Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52
  1.    #1  
    You guys may continue your discussion, but content of thread was of bad taste.

    Thanks,
    Berd
    Just call me Berd.
  2. #2  
    Sorry about that Bernie, I respect your authority and maybe it was bad taste. However, one thing it was doing was getting folks to talk about racism. People are so clammed up about the subject and usually just ignore it and pretend like its doesn't happen. But I think its healthy to bring the subject up, and discuss it in a civil way.
  3. #3  
    Quite understandable.....however.....not sure of the guy's name, but he said "don't mess with Joe" really hasn't made any gaffes except when he asked the guy in the wheel chair to stand (classic!). Well, not enough room and not enough time to go into all of Biden's funny stuff, but a couple that come to mind are:

    When he said something about Barack's 3 letter word, "j-o-b-s, jobs". Yes...a goofy mistake but one that the liberals would have loved to have told if Bush had said it.

    Oh....how about when he said that FDR got on the television and talked about the stock market crash. Umm, not many TVs around back in 1929.

    Just a couple of recent ones...again...the dude can lay down some crazy stuff. I think he even disclosed the VP bunker to some reporter, didn't he? LOL Yup.....that's our crazy "don't mess with Joe" VP. Oh....remember when he was about to read the oath to some appointtee, and he made a crack about practicing it.....did you see Obama's face? He was like..."no Joe....please no....don't say that". Too late....he said it. Joe
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #4  
    I don't think we're clammed up about the subject of racism at all. We see discussion about it everywhere. We're just not discussing it in the way it needs to be discussed because we're afraid to. Racism is nothing more than a form of tribalism. We're all tribal creatures. If we're honest, we would all admit that "White Pride" is the same as "Black Power" is the same as "Brown and Proud". The only difference is the dominance of the race. Also, if we're honest, much of the time Democrat and Republican are just two different tribes. Neither will concede a point because many times its not about the point but about the tribe. If you concede, you're not conceding to the better point, you're conceding to the other tribe. That's not to say there's no such thing as conservative and liberal ideals but those ideals often get lost in the heat of the debate.

    It would be great if we could all sit down and discuss the ideas strictly on their merits but we simply can't. We're inherently distrustful of the other tribe. We don't even trust people of mixed-tribal creed or descent because we don't know which tribe they're representing. Often times, they're more distrusted because they appear disingenuous. At least we know where the guy from the other tribe is coming from.

    So why are we afraid to talk about it the way it needs to be discussed? I believe its because the subject will always hit too close to home. It will always hit on a topic about which we are not willing to change our minds and we're afraid we will have to concede that we too are tribal. So, we'll continue to talk about it in its most egregious form--White Supremacy--so we can sit comfortably in the assurance that "we're not like that".
  5. #5  
    Personally, I think politicians can stir up racism when it suite their purpose (just like religion, but thats for another thread). Anyway, thats my two bits.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    And yet, even with a number of silly gaffes, Joe is still WAY smarter than any Republican in recent memory...let's see, you got Sarah Palin (who left her job so she can spend more time on Facebook), Bush (who remains a buffoon), etc, etc, etc...
    Funny.....don't mess with the lib's Joe! Even Obama has figured that they need to keep Joe on the sidelines most of the time to prevent him saying something....ummm....somthing stupid? I will give Joe this, however, he does say what is on his mind and I do like that (for many reasons). Normally this comes back to haunt politicians, but in his case, it just doesn't seem to matter. I do enjoy watching that one video clip...."stand up Chuck and let 'em see ya" (oops). Classic! That is about as funny as when Bush tried to say "fool me once, shame on you"....also a classic in my opinion and I can at least admit it's funny. But geez....don't dare smile at Joe's gaffes!

    By the way....Palin still? Really? I'll give you credit, at least you didn't attack her children
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I don't think we're clammed up about the subject of racism at all. We see discussion about it everywhere. We're just not discussing it in the way it needs to be discussed because we're afraid to. Racism is nothing more than a form of tribalism. We're all tribal creatures. If we're honest, we would all admit that "White Pride" is the same as "Black Power" is the same as "Brown and Proud". The only difference is the dominance of the race. Also, if we're honest, much of the time Democrat and Republican are just two different tribes. Neither will concede a point because many times its not about the point but about the tribe. If you concede, you're not conceding to the better point, you're conceding to the other tribe. That's not to say there's no such thing as conservative and liberal ideals but those ideals often get lost in the heat of the debate.

    It would be great if we could all sit down and discuss the ideas strictly on their merits but we simply can't. We're inherently distrustful of the other tribe. We don't even trust people of mixed-tribal creed or descent because we don't know which tribe they're representing. Often times, they're more distrusted because they appear disingenuous. At least we know where the guy from the other tribe is coming from.

