Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

ax1 said:
I dont agree with everything said but there was alot of good there for the most part. Eliminating ISIS in a year and eliminating drugs was a couple of absolutely ridiculous false promises for example.

Best part is the anti-new world order message and pro-nationalist American message of taking care of our own which have been incremental left behind over the past few decades and into overdrive under Barry Soetoro.

He did a good job overall, now I just still have to wait and see what happens too early to judge.
Click to expand...

I thought president trump looked very serious and acted like a president...the democrats on the other hand looked like bad actors in a rehearsed snl skit-they were programmed to disagree no matter what the president said.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Stop eating lead paint chips!!! Do you seriously not see the several black women in the top photo?!?!
Click to expand...

actually it was deja vu, they were dressed like women from the suffragette movement of the early 1900's...

maybe you can tell me what right a man has that a woman doesn't? I don't get it.....
 
thebigt said:
wouldn't that be a good thing?
Click to expand...
Haha, in theory you want to view everybody as equal, but in a literal sense, the only people who don't see color are color-blind. I was really just joking around. The key is treating everybody as equals and with respect, not pretending that everyone is exactly the same and ignoring obvious physical characteristics in an attempt to emphasize how tolerant and progressive you are.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Haha, in theory you want to view everybody as equal, but in a literal sense, the only people who don't see color are color-blind. I was really just joking around. The key is treating everybody as equals and with respect, not pretending that everyone is exactly the same and ignoring obvious physical characteristics in an attempt to emphasize how tolerant and progressive you are.
Click to expand...

lol...lighten up, I was just having fun-:wavey:
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Haha, I know. I suppose I was just in the mood to write a bunch of unnecessary explanation. I have to do my part in this thread. ;)
Click to expand...

good to go....I actually like some of your detailed explanations---even if I don't always agree with them, lol.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Haha, in theory you want to view everybody as equal, but in a literal sense, the only people who don't see color are color-blind. I was really just joking around. The key is treating everybody as equals and with respect, not pretending that everyone is exactly the same and ignoring obvious physical characteristics in an attempt to emphasize how tolerant and progressive you are.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of racist black people against whites. Look at the colleges where black liberal students want to segregate themselves from whites, reversing decades of progress their elderly and deceased family members fought for.

Invalid Link Removed
 
youngandfree said:
There are plenty of racist black people against whites. Look at the colleges where black libetaal students want to segregate themselves from whites, reversing decades of progress their elderly and deceased family members fought for.
Click to expand...
Anyone can be racist, not just whites, that seems pretty obvious.
 
youngandfree said:
You've never had your smart phone mistype something have you? He just happened to quote it before I corrected it. It's ok, I won't hate you for it.

Since you can't argue against my point, that's all you have.
Click to expand...

Right because you're typically so eloquent except that one time. What exactly is your point? State it and I will happily address it.
 
youngandfree said:
I guess your cursor must be broke.
Click to expand...

You post random crap all day long like you have Tourette's and want me to pick the one you're talking about. I make a straightforward request for you to tell me which post you're referring to and you choose to play games. That tells me that you're afraid because somebody called your bluff and you have nothing to back it up. Your move.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You post random crap all day long like you have Tourette's and want me to pick the one you're talking about. I make a straightforward request for you to tell me which post you're referring to and you choose to play games. That tells me that you're afraid because somebody called your bluff and you have nothing to back it up. Your move.
Click to expand...

How about the one you decided to comment about a touch screen spelling error. Keep up man. I thought you and Misfit were the 2 smartest people on this board. You made a smart ass comment about 1 specific post. I guess you don't actually read posts before attacking people that made them.
 
youngandfree said:
How about the one you decided to comment about a touch screen spelling error. Keep up man. I thought you and Misfit were the 2 smartest people on this board. You made a smart ass comment about 1 specific post. I guess you don't actually read posts before attacking people that made them.
Click to expand...

I've commented on two of your posts tonight, so sure, let's go with your libetaal one. First, why are you calling them liberal? Do you actually understand what that word means or do you just throw it around anytime you disagree with a subject because you hear others using it?

Why exactly are you focusing in on black groups that are asking for these safe spaces? I don't necessarily agree with the safe spaces, but I see they have some valid points. There are a lot of groups that are using this idea, but you ignore those and only focus on the black groups doing it? Why is that?

