Conservatives were right

[Langston Hughes]

There is a maple in my yard.

The maple is a kind of tree.

Therefore all the trees in my yard are maples?

 

No, but he's not a maplist for suggesting that there are maples in your yard.

[BlackHorse]

If I have to beg God to take care of those in need then he's not a God I want to pray to. Perhaps you believe that God needs a pep talk, a motivational poster from his followers, I don't. If he can't do it on his own without a halftime speech from me then he's just an asshole.

 

I prayed that God would do something about those children dying slow painful deaths from starvation, he didn't. I prayed that he'd do something about the children dying in the wars of grown men, he didn't. So I didn't do something too, namely pray anymore.

 

 

In the debate between whether God is an asshole or you are, trust me, its you. Secondly, I don't recall God ever promising that life was going to be fair or easy or that nothing bad or horrible would ever happen. You will never learn and grow if life is a constant cake walk. Duh. And finally we are not praying to God in some effort to remind him to save innocent victims. We are praying to show our respect for those that have passed and for those that must go on living in the aftermath. You have once again demonstrated your absolute ignorance about a great many things.

Edited May 21, 2013 by BlackHorse

[Langston Hughes]

Again, this is the typical liberal mindset. You have a few examples of racists and therefore all conservatives must be racist. Ok, I'll play that game. How about this. I gave you a few examples of blacks making racist comments against whites, to include the President himself. Therefore all blacks must be racist. See how that works? See how stupid you sound Langston?

 

Nobody says that all conservatives are racist. Bill Maher made a joke out of the very real racial problem of the Tea Party. You called him a racist for saying there were racists in the Tea party. I merely showed you that he is correct, there are racists in the TEA PARTY. I'm not suggesting that all Tea Party members are racist. But there is a very vocal group of people that are.

[Langston Hughes]

See this thread for an example: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/53786-northwestern-student-govt-nominees-confirmation-blocked-because-he-is-a-heterosexual-white-male/

 

I don't see any racism in that. I see 20 year olds taking an idea and going to far with it.

 

You know that VA clinic have started to use people who have gone through PTSD treatment as mentors for those beginning treatment. It's increased the success of PTSD treatment for a variety of reasons, not the least is that someone who has felt what you feel is often better at understanding your feelings.

 

This is what minorities are looking for in that link. Someone who has felt what they do, a kindred spirit. Sometimes people just want someone who has walked in their shoes. They take it too far but they are not racists.

[BlackHorse]

Nobody says that all conservatives are racist. Bill Maher made a joke out of the very real racial problem of the Tea Party. You called him a racist for saying there were racists in the Tea party. I merely showed you that he is correct, there are racists in the TEA PARTY. I'm not suggesting that all Tea Party members are racist. But there is a very vocal group of people that are.

 

Just because you and some other liberals claim that the tea party is racist or that it has racism at its core doesn't make it true. You post a few pictures and make a few inaccurate observations and try to paint it with a broad brush. We don't even know how many people actually identify themselves as tea party members. It's not like they hold a roll call or sign a ledger. Hell for all we know Langston those pictures you posted are actually liberals who infiltrated tea party events in an effort to try and make conservatives look bad and look like racists. But it didn't work.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/133829/

[FiredMotorCompany]

If I have to beg God to take care of those in need then he's not a God I want to pray to. Perhaps you believe that God needs a pep talk, a motivational poster from his followers, I don't. If he can't do it on his own without a halftime speech from me then he's just an asshole.

 

I prayed that God would do something about those children dying slow painful deaths from starvation, he didn't. I prayed that he'd do something about the children dying in the wars of grown men, he didn't. So I didn't do something too, namely pray anymore.

Perhaps prayer is in reality man's attempt to feel the compassion we attribute to God. In praying for others, are we not showing compassion and sympathetically connecting with them?

And to pout like a selfish child that you didn't get your prayers answered doesn't impress me as a compassionate response.

 

For every prayer, there may be a reason it is not fulfilled. Imagine if you and every one of your enemies had their prayers answered as they wanted. We would have annihilated each other by now.

 

I find it hypocritical of you to cry for the loss of children to an act of nature as long as you support willful actions to destroy a child on a whim... in the name of "choice".

