The following is a direct quote from a Tallorder64 story posted on this site in 2006:
"America would be great again right after it got rid of the Muslims, Jews and the Mexicans that were taking jobs that Americans needed."
Wonder if a future presidential candidate may have read that.
The white racists in this country have been saying that for a long time. Trumpwit just made it part of his platform.
I keep expecting new laws, presidential orders or directives outlawing Bridge (the card game) because people bid "No Trump".
The ONLY white Racist in this Country Are Members Of the Democrat Party....
And they hate Trump...
The ONLY white Racist in this Country Are Members Of the Democrat Party....
What color is the sky in the world you live in?
What color is the sky in the world you live in?
I don't think he can see the sky through all the unicorns and rainbows
What color is the sky in the world you live in?
Can he even see the sky with his head that far up his...never mind.
The ONLY white Racist in this Country Are Members Of the Democrat Party
There are Racists throughout the country and in all political parties. If you were to closely examine the leasing agreements Trump used to lease his real estate properties you would find they had a definite Racist leaning. If you examined his employment practices in his businesses, you would also find Racist leanings. You don't want to accept it, but Trump is a Racist.
Everyone is a racist whether they want to admit it or not. Some are just more obvious than others.
Most racists are the first ones to call out that someone else is racist, but what they really mean is that the other person is more open about their racism.
Me? I hate everybody equally, just some more than others.
Most racists are the first ones to call out that someone else is racist, but what they really mean is that the other person is more open about their racism.
^^^^
This.
In this case, the Christians are on the right track when they quote "Pluck not out the mote in thy brother's eye whilst ignoring the BEAM in thine own eye."
Hypocrisy is a very real part of the human condition, and more often than not, when you keep finding yourself surrounded by all kinds of "fatally flawed" individuals, particularly when they all seem to have the same flaw. The problem probably isn't them, it's you.
Of course, you might be having a Spaceballs moment, and you may just simply be surrounded by Assholes.
Hypocrisy is a very real part of the human condition
It certainly is.
I see hypocrisy as an inevitable consequence of someone's subconscious recognising a personal failing about which the conscious is in denial. The conscious cannot ignore the "you do that" thought from the subconscious; it can only sustain its denial by transforming that into "they do it".
In most cases the resultant accusations against others are excessively vehement because they are being emotionally driven. As the Bard put it, some comments here 'doth protest too much, methinks.'
Personally, I look out for instances where the intensity of my negative reactions to things seem out of proportion to the actual severity of the others' offences. I regard those as red flags suggesting I should look for times when I do similar things myself without noticing it.
We all do have instinctive urges that are racist, sexist, etc. But we also have conscious minds capable of detecting many (but not all) of those and choosing to behave in ways which are not harmful to others ... That is, if we actually care about how our actions affect others.
We all do have instinctive urges that are racist, sexist, etc. But we also have conscious minds capable of detecting many (but not all) of those and choosing to behave in ways which are not harmful to others ... That is, if we actually care about how our actions affect others.
Therein lies the difference. That absence of caring, or actual embracing of those feelings is what gives us white supremacists, neo-nazis, radical religious extremists (of all ilk) and other hate groups who cannot abide a person or group who looks different or who lives a different lifestyle.
... or actual embracing of those feelings
It terrifies me how easily populist politicians can generate that in their supporters. It only needs someone to identify the other "tribe" causing of our tribe's problems, then the human instinct to protect those closest to ourselves does the rest. :(
Everyone is a racist whether they want to admit it or not.
I wonder what possible definition of "racist" would allow you to conclude that everybody fits that definition?
I wonder what possible definition of "racist" would allow you to conclude that everybody fits that definition?
Probably one that says the phrase "I judge people by the content of their character" when used by European males is an example of white supremacist, misogynist, patriarchal thinking.
And yes, that has been said. To me.
Sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying anyone who uses the "Content of their character" applies to everybody, as the original opined, or that it only applies if a European male says it? (in which case it isn't everybody.)
Sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying anyone who uses the "Content of their character" applies to everybody, as the original opined, or that it only applies if a European male says it? (in which case it isn't everybody.)
What I was trying to say was that I've been told, repeatedly, that quoting Doctor King is proof that I am a racist, and a white supremacist, because insisting on equality and basing decisions on merit are both 'prime example of white privilege'.
because insisting on equality and basing decisions on merit are both 'prime example of white privilege'.
A white person taking that position while ignoring the hundreds of years of slavery, prejudice, lynchings, beatings, segregation, and every other inhumane thing that has been done to blacks in this country with a casual attitude that it is all in the past and has no weight today is what makes it white privilege.
