But this is missing the point I made, I already acknowledged that adaher has that stance, the problem is that it is then a useless platitude because virtually all the ones that he supports in congress oppose even that tax. And then adaher continues to support the ones that enable that state of affairs. While at the same time also telling us that he is more in the camp of the deniers by using the same straw men that deniers do.
So he may approve of a neutral tax but no one he supports in congress will come to that idea and they only continue to stop the efforts that the EPA is doing regarding our emissions.
He may be friends with minorities and immigrants, but he will continue to support the ones that want to make their lives miserable.
He may approve of the rights of gays but he will ignore the evidence that shows how many republicans are passing the restrictive laws because of bigotry.
He will continue to support the ones that will do harm…
but we should be happy that he will have nice thoughts for the ones that will suffer as a result. :rolleyes:
That’s the racist part. You say “infringed.” That word means “improperly limited or violated.” It’s a negative word. Saying that you think that the original Civil Rights Act limited something improperly means you support undoing what it limited. And what it limited, among other things, is discrimination against race.
If you did not intend to communicate this, you should not have used the word “infringed.”
Wait a minute! Christians follow the law just like everyone else. Render unto Caesar and all that. You can’t pick and choose what laws of your country you like and claim cover under a religious exemption if you are a Christian. Jesus was pretty clear on that. And therefore only Christians who recognize gay marriage in states that allow gay marriage are sympatico with Jesus on that issue. The Presbyterians (at least the liberal ones) have now officially recognized gay marriage. Therefore, among Christians, only Presbyterians are true Christians, Americans and Scotsmen! The rest are just poseurs.
Right-wingers and Libertarians aren’t necessarily racist. They just want other right-wingers to have the FREEDOM(*) to be racist. And keep the filthy guvmint hands off our racism (and Medicare).
You are an idiot. The idea that the posts in your OP are racists, and that even if they were they would make that poster not just "a racist, but a BIG GIANT racist is exactly what dilutes the meaning of the word “racist”. If he’s a BIG GIANT racist, what is
The KKK’s Imperial Wizard? An even GIANTER RACIST? :rolleyes:
Question: Are you in favor of allowing people to use the word “nigger” without being prosecuted for it? IOW, supposing CA passes a law making it illegal to use the word “nigger” in public, and the ACLU defended a local KKK member who was being prosecuted for calling a black woman a “nigger” in public. Does that make the ACLU racist? Extra Points: if so, how BIG and GIANT of a racist would it be?
Actually, overtly hostile racism is not worse that sly, equivocating racism. In fact, I believe it can be worse, because of the institutionalization thing. There are no degrees, adaher is a big giant racist because he wants us to think he is not one.
And, I guess you must be one of those brainless RW glibertarians who simply cannot even understand what racism is. And here I had thought better of you, silly me.
Well, I’m not as sanguine as **eschereal **in that estimation, and I did not want to mention it, but as a reply to the comment from John Mace it is true that I do not see **adaher **as racist, but I see him as an enabler. However I was also dissapointed when in a recent thread on the humanitarian crisis at the border nativist and racist groups pressed the Republicans to act by adding very extreme changes to the immigration bill.
The fact that hate groups lied about that humanitarian crisis to get their way and that republicans **listened **to those groups was not deemed to be an important item by posters like John Mace.
Not all definitions of “infringe” use the qualifier “improperly.”
It is undeniable that the CRA limited the previous freedom that businesses had to refuse to associate with protected classes. We can acknowledge that limitation on freedom and still say that it was a necessary limitation without being racist. We can believe that these businesses are wrong but still support their unfettered freedom of association without being racist.
It simply doesn’t follow that agreeing that something should be legal means that we support it. Doesn’t your side use this argument all of the time in the abortion context? I hear it frequently: “I am personally opposed to abortion, however I believe that a woman should have the freedom to choose for herself whether to have one.” This is the same argument but with the value judgments for each term used differently.
How am I getting ridiculed when some other bozo brings up a white nationalist site which I have no part of and I’m definetly not a member of. But keep calling names children and live in your clouds. Good sheep.