See, I don't think you actually have an independent thought in your post. You're regurgitating what some hack online writer fed you. You and I don't have to agree, but at least come up with an original thought rather than plagiarizing a misguided, racist article that doesn't address the real reason these safe spaces actually exist.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I've commented on two of your posts tonight, so sure, let's go with your libetaal one. First, why are you calling them liberal? Do you actually understand what that word means or do you just throw it around anytime you disagree with a subject because you hear others using it?

Why exactly are you focusing in on black groups that are asking for these safe spaces? I don't necessarily agree with the safe spaces, but I see they have some valid points. There are a lot of groups that are using this idea, but you ignore those and only focus on the black groups doing it? Why is that?

See, I don't think you actually have an independent thought in your post. You're regurgitating what some hack online writer fed you. You and I don't have to agree, but at least come up with an original thought rather than plagiarizing a misguided, racist article that doesn't address the real reason these safe spaces actually exist.
Click to expand...

They surely aren't conservative. You alluded that black people can't be racist, so I merely gave an example. How many Asian groups are protesting their colleges to have racially segregated spaces? How about hispanic? How many stories have come out about BLM agitators rejecting the statement that all lives matter?
 
Oprah for President 2020! Yey...I will know when the end of times is here.
 
youngandfree said:
They surely aren't conservative. You alluded that black people can't be racist, so I merely gave an example. How many Asian groups are protesting their colleges to have racially segregated spaces? How about hispanic? How many stories have come out about BLM agitators rejecting the statement that all lives matter?
Click to expand...

Are you expecting me to tally up these stats for every college? Groups wanting safe spaces on college campuses exist for those groups and more. I'm asking why you're not focusing on safe spaces in general instead of singling out black groups?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Are you expecting me to tally up these stats for every college? Groups wanting safe spaces on college campuses exist for those groups and more. I'm asking why you're not focusing on safe spaces in general instead of singling out black groups?
Click to expand...

I explained I gave one example of a group that's been most predominant in the news. You can't tally how many Asian Lives Matter protests there have been because there aren't any. Asians aren't making demand letters and petitions trying to coerce colleges to make racially segregated areas because they are afraid of white people.
 
youngandfree said:
They surely aren't conservative. You alluded that black people can't be racist, so I merely gave an example. How many Asian groups are protesting their colleges to have racially segregated spaces? How about hispanic? How many stories have come out about BLM agitators rejecting the statement that all lives matter?
Click to expand...

I'll refrain from going into the reasons why African Americans and other minorities can't technically be "racist".
 
Misfit28 said:
I'll refrain from going into the reasons why African Americans and other minorities can't technically be "racist".
Click to expand...

No, please explain how blacks can't "technically be racist" if they hate someone because they aren't the same race.

Webster defines racism as "racial prejudice or discrimination".
 
youngandfree said:
No, please explain how blacks can't "technically be racist" if they hate someone because they aren't the same race.
Click to expand...

African Americans are not the dominant culture in America. They can be prejudiced, just not "racist".

Racism is predicated on conferring advantages to the "race" in power. As we can see from many studies, African Americans are still disadvantaged to this day. Prejudice is more of an individual thing, whereas racism can be seen as systemic and institutional in nature..

I'm sure it sounds like "liberal propaganda" to you, but that doesn't mean it is any less true.
 
Misfit28 said:
I'll refrain from going into the reasons why African Americans and other minorities can't technically be "racist".
Click to expand...

No matter what color you happen to be born, if you discriminate based off the color of others skin they are 100000000% racist, there is excuse to this.

Your statement from you further confirms your a liberal white racist.
 
youngandfree said:
No, please explain how blacks can't "technically be racist" if they hate someone because they aren't the same race.

Webster defines racism as "racial prejudice or discrimination".
Click to expand...

There are multiple definitions. Just because you used the one that fits with your preconceived biases doesn't mean it is the only definition.

I believe my point is illustrated best by definition 2a-b:



Definition of racism
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3
: racial prejudice or discrimination
racist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective

From Merriam-Webster. YOUR reference.
 
ax1 said:
No matter what color you happen to be born, if you discriminate based off the color of others skin they are 100000000% racist, there is excuse to this.

