Moderator: Community Team
Don't count on actual legitimate answer from that guy, greek. He typically goes around insulting anyone who has the audacity to disagree with his views. If you take away his ability to go around childishly calling other people names he tries to turn the focus back on the person he's arguing against and make it look like they're the one with the problem.thegreekdog wrote:Anarkistsdream,
we can either continue on this merry-go-round of you insulting my intelligence and me insulting yours, or you can tell me IF YOU ACTUALLY THINK THE HEALTHCARE PROTESTORS ARE RACIST.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I hope we all become liberal drones.
Thanks, I figured.DangerBoy wrote:Don't count on actual legitimate answer from that guy, greek. He typically goes around insulting anyone who has the audacity to disagree with his views. If you take away his ability to go around childishly calling other people names he tries to turn the focus back on the person he's arguing against and make it look like they're the one with the problem.thegreekdog wrote:Anarkistsdream,
we can either continue on this merry-go-round of you insulting my intelligence and me insulting yours, or you can tell me IF YOU ACTUALLY THINK THE HEALTHCARE PROTESTORS ARE RACIST.
thegreekdog wrote:(2) You pointed out, originally, that you wanted some kind of proof that healthcare protestors were not racist. Does this seem a little strange to you? It does to me for two reasons. One, you presume to ask for evidence proving that people aren't racist. I think it would go the opposite way. In other words, you would presume people aren't racist and then ask for proof that they are. So, there's that.
Nice to see how on-topic this thread isNight Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:(2) You pointed out, originally, that you wanted some kind of proof that healthcare protestors were not racist. Does this seem a little strange to you? It does to me for two reasons. One, you presume to ask for evidence proving that people aren't racist. I think it would go the opposite way. In other words, you would presume people aren't racist and then ask for proof that they are. So, there's that.Very nice.
Here's the newsbusters story where MSNBC edited the clip of the black man carrying a weapon, and then used it to say "A man at a pro-health care reform rally...wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip....there are questions about whether this has racial overtones....white people showing up with guns."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drenn ... protesters
Who the hell are you to say anything about me? Another person who doesn't know me, nor has ever had a conversation with me, yet makes generic stereotypes because... Because what? I would like to see where you find that I have done this, without contributing anything legitimate to the conversation.DangerBoy wrote:Don't count on actual legitimate answer from that guy, greek. He typically goes around insulting anyone who has the audacity to disagree with his views. If you take away his ability to go around childishly calling other people names he tries to turn the focus back on the person he's arguing against and make it look like they're the one with the problem.thegreekdog wrote:Anarkistsdream,
we can either continue on this merry-go-round of you insulting my intelligence and me insulting yours, or you can tell me IF YOU ACTUALLY THINK THE HEALTHCARE PROTESTORS ARE RACIST.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:(2) You pointed out, originally, that you wanted some kind of proof that healthcare protestors were not racist. Does this seem a little strange to you? It does to me for two reasons. One, you presume to ask for evidence proving that people aren't racist. I think it would go the opposite way. In other words, you would presume people aren't racist and then ask for proof that they are. So, there's that.Very nice.
Here's the newsbusters story where MSNBC edited the clip of the black man carrying a weapon, and then used it to say "A man at a pro-health care reform rally...wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip....there are questions about whether this has racial overtones....white people showing up with guns."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drenn ... protesters
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
I totally understand your second paragraph. My only feelings are that the name-calling and stereotyping isn't new to this issue. Hell, the Conservatives bashed anti-war Democrats, calling them names and generally being bitches. God-loving military men and women have been brow-beating non-Christian soldiers for this entire war- I know that because one of my buddies is an atheist, and he got TONS of shit because he didn't believe in God, even though he was still risking his life in Iraq.thegreekdog wrote:Good, thanks Anarkistdream. I apologize for calling you ignorant. There, now that was easy.
I agree that there are different types of anti-universal healthcare "protestors" (for lack of a better term). You have the people who just don't like Democrats (probably the "racists" you're referring to, although I don't necessarily think they are racist per se). You have the insurance companies (who, I think, are actually going to really like whatever comes out as the healthcare plan). And you have people like me (libertarians, Rockefeller Republicans, whatever) who want some kind of change and/or universal healthcare, but did not agree with the former plan.
