Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(07-26-2018, 07:41 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-22-2018, 12:29 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]You all need to do a little searching outside your insulated boxes. There was a lot of backlash against Obama after he was elected. Of course, that was probably fake news to those who have been dutifully Trumpified.

The media wasn't a proactive element in that backlash.  They've been the tip of the spear in fomenting the Trump hatred from the moment he announced his candidacy.  They were all too busy trying to lick Obama's boots for 8 years to instigate any sort of backlash.  Those who dared to question "The One" were labeled racists since disagreeing with his policies couldn't be based on opposition to the policies themselves.   I guess it makes sense since they basically created his mythology.  The threat of being labeled racist squashed probably 90% or more of any backlash.

Without the media distorting, and then dumping gasoline on every incident, we never saw the level of hatred directed at Obama that we're seeing now.  Not for lack of trying on Obama's part.  Knowing he could say or do just about anything without consequence, he did far more to divide this nation than anything Trump has done in 2 years.  Anyone who was genuinely disgusted by Obama's antics (including his administration) was dismissed or completely ignored by the mainstream Obama media who was carrying his water every step of the way.  If Trump said some of the things Obama did without sparking any kind of outrage, the mainstream media, RINOs, and liberals would be frothing at the bit.  Let Trump say "The police acted stupidly" and watch the sudden "Back the blue" movement by the same people who were marching with P hats strapped on firmly as they protested the police.

You might not be wrong, but you should give examples.
Let me give two.
Obama came into office on the heels of Bush passing the bailouts with Republican support.  The Republcians had just passed a stimulus in 2005.  Suddenly, stimulus was bad.  Buying up banks to bail them out had been OK, but doing the same to GM and Chrysler was not.  Why? The only things that changed were party affiliation and skin color or the man in the White House.  
Personally, I think it was more about party affiliation, but, the people who say it was skin color are not without evidence.

(07-26-2018, 06:54 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 03:16 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]MLK was shot in 1968.  Ill get u a list in the morning.

Squeaky Fromme tried to kill Gerald Ford in 1975.  I alleged she was a type of right-winger.  You brought up MLK, not me. I still don't understand what MLK has to do with my point.  FWIW, he was a left-winger.

Fromme flat out said she tried to kill Ford because He was appointed by Nixon who was "making war on the left." Your allegation is wrong, but feel free to continue with your historical revisionism.

(07-26-2018, 07:52 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-25-2018, 04:12 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Claiming the "left wing" is not racist is a pure joke.  They're still trying to keep minorities on the democrat victim plantation.  It's their entire platform to suppress minorities and keep them under the thumb.

The left practices soft racism on a daily basis based on how they single out minority groups and use identity politics as a weapon.

I always get a kick out of the people opposed to things like voter ID laws because they claim minorities aren't capable of obtaining a state ID.  

The left has cheapened the 'racist' label to the point where it's meaningless because they've used it so often to describe things that simply aren't.

I'm sure pointing that out will have the usual suspects jumping in here calling me a racist.  That's fine.  Those who love to break out the label in a knee jerk reaction are usually just projecting.

Those are decent examples.
I agree that there is a soft paternalism in the left wing today.  The Voter ID thing is a good example of it.
But that controversy started only in the 1990s.
I'm trying to discuss the time from about 1960 to 1975.
I think the people who wanted all black people to have equal access to the vote and to public accommodations back then were left wingers like LBJ and MLK.
I think the people who fought to keep black people down at that time were right wingers like Strom Thurmond, Barry Goldwater, and Squeaky Fromme.  Sarah Jane Moore gets lumped in with Squeaky but they did not know each other and Sarah Jane Moore was a left winger.
Is anyone disputing that? 
People keep bringing up stuff from other times but no one seems to be contradicting my point.

(07-26-2018, 07:00 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 12:30 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You think LBJ worked to end White Supremacy? Lollllllllll.

