs wouldn't either, if slavery had never existed? Ok, now it's my turn. Good luck proving that one.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

I'm saying that history happened and that you can't cherry-pick one part of it (North America has a higher standard of living than another continent) to hand-wave away the rest (The United States has a long history of oppression and genocidal tendencies).

If you were having an intellectually honest discussion, or respectfully pursuing alternative-history fiction for the purpose of metaphor and entertainment, instead of trying to clothe your racist beliefs in pseudo-logic, I wouldn't need to explain this.

My racist beliefs? Then, you must think that Chris Rock is a racist, too. BTW, how do you know I'm not black? Maybe I'm Chris Rock. Can't tell from my posts, as I've just agreed to things that he's said.


You've agreed with things you pretend he said.
 
2012-10-10 12:15:13 AM

DataShade: DrPainMD: When did I say that I cannot conceive of those things? I think you're having a separate conversation in your head... you think it's a conversation with me, but it's just you talking to yourself.

If you think your previous question was "simple" with only one "completely objective answer," when any question of alternate history is filled with an infinite number of variables, then what else could possibly explain your resolute adherence? I mean, either you're so naive you don't even begin to understand the implications of the hypothetical scenario you've created, or you're intellectually dishonest enough to shamelessly discard all the possibilities that detract from your wish-fulfillment conclusion.

Actually, it's looking more and more like it's a combination of both. You're both incredibly ignorant of how reality works, and you derive some manner of spiritual satisfaction from pseudoscientifically proving your racist hopes are "facts."


It was a simple question and it has a simple, objective, answer. There aren't that many variables and the important ones wouldn't change if slavery had never occurred. We embraced the industrial revolution, had a patent system, and laws that protected private property, while Africa didn't. That, and pretty much that alone, explains the differences in standards of living between the US and Africa. Economist universally agree that slavery had a net negative effect on the economy of the south. It made a lot of money for the slave owners, but was devastating for the wages of unskilled and semi-skilled labor. And, if slavery built our economy, why didn't it also build Africa's? They had slavery long before we did.

BTW, what beliefs of mine are racist? I don't recall sharing any of my beliefs in this thread. All I did was ask a simple question. Show me anything I've said that has even the slightest hint of racism.
 
2012-10-10 12:19:25 AM
Yeah, that's enough of that shiat.
 
2012-10-10 12:26:30 AM

DataShade: DrPainMD: Was that a "yes" or a "no?"

Plurium Interrogationum. How many logical fallacies would you like to commit to today?


That's not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is saying, for example, that if Person A says Statement X it's racist, but if Person B says Statement X it's not racist, based simply on whether or not each person is a liberal or a conservative.
 
2012-10-10 12:27:41 AM

DataShade: DrPainMD: No, it doesn't make sense. Regardless of their occupations, they both were sincere when they said it.

Did you ever find a citation for the cornerstone of your argument?


Yes. About 50 posts up is another poster who remembers Rock saying it.
 
2012-10-10 12:34:25 AM

DrPainMD: DataShade: DrPainMD: No, it doesn't make sense. Regardless of their occupations, they both were sincere when they said it.

Did you ever find a citation for the cornerstone of your argument?

Yes. About 50 posts up is another poster who remembers Rock saying it.


Nope. You're lying again.
 
2012-10-10 12:35:46 AM

arsonik: FlashHarry: Mauch, a first term legislator, wrote the letters starting in 2000. He has called Lincoln a "fake neurotic Northern war criminal" and said the 16th president committed "premeditated murder" on the Constitution. He called Lincoln and Civil War generals "Wehrmacht leaders" -- the name for the armed forces in Nazi Germany. He also praised his ancestors for standing up to "Northern aggression" and said the Confederate flag is "a symbol of Christian liberty vs. the new world order."

*Facepalm*

Pretty much


And then he joins the party of Lincoln which defeated The South.

In San Francisco, we call these people "bottom".
 
2012-10-10 12:37:17 AM

propasaurus: That's an awful lot of words to say "racist liar."


Well... what if he's not lying? What if he thinks it's all true? I think his opinions are disgusting and his logic is deplorable, but I don't get the impression that he's mis-stating his opinions. He seems to be acting as if he's taking the honorable role of pointing out gross hypocrisy against overwhelming odds; he thinks he's some kind of rugged intellectual individualist, bravely standing up to the majority by pointing out we should all be OK with a politician who says that the ends justified the means for racial oppression and genocide.
 
2012-10-10 12:39:26 AM

DrPainMD: Yes. About 50 posts up is another poster who remembers Rock saying it.


You ... don't know what a citation is, do you?
 
Displayed 50 of 322 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report