State of the Union registers at 8th grade reading level

[jimnyc]

No wonder the left loves him, he's easier to understand! :laugh:


President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address again rated at an 8th grade comprehension level on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test — the third lowest score of any State of the Union address since 1934.

The University of Minnesota's Smart Politics conducted an analysis on the last 70 State of the Union addresses and found that President Obama's three addresses have the lowest grade average of any modern president. "Obama's average grade-level score of 8.4 is more than two grades lower than the 10.7 grade average for the other 67 addresses written by his 12 predecessors," they conclude.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/state-of-the-union-registers-at-th-grade-reading-level-112236.html

[ConHog]

No wonder the left loves him, he's easier to understand! :laugh:



http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/state-of-the-union-registers-at-th-grade-reading-level-112236.html

"smartest man in any room he walks into" Jim


:laugh2:

[Nukeman]

At least it was 8th grade. In healthcare we are told to not use more than 2 syllable words and not to use anythign over a 3rd-4th grade comprehension level. that way EVERYONE can follow. So I ahve to say Im impressed he went all the way to 8th grade.....

Now I am NOT a conspiracy nut but I think some of you should look at this

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html


Most Americans are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nations program known as Agenda 21 (http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/index.shtml). The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 as a sustainability agenda which is arguably an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism brushed with anti-American, anti-capitalist overtones

One of the primary intiatives in the Agenda 21 is the systematic dumbing down of first world nations....


http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38585


The truth is, Agenda 21 promotes European socialism that by its nature will infringe upon our freedoms and liberties. Most of its vague, lofty sounding phrases cause the average person’s eyes to glaze over, making it easier to sneak into our communities.
Besides its radical environmental (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38585#) agenda, the U.N. wishes to change consumption patterns, including ownership of property and automobile ownership, and successfully promote social justice.
Part of this lofty goal—possibly the most important part—is the inclusion of indoctrination programs in U.S. government schools. Berit Kjos, author of Brave New Schools, warns that Agenda 21 will indoctrinate the very young to accept the outcome of its programs.

A less educated populace uses fewer resources and are therefore able to be selfsustainable. the higher the education the mre resourced an individual uses, that is why we have been seeing a decline in our educational process. More time spent on agendas instead of the basics. they no longer teach how to learn but how to repeat facts.....

[Nukeman]

Sorry didn't mean to hijack your thread. Obama a moron:cool:

[ConHog]

At least it was 8th grade. In healthcare we are told to not use more than 2 syllable words and not to use anythign over a 3rd-4th grade comprehension level. that way EVERYONE can follow. So I ahve to say Im impressed he went all the way to 8th grade.....

Now I am NOT a conspiracy nut but I think some of you should look at this

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html



One of the primary intiatives in the Agenda 21 is the systematic dumbing down of first world nations....


http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38585



A less educated populace uses fewer resources and are therefore able to be selfsustainable. the higher the education the mre resourced an individual uses, that is why we have been seeing a decline in our educational process. More time spent on agendas instead of the basics. they no longer teach how to learn but how to repeat facts.....


Holy shit if we as a country get any dumber we're screwed.

[gabosaurus]

Holy shit if we as a country get any dumber we're screwed.

I think we've actually taken a step up. :rolleyes:

http://x40.xanga.com/8edb7455411a0259518832/w6885164.jpg

[jimnyc]

I think we've actually taken a step up. :rolleyes:

http://x40.xanga.com/8edb7455411a0259518832/w6885164.jpg

And I'm called a "racist" when I say that Obama looks like a Chimp, or that Michelle looks like a Gorilla! What a double standard we have going here!! :laugh2:

[revelarts]

And I'm called a "racist" when I say that Obama looks like a Chimp, or that Michelle looks like a Gorilla! What a double standard we have going here!! :laugh2:

And you call the newsletters racist? pitiful.

[jimnyc]

And you call the newsletters racist? pitiful.

I'm not running for president, am I? And use context, you foolish dumbass - if you weren't so illiterate that you can't comprehend multiple posts over a period of time - you would know that I started the name calling towards them 2 as a result of years of liberals calling Bush a "chimp". It was done to prove a point, things you wouldn't likely understand.

Furthermore, I find it outright hilarious that you can quickly condemn a post of mine because of racism but put super glue on your fingers and lips when it comes to the man you whack off to each and every night, Ron Paul.

[Gaffer]

And I'm called a "racist" when I say that Obama looks like a Chimp, or that Michelle looks like a Gorilla! What a double standard we have going here!! :laugh2:

Wow, she posted pictures of Bush next to obama. And I think obama does look like a chimp and his wife a gorilla. If they were white they would still look like a chimp and a gorilla.

[jimnyc]

Wow, she posted pictures of Bush next to obama. And I think obama does look like a chimp and his wife a gorilla. If they were white they would still look like a chimp and a gorilla.

Be prepared, Rev will be back momentarily to tell you just how pitiful you are!! :laugh2:

[ConHog]

I'm not running for president, am I? And use context, you foolish dumbass - if you weren't so illiterate that you can't comprehend multiple posts over a period of time - you would know that I started the name calling towards them 2 as a result of years of liberals calling Bush a "chimp". It was done to prove a point, things you wouldn't likely understand.

Furthermore, I find it outright hilarious that you can quickly condemn a post of mine because of racism but put super glue on your fingers and lips when it comes to the man you whack off to each and every night, Ron Paul.