You think he didn't? Lolllllll.
Why do you think that?
I showed you my evidence: LBJ pushed for and signed the civil rights act and voting rights act, which were major parts of how the legal aspect of white supremacy ended.
What evidence do you have?

Johnson was a racist, the CRA was a political move to take the South for the Dems, and it worked perfectly. He got the black population back on the Plantation with political brilliance, it was both amazing and evil. You only have to take his own words for it.

(07-26-2018, 08:17 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 07:41 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]The media wasn't a proactive element in that backlash.  They've been the tip of the spear in fomenting the Trump hatred from the moment he announced his candidacy.  They were all too busy trying to lick Obama's boots for 8 years to instigate any sort of backlash.  Those who dared to question "The One" were labeled racists since disagreeing with his policies couldn't be based on opposition to the policies themselves.   I guess it makes sense since they basically created his mythology.  The threat of being labeled racist squashed probably 90% or more of any backlash.

Without the media distorting, and then dumping gasoline on every incident, we never saw the level of hatred directed at Obama that we're seeing now.  Not for lack of trying on Obama's part.  Knowing he could say or do just about anything without consequence, he did far more to divide this nation than anything Trump has done in 2 years.  Anyone who was genuinely disgusted by Obama's antics (including his administration) was dismissed or completely ignored by the mainstream Obama media who was carrying his water every step of the way.  If Trump said some of the things Obama did without sparking any kind of outrage, the mainstream media, RINOs, and liberals would be frothing at the bit.  Let Trump say "The police acted stupidly" and watch the sudden "Back the blue" movement by the same people who were marching with P hats strapped on firmly as they protested the police.

You might not be wrong, but you should give examples.
Let me give two.
Obama came into office on the heels of Bush passing the bailouts with Republican support.  The Republcians had just passed a stimulus in 2005.  Suddenly, stimulus was bad.  Buying up banks to bail them out had been OK, but doing the same to GM and Chrysler was not.  Why? The only things that changed were party affiliation and skin color or the man in the White House.  
Personally, I think it was more about party affiliation, but, the people who say it was skin color are not without evidence.

I'm not wrong.

In the buildup to ObamaCare, democrats regularly accused republicans of being racists, stating that their only opposition to the legislation was due to the skin color of the president.  In fact, at one particular town hall, rich white democrat senator Jay Rockefeller accused republican senators of being a racist because of his opposition to the law precisely because the president was black.

Anyone opposed to Obama immigration policies that did little to improve border security while basically floating amnesty to illegals without question were regularly tagged as racists.  Still are to this day.

If you supported the travel ban for countries where terrorism is a cottage industry, you're labeled an Islamaphobe and a racist.  

If you didn't like the way Obama stoked the racial divides by actually picking sides in situations like Ferguson, you were a racist.

When the New Black Panthers blocked entry for whites to a polling location with threatening rhetoric while toting clubs, the Bush Justice Department opened an investigation that determined there was grounds for prosecution.  When Obama took office and Eric Holder became the attorney general, that case was tossed out, and anyone who challenged the motion was tagged as a racist.

The media and Obama lackeys regularly wielded the "R" card any time someone challenged "The One".  It's pretty well documented.

As far as Manson and his followers being right-winged radicals, thanks for the laugh.  As someone has already pointed out, suggesting anything of the sort is pretty much rewriting history, which is definitely a tactic of the progressive left, so bully for you.

(07-26-2018, 08:17 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 07:41 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]The media wasn't a proactive element in that backlash.  They've been the tip of the spear in fomenting the Trump hatred from the moment he announced his candidacy.  They were all too busy trying to lick Obama's boots for 8 years to instigate any sort of backlash.  Those who dared to question "The One" were labeled racists since disagreeing with his policies couldn't be based on opposition to the policies themselves.   I guess it makes sense since they basically created his mythology.  The threat of being labeled racist squashed probably 90% or more of any backlash.

Without the media distorting, and then dumping gasoline on every incident, we never saw the level of hatred directed at Obama that we're seeing now.  Not for lack of trying on Obama's part.  Knowing he could say or do just about anything without consequence, he did far more to divide this nation than anything Trump has done in 2 years.  Anyone who was genuinely disgusted by Obama's antics (including his administration) was dismissed or completely ignored by the mainstream Obama media who was carrying his water every step of the way.  If Trump said some of the things Obama did without sparking any kind of outrage, the mainstream media, RINOs, and liberals would be frothing at the bit.  Let Trump say "The police acted stupidly" and watch the sudden "Back the blue" movement by the same people who were marching with P hats strapped on firmly as they protested the police.

You might not be wrong, but you should give examples.
Let me give two.
Obama came into office on the heels of Bush passing the bailouts with Republican support.  The Republcians had just passed a stimulus in 2005.  Suddenly, stimulus was bad.  Buying up banks to bail them out had been OK, but doing the same to GM and Chrysler was not.  Why? The only things that changed were party affiliation and skin color or the man in the White House.  
Personally, I think it was more about party affiliation, but, the people who say it was skin color are not without evidence.

You are either knowingly lying, or clearly have no clue. The bank bailouts were passed with more Democrats than Republicans. Even the leftist Politifact admits this. There were plenty of "right wing" critics of the bank bailout and the Pubs who voted for it were centrists, not conservatives.

Stimulus wasn't "suddenly bad." The nature of Obama's so-called stimulus, vastly increasing spending instead of the tax cut method in the Bush stimulus (and it was in 2001, not 2005), was the point of disagreement.

These points had nothing to do with Obama's skin color. It had nothing to do with party affiliation either, other than the fact that those policies are tied to party affiliation.

(07-26-2018, 08:43 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 08:17 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You might not be wrong, but you should give examples.
Let me give two.
Obama came into office on the heels of Bush passing the bailouts with Republican support.  The Republcians had just passed a stimulus in 2005.  Suddenly, stimulus was bad.  Buying up banks to bail them out had been OK, but doing the same to GM and Chrysler was not.  Why? The only things that changed were party affiliation and skin color or the man in the White House.  
Personally, I think it was more about party affiliation, but, the people who say it was skin color are not without evidence.

I'm not wrong.

In the buildup to ObamaCare, democrats regularly accused republicans of being racists, stating that their only opposition to the legislation was due to the skin color of the president.  In fact, at one particular town hall, rich white democrat senator Jay Rockefeller accused republican senators of being a racist because of his opposition to the law precisely because the president was black.

Anyone opposed to Obama immigration policies that did little to improve border security while basically floating amnesty to illegals without question were regularly tagged as racists.  Still are to this day.

If you supported the travel ban for countries where terrorism is a cottage industry, you're labeled an Islamaphobe and a racist.  

If you didn't like the way Obama stoked the racial divides by actually picking sides in situations like Ferguson, you were a racist.

When the New Black Panthers blocked entry for whites to a polling location with threatening rhetoric while toting clubs, the Bush Justice Department opened an investigation that determined there was grounds for prosecution.  When Obama took office and Eric Holder became the attorney general, that case was tossed out, and anyone who challenged the motion was tagged as a racist.

The media and Obama lackeys regularly wielded the "R" card any time someone challenged "The One".  It's pretty well documented.

As far as Manson and his followers being right-winged radicals, thanks for the laugh.  As someone has already pointed out, suggesting anything of the sort is pretty much rewriting history, which is definitely a tactic of the progressive left, so bully for you.

The health care situation is just like the bailout situation and the stimulus situation. The individual mandate was dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation and supported by Newt Gingrich.  A lot of Republicans, maybe not a majority of them, but a lot of them, supported it up until the moment Democrats in Congress started moving the idea through committee.  Then suddenly Republican opposition to the idea becomes unanimous.  This obviously had nothing to do with the individual mandate itself.  If that was a good idea in 1994, it was still a good idea in 2009.  Something else changed. None of the Republicans ever gave us a frank explanantion about why they changed their minds. Again, I'd guess that it was just a craven partisan game Republicans decided to play, but, the "the President was now black and they were racist" explanation also lines up with what little evidence we have.

