Yeah, as I understand it, this whole thing came to light because she planted another fake piece of hate mail in her mailbox at work and reported it, the police came out and said that it had never actually been mailed because there were no postal markings on it, and her parents finally decided that enough was enough and sent out high school photos of a very white Rachel Dolezal. She wasn't just living her life as a member of another race, which I suppose I have no real issues with. She was lying through her teeth about who she was, where she'd come from, what her life story was, how society was treating her, etc., and she was doing it for personal and financial gain. That I have a serious problem with.

 

I'm not sure I get the question. Are you saying that society considers it ok to fabricate hate crimes against yourself and use them for personal gain? I'd love to see some examples if so.

 

Regarding the part in bold.  It's not the first time a liberal has done such a thing.  A certain Senator claimed that she was a minority (Native American) for pretty much the same reasons.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Regarding the part in bold.  It's not the first time a liberal has done such a thing.  A certain Senator claimed that she was a minority (Native American) for pretty much the same reasons.

And I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time that a conservative had lied about their background to advance their career either.

---

And I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time that a conservative had lied about their background to advance their career either.

 

An example of that?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Since we are playing make believe...I'm going to start believing that I am a 6' ft. tall Swedish bikini model. :thumbsup:

Based in your avatar and member name, that's already how I picture you!

---

An example of that?

More of a general statement. You insinuated that only liberals lie about their backgrounds, and I called that statement for what it is.

---

More of a general statement. You insinuated that only liberals lie about their backgrounds, and I called that statement for what it is.

 

I insinuated no such thing, I merely presented a fact.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

More of a general statement. You insinuated that only liberals lie about their backgrounds, and I called that statement for what it is.

Wasn't there some guy that was pushing anti abortion laws and then trying to force his mistress to get one when he got her pregnant? But I guess that's not the same as impersonation...

---

Wasn't there some guy that was pushing anti abortion laws and then trying to force his mistress to get one when he got her pregnant? But I guess that's not the same as impersonation...

 

Come on Anchorman, you can do better than that.  

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I insinuated no such thing, I merely presented a fact.

Your blanket statement was what was the issue that appeared to be implied by your statement...


It's the whole, liberals do x thing. As though by just being a liberal one is by default guilty of being flawed and thus not to be considered trustworthy.

---

Your blanket statement was what was the issue that appeared to be implied by your statement...


It's the whole, liberals do x thing. As though by just being a liberal one is by default guilty of being flawed and thus not to be considered trustworthy.

 

I hardly think that it could be considered a "blanket statement" when I simply pointed out that it wasn't the first time a liberal has done such a thing.  Had I said something like "typical liberal", then I would consider it to be a "blanket statement".

 

Again, all I did was state a simple fact.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I insinuated no such thing, I merely presented a fact.

Regarding the part in bold.  It's not the first time a liberal has done such a thing.  A certain Senator claimed that she was a minority (Native American) for pretty much the same reasons.

That's pretty strongly insinuating that liberals do it with some degree of regularity, but conservatives don't. I'd wager there are plenty of people out there, regardless of political affiliation, who have marked themselves as a member of a protected class that they don't actually belong to in order to bolster their chances of being a quota hire. I have serious problems with that, as it takes the job away from someone potentially more qualified (which could be an opening to a broader discussion of Affirmative Action--one I have no real interest in getting into right now). My biggest problem with Dolezal, though, is that she put hate mail and threats in her own mailbox, reported them to the police, then used them as talking points to boost her visibility within the black community and her status at the NAACP.

---

I hardly think that it could be considered a "blanket statement" when I simply pointed out that it wasn't the first time a liberal has done such a thing. Had I said something like "typical liberal", then I would consider it to be a "blanket statement".


Again, all I did was state a simple fact.

I don't know, my friend... I'm not trying to nit pick, but throwing out a blanket term, like liberal in the context you did implies you think liberals are by default all untrustworthy... especially in the light of the history you have in terms of what you've previously written.


I'm pointing this out to hopefully get you to reconsider some of the biases I've read. You don't have to listen, of course....


But please consider this... I try very hard not to use blanket statements about republicans or conservatives, because I know individuals behave differently than how the corporate media portrays them.


Plus, blanket statements put people on the defensive.... of course I do blanket corporations... But that is a different topic, because I don't believe corporations are people.

---

That's pretty strongly insinuating that liberals do it with some degree of regularity, but conservatives don't. I'd wager there are plenty of people out there, regardless of political affiliation, who have marked themselves as a member of a protected class that they don't actually belong to in order to bolster their chances of being a quota hire. I have serious problems with that, as it takes the job away from someone potentially more qualified (which could be an opening to a broader discussion of Affirmative Action--one I have no real interest in getting into right now). My biggest problem with Dolezal, though, is that she put hate mail and threats in her own mailbox, reported them to the police, then used them as talking points to boost her visibility within the black community and her status at the NAACP.

 

Again, the same as my response to Anchorman.  I insinuated nothing.  What I stated is a fact, not a "blanket statement".  Nowhere did I say that "liberals do it with some degree of regularity, but conservatives don't".

 

Had a prefaced it with a statement such as "It's not surprising" or used a term such as "typical liberal", then you would have a point.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I don't know, my friend... I'm not trying to nit pick, but throwing out a blanket term, like liberal in the context you did implies you think liberals are by default all untrustworthy... especially in the light of the history you have in terms of what you've previously written.


I'm pointing this out to hopefully get you to reconsider some of the biases I've read. You don't have to listen, of course....


But please consider this... I try very hard not to use blanket statements about republicans or conservatives, because I know individuals behave differently than how the corporate media portrays them.


Plus, blanket statements put people on the defensive.... of course I do blanket corporations... But that is a different topic, because I don't believe corporations are people.

 

LOL, Anchorman, how can I put this any more clearer for you?

 

Simple question.  True or false?  It's not the first time that a liberal has done such a thing.

 

That is the statement that I made regarding the issue at hand.  I didn't say that "all liberals" do things like that, and I never implied that conservatives or anyone else does or doesn't do such things.  I simply presented a fact in the discussion.  I deal a lot with computers... you know, true/false 1/0 etc.  Is my statement true or false?

 

Yes, I make it no secret that I consider myself more conservative (for the most part) than others.  Yes, I also make it no secret that I am biased more towards the right, but I also try my best to back my arguments with facts to the best of my ability.  If there is some "alternative" that makes sense to me, then perhaps I'll modify my belief system.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Simple question.  True or false?  It's not the first time that a liberal has done such a thing.

 

That is the statement that I made regarding the issue at hand.  I didn't say that "all liberals" do things like that, and I never implied that conservatives or anyone else does or doesn't do such things.  I simply presented a fact in the discussion.  I deal a lot with computers... you know, true/false 1/0 etc.  Is my statement true or false?

It's true, but the question remains: why would you make sure to include the word "liberal" instead of saying it wasn't the first time "someone" had done it unless your intention was to paint it as a uniquely liberal phenomenon?

---

An example of that?

 

How many phony preachers should we list? Or the "family values" conservatives who have mistresses or are gay?

 

Now we're trying to make misrepresentation ideological? Talk about living with blinders on. 

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

It's true, but the question remains: why would you make sure to include the word "liberal" instead of saying it wasn't the first time "someone" had done it unless your intention was to paint it as a uniquely liberal phenomenon?

 

Here is the answer.  It's because I'm not "politically correct".  When something like this comes up for a liberal or far left point of view, I'm "supposed" to use a PC term like "someone", even though the fact of the matter is, both happen to be liberals.  I simply stated a fact, and rather than dispute said fact the argument turns to the words that I chose to use.

 

I do find it interesting when the argument has somehow finally turned into my use of the word "liberal".  Though it was not used incorrectly or falsely, it tends to really bother some people.  All of the sudden I'm accused of "intentionally painting it as a uniquely liberal phenomenon".  Perhaps there is something to this.  I asked you for an example of a conservative doing something similar, and I have yet to see one posted.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Here is the answer.  It's because I'm not "politically correct".  When something like this comes up for a liberal or far left point of view, I'm "supposed" to use a PC term like "someone", even though the fact of the matter is, both happen to be liberals.  I simply stated a fact, and rather than dispute said fact the argument turns to the words that I chose to use.

 

I do find it interesting when the argument has somehow finally turned into my use of the word "liberal".  Though it was not used incorrectly or falsely, it tends to really bother some people.  All of the sudden I'm accused of "intentionally painting it as a uniquely liberal phenomenon".  Perhaps there is something to this.  I asked you for an example of a conservative doing something similar, and I have yet to see one posted.

 

You don't get it, do you? You are very politically correct. You have your political antenna set a certain way and you are not about to deviate from that "correctness". Not all that unusual. Thus, you become pretty predictable  - as is anyone who is always "politically correct".

 

And it's funny - the ones that tend to be the most politically correct are usually the first to say (with a certain sense of pride) that they aren't politically correct.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

How many phony preachers should we list? Or the "family values" conservatives who have mistresses or are gay?

 

Now we're trying to make misrepresentation ideological? Talk about living with blinders on. 

 

It depends on what you consider "phony preachers".  The first couple that come off the top of my head (in my opinion) are Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson.

 

So now the attack is on conservatives who have mistresses or are gay?  The only one that comes to mind off the top of my head is conservative liberal John Edwards.

 

I'm not sure what your point is though.  There hasn't been an example of a conservative that lied regarding their race and/or heritage presented yet.  There are two examples of liberals doing such in this thread.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

An example of that?

Bruce Jenner is a republican so I guess there's some parallels there?

---