[Langston Hughes]

Just because you and some other liberals claim that the tea party is racist or that it has racism at its core doesn't make it true. You post a few pictures and make a few inaccurate observations and try to paint it with a broad brush. We don't even know how many people actually identify themselves as tea party members. It's not like they hold a roll call or sign a ledger. Hell for all we know Langston those pictures you posted are actually liberals who infiltrated tea party events in an effort to try and make conservatives look bad and look like racists. But it didn't work.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/133829/

 

 

For all you know.

 

There it finally comes to a head. For all you know. That's the problem...

 

 

You know nothing Jon Snow

 

And you too Blackhorse. You know nothing.

[BlackHorse]

For all you know.

 

There it finally comes to a head. For all you know. That's the problem...

 

 

 

And you too Blackhorse. You know nothing.

 

 

Ok, is there a point there or just more dumb ass rambling? I mean are you trying to make some deep philosophical point? Or was that just a statement from the department of the obvious Either way, your post is a bunch of wasted letters with no point.

[Langston Hughes]

Just because you and some other liberals claim that the tea party is racist or that it has racism at its core doesn't make it true. You post a few pictures and make a few inaccurate observations and try to paint it with a broad brush. We don't even know how many people actually identify themselves as tea party members. It's not like they hold a roll call or sign a ledger. Hell for all we know Langston those pictures you posted are actually liberals who infiltrated tea party events in an effort to try and make conservatives look bad and look like racists. But it didn't work.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/133829/

 

Yull you head out of your ass. Many of the signs were anonymous but of the many signs and emails that have been sent, and i posted a few of the many were directly attributed to people with positions in these Tea Party named groups.

 

Like the founder of a local Montana tea party group and her Obama trap picture. She's on the rolls.

[Langston Hughes]

Perhaps prayer is in reality man's attempt to feel the compassion we attribute to God. In praying for others, are we not showing compassion and sympathetically connecting with them?

And to pout like a selfish child that you didn't get your prayers answered doesn't impress me as a compassionate response.

 

I can feel and show compassion without going through prayer. Now if your suggesting that mentioning prayer as a show of compassion then I understand what you mean. I still don't need God for it.

 

And it's not pouting, it's just putting that time to better use.

 

For every prayer, there may be a reason it is not fulfilled. Imagine if you and every one of your enemies had their prayers answered as they wanted. We would have annihilated each other by now.

 

I find it hypocritical of you to cry for the loss of children to an act of nature as long as you support willful actions to destroy a child on a whim... in the name of "choice".

 

I agree that we can rationalize why God didn't save this dying kid or that one. However it is still only a rationalization and in all honesty your only looking for a reason to explain why it didn't work. I would pray for my enemy, because that's the correct thing to do. If i prayed.

 

I find it hypocritical that you haven't worked harder to save every baby that is born before you worry about those that aren't. If only pro-life people actually gave a fuck about the children dying slow painful deaths over days and weeks rather than a first term abortion.

 

I consider my position to be more compassionate. We can't save those who are born and yet you cry more for those that didn't get born. Yours is not a pro-life position it's an anti-abortion position.

[FiredMotorCompany]

I find it hypocritical that you haven't worked harder to save every baby that is born before you worry about those that aren't. If only pro-life people actually gave a fuck about the children dying slow painful deaths over days and weeks rather than a first term abortion.

And I challenge you to do so your self. What "F*ck" have you given to support those children who ARE delivered as opposed to destroyed. If you are so shaken by the "slow painful deaths over days and weeks" have you devoted the time, effort and finances to rescue any? Or are you all talk? You haven't a clue WHAT I do for babies, born or yet to be born.

 

And it's presumptuous of you to think you know I do not. Possibly, if anything, you should be able to determine what I would do by my defense of the innocent. But, to you, if a woman doesn't have a right to kill an unborn because she found a new dress she wants to wear to a party (because no one can decide if her reasons are justified according to you) or she'll put on a few pounds before the summer bikini season, there's nothing wrong at all. You think my assertion that a woman's right to choose at the time of conception is not recognizing her right. When in fact, you give her a SECOND chance to choose. Play poker and lay your cards down, then pull from the deck the card you need to beat your opponent, if you will.

I consider my position to be more compassionate. We can't save those who are born and yet you cry more for those that didn't get born. Yours is not a pro-life position it's an anti-abortion position. 00

Can't save those that are born? You are supporting that outcome by your acceptance of thoughtless and irresponsible intercourse...."because it feels good and is fun, so everybody deserves to do it."

 

Whereas, I stand for the responsibility falls upon those who take the risk. And if there are possible outcomes that are likely unwanted, THEN DON'T DO IT!

 

"Doc, it hurts when I do this."

Doc says, "Then don't do that".

 

Adults are held accountable for every other action they take. To spend frivolously, to over-eat, to speed on the highway, to cheat on taxes, to cheat on their spouse, to beat their kid.......but you absolve women for that responsibility....and her mate to a degree, when it involves killing an unborn child.

 

A legal abortion and a murder can be separated by only one heartbeat. And I sleep better defending the innocent victim rather that the soul-less adult who didn't want to be inconvenienced.

Edited May 21, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[TomServo92]

I don't see any racism in that. I see 20 year olds taking an idea and going to far with it.

 

You know that VA clinic have started to use people who have gone through PTSD treatment as mentors for those beginning treatment. It's increased the success of PTSD treatment for a variety of reasons, not the least is that someone who has felt what you feel is often better at understanding your feelings.

 

This is what minorities are looking for in that link. Someone who has felt what they do, a kindred spirit. Sometimes people just want someone who has walked in their shoes. They take it too far but they are not racists.

 

The "idea" they've taken too far is that because he's white, heterosexual and male, he can't serve in the post. There was no other reason to disqualify him. That is the very definition of racism/discrimination. It is no different than saying he can't be because he's black or Muslim. Everyone would be outraged if that we're the case.

[TomServo92]

If I have to beg God to take care of those in need then he's not a God I want to pray to. Perhaps you believe that God needs a pep talk, a motivational poster from his followers, I don't. If he can't do it on his own without a halftime speech from me then he's just an asshole.

 

I prayed that God would do something about those children dying slow painful deaths from starvation, he didn't. I prayed that he'd do something about the children dying in the wars of grown men, he didn't. So I didn't do something too, namely pray anymore.

 

I'm not surprised that you would take a moment when the people on this forum could put aside their differences out of respect for those affected by the disaster and turn it into something divisive and argumentative.

[NickF1011]

No, but he's not a maplist for suggesting that there are maples in your yard.

No, but he's still wrong.

[BlackHorse]

Why are we debating Langston Hughes is what I wonder. Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring the argument down to their level of ignorance and beat you with experience.

Edited May 21, 2013 by BlackHorse

[FiredMotorCompany]

Why are we debating Langston Hughes is what I wonder. Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring the argument down to their level ignorance and beat you with experience.

At least he has the courage to tackle the issues. One or two others chime in, hoping for a "gotcha", but you have to admit, LH hangs in there.

[Edstock]

Yours is not a pro-life position it's an anti-abortion position.

 

At the heart of their delusion is the concept of quality of life, something that they are oblivious to. They don't care that a child lives in poverty, just that come hell or high water that it is born to do so. Ask to help that child and we get cries of welfare state, all the same-old same-old.

 

This week we discover that, apparently, US statistics show that poverty is spreading to suburban America at an accelerating rate, which helps the quality of life for more and more children as time passes.

[BlackHorse]

At the heart of their delusion is the concept of quality of life, something that they are oblivious to. They don't care that a child lives in poverty, just that come hell or high water that it is born to do so. Ask to help that child and we get cries of welfare state, all the same-old same-old.

 

This week we discover that, apparently, US statistics show that poverty is spreading to suburban America at an accelerating rate, which helps the quality of life for more and more children as time passes.

 

 

Oh what a load of horse shit. Seems to me there's plenty of delusion to go around. I personally am not a staunch pro-life advocate but don't even try to pretend that you're doing a child a favor by killing it. Sort of a "Well kid, you're were going to be born into a poor family so better we should just kill you instead." Fuckin stupid. As if the child was going to be poor and destitute all his / her life. As if they can't go to school, work hard and improve their fincancial status on their own and make a better life for themself just like millions of other poor kids have done. Did you forget that aspect in your little gimped up logical conclusion dumb ass?

 

And as for the welfare state, are you actually going to try and pretend that a lot of people on welfare are not fully capable of getting a job but refuse to do so because it's easier to let everyone else hand them a check? That's just reality, too bad if you don't like it. Get a fuckin clue about life some time.

