Presidential Election: 2012

[CSLACR]

We'd not elect a Jew for different reasons.
We wouldn't vote for a Jew because it's ok to be racist against them yet. The only people we're allowed to be more racist against then Jews are white people. (some people don't even know Jews aren't white )

Do you realize how many people voted for Obama because it made them feel better about themselves to vote for a "black guy"?

 

[Keef]

...but is that not the police being racist, and not the law itself?

It is the police/judicial system being racist. The answer to this problem is simple. If the law didn't exist in the first place, there would be no opportunity for law enforcement to treat certain groups unfairly.

Could you imagine a Jew being elected President? I can't.

As an American of German heritage, I find this statement coming from you hilarious.

Aw hell. Now I'll get flamed for being anti-semitic.

Addendum: I appreciate your informative post Keef, but I do have a good general knowledge of American politics/history and did know most of the historical points in your post. I certainly don't claim to be an expert so I like asking questions. I was trying to find out more about racism in the law today, as Ron Paul spoke about. But yeah, ta anyway; it always makes for interesting reading about a country which claims to be Land Of The Free (Man) etc. but has had a horrible history of opression.

From it's conception, the Constitution has been as close to flawless as any document in human history. There was no need for the Civil Rights Act, as the Constitution already had provisions for every individual. The problem was that, at one time, whites thought blacks were animals, not people. Therefore, since the rights only applied to people, blacks were excluded. Do you get that dumb 250 year old logic? That's just the way it was back then. Today, gay people are the black people from 100 years ago. Gay rights is just as big an issue as black rights. But like I've said many times, rights apply to individuals, not groups, so the whole argument about black/gay/minority/religious rights is totally pointless anyway.


EDIT:

 

[Liquid]

Looks like Mitt Romney is the puppet candidate.

 

[FoolKiller]

I was more interested in what Ron Paul meant by the drug laws being racist. We 'know' that it's a 'fact' that minorities are arrested and prosecuted more often as a result of crime (Inverted commas because I don't have the exact figures to hand but it's a commonly spouted notion), but is that not the police being racist, and not the law itself? Where is it in the drug law that is specifically targeted/aimed at/oppresive towards minorities? It seems to me that it is the law enforcers like the police who are commiting the racial acts. I'm asking this as an outsider to the full picture.

Watch the video again. Ron Paul says it is the judicial enforcement of these laws that show racial bias, and because of that he thinks they should be changed or repealed.

Could you imagine a Jew being elected President? I can't.

We had one come very close to being vice president, and later win a Senate seat running as an independent.

I am speaking of Senator Joe Lieberman. Based on his record, I would think that a Jew could do alright.

Of course, the current media darling Republican front runner is a Mormon, and I know plenty of Christians who find Mormons to be just a step above a cult, and often confuse them with the Jehovah's Witnesses that annoyingly go door to door. Heck, considering how much the South Park creators make fun of them, I'll be surprised if Romney gets any of the young vote.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What a weard way of spelling it.

You got me I've been making typos all over the place, but I've finally slept so hopefully that will help me spell like I'm suppose to.

 

[Keef]

You got me I've been making typos all over the place, but I've finally slept so hopefully that will help me spell like I'm suppose to.

*supposed

 

[Liquid]

And if we're being pedantic, there should be either a comma or a full stop between "You got me" and "I've been making".

But that's neither here nor there...

 

[Dapper]

What is "modern republican ideology"?

History does a mind good. 👍

Do you realize how many people voted for Obama because it made them feel better about themselves to vote for a "black guy"?

Enlighten us, please, and tell us how many.

Considering the options at the time, a person educated at one of the world's premiere universities or a POW, it seems overtly ludicrous you think anyone voted for him because he was black and that "made them feel better about themselves"... and he is 1/2 white remember, raised by a white woman.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

*supposed

Well guess I'm still not fully alert.

