2016 Democratic Thread

[Y2HH]

You do realize Bill O is a giant racist turd? Sure his words might have been taken out of context but I don't really give him the benefit of the doubt when he's trying to make a statement about race.

 

No, I don't know that. Especially today when the "racist" word is thrown around to the point it means nothing.

 

If you're a white male that isn't a total left leaning snot, you're instantly labeled a racist. I don't know if Bill O'Reilly is a racist or not...if he is, f*** him, too. But I can tell you as a pretty anti-government (be it left or right), I've had the label applied to me simply because the leftists I know are very quick to judge others in this regard.

[pettie4sox]

No, I don't know that. Especially today when the "racist" word is thrown around to the point it means nothing.

 

If you're a white male that isn't a total left leaning snot, you're instantly labeled a racist. I don't know if Bill O'Reilly is a racist or not...if he is, f*** him, too. But I can tell you as a pretty anti-government (be it left or right), I've had the label applied to me simply because the leftists I know are very quick to judge others in this regard.

 

Listen I won't insult your intelligence by throwing around racist loosely.

 

The guy is a bonafide f***ing racist. Do you want me to post links to his time he went to a black owned restaurant and said "I'm surprised they can be so civil?"

 

Or the time he had a black professor on tv talking about the war on drugs and said to the scholar that he looked like a cocaine dealer?

 

Yeah f*** him and everything he stands for.

[GoSox05]

If he's not trying to down play the horrors of slavery, what is he saying? What point is he trying to make?

[Y2HH]

Listen I won't insult your intelligence by throwing around racist loosely.

 

The guy is a bonafide f***ing racist. Do you want me to post links to his time he went to a black owned restaurant and said "I'm surprised they can be so civil?"

 

Or the time he had a black professor on tv talking about the war on drugs and said to the scholar that he looked like a cocaine dealer?

 

Yeah f*** him and everything he stands for.

 

I think I've seen both of these.

 

That doesn't make the label mean anything to me...people have abused that label to the point I just disregard it now. It may be true, it may not be...I wouldn't be surprised given he's a rich old man (isn't he nearly 80?) and comes from a bygone era, hence his audience is nearly all 60+.

[Kyyle23]

See, Newt argues there like some of us. You think I'm ignoring stats. Newt is going by feel there, with his position. Hey, there is a ton of crime in Chicago and Baltimore and some big cities. I don't know what the FBI stats are, but cmon, America safe? There was a whole story in USA Today recently by the surgeon moving his family to his native country cause ours is so dangerous. Newt is not owned in that clip.

 

Newt is owned in that clip like you are owned in these threads. And does the same thing, ignores reality and keeps talking

[StrangeSox]

No, you're seeing what you want to see.

 

He's not claiming that "all slaves" were treated this way. He's also not downplaying the horrors of slavery, either.

 

He's claiming that the slaves that built the White House were treated "well" because they were given food and housing, which apparently is pretty questionable even when limited to just that group of slaves. Whenever you go down the road of "but they were well-fed and given housing!" when discussing chattel slavery, you're downplaying it.

 

You also don't have to apologize to me for not seeing something that isn't there.

 

You're a typical political ideologue. You'll see evil when and where you want to see it...so long as it's on the right side. (IE, not your side.) Just like the right often do with the left. You're part of a very dangerous issue in with this country right now. You're all or nothing left...you claim everything you think is centrist (it's not), and you claim everything your leftist party does is centrist (it's not).

 

The retard right is guilty of this same s***, too.

 

That's a nice bit of hand-waiving, but nowhere have you actually explained what his "point" is or why what he said is excusable. What was the point of his little "well-fed" history lesson in response to Michelle Obama's speech if it wasn't to downplay what she was saying? It's not just me, it's also recent RNC chairman Michael Steele along with plenty of other people.

 

As for my personal political views, you're again just sort of making things up because you don't want to talk the topic. I'd never claim that my views are "centrist" and openly deride the idea that centrism-for-centrism's sake is good or even a coherent political philosophy. You can easily find me in this very thread pointing out that saying "I just take the moderate position!" means your ideology is defined entirely by what the ends of the spectrum are currently saying and not a well thought-out political philosophy. I'm a left-liberal and don't claim to be otherwise.

[Y2HH]

If he's not trying to down play the horrors of slavery, what is he saying? What point is he trying to make?

 

Looking at that video, I think he's just reporting on that specific circumstance and those specific slaves that Michelle Obama talked about. I don't think he's saying this applied to all slaves, or that he's even downplaying the horrors of slavery.

[StrangeSox]

No, I don't know that. Especially today when the "racist" word is thrown around to the point it means nothing.

