I'm not denying that there's clear hypocrisy on display in that thread. The right-wingers who dutifully promote Haley, despite her abject failure at her current job and the one before that, are the same ones who purported to critique Obama and Clinton based on less troubling records. I admit that the rank hypocrisy on the part of the conservatives is worthy of comment, but my point here is simply that this was a usual form of misdirection from the topic at hand to a tangential personal attack. I don't mind the personal attacks if they're coupled with substantive discussion, but when they're in lieu of it, it's a whole lot less interesting. I am primarily interested in the important question of whether Haley is, in fact, a good candidate for the job -- your hypocrisy doesn't make her one bit more or less qualified for the job.The point on the Haley thread was to establish your baseline of standards (performance). If you didn't hold prior folks (Obama/Hillary) accountable to the same performance measures you are applying to to Nikki then how truly valid is your opinion on the subject of Haley and her performance? The question on your prior positions established that you are espousing a hypocritical politically motivated viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that given we all have biases, I just wanted to bring it out into the sunlight relative to that topic.
If that query in that thread bothered you so much, perhaps you should consider joining the Hello Kitty Forum. I hear there's little challenge of fantasy based opinions there. Heck, maybe Herr Hillary could win in that one?
Enjoy!
To a Liberal, everything sounds like bigotry. You have to resort to that because most of you are so simple minded, you are incapable of making an intelligible argument.What about the NFL players you talked so ugly about? Was that motivated by politics? It sounded like good old fashioned bigotry to me.
Only the ones who disrespect the flag, the country, and the military that protects their right to be human garbage. But I don't have a problem with the black athletes, most of them are Democrats so I expect them to act like pigs. it's the white bread, cracker Motherf**kers I don't like. They ought to know better.You think Jack is bigoted towards multi-millionaire professional athletes?
Well, @JackDallas , not "everything" sounds like bigotry to Democrats. Just everything that non-Democrats say. In their opinion, Democrats can make bigoted and racist statements all the time and somehow it doesn't count.To a Liberal, everything sounds like bigotry. You have to resort to that because most of you are so simple minded, you are incapable of making an intelligible argument.
I wonder why I thought of Donald Trump when you said " simple minded?"To a Liberal, everything sounds like bigotry. You have to resort to that because most of you are so simple minded, you are incapable of making an intelligible argument.
My guess is because you are too simple-minded to understand basic English. It's clear that meant you and your ilk. Only the extremely simple-minded would not understand what I meant.I wonder why I thought of Donald Trump when you said " simple minded?"
Since libs again whining of rules and now "racist" is a no-no, why not libs much used word "Deplorable"............the 'N' word and 'Deplorable' has same meaning.Apparently calling someone a racist is good for a suspension (regardless of whether the person is, as a factual matter, a racist). How about "Jew-hater"? Is that one OK? I just want to be clear on what I'm allowed to say. Thanks.
Incorrect. The "N" words is a racial slur directed against people based on their ancestry, while "deplorable" is a value judgment directed at people based on their choices.Since libs again whining of rules and now "racist" is a no-no, why not libs much used word "Deplorable"............the 'N' word and 'Deplorable' has same meaning.
What makes you think so? Did you see a big change in the polls following her use of that word?Of course the word did cost ya gal the election
Not really. All you people who supported genocide before she went public with the plan, still supported it after (hence your Himmler quotes). I think it was a wake up call for non-Hillary supporters, who finally woke to the realization they were in grave physical danger if she were to be elected.Incorrect. The "N" words is a racial slur directed against people based on their ancestry, while "deplorable" is a value judgment directed at people based on their choices.
What makes you think so? Did you see a big change in the polls following her use of that word?
As you know, there was no substantial movement in the polls following her "deplorables" comment, and within a month her polls were significantly higher than they'd been before the comment. So, there doesn't appear to be any evidence the comment hurt her in any meaningful way. By comparison, look at the hit she took with Comey's October Surprise Letter -- a sudden dip in her polling numbers, from which she never really recovered. If we saw a pattern like that following the deplorables comment, one could make a good case that it killed her elections chances. But that's an alternate-reality analysis.Not really. All you people who supported genocide before she went public with the plan, still supported it after (hence your Himmler quotes). I think it was a wake up call for non-Hillary supporters, who finally woke to the realization they were in grave physical danger if she were to be elected.
That's what I said. All you genocidal nutjobs were genocidal nutjobs before Hillary publicly joined your club. Her declaration to murder 32 million Americans because they disagree with her politics didn't faze you at all. In fact, you doubled down and expanded the planned extermination campaign to ALL Trump supporters.As you know, there was no substantial movement in the polls following her "deplorables" comment, and within a month her polls were significantly higher than they'd been before the comment. So, there doesn't appear to be any evidence the comment hurt her in any meaningful way. By comparison, look at the hit she took with Comey's October Surprise Letter -- a sudden dip in her polling numbers, from which she never really recovered. If we saw a pattern like that following the deplorables comment, one could make a good case that it killed her elections chances. But that's an alternate-reality analysis.
Bingo!JackDallas said: ↑
To a Liberal, everything sounds like bigotry. You have to resort to that because most of you are so simple minded, you are incapable of making an intelligible argument.
My guess is because you are too simple-minded to understand basic English. It's clear that meant you and your ilk. Only the extremely simple-minded would not understand what I meant.
Except that we should all be able to call each other what ever we wish - outside liable - it was always so much more fun when we could speak freely -- I do so hate censorship - don't you?You've called all of us that, and worse. Why don't you just man up instead? That way, I wouldn't need to keep embarrassing you like this.
Also, editing other peoples' words because they hurt your feelings is cowardly and dishonest. Again, man up.
The actual and correct word is racialist - which could have more than one meaning.Thanks. However, it seems there's now a special zero-tolerance rule when it comes to calling people "racist." That gets an automatic suspension. By comparison, I receive a dozen replies a day, here, which are about me, personally, rather than about the post, and those seem to be tolerated.... in fact, I've experienced such replies from the site owner and the moderators. Generally the form it takes is for me to make a point about some subject (e.g., Nikki Haley's lack of success in her prior jobs), and a reply to change the focus to my standing to post on the topic (e.g., suggesting that I'm not qualified to comment on it, because, supposedly, I had no issue with Obama's performance as a Senator). It appears that is regarded as appropriate, while the "r word" is treated as a special case. That strikes me as odd -- especially since actual racism is treated as fully acceptable discourse here, while merely calling attention to the fact the poster is a racist is out-of-bounds. Oh well.
I do.Except that we should all be able to call each other what ever we wish - outside liable - it was always so much more fun when we could speak freely -- I do so hate censorship - don't you?
How would you distinguish between racism and racialism?The actual and correct word is racialist - which could have more than one meaning.
The correct word is racialism whose meaning is not necessarily negative.How would you distinguish between racism and racialism?
How would you distinguish between racism and racialism?The correct word is racialism whose meaning is not necessarily negative.
To distinguish between races is not automatically negative - racialism is not necessarily negative. Racism isn't a proper word but a diminutive of racialism used as a slur. Sure it is in the dictionary now but it came out of racialism = to distinguish between races.How would you distinguish between racism and racialism?