Your statement from you further confirms your a liberal white racist.
Click to expand...

Your statement further confirms your ignorance of social science and basic facts.
 
Misfit28 said:
Your statement further confirms your ignorance of social science and basic facts.
Click to expand...

I can be ignorant of the entire world except for the 1 fact that you are the most racist person on this forum.
 
Misfit28 said:
African Americans are not the dominant culture in America. They can be prejudiced, just not "racist".

Racism is predicated on conferring advantages to the "race" in power. As we can see from many studies, African Americans are still disadvantaged to this day. Prejudice is more of an individual thing, whereas racism can be seen as systemic and institutional in nature..

I'm sure it sounds like "liberal propaganda" to you, but that doesn't mean it is any less true.
Click to expand...
Where on earth are you getting these definitions from? So a black business owner can't be racist if he refuses to hire white workers? Also, I REALLY don't think your definition is a legal/official definition:

duhaime.org
Superiority-based ideology which discriminates individuals or a group, based on their immutable characteristic of race.
Click to expand...
Racism expresses itself as discrimination of an individual ,or a group of individuals, on racial characteristics.
Click to expand...

The Law Dictionary
A set of policies that is exhibited bt a person or persons toward a group of people of a different race. Often antagonistic and confronting. The assumption of lower intelligence and importance given to a person because of their racial characteristics.
Click to expand...

Merriam Webster
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3
: racial prejudice or discrimination
Click to expand...

Even with multiple definitions, only one even somewhat agrees with your definition, and if racism can only occur on a systemic/institutional level, then that would mean that not only can a black individual not be racist, but a white individual can't be racist either, no?

Even if we do assume your definition, what are the practical applications? There are none, it is purely semantics. So could a white worker not sue his boss/employer (or potential employer) if it is found that he was discriminated against based on race?
 
youngandfree said:
No, please explain how blacks can't "technically be racist" if they hate someone because they aren't the same race.

Webster defines racism as "racial prejudice or discrimination".
Click to expand...

Blacks hating blacks are nothing but race bating social justice warrior hypocritical bigots the same way white liberal racists are. They all belong in the same group with the KKK.
 
Misfit28 said:
Whatever floats your boat, bro.

I stand by my statement of hoping you seek treatment :)
Click to expand...

Stand by racism, Im proud of you. You go keep fueling your race bating hypocrisy for the rest of your life as you have always done, I will always call you out on your racism.
 
Misfit28 said:
There are multiple definitions. Just because you used the one that fits with your preconceived biases doesn't mean it is the only definition.

I believe my point is illustrated best by definition 2a-b:



Definition of racism
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3
: racial prejudice or discrimination
racist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective

From Merriam-Webster. YOUR reference.
Click to expand...
So shouldn't that be taken to mean that a black person can be racist, depending on your definition of racism? What is to say that your chosen definition is the only applicable one? Also, regardless, we surely can admit that everyone can be discriminatory and prejudiced, which, as an individual, is essentially the same thing.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Where on earth are you getting these definitions from? So a black business owner can't be racist if he refuses to hire white workers? Also, I REALLY don't think your definition is a legal/official definition:

duhaime.org



The Law Dictionary


Merriam Webster


Even with multiple definitions, only one even somewhat agrees with your definition, and if racism can only occur on a systemic/institutional level, then that would mean that not only can a black individual not be racist, but a white individual can't be racist either, no?

Even if we do assume your definition, what are the practical applications? There are none, it is purely semantics. So could a white worker not sue his boss/employer (or potential employer) if it is found that he was discriminated against based on race?
Click to expand...
I think you might need to read into a little social science theory instead of rushing to the dictionary.
 
Misfit28 said:
African Americans are not the dominant culture in America. They can be prejudiced, just not "racist".

Racism is predicated on conferring advantages to the "race" in power. As we can see from many studies, African Americans are still disadvantaged to this day. Prejudice is more of an individual thing, whereas racism can be seen as systemic and institutional in nature..

I'm sure it sounds like "liberal propaganda" to you, but that doesn't mean it is any less true.
Click to expand...

This is the most ignorant post crap I have ever heard of my life, but thank you for confirming how completely racist you are.
 
