- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 14,803
- Reaction score
- 11,542
- Location
- Red Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It was probably just my "delusional pap" talking then?Where do you see a threat? If you read it "rationally", you'll see that what I said is you are soon going to be very lonely and no one will bother to listen to you. Be rational, for a change.
I did a little editing to help you understand why there was no threat. I don't make threats.
I'm not sure what the "detention of racism" is, but quoting a dictionary definition? means very little these days - and you should know that.
Here, if you want some better definitions, that are far more applicable to today's society - try these (some are actually quite good): Urban Dictionary: racist
So it seems.It was probably just my "delusional pap" talking then?
Moderator's Warning: |
Fact: The OP cites a quote where Abraham Lincoln gives a landmark speech against slavery in 1858 where he makes this statement: "A house divided against itself cannot stand, I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free."urban dictionary?
no thanks we will stick to facts while you can stick to fantasy
facts proved you wrong, let us know when you have ANY FACTS that support your failed post.
Moderator's Warning: folks, there's a topic here. You can discuss it, but the comments directing and posters and basement level one liners need to stop or further action will be taken
1.)Fact: The OP cites a quote where Abraham Lincoln gives a landmark speech against slavery in 1858 where he makes this statement: "A house divided against itself cannot stand, I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free."
2.) Fact: That speech was about slavery, the enslavement of blacks by whites and the division that practice threatened in this nation.
3.) Fact: The IRS recently declared that married, homosexual couples could file joint income tax returns.
4.) Fact: Some writer writes an article using the IRS ruling to equate the homosexual rights movement with the civil rights movement, citing Abraham Lincoln out-of-context.
5.) Fact: That's using the the topic of slavery to bolster the topic of homosexual rights.
6.) Fact: That's a form of racism - by applying any of a score of similar uses of the word by those who deem themselves racially discriminated against.
Now that's better but let's look at the end of the article, what the writer actually says:Fact: The OP cites a quote where Abraham Lincoln gives a landmark speech against slavery in 1858 where he makes this statement: "A house divided against itself cannot stand, I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free."
Fact: That speech was about slavery, the enslavement of blacks by whites and the division that practice threatened in this nation.
Fact: The IRS recently declared that married, homosexual couples could file joint income tax returns.
Fact: Some writer writes an article using the IRS ruling to equate the homosexual rights movement with the civil rights movement, citing Abraham Lincoln out-of-context.
Fact: That's using the the topic of slavery to bolster the topic of homosexual rights.
Fact: That's a form of racism - by applying any of a score of similar uses of the word by those who deem themselves racially discriminated against.
As I stated in my original post, I believe that the homosexual lobby presuming to use that quote by Abraham Lincoln, which you acknowledge was about the specific issue of slavery, a black issue, a black civil rights issue, that their misappropriation of that quote and use of it out of context shows extreme disrespect to both Abraham Lincoln AND to the civil rights lobby.1.) yes this is a fact. Does it support your failed post about racism though? nope
2.) yes this is a fact it was about how some people were NOT for equality and rights of us all, it was about people who wanted to discriminate and not and not grant civil rights. Does it support your failed post about racism though? nope
3.) yes this is a fact and a victory for equality, equal and civil rights. Does it support your failed post about racism though? nope
4.) nothing was out of context. it was about fight for equality, equal and civil rights and ending discrimination just like now. SO it was a fact he was equating and he was right. Does it support your failed post about racism though? nope
5.) no this is NOT a fact it was about equality, discrimination and equal and civil rights. and the reference was about how another discrimination is now falling
6.) 100% factually false as already proven above and by the definition of the word that totally disagrees with your made up definition. there is NO form of racism here at all. if you disagree by all means use the definition and point it out.
sorry you post loses to facts again
let us know when you have ANY FACTS that support your failed post. Ill be waiting
Homosexual Lobby? Do you think they have an office in Washington that this writer works for???As I stated in my original post, I believe that the homosexual lobby presuming to use that quote by Abraham Lincoln, which you acknowledge was about the specific issue of slavery, a black issue, a black civil rights issue, that their misappropriation of that quote and use of it out of context shows extreme disrespect to both Abraham Lincoln AND to the civil rights lobby.
I believe such disrespect for the [black] civil rights cause fairly and accurately constitutes racism.
Now, if blacks don't have an issue with homosexuals appropriating a quote that was intended for, and made on behalf of their interests and their interests alone, if blacks don't believe that's tantamount to disrespecting them, then you are correct, that wouldn't be racism.