Why the big long explanation? Michelle looks like a fucking gorilla. That isn't our fault, and we're not racists for pointing it out. LOL

[jimnyc]

Why the big long explanation? Michelle looks like a fucking gorilla. That isn't our fault, and we're not racists for pointing it out. LOL

Well, now I'm going to have to read TWO posts from Rev about you racists!!

[revelarts]

Be prepared, Rev will be back momentarily to tell you just how pitiful you are!! :laugh2:

Pitiful racist to be specific.




....- I'D STILL like to see it written from a credible MSM source. All it takes is one fucking idiot like you to write on a blog that you found it on a "Nexis archive" and a billion left wing kooks would run with it. I'll believe it when I see it on a MSM site like we did with tons of them covering Chimpy's golf outing.
Furthermore, I guess the man who served his country and was shot down in an aircraft would have earned a game of links on Memorial Day - while the Chimp in Chief honors the soldiers by playing a game.
I'll wait for the MSM article. Happy searching!
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31365-Food-stamps-up-39-with-Obama-in-office-record-numbers


Put a chimp in charge that states he needs no authorization from congress and this is what you get.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31345-Obama-NATO-rejects-Lybian-cease-fire-offer

[Gaffer]

Be prepared, Rev will be back momentarily to tell you just how pitiful you are!! :laugh2:

I don't like the man or his policies so I'm a racist without question. I also don't like Paul or his policies or romney and his policies. Paul reminds me of somebodies weird uncle and romney looks like a shyster car salesman.

I'm not sure rev will go into how pitiful I am as he's presently in Paul trolling mode. But maybe we can distract him for a while.

[jimnyc]

Pitiful racist to be specific.




http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31365-Food-stamps-up-39-with-Obama-in-office-record-numbers


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31345-Obama-NATO-rejects-Lybian-cease-fire-offer

So what's your point, I shouldn't be considered a good nominee for the GOP? I freely admit I made the reference, probably HUNDREDS of times. But you're too stupid to explain it to. But even if I were a full blown racist, I wouldn't reserve the right to not want a racist as president? And I've done more drugs in my life than probably every member here combined, does that mean I am disqualified from speaking out against an old fool who wants to legalize harder drugs? My idea of a president is CERTAINLY not someone who molded their lifestyle out of mine! LOL

Fuck you and Ron Paul!! :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Yup, a real Gettysburg Address we had last night. :blah:

[jimnyc]

I don't like the man or his policies so I'm a racist without question. I also don't like Paul or his policies or romney and his policies. Paul reminds me of somebodies weird uncle and romney looks like a shyster car salesman.

I'm not sure rev will go into how pitiful I am as he's presently in Paul trolling mode. But maybe we can distract him for a while.

They are like robots, literally. Nothing distracts them - except for facts - then they disappear. But go to any popular Ron Paul forum, read some posts/threads - then come back here and, with a straight face, tell me they don't all sound like Rev. It's stunningly hilarious!!

[Trigg]

Looking at the demographic he's after, it doesn't surprise me that he's keeping it simple.

Teachers, as gabby should know, are told to keep it simple when writing to parents so they understand the letters being sent home. I think it's at a 6th grade level, but I'd have to check with with a friend of mine who is also in education.

[ConHog]

Pitiful racist to be specific.




http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31365-Food-stamps-up-39-with-Obama-in-office-record-numbers


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31345-Obama-NATO-rejects-Lybian-cease-fire-offer

So a white President is fair game to call a chimp, but a black first lady oh no you're a racist if you call her a gorilla?

I suggest sir that it is people like YOU who are racists. Why offer them extra protections? oooooh so I called Obama a nigger. so what? Does that prove I feel any particular way about blacks? Nope, just proves I think Obama is a nigger and his wife looks like a gorilla. It's called EQUAL opportunity.

pathetic racist indeed.

[logroller]

So a white President is fair game to call a chimp, but a black first lady oh no you're a racist if you call her a gorilla?

I suggest sir that it is people like YOU who are racists. Why offer them extra protections? oooooh so I called Obama a nigger. so what? Does that prove I feel any particular way about blacks? Nope, just proves I think Obama is a nigger and his wife looks like a gorilla. It's called EQUAL opportunity.

pathetic racist indeed.

The issue from an ethical standpoint is whether calling a person a gorilla dehumanizes them; and in so doing, discharges one from reasonable consideration of other persons' happiness. Its not just the inherent prejudice and double-standards of racism which are problematic, but the justification of behaving immorally-- which we are free to do, but it begs to reason that if everyone behaved as such, regardless of physical appearance, we would be no different than pigs satisfied (or chimps and gorillas for the matter).

[jimnyc]

The issue from an ethical standpoint is whether calling a person a gorilla dehumanizes them; and in so doing, discharges one from reasonable consideration of other persons' happiness. Its not just the inherent prejudice and double-standards of racism which are problematic, but the justification of behaving immorally-- which we are free to do, but it begs to reason that if everyone behaved as such, regardless of physical appearance, we would be no different than pigs satisfied (or chimps and gorillas for the matter).

Let me ask you this, Log... How differently do you see people that use different racist terms? In other words, you have one using the "N" word, one using chimp, one using gorilla, one saying inferior, one saying genes... You can see where I'm going with this. Are some racists better than others because they can state their racism in "nicer" terms than another? What about the difference between an open racist and one who hides his racism?

Just curious!

[ConHog]

The issue from an ethical standpoint is whether calling a person a gorilla dehumanizes them; and in so doing, discharges one from reasonable consideration of other persons' happiness. Its not just the inherent prejudice and double-standards of racism which are problematic, but the justification of behaving immorally-- which we are free to do, but it begs to reason that if everyone behaved as such, regardless of physical appearance, we would be no different than pigs satisfied (or chimps and gorillas for the matter).

It is what it is Log, we as humans judge each other, and when a person is a world known figure that judging is going to be worse. I posted a picture of Sam Elliot in a thread the other comparing his looks to that of a dog. I've included that picture in this thread. Does doing so mean I'm prejudiced against older white male actors? Of course not. Dude just looks like that fucking dog. :laugh2:

3226

[Abbey Marie]

The issue from an ethical standpoint is whether calling a person a gorilla dehumanizes them; and in so doing, discharges one from reasonable consideration of other persons' happiness. Its not just the inherent prejudice and double-standards of racism which are problematic, but the justification of behaving immorally-- which we are free to do, but it begs to reason that if everyone behaved as such, regardless of physical appearance, we would be no different than pigs satisfied (or chimps and gorillas for the matter).

I would expect the "evolved from apes" crowd to consider it not at all dehumanizing.

[ConHog]

I would expect the "evolved from apes" crowd to consider it not at all dehumanizing.


Exactly, maybe humans are evolved from apes, and MO is the missing link.


:laugh2:

Seriously, she should have married Patrick Ewing.

3227

[Little-Acorn]

I think we've actually taken a step up. :rolleyes:



What you mean "we", kemosabe?

[gabosaurus]

What you mean "we", kemosabe?

You are correct. I doubt it is possible for you to take a step up. The gutter will always be the gutter. :p

[logroller]

I would expect the "evolved from apes" crowd to consider it not at all dehumanizing.

:laugh: The ability to rationalize right and wrong is a philosophical concept, not a biological one.


It is what it is Log, we as humans judge each other, and when a person is a world known figure that judging is going to be worse. I posted a picture of Sam Elliot in a thread the other comparing his looks to that of a dog. I've included that picture in this thread. Does doing so mean I'm prejudiced against older white male actors? Of course not. Dude just looks like that fucking dog. :laugh2:

3226

Saying an individual person of African descent resembles a gorilla is dehumanizing--period. As individuals, snap judgments based on biases are benign; as a society, biased reasoning fails the pursuit of happiness.


Let me ask you this, Log... How differently do you see people that use different racist terms? In other words, you have one using the "N" word, one using chimp, one using gorilla, one saying inferior, one saying genes... You can see where I'm going with this. Are some racists better than others because they can state their racism in "nicer" terms than another? What about the difference between an open racist and one who hides his racism?

Just curious!

Some woman are better looking than others because they have bigger tits. That's my bias, that's what I value. It is not, however, a well-reasoned moral concept; as it can easily justify an immoral action. In voicing an opinion to another in society, it carries influence. Despite this being little more than my preference, such beliefs can, and do, manifest themselves into social pressure--which can be good and bad. Bad, no doubt, to the late bloomer taunted in school, or even the early bloomer; good for plastic surgeons though, and boob lovers everywhere. :boobies: Were one to have or prefer large or small breasts; does this preference make someone 'nicer'? Subjectively perhaps; but objectively, no.

So too with racial stereotypes. In using any such terms, regardless of subjective intent, its a bias against African appearance. Unlike boobs, save MJ's bleaching disorder, the color of one's skin cannot be changed anymore than 'niggardly' can be separated from its racial inference. So when faced with such biases, many black people assume the role, much as many women flaunt there cleavage.

Some behavior is more contiguous with a healthy society; the reasoning for one's actions play a pivotal role in society's success. Its not calling someone a nigger that is the problem IMO; its that it serves to rationalize immoral actions. Words don't hurt really; but I believe it trivializes centuries, or in some cases, millenniums of systemic oppression along racial and cultural biases. Are biases inherently wrong...of course not, but they fail to reason what is best for society. We have a welfare system which seeks to advance poor people, many of which are of color, because we believe that poor is bad-- we're biased by this belief. Maybe its true, poor is bad and rich is good. But in treating those who are richer as better and those poorer as worse-- each merely assumes their role with its biases. So too with the NAACP, and the myriad of racial preferences in our society, being owed to the biased reasoning of white guilt and black animosity. Though individually your or my biases are but a trickle, they collectively direct our actions into a confluence of oppression which fails society as a whole.

If you got this far, thanks for reading-- as a reward, I'll answer your question; which I boil down to Is calling someone "the N-word" nicer than calling them a 'nigger'? Subjectively, yes; as it shows some degree of cultural sensitivity. Just as enslaving them through a social welfare and prison system is nicer than outright slavery--but objectively, one is just less bad, and there's no good to be had.

[cadet]

I love racists. They're so fun, especially the none-white ones. aka, my great aunt. most racist half White/Asian lady I've ever met!
that, and my black friends making white jokes.
Ever gotten in a racist joke war with a Mexican? that's some fun stuff.
needless to say, my generation thinks your generations ideas on racism is a laughing riot. :laugh2:




That reminds me, off topic though, our school is having a comedian come in with a "end of racism" comedy tour, it's either going to be really bad, cause our school is about 90% white, or hilarious, cause black comedians tend to be the best.


And, back on topic, THEY ALL LOOK LIKE MONKEYS!!!!!!! AND ACT LIKE EM TOO!!!!! (all politicians is what i mean)

[ConHog]

:laugh: The ability to rationalize right and wrong is a philosophical concept, not a biological one.



