Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Were he using personal attacks to refute arguments, he would indeed be guilty of ad hominems. But he isn't, he merely adds insults to rile up the other party to post stupid things. A hostile tone is not the same as an ad hominem argument.

I do think that if he were more confident in his arguments or his ability to argue, he would not use personal attacks. The problem with Sultan is that while most people use things like "urgay" and "suck it," Sultan likes to use an extensive vocabulary. While I love well-thought-out flames as much as the next person, I think a lot of people refuse to call him out because he uses an extensive vocabulary. Oh well, it doesn't really matter, except that GabonX is wrong. I wish I had the wherewithal to search through all of Sultan's posts to find some ad hominems, but I don't care enough.

GabonX wrote:All right, riddle me this..

..If the purpose of an insult when included in the context of a debate is not to discredit the person, what is the purpose of the insult?

thegreekdog wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:Strangely enough, the white population did ok, probably because the only police to be found were on the Mississippi Bridge, the Causeway Bridge, and a couple points on the parish line manning armed barricades that kept the negroes contained in New Orleans and out of the white folks hoods.

Wow... that's freaking nuts. Why didn't the police let everyone into the safe spots? You'd think the police wouldn't barricade hungry, thirsty people whose homes were just washed away. I don't think there's enough of an outcry about that shit.

Honibaz, were you there when the levee broke? What was it like where you were?

mpjh wrote:Your logic is pathetically inadequate. This area has a long history of racial segregation with violent enforcement. These guys were local cops keeping blacks out of white areas. On one bridge several black men were shot down, unarmed, for trying to cross the bridge into a white area. If you can't see the racism in that, well you are blinded by your own racism. Also, you are stupid.

mpjh wrote:Your logic is pathetically inadequate. This area has a long history of racial segregation with violent enforcement. These guys were local cops keeping blacks out of white areas. On one bridge several black men were shot down, unarmed, for trying to cross the bridge into a white area. If you can't see the racism in that, well you are blinded by your own racism. Also, you are stupid.

Nobunaga wrote:

mpjh wrote: Also, you are stupid.

....because Nobunaga is stupid!

b.k. barunt wrote:Bottom line, no other group of Americans (well, maybe Indians) would have been left without food and water and forced to wander a highway in the Louisiana summer heat like that. 5 fooking days! Bush showed his utter disdain for these people by his halfassed response, and my respect for nobunga's political savvy just dropped a good bit. This isn't about right and left, it's about common human decency.
Honibaz

KLOBBER wrote:Not to change the subject, but Gabby, can you please share with us how it feels to be repeatedly lambasted, trounced, and crushed into the ground by multiple debate opponents? I imagine it must suck!

By the way, you're wrong.

b.k. barunt wrote:I see Nobunga's still trying to play down Bush's role and blame it on local politicians. Another typical right wing pushthisbuttonwhenallelsefails - quick point a finger at a racist democrat (Byrd). Does Byrd's racism negate the racism of George Bush? Wtf?

Bottom line, no other group of Americans (well, maybe Indians) would have been left without food and water and forced to wander a highway in the Louisiana summer heat like that. 5 fooking days! Bush showed his utter disdain for these people by his halfassed response, and my respect for nobunga's political savvy just dropped a good bit. This isn't about right and left, it's about common human decency.


Honibaz

mpjh wrote:Compare two responses, 911 and Katrina. One group victims got millions in cash. free psychiatric care, and almost hero status. The other is still living in temporary housing, while perfectly good low income housing is vacant. One group is largely middle class and white, one is largely black and poor. I look to results to determine racism. Our federal government headed by Bush was racist in how it acted.

GabonX wrote:There was a lot of money put towards the victims of Katrina as well as the 9/11 victims families. If you want to use this as evidence you need to find the figures which indicate exactly who got what, and whether it was the federal government or the state that gave it to them, otherwise there is no weight to this argument.

Just out of curisosity, if Bush was racist how do you explain his choice to work with African Americans, Latinos, etc. and how do you explain his friendly relationship with the current President?

lgoasklucyl wrote:

GabonX wrote:There was a lot of money put towards the victims of Katrina as well as the 9/11 victims families. If you want to use this as evidence you need to find the figures which indicate exactly who got what, and whether it was the federal government or the state that gave it to them, otherwise there is no weight to this argument.

-Have you read the book on Feinberg's policy? The ONLY reason the administration awarded the families such great sums was to avoid law suits with the airlines. Otherwise, they would have been left out in the cold like the Victims of the Oklahoma City Bombing were.
There you go. It was to avoid lawsuits, not a sign of racism.

Just out of curisosity, if Bush was racist how do you explain his choice to work with African Americans, Latinos, etc. and how do you explain his friendly relationship with the current President?

-If you were the leader of a country who had gotten their through half-assed means and knew the greater percent of the country did NOT want you in office, do you think you would elect and entirely white cabinet?
As evidenced by his record of political sensitivity?

He appointed these people because they worked with his father. His father was not racist and neither was he.
Do you seriously think he elected/holds relationships with minority individuals through a lack of racism? No. He HAS to employ these individuals to save his own pathetic image.

It's not his cabinet choices that express his ideology, it's his action re. Katrina and AIDs funding.
If he was really so worried about public opinion it's pretty dense to think that he would appoint African Americans to senior positions but would intentionally not respond to New Orleans. Your position is just not logical.

There's nothing to indicate that Bush was pandering other than your own bias towards the man. Also, what are you referring to when you talk about aids funding? Isn't it racist for you to associate aids with black people?

You've yet to explain his friendly relationship with Obama.

GabonX wrote:

lgoasklucyl wrote:

GabonX wrote:There was a lot of money put towards the victims of Katrina as well as the 9/11 victims families. If you want to use this as evidence you need to find the figures which indicate exactly who got what, and whether it was the federal government or the state that gave it to them, otherwise there is no weight to this argument.

-Have you read the book on Feinberg's policy? The ONLY reason the administration awarded the families such great sums was to avoid law suits with the airlines. Otherwise, they would have been left out in the cold like the Victims of the Oklahoma City Bombing were.
There you go. It was to avoid lawsuits, not a sign of racism.

Just out of curisosity, if Bush was racist how do you explain his choice to work with African Americans, Latinos, etc. and how do you explain his friendly relationship with the current President?

-If you were the leader of a country who had gotten their through half-assed means and knew the greater percent of the country did NOT want you in office, do you think you would elect and entirely white cabinet?
As evidenced by his record of political sensitivity?

He appointed these people because they worked with his father. His father was not racist and neither was he.
Do you seriously think he elected/holds relationships with minority individuals through a lack of racism? No. He HAS to employ these individuals to save his own pathetic image.

It's not his cabinet choices that express his ideology, it's his action re. Katrina and AIDs funding.
If he was really so worried about public opinion it's pretty dense to think that he would appoint African Americans to senior positions but would intentionally not respond to New Orleans. Your position is just not logical.

There's nothing to indicate that Bush was pandering other than your own bias towards the man. Also, what are you referring to when you talk about aids funding? Isn't it racist for you to associate aids with black people?

You've yet to explain his friendly relationship with Obama.

GabonX wrote:

mpjh wrote:Compare two responses, 911 and Katrina. One group victims got millions in cash. free psychiatric care, and almost hero status. The other is still living in temporary housing, while perfectly good low income housing is vacant. One group is largely middle class and white, one is largely black and poor. I look to results to determine racism. Our federal government headed by Bush was racist in how it acted.

So I suppose the Democrat controlled Congress is racist as well.