Biden's VP

[jakee 1,489]

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Why is it controversial?  Because some see it as hypocritical.

Who sees it as hypocritical? Why do they see it as hypocritical?

 

Why do you think it could possibly be hypocritical to simply have an ancestor who did bad things? No one in the world can control that.

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Do I find all black people to be controversial?  No.

Why not? They’re damn near all in the same boat as Harris, and you said Harris was controversial. What makes her special?

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Calling it controversial is not racist.  Not even as Fuck.

It’s fucking racist as fuck.

 

A white guy judging the ‘black person’ credentials of a black person because of something that happened outside of her control 200 years ago and which has had zero impact on her life?

[olofscience 480]

12 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Because some see it as hypocritical.

You're becoming like Trump, "some say"... "many people say". Who?

Take a stand, Turtle. Do you see it as hypocritical that Kamala Harris' ancestors were slave owners?

[jakee 1,489]

52 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Take a stand, Turtle. Do you see it as hypocritical that Kamala Harris' ancestors were slave owners?

Good luck. The guy doesn’t have a single principle or belief he’s willing to put his name to. In many ways he’s like the quintessential establishment politician.

[olofscience 480]

11 minutes ago, jakee said:

The guy doesn’t have a single principle or belief he’s willing to put his name to. In many ways he’s like the quintessential establishment politician.

Careful. He might think that's a compliment.

[wmw999 2,444]

Guys, discuss the ideas (or lack thereof), not the person.

Wendy P.

[olofscience 480]

41 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Guys, discuss the ideas (or lack thereof), not the person.

Wendy P.

It would be nice to have ideas to discuss, but as I have mentioned the use of "some say", "some people see it as..." is a cop-out for something completely made up.

Until now, Trump has failed to produce the "manual" which says that there is such a thing as too much testing for covid-19.

[kallend 2,026]

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

It would be nice to have ideas to discuss, but as I have mentioned the use of "some say", "some people see it as..." is a cop-out for something completely made up.

Until now, Trump has failed to produce the "manual" which says that there is such a thing as too much testing for covid-19.

He's also failed to produce the health plan he promised "within two weeks" on July 19.

(But no one expects a habitual liar to tell the truth).

[turtlespeed 220]

15 hours ago, jakee said:

Who sees it as hypocritical? Why do they see it as hypocritical?

 

Why do you think it could possibly be hypocritical to simply have an ancestor who did bad things? No one in the world can control that.

Why not? They’re damn near all in the same boat as Harris, and you said Harris was controversial. What makes her special?

It’s fucking racist as fuck.

 

A white guy judging the ‘black person’ credentials of a black person because of something that happened outside of her control 200 years ago and which has had zero impact on her life?

I'm not judging anyone.

I originally asked why the networks weren't talking about it.

Well, specifically CNN and MSNBC.

And, no.  That particular question is not fucking racist as fuck, no matter how hard you wish it to be.

The father was influenced by the heritage, thus the daughter was.

Edited August 25, 2020 by turtlespeed

[turtlespeed 220]

10 hours ago, jakee said:

Good luck. The guy doesn’t have a single principle or belief he’s willing to put his name to. In many ways he’s like the quintessential establishment politician.

I've learned that from Kallend.

[jakee 1,489]

41 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm not judging anyone.

Yes you are. Don't be a sea lion.

Quote

I originally asked why the networks weren't talking about it.

Because it's a nonsensical non-issue pushed only by the racist hyper right.

Quote

And, no.  That particular question is not fucking racist as fuck, no matter how hard you wish it to be.

It's fucking racist as fuck and being parroted by fucking racists.

Quote

The father was influenced by the heritage, thus the daughter was.

He knew what it was, but how was he influenced by it? Did it make him a hypocrite?

 

She knows what it is, but how is she influenced by it? How does it make her a hypocrite?

[jakee 1,489]

42 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I've learned that from Kallend.

More political squirming. You'd be right at home in the swamp.

[wmw999 2,444]

My eyes are starting to roll back in their head. Move on. Turtle, it’s not talked about on mainstream media because it’s not relevant when the vast likelihood is that she got NO benefits from slaveholding. Money, power, and social status didn’t go to the children of slaves. 

Jakee, it’s the edge of calling Turtle racist, and a personal attack. The argument isn’t worth “winning.”

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,990]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm not judging anyone.I originally asked why the networks weren't talking about it.

Well, specifically CNN and MSNBC.

For someone who claims to not watch mainstream media, and regularly talks about how irrelevant and wrong it is, you sure put a lot of stake in what they say.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

53 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

My eyes are starting to roll back in their head. Move on. Turtle, it’s not talked about on mainstream media because it’s not relevant when the vast likelihood is that she got NO benefits from slaveholding. Money, power, and social status didn’t go to the children of slaves. 

Jakee, it’s the edge of calling Turtle racist, and a personal attack. The argument isn’t worth “winning.”

Wendy P. 

Why not call a racist a racist? What's wrong with winning. Seriously Mod's, SC is becoming a reflection of the new crappy world we live in: be nice at TSA, no more back talking the cops, and don't offend aunt Esther who believes unbelievable bullshit. How about a new rule: if you can't take a jab post in Bonfire.

[billvon 2,990]

19 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Why not call a racist a racist? What's wrong with winning. Seriously Mod's, SC is becoming a reflection of the new crappy world we live in . . . .

It's been the basic rule here for about two decades.  Nothing new.

[gowlerk 2,190]

6 minutes ago, billvon said:

It's been the basic rule here for about two decades.  Nothing new.

Is it a personal attack to call someone a racist? It’s OK to call them Republican, it’s pretty much the same thing!

[turtlespeed 220]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Yes you are. Don't be a sea lion.

Because it's a nonsensical non-issue pushed only by the racist hyper right.

It's fucking racist as fuck and being parroted by fucking racists.

He knew what it was, but how was he influenced by it? Did it make him a hypocrite?

 

She knows what it is, but how is she influenced by it? How does it make her a hypocrite?

Oh Look!  Jakee found a new buzz word to bandy about like a wind sock. (Yawn)

It isn't nonsensical.  When someone disagrees with something, one reaction is to say it's nonsense.  That is probably their way of not wanting to dissect the issue, resisting it and thus cannot see past their own thoughts.

I have been guilty of this before.

Asking these questions is not racist.  

When you say "He knew what it was." what is "it" that you refer to?

If you meant his past and his heritage, then, no it doesn't make him a hypocrite.  It makes him informed.

I believe if you read what was written by her father, the past gave him inspiration.  Evidently enough to become successful and  then pass that mindset down to his daughter.  How could that possibly make her a hypocrite?

 

 

[turtlespeed 220]

56 minutes ago, billvon said:

For someone who claims to not watch mainstream media, and regularly talks about how irrelevant and wrong it is, you sure put a lot of stake in what they say.

In this case - what they don't say.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

17 minutes ago, billvon said:

It's been the basic rule here for about two decades.  Nothing new.

Then Brents right. Let's stick with the fossil fuel basic rule, too.

[billvon 2,990]

16 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Then Brents right. Let's stick with the fossil fuel basic rule, too.

Do you really equate basic rules of discourse to technological advances?  Because I notice your airplanes aren't covered in fabric . . . .

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Do you really equate basic rules of discourse to technological advances?  Because I notice your airplanes aren't covered in fabric . . . .

I do. But then I've also noticed that aircraft design has evolved, too.

[turtlespeed 220]

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Do you really equate basic rules of discourse to technological advances?  Because I notice your airplanes aren't covered in fabric . . . .

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fairly straight forward, right?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Do you really equate basic rules of discourse to technological advances?  Because I notice your airplanes aren't covered in fabric . . . .

Bill, I don't equate things that way. I am saying that SC, by and through it's moderators, is trailing behind the needs of it's adherents.

 

[jakee 1,489]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

It isn't nonsensical.  When someone disagrees with something, one reaction is to say it's nonsense.  That is probably their way of not wanting to dissect the issue, resisting it and thus cannot see past their own thoughts.

Come on Turtle, you know how nonsensical and dishonest that is. I have been crystal clear on the reasons why it is nonsense. You are avoiding dissecting this issue. You want to be able to ciritcise Harris and the media by the back door, parroting the racist hyper right criticisms of her, calling it a controversy while never putting your cards on the table and explaining why you think it could possibly be controversial. 

 

Claiming it's the other way round is not only another lie, it's the height of sleazy politician-like behaviour. Grow a spine and state your position.

Quote

Asking these questions is not racist. 

Asking why the media isn't covering a meritless racist hit job is racist.

Quote

If you meant his past and his heritage, then, no it doesn't make him a hypocrite.  It makes him informed.

So is 'some people' called him a hypocrite because of it they would clearly be wrong? And his ancestry would not be controversial?

Quote

I believe if you read what was written by her father, the past gave him inspiration.  Evidently enough to become successful and  then pass that mindset down to his daughter.  How could that possibly make her a hypocrite?

A ) You think he became successful because he was inspired by knowing he had a white slave owning ancestor? Dude, wow. I mean, WOW!!! You might want to reconsider that statement because it's racist as fuck.

 

B ) Now you're saying there's nothing in Kamala Harris' ancestry that could possibly make her a hypocrite? Which means there's nothing controversial in her ancestry. Which means there's no reason for CNN and MSNBC to be covering that 'controversy'. 

 

Congratulations, you've finally answered your own question.