Saying an individual person of African descent resembles a gorilla is dehumanizing--period. As individuals, snap judgments based on biases are benign; as a society, biased reasoning fails the pursuit of happiness.



Some woman are better looking than others because they have bigger tits. That's my bias, that's what I value. It is not, however, a well-reasoned moral concept; as it can easily justify an immoral action. In voicing an opinion to another in society, it carries influence. Despite this being little more than my preference, such beliefs can, and do, manifest themselves into social pressure--which can be good and bad. Bad, no doubt, to the late bloomer taunted in school, or even the early bloomer; good for plastic surgeons though, and boob lovers everywhere. :boobies: Were one to have or prefer large or small breasts; does this preference make someone 'nicer'? Subjectively perhaps; but objectively, no.

So too with racial stereotypes. In using any such terms, regardless of subjective intent, its a bias against African appearance. Unlike boobs, save MJ's bleaching disorder, the color of one's skin cannot be changed anymore than 'niggardly' can be separated from its racial inference. So when faced with such biases, many black people assume the role, much as many women flaunt there cleavage.

Some behavior is more contiguous with a healthy society; the reasoning for one's actions play a pivotal role in society's success. Its not calling someone a nigger that is the problem IMO; its that it serves to rationalize immoral actions. Words don't hurt really; but I believe it trivializes centuries, or in some cases, millenniums of systemic oppression along racial and cultural biases. Are biases inherently wrong...of course not, but they fail to reason what is best for society. We have a welfare system which seeks to advance poor people, many of which are of color, because we believe that poor is bad-- we're biased by this belief. Maybe its true, poor is bad and rich is good. But in treating those who are richer as better and those poorer as worse-- each merely assumes their role with its biases. So too with the NAACP, and the myriad of racial preferences in our society, being owed to the biased reasoning of white guilt and black animosity. Though individually your or my biases are but a trickle, they collectively direct our actions into a confluence of oppression which fails society as a whole.

If you got this far, thanks for reading-- as a reward, I'll answer your question; which I boil down to Is calling someone "the N-word" nicer than calling them a 'nigger'? Subjectively, yes; as it shows some degree of cultural sensitivity. Just as enslaving them through a social welfare and prison system is nicer than outright slavery--but objectively, one is just less bad, and there's no good to be had.


WHY is saying a person of African descent (and let's be honest here, most blacks in America couldn't trace their ancestry to Africa without reaching back several generations, so African-American is a misnomer) a gorilla any more offensive than calling a white dude a chimp is? Those pictures Gabby posted comparing Bush to a chimp are hilarious. I could post some equally funny pictures of Michelle Obama comparing her to a gorilla. Are black people somehow off limits to admittedly crude humor? Only white guys can be made fun of now?

[jimnyc]

If you got this far, thanks for reading-- as a reward, I'll answer your question; which I boil down to Is calling someone "the N-word" nicer than calling them a 'nigger'? Subjectively, yes; as it shows some degree of cultural sensitivity. Just as enslaving them through a social welfare and prison system is nicer than outright slavery--but objectively, one is just less bad, and there's no good to be had.

So if one person refers to a black person as a "chimp" or "gorilla - and another mocks the black folks for years in newsletters, but in a more "sophisticated" manner - they are both "bad". And I assume that means that you agree with me when I laugh at Rev for calling me a "pitiful racist" and yet would defend Ron Paul no matter how much proof is offered. In fact, I would see the latter as worse. Supporting one man stating it on a message board is one thing, supporting a man that made millions off of his "pitiful racism" is even worse, and then wanting this person in the highest office on the land...

What comes to mind for me when thinking of what Rev said is: Pitiful Hypocrite

[jimnyc]

WHY is saying a person of African descent (and let's be honest here, most blacks in America couldn't trace their ancestry to Africa without reaching back several generations, so African-American is a misnomer) a gorilla any more offensive than calling a white dude a chimp is? Those pictures Gabby posted comparing Bush to a chimp are hilarious. I could post some equally funny pictures of Michelle Obama comparing her to a gorilla. Are black people somehow off limits to admittedly crude humor? Only white guys can be made fun of now?

I dealt with those pictures for 8 years while GWB was in office - and that's EXACTLY why I started with the shit I did when Obama got into office. The double standard is hilarious. We are now too "PC" and can't make the same jokes about the protected blacks. I say this - if you can't say it about the blacks, then you shouldn't be saying it about the whites.

[fj1200]

WHY is saying a person of African descent ... a gorilla any more offensive than calling a white dude a chimp is?

Who is more likely to be derogatorily called a chimp?


... if you can't say it about the blacks, then you shouldn't be saying it about the whites.

I do not disagree.

On another note, this thread went downhill FAST.

[ConHog]

Who is more likely to be derogatorily called a chimp?



I do not disagree.

On another note, this thread went downhill FAST.

So, it's about degrees? I would say it's derogatory to call ANYONE a chimp/monkey/gorilla/orangutang whatever. but who cares? It is what it is, and the color of a person's skin shouldn't afford them any more protection from being made fun of then the color of a person's skin should be used to hold them back. DO you agree with that or not?

[ConHog]

I dealt with those pictures for 8 years while GWB was in office - and that's EXACTLY why I started with the shit I did when Obama got into office. The double standard is hilarious. We are now too "PC" and can't make the same jokes about the protected blacks. I say this - if you can't say it about the blacks, then you shouldn't be saying it about the whites.