Immigration is inherently a racial issue.  Our government either has to let everyone in, or discriminate on the basis of race and national origin.  I don't want to let everyone in, and neither do you.  So we are both a little bit racist.  We both practice a little bit of discrimination on the basis of national origin.  Let's have a thicker skin about it.  People will call us out.  Take your lumps and move on.

I think you're exaggerating with the
voter intimidation example.  They didn't prevent anyone from entering.  They may have scared some people off with their words and their appearance, but they didn't block the door.  I also think they should have been prosecuted, but, the fact that they left when police asked them to leave makes it unlikely that a jury would have convicted them.

Tell me why you think I'm rewriting history regarding Manson and his followers.

(07-26-2018, 09:43 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 08:43 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not wrong.

In the buildup to ObamaCare, democrats regularly accused republicans of being racists, stating that their only opposition to the legislation was due to the skin color of the president.  In fact, at one particular town hall, rich white democrat senator Jay Rockefeller accused republican senators of being a racist because of his opposition to the law precisely because the president was black.

Anyone opposed to Obama immigration policies that did little to improve border security while basically floating amnesty to illegals without question were regularly tagged as racists.  Still are to this day.

If you supported the travel ban for countries where terrorism is a cottage industry, you're labeled an Islamaphobe and a racist.  

If you didn't like the way Obama stoked the racial divides by actually picking sides in situations like Ferguson, you were a racist.

When the New Black Panthers blocked entry for whites to a polling location with threatening rhetoric while toting clubs, the Bush Justice Department opened an investigation that determined there was grounds for prosecution.  When Obama took office and Eric Holder became the attorney general, that case was tossed out, and anyone who challenged the motion was tagged as a racist.

The media and Obama lackeys regularly wielded the "R" card any time someone challenged "The One".  It's pretty well documented.

As far as Manson and his followers being right-winged radicals, thanks for the laugh.  As someone has already pointed out, suggesting anything of the sort is pretty much rewriting history, which is definitely a tactic of the progressive left, so bully for you.

The health care situation is just like the bailout situation and the stimulus situation. The individual mandate was dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation and supported by Newt Gingrich.  A lot of Republicans, maybe not a majority of them, but a lot of them, supported it up until the moment Democrats in Congress started moving the idea through committee.  Then suddenly Republican opposition to the idea becomes unanimous.  This obviously had nothing to do with the individual mandate itself.  If that was a good idea in 1994, it was still a good idea in 2009.  Something else changed. None of the Republicans ever gave us a frank explanantion about why they changed their minds. Again, I'd guess that it was just a craven partisan game Republicans decided to play, but, the "the President was now black and they were racist" explanation also lines up with what little evidence we have.

Immigration is inherently a racial issue.  Our government either has to let everyone in, or discriminate on the basis of race and national origin.  I don't want to let everyone in, and neither do you.  So we are both a little bit racist.  We both practice a little bit of discrimination on the basis of national origin.  Let's have a thicker skin about it.  People will call us out.  Take your lumps and move on.

I think you're exaggerating with the
voter intimidation example.  They didn't prevent anyone from entering.  They may have scared some people off with their words and their appearance, but they didn't block the door.  I also think they should have been prosecuted, but, the fact that they left when police asked them to leave makes it unlikely that a jury would have convicted them.

Tell me why you think I'm rewriting history regarding Manson and his followers.

So now we're all racists, huh? Speak for yourself there bub. Your use of the term here is exactly why it has no value, because, like lots of other words, you dont know how to use them correctly.

So many points to touch on but I don't want a million page response with all the quotes so I'll just put this here.

Racist is the new tag word. FBT outlined it perfectly and I'm growing real tired of this BS being pushed.
By definition: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

The key here is the belief that one's own race is superior. 
Racism is based on the idea that one race is superior to the other.

