Mel Watt promoted by Obama

[.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?

[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 question

Its 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?