Admit it though, those pictures of Bush were funny. :laugh2: That's the difference I don't get , we can laugh at a picture of Bush looking like a chimp, but oh better not laugh at a picture of a black person looking like an ape.

[fj1200]

So, it's about degrees? I would say it's derogatory to call ANYONE a chimp/monkey/gorilla/orangutang whatever. but who cares? It is what it is, and the color of a person's skin shouldn't afford them any more protection from being made fun of then the color of a person's skin should be used to hold them back. DO you agree with that or not?

If an overt racist will call a black person a chimp, to reinforce their supposed racial superiority, then you need to acknowledge that they might feel it's racist if anyone says it.


Admit it though, those pictures of Bush were funny. :laugh2: That's the difference I don't get , we can laugh at a picture of Bush looking like a chimp, but oh better not laugh at a picture of a black person looking like an ape.

I imagine that you haven't been called a chimp, nor your kin, or that you've been referred to as the "missing link."

[ConHog]

If an overt racist will call a black person a chimp, to reinforce their supposed racial superiority, then you need to acknowledge that they might feel it's racist if anyone says it.



I imagine that you haven't been called a chimp, nor your kin, or that you've been referred to as the "missing link."

So why do you suppose Gabby posted those pics and called Bush a chimp? Well , to reinforce her supposed intellectual superiority over him of course. So its okay to be intellectually biased but not okay to be racially biased?

You know when we'll have racial equality? When it's okay to make fun of a black person without the racism tag being thrown out there.

[fj1200]

So its okay to be intellectually biased but not okay to be racially biased?

Let me put it this way; a white guy who posted a Bush/chimp picture has zero room to argue against the BO/chimp picture while the black guy who never posted a Bush/chimp picture has every room to argue against the BO/chimp picture.

[cadet]

Let me put it this way; a white guy who posted a Bush/chimp picture has zero room to argue against the BO/chimp picture while the black guy who never posted a Bush/chimp picture has every room to argue against the BO/chimp picture.

let's look at his diffrently,
we'll call these man 1 and man 2.
man 1 puts up picture making fun of another man, man 3.
man 2 doesn't. man 2 is ok with it.
(and vise versa)

man 1 makes fun of man 4.
man 2 is pissed.
(and vise versa)

man 1 say's screw you, take a freaking joke, and makes fun of man 2.

[cadet]

also, before you assume, my point i was trying to get across was this, why should man 2 be ok when man 3 gets made fun of?

either get with the program and laugh, or stop being anti-white/black/whatever.

[fj1200]

let's look at his diffrently...

Interesting how you need to take race out of the equation to ignore the central issue. :rolleyes:


also, before you assume, my point i was trying to get across was this, why should man 2 be ok when man 3 gets made fun of?

either get with the program and laugh, or stop being anti-white/black/whatever.

How about a different scenario for you:

Overtly racist Man 1 calls BO a chimp to dehumanize BO and justify the superiority of Man 1's race.
Non-racist Man 2 calls BO a chimp.

How would you tell the difference?

[ConHog]

Interesting how you need to take race out of the equation to ignore the central issue. :rolleyes:



How about a different scenario for you:

Overtly racist Man 1 calls BO a chimp to dehumanize BO and justify the superiority of Man 1's race.
Non-racist Man 2 calls BO a chimp.

How would you tell the difference?

Who cares is my point. WHY is a black person supposed to be isolated from some moron's absolute freedom of speech when other groups are not? If a Christian is expected to stand by while a painting of Jesus being pissed on is displayed then a black man can go fuck himself if he doesn't like being compared to a chimp. Just as an example.

It's all about equality isn't it?

[fj1200]

Who cares is my point. WHY is a black person supposed to be isolated from some moron's absolute freedom of speech when other groups are not? If a Christian is expected to stand by while a painting of Jesus being pissed on is displayed then a black man can go fuck himself if he doesn't like being compared to a chimp. Just as an example.

It's all about equality isn't it?

Man you're off base. This isn't about anything close to "some moron's absolute freedom of speech." It's about the moron who thinks he's not a moron.

[ConHog]

Man you're off base. This isn't about anything close to "some moron's absolute freedom of speech." It's about the moron who thinks he's not a moron.

There are lots of morons who don't realize they are morons FJ, but guess what , they have a right to be so.

Simple question.

I have the right to stand on the street corner and yell at the top of my lungs that Michelle Obama looks like a fucking ape?

Now, if you want to debate the wisdom of taking advantage of that right, I'd agree with you. Stupid to do. Just as I agree that it would be stupid to own a business and hang a sign out front that says "we don't serve niggers" , but a guy should have the right to do so if he wishes.

That being said, if I were to stand on the street corner yelling that MO looks like an ape, you would of course also have the right to stand on the same corner yelling that I'm an idiot, if that's your opinion.

Same with the guy with the business sign, he should have that right, likewise we should have the right to point and laugh at the idiot who is willing to turn down business because of the color of someone's skin.

[fj1200]

There are lots of morons who don't realize they are morons FJ, but guess what , they have a right to be so.

:facepalm99:

[revelarts]

Lets put it a completely different context.
what if someone a "Civilian" puts up a picture of a guy in miltrary uniform as a jackass. and says people in the miltary look like jackasses and act like jackasses.
but i have nothing against people in the military they are just Jackasses. Why can't they take a joke.