Edited May 22, 2013 by BlackHorse

[FiredMotorCompany]

At the heart of their delusion is the concept of quality of life, something that they are oblivious to. They don't care that a child lives in poverty, just that come hell or high water that it is born to do so. Ask to help that child and we get cries of welfare state, all the same-old same-old.

 

This week we discover that, apparently, US statistics show that poverty is spreading to suburban America at an accelerating rate, which helps the quality of life for more and more children as time passes.

And just how much do you contribute to the quality of life of those children you see so hopeless?

 

What astounds andbaffles me is you think murder is excusable when an adult makes a conscious decision to have sex. And that you would rather kill the child and forgive the woman.

 

God! What a sick, warped mind you have. Too bad your mother chose to raise you instead of taking the "easy" way out.

 

A responsible parent typically spends in the neighborhood of $100,000 raising a child from birth through adulthood. College adds to that if you care to include that.

And what separates idiots who can mass produce laborers (and get federal assistance for their "hard work".) from intelligent and thoughtful adults who decide to not risk a child they cannot afford?

 

If there ever was a poster child for supporting abortion, it'd have your face on it, along with your ilk.

[Langston Hughes]

The "idea" they've taken too far is that because he's white, heterosexual and male, he can't serve in the post. There was no other reason to disqualify him. That is the very definition of racism/discrimination. It is no different than saying he can't be because he's black or Muslim. Everyone would be outraged if that we're the case.

 

 

I agree that that the color of skin matters and negatively, although it's only in regard to his experiences. Being white is only the surface and not ultimately what he was disqualified for. You do understand this but your choosing to ignore that. It is ultimately how deep his experiences are within the context of being marginalized or experiencing an actual discrimination. I admit that the kids are too caught up in color, but some of them did ask the right questions. What does he have to offer as far as experience to someone who was ACTUALLY effected by discrimination and or racism. What common ground do they have. Very little to be honest.

[Langston Hughes]

Why are we debating Langston Hughes is what I wonder. Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring the argument down to their level of ignorance and beat you with experience.

 

I know.

 

Why come in here and debate this at all. You should just go around agreeing with other conservatives in a great big circle .....I can't say the rest. You don't have to engage me, but you choose to. I mean shit even Cal50 who talks about me being on ignore still takes the time for personal attacks against me. What is it about me that you and your life partner can't truly ignore? I'm not interested in conservative men, although you too sure seem interested in me.

 

It's too bad you guys are old and don't look like this anymore

 

Instead here you are today...

 

[FiredMotorCompany]

LH, you and those supporting your position are, by definition, being racist.

 

From Dictionary.com

rac·ism[rey-siz-uhm]

noun

1.

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.

a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.

hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

[Langston Hughes]

LH, you and those supporting your position are, by definition, being racist.

 

Are you crazy?

 

 

1.

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

 

Nothing I have said fits that. Please set aside your own feelings of being a victim and re read what I said. This time without all that woe is me, I'm white bullshit. I never suggested that anyone of any race had any inherent differences. I said that they had different life experiences. Huge fucking difference

 

They are looking for someone who has had a larger experience with being marginalized and for the most part (there are some exceptions) Caucasians are a majority and rarely suffer from that. The candidate notes this himself and offers up the fact that a family member is part of traditionally marginalized group. His only qualification about his own diversity that he himself notes is his religion.

 

So he was rejected because some people felt he wouldn't understand what they went through. I showed you an example of that in a previous post discussing the VA's use of PTSD suffers to help treat others suffering from the same issue. Can you understand that people are looking for someone who's life experience is broader in terms of dealing with diversity issues or does your political beliefs force you to overlook that and come to rather questionable conclusions?

[Langston Hughes]

We could discuss this issue of experience with marginalization and diversity in terms of probability, which Trim likes to suggest guides his thoughts and non-beliefs.

 

Given what we are aware of in this county, whom would most likely be the victim of non-personal discrimination. By that I mean such as racial profiling, being denied loans or activities that occur across a greater scope than an individuals use of foul langauge or bad racial attitudes.

 

On a personal note i don't deny that there are some racial instances where Caucasians are targets. A close friend who was a college grad and worked on the line at Ford with me was harassed by a black supervisor. It took a while to deal with because he never said it where we could hear it. One day he did and within the week he was fired. Both blacks and white testified against him.

