Sorry, I missed your cite. It was in your post. I will say however, that a blog citing a motherfucking tweet from a “former GOP executive” doesn’t really hold up to generalizations.
I’m not Republican. I’m a Democrat, and I don’t really need you on my side.
You mean the anti abortion group that denounced the murder in the very cite you gave? You’re a fucking dishonest moron, and the fact that you make me have to defend a christian pro-life group is pretty sickening to me.
But I, unlike you, am at least capable of some level of fairness and empathy, and am capable of realising that, no matter how much I might despise someone’s views, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are evil, or that all their views are wrong.
I somehow doubt I’d fit in very well with American politics, being an atheist bisexual conservative…
If they are against that kind of stuff, why do they have somebody previously convicted on conspiracy to commit bombing as a senior policy advisor? Why have they repeatedly lied about their connection, rather than just apologizing for the part they played? Isn’t “personal responsibility” something conservatives claim liberals don’t have?
Well, people can change after 25 years… Yes, I bothered to read your cite.
They didn’t, according to your cite, play a part in the murder. They had contact with the murderer. That’s not the same thing, and presumably they lied about it in a misguided attempt to avoid the ridiculous nonsense that you and other dishonest fucking morons like you are saying.
If you’ve got any fucking sense, you’ll stop attacking people for things they didn’t do, stop being a shrill, irrational idiot, and stop turning people who actually agree with you against you.
:rolleyes: Do tell. Care to show us where? And by defended I mean defended, not agreed with, so citing other ‘race realists’ agreeing with him isn’t going to cut it. Feel free to start with his most recent pitting and show me these people who came to his defense. There’s magellan01 who as I said is an idiot in his own right but at least has the excuse of not having known brazilnut’s posting history before leaping upon his sword and there’s uhhh… nobody else.
Hy, Karrius. You said politicians, as in the plural. You provided a site to some non-starter, as in the singular. Care to back up your sweeping statement with a couple of straws, as in cites, as in the plural?
That was meant to be “plural” in the broad sense, and not specifically referring to multiple, but sure:
Are internment camps based on the internment camps for the Japanese in WW2 good enough?
How about the fact that one of Mitt Romney’s campaign finance co-chairs works with a group that runs terrible rehabilitation camps? I admit this ones a bit weak.
While not strictly concentration camps, hopefully you’ll agree locking people up in prison for having a homosexual relationship is close enough in this case:
Republican Texas platform calls for making sodomy illegal, gay marriage a felony.
Family Research Council supports laws that lock people away for a dozen years for being homosexual.
Major right wing lobbyists support the death sentence for homosexuality. Yes, many republicans came out against it (thankfully), but all sorts of lobbyists and backers help financially support it.
Karious, buddy, listen to me. Every single one of those cites links to an echo chamber. They are not even close to impartial. You’re “swiftboating”.
I wasn’t aware that “impartial” was a good thing to be with a question of “Should we murder gay people?”. The links are what came up on google. Are any of them untrue? I will note that one of them is the direct mission statement from the Texas Republican Party. I’m… not sure how that’s an “echo chamber”, or not-impartial, or what the heck a not-impartial link would even be for their goals if I can’t actually quote them. I’m really confused there. But that’s basically the point, though - major lobbying groups in the US push to get murderous laws passed in other countries, it’s just “Oh, shrug, whatever”. Nobody seems to care. Remember the original cause of this tangent was me saying “Society at large lets them get away with this”. The fact that it’s true and not reported on or widely known backs up my point, doesn’t it? In order to defeat the claim, you have to show how these aren’t true.
Probably because nothing you write is actually worth reading…
Then you can give an example of even one of them pushing a falsified story and failing to correct it, right? (Other than the Daily-Kos, which hosts but does not edit unpaid bloggers.)
Bad approach. Try again.
This is pretty much it except instead of “Fucking absurd” I would substitute, “Freaking hilarious”. And not because it’s a big burn on the Republicans, but rather because DT is total loon.
Way, way, way more entertaining that BrazilNut, President and CEO of the internet.
That’s not the point. The point is bias. Fox News gets it’s basic facts right, but it’s biased as fucking hell and you can’t trust how they “report” what ever the subject is. On the flip side, there is no way in Hell that I am going to take a news source called “RightWingWatch” seriously. Just no.
No. Claiming an entire continent is functionally retarded based on cooked-up data is hate speech, as far as I’m concerned.
I disagree.
There’s no “maybe” about it. Anyone who ever says anything remotely scientific-sounding, that uses the commonly used races, is a racist. As soon as someone says “Blacks [something scientific]”, he’s a racist.
I use it where it fits.
That determination has already been done, by history. I *don’t *need to revisit every claim racists make like tabula rasa every time. That’d be like going “Maybe we should stufy this particular instance of Holocaust denial, maybe he has new facts…” No! The Holocaust is axiomatic. The non-existence of biological races is axiomatic.
Fortunately for everyone, your opinion on this is both wrong and irrelevant. Hate speech is a pretty clearly defined term, and not one that should be used lightly. It’s a significantly stronger term than “racist” for example - not all racist speech would be hate speech
“All Africans are retarded” might be a racist statement, depending on context, but it’s not hate speech. “All Africans are retarded, so much so that they’re not actually human, so we can kill them and take their land” would be.
This is all ignoring the fact that no-one’s actually been making that claim. At least, not this century.
Really? If I say blacks have a higher glomerular filtration[sup]*[/sup] rate than whites, does that make me a racist?
Be careful on your answer. I’m a Registered Nurse that also has a degree in molecular biology. Trust me, I know kidneys. Granted, the word “black” is a bad descriptor for genetic groups, but my point is that you are using a very broad brush here.
*There is some thought that the higher glomelur filtration rate observed in African Americans contributes to the greater percentage of heart disease in that population. The thinking is that maybe the kidneys just filter out the blood pressure meds too quick
Yes, it does.
If you said “certain populations of African-Americans that we did studies on do” (and list the populations), you’d be in the clear. But* any time *you group “Blacks” into one group, you’re just flat-out wrong.
No, I’m not, and you yourself say why in the very same sentence.
Wow. You’re a moron.
ETA: I did say “African American” in the part you apparently didn’t read.
Yep. For whatever reason, he enjoys playing the victim, and finding new, absurd ways to consider himself victimised.
Does that apply to groups that work for black people? Or people who advertise hair care or make up products to black people? Or just to white people you disagree with and want to insult?