DescentBB

...is racist.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/12/media/u ... index.html


"I openly voted twice for your husband, Barack Obama, because I consider him a great man who respects minorities like me in this country," he said.

Like I said...hypocrisy.

Not a very good choice of words just to criticize Michelle Obama's makeup artist. The reference is historically racist anyway you parse it.

The guy had an expansive presence on Univision- and a very promising career making a ton of money on a growing network.

All of that was thrown away with a racist statement that took probably less than 3 seconds to say- yet, like I said...most liberals are racist as hell.

Liberals/"Progressives" don't see human beings- they see #1 color. #2 racial identity and any variation of stereotype that follows.

If he was talking about the makeup job, i'm sure he could have phrased it differently.

but it seems like an off-the-cuff, very stupid, and slightly offensive remark to make.

ThunderBunny wrote:The guy had an expansive presence on Univision- and a very promising career making a ton of money on a growing network.

All of that was thrown away with a racist statement that took probably less than 3 seconds to say- yet, like I said...most liberals are racist as hell.

Liberals/"Progressives" don't see human beings- they see #1 color. #2 racial identity and any variation of stereotype that follows.

You're wrong TB. It's not "liberal nature" or "conservative nature", but "business nature". It was purely a business decision to terminate this guy over something inappropriate he said on air, which certainly would have created a ruckus that was not in the best interests of the company. Lots of businesses have terminated people for similar 3 second "mistakes", or posts for that matter. If this guy had been in a union, his "mistake" may not have cost him his job. Without a union, an employee's job security is at the desecration of his employers.

http://www.cnet.com/news/yes-insults-on ... d_fragment_=#

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook ... 011-5?op=1

tunnelcat wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:The guy had an expansive presence on Univision- and a very promising career making a ton of money on a growing network.

All of that was thrown away with a racist statement that took probably less than 3 seconds to say- yet, like I said...most liberals are racist as hell.

Liberals/"Progressives" don't see human beings- they see #1 color. #2 racial identity and any variation of stereotype that follows.

You're wrong TB. It's not "liberal nature" or "conservative nature", but "business nature". It was purely a business decision to terminate this guy over something inappropriate he said on air, which certainly would have created a ruckus that was not in the best interests of the company. Lots of businesses have terminated people for similar 3 second "mistakes", or posts for that matter. If this guy had been in a union, his "mistake" may not have cost him his job. Without a union, an employee's job security is at the desecration of his employers.

http://www.cnet.com/news/yes-insults-on ... d_fragment_=#

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook ... 011-5?op=1

In terms of what happened to him because of the black mark he smeared across Univision- I'm not surprised nor outraged- it was the only thing the network could to to make things right. His racism oozed out and cost him his job.

My point is that LIBERALS (as they call themselves) are RACIST.

They see race/color where one should see a human being. They also see a stereotypical caricature of a race...where there should be a human being.

hahahahahaha wow.

Ferno wrote:hahahahahaha wow.

Yeah- someone on here from the 'left' side of the spectrum called middle eastern people 'brown people.'

Yes TB, because liberals enacted Jim Crow legislation. Or supported George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. Or turned fire hoses on marchers 50 years ago. Or conduct random stop-and-frisks. Or think that businesses should be able to deny service based on sexual orientation.

...oh wait, no.

once again, TG shows that reality has a left-wing bias.

Top Gun wrote:Yes TB, because liberals enacted Jim Crow legislation. Or supported George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. Or turned fire hoses on marchers 50 years ago. Or conduct random stop-and-frisks. Or think that businesses should be able to deny service based on sexual orientation.

...oh wait, no.

I suggest you look and see what party was controlling those cops with the hoses. And while you're at it look up how many Rep. voted to pass the civil rights act and how many Dems did.

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Yes TB, because liberals enacted Jim Crow legislation. Or supported George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. Or turned fire hoses on marchers 50 years ago. Or conduct random stop-and-frisks. Or think that businesses should be able to deny service based on sexual orientation.

...oh wait, no.

I suggest you look and see what party was controlling those cops with the hoses. And while you're at it look up how many Rep. voted to pass the civil rights act and how many Dems did.

Liberal vs. conservative isn't the same dichotomy as Democrat vs. Republican.

And it isn’t impossible for someone to claim there are something in public, and actually be something else in private.

I have heard some pretty racist comments from some people who claim to be “liberals”, of course someone on this board just implied I simply don’t know what a “true” liberal is.

…even though I said “self identified"…

Jeff250 wrote:
Liberal vs. conservative isn't the same dichotomy as Democrat vs. Republican.

Not according to slick or TC.