 

If you're a white male that isn't a total left leaning snot, you're instantly labeled a racist. I don't know if Bill O'Reilly is a racist or not...if he is, f*** him, too. But I can tell you as a pretty anti-government (be it left or right), I've had the label applied to me simply because the leftists I know are very quick to judge others in this regard.

 

See, some of us have actually paid attention to what O'Reilly's said for the last 10+ years, so we know that he doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt.

[StrangeSox]

Looking at that video, I think he's just reporting on that specific circumstance and those specific slaves that Michelle Obama talked about. I don't think he's saying this applied to all slaves, or that he's even downplaying the horrors of slavery.

 

He was historically wrong about that specific group anyway, but why bring it up at all if he's not trying to lessen the impact of what Michelle Obama was talking about? He's a conservative political commentator attacking a political enemy, not a history professor trying to provide some (incorrect, as it turns out) subtle nuance to a complex scenario.

 

Keep in mind that even if he was correct about the level of food and quality of housing they were provided, his statement still only serves to say "well, these people held in chattel slavery didn't have it as bad as these other people held in chattel slavery." That's downplaying it, full-stop.

Edited July 29, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

He was historically wrong about that specific group anyway, but why bring it up at all if he's not trying to lessen the impact of what Michelle Obama was talking about? He's a conservative political commentator attacking a political enemy, not a history professor trying to provide some (incorrect, as it turns out) subtle nuance to a complex scenario.

 

Keep in mind that even if he was correct about the level of food and quality of housing they were provided, his statement still only serves to say "well, these people held in chattel slavery didn't have it as bad as these other people held in chattel slavery." That's downplaying it, full-stop.

 

How is this incorrect? Posting a link to thinkprogress to back up your incorrect claim is like me posting a link to fox news to back up O'Reillys.

[GoSox05]

I think he also made those comments because Michelle Obama brought up a really ugly fact about America and O'Reilly is someone who thinks that America has never done anything wrong. So he has to be like "look it wasn't all that bad".

[StrangeSox]

How is this incorrect? Posting a link to thinkprogress to back up your incorrect claim is like me posting a link to fox news to back up O'Reillys.

 

It was a link to ThinkProgress which includes quotes from a slavery historian specifically refuting O'Reilly's claim.

[Y2HH]

I think he also made those comments because Michelle Obama brought up a really ugly fact about America and O'Reilly is someone who thinks that America has never done anything wrong. So he has to be like "look it wasn't all that bad".

 

Again, I don't think he feels America has never done anything wrong. This is another example of what I'm talking about. He defends America on a few things, so that obviously means he believes America never does anything wrong.

 

Bulls***.

 

He made a rather simple claim as far as I'm concerned, and all I care about is if what he said true or false?

 

The question is this: Were THOSE specific slaves [those that built the white house] treated as he claimed? That's it. That's the only question. If yes, then he's not wrong. If no, then he is. Period.

 

But stretching it beyond that to "making excuses of slavery" isn't what I see happening. It's the simple matter of, in that specific instance, is what he's saying true or not? Don't look beyond that question.

 

This is the problem with this country today, it's all black and white, apples or oranges...there seems to be no room for shades of grey anymore.

 

Anytime I see a leftist talk, they talk as if they're centrists and the open minded ones, and as I've said many times, they aren't.

 

Anytime I see a rightist talk, they also talk as if they're centrists and the open minded ones, and the same holds true for them.

 

IE, just because THOSE specific slaves under a very specific scope of work for the government were treated somewhat better, doesn't mean ALL slaves were treated somewhat better, or that slavery is suddenly ok. Why the f*** can't people just be rational anymore.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

I think he also made those comments because Michelle Obama brought up a really ugly fact about America and O'Reilly is someone who thinks that America has never done anything wrong. So he has to be like "look it wasn't all that bad".

 

O'Reilly grew up in a city on Long Island built through cheap federally and state subsidized housing that explicitly barred black residents through residential covenants, and he still couldn't comprehend an argument about racial inequality when this was pointed out to him.

[bmags]

Again, I don't think he feels America has never done anything wrong. This is another example of what I'm talking about. He defends America on a few things, so that obviously means he believes America never does anything wrong.

 

Bulls***.

 

He made a rather simple claim as far as I'm concerned, and all I care about is if what he said true or false?

 

The question is this: Were THOSE specific slaves [those that built the white house] treated as he claimed? That's it. That's the only question. If yes, then he's not wrong. If no, then he is. Period.

 

But stretching it beyond that to "making excuses of slavery" isn't what I see happening. It's the simple matter of, in that specific instance, is what he's saying true or not? Don't look beyond that question.