How well would that go over for year after year?
But what it it becomes one of many negative terms and images used by Civilians of the U.S Military but almost never by the military becuase they HATE it.
Then some civilian sees a military guy walking down the street and says Huh that guys looks like a jackass, look at his ears. The guy never hears it but 2 seals hear it around the corner.

what might happen next.

[ConHog]

Lets put it a completely different context what if someone a "Civilian" puts up a picture of a guy in miltrary uniform as a jackass. and says people in the miltary look like jackasses and act like jackasses.
but i have nothing against people in the military they are just Jackasses. Why can't they take a joke.
How well would that go over for year after year?

But what it it becomes one of many negative terms and images used by Civilians of the U.S Military but almost never by the military becuase they HATE it.
Then some civilian sees a military guy walking down the street and says Huh that guys looks like a jackass, look at his ears. The guy never hears it but 2 seals hear it around the corner.

what might happen next.

Hopefully honorably and understanding that the guy has a right to voice his opinion and walk away. Probable in fact.

[revelarts]

There are lots of morons who don't realize they are morons FJ, but guess what , they have a right to be so.



There's nothing about a right to be a Moron in the constitution so the Federal gov't can assume the authority take him out and have him killed. For the safety of the general population.

[ConHog]

There's nothing about a right to be a Moron in the constitution so the Federal gov't can assume the authority take him out and have him killed. For the safety of the general population.

Oh for the love of God, only you would try to compare calling a military member silly looking with plotting acts of terror.

[cadet]

Interesting how you need to take race out of the equation to ignore the central issue. :rolleyes:



How about a different scenario for you:

Overtly racist Man 1 calls BO a chimp to dehumanize BO and justify the superiority of Man 1's race.
Non-racist Man 2 calls BO a chimp.

How would you tell the difference?
That... was sorta the point... by now, i think we've all realized we're equal and human...


also, i like your little thing, racist man 1? but man 2 isn't for saying the same thing?

i guess i see your opinion. GO BLACK SUPERIORITY! THEY'RE BETTER!
no, no wait, we're all equal, but they're more equal, right? is this your view? (sarcasm on, by the way)

[cadet]

Lets put it a completely different context.
what if someone a "Civilian" puts up a picture of a guy in miltrary uniform as a jackass. and says people in the miltary look like jackasses and act like jackasses.
but i have nothing against people in the military they are just Jackasses. Why can't they take a joke.

How well would that go over for year after year?
But what it it becomes one of many negative terms and images used by Civilians of the U.S Military but almost never by the military becuase they HATE it.
Then some civilian sees a military guy walking down the street and says Huh that guys looks like a jackass, look at his ears. The guy never hears it but 2 seals hear it around the corner.

what might happen next.

he would have his ass handed to him. not by feds of course, but still. Just like i'd have my ass handed to me if i went out and started screaming about it.
common sense says, "duh, don't do it."
law says, "i can say whatever the fuck i want."

[cadet]

There's nothing about a right to be a Moron in the constitution so the Federal gov't can assume the authority take him out and have him killed. For the safety of the general population.

yeah, i'm sure the gov't has to have some sort of reason for taking someone out. honestly, they do jack shit for the idea that you could be dangerous. technically, if you go by this logic, they could assume that all republicans want the president out. so they're a threat to the usa.

so, yeah, that's not even a good analogy.

[fj1200]

That... was sorta the point... by now, i think we've all realized we're equal and human...


also, i like your little thing, racist man 1? but man 2 isn't for saying the same thing?

i guess i see your opinion. GO BLACK SUPERIORITY! THEY'RE BETTER!
no, no wait, we're all equal, but they're more equal, right? is this your view? (sarcasm on, by the way)

Not good sarcasm though, try answering the question.


law says, "i can say whatever the fuck i want."

Actually... it doesn't.

[ConHog]

Not good sarcasm though, try answering the question.



Actually... it doesn't.



Correct, it only says that the government can't limit your speech. Says nothing about anyone else shutting you up. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Correct...

Thanks James.

[ConHog]

Thanks James.

Your quite welcome Bob.

[fj1200]

Your quite welcome Bob.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.


Thanks James.

That's James Madison. Thanks for clarifying all matters concerning the constitution. :poke:

[cadet]

Interesting how you need to take race out of the equation to ignore the central issue. :rolleyes:



How about a different scenario for you:

Overtly racist Man 1 calls BO a chimp to dehumanize BO and justify the superiority of Man 1's race.
Non-racist Man 2 calls BO a chimp.

How would you tell the difference?

i assume this is the question your referring too.
also, what the hell difference?


Not good sarcasm though, try answering the question.



Actually... it doesn't.

The point i was trying to make, is take race out of the equation, then it turns into one person making fun of another, and someone else taking offense to themselves.
when i make fun of bob, i don't expect jack to take offense. by now, in this day and age, i'm pretty sure america has realized that racism is almost nonexistent, but people manage to think everyone out there is racist toward them. which just sounds paranoid to me.

now, the difference between both men? NONE!!!! If, in fact that was your question. if not, please explain what the hell your trying to ask.

[fj1200]

i assume this is the question your referring too.
also, what the hell difference?

Not to good at this are you?


The point i was trying to make, is take race out of the equation, then it turns into one person making fun of another, and someone else taking offense to themselves.
when i make fun of bob, i don't expect jack to take offense. by now, in this day and age, i'm pretty sure america has realized that racism is almost nonexistent, but people manage to think everyone out there is racist toward them. which just sounds paranoid to me.

now, the difference between both men? NONE!!!! If, in fact that was your question. if not, please explain what the hell your trying to ask.

You can't take race out of this particular equation. The question wasn't the difference between the men, the question was how do you tell the difference between an overtly racist comment and one that is not when the words are exactly the same.

[ConHog]

Not to good at this are you?



You can't take race out of this particular equation. The question wasn't the difference between the men, the question was how do you tell the difference between an overtly racist comment and one that is not when the words are exactly the same.


Good point, so all those black guys running around calling each other niggers are racists towards black guys. Got ya.:laugh2:

[fj1200]

Good point, so all those black guys running around calling each other niggers are racists towards black guys. Got ya.:laugh2:

If you can't tell the difference then you are beyond help. :slap:

[logroller]

So if one person refers to a black person as a "chimp" or "gorilla - and another mocks the black folks for years in newsletters, but in a more "sophisticated" manner - they are both "bad". And I assume that means that you agree with me when I laugh at Rev for calling me a "pitiful racist" and yet would defend Ron Paul no matter how much proof is offered. In fact, I would see the latter as worse. Supporting one man stating it on a message board is one thing, supporting a man that made millions off of his "pitiful racism" is even worse, and then wanting this person in the highest office on the land...

What comes to mind for me when thinking of what Rev said is: Pitiful Hypocrite

Why do put bad in quotes; do you mean to imply that either, or neither, aren't BAD?

How you see it is different than how another could see it-- it's subjective. If I was at a GWB rally, comparing MLK to a chimp would be seen as bad; whereas, if i were at a MLK rally, comparing MLK to chimp would be seen as worse. Conversely, comparing GWB to a chimp at GWB rally or a MLK rally may be seen as more/less objectionable, respectfully (no pun intended). More or less mainstream would vary the impact; so too with the level of sophistication, or thoughtful process. In considering this dilemma, regardless of whether we conclude one being viewed as more/less objectionable, we have engaged in a process of challenging our biases-- and this is good. So clearly, some good and bad come from any act, even dehumanizing activity. Rarely is something purely good or bad-- it varies. So regardless of whether I seek to do good, some bad will inevitably result-- making me a hypocrite.

With that in mind, I could challenge anybody to say what's right or wrong with certainty; but we need some gauge for our behavior. The key to determining such lies with objectivity, where one's biases are brought to bear against a more universal standard of behavior and the cumulative effects. This is a sophisticated process. Case in point, Debate Policy-- my beliefs on policy and social effects have been challenged here. Cumulatively, the resultant changes are for the betterment of myself and society; not all of them mind you, but by engaging in the process, I improve the overall likelihood of more good than bad. Could Ron Paul not have done the same; that in publishing a newsletter which brought to bear overt racist beliefs and actions he has brought about a betterment for society; that in highlighting racism, despite furthering it, the process brings about change for the better. It is better to talk about racism and it problematic effects than to let it lie dormant. As to his presidential qualifications, I would ask which is preferable-- someone who has inspired others to challenge their beliefs, despite catering to some; or someone who only does the latter?

Kind of aside, but take Judas. He betrayed Jesus; and yet by some measure, he fulfilled an obligation to challenge, or test, Jesus's teachings. Thousands of years later, His teachings prevail-- hence, we refer to this test-ament, for had Judas not done so, we would be left only doubt.



There are lots of morons who don't realize they are morons FJ, but guess what , they have a right to be so.

With rights come responsibilities. Challenging one's own beliefs is one of these responsibilities.


Good point, so all those black guys running around calling each other niggers are racists towards black guys. Got ya.:laugh2:
Absolutely.

[ConHog]

If you can't tell the difference then you are beyond help. :slap:

As I've said, IF the word were really that offensive to them, they wouldn't use it towards each other. I have NEVER seen my wife nor any member of her family greet one another "you my beaner" , I've never seen a Puerto Rican call another Puerto Rican his spick, nor have I seen a Jew rap about Kikes, etc etc.

It's a word, it means nothing, and the only ones outraged over it manufacture false outrage over it.

[fj1200]

As I've said, IF the word were really that offensive to them, they wouldn't use it towards each other. I have NEVER seen my wife nor any member of her family greet one another "you my beaner" , I've never seen a Puerto Rican call another Puerto Rican his spick, nor have I seen a Jew rap about Kikes, etc etc.

It's a word, it means nothing, and the only ones outraged over it manufacture false outrage over it.

Those are just words to then. I guess we should all start using slurs in every day language.

[ConHog]

Those are just words to then. I guess we should all start using slurs in every day language.

so what if we did? Especially if the intended target of our slur was using the same slur towards others?

[fj1200]

so what if we did? Especially if the intended target of our slur was using the same slur towards others?

That would be stupid. Can I ask, "how's your b**ner doing?"

[ConHog]

That would be stupid. Can I ask, "how's your b**ner doing?"

She's going good, I believe she's having a siesta right now after eating her tamales for lunch.

[jimnyc]

Could Ron Paul not have done the same; that in publishing a newsletter which brought to bear overt racist beliefs and actions he has brought about a betterment for society; that in highlighting racism, despite furthering it, the process brings about change for the better. It is better to talk about racism and it problematic effects than to let it lie dormant. As to his presidential qualifications, I would ask which is preferable-- someone who has inspired others to challenge their beliefs, despite catering to some; or someone who only does the latter?

Your entire response reminds me of people talking about "reverse discrimination" when a black person does something toward a white person. Then I remind them that there is no such thing, it's either racist or it's not.

But anyway, you more or less excuse Ron Paul's racism, as you say it's good for society, and highlighting racism, brings about change for the better. So him saying something about "violence stopping only when it was time for the blacks to get their welfare checks" - he was just trying to bring it out in the open, for good discussion, and hopefully change?

What if I were to say the same about any racist comments I may make? How is RP's racist words somehow looked at as something that is better talked about? Couldn't we then apply those same standards to anyone using racist slurs?

Ron Paul's racism is no better and no worse than anyone elses racist words and he should receive no excuses.

[ConHog]

Your entire response reminds me of people talking about "reverse discrimination" when a black person does something toward a white person. Then I remind them that there is no such thing, it's either racist or it's not.

But anyway, you more or less excuse Ron Paul's racism, as you say it's good for society, and highlighting racism, brings about change for the better. So him saying something about "violence stopping only when it was time for the blacks to get their welfare checks" - he was just trying to bring it out in the open, for good discussion, and hopefully change?

What if I were to say the same about any racist comments I may make? How is RP's racist words somehow looked at as something that is better talked about? Couldn't we then apply those same standards to anyone using racist slurs?

Ron Paul's racism is no better and no worse than anyone elses racist words and he should receive no excuses.

Very true, but he should also receive no extra criticism. Not saying that's what you are doing, b/c I don't think it is, just pointing it out.

[jimnyc]

Very true, but he should also receive no extra criticism. Not saying that's what you are doing, b/c I don't think it is, just pointing it out.

It should receive more attention than your average joe, as joe isn't running for the Presidency.

[ConHog]

It should receive more attention than your average joe, as joe isn't running for the Presidency.


I disagree. What SHOULD and IS receiving the attention is that he is feigning ignorance about the newsletter thing. Why he didn't just say "yeah okay so I let that shit be published in my newsletter, so what? I believe even racists have first amendment rights."

Would you have had a complaint about that? Of course not because it's factual. Makes me wonder sometimes who is advising these politicians.

[jimnyc]

I disagree. What SHOULD and IS receiving the attention is that he is feigning ignorance about the newsletter thing. Why he didn't just say "yeah okay so I let that shit be published in my newsletter, so what? I believe even racists have first amendment rights."

Would you have had a complaint about that? Of course not because it's factual. Makes me wonder sometimes who is advising these politicians.

You think character issues/flaws of the guy walking down my road here in NY are just as important as that of someone who wants to run the country? LOL

[logroller]

What if I were to say the same about any racist comments I may make? How is RP's racist words somehow looked at as something that is better talked about? Couldn't we then apply those same standards to anyone using racist slurs?

Ron Paul's racism is no better and no worse than anyone elses racist words and he should receive no excuses.

What same standards? Is talking about something racial or discriminatory the same as using racial slurs? If you couldn't differentiate between a discussion and an inflamed outburst you'd have a difficult time moderating a debate site. Clearly you have rules differentiating the two; why is that, if they are no better or worse?



You think character issues/flaws of the guy walking down my road here in NY are just as important as that of someone who wants to run the country? LOL

I think the character issues/flaws we all possess are equally worthy of consideration.

[ConHog]

You think character issues/flaws of the guy walking down my road here in NY are just as important as that of someone who wants to run the country? LOL

I'm sorry, have I not been clear? I don't think racism is a flaw in humans. Rather I think it's a fact of life. I view his denying he knew about the content of the newsletters as a flaw though, and a big one at that.

[jimnyc]

What same standards? Is talking about something racial or discriminatory the same as using racial slurs? If you couldn't differentiate between a discussion and an inflamed outburst you'd have a difficult time moderating a debate site. Clearly you have rules differentiating the two; why is that, if they are no better or worse?


I think the character issues/flaws we all possess are equally worthy of consideration.

I'm thinking that the racial comments that I read in those newsletters do count as racial slurs. They weren't made for discussion or to learn, they were nothing more than outlandish racial claims. Nothing positive at all can be taken from some of the comments that were written. Come to Harlem, whether you call someone the N word, or proclaim from a soapbox the crap that was in the letters - you're getting an ass kicking for the racial tone you're using. A better speaking and sophisticated racist is no better than the loudmouth racist at a bar.

[fj1200]

... - you're getting an ass kicking for the racial tone you're using. A better speaking and sophisticated racist is no better than the loudmouth racist at a bar.

Using the BO/chimp characterization is a racial tone; intended or not.

[jimnyc]

Using the BO/chimp characterization is a racial tone; intended or not.

As is claiming riots clear up when welfare checks come out. One is just more crass than another, but both equally racist and insulting in nature.

[fj1200]

^Yes.

[ConHog]

Using the BO/chimp characterization is a racial tone; intended or not.

WHY? Why is it racial, but calling Bush a chimp is not? Are you actually suggesting that MO really DOES look like a ape because she's black and Bush is white so he really doesn't look like a chimp?

I've seen pictures where MO DOES look like an ape, and I've seen pictures of Bush where he looked like a chimp. Has nothing to do with race, has to do with some people are just funny looking.

[fj1200]

WHY? Why is it racial...

Because it is.

[ConHog]

Because it is.

Excellent and well thought out reasoning, and the manner in which you expressed yourself is worthy of Shakespeare himself.:laugh:

[fj1200]

Excellent and well thought out reasoning, and the manner in which you expressed yourself is worthy of Shakespeare himself.:laugh:

Reread the thread. Brick walls take information better. :slap: