I don’t have time for all this nitpicking bullshit, Frank and Nemo. The point is that blacks (and women) have been doing very well in the Republican party, both nationally and statewide, particularly when you consider the relatively fewer number of blacks in the Republican party.
So you guys just keep whingin’ about how Republicans are racist, and we’ll keep electing more and more women and minorities [“conservative” women and minorities, btw] and making you look like fools for claiming otherwise.
Point out that the Republicans have elected five black representatives and zero black governors over the last one hundred and ten years is a “nitpick?”
What, exactly, would be a substantive response to your arguments?
Also, Frank, please don’t call other posters “motherfucker.”
Seriously. We’re falling behind in bigotry research. Soon we’ll slip behind Japan, and even Germany. It’s all the Type-O’s fault. I’m not bigoted, cause some distant relative of mine was Type-O.
Gee, I can see why they made you a moderator. I could not come up with witty lines like that if I tried.
Seriously, I realize this is the pit, and rules on rudeness and name-calling may be different here, but do you not feel that something posted by a moderator should at least advance the debate in some way? Even here in the Pit?
Moderators are posters too, as you should know, and are perfectly free to state personal opinions.
Miller did advance the debate anyway, which is whether you are a racist or a bigot. He obviously supports the “bigot” view. Others support the “racist” theory. Some few of us come down foursquare and stalwart for the “just plain stupid” position. What is your stance?
It’s like a Venn diagram. All racists are bigots but not all bigots are racists - some are bigoted about things like religion or sexual orientation or bloodtypes. And all bigots are stupid but not all stupid people are bigots - some are stupid about other things.
I’ll leave the diagramming of these relationships as an exercise for the reader.
According to some Senators, Obama isn’t black… he’s “urban”
Jesus fuck… I’m a white dude, and would love to be superior to everyone (Emperor of the World is my aspiration), but fuckin’ fuck… no need to tiptoe - we know he’s black. We also know that he’s a citizen. We also know that he might not be the best President who ever sat in the seat. Guess what? Only one President gets to be the best.
I vote for Grover Cleveland (or some other marginal President to avoid debate).
And I invite you to challenge such claims on the facts whenever you see fit.
I thought my point was pretty clear that you were not fact-checking.
And it could have been pretty good, if you hadn’t made two rather obvious mistakes. And when called on these mistakes, the classy thing would be to simply acknowledge your errors, but instead the fact that people are correcting you is itself being used to claim how oppressed you are.
As a minor additional note, simply reciting a list of Republicans firsts doesn’t in itself demonstrate that women and minorities overall do better within and during Republican administrations.
Panicked? Desperate? I’ll try to make this clear:
[ul][li]There were some factual errors in your claim[/li][li]This is not the first time this has happened, nor is it the first time factual errors in your claims have been pointed out to you[/li][li]Rather than learn from these incidents and gradually improve your accuracy, you appear utterly indifferent, and try to use the fact that people are correcting you as evidence they fear you, or something[/ul][/li]
Well, the only point your (accurate) statements really made was that the Republicans have a number of significant “firsts”, such lists being easy to compile when you can cherry-pick. I had no way of knowing you had forgotten to include the word “black” when referring to Rice. It was just as likely you had simply forgotten about Madeleine Albright (who, incidentally, is not dead).
Well, the substance of your post isn’t what you claim it is. Sure, the Republicans have a number of significant number of “firsts” (and if one wants to compile a comparable list of Democratic “firsts”, all one needs is fifteen minutes on Wikipedia), but being groundbreaking in itself does not mean permanent victory, nor does it mean the group that goes after you can’t do the job (in this case, improving the lives of women and minorities) in a more lasting and more complete manner.
Sure, now that you’ve added the necessary corrections and qualifiers, I have no issue with the above list. It’s just that it should not have taken such effort to get you to make those corrections, nor was it in invitation to call me, heh, “panicked” or “desperate”. That reaction on your part (and it is definitely not the first time) is why I can’t take you seriously. What’s the point in debating you on facts when the very act of doing so gives you (as you seem to believe) license to jump to dismissive conclusions about my motives? I point out that you made mistakes, you point out that I’m panicked and desperate? Does this strike you as a civilized exchange of ideas?
Yeah, it’s pretty silly. The more accurate sentiment is that AMERICANS are racist, in the sense that they give the whole “race” thing way more attention than it deserves.
You realize, don’t you that GD is the “debate” forum? This is the “insult other posters” forum. No debate necessary. Even from moderators. Bigoted Dumbass!