Jeff250 wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Yes TB, because liberals enacted Jim Crow legislation. Or supported George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. Or turned fire hoses on marchers 50 years ago. Or conduct random stop-and-frisks. Or think that businesses should be able to deny service based on sexual orientation.

...oh wait, no.

I suggest you look and see what party was controlling those cops with the hoses. And while you're at it look up how many Rep. voted to pass the civil rights act and how many Dems did.

Liberal vs. conservative isn't the same dichotomy as Democrat vs. Republican.

astoundingly obvious, yet Woody misses that fact regularly.

woodchip wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:
Liberal vs. conservative isn't the same dichotomy as Democrat vs. Republican.

Not according to slick or TC.

sorry to intrude with reality again, but in TODAY'S world, the GOP has been overrun by conservative extremists.

And the DNC has been over run by liberal extremists,
ya everyone can play your stupid games

You saying and even believing something like that makes you part of the problem

CUDA wrote:And the DNC has been over run by liberal extremists,
ya everyone can play your stupid games

not really, if you got out and paid attention. The extremists are and have been pretty marginalized since Obama's team took over the DNC leadership. And, they are upset, and have been. You simply don't realize where the extremes lie.

I agree, because extremism in The DNC has now become main stream.
let's keep Playing. Your turn

the moment the Green Party coopts the Dems, I'll agree with you, CUDA. That is akin to what has happened with the GOP.

callmeslick wrote:the moment the Green Party coopts the Dems, I'll agree with you, CUDA. That is akin to what has happened with the GOP.

The communist party co-opted the progressive wing of the Democrat party and the progressive's are in charge now. The word Progressive does have a nice forward thinking ring to it except what the progressives really want to move us toward has already been tried and failed.

sorry, woody, but you have utterly NO CLUE what you are talking about. Virtually every Progressive I know is, at best, leery of the Dems, and most are Green Party affiliated, and don't vote Democratic. Sure, there are a few hanging on in national politics(Sanders, Warren), but nationwide, progressives do NOT view the Democrats as anything but far too centrist.Try discussing things you actually know about next time.

Why? You claimed the tea party has taken over the GOP. Your bull★■◆● liberal blogs proclaiming it makes it no more true then you denying the DNC is just a bunch of liberal extremists.

Again your attitude is part of the problem today. You go straight to vilify instead of working things out.

Your credibility on this matter is zero. Fun game though, let's see what other stupid partisan claims you can come up with

Top Gun wrote:Yes TB, because liberals enacted Jim Crow legislation. Or supported George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. Or turned fire hoses on marchers 50 years ago. Or conduct random stop-and-frisks. Or think that businesses should be able to deny service based on sexual orientation.

...oh wait, no.

And you apparently overlooked what I said:

My point is that LIBERALS (as they call themselves) are RACIST.

Todays liberals are ANYTHING BUT true free thinkers. They are hypocrites, racists and are just as closed minded as those old southern democrats of yesteryear that lynched Americans of African descent.

ThunderBunny wrote:Yeah- someone on here from the 'left' side of the spectrum called middle eastern people 'brown people.'

so one person here says 'brown people' and suddenly 'all liberals are racist'

hahahahaha WOW.

ThunderBunny wrote:My point is that LIBERALS (as they call themselves) are RACIST.

no, this is what you said, before you edited it.

My point is that LIBERALS are RACIST.

you can't get away with this kind of bs here.

-------------

CUDA wrote:Why? You claimed the tea party has taken over the GOP. Your bull★■◆● liberal blogs proclaiming it makes it no more true then you denying the DNC is just a bunch of liberal extremists.

Liberal extremists? no such thing.

But if you mean left-wing extremism (which I suspect you do), you're talking about anarchists and communists, yes?

CUDA wrote:Why? You claimed the tea party has taken over the GOP. Your **** liberal blogs proclaiming it makes it no more true then you denying the DNC is just a bunch of liberal extremists.

No, but the voting record of the GOP-led House DOES, CUDA. Quit denying the obvious. The tea baggers control the primaries, even in relatively moderate Delaware. The tea baggers lead Boehner around, forcing him to concede to the Dems just to get legislation passed. If such radical notions(yes, shutting down government is a radical notion, as are the positions on a host of other issues) permeated the Democratic party to the point of being suggested as legislation, or I saw the loony fringe from the Greens start taking over our primaries, I'd agree with you, but I cannot and don't.

Again your attitude is part of the problem today. You go straight to vilify instead of working things out.

CUDA wrote:And the DNC has been over run by liberal extremists,
ya everyone can play your stupid games

yeah, thats MY problem. Own a mirror at Chez CUDA?

Your credibility on this matter is zero. Fun game though, let's see what other stupid partisan claims you can come up with

not me doing the vilifying. Actually, the first instance in this thread was when the OP wrote the title.

You didn't catch that my DNC post was in response to your asinine GOP post huh. Why am i not surprised.

CUDA wrote:You didn't catch that my DNC post was in response to your asinine GOP post huh. Why am i not surprised.

what is 'asinine' about an obvious truth, that is visible in every state in the Union, CUDA? Denying it doesn't mean the Tea Party doesn't run the GOP show, and by definition they are EXTREMIST conservatives, just the way the Greens are extremist liberals. And, to return to what I was discussing when your bile duct apparently backed up, trying to equate the parties with 'conservative' or 'liberal' labels based on current times, and then cite examples from both parties in 1960 is completely foolish. In those days, both parties had a conservative and a liberal wing, with a spectrum in between. What separated them wasn't left or right, but certain core focal points. The Dems focused on working people and expansive foreign policy, the GOP on the wealthier and a very restrained(almost insular) foreign policy. After the migration that sent southern conseratives into the GOP, and the growth of neoconservative philosophies, the GOP changed altogether. Vietnam changed the foreign policy views of the Dems. The GOP has maintained a much more ruthless position towards members who don't toe the current line, and hence has become extremist almost by self-design.

callmeslick wrote:sorry, woody, but you have utterly NO CLUE what you are talking about. Virtually every Progressive I know is, at best, leery of the Dems, and most are Green Party affiliated, and don't vote Democratic. Sure, there are a few hanging on in national politics(Sanders, Warren), but nationwide, progressives do NOT view the Democrats as anything but far too centrist.Try discussing things you actually know about next time.

Perhaps you should try posting something you know about:

https://books.google.com/books?id=JUQ0O ... ty&f=false

But today's Progressive Caucus still is allied with the American Communist Party and Democratic Socialists of America. I don't consider this to be a break but a continuation of the traditional alignment of the American Left.

http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-diffe ... liberalism

"Since September 11, 2001, the Progressive mantra and ideology has been completely co-opted by the Communist Party USA, the New Left of the Students for a Democratic Society and the ilk of the Saul Alinsky school of community organizing."

http://www.corson.org/archives/culture/C2014_05.htm

When asked in a debate during the 2008 presidential primaries if she considers herself a liberal, Hillary Clinton said she prefers “the word progressive”

These are just a few links showing how totally ignorant you are (or possibly actively trying ,with full knowledge, to deny the CPUSA control of the Progressives) of what is going on. For you to say such blatantly wrong statements once again shows how you operate. Now, provide links that refute mine or kindly step out of the discussion.

By who's definition?
YOURS?
the left wing?
the demogoging Democrats that feel the need to create a BoogieMan to fool the uninformed into voting their way?
Your hyperbole means ★■◆●, your opinion means ★■◆●.
the DNC is exactly the same, and the voting record of the leadership proves it to be true. so let's keep Playing your stupid game.

Guaranteed-to-be-fatal drinking game: every time Woody horrifically misuses the word "communist" or "socialist," take a shot.

Or will with his use of 'premise' when it should be 'argument'.

Top Gun wrote:Guaranteed-to-be-fatal drinking game: every time Woody horrifically misuses the word "communist" or "socialist," take a shot.

So the people I quoted and linked also do not know what a communist is...or maybe it is you who does not.

not one of them has ANYTHING to do with the Democratic party, worth noting. Not ONE.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/

so what your saying is that since none of the members of the progressive caucus "calls" themselves a "party" that your hyperbole is actually true and not just your normal parsing of words.

keep trying. And you just have to love the qualifier

" worth noting"

And just what has that to do with anything? You are not a member of the Republican party yet you certainly make a lot of comments about them

CUDA wrote:http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/

so what your saying is that since none of the members of the progressive caucus "calls" themselves a "party" that your hyperbole is actually true and not just your normal parsing of words.

keep trying. And you just have to love the qualifier

" worth noting"

those people have no affiliation with the groups listed by Woody. Calling oneself Progressive(I do) and being a member of the Progressive party are two separate animals. Of course, you likely could figure that out, but it fecks with your alternate universe that you live upon.

I'm sure there are MULTIPLE Progressive caucuses.

and for some bizarre reason I cant find any current reference to a "progressive party" at least nationally.

parsing your words again?

callmeslick wrote:

those people have no affiliation with the groups listed by Woody. Calling oneself Progressive(I do) and being a member of the Progressive party are two separate animals. Of course, you likely could figure that out, but it fecks with your alternate universe that you live upon.

Kinda like calling yourself a communist but not being a member of the party.