 

This is the problem with this country today, it's all black and white, apples or oranges...there seems to be no room for shades of grey anymore.

 

Anytime I see a leftist talk, they talk as if they're centrists and the open minded ones, and as I've said many times, they aren't.

 

Anytime I see a rightist talk, they also talk as if they're centrists and the open minded ones, and the same holds true for them.

 

IE, just because THOSE specific slaves under a very specific scope of work for the government were treated somewhat better, doesn't mean ALL slaves were treated somewhat better, or that slavery is suddenly ok. Why the f*** can't people just be rational anymore.

 

It's a weird point though because slavery was terrible even if you weren't in the worst practices of chattel slavery. They were forced to work there, by force, after being separated from their families.

 

So there's no "Ok, sure they were slaves"...no I don't think Michelle would be more comforted to know they treated their slaves well. Because it was slavery.

 

[StrangeSox]

Again, I don't think he feels America has never done anything wrong. This is another example of what I'm talking about. He defends America on a few things, so that obviously means he believes America never does anything wrong.

 

Bulls***.

 

He made a rather simple claim as far as I'm concerned, and all I care about is if what he said true or false?

 

The question is this: Were THOSE specific slaves [those that built the white house] treated as he claimed? That's it. That's the only question. If yes, then he's not wrong. If no, then he is. Period.

 

But stretching it beyond that to "making excuses of slavery" isn't what I see happening. It's the simple matter of, in that specific instance, is what he's saying true or not? Don't look beyond that question.

 

This is the problem with this country today, it's all black and white, apples or oranges...there seems to be no room for shades of grey anymore.

 

Anytime I see a leftist talk, they talk as if they're centrists and the open minded ones, and as I've said many times, they aren't.

 

Anytime I see a rightist talk, they also talk as if they're centrists and the open minded ones, and the same holds true for them.

 

 

Looking at a single sentence and whether or not that single sentence contains factual statements while ignoring all other context is the problem. Why Bill O'Reilly was trying to bring up that 'fact' (which is false) is just as important as whether or not he was even correct. There are lots and lots of facts someone can bring up in relation to any topic, and why they choose to bring up a specific fact (or non-fact in this case!) and when they choose to bring it up is also part of the question.

 

What liberal here pretends they're a centrist? For that matter, what conservative here does? I sure don't see myself or alpha trying to claim that label.

[StrangeSox]

It's a weird point though because slavery was terrible even if you weren't in the worst practices of chattel slavery. They were forced to work there, by force, after being separated from their families.

 

So there's no "Ok, sure they were slaves"...no I don't think Michelle would be more comforted to know they treated their slaves well. Because it was slavery.

 

That's just it. "Owning someone as chattel" and "treating them well" are mutually exclusive, even if you aren't starving them to death.

[Y2HH]

Looking at a single sentence and whether or not that single sentence contains factual statements while ignoring all other context is the problem. Why Bill O'Reilly was trying to bring up that 'fact' (which is false) is just as important as whether or not he was even correct. There are lots and lots of facts someone can bring up in relation to any topic, and why they choose to bring up a specific fact (or non-fact in this case!) and when they choose to bring it up is also part of the question.

 

What liberal here pretends they're a centrist? For that matter, what conservative here does? I sure don't see myself or alpha trying to claim that label.

 

I won't refute this, however, I think it's you that's ignoring context here. You're seeing exactly what you want to see. I see the context as O'Reilly just stating what he believes is historical fact about a very specific thing. He's not the one stretching it to "all slavery", which is exactly what you're doing -- and THAT is what's out of context.

[StrangeSox]

I won't refute this, however, I think it's you that's ignoring context here. You're seeing exactly what you want to see. I see the context as O'Reilly just stating what he believes is historical fact about a very specific thing. He's not the one stretching it to "all slavery", which is exactly what you're doing -- and THAT is what's out of context.

 

I've repeatedly said I didn't think he was stretching it to "all slavery," so I don't know why you keep repeating that. I'm limiting it to specifically the White House-building slaves, where he is still 1) factually incorrect and 2) even if he was correct, you still need to examine why he felt the need to bring up this 'fact' in response to Michelle Obama's speech. The context of it coming up in response to her speech is at the root of the problem, and you're not really addressing that.

[Quin]

Lmao at any defense or "it's ok cause" of slavery.

[Y2HH]

What liberal here pretends they're a centrist? For that matter, what conservative here does? I sure don't see myself or alpha trying to claim that label.

 

Most of the people on this forum. You may not claim to be 'centrist', but you claim to be rational. And as far as I'm concerned, if you stand staunchly on the left OR right, you aren't rational.