A white person taking that position while ignoring the hundreds of years of slavery, prejudice, lynchings, beatings, segregation, and every other inhumane thing that has been done to blacks in this country with a casual attitude that it is all in the past and has no weight today is what makes it white privilege.
I mean, just suggesting that it's all in the past shows, at the very least, a shocking degree of willful ignorance.
I mean, just suggesting that it's all in the past shows, at the very least, a shocking degree of willful ignorance.
And a worse ignorance is blaming someone today for something they never did. While a bigger form of ignorance and racism is blaming someone today for something their family was never involved in simply because of their race. Some of the people being abused as racists for saying things are now equal are descended from people who migrate to the USA during the 1900s and they have no ancestral link to the US Slavery Era.
A white person taking that position while ignoring the hundreds of years of slavery, prejudice, lynchings, beatings, segregation, and every other inhumane thing that has been done to blacks in this country with a casual attitude that it is all in the past and has no weight today is what makes it white privilege.
Rejecting ignorant radicalism is not the same thing as ignoring history. I think Colin Kappernack is an idiot. I think Black Lives Matters have become dangerous radicals. Nothing in either of those two statements says anything about rejecting the things they are upset about.
Was Doctor King acting with 'white privilege' when he took an intelligent, reasoned approach to true equality baed on merit? Hint: No. Second hint: According to SJWs, yes, if they're logical.
A white person taking that position while ignoring the hundreds of years of slavery, prejudice, lynchings, beatings, segregation, and every other inhumane thing that has been done to blacks in this country with a casual attitude that it is all in the past and has no weight today is what makes it white privilege.
So everyone is supposed to ignore the thousands of years the blacks enslaved and killed each other in Africa, as well as the thousands of years the whites enslaved and killed each other, and the several hundreds of years the blacks killed and enslaved whites, plus the thousands of people who are kidnapped to disappear into the Middle East and African slave trade each year just so a few people today can bitch about what happened to their grandparents with the bitching being solely based on race. It sounds more like those bitching are racists.
Mind you if the blacks in the USA are entitled about what happened to their grandparents then the Native Indian and Mexican population have a bigger grounds for being pissed because they were in America a lot longer and abused a lot longer, while the Indians are still subject to organised abuse by the government agencies.
Mind you if the blacks in the USA are entitled about what happened to their grandparents then the Native Indian and Mexican population have a bigger grounds for being pissed because they were in America a lot longer and abused a lot longer, while the Indians are still subject to organised abuse by the government agencies.
No argument from me. You are correct. My wife is one of those abused Indians. Hmmm...slavery or genocide? Which is the greater evil?
Hmmm...slavery or genocide?
Ask the Armenians.
Okay, I admit I'm being a little facetious here. The whole problem today is pretty simple, and Richard nailed it.
Different times, different standards.
It's attempting to armchair quarterback what happened in history based upon the perspective of how someone feels that modern morals should be, without actually considering what was accepted and normal at the time of the event. Where the modern SJW's are failing and I don't think they even realize it is in their own 'enlightened' perspective on the world, they don't realize that not everyone in the world feels or thinks that way even NOW.
Sort of like when you hear of someone who is LGBTQ advocating for Muslim rights in this country, so we can be more accepting and allow them to change our laws to be more like theirs, while the irony is that if we DID become more like the Muslim country, then the LGBTQ person would be killed because they're NOT tolerant. Note that I realize this doesn't apply to ALL modern Muslim countries, but it's still acceptable in too damn many of them - especially the ones who don't seem to have advanced politically beyond the 14th Century or so.
I'm not saying that the U.S. government is in itself not guilty of committing atrocities. We've done so many a time - based upon how we look at things NOW, as opposed to how we looked at things THEN. Kill 70,000 Japanese in a split second with dropping an atomic bomb is seen as an atrocity now - but weighed against the loss of an additional million American lives THEN, let alone another 10 million Japanese ...
History is replete with incidents such as this. The only way to really understand them is to look at them from the perspective of the people THEN - not judging them on how we do things now. (Hell, for all we know, we're fucking things up now more than ever, and may not realize it.)
Kill 70,000 Japanese in a split second with dropping an atomic bomb is seen as an atrocity now
I view that as an atrocity, but also, without doubt, the lesser evil.
Who bears the moral responsibility for the first is debatable. An attache of the Japanese Government in America was invited to witness a test blast, so they were warned. Perhaps, the first could have been dropped on Mt Fuji as a demonstration.
However, the moral responsibility for the second is clearly on the Japanese for their continued refusal to surrender for days, and until after another had been dropped.
Kill 70,000 Japanese in a split second with dropping an atomic bomb is seen as an atrocity now
By whom?
I really can't wrap my head around arguments like this regarding war. I mean, where does it stop? Are we going to regard Mohammed as a terrorist for his terrorist (by modern definition) activities in the 700s? Or are we going to condemn Mongolians for the activities of Ghenghis Khan?
Or is it the fact that the ones in power at the time of the act are the current targets of those attempting to assume political power?
I have one hard fast rule regarding either accusations of racism or attempts to denigrate decisions in history resulting in mass death -- when the accusations fly and you're in the targeted group, grab your wallet. Because in the end, thats what the attacking group is after.
Jim, you should have attributed your quote to StarFleet Carl instead of me.
And, I think you've taken what both of us said out of context. (I trust Carl does not object to this ...) We were both making the point that dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was totally justified - even if it is viewed an "atrocity". Very many more lives on both sides would have been lost if an invasion of Japan had been needed to win the Pacific War.
We were both making the point that dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was totally justified - even if it is viewed an "atrocity". Very many more lives on both sides would have been lost if an invasion of Japan had been needed to win the Pacific War.
Two things: One, that's correct, so I don't mind.
Two - damn, I'm agreeing with Ross here. I hate it when that happens. :) (I'm being a bit joking here, in case you can't tell.)
damn, I'm agreeing with Ross here. I hate it when that happens. :)
I had that exact thought too as I was drafting my post. :-)
I really can't wrap my head around arguments like this regarding war. I mean, where does it stop? Are we going to regard Mohammed as a terrorist for his terrorist (by modern definition) activities in the 700s? Or are we going to condemn Mongolians for the activities of Ghenghis Khan?
No, because they don't fit the current, warped SJW version of 'white'. And only whites, especially white men, can be oppressors.
Oh, and if you ARE a white man, you are personally responsible for the acts of every other white man in the history of the world.
Oh, and if you ARE a white man, you are personally responsible for the acts of every other white man in the history of the world.
So we're guilty for the sins of our fathers. Sort of like original sin, isn't it? I never realized SJWs were so biblical in their outlook. Who would've ever thought they to be religious? /sarc
I view that as an atrocity, but also, without doubt, the lesser evil.
I guess what the U.S. should have done to satisfy those morons is to tell the Japanese they could beat them as shown throughout the pacific campain, then pull out and go home. I shudder at the thought how this would have worked out.
Napoleon's exile to Elba comes to mind or ending the first Gulf War without removing Saddam.
HM.
So everyone is supposed to ignore the thousands of years the blacks enslaved and killed each other in Africa, as well as the thousands of years the whites enslaved and killed each other, and the several hundreds of years the blacks killed and enslaved whites, plus the thousands of people who are kidnapped to disappear into the Middle East and African slave trade each year just so a few people today can bitch about what happened to their grandparents with the bitching being solely based on race. It sounds more like those bitching are racists.
Yeah, pretty much.
Okay. Thanks. I now understood what you're saying, but I am baffled by the argument others have used to label you a racist. Was there any further explanation about why "insisting on equality and basing decisions on merit" makes one a racist? What criteria would a non-racist use?
Okay. Thanks. I now understood what you're saying, but I am baffled by the argument others have used to label you a racist. Was there any further explanation about why "insisting on equality and basing decisions on merit" makes one a racist? What criteria would a non-racist use?
By definition, according to the individuals I'm talking about, it is not possible for a white person to not be a racist. It is an inherent property of being white, or so they say.
Funny thing - the very thing they do is the very thing they object to others doing - classifying and demonizing by race.
If you were to closely examine the leasing agreements Trump used to lease his real estate properties you would find they had a definite Racist leaning. If you examined his employment practices in his businesses, you would also find Racist leanings. You don't want to accept it, but Trump is a Racist.
This argument sounds suspiciously like a disparate treatment analysis that are based on statistical analysis. Sort of like election polling analysis.
To which I might add the old quote (wish I knew who made it) - paraphrasing - that there are three types of liars: liars, damned liars and statisticians.
Someone else said it in another post. Both sides have racists. Which isn't saying much because I believe that everyone is a racist. It's the natural human condition. Whether it's black racism, white racism, semitic racism, arab racism, asiatic racism, or Eskimo racism. Everyone is racist in some form. So get over it. Else we can't talk about how to minimize it's impact.
This argument sounds suspiciously like a disparate treatment analysis that are based on statistical analysis. Sort of like election polling analysis.
No it was based on anti-trump media articles during the early part of the preliminaries.
Someone else may have made the statement you are referring to, but I said something similar about all parties have racists.
No it was based on anti-trump media articles during the early part of the preliminaries.
The analysis "proving" racist leanings in Trump's rental practices were what I was referring to when mentioning disparate treatment analysis. Since such analysis tend to "prove" what the investigator has already predetermined to be true, the liars, damned liars and statisticians fits like a glove. And remember, if the glove fits, you must acquit.
Just to clarify.
(Wheezer, PotomacBob asked an honest question.)
And I gave an honest answer. My implied opinion of Trumpwit was not Trolling. I stated a fact. Trump built his campaign on the very fears and hatreds expressed in the story quote by the OP. To suggest otherwise is being disingenuous at best and showing blind ignorance at worst. This thread is political from the first post.
This thread is political from the first post.
That's for damned sure.
Honest answer - the Americans who are most affected by what results they've seen so far from President Trump don't really give two shits about Stormy Daniels or Russia collusion - they're seeing jobs coming back, seeing a country that is leading the world again and not kissing ass or apologizing because they do feel that America is being made great again. Many of these people felt betrayed not just by Obama but by Bush before him, and damned sure felt that Clinton was an embarrassment to the country.
I agree, President Trump did build his campaign upon the comment mentioned by the OP. But one thing you've got to give him - he's actually doing something that no other politician before him would do, he's actually fulfilling or trying to fulfill his campaign promises. The previous FIVE winners of his office had said they'd move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem - Trump did it.
I sort of think of him as what Ross Perot might have been if he'd been elected during his first run for office, when he actually made sense. Government isn't the answer, a lot of the time it's the actual problem in the first place.
And of course, the other minor detail - unprecedented levels of blank unemployment - it's never been lower in the history of this country. Actual unemployment across the board not only at near record lows, but even factoring in the true U-6 numbers, still near full employment. Actually securing the borders of the country to not only prevent illegals from entering the country, but also securing them to prevent terrorists from slipping in the same way. Actually enforcing laws that exist right now regarding illegal aliens - most of which really aren't Mexican, but are from further south.
And finally telling the rest of the world that the U.S. is open for business that's fair for BOTH sides of the equation - not that the U.S. is going to simply feed everyone else off our teat to our own detriment - which has been the status quo coming from Foggy Bottom for way too long.
Congratulations, the free ride is over. You don't have to like the guys personal life - you do have to admire the way he's not only fucking over the mainstream media (which we've known has been biased for liberals at LEAST since 2001, when Bernie Goldberg exposed the dirty secrets at CBS), he's also causing liberal communist Democrat (but I repeat myself) heads to explode in rage because he truly doesn't appear to give a shit WHAT they think. He's going to do what's right for America First.
Oh, and I voted for Cruz in the primaries, and against Hillary in the general because ... seriously, that was the best the Dems could come up with? So I really wasn't what you'd call a Trump supporter by any means. Since then, though ... hell, at age 72, standing in the hot sun for nearly two hours AFTER his speech, just so he could shake the hands of every Annapolis graduate. Obama addressed the graduating class twice during his tenure, then shook a few hands and left.
Benjamin Disraeli British Prime Minister made the three types of lies statement, There are three types of lies;lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli British Prime Minister made the three types of lies statement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.
The term was popularised in United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.[1]
The earliest instance of the phrase found in print dates to a letter written in the British newspaper National Observer on June 8, 1891, published June 13, 1891, p. 93(-94): NATIONAL PENSIONS [To the Editor of The National Observer] London, 8 June 1891 "Sir, —It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics. It is on statistics and on the absence of statistics that the advocate of national pensions relies…" Later, in October 1891, as a query in Notes and Queries, the pseudonymous questioner, signing as "St Swithin", asked for the originator of the phrase, indicating common usage even at that date.[5] The pseudonym has been attributed to Eliza Gutch.[8]
The Tories in the UK came up with "make X great again"
(specifically, Margaret Thatcher used it)
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/100858
That's a speech transcript from the then Margaret Roberts using the phrase in a 1950 election.
And honestly, the slogan is far better when used in relation to a country called 'Great Britain'.
Thank you very much for the Thatcher speech transcript from 1950. I suspect it is more likely that the Trump speech writer for his announcement probably used the Thatcher speech as the model than a story on this site.
Yesterday, I got an unique opportunity. I was on the way home from a doctor's appointment when I spotted a red MAGA cap in the middle of the road. I quickly switched lanes and was able to hit it with two tires! I debated whether or not to make a u-turn so I could hit it again but decided I already did my part to save humanity. I'll let someone else have a shot at it!
I spotted a red MAGA cap in the middle of the road
Do you know if it was a 'proudly made in the USA' MAGA cap or one of the cheap imposters 'made in China'?
Do you know if it was a 'proudly made in the USA' MAGA cap or one of the cheap imposters 'made in China'?
Huh, I thought they were all made in Russia.
What is it about human nature that causes us to witness the same event but have completely opposite views of what occurred?
How is it that one sees greed, corruption, racism, lies upon lies and the next sees a hero? How does the human mind so confuse itself to justify evil as making anything great... again?
We humans are a sorry lot. We love to hate anything that is not of our tribe. Hate is not an exclusive for any region, ethnic background, religion or skin color. Hate appears to be universal across the spectrum of all human societies. Why are we so damned afraid of anything or anyone that is different than we are?
Why is it that the human mind can be convinced that one individual is somehow less deserving of simple respect based on skin color? Or hair style? Or whether they wear a certain style of clothing?
How can anyone defend killing someone because they do not believe as you?
How does anyone defend slavery?
How is it that an individual can identify hypocrisy in others and not in themselves?
How is it that anyone can defend the indefensible unless they too are rotten to the core?
Good questions. I think the root cause of all such things is fear. The worst fears many now face are no longer life-threatening, but we are hard-wired to react to our greatest fears as if they were. :(
People tend to do what other people they associate with do. Many of the fathers of our Country (The United States of America) were slave owners. Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, owned lots of slaves, and had children with one of them. George Washington, our first President, owned Mount Vernon, a slave plantation. He didn't have children with anyone.
Does owning slaves when it is legal make you a bad person? There are countries, probably mostly Moslem, where owning slaves and having children with 4 wives is legal. In the past Mormons had multiple wives, Mr. Young had over 20 if I recall correctly. Does that make him a bad person? Making judgments on behavior of others in the past, certainly over a hundred years ago and maybe somewhat less than that, based on current standards probably is a mistake. People a hundred years from now may consider what we do routinely now as big mistakes. Women didn't get to vote until 1920. Girls got married a lot younger than is now legal. People now considered white were also discriminated against. Boston had signs on public parks, no dogs or Irishmen allowed.
Different times, different standards. I wonder what is now common may be looked back on with disdain.
Just because any certain behavior was common in an era did not make it right - then or now.
Most of my potential suggestions are more of a wish list and require commensurate advances in civilisation. Unfortunately we seem to be in a regressive phase, making such advances less likely.
However I think it's inevitable that one day people will be allowed to end their lives at a time and in a way of their choosing, rather than being forced to live out their final days in pain and humiliation (or be surreptitiously euthanased by a doctor to free up a hospital bed). In that respect, pets are often treated better than people.
AJ
wheezer, We can take pleasure in knowing that Trump's people will be the hardest hit demographic once the chickens come home to roost.
But otherwise, debating or even engaging Trump supporters in any sort of ideological or policy-based debate is utterly pointless. Because any evidence you present is 'fake commy libtard biased bullshit' and anything they say is gospel sent from GOD.
I personally relish Trump being in power in the US; because it heralds the end of US hegemony.
He's already alienated long-term allies such as the EU and Canada (who share strategic interests with the US), instead choosing to draw closer to dictators such as Putin and Xi Jinping whose fundamental interests are in opposition to the US. His idiotic trade war is eroding confidence in the dollar, and if there is one thing that can ensure that USD will stop being the world's reserve currency, it would be full on protectionism from the United States. His budgets may be stimulating the economy temporarily by reducing taxes, but at the end of the day the 1 trillion dollar deficit he's running will have to be paid. His treatment of the US Civil Service (which is crucial to the efficient administration of any empire - just ask anyone: the Romans, the Ottomans, Napoleon, or GB) has decimated its ranks and reduced its capabilities for years to come.
In short, as someone who was born in a country that the United States government willfully fucked (multiple times) in the name of profit, I take divine pleasure in Donald Trump being the US president. I hope he fulfills all the promises he made to his base; I hope he gets elected again in 2020; I hope the American electorate gives him a supermajority in both houses of Congress in November; and I hope Ivanka runs for president in 2024 and wins too.
No skins off my back, except that maybe I would have to learn Chinese too after going through the trouble of learning English.
But at least the Chinese own up to their hegemonic ways and aren't hypocritical.
