FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » GOP War on Women Continued... (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: GOP War on Women Continued...
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You would not be banned from the forum if the owner had not consented to it first. That's how every single ban in the past has been conducted.

I'm not arguing this with you.

Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are seriously not this stupid, mal. Not even you are this stupid. That's how stupid this seems.

quote:
Originally posted by exhiled:
A moderator is like the referee on an NFL field, his job is to call the plays on the field and exhiled has not committed a foul.

Hey, let me ask you a REALLY SIMPLE question. Is the poster 'exhiled' also the person who posted under the name 'malanthrop'
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lysistrata
Member
Member # 13084

 - posted      Profile for Lysistrata           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
You are seriously not this stupid, mal. Not even you are this stupid. That's how stupid this seems.

quote:
Originally posted by exhiled:
A moderator is like the referee on an NFL field, his job is to call the plays on the field and exhiled has not committed a foul.

Hey, let me ask you a REALLY SIMPLE question. Is the poster 'exhiled' also the person who posted under the name 'malanthrop'
If Ben Roethlisberger kicked a guy on the opposing team in the bum and then insisted he was actually Tom Brady, Brady doesn't get the penalty. Whatever you call him, it's still Roethlisberger who did it and it's still Roethlisberger who gets the penalty.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i'm not roethlisberger, my jersey has 'roethlishotdog' scribbled on it. and roethlishotdog ain't committed no fouls, i'm eligible for booth review. something something obama racism
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i'm hungry now. i want a roethlisburger.

and a fifth of whiskey for when i have to stumble back on the field as roethlisphillycheesesteak

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
"Oh, so we are cherry picking quotes by unknown conservatives now to try and prove that the entire GOP establishment is out to disenfranchise minority voters through voter ID laws huh?"

Don't need to. Here's 5 minutes of Googling.

"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done." -- PA House Majority Leader Mike Turzai

"It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’" -- Former FL GOP Chairman Jim Greer

"Think about this, we cut Obama by 5 percent, which was big. ... He beat [2008 GOP presidential candidate John] McCain by 10 percent, he only beat [2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt] Romney by 5 percent. I think that probably photo ID helped a bit in that." -- PA GOP Chairman Rob Gleason

"A lot of us are campaign officials — or campaign professionals — and we want to do everything we can to help our side. Sometimes we think that’s voter ID, sometimes we think that’s longer lines — whatever it may be." -- GOP consultant Scott Trantor

"The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game." -- Phylls Schafly.

How many of those quotes require a desire to disenfranchise voters? How many are also consistent with their frequently stated desire to reign in what they imagine to be rampant, widespread voter fraud by Democratic agents?

Whether widespread voter fraud exists or not is relevant to whether the belief it exists is true, or false.

But if someone is motivated to do something because they believe something false, it's very disingenuous to accuse them of doing it because they have a secret evil motive. They've told you their motive. You think they're wrong. What's the goal of attributing other motives to them? What purpose does that serve? Why not just stick to arguing that their reason is wrong?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you seriously believe that these high-level, experienced political players actually believe there is 'widespread voter fraud'? On what basis would they possibly believe this, and *why on Earth* do they get this much benefit of the doubt when you consider their major, vested interest for political gain versus abstract integrity?

Having read you posts for awhile, Dan, I know you don't trust politicians that much so what, just because they slap up a thin coat of bullshit-beige paint suddenly anyone anywhere is supposed to just overlook the part where 'hey, doing this helps mitigate the major ongoing and future problems we face in terms of demographics in almost any federal election aside from the House' and instead take them at face value when they say 'we're doing this not for all those self-interest reasons, but to protect the integrity of elections!'...which isn't actually in danger!

It's a weird, troubling day when Dan_Frank's stance is 'we know what their motives are, because they've told us! Quit disingenuously pointing out their massive conflict of interest and what it says about likely actual motives!'

That 'disingenuously' bit is, frankly, kind of obnoxious. I know you don't trust either political machine enough to actually believe their motives are what they say they are, on this level-or at least you wouldn't ordinarily, on other issues. It would be all about how human institutions have an unavoidable element of corruption, and that we can't take at face value what an institution says about itself in cases of conflict of interest. I don't understand this insistence to just accept the story that is least critical and most praiseworthy for the motives of these politicians, Dan.

But for the sake of argument let's pretend there wasn't this obvious conflict, these huge well known political motives. If they actually believe what they claim to for the reasons they state...they still are trying to make voting harder for American citizens whose franchise is least protected, to combat a problem that doesn't exist. How much *better* is that, really?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How many of those quotes require a desire to disenfranchise voters? How many are also consistent with their frequently stated desire to reign in what they imagine to be rampant, widespread voter fraud by Democratic agents?
Four and one, respectively.
Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its funny how voter suppression is okay so long as its viewed as a part of the 'game' to win because 'both sides do it' (Democratic agents) and not something that should be treated as the universal right it should be with every effort made to make voter as convenient as possible and the voter well informed.

So setting up as few voting booths as possible so there's super long lines (Seriously where the **** is the legitimate interest in combating voter fraud in having longer lines?) is okay because somewhere out there a black clergyman is encouraging his flock to register to vote and vote early...?

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They've told you their motive. You think they're wrong. What's the goal of attributing other motives to them? What purpose does that serve? Why not just stick to arguing that their reason is wrong?
because just because someone tells you what their motive is does not mean that you have a requirement to afford them some sort of artificial credulity and not treat a situation in which they are almost certainly lying about their true motives ... as a situation in which they are almost certainly lying about their true motives.

It is also possible to do both the 'attributing other motives' (a.k.a. pointing out their most likely true motives, with evidence) AND the arguing about their stated reasoning being wrong. One can (correctly) point out that they are most likely totally lying about their true motive, and that even if they weren't, their stated motive is ridiculous for multiple reasons.

Which is, essentially, what's been going on.

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
semi-related: a gem that came out from colorado's "north colorado" secession talk:

quote:
Republicans next year are planning to propose making state Senate seats be apportioned by land mass instead of population
nice proposal guys
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dan, not one of those quotes referenced voter fraud directly. Every one of them expressed a desire to beat their opponents.

I would consider accepting voter ID supporters' stated wish to have fair elections if and only if the laws included an aggressive push to get photo ID cards to every American promptly, for free, from multiple, easily accessible locations and without costs for collecting supporting evidence. Instead voter ID laws come with needlessly restrictive conditions with no wiggle room and limited availability which require considerable time and effort and money to surpass. What they actually do is set up flaming hoops through which to jump and then step back as the voters struggle through, or give up.

In fact, in some locations government officials were specifically told not to tell people they could get free IDs.

And the claims of voter fraud never stand up. Ever. Time after time claims of fraud, once investigated, reveal statistically negligible cases. And most of the tiny number of actual cases of voter fraud would not be stopped by a photo ID.

If you want to place restrictions on my Constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote, you'd damn well better be able to prove, conclusively, they are necessary. The onus is completely on the side wanting to make voting tougher. I don't actually care if they do truly believe voter fraud is a real threat, they have to prove it exists before passing the laws against it. And everything that's come out so far reveals that what the voter ID people really want is to keep the other side from voting.

Show me where I'm wrong. Give me links to all the documented cases of voter fraud that a photo ID would have caught, and prove to me that stopping that fictional flow is worth preventing hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans from casting their legal votes.

Adding: I'm a laid-back, light-hearted guy, and I often make jokes about current events and the manipulations of politicians, so let me be clear. I consider the efforts to prevent Americans from voting to be attacks on democracy itself and as fundamentally un-American as anything can be.

[ November 11, 2013, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also the GOP guy who specifically said word for word "This law will kick democrats in the buts, if the lazy blacks and college students don't vote, so be it."
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Dan, not one of those quotes referenced voter fraud directly. Every one of them expressed a desire to beat their opponents.

I would consider accepting voter ID supporters' stated wish to have fair elections if and only if the laws included an aggressive push to get photo ID cards to every American promptly, for free, from multiple, easily accessible locations and without costs for collecting supporting evidence. Instead voter ID laws come with needlessly restrictive conditions with no wiggle room and limited availability which require considerable time and effort and money to surpass. What they actually do is set up flaming hoops through which to jump and then step back as the voters struggle through, or give up.

In fact, in some locations government officials were specifically told not to tell people they could get free IDs.

And the claims of voter fraud never stand up. Ever. Time after time claims of fraud, once investigated, reveal statistically negligible cases. And most of the tiny number of actual cases of voter fraud would not be stopped by a photo ID.

If you want to place restrictions on my Constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote, you'd damn well better be able to prove, conclusively, they are necessary. The onus is completely on the side wanting to make voting tougher. I don't actually care if they do truly believe voter fraud is a real threat, they have to prove it exists before passing the laws against it. And everything that's come out so far reveals that what the voter ID people really want is to keep the other side from voting.

Show me where I'm wrong. Give me links to all the documented cases of voter fraud that a photo ID would have caught, and prove to me that stopping that fictional flow is worth preventing hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans from casting their legal votes.

Adding: I'm a laid-back, light-hearted guy, and I often make jokes about current events and the manipulations of politicians, so let me be clear. I consider the efforts to prevent Americans from voting to be attacks on democracy itself and as fundamentally un-American as anything can be.

Passports should also be free. After all, we have the freedom to travel where we wish, correct? Do you know how difficult it is to get back into the US if you don't have a passport or other Government issued photo ID?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ughhh my god tell me about it

passport acquisition has been such crap

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Geraine: You don't have the freedom to travel where you wish. There's private property, there's other nation's borders, and they certainly don't have to let you in.
Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While claiming certain federal documents is in no way cheap if you're considered to have the means to pay for it (~$500 to renew a green card, ~600 just to claim citizenship papers - not even BECOME a citizen, but just getting the government to acknowledge you are one, and I think around $100-$150 to get a US passport from within the US) I think it's only fair to point out that those fees can and will be waived if the appropriate form is filled out and sent along with the application forms. That is, provided you are considered at or around the poverty level - likely some percentage above it, too.

I found this out recently because I've finished my move to the UK and am currently going through claiming my dual US citizenship via my father's status so I can come and go as I please.

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
quote:
Also the GOP guy who specifically said word for word "This law will kick democrats in the buts, if the lazy blacks and college students don't vote, so be it."
Hmm. Those two quotes don't look at all alike. It's almost as if someone were performing a hack paraphrasing job in order to make it look like someone was saying something that he never said. I mean, the second quote provides a "word for word" recap and yet there's nothing in there about especially targeting blacks, just that the law is going to hurt Democrats because it may cause college students and "lazy blacks" (again, undeniably racist wording there) to choose not to vote; the implication being that college students and blacks vote Democrat.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We've been over this and you still haven't answered my original question. You claimed I "paraphrased" but when I loaded up the video and quoted word for word what happened you never acknowledged it. I'ld suggest you go watch the video and stop disingenuously splitting hairs.

The argument, is that the GOP is trying to suppress democratic voter turnout through misinformation, delaying tactics, bureaucratic obstruction, longer lines, and so on in order to deny the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of people. This is an obvious pattern with compelling evidence, such as for example, quotations from GOP spokespersons saying so, from the fact that voter fraud is non existent, historical documentation of the shift towards dogwhistle politics and logical inconsistencies in the arguments for restrictive voter id legislation.

That the GOP chairperson was so obviously racist as to not even seeming to realize just how racist he was being adds compelling evidence towards the description of motive.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Geraine, I'm not sure if that's meant to be a rebuttal of sorts or simply a remark on government-issue ID in the US? I'm leaning towards the latter, but I'm not sure so I thought I'd ask.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, see, I never acknowledged you eventually quoting the video word for word because it was never relevant. My problem originally, besides you sneering at American civil rights and condescendingly dismissing another poster's argument as nonsensical gibberish, was you deliberately paraphrasing the man's words in a way that made him out to be saying something that he did not. We didn't have it out - you did that, I called you out on it, you denied it and starting making demands and I then declined to play the Blayne Game and let it drop. But now here we are, and your own quotes side by side tell the story. When you paraphrased him, you added in the word "especially." As if he had admitted that he was targetting blacks specifically for being black, instead of tar getting democrats, assuming that blacks made up a large portion of that electorate, (along with, you know, college students; not all of whom are black.) You tried to change it from a skeezy racist politician out to help his party by any means necessary, and harming blacks along with others along the way, to a racist politician whose main motivation is to deny black people the vote. And you tried to pin that on him by falsely claiming he said something that he did not say. Whether you and others wish to guess at his "real" motivations is irrelevant. He said what he said, which was not what you said he said. You were being dishonest in order to score a cheap political point, and that's why I brought it up in the first place.

Oh, and I have in fact seen the video. I saw it before you even mentioned it, which is to why I knew who you were talking about and that you were bs'ing.