Like illegal immigration. "White people hate Hispanics" -- quite the contrary. Many of us just want our border laws enforced. We have laws in place we as citizens must follow, why should it be different for them? I know and care about a lot of illegal "migrant workers" as we call them. A good friend of mine Jose from Honduras crossed the border illegally. I don't hate him, or his family. But disagree with how they got here and wouldn't bat an eye if they were deported because, well that's the law.

Another instance is "police brutality against blacks" and while there are certain cases that need to be addressed, like what has happened previously in Baltimore, Minnesota, and other places... These cases are few and far between and shouldn't really be causing the uproars, the protests, the violence. But "Black Lives Matter" is a nice talking point. And if you don't agree with their stance, it's easy to be labeled racist. Why? Because of the words they choose... "Oh black lives don't matter to you?"
Minorities, and specifically blacks are used by left as tools to push an agenda and to create an environment much like the one we have today.

These examples go on and on really. And it really boils down to the elite V us. And when we all fight each other, they all win.

(07-26-2018, 09:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 09:43 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The health care situation is just like the bailout situation and the stimulus situation. The individual mandate was dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation and supported by Newt Gingrich.  A lot of Republicans, maybe not a majority of them, but a lot of them, supported it up until the moment Democrats in Congress started moving the idea through committee.  Then suddenly Republican opposition to the idea becomes unanimous.  This obviously had nothing to do with the individual mandate itself.  If that was a good idea in 1994, it was still a good idea in 2009.  Something else changed. None of the Republicans ever gave us a frank explanantion about why they changed their minds. Again, I'd guess that it was just a craven partisan game Republicans decided to play, but, the "the President was now black and they were racist" explanation also lines up with what little evidence we have.

Immigration is inherently a racial issue.  Our government either has to let everyone in, or discriminate on the basis of race and national origin.  I don't want to let everyone in, and neither do you.  So we are both a little bit racist.  We both practice a little bit of discrimination on the basis of national origin.  Let's have a thicker skin about it.  People will call us out.  Take your lumps and move on.

I think you're exaggerating with the
voter intimidation example.  They didn't prevent anyone from entering.  They may have scared some people off with their words and their appearance, but they didn't block the door.  I also think they should have been prosecuted, but, the fact that they left when police asked them to leave makes it unlikely that a jury would have convicted them.

Tell me why you think I'm rewriting history regarding Manson and his followers.

So now we're all racists, huh? Speak for yourself there bub. Your use of the term here is exactly why it has no value, because, like lots of other words, you dont know how to use them correctly.

What does racist mean to you?  Is discrimination on the basis of national origin not a form of racism?

(07-26-2018, 10:17 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 09:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]So now we're all racists, huh? Speak for yourself there bub. Your use of the term here is exactly why it has no value, because, like lots of other words, you dont know how to use them correctly.

What does racist mean to you?  Is discrimination on the basis of national origin not a form of racism?

You are saying that any sort of immigration policy is discrimination... and that isn't so.

(07-26-2018, 10:17 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 09:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]So now we're all racists, huh? Speak for yourself there bub. Your use of the term here is exactly why it has no value, because, like lots of other words, you dont know how to use them correctly.

What does racist mean to you?  Is discrimination on the basis of national origin not a form of racism?

No. That claim is a total rewrite of the definition. That's like lumping someone asking for a date as sexual assault. When you expand the definition to include everything the word becomes meaningless.

(07-26-2018, 10:16 AM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]

So many points to touch on but I don't want a million page response with all the quotes so I'll just put this here.

Racist is the new tag word. FBT outlined it perfectly and I'm growing real tired of this BS being pushed.
By definition: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

The key here is the belief that one's own race is superior. 
Racism is based on the idea that one race is superior to the other.

Like illegal immigration. "White people hate Hispanics" -- quite the contrary. Many of us just want our border laws enforced. We have laws in place we as citizens must follow, why should it be different for them? I know and care about a lot of illegal "migrant workers" as we call them. A good friend of mine Jose from Honduras crossed the border illegally. I don't hate him, or his family. But disagree with how they got here and wouldn't bat an eye if they were deported because, well that's the law.