 

We all have instances were a particular person used racial language, but there is a lower probability of a white person being targeted because there are less superiors of other color, just as there are less women and gays or lesbians. These groups, even if they meet the population percentages are going to still be the minority in life. If 20% of all bosses are black, the likelihood of working for a black boss is limited to most people. And if we were to assign the same level of diversity intolerance across all these different groups we would still find that whites are less likely to be marginalized statistically.

 

If 30% of all people are intolerant than there is a likelihood of being more intolerant Caucasians than individual minorities. (the 30% is arbitrary.) This is simply due to demographics. And i'm not going to attempt to assign which group is more intolerant than each other. I'm simply stating that if we take the most likely probability which is that racial dislike runs fairly evenly across groups that it's more likely that minorities face intolerance than the majority due to the overwhelming numbers.

 

Except for Buddhists. No one seems to hate on Buddhists. They are just so soft and fluffy, like black horse's blanky. And it's not often you run across a gang of Gay males beating the shit out of straight guys. Maybe that explains some conservative anger over gay marriage. They got their ass kicked by a roving pack of gay males, and teased about their fashion too. (Queer eye for the Straight guy)

[FiredMotorCompany]

Are you crazy?

 

 

 

Nothing I have said fits that. Please set aside your own feelings of being a victim and re read what I said. This time without all that woe is me, I'm white bullshit. I never suggested that anyone of any race had any inherent differences. I said that they had different life experiences. Huge fucking difference

 

They are looking for someone who has had a larger experience with being marginalized and for the most part (there are some exceptions) Caucasians are a majority and rarely suffer from that. The candidate notes this himself and offers up the fact that a family member is part of traditionally marginalized group. His only qualification about his own diversity that he himself notes is his religion.

 

So he was rejected because some people felt he wouldn't understand what they went through. I showed you an example of that in a previous post discussing the VA's use of PTSD suffers to help treat others suffering from the same issue. Can you understand that people are looking for someone who's life experience is broader in terms of dealing with diversity issues or does your political beliefs force you to overlook that and come to rather questionable conclusions?

 

 

Wow! I get bold text from LH when he is accused of displaying blatantly racial discrimination. Perhaps he is a better organizational leader with abilities to listen, understand and to reach out to those groups who have possibly promoted discrimination and therefore may be more effective in eliminating such behavior. The very idea of saying a white man cannot be in charge of a diversity organization because of his race and sexual orientation, is exactly the thing diversity programs are supposed to fight against.

 

You are suggesting he is not qualified specifically because he is white. EEOC prohibits such and prosecutes racial discrimination!

 

 

Ian Coley, a student on the Associate Student Government Diversity and Inclusion Committee, later said white heterosexual males are not qualified to hold the position of associate vice president of diversity and inclusion.

“This university is not ready, in any capacity, for a

heterosexual white male

to be in charge in any way of diversity and inclusion,” said Coley, according to the

Daily Northwestern.

 

 

See EEOC guidelines here.

 

 

Sex-Based Discrimination

Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex.

Sex discrimination also can involve treating someone less favorably because of his or her connection with an organization or group that is generally associated with people of a certain sex.

Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims. These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination, such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.

Sex Discrimination & Work Situations

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Sex Discrimination Harassment

It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person's sex. Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person's sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Sex Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices

An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of sex, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a certain sex and is not job-related or necessary to the operation of the business.

 

And Race:

 

Race/Color Discrimination

Race discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because he/she is of a certain race or because of personal characteristics associated with race (such as hair texture, skin color, or certain facial features). Color discrimination involves treating someone unfavorably because of skin color complexion.

Race/color discrimination also can involve treating someone unfavorably because the person is married to (or associated with) a person of a certain race or color or because of a person’s connection with a race-based organization or group, or an organization or group that is generally associated with people of a certain color.

Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are the same race or color.

Race/Color Discrimination & Work Situations

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Race/Color Discrimination & Harassment

It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person’s race or color.

Harassment can include, for example, racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's race or color, or the display of racially-offensive symbols. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Race/Color Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices

An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of race or color, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a particular race or color and is not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. For example, a “no-beard” employment policy that applies to all workers without regard to race may still be unlawful if it is not job-related and has a negative impact on the employment of African-American men (who have a predisposition to a skin condition that causes severe shaving bumps).

Edited May 22, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany