I was going to call this "borderline ********" but no there is nothing borderline about that. You are better than that Candrew. For shame.
Romney's The Man
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
I was going to call this "borderline ********" but no there is nothing borderline about that. You are better than that Candrew. For shame.
I'd like to hear your thinking on that. I disagree.
I don't disagree that a big reason why people now (myself NOT included) are so adamantly against government programs is that they believe they mostly help black people and Mexican immigrants. But socialist ideals are socialist ideals. The idea that industry unfairly takes advantage of workers and that it is the right of the people to seize control of these industries in order to opperate them in a way more beneficial to workers is the root of socialist thinking. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I really don't like being called a racist, either explicitly or through inferrence. If you would like to understand the foundation of my political views I will explain it as best I can. I assure you it is not based on a disdain for the poor or a hatred of black people.
candrew
Well-Known Member
I wasn't speaking to you specifically or even generally. I apologize if that's the way it sounded.
If you want to question Obama's performance or leadership - I'm all ears; and I would probably agree with you on a few points.
But in these PC times, I am more than certain that all this talk of him being a Muslim or a Non-American or a socialist is coming from folks who, for the most part, are just ticked off a black guy is in The White House.
If you want to question Obama's performance or leadership - I'm all ears; and I would probably agree with you on a few points.
But in these PC times, I am more than certain that all this talk of him being a Muslim or a Non-American or a socialist is coming from folks who, for the most part, are just ticked off a black guy is in The White House.
I am sure that there are some that are mad a black man is the president. I firmly believe they are the vast minority. I recently read an article by a very left leaning journalist that points out that anyone who questions Mormonism is labeled a "religious bigot". The reporter has a very valid point. Then I subsituted "left" with "right" and "religious bigot" with "racist" and I had the arguement against being called a racist for disagreeing with President Obama.
It amazes me how blind people can be (including myself sometimes).
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
No, basically he's wrong because he's wrong. It's not my opinion that Obama isn't a socialist, it's true by definition, given the meaning of socialist. So, if I were to call Romney a Nazi, and you said I was wrong, given how Nazi is defined, is that merely your opinion, or is it true by definition. Here's a hint--it's the latter.
I repeat, those who call Obama a socialist are overwhelming drawn from the more extreme, ideological wing of the Republican party, who strongly tend as well to get their information from right wing sources. So it's a reasonable inference that someone here on this board who makes this claim is (a) highly conservative Republican and (b) gets a good chunk of his/her information from right wing sources than confirm his/her pre-existing biases.
No, I attack opinions I think are stupid, bigoted, ignorant, or based on faulty information. I much less inclined to attack people who actually show evidence of independent or reasoned thought, such as Colton, with whom I disagree on the lottery issue but whom I've treated, I think, with respect. You on the other hand give every evidence of being an unreflective partisan hack so I take a more aggressive approach with you.
I mention by independence because you have on more than one occasion accused me of partisanship. Although I have opinons on matters, they are not driven by party identification or identification with a particular ideological tradition. This does not appear to be the case with you.
At this point it is clear that either Obama or Romney will win, but I really am not excited about either option. I know the options could be worse, but they aren't that great either. I have a feeling that a significant percentage of the population agrees from online reports and comments that I've been reading and people with whom I've spoken.
How is it that nobody has ever heard of, or given two ****s about "jimmy eat jazz" since June 2010, but all of a sudden he learned the word "empirical" from Bubble Guppies and now he's worse than Craig2112?
Here's a newsflash for you, J.E.J.: You're a moron.
Please, stop posting.
Here's a newsflash for you, J.E.J.: You're a moron.
Please, stop posting.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Ummm, let me think about it.
Thought about it. Nope. Sorry.
Being called a moron by the likes of you is really quite flattering. Like being called a moron by a tea bagger.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've had a few black friends, workmates. . . . and even some actual marxist friends. . . . along my weary little road in life. Some of them could have sung in the choir at Rev. Wright's little church where Obama attended. I disagree with your reverse sort of racist analysis of the white and conservative voting blocks because I know some of them too, who do vote for conservative blacks, and who have formed business partnerships with blacks and who hire blacks and who treat blacks with respect.
I think it's pretty ordinary that a lot of black folk will feel the way you do, and I realize that I'm just as human and short-sighted a lot of the time. We will all stick up for one of our own, in any sense of the idea, when we feel others are downing him/her with prejudice or ignorance.
A lot of whites nowadays will parade with their PC poses pretty good. And a lot of whites are getting sore at it, too. Fundamentally, I don't think it's useful to force people of any kind to conform to any ideal within their little personal sphere of what's inside the mind or heart, and I consider that intelligence and understanding are the thing to be hoped for, and that ideas are the currency of values that can make that happen more often. It's just sad that we need real laws to make human rights real for anyone. I'm resigned to putting the laws in place, but it's still the ideas that will make the most difference.
But back to Obama. The sad thing there is that while Obama has toyed with marxism, and done the community organizer bit with dedicated socialists who would resent being called "borderline" on it, he's really a compromised President obligated to others, dependent on others, who essentially guide him into being a Bush of another color.
And although I was raised LDS with some palpable connections to the Romney clan, I am convinced Romney is just another Bush. He might patch up some things for the big business folks, and encourage more investment and get job growth back on an uphill road, though.
But he's not going to make people who are seriously looking at their own opportunities and human rights, like you or me, feel any better about our prospects.
So I'll vote for Paul until the cows come home, or go third party Libertarian.
This. I had such high hopes for him, but alas, he has become the very thing I loathe. Of course, it is inevitable in politics, but for some reason, I thought he might be different. I won't be making the same mistake twice.
Yup. Seems like you have to lie to get in office, then be about as vanilla as possible while you are in office as to not totally upset anyone, then hope to get re-elected when your opposition is just as bad as you are.
All this will do is get Obama reelected.