Another instance is "police brutality against blacks" and while there are certain cases that need to be addressed, like what has happened previously in Baltimore, Minnesota, and other places... These cases are few and far between and shouldn't really be causing the uproars, the protests, the violence. But "Black Lives Matter" is a nice talking point. And if you don't agree with their stance, it's easy to be labeled racist. Why? Because of the words they choose... "Oh black lives don't matter to you?"
Minorities, and specifically blacks are used by left as tools to push an agenda and to create an environment much like the one we have today.

These examples go on and on really. And it really boils down to the elite V us. And when we all fight each other, they all win.

I think your definition of racism is way too narrow.  Belief that one's own race is superior is common among racists, but not all racists feel that way. Some racists believe that races are basically equal, but so different that they should be separated.  Other racists believe their own race is inferior.  
From 1890 to 1957 the motto was separate but equal.  To defend that system in court,  the elected officials argued up and down that it wasn't about superiority or inferiority, just separation.  Your definition of racism would have given that generation a pass.  
I think you are telling the truth that you harbor no ill will to your neighbor from Honduras.
But you should ask him if he feels like some Americans treat him as an inferior due to his race.  It might not be you, but it's out there, and he most likely has sensed it.
Racism has at least two definitions.  

There is personal racism, in our own personal behavior about how we assess each other's character and capabilities. For instance, if you were attending an orchestra concert, and a black man stepped up to the piano, you might think for a moment - well I know black people can play popular music, but classical? Until you actually heard him play, you might doubt his ability in a way that you might not doubt an Asian's.  Conversely, if you were at a rock or jazz concert, and an Asian stepped up to the piano, you might feel the same question.  These are racist instincts, based on stereotypes we have seen. The piano example is mostly harmless because any of us would give the person a chance to play and confirm or break the stereotype.  So here's another.  You walk outside of a large office building downtown and people are yelling at each other.  You are not sure why.  A crowd is forming. No uniformed cops around, yet. A man catches your eye, lifts his shirt just enough for you to see he has a pistol, and winks at you. If the man is the same race as you, you probably think, "oh, he's saying he has my back." If the man is a different race, you probably think you just got threatened and you start thinking "fight or flight.". Every single person has racist reactions like this, just like every person has jealousy or adulterous thoughts.

Then there is institutional racism, which is much more complicated, and has been building up for years and years and will take generations to undo. For instance, my wife and I had our parents pay for our first cars and our college tuition.  We stand to get good inheritances from our parents and grandparents.  We get these advantages mostly because they had great home equity over the years. But back when our grandparents bought that starter home, they got loans which never would have been extended to a black person back then, before the Fair Housing Act was passed. Our grandparents still worked hard to pay their mortgages.  My wife and I worked hard to graduate college debt free.  But those respective, cascading advantages typically were not available to black people no matter how hard they worked.

(07-26-2018, 10:18 AM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 10:17 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What does racist mean to you?  Is discrimination on the basis of national origin not a form of racism?

You are saying that any sort of immigration policy is discrimination... and that isn't so.

Of course it's discrimination.  You have a US passport? Go to the left.  European passport? Go to the middle.  Other passport? Go over to the really long line at the end of the hall.  Just because we are sorting people into categories based on an arbitrary characteristic like where they were born or what paper they hold doesn't mean we are wrong to do so.  Discrimination is the basis of law.  We don't allow restaurants to discriminate based on national origin, but we do it every day in every airport.  It's not wrong but let's call a spade a spade.

This thread has turned to major lols.

Let's be clear - porkulous and the tainted bailouts were never a good idea, no matter who the president. It was a waste of money to ease the burst instead of letting the market correct itself, meaning a slower, longer fall that resulted in an unnecessarily and artificially elongated recovery with nothing to show for the wasted money. Per usual, the career politicians on each side cast their vote in support to buy votes (not because they were good ideas, they just sold easily and well to the uninformed.)

Our country was formed by settlers, those seeking establishment of a new country where they had shared values. Today's illegal immigrants are nothing of the sort, they come to claim resources without contributing. They see the self induced problems we've created through poor immigration policy. But one party has realized they can be abused for illegal votes. Let them pour in, grant amnesty later but find a way to allow them to vote now, and they will have built a monarchy for their party. Problem is, that trojan horse will backfire as there's no cultural assimilation or positive contribution to society. Just growth of the nanny state, which is already proven unsustainable. This is Alinsky tactics. Cripple/topple the system by overrunning it.

Let's be real about it. All else is nonsense.

(07-26-2018, 09:27 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 08:17 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You might not be wrong, but you should give examples.
Let me give two.
Obama came into office on the heels of Bush passing the bailouts with Republican support.  The Republcians had just passed a stimulus in 2005.  Suddenly, stimulus was bad.  Buying up banks to bail them out had been OK, but doing the same to GM and Chrysler was not.  Why? The only things that changed were party affiliation and skin color or the man in the White House.  
Personally, I think it was more about party affiliation, but, the people who say it was skin color are not without evidence.

You are either knowingly lying, or clearly have no clue. The bank bailouts were passed with more Democrats than Republicans. Even the leftist Politifact admits this. There were plenty of "right wing" critics of the bank bailout and the Pubs who voted for it were centrists, not conservatives.

Stimulus wasn't "suddenly bad." The nature of Obama's so-called stimulus, vastly increasing spending instead of the tax cut method in the Bush stimulus (and it was in 2001, not 2005), was the point of disagreement.

These points had nothing to do with Obama's skin color. It had nothing to do with party affiliation either, other than the fact that those policies are tied to party affiliation.

Let's see that politifact article.  The bailout started in the Senate, and a majority of the Republican senators voted yes.  Then the bailout went to the House, where a majority of Republican members voted no.  Then it went to the President, and the Republican signed the bill.
So in two out of three steps the Republican party endorsed the legislation.  It's also true that a majority of the Democrats supported the bill in the Senate and in the House, but that's not relevant to my point.  My point is that Republicans used to support that kind of thing, and then changed their minds.

As for stimulus, we both have the dates wrong.  Bush passed two stimuli, 2001 and 2008.  You are correct that the Bush stimulus was purely temporary tax cuts, both times, but the Obama stimulus was 2/3 spending and 1/3 tax cuts.  But every spending bill passed during the Bush Administration also added to large deficits, all deficits are stimulative, and all of them for the first six years had majority Republican support.  I don't see how doing the taxes and the spending in separate bills is really more morally defensible than combining them, but, whatever.

(07-26-2018, 10:50 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 10:16 AM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ]

So many points to touch on but I don't want a million page response with all the quotes so I'll just put this here.

Racist is the new tag word. FBT outlined it perfectly and I'm growing real tired of this BS being pushed.
By definition: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

The key here is the belief that one's own race is superior. 
Racism is based on the idea that one race is superior to the other.

Like illegal immigration. "White people hate Hispanics" -- quite the contrary. Many of us just want our border laws enforced. We have laws in place we as citizens must follow, why should it be different for them? I know and care about a lot of illegal "migrant workers" as we call them. A good friend of mine Jose from Honduras crossed the border illegally. I don't hate him, or his family. But disagree with how they got here and wouldn't bat an eye if they were deported because, well that's the law.

Another instance is "police brutality against blacks" and while there are certain cases that need to be addressed, like what has happened previously in Baltimore, Minnesota, and other places... These cases are few and far between and shouldn't really be causing the uproars, the protests, the violence. But "Black Lives Matter" is a nice talking point. And if you don't agree with their stance, it's easy to be labeled racist. Why? Because of the words they choose... "Oh black lives don't matter to you?"
Minorities, and specifically blacks are used by left as tools to push an agenda and to create an environment much like the one we have today.

These examples go on and on really. And it really boils down to the elite V us. And when we all fight each other, they all win.

I think your definition of racism is way too narrow.  Belief that one's own race is superior is common among racists, but not all racists feel that way. Some racists believe that races are basically equal, but so different that they should be separated.  Other racists believe their own race is inferior.  
From 1890 to 1957 the motto was separate but equal.  To defend that system in court,  the elected officials argued up and down that it wasn't about superiority or inferiority, just separation.  Your definition of racism would have given that generation a pass.  
I think you are telling the truth that you harbor no ill will to your neighbor from Honduras.
But you should ask him if he feels like some Americans treat him as an inferior due to his race.  It might not be you, but it's out there, and he most likely has sensed it.
Racism has at least two definitions.  

There is personal racism, in our own personal behavior about how we assess each other's character and capabilities. For instance, if you were attending an orchestra concert, and a black man stepped up to the piano, you might think for a moment - well I know black people can play popular music, but classical? Until you actually heard him play, you might doubt his ability in a way that you might not doubt an Asian's.  Conversely, if you were at a rock or jazz concert, and an Asian stepped up to the piano, you might feel the same question.  These are racist instincts, based on stereotypes we have seen. The piano example is mostly harmless because any of us would give the person a chance to play and confirm or break the stereotype.  So here's another.  You walk outside of a large office building downtown and people are yelling at each other.  You are not sure why.  A crowd is forming. No uniformed cops around, yet. A man catches your eye, lifts his shirt just enough for you to see he has a pistol, and winks at you. If the man is the same race as you, you probably think, "oh, he's saying he has my back." If the man is a different race, you probably think you just got threatened and you start thinking "fight or flight.". Every single person has racist reactions like this, just like every person has jealousy or adulterous thoughts.

Then there is institutional racism, which is much more complicated, and has been building up for years and years and will take generations to undo. For instance, my wife and I had our parents pay for our first cars and our college tuition.  We stand to get good inheritances from our parents and grandparents.  We get these advantages mostly because they had great home equity over the years. But back when our grandparents bought that starter home, they got loans which never would have been extended to a black person back then, before the Fair Housing Act was passed. Our grandparents still worked hard to pay their mortgages.  My wife and I worked hard to graduate college debt free.  But those respective, cascading advantages typically were not available to black people no matter how hard they worked.

Stop projecting your views on everyone else.  

In a previous post you stated, and I paraphrase:  people are not right or left on all issues the go back and forth depending on the issue.

Now you have spent two days slapping labels on anything and everyone.  Maybe you should do some self reflection and soul searching.

(07-26-2018, 08:18 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 06:54 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Squeaky Fromme tried to kill Gerald Ford in 1975.  I alleged she was a type of right-winger.  You brought up MLK, not me. I still don't understand what MLK has to do with my point.  FWIW, he was a left-winger.

Fromme flat out said she tried to kill Ford because He was appointed by Nixon who was "making war on the left." Your allegation is wrong, but feel free to continue with your historical revisionism.

That's what Sarah Jane Moore said.  Fromme was motivated partially by wanting to "save the trees" and also to get "Charlie" publicity so that he could be in charge and implement white supremacy as he promised.

(07-26-2018, 10:17 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 09:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]So now we're all racists, huh? Speak for yourself there bub. Your use of the term here is exactly why it has no value, because, like lots of other words, you dont know how to use them correctly.

What does racist mean to you?  Is discrimination on the basis of national origin not a form of racism?

No

For those who aren't aware, Congress has been derelict of duty on their fiscal budgeting responsibility.

Congress has not made their budgeting deadline of Oct 1 since 1996.

Instead, they misuse appropriations as a form of spending without actual budgeting. Traditional spending bills have vanished in favor of those with partisan attachments in order to get them passed. Modern spending bills are completely bogus as there is no fiscal responsibility and come at a high price of being tied to partisan wishes.

Bottom line is, the career politicians must go or this abuse will only become worse.

But the Alinsky-ites sure do love the downward spiral deficts are causing. They want to blow it all up and replace it with their disastrous ideas.