 

[Keef]

it seems overtly ludicrous you think anyone voted for him because he was black

^ Al Sharpton thinks the GOP rigged the election to keep blacks from voting for Obama, insinuating that he would win because blacks vote for him because he's black.



There are numerous other videos showing interviews of people who know absolutely nothing about politics, get McCain and Obama policies mixed up, or just plain don't care either way, saying their voting for Obama. There were quite a few young white kids who voted for him based on color because they thought it was "time for a black president".



^ Black man telling the truth.

 

[Dapper]

There are numerous other videos showing interviews of people who know absolutely nothing about politics, get McCain and Obama policies mixed up, or just plain don't care either way, saying their voting for Obama. There were quite a few young white kids who voted for him based on color because they thought it was "time for a black president".

You denounce the Civil Rights act.
And you think Obama was the first black person to run for office? more

Homophones

 

[CSLACR]

History does a mind good. 👍

I asked you, what you think. (that doesn't mean google it, or copy someone else's words)
Why is that to much to ask?

Considering the options at the time, a person educated at one of the world's premiere universities or a POW, it seems overtly ludicrous you think anyone voted for him because he was black and that "made them feel better about themselves"... and he is 1/2 white remember, raised by a white woman.

All I hear people and the media say is "black".
Of course if you mean "if he was a rapper, he'd be called half-white", I agree.

He's president, so people want him to be black, they did before he was president. So he's just "black".
If he were a rapper, then people wouldn't be so concerned, and if you called him black, people would be quick to say "hey, he's half white you know".

It's called racism.

You denounce the Civil Rights act.
And you think Obama was the first black person to run for office? more

Homophones

Of course, any black man that doesn't defend the black president is "acting white". Yeah I got that.

Are you a racist? You sound like a full-blooded racist.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The first video Keef is satire.

 

[Dapper]

I asked you, what you think. (that doesn't mean google it, or copy someone else's words)
Why is that to much to ask?

It is not an opinion.

All I hear people and the media say is "black".
Of course if you mean "if he was a rapper, he'd be called half-white", I agree.

He's president, so people want him to be black, they did before he was president. So he's just "black".
If he were a rapper, then people wouldn't be so concerned, and if you called him black, people would be quick to say "hey, he's half white you know".

It's called racism.

You lost me.

Of course, any black man that doesn't defend the black president is "acting white". Yeah I got that.

Are you a racist? You sound like a full-blooded racist.

Of course what? I can't figure out what you are responding to, much less figure out how you arrived at I am a racist. So explain how pointing out that another member is against the Civil Rights act and that there have been several black people that have run for president leads you to believe I am racist.

Upon another reading, I find your post utterly incoherent.
edit- I'll save myself the wait for another incomprehensible post. You said -

Do you realize how many people voted for Obama because it made them feel better about themselves to vote for a "black guy"?

and I assumed that to mean a lot, but you never addressed this. For that to be true it would have to be the first time a black person ran for president, but it isn't true and there have been several black people that have run for president. If voting for a candidate because he was black was a reason then the demographic you've yet to specify would've voted for the black candidate the 1/2 dozen other times a black person ran for president. Now try and make some sense out of your last post.

 

[CSLACR]

Homophones.
I'm not stupid, I know what you meant.

This was the first time people believed the black man had a chance. Because they believed he had a chance, they voted for him, cause, "it was about time we had a black president".
I'm not saying all, or even most. I'm saying enough to decide the election.
Pure speculated opinion based on what I saw and heard out of people over the past 4 years.

If I see and hear a lot say it, there's probably more. You don't always need "proof" to believe something, or even be right.
See the "God" thread for more perspective on that.

 

[Sach]

Are you on the sauce?

 

[Dapper]

Homophones.
I'm not stupid, I know what you meant.

I guess you didn't read Keef's post, or you don't know what a homophone is despite being linked to the definition. And if you being stupid or not is based on knowing what I meant, this isn't looking too good (for you). What did you quote from me that's a homophone besides 'for'? To be more succinct, how did you arrive at me being a racist?

