|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 01 2013 06:28 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 05:54 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 05:51 Doublemint wrote:On November 01 2013 05:48 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 05:43 SongByungWewt wrote:
Christ, people actually discuss the individual members of congress? Talk about low brow. If you're going to talk about politics, it might as well be geopolitics. At least something of substance would be discussed then. Going over the minutiae of American mud slinging seems to me like quite a masochistic exercise. If you have followed this thread for any amount of time, you realize we actually focus not just on certain members, but even people who aren't part of the government at all! And that's because they have at least some relevance. Also, since the only thing going on right now in the news Obamacare's failure, this thread needs to find other things to talk about. lol. as if this was not discussed here... you indeed seem still confused and still did not respond to my question after I "just left" and you "won" the argument. I left because A) your responses consisted of about 10 words, so nothing substantive was going on. B) I haven't checked the thread since I made that final reply, I was gone all day yesterday. I only do this when I have some spare time, I'm not going to waste it. Like your reply just now. Once again, attacking me, yet ignoring what I actually said. Thanks for proving the point. I see. So it seems it was good you did not respond after all. My mistake then.
I would be willing to interact if your replies amounted to more than
Yes you are. We better leave it at that.
and
I miss a certain interest from your side. And already made my point. Have a good night sir, I have to commute now.
I wanted you to explain how Europe was relevant to Obamacare. You brought it up and just left it there. "This is a problem for conservatives/libertarians! kthxbi."
You acted as if just saying "European healthcare!" was enough and made some sort of point.
Again, if you want clarify what you meant, I will go along with it. I'm not so high and mighty as to (A) not admit I don't understand something, and (B) ignore others when they don't see what I'm saying. When I do take the time to interact in this thread I generally address everything addressed to me. You just dismissed much of what I said and then called me an idiot.
Yoav
@ Introvert: you wouldn't assume people were being bigoted if they told JFK to go back to Ireland?
Obama is not from Kenya. To tell him to "go back" there is obviously ignorant. Now, I'll stop a step before calling it racism, because it isn't quite that, at least explicitly. But it is a part of the narrative we've seen again and again that Obama is not "one of us" somehow. And that is troubling, and the leap people make to it being racist is not entirely without evidence.
-------
Only if they made a comment that related his heritage to something he screwed up. If they said "He's got bad foreign policy, and is a horrible president, he should go back to Ireland!"... well, I don't see anything racist in that. I see that person as saying "Get out! Go home!"
I have stated no opinion on Cruz's statement, besides to deny it's racism. And that leap you mention is without evidence. So far, no one here can show me what is racist about it, except when they add their own interpretation to it. That's why they latched onto the Kenya part and not the Chicago part.
There is just no logical way to go from "This person is a birther" to "this person is a racist," from what he said. It's making him guilty by associating him with people who are both racists AND birthers. Considering that there are fewer racists than there are birthers (I'm assuming), it CANNOT be even be argued that birther=racist.
|
On November 01 2013 05:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 05:36 DoubleReed wrote:
LOL at people thinking that "go back to Kenya" isn't racist.
This is a typical part of defending racists. You just try to take things out of their sociopolitical context and suddenly the n-word is no worse than "cracker."
I am not exactly sure why people assume he's not a birther. He walks and talks like a birther. At the very least he's riling up the birthers and nativists, rather than condemning him.
But of course this all really projection. You keep accusing us of seeing only the worst. But really, you're on the side of Cruz so you can't imagine that he really campaigns on such extreme rhetoric and racism. You are really good at doing what you describe. Actually, you projected your own sociopolitical context viewpoint onto Cruz and entirely ignored him as a person, or him relative to the speech he gave. Instead, you assume that because he said that ONE sentence, he is damned to the pit of hell reserved for the racist. You ignored the whole part about Communism, or Cruz's background in Cuba, or the UN (doubt you heard that part), etc, and just focused on YOUR perspective as to what he said and what it means. I didn't say he's not a birther, I haven't the foggiest idea. Again, it's about what Cruz thinks, not what the truth is. No, I'm looking at context, you are looking at just that one sentence. Which one do you think is more likely to get what Cruz was trying to say? You ignored every other post I made and just repeat what was said at the very beginning. Do you actually read the already concluded conversation? You aren't a fan of anything more than very broad context, it appears, so I'm going to say it's 50/50.
My own sociopolitical context? Wtf are you talking about?
I'm really curious how explicit people have to be before you call them racist. Do they have reference the correlation of race and IQ? Do they have to talk about how the homogeneity of Finland helps their children? Do they have to suggest that maybe whites should maintain their culture? Or maybe how whites should have their own country? Which of these crosses the line into racism for you.
And I never actually said racists are horrible evil people. There's a lot of cognitive bias and implicit associations involved with racism.
Edit: lol Birthers are racist, silly boy.
|
On November 01 2013 06:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 05:46 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 05:36 DoubleReed wrote:
LOL at people thinking that "go back to Kenya" isn't racist.
This is a typical part of defending racists. You just try to take things out of their sociopolitical context and suddenly the n-word is no worse than "cracker."
I am not exactly sure why people assume he's not a birther. He walks and talks like a birther. At the very least he's riling up the birthers and nativists, rather than condemning him.
But of course this all really projection. You keep accusing us of seeing only the worst. But really, you're on the side of Cruz so you can't imagine that he really campaigns on such extreme rhetoric and racism. You are really good at doing what you describe. Actually, you projected your own sociopolitical context viewpoint onto Cruz and entirely ignored him as a person, or him relative to the speech he gave. Instead, you assume that because he said that ONE sentence, he is damned to the pit of hell reserved for the racist. You ignored the whole part about Communism, or Cruz's background in Cuba, or the UN (doubt you heard that part), etc, and just focused on YOUR perspective as to what he said and what it means. I didn't say he's not a birther, I haven't the foggiest idea. Again, it's about what Cruz thinks, not what the truth is. No, I'm looking at context, you are looking at just that one sentence. Which one do you think is more likely to get what Cruz was trying to say? You ignored every other post I made and just repeat what was said at the very beginning. Do you actually read the already concluded conversation? You aren't a fan of anything more than very broad context, it appears, so I'm going to say it's 50/50. My own sociopolitical context? Wtf are you talking about? I'm really curious how explicit people have to be before you call them racist. Do they have reference the correlation of race and IQ? Do they have to talk about how the homogeneity of Finland helps their children? Do they have to suggest that maybe whites should maintain their culture? Or maybe how whites should have their own country? Which of these crosses the line into racism for you. And I never actually said racists are horrible evil people. There's a lot of cognitive bias and implicit associations involved with racism. Edit: lol Birthers are racist, silly boy.
You are applying a general principle to one person regardless of the specific context that is PROVIDED for you in the exact same video.
How about you actually support your accusation: that what he said was racism. You provide the evidence first, I'm not going to go down a rabbit trail where we talk about my criteria when you are the one crying "racist!" Besides, I explained why it wasn't, now you just want me to accept that it was because "it could be." You didn't address a single thing I said, you just pushed the question back on me.
ok, racists aren't horrible. So why are we talking about it again?
Birthers aren't racist. What's racist about believing (wrongly) that he wasn't born here? How does that make them think Obama is racially inferior? Another baseless assertion.
Man, you love to be nice and broad, but can't ever back up with specifics. Try something besides talking points.
|
What the bloody hell do you consider a talking point??? Read my post again.
|
On November 01 2013 07:32 DoubleReed wrote:
What the bloody hell do you consider a talking point??? Read my post again.
Did you read anything else I wrote, or did you skip to the end?
First of all, I said "Man, you love to be nice and broad, but can't ever back up with specifics." This is a general trend I am pointing out.
But in this case,
you can't imagine that he really campaigns on such extreme rhetoric and racism.
I've heard variations of that a million times. It's useless and entirely unproven.
Also: I should have been more clear- the idea that Birthers are racists is the easiest talking point that you can use to ignore them (instead of pointing out that they are factually incorrect). Now, they ARE wrong, but by simply asserting they are racists because they think he's not a natural born citizen you are pushing a false (or at least unproven) stereotype. It is one that is often use to try and paint the entire TP as backwards, racist bigots.
Why is it that everyone here would rather latch onto one, relatively insignificant thing I said rather than actually proving their assertion? Is this the same reason that the left resorts to racism so quickly? It's easy?
Did you even watch the clip?
|
Sorry, its just I get the feeling that you're arguing against Generic Liberal Guy rather than me. The talking point line was part of your script, rather than a response to me...
Unfortunately, can't go into detail why birther = racist atm. Can write more later tonight.
|
Gonna have to agree with introvert on this... its the whole all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares sort of things. The person could be nationalistic without being racist.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
TIL need to prove that some guy that says "go back to africa" to a black american is actual racist to condemn him. alright fella otherwise
|
The tea party is a backwards, racist, bigoted party.
|
It's not a coincidence that birthers just so happened to start crawling out of the woodwork at the same time a black man was running for president.
The fact that they can even conceive of the notion that the Democrats would not make sure that their candidate is eligible to be president astounds me.
If they're not racist then they are at least mind bogglingly stupid.
|
On November 01 2013 08:01 DoubleReed wrote:
Sorry, its just I get the feeling that you're arguing against Generic Liberal Guy rather than me. The talking point line was part of your script, rather than a response to me...
Unfortunately, can't go into detail why birther = racist atm. Can write more later tonight.
The only generic liberals I've addressed are in this thread. I look forward to seeing this proof. I'm sure it's based in logical deduction and facts, not generalities. By the way, it cannot just show that "many" birthers are racist, it must actually show that their britherism is from their racism, or vice versa. The whole "correlation vs causation" thing.
I personally think birtherism is a thing because there were stories, not immediately disproven, that he wasn't born in America. (I know the burden of proof was on the birthers, but that's not my point.) It was people looking for a way to make him illegitimate as easily as possible. Now that I think about it, that really sums up the approach the left takes to the right. If you call them hateful names, it means you can ignore their point of view!
TIL that not a single person could actually show me how it was racist, but they really FEEL deep in their hearts that it is, so it must be. If that's not putting oneself in danger of being affected by one's own bias, then what could be?
It shows because
A) No one could address the context or content of what he said, they just mentioned that ONE single, solitary sentence as definitive proof- Ignoring the context in the speech, ignoring the fact that he said nothing derogatory about blacks or Kenyans, etc, etc.
B) Everyone keeps referencing the idea that Cruz said something about Africa. But that's not what Cruz said. He said Kenya. Nor would it have been racist if he HAD said Africa. But the Kenya bit is referring to the birther controversy, not to the idea that his skin color makes him makes him a bad president.
Please, keep making feeling based statements, it displays how the left (in this thread) really views the world: through a lens of race, gender, class, or feeling. And that anyone who disagrees with them is simply an idiot to be dismissed. No argument needed!
|
have any actual studies been done to correlate either tea partyers or birthers with racism?
|
On November 01 2013 10:38 zlefin wrote:
have any actual studies been done to correlate either tea partyers or birthers with racism?
10 seconds of google searching gives this study showing the link between racism and birtherism.
Study: racial prejudice plays role in Obama citizenship views
"Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated. Whites are guarded about openly endorsing the view that Blacks are less American than Whites, which may suppress overall mean differences in performance ratings and perceptions of Obama being un-American. However, bias in viewing Blacks as less American than Whites appeared to implicitly underlie Whites' negative evaluations of his performance. Also, consistent with previous research, Blacks did not demonstrate such a relationship, nor did Americanism mediate the relationship between prejudice and performance evaluations when Vice-President Biden acted as target for either Whites or Blacks. Whereas previous work has linked White prejudice with negative perceptions of Obama, the current work reveals a mechanism that may be largely responsible for this effect, Obama's non-prototypicality (largely in terms of his race) and thus reduced perceptions of his Americanism."
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/04/social-scientists-look-at-racisms-role-in-birther-viewpoint/1#.UnMHfiRkyt8
|
|
|
No one asked to see Mitt Romney's birth certificate, he even said so himself.
If you're white, we'll just assume you were born in the US and are thus allowed to run for president.
If you're not white, then we'll have to go to great lengths to make sure you were born in the US, your word isn't enough.
Yep, totally reasonable and not at all motivated by race.
|
On November 01 2013 10:47 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 10:38 zlefin wrote:
have any actual studies been done to correlate either tea partyers or birthers with racism? 10 seconds of google searching gives this study showing the link between racism and birtherism. Study: racial prejudice plays role in Obama citizenship views "Overall, the results support our hypothesis that negative evaluations of Obama by White participants may be racially motivated. Whites are guarded about openly endorsing the view that Blacks are less American than Whites, which may suppress overall mean differences in performance ratings and perceptions of Obama being un-American. However, bias in viewing Blacks as less American than Whites appeared to implicitly underlie Whites' negative evaluations of his performance. Also, consistent with previous research, Blacks did not demonstrate such a relationship, nor did Americanism mediate the relationship between prejudice and performance evaluations when Vice-President Biden acted as target for either Whites or Blacks. Whereas previous work has linked White prejudice with negative perceptions of Obama, the current work reveals a mechanism that may be largely responsible for this effect, Obama's non-prototypicality (largely in terms of his race) and thus reduced perceptions of his Americanism." http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/04/social-scientists-look-at-racisms-role-in-birther-viewpoint/1#.UnMHfiRkyt8
Is there another study? That only discussed the white/black dynamic, and it said it was a survey of students. Most students are liberal leaning. Therefore, it really has nothing to do with the Tea Party, at any rate. So it's not a right wing thing, and I doubt it's a left wing thing.
The part about Citizenship was when they asked another professor who had nothing to do with the study at all. That part appears to be pure conjecture. It was one paragraph without any citation.
This study isn't saying what you think it is.
|
On November 01 2013 11:19 SnipedSoul wrote:
No one asked to see Mitt Romney's birth certificate, he even said so himself.
If you're white, we'll just assume you were born in the US and are thus allowed to run for president.
If you're not white, then we'll have to go to great lengths to make sure you were born in the US, your word isn't enough.
Yep, totally reasonable and not at all motivated by race.
Disclaimer: the following is a guess.
I would guess that the fact that Obama had a non-native father is what fueled it. Romney's father (and entire family) were citizens at the time of his birth, as far as I'm aware. So there is nothing for a birther type to latch onto. So no, not about race. It was more like "Hey, how can we make Obama ineligible! Ah, his father wasn't American, can Obama prove that he IS?!!"
Once again, you jump to insert race wherever you can.
Try again.
|
On November 01 2013 11:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 11:19 SnipedSoul wrote:
No one asked to see Mitt Romney's birth certificate, he even said so himself.
If you're white, we'll just assume you were born in the US and are thus allowed to run for president.
If you're not white, then we'll have to go to great lengths to make sure you were born in the US, your word isn't enough.
Yep, totally reasonable and not at all motivated by race. Disclaimer: the following is a guess. I would guess that the fact that Obama had a non-native father is what fueled it. Romney's father (and entire family) were citizens at the time of his birth, as far as I'm aware. So there is nothing for a birther type to latch onto. So no, not about race. It was more like "Hey, how can we make Obama ineligible! Ah, his father wasn't American, can Obama prove that he IS?!!" Once again, you jump to insert race wherever you can. Try again.
Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico. Where were the birthers on that one?
|
On November 01 2013 11:35 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 11:28 Introvert wrote:On November 01 2013 11:19 SnipedSoul wrote:
No one asked to see Mitt Romney's birth certificate, he even said so himself.
If you're white, we'll just assume you were born in the US and are thus allowed to run for president.
If you're not white, then we'll have to go to great lengths to make sure you were born in the US, your word isn't enough.
Yep, totally reasonable and not at all motivated by race. Disclaimer: the following is a guess. I would guess that the fact that Obama had a non-native father is what fueled it. Romney's father (and entire family) were citizens at the time of his birth, as far as I'm aware. So there is nothing for a birther type to latch onto. So no, not about race. It was more like "Hey, how can we make Obama ineligible! Ah, his father wasn't American, can Obama prove that he IS?!!" Once again, you jump to insert race wherever you can. Try again. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico. Where were the birthers on that one?
That's not Mitt Romney? Or are you going to go back to what, the 60s? Back then the birthers didn't have internet, so who knows how many there may have been?
It's the classic internt saying, the internet allows both freedom and crazies to spread. You still can't show that the birther movement is race based.
|
An unfortunate new era starts for women in Texas tomorrow.
+ Show Spoiler +(CNN) -- A federal appeals court Thursday reinstated a key part of a new Texas abortion law, considered to be among the most restrictive in the country.
The decision came three days after a federal judge struck down the provision, which requires doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic at which they're providing abortion services.
A day before parts of the law were scheduled to take effect, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel on Monday issued an injunction blocking the law's admitting privileges requirement, arguing that it "places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her."
Thursday's decision means the requirement will remain in place while a lawsuit moves forward.
The lawsuit -- filed in U.S. District Court in Austin by Planned Parenthood on behalf of more than a dozen women's health care providers across Texas -- alleged the state's new abortion law violates the constitutional rights of women and puts unreasonable demands on doctors who perform abortions.
In a statement, Planned Parenthood Federation of America said the requirement that doctors have admitting privileges is expected to cause at least one-third of the state's licensed health centers that provide abortion services to stop.
"While we acknowledge that Planned Parenthood has also made a strong showing that their interests would be harmed by staying the injunction, given the State's likely success on the merits, this is not enough, standing alone, to outweigh the other factors," read a part of Thursday's 20-page ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The bill originally failed to gain approval because of a Democratic filibuster led by state Sen. Wendy Davis. Gov. Rick Perry then called the Legislature into a second special session to continue consideration of the bill.
"This fight is far from over. This restriction clearly violates Texas women's constitutional rights by drastically reducing access to safe and legal abortion statewide," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.
"If Texans showed America one thing during the historic protests against this law this summer, we demonstrated that Texans value women's health — and that is why we will take every step we can to protect the health of Texas women in the wake of this ruling," she said.
Perry cheered the ruling.
"Today's decision affirms our right to protect both the unborn and the health of the women of Texas. We will continue doing everything we can to protect a culture of life in our state," he said in a statement.
CNN's Cristy Lenz contributed to this report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