...only Abraham Lincoln wasn't talking about homosexuals, let alone homosexual "rights," LET ALONE homosexual marriage.
I understand and acknowledge that the author is drawing a parallel between the black civil rights movement and today's homosexual rights movement. That's clear, but that's also my point.< Snipped for brevity - see original above >
What you see as "race", stealing the struggle of slaves to be free, is referenced only because the US is divided on gay marriage like we were on slavery and that question had to be solved because a house divided cannot stand. It obviously bothers you that homosexuals see their struggle for rights in the same manner as that of blacks but it could be cast just as easily for Catholics, Jews, Women, etc. It is a fight for rights and in the end the country will come together, some kicking and dragging and screaming is expected. In this case. that means you and people who think as you do for the course is clear, just as it was when we ended slavery. That's all there is.
I'm saying homosexuals attempting to steal a moment in history important to blacks is racism. That's no lie. It's fact.
As I stated in my original post, I believe that the homosexual lobby presuming to use that quote by Abraham Lincoln, which you acknowledge was about the specific issue of slavery, a black issue, a black civil rights issue, that their misappropriation of that quote and use of it out of context shows extreme disrespect to both Abraham Lincoln AND to the civil rights lobby.
2.)I believe such disrespect for the [black] civil rights cause fairly and accurately constitutes racism.
3.)Now, if blacks don't have an issue with homosexuals appropriating a quote that was intended for, and made on behalf of their interests and their interests alone, if blacks don't believe that's tantamount to disrespecting them, then you are correct, that wouldn't be racism.
Homosexual Lobby? Do you think they have an office in Washington that this writer works for???
Leonard Pitts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're right, he was saying either the United States was going to outlaw slavery everywhere or allow slavery everywhere. Lincoln held the unity of the Union supreme over everything else, even the freedom of the slaves. Quoting Lincoln on a subject where personal freedom is given supremacy is not appropriate.
:doh Is he homosexual too?wow lenoard pitts is also black?
wow talk about a failed post, that post couldnt get any more destroyed, that has to be one of the biggest failed posts of the year
Homosexual Lobby? Do you think they have an office in Washington that this writer works for???
Leonard Pitts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:doh Is he homosexual too?
2.) Regardless, that's not the point. Do you think it impossible for a black man to be able to disrespect the black civil rights cause?
:doh Is he homosexual too?
Do you think it impossible for a black man to be able to disrespect the black civil rights cause?
Even if black folk do not have a problem with it, and I am sure there are plenty that do, I, a white person do have a problem with it. Civil Rights is not only a black issue that only black people have allegiance to, it was for all America. That being said it does not mean that any and every group can appropriate a civil rights stance appropriately... as discrimination on skin color, something one is assured that individuals have no control over, would surely be much different from a sexual preference that one plausibly does have some control over. The majority that has set the rules in this country still want marriage to be traditional. 37 states and Puerto Rico either have a state constitutional ban on any other that traditional marriage or by statute declare/define legal marriage as to be one man one woman. To force states that do not go along with what many would call deviance would be what could not be considered to constitute civil rights, that would put it into the realm of special rights. That should be a state's right to decide, not the federal government.Now, if blacks don't have an issue with homosexuals appropriating a quote that was intended for, and made on behalf of their interests and their interests alone, if blacks don't believe that's tantamount to disrespecting them, then you are correct, that wouldn't be racism.
What does Pitts have to do with anything? You think because someone pens an article they must be part of the lobbying group? That is just plain ludicrous. The fact is that there are Gay Lobbyists.Homosexual Lobby? Do you think they have an office in Washington that this writer works for???
Leonard Pitts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think it would be more along the lines of a physicist trying to explain something somewhat complex to a three year old...I certainly understood, didn't most of you out there?Much like a three year old might try to explain quantum physics, yes.
Read his post. That's his opinion, not mine.What does Pitts have to do with anything? You think because someone pens an article they must be part of the lobbying group? That is just plain ludicrous.
On the contrary, I would suspect that the writer was mostly concerned about indulging dishonest turnspeak to further his agenda... and while he might not be using it, others here are using his skin color to deflect criticism of something that they cannot defend straight up [ no pun intended ].No, but when a black man honors the cause by applying the same principles to others, only to be attacked for it by those with hateful agendas, you can sure bet that the attackers don't give a rat's ass about civil rights and are are only indulging in dishonest turnspeak so to further their agenda.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?