Obama's youth training. [modified]

[Lost User]

This guy is such a pisser, seeing backwards racist comments everyday tend to get annoying quite often.

[Oakman]

EliottA wrote:

This guy is such a pisser, seeing backwards racist comments everyday tend to get annoying quite often.

He's a troll. He says whatever seems to get him the most response. The good news is that one of the regs, Diego Moita, has created a grease monkey script for CP, if you use FF, that blocks the posts of any one you find annoying. Diegio's Script[^] About GreaseMonkey[^] (Just in case it is new to you)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

I'm addicted to Chrome, but to dodge this bastards posts I just might switch.

[Oakman]

IIRC he and Ilion are, by default, blocked, so the script is r-t-r.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Oakman wrote:

Does this mean you are taking responsibility for Australia, too?

I suppose that onus, too, must fall upon us. :sigh: (BTW: That was a London 'mate', mate. Not an Oz 'mate'.)

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

I suppose that onus, too, must fall upon us.

Not only that, but the USA is your fault, too.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Go on, heap our heads with coals of fire.

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

Go on, heap our heads with coals of fire.

Okay - it's your fault the Crusades happened and permanently pissed off the Muslims.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

This is because you have decided that Tony Dungey is a flaming liberal? That Wesley Powell is a Muslim appeaser? And that even though it is the Blacks who are being blamed for voting in the anti-gay marriage law in California - the same Blacks who went 9:1 for Obama - they really are not good Christians? When did Armstrong Williams and JC Watts become left-wing? Naturally most dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, regardless of skin color, are lukewarm towards Obama at best. To single out Black Conservatives and demand that they put skin color before political commitment is a slight bit of racism, isn't it? Can't Blacks be allowed to stay true to their beliefs, or is that reserved for Whites?

I actually have no clue what you are talking about. My point was that if it were simply a matter of the black community supporting black candidates, they would be supporting conservatives as much as they do liberal blacks. They don't. Clearly, the issue isnt', as Christian implied, a racial issue. It is a political issue. Blacks supported Obama in such large numbers primarily because of their perspective of his political agenda, and not because he is black.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

The people that champion that philosophy will eventually succumb to the evidence that it is stupid and doesn't work; that's the scientific way of doing it. Remember science? That thing you constantly malign and pervert despite your dubious assertions that you trust in it?

So, your saying that science disproves racism? That we are all exactly the same? Thats the scientific conclusion?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

I simply refuse to accept that racism is a moral issue. There is no moral code of ehtics to which I am in any way obligated to subsribe which mandates that I acknowledge that all ethnic groups are the same. Is trying to extreminate people becuase you think you are better than them immoral? You betcha. Is making slaves out of people because they are not of the same race you are immoral? Yep. But is it immoral for me as an individual to simply not wish to associate with people based upon whatever damned criteria I like, racial or otherwise? Nope. Not a bit. And I refuse to subject myself to any such code of ethics.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I simply refuse to accept that racism is a moral issue.

Of course not. By claiming that racism is simply recognizing that different ethnic groups do not share cookie-cutter similarity, you set up a marvelous strawman for you to feel virtuous while attacking.

Stan Shannon wrote:

But is it immoral for me as an individual to simply not wish to associate with people based upon whatever damned criteria I like, racial or otherwise?

Ahh, yes, and then you use your perversion of Jefforson to justify legislating "separate but equal" schools, and separate public restrooms, and no blacks served in this restaurant, and "all them darkies can sit in the balcony." Pretty soon no upppity nigra will dare look at a white woman, in your little paradise, will they, Stan?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Blacks supported Obama in such large numbers primarily because of their perspective of his political agenda.

Because the Republican party, starting in the sixties made a conscious play for the most racist elements of Dixie. The Republican candidate voted against honoring MLK and saying "oh gee, if I had known I was going to run for President against a black man, I never would've done that," didn't get him off the hook. On the other hand, any black political agenda was more embraced by Clinton than Obama, and there could have been no question of how closely she supported the political aspirations of the black community. If it was not a racial issue, she would have received much more support by the blacks than she did and would have been the nominee, I suspect.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[soap brain]

Stan Shannon wrote:

So, your saying that science disproves racism? That we are all exactly the same? Thats the scientific conclusion?

Actually, if you weren't in such a haste to vilify both myself and the scientific method, you'd have realised that that is actually the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Everyone is different - problem is, people like you take that to mean 'some people (my people) are superior to others'.

[Stan Shannon]

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

people like you take that to mean 'some people (my people) are superior to others'.

When have I ever even suggested that? However, I would argue that any moral of legal restraint upon the more intelligent among us from systematically exterminating the less so is obviously a repudiation of evolutionary theory.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[soap brain]

Stan Shannon wrote:

When have I ever even suggested that?

You're fixated on the idea.

Stan Shannon wrote:

However, I would argue that any moral of legal restraint upon the more intelligent among us from systematically exterminating the less so is obviously a repudiation of evolutionary theory.

I would argue that you're a simpleton. Evolution is NOT a moral framework, and doesn't dictate how you should act. It's like saying we should get all our buddies together and enforce electromagnetism. It's not morally right or wrong to break its laws, it's simply impossible. You're saying that intelligence is the only positive quality a person could have, undoubtedly because you fancy yourself a genius.

[Lost User]

That was the French. We just tagged along for the remission of our sins.

Bob Emmett

[Oakman]

Bob Emmett wrote:

That was the French

They just went along to carry the white flags.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface