Mel Watt promoted by Obama

[Sinfix_15]

Newest promotion handed out by Obama. There seems to be a trend with Obama's selection process, but i cant quite put my finger on it just yet.

Mel Watt: Majority of whites won't vote for black candidate | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/01/obama-housing-nominee-most-white-people-wont-vote-for-black-candidate-should-be-excluded-from-democratic-process/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

[Vteckidd]

This guy is a race pimp, a slug, a slimeball.

I love the racist black position that you solve claimed segregation by...................segregation.

idiots

[Sinfix_15]

This guy is a race pimp, a slug, a slimeball.

I love the racist black position that you solve claimed segregation by...................segregation.

idiots

The type of man the Obama administration wants.

[Vteckidd]

He has a history of hiring black supremacists/ extreme radicals

[RandomGuy]

ooor a pointless talking point created to spawn even more useless news headlines/ media discussions /etc...

I think there's a LOT more serious stuff going on

[Vteckidd]

Obama doesn't vet people well who he hires oR appoints.

I mean i won't lose sleep ofver this, but as a white male I'm kinda tired of being called a racist .

[Vteckidd]

If a white candidate said "most black people wouldn't vote for a white candidate"

There would be outrage and racism charges. Its the double standard we live in

[Sinfix_15]

Obama doesn't vet people well who he hires oR appoints.

I mean i won't lose sleep ofver this, but as a white male I'm kinda tired of being called a racist .

Being anti-white has become politically correct. As a white person, if you're not actively promoting the eradication of your own race, you're a racist.

[.blank cd]

If a white candidate said "most black people wouldn't vote for a white candidate"

There would be outrage and racism charges. Its the double standard we live inThere wouldn't be outrage. It would just be incorrect. Black people have voted for white candidates since black people were allowed to vote. No one would ever say that.


Being anti-white has become politically correct. As a white person, if you're not actively promoting the eradication of your own race, you're a racist.Thank you, Derek Vinyard.

[Vteckidd]

There wouldn't be outrage. It would just be incorrect. Black people have voted for white candidates since black people were allowed to vote. No one would ever say that.



This guy is also, "incorrect". Isnt that pretty much what Romney said in 2012? "There is a certain section of the voting population who depend on the govt and wont vote for me". he never even MENTIONED race yet was called racist.

Why make broad, inherently WRONG generalizations?

I disagree, if a GOP person was nominated for something and the left dug up a soundbite where he said that, it would be headline news. What he said doesnt bother me, its that The president of the united states feels that someone with this point of view (which is divisive and racially charged) is fit to serve in a high ranking position.

But, Obama has never had the best judgement

[Sinfix_15]

There wouldn't be outrage. It would just be incorrect. Black people have voted for white candidates since black people were allowed to vote. No one would ever say that.

You like statistics.... let's put statistics to work on evaluating the racial bias between voters in elections..... i think the statistics will not only show the opposite to be true, but also make Watt's comments appear asinine.


Thank you, Derek Vinyard.

Ed Norton is a great actor.

[.blank cd]

This guy is also, "incorrect". Isnt that pretty much what Romney said in 2012? "There is a certain section of the voting population who depend on the govt and wont vote for me". he never even MENTIONED race yet was called racist.

Why make broad, inherently WRONG generalizations?It may not be a majority of whites, but there's still some voters who will not vote for a black candidate. That's a fact. And it may be more sizable than some will admit.


I disagree, if a GOP person was nominated for something and the left dug up a soundbite where he said that, it would be headline news. What he said doesnt bother me, its that The president of the united states feels that someone with this point of view (which is divisive and racially charged) is fit to serve in a high ranking position.You believe acknowledging that racism still exists, which it does, is racially divisive?

[Sinfix_15]

It may not be a majority of whites, but there's still some voters who will not vote for a black candidate. That's a fact. And it may be more sizable than some will admit.

You believe acknowledging that racism still exists, which it does, is racially divisive?

And no black people voted for the black guy because he was black.

[Vteckidd]

It may not be a majority of whites, but there's still some voters who will not vote for a black candidate. That's a fact. And it may be more sizable than some will admit.

And there are black people who wont for a white candidate because they, are also, in turn, Racists.


You believe acknowledging that racism still exists, which it does, is racially divisive?

I think saying their is racism is one thing, but making broad generalizations about a voting population , which is clearly incorrect, is racially divisive.

[Sinfix_15]

It's white people who are the ones making everything a racial issue and injecting race into everything......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq5lb5e5yVY&feature=player_detailpage

[.blank cd]

Obama doesn't vet people well who he hires oR appoints.

I mean i won't lose sleep ofver this, but as a white male I'm kinda tired of being called a racist .

So Obama said he didnt vet this guy? Or do you think that what you believe extreme radicalism and supremacism is isn't actually extreme radicalism or supremacism at all?

[.blank cd]

There were 19 pseudo-pilots who thought flying a couple passenger jetliners into some buildings that might take some contention with your cavalier use of the words "extreme radicalism"

[Vteckidd]

So Obama said he didnt vet this guy? Or do you think that what you believe extreme radicalism and supremacism is isn't actually extreme radicalism or supremacism at all?

You wont agree with me no matter what I say, its just philosophically different.

I dont think its good for a sitting president to nominate someone to a position of power that has views like this. Why? The same reason why you guys bashed Romney for saying what he said. Its below the office of the presidency. Leaders are to unite, and lead. Not divide and conquer, which is increasingly what i see from washington (notice i said washington not Obama).

Obama has not lead, and he has not brought anyone together. he campaigns, he divides, he conquers. he did it with the govt shutdown, the healthcare law, the elections, foreign policy, the IRS scandal, its all there. If a GOP President had nominated someone that had these types of views it would be headline news.

Does racism exist? yes. Do race pimps like Watt who use it for their own personal gain take advantage of the stereotypes to perpetuate this "you cant succeed because white america is holding you back" notion disgust me? yup.

We have a black president, who has won 2 elections, by decent margins. What has HE done to further the black cause? nothing, hes made it worse. The real racists are the race hustlers like watt, sharpton, etc.

[Vteckidd]

There were 19 pseudo-pilots who thought flying a couple passenger jetliners into some buildings that might take some contention with your cavalier use of the words "extreme radicalism"

not going to even dignify this strawman with a comment.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_rVamnr0J4w

[.blank cd]

not going to even dignify this strawman with a comment.

You said Mel Watts was an extreme radical, did you not? If so, then not a straw man.

There are extreme radicals, and what you believe an extreme radical is. For some reason, they're different. They shouldn't be

[Sinfix_15]

You said Mel Watts was an extreme radical, did you not? If so, then not a straw man.

There are extreme radicals, and what you believe an extreme radical is. For some reason, they're different. They shouldn't be

Thinking white people shouldnt be allowed to vote based on a fabricated false perception of racism is pretty radical. Him being promoted could be mistaken for institutionalizing racism, especially when you combine it with Obama's other allstars. Funny.... a democrat, who is vocal about accusing republicans of trying to restrict black people from voting would make a comment like this. Sounds like black leaders have no issues with racism, as long as it's in the right direction.





Here we go again...... with Blank defending the indefensible.

The most annoying thing about you is how your principles shift based on the people involved.

[Vteckidd]

You said Mel Watts was an extreme radical, did you not? If so, then not a straw man.

There are extreme radicals, and what you believe an extreme radical is. For some reason, they're different. They shouldn't be

not true, i didnt say that.

I said "He has a history of hiring black supremacists/ extreme radicals "


did i say that Watts was an extreme radical? reading is fundamental.

Also, like i said, i cannot debate this with you, if you are going to tell me what a radical is and isnt, and use only your own opinion as the basis to make that determination.

[.blank cd]

Thinking white people shouldnt be allowed to vote based on a fabricated false perception of racism is pretty radical.But, according to the article you posted, he didn't say that. Could you provide the article where he said that, or quote it?


not true, i didnt say that.

I said "He has a history of hiring black supremacists/ extreme radicals "But then Obama has never hired an extreme radical or a supremacist, based on the textbook definition of radicalism or supremacism. So what exactly were you implying?


did i say that Watts was an extreme radical? reading is fundamental.Yes. You did. This is called a tacit implication.

[Sinfix_15]

But, according to the article you posted, he didn't say that. Could you provide the article where he said that, or quote it?

But then Obama has never hired an extreme radical or a supremacist, based on the textbook definition of radicalism or supremacism. So what exactly were you implying?


Yes he did. Maybe you need to read it again......

And yes..... Obama does hire extremists....
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Mohamed-Elibiary-Twitter-1.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1174585_10151543973871570_273773009_n.jpg
http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20130819&t=2&i=768611382&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=CBRE97I18FB00
http://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2013/08/21/cdbe6856-c438-4df0-a434-11e9efa6a94c/cdbe6856-c438-4df0-a434-11e9efa6a94c_4x3_690x515.jpg

[Vteckidd]

Can't debate with someone who tells you what you think and uses his own feelings and opinions as the basis for fact.

Won't get sucked into another 10 page thread where we debate everything but the topic

[.blank cd]

Yes he did. Maybe you need to read it again......

And yes..... Obama does hire extremists....

Read it again, still doesn't say what you said it says. Maybe the words will rearrange themselves if I read it a third time.

And I forgot you were islamophobic.

No I didn't.

[ISAtlanta300]

But, according to the article you posted, he didn't say that. Could you provide the article where he said that, or quote it?.

It is called tacit implication. :rolleyes:

[Browning151]

LOL

[Sinfix_15]

Read it again, still doesn't say what you said it says. Maybe the words will rearrange themselves if I read it a third time.

And I forgot you were islamophobic.

No I didn't.

Islamophobic..... more sensationalist left wing propaganda that you proudly puppet. Unlike you, my views are consistent across the board. I apply the same principles to every situation. I actually have my own beliefs and think for myself. You're just a sheep.... you say what you're told to say about the people you're told to say it about.


You constantly badger me about making generalizations, which i admittedly do.... but here you are defending the exact same generalizations when it's a black democrat saying them. Your beliefs change based on who's involved.

If a democrat says something racist, you defend them. If a republican says something racists, you attack them. If we're talking about the historical crimes of Christianity, you jump for joy..... if we're having the same conversation about Islam, you go on the offensive and call me Islamophobic.

Your beliefs are a perfect cookie cutter mold of the MSNBC watching radical. You fall in line with the hive no matter what the topic is.

[.blank cd]

Can't debate with someone who tells you what you think and uses his own feelings and opinions as the basis for fact.

Won't get sucked into another 10 page thread where we debate everything but the topic

You don't have to debate it with me. I'm not really saying anything that is debatable. I understand you like to use hyperbole to make a point, but I, myself, try not to make a habit of changing words in the dictionary to suit my ideology.

It's perfectly fine if you think an extreme radicalist is just someone who has a different opinion than you. But I'm just saying that your definition of radicalism and the dictionary definition of radicalism are COMPLETELY different. And I'm gonna have to go with the dictionary definition, if that's ok with you.

The topic was Mel Watt, whom you tacitly implied was an extreme radical. You are wrong. You may disagree with something he says, but he's not an extreme radical. That's all I'm saying. I'm not debating dictionary definitions of words. They are what they are.

[.blank cd]

It is called tacit implication. :rolleyes:

Fortunately, he made that distinction. So no, not tacit implication. Sorry.

[BanginJimmy]

But, according to the article you posted, he didn't say that. Could you provide the article where he said that, or quote it?

“There would be a substantial majority of white voters who would say that under no circumstances would they vote for an African American candidate,” Watt said Oct. 14, 2005 during a Washington hearing held by the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act should be expanded to “adjust districts to take [racially motivated voting] into account,” Watts said.

Such voters “need to be factored out of the equation,” Watt said, because “I’ve got no use for them in the democratic process.”



If you dont believe Watt means majority of white people shouldnt be allowed to vote I would LOVE to hear how you interpret it. And yes, that is coming directly from the article. Want to refute it, find another source that refutes it. Until then we have no choice but to assume it was an accurate quote.


Huffingpaint post has a nice article from June about Watt also.

Mel Watt Confirmation Fight May Be Win-Win For White House (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/mel-watt-confirmation_n_3475273.html)

Apparently he wants to use racial and income preference in deciding who gets loans backed by Freddie and Fannie. The author also assumes he would try to fast track principle reductions. My mortgage is an FHA, am I going to get a reduction in principle? I know for damn sure I would like to get my house paid off even sooner.


My final comment, Watt is a race pimp that desperately wants to see more black victims. What I really find funny is that WAtt and the rest of his ilk truly think they are special and that most blacks are not capable of standing on their own. In their minds, an average black man or woman MUST have the govt there to give them an advantage, that without the govt, they will be poor, uneducated, and exploited by evil white people at every turn.

[.blank cd]

“There would be a substantial majority of white voters who would say that under no circumstances would they vote for an African American candidate,” Watt said Oct. 14, 2005 during a Washington hearing held by the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act should be expanded to “adjust districts to take [racially motivated voting] into account,” Watts said.

Such voters “need to be factored out of the equation,” Watt said, because “I’ve got no use for them in the democratic process.”



If you dont believe Watt means majority of white people shouldnt be allowed to vote I would LOVE to hear how you interpret it. And yes, that is coming directly from the article. Want to refute it, find another source that refutes it. Until then we have no choice but to assume it was an accurate quote.

Was that what he said? Or did he say something else?

If that's what he said, that means he has no use for white people who under no circumstances would vote for a black candidate, or racially motivated voters. I would agree with him 100%. There is no other way that could be interpreted any other way unless he said something that isn't quoted here.

[Browning151]

Was that what he said? Or did he say something else?

If that's what he said, that means he has no use for white people who under no circumstances would vote for a black candidate, or racially motivated voters. I would agree with him 100%. There is no other way that could be interpreted any other way unless he said something that isn't quoted here.

Would you say the same about black voters who under no circumstance would vote for a white candidate?

[.blank cd]

You just don't get to make up what someone says to suit your agenda. That's not how it works.

[.blank cd]

Would you say the same about black voters who under no circumstance would vote for a white candidate?

Yep. But until recently, they didn't have much of a choice. It was pretty much vote for a white candidate or don't vote at all.

[Sinfix_15]

In a theoretical scenario where we could eliminate people who were voting based on race.......



Mitt Romney would be president right now.

[Sinfix_15]

You just don't get to make up what someone says to suit your agenda. That's not how it works.

Nobody is making up what he said......

We just dont view these democratic radicals with the same rose colored glasses and affection that you do. These people are your heroes..... you know how they say "love is blind"

[Sinfix_15]

Was that what he said? Or did he say something else?

If that's what he said, that means he has no use for white people who under no circumstances would vote for a black candidate, or racially motivated voters. I would agree with him 100%. There is no other way that could be interpreted any other way unless he said something that isn't quoted here.

So you believe that based on someone's opinion, that their freedom should be taken away?

[.blank cd]

In a theoretical scenario where we could eliminate people who were voting based on race.......



Mitt Romney would be president right now.Realistically, white people made Obama president.


So you believe that based on someone's opinion, that their freedom should be taken away?
Racially motivated voters should be adjusted for, yes.

[Sinfix_15]

Realistically, white people made Obama president.

White people can vote based on race, without voting for a white person.



Racially motivated voters should be adjusted for, yes.

Can we also exclude racially motivated politicians from being elected?

also, do you realize how radical your view point is???

[.blank cd]

also, do you realize how radical your view point is???

Let me be clearer. A voter who votes a way because of a belief that someone else's skin color disqualifies them from holding the position.

And I realize how radical intolerance for racism is. Probably a smidge less radical than be living Obama is a socialist Muslim Kenyan communist.

Actually a lot less.

[Sinfix_15]

Let me be clearer. A voter who votes a way because of a belief that someone else's skin color disqualifies them from holding the position.

And I realize how radical intolerance for racism is. Probably a smidge less radical than be living Obama is a socialist Muslim Kenyan communist.

Actually a lot less.

False accusation of racism is a bigger problem in modern society than actual racism. The democratic party does not want a world where racism doesnt exist...... they wouldnt have a campaign strategy....

I'm curious, how would we identify these racially motivated voters and what would be the process for their exclusion?




With that said...... man it's gonna be nice to have another white guy president in 2016, It's gonna be great! Cant wait to get another white guy in there..... 2016 cant come soon enough. Anyone else as excited as me about having another white guy president?
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/51882acfeab8eaee7c000019/15-reasons-ted-cruz-is-the-most-badass-and-fearless-senator-republicans-have-seen-in-ages.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

ooooo..... i know, let's let the IRS decide who should and shouldnt vote.........

[Vteckidd]

Racially motivated voters should be adjusted for, yes.

Funny, i dont remember the constitution saying that.

Terrible viewpoint is terrible. I love the liberal logic.

Response in 1 thread:
Voter ID = RACIST! Suppresses voters!

Response in a different thread:
We should suppress voters whose viewpoint I dont agree with.

No, I dont care if someone says verbatim they would NEVER vote for a black man ever, I dont care how stupid and racist it is, because its his RIGHT to vote how he feels.

[.blank cd]

Funny, i dont remember the constitution saying that.

Terrible viewpoint is terrible. I love the liberal logic.

Response in 1 thread:
Voter ID = RACIST! Suppresses voters!

Response in a different thread:
We should suppress voters whose viewpoint I dont agree with.

No, I dont care if someone says verbatim they would NEVER vote for a black man ever, I dont care how stupid and racist it is, because its his RIGHT to vote how he feels.

Hmmm. Didn't say in any thread ever about voter ID being racist.

That's that liberal logic though. LOL. Make up things so it sound like your narrative.

[.blank cd]

I'm curious, how would we identify these racially motivated voters and what would be the process for their exclusion?

I'm more than well aware how impossible it is.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm more than well aware how impossible it is.

Theoretically speaking.... in a representative democracy.....

What if KKK membership goes up a million percent by 2016 and a klan member is elected president. Would you be ok with your rights being subject to a vote??

I believe rights can't be voted away. You do not seem to agree. What would prevent this theoretical scenario from happening?

[David88vert]

Let me be clearer. A voter who votes a way because of a belief that someone else's skin color disqualifies them from holding the position.

And I realize how radical intolerance for racism is. Probably a smidge less radical than be living Obama is a socialist Muslim Kenyan communist.

Actually a lot less.

On what legal grounds? There are no laws regulating beliefs, only actions. You can be a communist, socialist, racist, etc. completely legally until you violate a law that requires an action to be taken. Mere existence of belief does not remove your rights - and our founding fathers specifically addressed that when they setup our government.

I find it extremely interesting that a "student of psychology" would even espouse a statement like this. Are you trolling?

[.blank cd]

Theoretically speaking.... in a representative democracy.....

What if KKK membership goes up a million percent by 2016 and a klan member is elected president. Would you be ok with your rights being subject to a vote??

Theoretically speaking. Let's bring your theory a tad closer to reality.

An openly racist president probably would have to be a senator or a governor. So it's unlikely they'd make it up the qualifying process. So they'd probably have to be pretty closeted to make it that far. Should a closeted racist make it all the way through, it really wouldn't matter what legislation he supported, since we have the three branches of government and a representative democracy. Any legislation he signed off on would have to be constitutional and supported by an also racist Supreme Court justice, a racist house, and a racist senate. If all of that happened, then I suppose we're beyond fucked.

[.blank cd]

On what legal grounds? There are no laws regulating beliefs, only actions. You can be a communist, socialist, racist, etc. completely legally until you violate a law that requires an action to be taken. Mere existence of belief does not remove your rights - and our founding fathers specifically addressed that when they setup our government.

I find it extremely interesting that a "student of psychology" would even espouse a statement like this. Are you trolling?

I understand its difficult to grasp ideas and beliefs that differ from your own. That's the reason I said it. And I appreciate your efforts in trying to turn it into something radical when it's really not. And I dont understand why you lumped communism and socialism with racism. Sounds like a Freudian slip to me.

[David88vert]

I understand its difficult to grasp ideas and beliefs that differ from your own. That's the reason I said it. And I appreciate your efforts in trying to turn it into something radical when it's really not. And I dont understand why you lumped communism and socialism with racism. Sounds like a Freudian slip to me.

I understand many beliefs and ideas that do not fall in line with my own thinking. Again, you make unfounded statements that defy reality. I am not making anything radical, you are the one stating that intolerance of beliefs is ok, which is against what this nation was founded upon. You further stated that a voter should be disqualified from holding a position based upon a racist belief. That goes against the values of our legal system.

You included the terms of socialist and communist first, I simply addressed them with the term of racism. The simple fact is that anyone is free to believe anything that they want in this country.

[Vteckidd]

LOL so basically, you dodged, go figure.

Being racist isnt illegal. Neither is being a communist. So, if you want to make this policy


Racially motivated voters should be adjusted for, yes.

How do you suggest they be "adjusted" for? Not counted? Counted Less? maybe a 3/5ths law?

HMMMMM SOUNDS FAMILIAR, WHERE HAVE I HEARD THIS BEFORE:

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Lets solve racism by being bigots and racist.

[.blank cd]

LOL so basically, you dodged, go figure.Didnt dodge at all. All three of you jumped to a conclusion before all the facts were presented. I figured this would happen. That's why I've said what I've said.



How do you suggest they be "adjusted" for? Not counted? Counted Less? maybe a 3/5ths law?

HMMMMM SOUNDS FAMILIAR, WHERE HAVE I HEARD THIS BEFORE:


Lets solve racism by being bigots and racist.
Not like the 3/5ths law. Actually nothing like it. Actually the 3/5ths law has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about solving racism either.

[.blank cd]

You further stated that a voter should be disqualified from holding a position based upon a racist belief. That goes against the values of our legal system.
Could you quote this part please? I'm having trouble finding where I said that, or anything else you said I said. Thanks.

[Vteckidd]

Still not answering, how would you implement this:


Racially motivated voters should be adjusted for, yes.

lets hear some ideas, since you suggested it

[Vteckidd]

Could you quote this part please? I'm having trouble finding where I said that, or anything else you said I said. Thanks.


Racially motivated voters should be adjusted for, yes.

You said adjusted for, which is implying somehow lessening their vote. Quit being stupid, you know what you said. Answer the question

[.blank cd]

You said adjusted for, which is implying somehow lessening their vote. Quit being stupid, you know what you said.I know exactly what I said. Which is why I asked to quote the thing I didn't say.


Answer the questionIts already being done to a certain degree.

[Sinfix_15]

What truly befuddles me is how liberals are so willing to give the government the perfect tyrannical vehicle as long as in that moment, the government is on their side. Every time the public shifts towards liberalism, it's like open season for the government to power reach.

When blank opens up and speaks freely, you start to understand how radical leftist views are........

[David88vert]

Could you quote this part please? I'm having trouble finding where I said that, or anything else you said I said. Thanks.

"Let me be clearer. A voter who votes a way because of a belief that someone else's skin color disqualifies them from holding the position." - You

[Sinfix_15]

Theoretically speaking. Let's bring your theory a tad closer to reality.

An openly racist president probably would have to be a senator or a governor. So it's unlikely they'd make it up the qualifying process. So they'd probably have to be pretty closeted to make it that far. Should a closeted racist make it all the way through, it really wouldn't matter what legislation he supported, since we have the three branches of government and a representative democracy. Any legislation he signed off on would have to be constitutional and supported by an also racist Supreme Court justice, a racist house, and a racist senate. If all of that happened, then I suppose we're beyond fucked.

In my theoretical scenario, it is assumed that the majority has become racists and is pushing for racist policy. If 53% of America decides that we should go back to slavery, what would prevent this from happening?

If a majority of voters supported racist policy, what aspect of a representative democracy would prevent them from voting the rights away from others?

[Vteckidd]

I know exactly what I said. Which is why I asked to quote the thing I didn't say.

Its already being done to a certain degree.

be specific.

Or is it that you dont have an answer, because it would show how stupid the notion is in the first place?

Cmon , enlighten me. You made the statement, give me some ideas.

how would you "adjust" for it

[Vteckidd]

In my theoretical scenario, it is assumed that the majority has become racists and is pushing for racist policy. If 53% of America decides that we should go back to slavery, what would prevent this from happening?

If a majority of voters supported racist policy, what aspect of a representative democracy would prevent them from voting the rights away from others?

Its already happening, its just the black race is the racists now, not the whites.

mindblown.jpg



(dont explode blank, it was a joke, some minor truth to it, but a joke nonetheless)

[.blank cd]

"Let me be clearer. A voter who votes a way because of a belief that someone else's skin color disqualifies them from holding the position." - You
That's exactly what I said. Why would you reword it to say something I didn't say?


In my theoretical scenario, it is assumed that the majority has become racists and is pushing for racist policy. If 53% of America decides that we should go back to slavery, what would prevent this from happening?

If a majority of voters supported racist policy, what aspect of a representative democracy would prevent them from voting the rights away from others?
Constitutionality prevents it now, and a lifetime seat in Supreme Court justices chair. So you'd have to get 5 justices to give the ok, and a overwhelming majority of racist members of the house and senate and a racist president. That's what it would take. An unprecedented order of human digression.

[Sinfix_15]

Its already happening, its just the black race is the racists now, not the whites.

mindblown.jpg



(dont explode blank, it was a joke, some minor truth to it, but a joke nonetheless)

Blank will avoid the question because the answer would involve limiting government......

liberals love big powerful government with the ability to control every aspect of our lives.....

[Sinfix_15]

That's exactly what I said. Why would you reword it to say something I didn't say?


Constitutionality prevents it now, and a lifetime seat in Supreme Court justices chair. So you'd have to get 5 justices to give the ok, and a overwhelming majority of racist members of the house and senate and a racist president. That's what it would take. An unprecedented order of human digression.

Should the government have the ability to be a dispensary of freedom???? Should a majority be able to control a minority in any regard?


Now lets take that same question i just asked....... but replace the racists majority, with a poor majority or an uninsured majority.

[.blank cd]

be specific.

Or is it that you dont have an answer, because it would show how stupid the notion is in the first place?

Cmon , enlighten me. You made the statement, give me some ideas.

how would you "adjust" for it
It's really not a stupid notion since it's already happening to a certain degree in the first place.

You get all 50 states and DC to ratify hate crimes and make all hate crimes a class D felony (at the least)

[David88vert]

That's exactly what I said. Why would you reword it to say something I didn't say?


Seriously, you, of all people, are going to say that? Do you not even comprehend what you type? Please see professional help immediately.

[Sinfix_15]

It's really not a stupid notion since it's already happening to a certain degree in the first place.

You get all 50 states and DC to ratify hate crimes and make all hate crimes a class D felony (at the least)

Can we get them to acknowledge black on white crime as a hate crime?????

Seeing as how blacks target whites in crime at a 30-1 ratio?

[.blank cd]

Can we get them to acknowledge black on white crime as a hate crime?????

Seeing as how blacks target whites in crime at a 30-1 ratio?

If it's racially motivated, then sure. But just because black people kill white people doesn't mean it's racially motivated at all. People kill people for many reasons.

[Sinfix_15]

If it's racially motivated, then sure. But just because black people kill white people doesn't mean it's racially motivated at all. People kill people for many reasons.

hmm..... i thought that was the way it worked. Every time a black person gets killed by a white person it is racially motivated. You know.... the 1 time per 30 that a white person kills a black person.

[Sinfix_15]

Just for clarification, if a black person attacks me and i shoot them, is that a racially motivated crime?

[Vteckidd]

Constitutionality prevents it now, and a lifetime seat in Supreme Court justices chair. So you'd have to get 5 justices to give the ok, and a overwhelming majority of racist members of the house and senate and a racist president. That's what it would take. An unprecedented order of human digression.

Cool, we didnt ask you to say how it wouldnt happen, we asked you to answer your statement on how it would be "adjusted"

try to stick to the topic

[Vteckidd]

It's really not a stupid notion since it's already happening to a certain degree in the first place.

You get all 50 states and DC to ratify hate crimes and make all hate crimes a class D felony (at the least)

hate crimes are racially motivated, being racist isnt a crime. Try again.

How would you ADJUST for racially biased voters. Think harder.

[.blank cd]

hmm..... i thought that was the way it worked. Every time a black person gets killed by a white person it is racially motivated. You know.... the 1 time per 30 that a white person kills a black person.
Simply happenstance. There are more white people than black people. If I'm not mistaken, the general population is about 30:1

Just for clarification, if a black person attacks me and i shoot them, is that a racially motivated crime?
Nope.

[Vteckidd]

Just for clarification, if a black person attacks me and i shoot them, is that a racially motivated crime?

in for 10 pages of GUN CONTROL debate.

Seriously, hes cornered and he knows it, stick to the topic.

He said that racially motivated voters should be ADJUSTED for, i want to hear HOW he plans for that to happen, and what he thinks should be done.

[.blank cd]

Cool, we didnt ask you to say how it wouldnt happen, we asked you to answer your statement on how it would be "adjusted"

try to stick to the topic
This is the answer to Sinfix' question. Nice try though

[.blank cd]

in for 10 pages of GUN CONTROL debate.

Seriously, hes cornered and he knows it, stick to the topic.

He said that racially motivated voters should be ADJUSTED for, i want to hear HOW he plans for that to happen, and what he thinks should be done.
I already answered this. It's baffling that you haven't put 2 and 2 together

On second thought it really isn't.

And cornered? No. Lol. This conversation is going exactly the way I wanted it.

[Sinfix_15]

So the government should be able to legislate our thoughts. If i dont like black people, i shouldnt be allowed to vote?

[Browning151]

And cornered? No. Lol. This conversation is going exactly the way I wanted it.

Derailed, with you side stepping every direct question aimed at you? Yep, sounds about right.

[.blank cd]

Nope. Fielded every question that's been asked.

Unless sidestepping means not hand delivering the answers you want to hear.

[Vteckidd]

I already answered this. It's baffling that you haven't put 2 and 2 together

On second thought it really isn't.



I must have missed it (mainly because you are just being dishonest now). Here, should be easy for you to answer right now, i made it bolded and big for you to see. I want you to expand on comments you made, how would you ADJUST for these racially motivated voters?

Racially motivated voters should be adjusted for, yes.

[.blank cd]

I'm not gonna answer it a 4th time if you're incapable or reading.

[Vteckidd]

I'm not gonna answer it a 4th time if you're incapable or reading.

then quote me where you answered. The only thing you said was some crap about hate crimes, which has nothing to do with your previous statement or this topic

[.blank cd]

Short of checking a box next to a ballot...
I'm more than well aware how impossible it is.
But


Its already being done to a certain degree.

The only realistic way to control racist voting is to make less racists able to vote. How do you do that?


You get all 50 states and DC to ratify hate crimes and make all hate crimes a class D felony (at the least)

[Vteckidd]

so all racists commit hate crimes or are guilty of hate crimes? You know what the definition of a CRIME is right?

What warped world do you live in?


Short of checking a box next to a ballot...
But



The only realistic way to control racist voting is to make less racists able to vote. How do you do that?

[Vteckidd]

So you have no answer, and you have no solutions, you were just being a troll. Got it.

[.blank cd]

There's one who admitted they can't read.

Anyone else?

Makes it a lot easier if you just post that you are incapable of reading and comprehension.

[Vteckidd]

Theres no correlation between HATE CRIMES and RACISTS WHO VOTE JACKASS.

If i stand on my front porch and yell "N*****" at the top of my lungs, I still have the right to vote, and you cant take it away. I committed no hate crime.

So, TRY AGAIN

[Vteckidd]

LOL at the communist saying he wants to take peoples voting rights away if they commit a hate crime, somehow i suspect that excludes black on white crime.

[.blank cd]

You already said you were incapable of reading. You don't have to tell me again what you don't understand. I already know.

Thank you though.

[Vteckidd]

You already said you were incapable of reading. You don't have to tell me again what you don't understand. I already know.

Thank you though.

Says the guy who cant argue his way out of a wet paper bag

Your answer is like saying you want to ban people who ride motorcycles because you once saw 1 who was speeding.

Speeding is a crime, owning a motorcycle isnt.

Being a racist is perfectly legal, committing a hate crime is not.

So, how you keep racists from voting, "adjusting" in your words, by making hate crimes a felony, doesnt solve anything you are bitching about. But, i dont expect a big govt supporter to understand that their "solutions" almost never address the problem anyway.

Do i need to dumbi t down for you even more:

How do you "ADJUST" for legal law abiding racists who vote

[.blank cd]

"How would you implement your hypothetical solution??"

Well I would....

"That's not reality Jackass. You're a communist"

....


LMAO

[Vteckidd]

"How would you implement your hypothetical solution??"

Well I would....

"That's not reality Jackass. You're a communist"

....


LMAO

would be relevant if you gave a real answer, but youre not. I asked a specific question, you gave a non specific answer on a different topic

How do you "ADJUST" for legal law abiding racists who vote

[.blank cd]

Says the guy who cant argue his way out of a wet paper bag

Your answer is like saying you want to ban people who ride motorcycles because you once saw 1 who was speeding.

Speeding is a crime, owning a motorcycle isnt.

Being a racist is perfectly legal, committing a hate crime is not.

So, how you keep racists from voting, "adjusting" in your words, by making hate crimes a felony, doesnt solve anything you are bitching about. But, i dont expect a big govt supporter to understand that their "solutions" almost never address the problem anyway.

Do i need to dumbi t down for you even more:

How do you "ADJUST" for legal law abiding racists who vote

Not bitching about anything.

A question was asked. I gave an honest answer. I'm not posting it a fourth time. You can read the other 3 times I posted it and spark a couple of brain cells together to understand it or you can give up. It's that simple. I won't post about it again

[Vteckidd]

Not bitching about anything.

A question was asked. I gave an honest answer. I'm not posting it a fourth time. You can read the other 3 times I posted it and spark a couple of brain cells together to understand it or you can give up. It's that simple. I won't post about it again

You realized you made a statement you cant defend, so you went off on some other tangent. nice try, but honestly it gets old these tactics you use. No problem, I made my point, and you just look foolish and uneducated.

[.blank cd]

You're still talking about it. LOL

[David88vert]

The only realistic way to control racist voting is to make less racists able to vote. How do you do that?
"You get all 50 states and DC to ratify hate crimes and make all hate crimes a class D felony (at the least)"

Hate crimes are already a felony, and we do not let criminals vote until they have had their voting rights restored. We keep criminals from voting, not racists. Legally, you can be as racist as you want to be, as long as you do not break any laws, and there is nothing stopping you from voting, nor should there ever be. Beliefs are not criminal actions.

The moment that you remove someone's rights (any right) merely for the beliefs that they hold, rather than criminal actions, then you have gone down a slippery slope that does not follow the ideals that this country was created upon.

The truth is that you cannot "adjust" for people's beliefs without criminalizing people for their beliefs.

[Browning151]

So let me get this straight, you think people who vote for racial reasons should be "adjusted" for, or in other words, not allowed to vote.

Your solution for accomplishing this is to make all hate crimes a class d felony...


The only realistic way to control racist voting is to make less racists able to vote. How do you do that?


Quote Originally Posted by .blank cd View Post
You get all 50 states and DC to ratify hate crimes and make all hate crimes a class D felony (at the least)

So then how do you make the jump from hate crimes being a class D felony to voting with a racial bias is a hate crime?

What you have is an asinine, indefensible position that you have no logical way of explaining. You are essentially advocating restricting someones freedoms because of their ideology simply because you disagree with it. If that's your position, fine, but own up to it, don't sit here and attempt to obfuscate your position with double talk and non answers.

[.blank cd]

Hate crimes are already a felony, and we do not let criminals vote until they have had their voting rights restored. We keep criminals from voting, not racists. Legally, you can be as racist as you want to be, as long as you do not break any laws, and there is nothing stopping you from voting, nor should there ever be. Beliefs are not criminal actions.

The moment that you remove someone's rights (any right) merely for the beliefs that they hold, rather than criminal actions, then you have gone down a slippery slope that does not follow the ideals that this country was created upon.

The truth is that you cannot "adjust" for people's beliefs without criminalizing people for their beliefs.

Are my posts not going through or something? Could you check that for me?

I could've swore I said I realize how impossible it is 4 or 5 times. Yet I'm still getting grilled on it.

Weird

[.blank cd]

So let me get this straight, you think people who vote for racial reasons should be "adjusted" for, or in other words, not allowed to vote.

Your solution for accomplishing this is to make all hate crimes a class d felony...



So then how do you make the jump from hate crimes being a class D felony to voting with a racial bias is a hate crime?

What you have is an asinine, indefensible position that you have no logical way of explaining. You are essentially advocating restricting someones freedoms because of their ideology simply because you disagree with it. If that's your position, fine, but own up to it, don't sit here and attempt to obfuscate your position with double talk and non answers.

Yeah. My posts are definitely not going through. If I said I realize how impossible it is 6 or 7 times, surely someone would have read it. It can't be possible the entire group of posters is just that thick headed. Lol.

[Browning151]

So you think it's impossible, but you 100% agree with the ideology behind it.

[.blank cd]

Is this thing on?

[Vteckidd]

Make inflammatory statement
Troll for 5 pages
Claim a position
never defend the position, make strawmen arguments and go off topic
Claim you never took a position in the first place
retreat
post again

Yup, seems about right

[.blank cd]

Is there anyone in this section who read what I posted and isn't making things up?

Anyone?

[Echonova]

It can't be possible the entire group of posters is just that thick headed. Lol.I'll coincide that point.





It's not possible.

[David88vert]

Are my posts not going through or something? Could you check that for me?

I could've swore I said I realize how impossible it is 4 or 5 times. Yet I'm still getting grilled on it.

Weird

No, I agree with you that it is impossible to implement in our current political climate - I just gave the clear answer as to why it should not be possible to implement in any political climate.
The mere fact that you even consider it is scary enough.

[.blank cd]

Is it really that scary? A lot of people don't think it is. There's been books written on this very topic, by Ivy League philosophy professors.

[ISAtlanta300]

I sure hope blankCD never leaves this section. I've never been so entertained on a Forum before. Keep 'em coming, Blank! I've never seen so much flip flopping since I went to Sea World.

[.blank cd]

Flip flopping? What did I flip on? Pretty sure I said what I believed and stuck to it. Not sure what you think flip flopping means. Lol

[Sinfix_15]

I sure hope blankCD never leaves this section. I've never been so entertained on a Forum before. Keep 'em coming, Blank! I've never seen so much flip flopping since I went to Sea World.

We should all get a pool going and buy him a gift card or something........ It really is quite impressive how he never loses steam even though he is the whipping boy and nearly every single fragment of his ideology gets thoroughly shutdown on a daily basis.

[.blank cd]

I hope you see the irony in that.

And shutdown. LOL

[Sinfix_15]

I hope you see the irony in that.

And shutdown. LOL

I really dont. point it out for me.

[David88vert]

Is it really that scary? A lot of people don't think it is. There's been books written on this very topic, by Ivy League philosophy professors.

There are plenty of people that believe in horribly wrong things. You might remember that many people believed that blacks were just 3/5's of a person. Just because a lot of people think that it is ok, does not necessarily make it so.

I have not seen any articles by Ivy League philosophy professors advocating that we should change/adjust/remove the voting rights of people based upon their beliefs alone, such as racist tendencies. Please link these papers from 3 or 4 of these professors, so that we can see them.

[Echonova]

I really dont. point it out for me.It's so obvious, you shouldn't need an Ivy league professor to point it out to you.


Because Ivy League professors are smart. Even blank knows this, even though he has never been to an Ivy League school. Ever.

[Browning151]

Ivy League professors are smart. Even blank knows this, even though he has never been to an Ivy League school. Ever.

Kudzu League...maybe...Ivy League...no.

[.blank cd]

There are plenty of people that believe in horribly wrong things. You might remember that many people believed that blacks were just 3/5's of a person. Just because a lot of people think that it is ok, does not necessarily make it so.You do realize that's not what the three fifths compromise was, right?

[.blank cd]

And if you're interested in what other political philosophers think about the ethics of voting, you're more than welcome to research on your own. If you're interested in seeing what other people think, you will. But I think you should. Let's see how open minded you really are.

[Echonova]

And if you're interested in what other political philosophers think about the ethics of voting, you're more than welcome to research on your own. If you're interested in seeing what other people think, you will. But I think you should. Let's see how open minded you really are.Challenge accepted... As long as you are willing to do the same.


You are a lot of things that I respect blank, but being open-minded is not one of those... Just sayin'

[.blank cd]

Challenge accepted... As long as you are willing to do the same.


You are a lot of things that I respect blank, but being open-minded is not one of those... Just sayin'
Not sure what I haven't been open minded about as long as its truthful information. There's a left and a right side of information, but I'm not gonna sit here and complicity believe that Obama is a secret communis Muslim socialist dictator; it's not really a legitimate point of view. Thats kinda like saying I'm not open minded because I don't believe the sun revolves around the earth. Lol

I fully understand that some people think we're morally obligated and we have a civic duty to vote

[Sinfix_15]

Not sure what I haven't been open minded about as long as its truthful information. There's a left and a right side of information, but I'm not gonna sit here and complicity believe that Obama is a secret communis Muslim socialist dictator; it's not really a legitimate point of view. Thats kinda like saying I'm not open minded because I don't believe the sun revolves around the earth. Lol

I fully understand that some people think we're morally obligated and we have a civic duty to vote

You're the most close minded person I've ever met.

[.blank cd]

You're the most close minded person I've ever met.

So, not believing in false things makes you closed minded. Got it.

Boy have I got a story for y'all about Santa Claus

[Sinfix_15]

So, not believing in false things makes you closed minded. Got it.

Boy have I got a story for y'all about Santa Claus

Your belief of what truth is, is false. Your unrelenting effort to defy reality to maintain your belief is what makes you close minded.

[.blank cd]

You're right. The sun does revolve around the earth. Good detective work, Sinfix.

[David88vert]

And if you're interested in what other political philosophers think about the ethics of voting, you're more than welcome to research on your own. If you're interested in seeing what other people think, you will. But I think you should. Let's see how open minded you really are.

You made the statement, I am just asking for you to produce these papers that support your statement. I have not seen any such papers, and I am pretty certain that I read more papers on legalities than you do.
If you have supporting documentation for your statement, then show it. If you do not, then I will dismiss your statement as incorrect.

[David88vert]

Not sure what I haven't been open minded about as long as its truthful information. There's a left and a right side of information, but I'm not gonna sit here and complicity believe that Obama is a secret communis Muslim socialist dictator; it's not really a legitimate point of view. Thats kinda like saying I'm not open minded because I don't believe the sun revolves around the earth. Lol

I fully understand that some people think we're morally obligated and we have a civic duty to vote


Dismissing factual data and statistics as you have previously done is clearly close-mindedness. That is your right though - no one can force you to be open-minded.

As for voting being a civic duty, I agree that it is, and I have some company on that:

“A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.”
― Theodore Roosevelt

"I grew up in Minnesota, where we treasure our tradition of civic engagement - and our record of having the nation's highest voter participation." - Al Franken

"Voting is a civic sacrament - the highest responsibility we have as Americans." - Christine Pelosi

[.blank cd]

That's all we needed to hear. Thank you.

[Sinfix_15]

You're right. The sun does revolve around the earth. Good detective work, Sinfix.

You put your own far left radical OPINIONS on way too high of a pedestal.

[David88vert]

That's all we needed to hear. Thank you.

I can make my beliefs on voting clear - I believe that all citizens should vote, and vote well. That is, to educate themselves on the candidates and policies that are being voted upon, and choose what is best for the common good, not self-interest, while staying within the confines of the Constitution and its ideals. As for those that are not motivated to learn about the voting issues/candidates, it is not enough for them to abstain from voting. Their civic duty is to learn and vote for the common good, regardless of what ideology that they have.

You already stated everything needed to show that you have beliefs that are not in line with the founding fathers, or Ivy League political professors:

"So you believe that based on someone's opinion, that their freedom should be taken away?" - Sinfix_15
In response:
"Racially motivated voters should be adjusted for, yes." - You

I think that you were referencing Jason Brennan's (left-leaning libertarian) paper - The Ethics of Voting - when you made your statement, of course, you did not want to actually show your "source". However, if you actually took the time to read and study his writings, you would know that he does not advocate the removal of the right to vote due to ideology, such as racism. He does not advocate that a value of a vote should be adjusted either, in fact, he expressly argues that each vote should be counted.
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i9464.pdf

[.blank cd]

Brennen's paper says pretty much what I said in so many words. That some people should abstain from voting. Did you read it?

It's one of my sources. But there are others. I wanted to see if you could find it on your own, and not have to be baby sat through the thinking process

[Sinfix_15]

Brennen's paper says pretty much what I said in so many words. That some people should abstain from voting. Did you read it?

It's one of my sources. But there are others. I wanted to see if you could find it on your own, and not have to be baby sat through the thinking process

I would love the results of an election where only people more intelligent than myself were allowed to vote.

[David88vert]

Brennen's paper says pretty much what I said in so many words. That some people should abstain from voting. Did you read it?

I read it and it does not agree with what you said. He stated that he believes that people should voluntarily not vote if they cannot justify why they are voting that way. That is not the argument that you stated. He specifically dedicated a whole section to "the right to vote" and that it should not be able to be taken away. His article does not support your statement, so please provide one that does.

His words : "I argue that some citizens should not vote. This does not imply that they should not have the right to vote. Claiming that you have a right to do something but should not do it is perfectly consistent. The right to vote and the rightness of voting are different things. I do not argue that we should disenfranchise anyone. Though I think many voters are wrong to vote, I will not argue that anyone should prevent them from voting."


It's one of my sources. But there are others. I wanted to see if you could find it on your own, and not have to be baby sat through the thinking process

Where are these others? I want you to show me an Ivy League political professor that says that voters that are racist should be adjust for, based upon their racist ideology. After all, that is what you claimed.

[.blank cd]

I see what happened here. My position was misrepresented along the way. So I've spent too much time clarifying what Sinfix thought I said and not what I actually said, which was an agreement with Watts. So that's my last word on the subject.

[David88vert]

I see what happened here. My position was misrepresented along the way. So I've spent too much time clarifying what Sinfix thought I said and not what I actually said, which was an agreement with Watts. So that's my last word on the subject.

So, you are in agreement with a racist, while you say that racist voters should be adjusted for. LOL.

For the record, it's ok for Watts to be racist. As long as he performs his duties fairly, without illegally discriminating against a race, such as Caucasians, then he can have whatever ideology that makes his happy (although his statements do not make him sound like a happy person).

[Vteckidd]

248055