This was the first time people believed the black man had a chance. Because they believed he had a chance, they voted for him, cause, "it was about time we had a black president".
I'm not saying all, or even most. I'm saying enough to decide the election.
Pure speculated opinion based on what I saw and heard out of people over the past 4 years.

Oh, I thought you knew what you were talking about. And who said those quotes?

 

[CSLACR]

I guess you didn't read Keef's post, or you don't know what a homophone is despite being linked to the definition. And if you being stupid or not is based on knowing what I meant, this isn't looking too good (for you). What did you quote from me that's a homophone besides 'for'? To be more succinct, how did you arrive at me being a racist?

Oh, I thought you knew what you were talking about. And who said those quotes?

You'll have to forgive me, I thought you were actually being clever.

But from what you're saying now, it seems it was a simple grammar correction, and that's not clever at all.

But I guess that's what you do when you demand proof of something, receive 5 videos, and still ask for proof.

And who said those quotes?

Google it.
I already said, but I'm sure you can find something if you look.

 

[Dapper]

I'm not stupid, I know what you meant.

You'll have to forgive me...

Calling someone stupid is against our rules. Showing that someone is stupid is not.

Luckily for me, I don't have to do either.

 

[Joey D]

We'd not elect a Jew for different reasons.
We wouldn't vote for a Jew because it's ok to be racist against them yet. The only people we're allowed to be more racist against then Jews are white people. (some people don't even know Jews aren't white )

I'm not sure whether your are being purposely anti-semitic or you are being ignorant. It's not OK to be racist against any group of people.

Also since when can't white people be Jewish? Judaism is a religion, not a racial group. I happen to know a decent number of white Jewish people, along with many other skin colours. You're basically saying that if you're Catholic, you can't be white. It makes zero sense.

Are you a racist? You sound like a full-blooded racist.

I'd like to propose the same question to you.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not mudslinging and I don't really see how it becomes that oblivious to you? It's not hard to understand, you make a claim and then at the end you push it off saying you've explained all this in another thread, yet you haven't given us a link or a quote or anything to show us what you really mean. So you leave it to us to find your claim and to fact check the claim your making with your own words, when in fact you could just do the responsible thing in a debate and linked us to it. I don't really understand what is so wrong in asking for that.

Do you actually want to talk about abortion?

Once upon a time just making something illegal in the federal penal code was unacceptable because of state sovereignty, so that when the federal government wished to make something illegal they amended the Constitution, which requires state involvement. Today they just add it to the penal code and claim supremacy. Do you see a problem with that at all?

Yes.

...but the concept makes sense anyway - even if the procedure leaves something to be desired.

I am not trying to say supremacy doesn't exist today and doesn't now trump the 10th Amendment, but rather that it shouldn't.

I see a problem with that too though. Supremacy basically establishes the constitution as rules for all states. So you can't do away with it. Your issue is that you'd like to see things in the federal penal code listed instead in the constitution through the amendment process. I agree that that would be preferable.

If we are drawing an arbitrary line to determine the legality of abortion, why wouldn't allowing each state to determine their own arbitrary line be the same? Each state defines cruel and unusual punishment differently, some to the point of having no death penalty while others do. There is a very old precedent for states to define the arbitrary details in defining how they handle Constitutional rights. By the definition of California, Texas practices cruel and unusual punishment. As it is a Constitutional right should all forms of punishment prescribed for specific crimes be federally mandated?

There's a difference between prescribing punishment and determining who qualifies for protection under the law. One is a human rights issue, the other is a more arbitrary decision. Lots of things can fit with the cruel and unusual description - meaning Texas and CA can have different rules and still be in compliance.

There is an arbitrary nature to sentencing, but not so much when it comes to prescribing human rights.

See the abortion issue is not about defining murder, but rather defining when a fetus becomes legally protected by the laws of the land. What Texas considers murder California may consider a medical procedure

Who is protected by law (including murder laws) is a federal responsibility - not arbitrary. Otherwise states can simply say "white people are protected by law, and black people are not".