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The "Elison Game", I see respect isn't your particular ball. Apparently I'm "sneering" at the fact that there is an universalist interpretation was to what constitutes human rights and that maybe suggesting the "right to vote" be treated as a "right" and not something that can be made arbitrarily more difficult without compelling reason (which funnily enough, Republicans would fight tooth and nail when equally applied to gunrights... Yet quick to jettison when its African Americans armed... See Reagan's assault weapons ban to suppress the Black Panthers...).

It is true that he said word for word ""This law is going to kick democrats in the butt."" this much I called you out on since this is what I originally wrote in context on the discussion of the deliberate GOP conspiracy to suppress democratic turnout. That Republicans are racist regressive xenophobic Ur-Fascists speedily increasing in irrelevance is just icing on the proverbial cake, that said Spokesmen so gleefully decided to reinforce.

Again, this seems to be a desperate effort at misdirection away from the crux of the matter, that where the GOP can't win fairly they cheat. You attempt at concern trolling is amusing yet irrelevant.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
do you understand the actual definition of 'concern trolling?'
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nah, it's not concern trolling. I called you out on it for the same reason I called out your dismissal of Geraine; the tactics used in both cases, if widely used by posters, would make the forum a much worse place. I called the tactics out for genuine reasons. GOP guy never said "especially blacks." To anyone who had actually heard him speak, what you said was dishonest and transparent.

When I said you were sneering at American civil rights, I was referring to the right to bear arms. You know, that civil right that they have that you enjoy sneering at?

As to the assault weapons ban, never mind that it had strong Democratic support, and that touching the 2nd wasn't a third rail for Republicans back then that it is now. Or that the failed assassination had given strong political and public support to the idea of additional firearm controls, like Sandy Hook did recently. Nope! Reagan did it to rein in the Panthers.

Good stuff, there. Quality input.

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
do you understand the actual definition of 'concern trolling?'

Yes.


Anyways, Heisenburg, you can be as angry and claim whatever motive or intent you think is there all all day, but in the end of the day it comes down "Nuh huh" "Nuh huh uh" when you really refuse to look into the context of a post.

I was just pointing out he was racist, which should be worrying given his position within the GOP and is reflective of the attitudes of the rest of the GOP. If he's racist AND supports voter suppression of the opposing political party, AND he has the implicit OKAY of his party, this furthers evidence to the fact that this is a deliberate and systemic effort by the GOP, and becomes likely that race is almost certainly a motivating factor for some.

If this nuance is lost on you then I don't think you'ld be able to accept anything; the fact is *I* did in fact originally quote him perfectly accurately word for word a page or two ago, you "accused" me of parathrasing, refused to deign in the 'game' of being wrong and still won't acknowledge that. I don't much care about whatever I said "this" page, yes I "paraphrased" this page, your still being dishonest from what was said before; you should know that word, it seems to be your favorite.


But no, I'm saying mean things about a Southern GOP racist, can't have that and a discussion about systemic voter suppression at the same time can we?

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you're unhappy with Heisenberg's interpretation of your remarks, perhaps work on making it less very very easy to seize on an unpleasant interpretation? The inclusion of the 'especially', the abrupt and bizarre shift to 'don't care about civil rights because they don't adhere to 'universal' civil rights'-which arent, really, not by a very long shot which you certainly know.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What?

Your wrong paraphrasing was on the first page. The dishonest one. That you finally got around to quoting him correctly on this page is great and all, and made pointing out the original added word/context much easier, but why would I go out of my way to congratulate you for finally using accurate accounts of what people say in order to make your points? Should I also come to your home and give you a cookie for flushing the toilet immediately after dropping a turd as opposed to letting it sit and ripen in the bowl overnight?

Oh yes, look at me defending the mean old racist. As we all know, if someone is a racist or something else unlikeable, then it's fair game to put words in their mouth in order to make their already shaky position look even worse. Cause screw 'em, they're wrong and there's an argument to be won.

Shame on ME.

What's funny here is that I largely share your position regarding voter fraud laws. You seem to be mistaking my distaste for your tactics with supporting far right ideals and racism wholeheartedly. But, no; what I really am is a Romney sighing in distaste as the Birther on "my" side yells about Obama being Muslim and a Kenyan.

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
do you understand the actual definition of 'concern trolling?'

Yes.
So why make a completely wrong accusation of concern trolling, at something which is not concern trolling?
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
do you understand the actual definition of 'concern trolling?'

Yes.
So why make a completely wrong accusation of concern trolling, at something which is not concern trolling?
Because he said something that came across as concern trolling?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You would probably be back to discussing just what you claim the real issue is, Elison, if you had simply copped to what you provably had done-that is, misquote and distort.

Hell, you likely wouldn't even have had to confess to any sort of intent, simply said, "Oh yeah, my bad. Didn't mean it like that." It would've been a little cheap, but even that would've been better than this digging in and attacking instead of a simple admission.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
You would probably be back to discussing just what you claim the real issue is, Elison, if you had simply copped to what you provably had done-that is, misquote and distort.

Hell, you likely wouldn't even have had to confess to any sort of intent, simply said, "Oh yeah, my bad. Didn't mean it like that." It would've been a little cheap, but even that would've been better than this digging in and attacking instead of a simple admission.

Well its because on page 1 I did in fact quote accurately word for word, I even made sure to rewatch the video to insure this, he had originally claimed that was being paraphrased but latched on again onto a separate phrase rather than admit he was mistaken the first time. So to me it evens out.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We had a GOP spokesperson actually say on air that the point of Voter ID law, admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
This is not what the guy said. It was in fact an unnecessary distortion of something that was already plenty inflammatory and offensive on the chairman's part. Is your reasoning ghat this doesn't matter simply that Heisenberg also do jt, somewhere?

On another note, rereading this thread...it's pretty freaking galling an obnoxious to hear you go on about such high-minded concerns with regard to what it means for a country that fails to measure up to the Universal Declaration, or hampers the ability kf some of its citizens to vote. Because you and I and other kong-timers know when you care a LOT less about any of that. Or rather, for who.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
We had a GOP spokesperson actually say on air that the point of Voter ID law, admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
This is not what the guy said. It was in fact an unnecessary distortion of something that was already plenty inflammatory and offensive on the chairman's part. Is your reasoning ghat this doesn't matter simply that Heisenberg also do jt, somewhere?


Okay right, I was mistaken here, what I said that was right word for word was on page two:

"He word for word said "This law is going to kick democrats in the butt." This is 100% true."

I think I had mentally put a pause between the two statements on the first page, to me he seemed like he was explicitly signalling out blacks and college students, because otherwise why mention them in particular? That's my mistake, sorry.

quote:

On another note, rereading this thread...it's pretty freaking galling an obnoxious to hear you go on about such high-minded concerns with regard to what it means for a country that fails to measure up to the Universal Declaration, or hampers the ability kf some of its citizens to vote. Because you and I and other kong-timers know when you care a LOT less about any of that. Or rather, for who.

This is by design (to be galling), as Conservatives seems to possess the cognitive dissonance (see Ur Fascism) where they believe the United Nations and anything else 'internationalist' to be simultaneously incompetent and unable to accomplish anything (ergo why the United States should be able to do whatever unilaterally), and that the United Nations is spearheading a conspiracy with liberals, Democrats and Socialists to take over the United States.

It helps to provoke their "real" feelings on an issue, since not all Conservatives are of the Ron Paul mold of where they say exactly what they mean.

I don't think I've said anything about how the US or any country should "live up to it", I think that's a woeful misunderstanding of my argument. As for whether "I care a lot less, etc" we both know that's irrelevant as attempting to poison the tree.

[ November 14, 2013, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think I had mentally put a pause between the two statements on the first page, to me he seemed like he was explicitly signalling out blacks and college students, because otherwise why mention them in particular? That's my mistake, sorry.
Fair enough. I think you might've averted much criticism, though, had you not insisted (as you appeared to be doing) that everyone reading your words read them without asking in exactly the way you sounded them out in your mind, with the least objectionable interpretation.

quote:
This is by design (to be galling), as Conservatives seems to possess the cognitive dissonance (see Ur Fascism) where they believe the United Nations and anything else 'internationalist' to be simultaneously incompetent and unable to accomplish anything (ergo why the United States should be able to do whatever unilaterally), and that the United Nations is spearheading a conspiracy with liberals, Democrats and Socialists to take over the United States.
Just about every bit you mentioned in here is an enormous issue with indirect at best relevance to the actual topic being discussed. You can't object when you do that, when you cast such a huge only barely relevant net and then criticize people with it, that folks are baffled and annoyed.

