Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(07-26-2018, 02:14 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Jaguars training camp starts today.

Can you please stay on subject?

(07-26-2018, 02:23 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 02:14 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Jaguars training camp starts today.

Can you please stay on subject?

Why, that's just what they want us to do...

(07-26-2018, 02:23 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 02:14 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Jaguars training camp starts today.

Can you please stay on subject?

SO much hate under Trump!

(07-26-2018, 02:01 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are getting played.

Nope.
This is what it looks like when someone takes what you say about politics seriously.
Assumptions are challenged, clarifying questions are asked, and new facts are learned.
I can joke around, and I have on other threads.  But all of this text is very much the opposite of playing.
If you want your opinions to be treated like a joke, then I'll just do that next time.

Yes, yes, the Paragon of Dignity here for all your educational needs.

(07-26-2018, 11:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 11:02 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]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.

The number of illegal immigrants who have tricked the system into letting them vote can be counted on one hand.
They are not voting now. 
Legal immigrants also do not vote until they get citizenship. 
The Democrats play is more subtle.  They think they can earn the allegiance of new citizens by being super-nice to illegal immigrants.

Weird... just saw a stat that says some (most?) California counties (and probably many other border states) have more voters than eligible residents.
Something like 140%... I'll try to dig up the tweet.

(07-26-2018, 02:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 02:01 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are getting played.

Nope.
This is what it looks like when someone takes what you say about politics seriously.
Assumptions are challenged, clarifying questions are asked, and new facts are learned.
I can joke around, and I have on other threads.  But all of this text is very much the opposite of playing.
If you want your opinions to be treated like a joke, then I'll just do that next time.

That would be greatly appreciated.

(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.

That isn't MY definition. That is THE definition of racism. From Webster or whoever yo...
The same people that changed the definition of the 'n' word from "an ignorant person" to something to the effect of "a racist term towards black people"

Also... yeah I'm sure a lot of illegal immigrants feel they are mistreated by Americans. And much of that probably stems from racism. But not all nationalists are racists either. As our nation is one built on many many races (and mixtures of races).
Studies have shown that America is far less racist than many middle east and Asian countries.
The media spins and magnifies ugliness. That's all there is to it. For every racist in America there are 10 people that aren't. Maybe even more.


Also... you are totally confusing prejudice (making a judgement before knowing all facts or options) with racism.
Racism can derive from prejudice or just a simple feeling of hate.
Prejudice is usually derived from a general ignorance (whether natural or socially taught) "white people can't dance/don't have rhythm" This term is often used by a lot of people. White people, black people, everyone. It's funny because it's mostly true from what we have seen in life. But to say it as an absolute is ignorant because somewhere there is a white person dancing their butt off to the rhythm.

This is not a racist remark. It's a silly prejudice that many people have.

Here's another one "Asians are smart". Is that racist?
Not all Asians are smart. A simple prejudice.

Racism is I am better than you by birth because of (essentially) skin color.
Racism is you are dumb because of your race.
Racism is you don't deserve what I have because of your race.
Racism is you deserve to be treated differently because of your race.

Racism is NOT "I don't want you to illegally enter our country"
Racism is "I don't want no dirty Mexicans coming into our country and dirtying the place up"
Racism is NOT "I don't want terrorists in my country, please vet immigrants more"
Racism is "I don't want no 'towel heads' in my country" (please excuse the term as it is for example only)

But it is so much easier for ignorant minorities (and elitist lefties) to throw that term at every white person that doesn't agree with their views. 
There aren't different types of racism. You're either racist or not.

I'll admit I'm a very prejudice person. Anyone who denies their own prejudices is being silly and untruthful to themselves and others.
Everyone has em... and it is a daily choice to ignore or act on these prejudices.
Prejudices extend beyond race as well. To religion and gender and everything.
I may be a misogynist, but I don't hate women.
I may believe in religion my own way, or have my personal views, but it doesn't make me an Islamiphobe or whatever.

---

(07-26-2018, 10:59 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

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

Wow... I guess law and order is discrimination now?
US passport go to the left, cuz ya know... you live here... probably don't need to be vetted. European, less vetting, but if you came from another country through Europe, we'll need to check.
"other" passport, as in terrorist and 3rd world countries, go to where we can make sure you aren't trying to kill everyone on the plane you are boarding....

Yeah... discriminating against allowing evil and vile people into our country.
But it isn't by race, religion, sex, or creed. It's by nationality as it relates to terrorism, and lax security issues.
You don't like being safe? move to the middle east my man lol

Also...
"call a spade a spade" is racist.

Kane

Wow... I guess law and order is discrimination now?



Unfortunately, some actually do believe this.  It's what keeps the victim mentality alive, which directly serves to in keeping the Democrat plantation intact.

A mind forever shackled.

(07-26-2018, 04:10 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Kane

Wow... I guess law and order is discrimination now?



Unfortunately, some actually do believe this.  It's what keeps the victim mentality alive, which directly serves to in keeping the Democrat plantation intact.

A mind forever shackled.

Law and order is discrimination.
Discrimination just means treating people differently based on characteristics you perceive.  You can't treat everyone the same.  You have to use good, or fair, discrimination.
The coaches deciding which players will make the Jags' 53 man roster are discriminating based on the football skills and intangibles they see.   It's a fair process, as far as anyone can tell.
The police deciding which cars to pull over have to decide if those drivers are driving dangerously, or match a vehicle/driver description on a BOLO.  That's fair discrimination.  But if they just decide they're going to pull over only red cars no matter what, that would be unfair discrimination.

Discrimination in a pure definition is simply choice.

The assumption here is that the discussion at hand is racial discrimination, which is an entirely different thing.

I suppose we shouldn't assume you're following along.

Racists.

(07-26-2018, 05:04 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Discrimination in a pure definition is simply choice.

The assumption here is that the discussion at hand is racial discrimination, which is an entirely different thing.

I suppose we shouldn't assume you're following along.

every single person over the age of 5 in any part of the world were different races live in close proximity has racially discriminated at some point in their life.

A lot of it is benign but a lot of it is not.

But the worst thing you can do is deny that it happens.

the best thing you can do is admit that it happens say you're working on it, and ask people questions if you sense that they might be making racially discriminatory comments.

...and the rabbit hole just hit one heck of a roller coaster twist.  You just illustrated how to inject racism into anything and everything.

If you don't let it die, you're keeping it alive for nefarious reasons.

Which circles us back to the need for victim status, where believers remain slave to the idea that we should label groups and pit them against one another, rather than treat everyone as the individual they are.  Because without victimhood, there are no need for surrogates of the individual.  It always turns darkly into the dehumanization of the individual, by replacing the individual with a label (and by association, groups.)  Much easier to paint a false caricature of a group than the individuals that make up that group.  But hey, it sells to those who want to hear what's being sold.

If people desire to be victims, then victims they will always be.  They will always look for any and every excuse to explain their lack of success, rather than fix what it is about themselves that lead to failure.

If people desire to take charge of their own destiny and rely on one's self, owning both their own success and failures, then forever they will be free.

(07-26-2018, 11:56 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 11:31 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I'm just trying to demonstrate that promoting white supremacy in the 1960s and 1970s would have been a right wing view.  I'm categorizing a specific viewpoint on a single issue at a single time. 
People devoted to that cause could have had other views on other issues - like how Squeaky Fromme apparently also wanted to "save the trees".  That part is pretty left-wing.  Real people have multiple views on multiple issues and live through multiple times.
I self-reflect and search my soul all the time.  I'm sure you do too.  Most of us do.
The problem is that I'm the only one here trying to answer one question at a time.  Whether intentional or not, most of you are equivocating my words, and then arguing against points that I didn't actually make.  I'm being specific for a reason.  Make sure you understand before you say I'm wrong.

---

(07-26-2018, 11:49 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]The word Politifact was a link, and you are dead wrong about the Senate.

I don't remember a 2008 stimulus, unless you are counting the bail out as a stimulus. The Dems controlled both houses in 2008, so if there was a stimulus it was a Dem bill signed by Bush, who was not a conservative.