Misfit28 said:
I think you might need to read into a little social science theory instead of rushing to the dictionary.
Click to expand...

Probably written by some race bating white liberal racist financed by George Soros.

You should try thinking with your balls for once.
 
Misfit28 said:
I think you might need to read into a little social science theory instead of rushing to the dictionary.
Click to expand...
Why is it that social science is the definitive be-all-end-all here? Also, you haven't addressed my point regarding practical/legal applications. Does this definition allow black people to discriminate against white people without fear of penalty because they can't be "racist" only "prejudiced?" In either case, they are discriminating against a group/race, which is often illegal, and should have the same penalties, regardless of if it's white > black or black > white, no? If that is the case, then you can keep your social science definition if it makes you feel better. ;)
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Why is it that social science is the definitive be-all-end-all here? Also, you haven't addressed my point regarding practical/legal applications. Does this definition allow black people to discriminate against white people without fear of penalty because they can't be "racist" only "prejudiced?" In either case, they are discriminating against a group/race, which is often illegal, and should have the same penalties, regardless of if it's white > black or black > white, no? If that is the case, then you can keep your social science definition if it makes you feel better. ;)
Click to expand...

Is that a serious question? Why is social science is applicable here?

I don't address legal issues, as that's not my realm. I'm talking social issues.

I though that we were discussing social implications of racism here, maybe I'm wrong.
 
Misfit28 said:
African Americans are not the dominant culture in America. They can be prejudiced, just not "racist".

Racism is predicated on conferring advantages to the "race" in power. As we can see from many studies, African Americans are still disadvantaged to this day. Prejudice is more of an individual thing, whereas racism can be seen as systemic and institutional in nature..

I'm sure it sounds like "liberal propaganda" to you, but that doesn't mean it is any less true.
Click to expand...
near exactly what Google said it was. ;)

I believe it's an antiquated and dated explanation though. Look around you, they have institutionalized and have developed quite a bit of advantage, power and influence and even control.

Switch out the word racist or racism with hate and hatred and that would better characterize what the races have between them today.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Why is it that social science is the definitive be-all-end-all here? Also, you haven't addressed my point regarding practical/legal applications. Does this definition allow black people to discriminate against white people without fear of penalty because they can't be "racist" only "prejudiced?" In either case, they are discriminating against a group/race, which is often illegal, and should have the same penalties, regardless of if it's white > black or black > white, no? If that is the case, then you can keep your social science definition if it makes you feel better. ;)
Click to expand...

Discrimination against anyone because of their color of their skin is just morally wrong....no matter what population portions it is. Its 100% racism. Sorry if Im acting a bit over the top on here, but Misfit seriously has some inner demons and needs to re-evaluate himself and get help. I can respect his political beliefs, but this to me is just plain disgustingly racist on his part.
 
ax1 said:
Discrimination against anyone because of their color of their skin is just morally wrong....no matter what population portions it is. Its 100% racism. Sorry if Im acting a bit over the top on here, but Misfit seriously has some inner demons and needs to re-evaluate himself and get help. I can respect his political beliefs, but this to me is just plain disgustingly racist on his part.
Click to expand...

So I'm racist. I see.

You sir are seriously deranged.

It's impossible to have a serious discussion with you around.
 
Misfit28 said:
Is that a serious question? Why is social science is applicable here?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am not articulating my question well. Ill re-state it: With this definition, can a black person (for example, a business owner) still be found guilty of discriminating against a white person (perhaps a customer, employee, or potential employee), and would this still carry the same penalty as a white person discriminating against a black person what is otherwise the same hypothetical example? If so, then we're really arguing over semantics here, as the law still views everyone as equals, and acknowledges the possibility that we can all discriminate and be discriminated against, regardless of what you call that particular discrimination and/or what explanation you give for it.
 
I honestly am not trying to be an ass here, just trying to explain my perspective.

I'll admit, ax1 gets under my (white) skin ;). I guess I just need to ignore him, as he kinda makes my blood boil at times and make any discussion here almost pointless.
 
Misfit28 said:
So I'm racist. I see.

You sir are seriously deranged.

It's impossible to have a serious discussion with you around.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but I grew up around seeing racism from a young age and I dont tolerate people like you well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top