quote:
It helps to provoke their "real" feelings on an issue, since not all Conservatives are of the Ron Paul mold of where they say exactly what they mean.
So your tactic here is to be imprecise, sweeping, and not quite saying what you mean...in order to expose the real feelings of others. Can you understand how some people might perceive that and be amused and irritated?

quote:
I don't think I've said anything about how the US or any country should "live up to it", I think that's a woeful misunderstanding of my argument. As for whether "I care a lot less, etc" we both know that's irrelevant as attempting to poison the tree.
You regularly imply quite a lot, and since you just admitted to a willingness to not quite say what you mean to prove a broader point I feel comfortable in treating you as though you'd been more forthcoming.

As for poisoning the tree...Elison. If you're going to mount your ivory tower and cast aspersions, you can simply expect to have it pointed out that you might not belong up there in the first place. I'll note that it's taken a lot of bewildering, irrelevant, and rather bitter criticism from you before I even mentioned what was on my mind quite early-and I expect on the minds of others. If I were attempting to poison the tree full of your confusing fruit I would've done so sooner. This is me trying to point out that if you want to post as though you were a moral authority, it helps to actually be a moral authority.

That last sentence applies to you just as much as it does to the US.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the problem that some(most) Americans have with the United Nations is the idea, when it comes up, that the United States is in some way answerable to or under the influence of the United Nations, or that it should be. They don't want another nation, or group of nations, telling them what they should or should not be doing.

Now, does that make them hypocrites? Of course it does. Does that make them wrong? Not in the slightest.

What authority does the United Nations have to tell a sovereign nation that they can't require proof of identification at voting polls? Why should Americans care if the UN or any single country dislikes the fact that a civil right of Americans is the right to bear arms?

I don't like the idea that the UN should be able to tell the United States what to do or how to act any more then I like American adventures in interventionism abroad, both for the same reasons. Nations should be free to live and do as they please, and there are very few things where I'd support any kind of foreign intervention in a sovereign state's affairs, by any nation or group of nations. It has to be more extreme then voter ID laws and being a nation of gun-owners. To take an example, given the state of women's rights there, and the terrorism that it supports, I'd support the US punishing Saudi Arabia economically to the fullest extent possible, and doing it's best to encourage other nations to do the same. When it comes to military intervention I'm okay pretty much only when it involves genocide or, in very specific circumstances, the use of NBC weapons.

Basically if the UN wants to take the role of a nagging mother in law, that's fine. It's the idea of them having actual authority or power that sticks up American's craw. And, I think, for good reason. After all, the UN is the kind of place that puts terrorist supporting dictatorships on the Human Rights Council.

There's also the little fact that the United States has a permanent veto on the Security Council, so really there's nothing that the UN can even attempt to do that can happen without an American okay on it.

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One day there not only WILL be, but HAS to be a One World State, to which the United States, while influential, is in fact answerable to it.

Without which humanity is doomed to extinction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQfYKbKdlBM

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not one of the absolute statements you just made is necessarily true, and for all any of us know a one-world government is a *faster* route to extinction.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Geraine: You don't have the freedom to travel where you wish. There's private property, there's other nation's borders, and they certainly don't have to let you in.

Yet if you are a US citizen do you not have the right to enter the USA when you wish?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ahh, so therefore it's legitimate to enact Voter ID laws to combat a problem which doesn't exist...that also has a convenient side-effect of hindering the efforts of your opposition's base from voting?

Interesting.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Geraine: You don't have the freedom to travel where you wish. There's private property, there's other nation's borders, and they certainly don't have to let you in.

Yet if you are a US citizen do you not have the right to enter the USA when you wish?
Actually, no you don't.
Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Ahh, so therefore it's legitimate to enact Voter ID laws to combat a problem which doesn't exist...that also has a convenient side-effect of hindering the efforts of your opposition's base from voting?

Interesting.

In order to combat voter fraud by martians, all voting by individuals in areas of high population density must travel to established special rural polling stations in different zipcodes, and bring proof of their identity. A gun registration license or proof of land ownership or gentry is fine.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How does cutting back on voting hours cut down on voter fraud? Or does it just make it harder for folks that have to work?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/wisconsin-gop-pushes-new-voting-restrictions

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
perhaps it 'saves valuable tax dollars' or keeps presumably nocturnal vampires from being able to fraudulently vote while the sun is still out
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriously. Vampires are a huge problem!
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
huge! epidemic! as serious a national threat as voter fraud!
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
How does cutting back on voting hours cut down on voter fraud? Or does it just make it harder for folks that have to work?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/wisconsin-gop-pushes-new-voting-restrictions

Remember: whatever they say their motive is, you have to respond to them as though they were both completely honest and entirely free of bias.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Honestly dan, would you still apply your previous standard to this?
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
quote:
admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
quote:
Also the GOP guy who specifically said word for word "This law will kick democrats in the buts, if the lazy blacks and college students don't vote, so be it."
Hmm. Those two quotes don't look at all alike. It's almost as if someone were performing a hack paraphrasing job in order to make it look like someone was saying something that he never said. I mean, the second quote provides a "word for word" recap and yet there's nothing in there about especially targeting blacks, just that the law is going to hurt Democrats because it may cause college students and "lazy blacks" (again, undeniably racist wording there) to choose not to vote; the implication being that college students and blacks vote Democrat.

Honestly Heisenberg, I think you are splitting hairs here and twisting the truth even more than Elison. Yes, the way Elison paraphrased the quote was more inflammatory than the original but it's stretching things even more to claim there is nothing in the original quote about targeting blacks. The most obvious interpretation of the quote is that law will hurt the Democrats because it targets poor blacks and young students. You seem to agree that this is the implication even while you argueing the opposite point.

The only other possible interpretation I can find, is that Yelton thinks that Democrats are winning elections due to the massive voting fraud, so he doesn't care if it disenfranchises a few students and poor blacks. That's such an unbelievable stretch that even right wing apologists are trying to sell it.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote

quote:
"Some are whigs, liberals, democrats, call them what you please. Others are tories, serviles, aristocrats, &c. The latter fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society; the former consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort.
The names and class divisions may have changed, but it's quite evident the basic conservative opposition to real democracy hasn't.

Conservatives have no faith in the people. They give lip service to democracy when it suits their purpose but do not believe in the power of the democratic process. Conservatives see governing as a conflict between good and evil so compromise is always failure of good. Conservatives believe that the common man is selfish and greedy. Power must be exercised to prevent people from degenerating into violence and hedonism. At best, conservatives see the democratic process as a means to manipulate the people into supporting their rule. When that fails, they have no qualms about using every means necessary to take the power they believe to be theirs by right.

Liberals, on the other hand, believe that governing is a creative problem solving process. They believe that when all voices are heard, we can invent better solutions than any individual or group can on their own. To liberals, compromise is a refining process which can be used to improve every solution. They support democracy because they believe in the people. They believe that people can be creative, innovative and altruistic. They believe governing can be a collaborative process rather than a competitive one. Liberals want diversity at the table not just because they care about everyone but because they truly believe the better decisions are made when all voices are heard.

And let me be absolutely clear by these definitions, there are liberals and conservatives in every political party. There are likely both liberal and conservative impulses in every person.

But right now in America, the kind of conservatism I just defined is growing like a cancer in the Republican Party.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
quote:
admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
quote:
Also the GOP guy who specifically said word for word "This law will kick democrats in the buts, if the lazy blacks and college students don't vote, so be it."
Hmm. Those two quotes don't look at all alike. It's almost as if someone were performing a hack paraphrasing job in order to make it look like someone was saying something that he never said. I mean, the second quote provides a "word for word" recap and yet there's nothing in there about especially targeting blacks, just that the law is going to hurt Democrats because it may cause college students and "lazy blacks" (again, undeniably racist wording there) to choose not to vote; the implication being that college students and blacks vote Democrat.

Honestly Heisenberg, I think you are splitting hairs here and twisting the truth even more than Elison. Yes, the way Elison paraphrased the quote was more inflammatory than the original but it's stretching things even more to claim there is nothing in the original quote about targeting blacks. The most obvious interpretation of the quote is that law will hurt the Democrats because it targets poor blacks and young students. You seem to agree that this is the implication even while you argueing the opposite point.

The only other possible interpretation I can find, is that Yelton thinks that Democrats are winning elections due to the massive voting fraud, so he doesn't care if it disenfranchises a few students and poor blacks. That's such an unbelievable stretch that even right wing apologists are trying to sell it.

Yelton's words were plenty damning all by themselves. There was no need to add extra words in that he didn't say in order to make him look worse.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2