The tax cuts under Obama were cuts to the employee portion of FICA. I had no disagreement with that part of it, but it was not a stimulus. In 2009 there were a lot of people hurting, and many of the temporary laws passed then were necessary, although they were in the realm of welfare, not stimulus.

I agree that spending was too high under Bush. Bush wasn't given a pass by the right for the overspending. Most conservatives opposed the spending increases, and I sent an E-mail to Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority leader Frist (and to my own congressman and senators) expressing my anger at the overspending (Senator Frist actually personally responded, my congressman and senators didn't even reply with a form letter). Admittedly, some of the spending was needed in response to the 9/11 attack, but much was wasted rebuilding Iraq. There were also big increases in domestic spending.

If you're going to say that Bush 43 wasn't a conservative, you are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.  Some of the things he did might not fall under a specific definition of "conservative" but his identity in general is part of any definition of American Conservative.  You can disown some of what he did, but to disown most of it, you'd have to re-define "conservatism" as this fringe political movement that wasn't actually able to get people elected from 2000 to 2008.
You can do better.

Ah, the [BLEEP] No True Scotsman fallacy argument. You had to dig deep on Daily Kos for that one.

Bush 43 was a moderate who leaned conservative. Other than the tax cuts, he didn't do anything particularly conservative. He boosted the bureaucracy, increased spending, greatly expanded the Dept. of Education, and implemented a prescription drug add on to Medicare. None of those are remotely conservative. You can't claim "right wing" in his case, unless your bird of choice is an ostrich.

In any case, you changed the subject from how conservatives criticized Bush to Bush's conservatism. There was much criticism of Bush's policies that you mentioned earlier from the "right wing."

And to push even further back to the original point, all of the political hate crimes are from the Left. We're talking about the Obama and Trump era, and you bring up some murderess from the 1970s. STRAWMAN!

(07-26-2018, 07:17 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 11:56 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just trying to demonstrate that promoting white supremacy in the 1960s and 1970s would have been a right wing view.  I'm categorizing a specific viewpoint on a single issue at a single time. 
People devoted to that cause could have had other views on other issues - like how Squeaky Fromme apparently also wanted to "save the trees".  That part is pretty left-wing.  Real people have multiple views on multiple issues and live through multiple times.
I self-reflect and search my soul all the time.  I'm sure you do too.  Most of us do.
The problem is that I'm the only one here trying to answer one question at a time.  Whether intentional or not, most of you are equivocating my words, and then arguing against points that I didn't actually make.  I'm being specific for a reason.  Make sure you understand before you say I'm wrong.

---

If you're going to say that Bush 43 wasn't a conservative, you are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.  Some of the things he did might not fall under a specific definition of "conservative" but his identity in general is part of any definition of American Conservative.  You can disown some of what he did, but to disown most of it, you'd have to re-define "conservatism" as this fringe political movement that wasn't actually able to get people elected from 2000 to 2008.
You can do better.

Ah, the [BLEEP] No True Scotsman fallacy argument. You had to dig deep on Daily Kos for that one.

Bush 43 was a moderate who leaned conservative. Other than the tax cuts, he didn't do anything particularly conservative. He boosted the bureaucracy, increased spending, greatly expanded the Dept. of Education, and implemented a prescription drug add on to Medicare. None of those are remotely conservative. You can't claim "right wing" in his case, unless your bird of choice is an ostrich.

In any case, you changed the subject from how conservatives criticized Bush to Bush's conservatism. There was much criticism of Bush's policies that you mentioned earlier from the "right wing."

And to push even further back to the original point, all of the political hate crimes are from the Left. We're talking about the Obama and Trump era, and you bring up some murderess from the 1970s. STRAWMAN!

But Manson was a right wing, slave holding, Son of Lincoln, so it's German to the discussion or some such.

(07-26-2018, 07:17 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]And to push even further back to the original point, all of the political hate crimes are from the Left. We're talking about the Obama and Trump era, and you bring up some murderess from the 1970s. STRAWMAN!

James Alex Fields Jr. would be interested to find out that you think he's "from the Left".  Jeremy Joseph Christian might be as well.

(07-26-2018, 06:32 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]...and the rabbit hole just hit one heck of a roller coaster twist.  You just illustrated how to inject racism into anything and everything.

If you don't let it die, you're keeping it alive for nefarious reasons.

Which circles us back to the need for victim status, where believers remain slave to the idea that we should label groups and pit them against one another, rather than treat everyone as the individual they are.  Because without victimhood, there are no need for surrogates of the individual.  It always turns darkly into the dehumanization of the individual, by replacing the individual with a label (and by association, groups.)  Much easier to paint a false caricature of a group than the individuals that make up that group.  But hey, it sells to those who want to hear what's being sold.

If people desire to be victims, then victims they will always be.  They will always look for any and every excuse to explain their lack of success, rather than fix what it is about themselves that lead to failure.

If people desire to take charge of their own destiny and rely on one's self, owning both their own success and failures, then forever they will be free.

I think we have a duty to teach all people that there used to be slavery and Jim Crow.  
We have a duty to teach that segregation in education is still going on at the primary level, and that as late as the 1960s states ran universities that were for whites only.
We have a duty to teach that even in areas in the North, continuing into the 1970s, mob violence would be threatened against a black person who tried to move into a white neighborhood. 
We have a duty to teach that, from 1934 to 1968, black people could not get mortgages on the same terms as white people.

To stop teaching these things is supressing the truth.  To stop teaching these things deprives students of all colors the ability to properly make sense of what they see.

It's up to the students to decide that they're not going to adopt a victim mentality.  We can certainly encourage them to not see themselves as victims, but, we can't re-write history either.  If they want to look at the clear facts and decide that they need to spend their lives feeling like a victim, that's a freedom that they have as Americans.

(07-27-2018, 08:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 07:17 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]And to push even further back to the original point, all of the political hate crimes are from the Left. We're talking about the Obama and Trump era, and you bring up some murderess from the 1970s. STRAWMAN!

James Alex Fields Jr. would be interested to find out that you think he's "from the Left".  Jeremy Joseph Christian might be as well.

1. You might want to supply some context rather than just naming names.

2. Neither of those were politically motivated, which is the topic of this discussion. The first was not even a hate crime, it was an unplanned extreme response to a guy's car being blocked and attacked, he didn't set out that day to drive over people. I'm not sure what the motive was in the second case; it seems to be racial but not political.

(07-27-2018, 08:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2018, 06:32 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]...and the rabbit hole just hit one heck of a roller coaster twist.  You just illustrated how to inject racism into anything and everything.

If you don't let it die, you're keeping it alive for nefarious reasons.

Which circles us back to the need for victim status, where believers remain slave to the idea that we should label groups and pit them against one another, rather than treat everyone as the individual they are.  Because without victimhood, there are no need for surrogates of the individual.  It always turns darkly into the dehumanization of the individual, by replacing the individual with a label (and by association, groups.)  Much easier to paint a false caricature of a group than the individuals that make up that group.  But hey, it sells to those who want to hear what's being sold.

If people desire to be victims, then victims they will always be.  They will always look for any and every excuse to explain their lack of success, rather than fix what it is about themselves that lead to failure.

If people desire to take charge of their own destiny and rely on one's self, owning both their own success and failures, then forever they will be free.

I think we have a duty to teach all people that there used to be slavery and Jim Crow.  
We have a duty to teach that segregation in education is still going on at the primary level, and that as late as the 1960s states ran universities that were for whites only.
We have a duty to teach that even in areas in the North, continuing into the 1970s, mob violence would be threatened against a black person who tried to move into a white neighborhood. 
We have a duty to teach that, from 1934 to 1968, black people could not get mortgages on the same terms as white people.

To stop teaching these things is supressing the truth.  To stop teaching these things deprives students of all colors the ability to properly make sense of what they see.

It's up to the students to decide that they're not going to adopt a victim mentality.  We can certainly encourage them to not see themselves as victims, but, we can't re-write history either.  If they want to look at the clear facts and decide that they need to spend their lives feeling like a victim, that's a freedom that they have as Americans.

We do teach it, hell, some people make a great living off of never, ever, ever shutting up about it. What we really need is to teach history accurately so that today's Victim Class will come to understand that they aren't victims of anything except the willful victims of their own actions and the race hucksters..