 

You're voting records would prove that, too. And I don't mean the bulls*** voting records people claim to have, but their real ones. As an example, I know plenty of people that claim Trump is a moron and they won't vote for him. They're going to tell people they voted for Johnson, but I know for a fact they're voting Trump. I also know quite a few secret Clinton supporters doing the same thing...after Sanders was out, they claimed Johnson or bust...but I know they'll vote for Clinton when it comes too it.

 

And until the day they die, they'll deny it.

 

As another example, anyone that claims Obama is a centrist, doesn't know what a centrist is. Obama isn't a centrist in any regard, not in his supreme court nominations thus far (mayyyyybe his last one, but he only did that because he knows it was his only minute shot at even getting it through, which didn't happen anyway...but sotomeyer couldn't be more leftist), and not in policy. The ONLY thing he's done that's centrist was the ACA and that wasn't because he wanted too...it's because he HAD to compromise it.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Y2HH

[bmags]

Fact Checking Michelle Obama:

HALF TRUE

 

Yes it was slaves, but it was the nicest kind of slavery. She should have said "I wake up in a house built by slaves that were treated very well, I mean, it was barely slavery, and see my daughters playing with their dog on the lawn, the dog, held against its will, is unpaid."

[Quin]

Most of the people on this forum. You may not claim to be 'centrist', but you claim to be rational. And as far as I'm concerned, if you stand staunchly on the left OR right, you aren't rational.

 

You're voting records would prove that, too. And I don't mean the bulls*** voting records people claim to have, but their real ones. As an example, I know plenty of people that claim Trump is a moron and they won't vote for him. They're going to tell people they voted for Johnson, but I know for a fact they're voting Trump. I also know quite a few secret Clinton supporters doing the same thing...after Sanders was out, they claimed Johnson or bust...but I know they'll vote for Clinton when it comes too it.

 

And until the day they die, they'll deny it.

 

As another example, anyone that claims Obama is a centrist, doesn't know what a centrist is. Obama isn't a centrist in any regard, not in his supreme court nominations thus far (mayyyyybe his last one, but he only did that because he knows it was his only minute shot at even getting it through, which didn't happen anyway...but sotomeyer couldn't be more leftist), and not in policy. The ONLY thing he's done that's centrist was the ACA and that wasn't because he wanted too...it's because he HAD to compromise it.

 

This guy.

[bigruss]

Again, why would he make that statement? What purpose does O'reilly saying that s*** besides being a troll or actually being a racist? There's just no need to bring up those "facts" in response to Michelle's speech.

[StrangeSox]

Most of the people on this forum. You may not claim to be 'centrist', but you claim to be rational. And as far as I'm concerned, if you stand staunchly on the left OR right, you aren't rational.

 

"Centrism is the only rational political ideology" is a pretty bad argument. I actually have more respect for people who have strongly held and coherent reasons for being a conservative than I do for "the answer must lay in the middle!" thoughtless political ideology. That's not to say that ending up between where the two parties happen to be at any given point in time is necessarily a bad thing, but there's nothing inherently good or noteworthy about finding yourself in that position. If both parties shifted rapidly and heavily rightward (leftward), and your positions shifted so that you still found yourself "in the middle," that wouldn't be the sign of a rational political viewpoint.

 

You're voting records would prove that, too. And I don't mean the bulls*** voting records people claim to have, but their real ones. As an example, I know plenty of people that claim Trump is a moron and they won't vote for him. They're going to tell people they voted for Johnson, but I know for a fact they're voting Trump. I also know quite a few secret Clinton supporters doing the same thing...after Sanders was out, they claimed Johnson or bust...but I know they'll vote for Clinton when it comes too it.

 

And until the day they die, they'll deny it.

 

You don't seem to be talking about anyone on this board, left or right, at least that I can recognize.

 

As another example, anyone that claims Obama is a centrist, doesn't know what a centrist is. Obama isn't a centrist in any regard, not in his supreme court nominations thus far (mayyyyybe his last one, but he only did that because he knows it was his only minute shot at even getting it through, which didn't happen anyway...but sotomeyer couldn't be more leftist), and not in policy. The ONLY thing he's done that's centrist was the ACA and that wasn't because he wanted too...it's because he HAD to compromise it.

 

Obama's been a mildly liberal President constrained at first by a handful of conservative/'moderate' Democrats in congress and then a fiercely oppositional Republican congress for the past five years. Kagan was a fairly moderate choice for SC, and Sotomayor was definitely to her left on most issues, but I wouldn't put either in the same "staunchly liberal" category as RGB.

Edited July 29, 2016 by StrangeSox