    So why are we afraid to talk about it the way it needs to be discussed? I believe its because the subject will always hit too close to home. It will always hit on a topic about which we are not willing to change our minds and we're afraid we will have to concede that we too are tribal. So, we'll continue to talk about it in its most egregious form--White Supremacy--so we can sit comfortably in the assurance that "we're not like that".
    Pretty good explanation Groovy....I liked the "tribe" analogy.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  8. Jaer57's Avatar
    Posts
    160 Posts
    Global Posts
    165 Global Posts
    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    And yet, even with a number of silly gaffes, Joe is still WAY smarter than any Republican in recent memory...let's see, you got Sarah Palin (who left her job so she can spend more time on Facebook), Bush (who remains a buffoon), etc, etc, etc...
    I do recall that there are MANY politicians of BOTH parties that allowed the housing bubble to happen, the SEC to be complacent enough to miss people like Madoff, allowed two wars to start simultaneously originally with BIPARTISAN support, public debt to grow enormously throughout EVERY administration in recent history, etc.

    There's plenty of IDIOCY to go around, and most of it stays in and around Washington DC. If the last 30 years aren't the greatest case for Congressional TERM LIMITS, I don't know what is. Changing the President only does so much. It's a shame some people are so emotionally tied to their political parties, and bash any opposition like it's sport. Whatever happened to being open-minded...
    Current device: Palm Pre
    Former devices: Treo 755p, Treo 650
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I don't think we're clammed up about the subject of racism at all. We see discussion about it everywhere. We're just not discussing it in the way it needs to be discussed because we're afraid to. Racism is nothing more than a form of tribalism. We're all tribal creatures. If we're honest, we would all admit that "White Pride" is the same as "Black Power" is the same as "Brown and Proud". The only difference is the dominance of the race. Also, if we're honest, much of the time Democrat and Republican are just two different tribes. Neither will concede a point because many times its not about the point but about the tribe. If you concede, you're not conceding to the better point, you're conceding to the other tribe. That's not to say there's no such thing as conservative and liberal ideals but those ideals often get lost in the heat of the debate.

    It would be great if we could all sit down and discuss the ideas strictly on their merits but we simply can't. We're inherently distrustful of the other tribe. We don't even trust people of mixed-tribal creed or descent because we don't know which tribe they're representing. Often times, they're more distrusted because they appear disingenuous. At least we know where the guy from the other tribe is coming from.

    So why are we afraid to talk about it the way it needs to be discussed? I believe its because the subject will always hit too close to home. It will always hit on a topic about which we are not willing to change our minds and we're afraid we will have to concede that we too are tribal. So, we'll continue to talk about it in its most egregious form--White Supremacy--so we can sit comfortably in the assurance that "we're not like that".
    Maybe tribalism is just a nice substitute word for racism. Either way you look at it, for one group to hate the other, or keep it in submission for the sake of money or power, well something just aint right about that.
  10. #10  
    Most here are aware that some of the distasteful signs posted were from left wingers who were not happy with Barry. As for removing them, bad taste or not, I disagree with its removal.

    As for the housing bubble - who was in charge of Congress. Who was in charge of the committees. Who in those committees went on to work in the Fannie and Freddie world? Who in the Fannie and Freddie world went on to work in the Barry government?

    Think hard. Actually, no thinking involved at all.
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    And yet, even with a number of silly gaffes, Joe is still WAY smarter than any Republican in recent memory...let's see, you got Sarah Palin (who left her job so she can spend more time on Facebook), Bush (who remains a buffoon), etc, etc, etc...
    You mean you don't like Sarah? What a surprise!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    You mean you don't like Sarah? What a surprise!
    Her church scares me with their "pray away the gay" program.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I don't think we're clammed up about the subject of racism at all. We see discussion about it everywhere. We're just not discussing it in the way it needs to be discussed because we're afraid to. Racism is nothing more than a form of tribalism. We're all tribal creatures. If we're honest, we would all admit that "White Pride" is the same as "Black Power" is the same as "Brown and Proud". The only difference is the dominance of the race. Also, if we're honest, much of the time Democrat and Republican are just two different tribes. Neither will concede a point because many times its not about the point but about the tribe. If you concede, you're not conceding to the better point, you're conceding to the other tribe. That's not to say there's no such thing as conservative and liberal ideals but those ideals often get lost in the heat of the debate.

    It would be great if we could all sit down and discuss the ideas strictly on their merits but we simply can't. We're inherently distrustful of the other tribe. We don't even trust people of mixed-tribal creed or descent because we don't know which tribe they're representing. Often times, they're more distrusted because they appear disingenuous. At least we know where the guy from the other tribe is coming from.

    So why are we afraid to talk about it the way it needs to be discussed? I believe its because the subject will always hit too close to home. It will always hit on a topic about which we are not willing to change our minds and we're afraid we will have to concede that we too are tribal. So, we'll continue to talk about it in its most egregious form--White Supremacy--so we can sit comfortably in the assurance that "we're not like that".
    I think you're mostly describing "prejudice" here, as opposed to "racism". Prejudice isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing, whereas, racism usually is. Pride in ones race, or tribe, is simply that; pride (which has its own pluses and minuses).