In sum, I see where you are coming from. However, you (and others, I don't want this to seem like I'm picking on you) are marginalizing the actual debate by calling healthcare protestors racist. This has been the tactic of President Obama's administration, the Democractic party in general, and various and sundry media outlets. Basically, the strategy is to make anyone who doesn't want the Democrats' plan seem like idiots, crazy people, or racists so that the moderate citizen will assume that the plan is good so they don't identify with idiots, crazy people, or racists. While that strategy is very sound (I think), it's very sneaky and not constructive to any kind of public debate about how best to cure our healthcare problems. So, I hope you'll understand my taking issue with you insinuating (in your first post) that all healthcare protestors are racist.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
and yet aside from the apology which you make every single post, you still sound like a douche who can't come up with any real evidence and is simply republican-bashing. Im saying this from a neutral stance as an observer on this debate.Anarkistsdream wrote:I totally understand your second paragraph. My only feelings are that the name-calling and stereotyping isn't new to this issue. Hell, the Conservatives bashed anti-war Democrats, calling them names and generally being bitches. God-loving military men and women have been brow-beating non-Christian soldiers for this entire war- I know that because one of my buddies is an atheist, and he got TONS of shit because he didn't believe in God, even though he was still risking his life in Iraq.thegreekdog wrote:Good, thanks Anarkistdream. I apologize for calling you ignorant. There, now that was easy.
I agree that there are different types of anti-universal healthcare "protestors" (for lack of a better term). You have the people who just don't like Democrats (probably the "racists" you're referring to, although I don't necessarily think they are racist per se). You have the insurance companies (who, I think, are actually going to really like whatever comes out as the healthcare plan). And you have people like me (libertarians, Rockefeller Republicans, whatever) who want some kind of change and/or universal healthcare, but did not agree with the former plan.
In sum, I see where you are coming from. However, you (and others, I don't want this to seem like I'm picking on you) are marginalizing the actual debate by calling healthcare protestors racist. This has been the tactic of President Obama's administration, the Democractic party in general, and various and sundry media outlets. Basically, the strategy is to make anyone who doesn't want the Democrats' plan seem like idiots, crazy people, or racists so that the moderate citizen will assume that the plan is good so they don't identify with idiots, crazy people, or racists. While that strategy is very sound (I think), it's very sneaky and not constructive to any kind of public debate about how best to cure our healthcare problems. So, I hope you'll understand my taking issue with you insinuating (in your first post) that all healthcare protestors are racist.
I mean, mud-slinging is part of any new legislation, especially when it is something this big.
I admit, the way I phrased my first long post should have been done better. It was easy to misunderstand what I typed and I apologize for taking such offense to it and not paying attention more to how I wrote my thoughts.

Yeah, but he held a "neutral stance" while saying it!!!1Timminz wrote:September 11th, 2009: this thread died.
May 31st, 2011: Vodean decides it's time to insult a member who has since left CC, while adding nothing to the discussion.
That's some serious dedication to a long-held grudge, if I've ever seen it. Not to mention, a ban-able offence.

I take serious issue with this idea that Democrats or Obama are calling anyone who disagrees "racist." In fact, it is essentially the opposite folks who don't like the Democrats, etc are quick to say any criticism of bias, hatred, etc is the same as calling them racists.. and therefore to be disregarded.thegreekdog wrote:
In sum, I see where you are coming from. However, you (and others, I don't want this to seem like I'm picking on you) are marginalizing the actual debate by calling healthcare protestors racist. This has been the tactic of President Obama's administration, the Democractic party in general, and various and sundry media outlets. Basically, the strategy is to make anyone who doesn't want the Democrats' plan seem like idiots, crazy people, or racists so that the moderate citizen will assume that the plan is good so they don't identify with idiots, crazy people, or racists. While that strategy is very sound (I think), it's very sneaky and not constructive to any kind of public debate about how best to cure our healthcare problems. .
So how did you dig it up? Did you just happen to be looking at page 123 in the forum?vodean wrote:i didn't check the post time on the other posts.
Actually, the race game is standard operating procedure for progressives.PLAYER57832 wrote:I take serious issue with this idea that Democrats or Obama are calling anyone who disagrees "racist." In fact, it is essentially the opposite folks who don't like the Democrats, etc are quick to say any criticism of bias, hatred, etc is the same as calling them racists.. and therefore to be disregarded.thegreekdog wrote:
In sum, I see where you are coming from. However, you (and others, I don't want this to seem like I'm picking on you) are marginalizing the actual debate by calling healthcare protestors racist. This has been the tactic of President Obama's administration, the Democractic party in general, and various and sundry media outlets. Basically, the strategy is to make anyone who doesn't want the Democrats' plan seem like idiots, crazy people, or racists so that the moderate citizen will assume that the plan is good so they don't identify with idiots, crazy people, or racists. While that strategy is very sound (I think), it's very sneaky and not constructive to any kind of public debate about how best to cure our healthcare problems. .
Both tactics (those who throw out racism without justification and those who claim just about any disagreement is an accusation of racism) are very harmful and merely serve to polarize and remove any real "debate" from the debate. (turning them into "he said..but he said" arguments instead).
On the plus side... I am just old enough to see great progress in the fact that calling someone a racist has become such a universally nasty thing. There was a day when calling someone "n***r" or shoving a black into only the most menial jobs, etc were all simply "how things were"... and a time that is still within many of our lifetimes.
So, angry though that debate is... it is still progress. So, maybe there is hope we can resolve this healthcare issue after all????
Phatscotty wrote:the race game is standard operating procedure for progressives.
Yes, it was pretty progressive to be opposed to lynching.. not sure how you got the idea that being progressive was a bad thing, though.Phatscotty wrote:Actually, the race game is standard operating procedure for progressives.PLAYER57832 wrote:I take serious issue with this idea that Democrats or Obama are calling anyone who disagrees "racist." In fact, it is essentially the opposite folks who don't like the Democrats, etc are quick to say any criticism of bias, hatred, etc is the same as calling them racists.. and therefore to be disregarded.thegreekdog wrote:
In sum, I see where you are coming from. However, you (and others, I don't want this to seem like I'm picking on you) are marginalizing the actual debate by calling healthcare protestors racist. This has been the tactic of President Obama's administration, the Democractic party in general, and various and sundry media outlets. Basically, the strategy is to make anyone who doesn't want the Democrats' plan seem like idiots, crazy people, or racists so that the moderate citizen will assume that the plan is good so they don't identify with idiots, crazy people, or racists. While that strategy is very sound (I think), it's very sneaky and not constructive to any kind of public debate about how best to cure our healthcare problems. .
Both tactics (those who throw out racism without justification and those who claim just about any disagreement is an accusation of racism) are very harmful and merely serve to polarize and remove any real "debate" from the debate. (turning them into "he said..but he said" arguments instead).
On the plus side... I am just old enough to see great progress in the fact that calling someone a racist has become such a universally nasty thing. There was a day when calling someone "n***r" or shoving a black into only the most menial jobs, etc were all simply "how things were"... and a time that is still within many of our lifetimes.
So, angry though that debate is... it is still progress. So, maybe there is hope we can resolve this healthcare issue after all????
It's been around for a long time, if you are just figuring this out now, congrats. Better late than never.
Bigger government, reliance upon government, enslavement by the government, choosing of which businesses/groups succeed and which ones fail, destroying free market system, increasing the power of the government, favoring international governments over our own governments, removing powers from the states, etc.PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, it was pretty progressive to be opposed to lynching.. not sure how you got the idea that being progressive was a bad thing, though.
Exageration and blinkered thinking are also pretty bad thingsNight Strike wrote:Bigger government, reliance upon government, enslavement by the government, choosing of which businesses/groups succeed and which ones fail, destroying free market system, increasing the power of the government, favoring international governments over our own governments, removing powers from the states, etc.PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, it was pretty progressive to be opposed to lynching.. not sure how you got the idea that being progressive was a bad thing, though.
I'd say those are all pretty bad things.
Where is the exaggeration?comic boy wrote:Exageration and blinkered thinking are also pretty bad thingsNight Strike wrote:Bigger government, reliance upon government, enslavement by the government, choosing of which businesses/groups succeed and which ones fail, destroying free market system, increasing the power of the government, favoring international governments over our own governments, removing powers from the states, etc.PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, it was pretty progressive to be opposed to lynching.. not sure how you got the idea that being progressive was a bad thing, though.
I'd say those are all pretty bad things.
I see, so if we give bare facts about industry everything bad is an "exception", but you are allowed to throw out these innane, not even truly defined innanities and gross exaggerations as if they were simply "fact">Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, it was pretty progressive to be opposed to lynching.. not sure how you got the idea that being progressive was a bad thing, though.
Just because I believe big government is bad doesn't make me "uneducated and unthinking". It's telling how the only people who can be considered educated are those who believe in progressive ideals. So much for the freedom of speech and ideas.PLAYER57832 wrote:I see, so if we give bare facts about industry everything bad is an "exception", but you are allowed to throw out these innane, not even truly defined innanities and gross exaggerations as if they were simply "fact">Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, it was pretty progressive to be opposed to lynching.. not sure how you got the idea that being progressive was a bad thing, though.
And you wonder why the right keeps getting labeled as "uneducated and unthinking?"![]()
![]()
You do real, thinking conservatives a gross disservice. (disagree with their ideas, though I often do).