Am I right in thinking that the Federal penal code simply should not exist, because defining crimes and their punishments is a State issue?

Where it regards rights, it should be a federal issue (regardless of whether it is implemented in the penal code). A minimum and maximum punishment may also be in order, but it is arbitrary to a point.

 

[Tornado]

I'm not sure whether your are being purposely anti-semitic or you are being ignorant. It's not OK to be racist against any group of people.

Pretty sure he was being facetious based on the context.

Also since when can't white people be Jewish? Judaism is a religion, not a racial group. I happen to know a decent number of white Jewish people, along with many other skin colours. You're basically saying that if you're Catholic, you can't be white. It makes zero sense.

Judaism is a religion rather than a racial divide. To be Jewish can mean you are either one or both. Don't want to be the guy to invoke Godwin here, but racial antisemetism (as opposed to religious antisemetism) was the entire thing the Holocaust was based around.


You can't be an ethnic Catholic (as far as I'm aware). You can be ethnically Jewish, and what religion you practice doesn't really matter.

 

[Joey D]

Judaism is a religion rather than a racial divide. To be Jewish can mean you are either or both. Don't want to be the guy to invoke Godwin here, but racial antisemetism (as opposed to religious antisemetism) was the entire thing the Holocaust was based around.

You can't be an ethnic Catholic (as far as I'm aware). You can be ethnically Jewish, and what religion you practice doesn't really matter.

Correct it's an ethnic group, not a race. You can be a white Jew, a black Jew, an Asian Jew (I know all three) or however else you label people. Race is typically determined by physical traits while ethnicity is determined more by cultural traits, although race is a set of labels that makes no sense.

I guess a better example would be that of an African American. Saying an African American can't be white is wrong. You can easily be white and African American at the same time, my friend from South Africa will attest to that.

I'm probably being to much of an anthropology nerd here and going to much into the statement. I also am more then likely reading to much into it so I'll admit I might be off target.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Do you actually want to talk about abortion?



.

No, since we've obviously moved past that on this thread. The key point to what I'm saying and the point you seem to be ignoring is that you should actually show what you mean in a debate no matter the subject and not just give a vague opinion then tell us that's not what you meant, all the while still not giving info to what you truly meant in the first place. You said it's fine because a unborn child doesn't have a grasp on respecting other people's rights, but it still doesn't have any concept of that a year or two after it's born either. So with your words one could take that and say aborting or killing a year old to two year old baby is justified, due to it not being able to view and respect the rights of other people. This is what we all wanted cleared up and you shuffled it off, to "well I've explained all this in another thread".

Then you say it's against AUP to talk about that subject in this thread, which quite honestly is a thread that will host a broad variety of subjects. Nor did you give the AUP rule that was in violation. Point is either debate the topic at hand with respect to those against or for what you're saying, or just don't debate it at all; or half heartedly debate it and then leave a gap for us to fill only for you to say no that's not what I meant, like we're mind readers. All I'm asking and I'm sure others too.

 

[Danoff]

No

I didn't think so. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about a little thing like hopping threads.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I didn't think so. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about a little thing like hopping threads.

Wow you do a great job of avoiding everything else as usual. If you want to argue abortion than by all means we can. I already pointed out why I'm complaining about it, if you're purposefully going to be ignorant that's your problem.

 

[Danoff]

Wow you do a great job of avoiding everything else as usual. If you want to argue abortion than by all means we can. I already pointed out why I'm complaining about it, if you're purposefully going to be ignorant that's your problem.

Check the abortion thread, I posted there for you.

 

[YSSMAN]

Benefiting one group at the expense of another actually harms both of them. Unfair legislation like this promotes group warfare, class warfare, racism against groups who are benefiting unfairly, and racism from groups who now feel entitled to special benefits from the rest of society.

I do not entirely disagree with your point, but, do you really think things would have improved for minorities, women and those with disabilities without the laws put forward at that time? Do you really think we're that much worse off because of it?

Affirmative Action is another textbook example of this. Good intentions implemented terribly, because government has no business doling out group rights, because right apply to individuals only.

Affirmative Action has been taken to extremes in a wide variety of ways, and that's why we removed the laws from the books here in Michigan back in 2006 (Those hippies in California got rid of it as well).

That being said, as someone who deals with employment law (in reference to your example posted earlier), you have to have a legitimate reason for choosing that other candidate other than race when making a final determination. You are not required in any way to choose the minority over another by law. The corporation may have its own system of giving favor to a minority, but that is their own decision.

Now, we can debate how unfair it is, and generally, I would agree... But, the point of it isn't lost. Both you and I are white, middle-class, educated males and by most measures of the system, we end up being the one's disadvantaged. But, because we are white, middle-class, educated males... We still have a leg-up on a wide variety of people, regardless of the situation.

 

[hambone8611]

I do not entirely disagree with your point, but, do you really think things would have improved for minorities, women and those with disabilities without the laws put forward at that time? Do you really think we're that much worse off because of it?



Affirmative Action has been taken to extremes in a wide variety of ways, and that's why we removed the laws from the books here in Michigan back in 2006 (Those hippies in California got rid of it as well).

That being said, as someone who deals with employment law (in reference to your example posted earlier), you have to have a legitimate reason for choosing that other candidate other than race when making a final determination. You are not required in any way to choose the minority over another by law. The corporation may have its own system of giving favor to a minority, but that is their own decision.

Now, we can debate how unfair it is, and generally, I would agree... But, the point of it isn't lost. Both you and I are white, middle-class, educated males and by most measures of the system, we end up being the one's disadvantaged. But, because we are white, middle-class, educated males... We still have a leg-up on a wide variety of people, regardless of the situation.

Yup , as an employer I can certainly hire and fire anybody I chose, I can refuse business from whomever I chose on an individual level however I cannot put a policy in place against a race black or white or any other and neither can any one of another race that law goes in all directions .

 

[FoolKiller]

it seems overtly ludicrous you think anyone voted for him because he was black

Just as ludicrous as the people that said how proud they were that a black man won the election, and never followed with why he would be a good president.

There's a difference between prescribing punishment and determining who qualifies for protection under the law. One is a human rights issue, the other is a more arbitrary decision. Lots of things can fit with the cruel and unusual description - meaning Texas and CA can have different rules and still be in compliance.

So, since we are determining whether a fetus/baby's rights trump that of a mother's or not based on an arbitrary line why not allow that arbitrary decision be made on a state level? We let states determine where the arbitrary line on other rights belongs, to the point of killing people.

There is an arbitrary nature to sentencing,

Which plays on both sides of the homicide line.

Who is protected by law (including murder laws) is a federal responsibility - not arbitrary. Otherwise states can simply say "white people are protected by law, and black people are not".

But if the federal law stated that a group is not protected, as it currently does on abortion, the states would be allowed to create their own laws, within the boundaries of their own constitutions, protecting that group.

Heck, taking the black/white example, just the lack of federal enforcement pre-Civil War meant some states allowed and others disallowed slavery. Would you argue that pre-Civil war outlawing slavery wasn't a state right? And a similar issue in regards to other rights recognition were decided on a state level pre-Civil Rights Act. Again, should states have been prevented from allowing mix-raced schools and businesses?

Or now, with gay marriage. Because there is not a federal protection allowing gay marriage, should we go the Santorum route (wow, talk about irony - sorry, I'm just really immature) and prevent states from allowing gay marriage? Or on the other side, should federal law prevent states from creating laws that cause religious charitable institutions to not be able to continue their work in a way that is in accordance with their beliefs, as was done to Catholic orphanages in Massachusetts?


If there are going to have rights decisions made by arbitrary lines then perhaps that line is best left at a local level. It at least gives those who disagree with one arbitrary line other options.