    It's when we negatively discriminate or disparage others simply based on race.... thats racism.

    We're all prejudiced, or biased, in both good ways or bad ways. I prejudiced towards deserts with chocolate over those with coconut or pecans; blondes over brunettes; conservative ideals over liberal; etc. Bias and prejudice are normal.

    I believe that what people call "affirmative action" is in fact racism, as it negatively affects some based on race.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I think you're mostly describing "prejudice" here, as opposed to "racism". Prejudice isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing, whereas, racism usually is. Pride in ones race, or tribe, is simply that; pride (which has its own pluses and minuses).

    It's when we negatively discriminate or disparage others simply based on race.... thats racism.

    We're all prejudiced, or biased, in both good ways or bad ways. I prejudiced towards deserts with chocolate over those with coconut or pecans; blondes over brunettes; conservative ideals over liberal; etc. Bias and prejudice are normal.

    I believe that what people call "affirmative action" is in fact racism, as it negatively affects some based on race.
    I agree.
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I think you're mostly describing "prejudice" here, as opposed to "racism". Prejudice isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing, whereas, racism usually is. Pride in ones race, or tribe, is simply that; pride (which has its own pluses and minuses).

    It's when we negatively discriminate or disparage others simply based on race.... thats racism.

    We're all prejudiced, or biased, in both good ways or bad ways. I prejudiced towards deserts with chocolate over those with coconut or pecans; blondes over brunettes; conservative ideals over liberal; etc. Bias and prejudice are normal.

    I believe that what people call "affirmative action" is in fact racism, as it negatively affects some based on race.
    Actually, Micael, I don't think there's a difference in the idea. There's no real difference between "White Pride", which is what most people identify as racism, and "Brown Pride", which most people describe as some benign, even laudable sense of cultural identity. The difference is arbitrary. For example, when a white man says his daughter can only marry another white man, we call it racist. When a Hispanic man says his daughter can only marry another Hispanic man, we call it "cultural". But both can be, and have been, equally helpful or equally harmful. Both are based on the idea that we want our own tribe, race, culture, whatever you want to call it, to succeed against the other tribe, race or culture.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Actually, Micael, I don't think there's a difference in the idea. There's no real difference between "White Pride", which is what most people identify as racism, and "Brown Pride", which most people describe as some benign, even laudable sense of cultural identity. The difference is arbitrary. For example, when a white man says his daughter can only marry another white man, we call it racist. When a Hispanic man says his daughter can only marry another Hispanic man, we call it "cultural". But both can be, and have been, equally helpful or equally harmful. Both are based on the idea that we want our own tribe, race, culture, whatever you want to call it, to succeed against the other tribe, race or culture.
    They are different.

    There's a huge difference between cultural pride, which you're describing on the one hand, and racism, which you describe on the other hand as the one race succeeding against the other, like its some sort of contest. Two completely different things.

    I can have pride in my culture and race without wishing other races ill. We can all succeed together. There's room.

    You're blending the two.

    As far as some saying "White Pride" is racist versus "Brown Pride" being cultural... well I guess some say lots of silly things.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    You're blending the two.
    Don't you think the difference is just a matter of degree?
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Don't you think the difference is just a matter of degree?
    I see your point, but not really. If you say that, then anyone with any prejudice is to some degree a racist. I don't agree with that.

    I can prefer that my daughter marry a white guy based on my upbringing and biasing, but I can still support her and her husband if she chooses a non-white, and accept him as part of the family. You're saying that I'm still a racist, in this case?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I see your point, but not really. If you say that, then anyone with any prejudice is to some degree a racist. I don't agree with that.

    I can prefer that my daughter marry a white guy based on my upbringing and biasing, but I can still support her and her husband if she chooses a non-white, and accept him as part of the family. You're saying that I'm still a racist, in this case?
    Well, actually, you said it. In your example, you're biased against other races when it comes to who your daughter would marry--if even just a little bit. And I'm not saying its always a bad thing either. Its natural to want your children and grandchildren to look like you, to have the same ideals as you and to have the same, or better, chance of survival. Its not only natural, its instinctual. After all, you're living on after death through them.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Well, actually, you said it. In your example, you're biased against other races when it comes to who your daughter would marry--if even just a little bit. And I'm not saying its always a bad thing either. Its natural to want your children and grandchildren to look like you, to have the same ideals as you and to have the same, or better, chance of survival. Its not only natural, its instinctual. After all, you're living on after death through them.
    That's my point. That's me being prejudiced. Not being a racist. Being a racist would be my acting on my prejudice in a negative way towards her non white suitor. It's subtle, and I'm sorry if I'm terrible at explaining it. Prejudice is not based on action, it's just a bias, a preference. Racism is a negative action.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions