• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Study: Cons are more racist than Libs

Originally posted by debate_junkie
Quite a few times actually, Billo, but then again, it's much easier to get inflamed when a member of the opposite party does it, all the while glossing over a likeminded person in the political arena.

The generalization I was referring to, was your comment regarding Nelson Mandella thinking George Bush to be an arrogant asshole, and then you said you didn't know how arrogance came with the territory of being American, which IS a sweeping generalization. Arrogance doesn't come with the territory. Arrogance is a character trait that SOME possess.

Anyway, regardless, alot of people use generalizations, and don't even realize they do so. But to say one does it more than the other, or one is more racist because of it than the other is ludicrous, bordering on downright childish. THAT'S my point.
I understand your point and it makes sense. I'm not sure if your understanding mine, or just choosing not too. Mandela said that about Bush, as for arrogance coming with the territory, it was a figure of speech. I did not expect you to take it at it's literal meaning. You cannot tell me that the perception of Americans around the world is that we are altruistic. Go ask anyone you know that was not born (or grew up) here. Everyone I've ever met, that is non-American, thinks we are an arrogant, narcissistic nation that has been dumbed down from watching too much TV.

Why do you think we have gone into other countries that have done nothing to us, in violation of our own laws, and expect people to say thank you for bombing them? You don't think that is a national collective arrogance? I certainly hope so. Because if it isn't, then it is far worse. Because then, it means we just don't care.
 
Billo_Really said:
I understand your point and it makes sense. I'm not sure if your understanding mine, or just choosing not too. Mandela said that about Bush, as for arrogance coming with the territory, it was a figure of speech. I did not expect you to take it at it's literal meaning. You cannot tell me that the perception of Americans around the world is that we are altruistic. Go ask anyone you know that was not born (or grew up) here. Everyone I've ever met, that is non-American, thinks we are an arrogant, narcissistic nation that has been dumbed down from watching too much TV.

Why do you think we have gone into other countries that have done nothing to us, in violation of our own laws, and expect people to say thank you for bombing them? You don't think that is a national collective arrogance? I certainly hope so. Because if it isn't, then it is far worse. Because then, it means we just don't care.

Well, thanks to the advent of the internet, I know quite a few non-American's, and have even had a few come to stay with me while they've visited America. Some have had that exact same view... UNTIL they saw the missing towers in NYC, and saw the area where Flight 93 went down in Somerset PA (I live about an hour and a half away from that site). People cannot understand what we as American's endured on that day, and even after seeing what's left (or gone completely) they get a better idea of WHY things are happening as they are now.

Until any nation has been subjected to the types of attacks we were, can you honestly believe they know what it is we're dealing with? I don't think so. All they did was SEE, after the fact, the deadly attacks. Why don't you talk to someone who was lucky enough to make it out of the towers, or lost a loved one in any 4 of the planes or the 3 targets?

If world perception should be the mitigating factor in protecting our shores, than I truly feel sorry for you, Billo. Because you're trying to appease people who A) have no clue what 9/11 truly was, B) have forgotten the FIRST attempt on the trade center, and subsequent attacks to our embassies, and the USS Cole, and C) wouldn't have the first idea how to begin to pick up the pieces if they ever faced such a large scale attack, as we have.

It's easy to perceive arragance... but just because it's perceived, doesn't make it so.
 
Debate Junkie said:
Until any nation has been subjected to the types of attacks we were, can you honestly believe they know what it is we're dealing with?

I don't understand this statement?

With anti-American sentiment increasing world wide, the number of nations who have faced terrorist bombings is much too long to list here.

Can you honestly believe we know what it is they're dealing with?

You make it sound as though America is the only nation to experience terrorism, therefore, we have a right to take whatever recourse we deem necessary?

What if every nation felt this way? Can you say chain reaction and world annihilation?
 
debate_junkie said:
Was it not Kanye West who was quoted on national tv as saying George Bush hates black people?

How is that racist, he was just stating his belief, however off he might be. And he did not say 'hates' he said does not care about, big difference. Racist would be saying that because he believes that George Bush does not care about black people, he therefore does not care about white people. Accusing someone of racism, may make you wrong, but it does not make you racist.
 
Billo_Really said:
Can you give me some examples? I'm pretty far left and I don't have a racist bone in my body. And I don't hate Jews. But I do think the right exhibits more hatred and intolerance of others that do not share there view of society.

You don't here people on the left speaking as much in those generalizations many neo's love to spew out like "you liberals", "the dems" or "the left". But I do agree it not all on just one side. I cringe everytime I hear some whacko lefty start talking about how the Adminstration caused 9/11. Or that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon. Or that we dynamited Building #7. We lose all credibility when some start talking that crap.


Here is an article you might want to check out to see what I'm talking about, and there are lots of links from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Antisemitism

As to a few examples, I might point out to that accusatory star of David on Sindy Sheehan's teeshirt (i/e -- her son died because of Jews), or those many conspiracy theories about 911 where Jews were warned to get out of the towers, or Cynthia McKinney's comments that congress is occupied Israeli territory (classic antisemitic notions that Jews have undue influence on others and are scheming for world control).


I sure haven't seen anything from you to indicate you are antisemitic, as you strike me as more of a 70's style liberal. There is a big difference between saying a certain attitude is endemic to the left (or right) and saying that same attitude actually defines either, so no accusation on my part.

I'm with you on the "you liberals" rhetorec, and IMO this is indicative of a sort of Manichean attitude towards politics where never the twain shall meet, and one is either with you or against you. Hmmmm, that sounds familiar, somehow -- wonder where I've heard it? Now, this is certainly much reinforced on the radio stations people listen to where conservatism = good and liberality = bad, and if this is the extent of people's understanding of the body politic, they really don't have much to say. The world is much more complicated than these simple dichotomies, and the voicing of such only elicits a digging in of the heels and a reactionary attitude. This is my biggest criticism of that part of the left that has adopted the attitude "o.k., well we're against you, then". In doing so, many people inadvertantly adopt the attitudes of other people who are against us, and that includes the Islamists. I think this is where much of the antisemitism comes from, in that people are sympathetic to that sort of rhetorec simply because it is anti Bush as they are willing to believe anything as long as it is.

An enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily one's friend, and I see people's hatred of Bush as driving many right into the hands of a greater enemy.
 
Hoot said:
I don't understand this statement?

With anti-American sentiment increasing world wide, the number of nations who have faced terrorist bombings is much too long to list here.

Can you honestly believe we know what it is they're dealing with?

You make it sound as though America is the only nation to experience terrorism, therefore, we have a right to take whatever recourse we deem necessary?

What if every nation felt this way? Can you say chain reaction and world annihilation?

If you read the entire context of Billo's post, and my respone, you'll see that statement was put into place, because the impression I'm getting from Billo is that no matter what happens to America, we should not be doing what it is we're doing, simply because it will give us a bad impression within the world.

I was NOT suggesting no other nation hasn't experienced terrorism. It is rampant in the Middle East. We went from the time of the first WTC bombing until the end of the previous president's second term, and not ONE time was there any action in response to the attacks that were taken against us. Not one time. But now all of a sudden, there is a response to these lowlife's who've perpetrated this response, and the world hates us? Please. and THAT's the crux of my point to Billo.

You can't tell me that we should base our national security and protection of our citizens based on world perception should we? And while we've not dealt with suicide bombings in this country, name me one city worldwide that's had 3 planes PURPOSELY flown into their buildings. I don't think you can.
 
"[I would] never submit to fight beneath that banner with a Negro by my side. Rather, I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongers, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." -- Robert Byrd

"I'll have them ******s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." -- President Lyndon Baines Johnson



(yes, the ******s is that special "N" word.)
 
Mark A Shrider said:
"[I would] never submit to fight beneath that banner with a Negro by my side. Rather, I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongers, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." -- Robert Byrd

"I'll have them ******s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." -- President Lyndon Baines Johnson



(yes, the ******s is that special "N" word.)


Out of curiosity, why did you not reference the dates those statements were made?
 
A couple points about this "scientific" study:

1) It is not published yet, so if there is flawed thinking in it, we conveniently cannot know.

2) The study was done by a hotbed of one-sided liberal views. Furthermore, this is an excerpt from this link:

..."the researchers themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats."

3) This study found a correlation between people who reward themselves for lying to protect their party and drug use. I ask you, which party is the party of drug users?

4) White people are terrified to think a racist thought. Blacks are encouraged to do it-about everything. Turn on a black show like Martin sometime and pretend everything being said was being said by a white man about blacks. BLACKS AND DEMOCRATS are FAR more racist than middle America, i.e., Republicans.

5) "Negative" thoughts about blacks is being interpreted by this study to mean racist thoughts, but what if the negative thoughts are frustration with blacks taking jobs from more deserving people, getting into school over students with better grades, demanding amnesty for criminals who looted stores in riots, demanding slavery reparations, and making up 12% of the population, while committing over 80% of the violent crime?

I know Republicans pretty well. Our beef isn't with blacks. It is with liberals turning blacks into the least intelligent, the least productive, and the most violent bunch of paranoid bigots in our country.

("least intelligent" comment--look at every single kind of aptitude test-blacks are always at the bottom)

The partisan Democrats who "objectively" ran this study are slanting their data to revive an old, overused, phony smear against Republicans.
 
Last edited:
2) The study was done by a hotbed of one-sided liberal views. Furthermore, this is an excerpt from this link:

..."the researchers themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats."

if they were truly doing his out of a bias then they wouldn't have admitted that dems, like repubs, will turn down bad facts about their political mentors or representatives

3) This study found a correlation between people who reward themselves for lying to protect their party and drug use. I ask you, which party is the party of drug users?

Well since Rush Limburgh did 40 oxycottons a day.... and Bush has been caught drunk driving..... and Cheney was drinking when he shot a guy.....

4) White people are terrified to think a racist thought. Blacks are encouraged to do it-about everything. Turn on a black show like Martin sometime and pretend everything being said was being said by a white man about blacks. BLACKS AND DEMOCRATS are FAR more racist than middle America, i.e., Republicans.

I love how out of the blue this is. First you're talking about terrified white people, and then you randomly say, without any facts, that dems are more racist. This of course isn't true due too many facts including traditionalism vs progressivness which I explained a couple of posts back, but also the fact that dems tend to be more urban while cons tend to be sub-urban.
[/QUOTE]
 
Che said:
if they were truly doing his out of a bias then they wouldn't have admitted that dems, like repubs, will turn down bad facts about their political mentors or representatives

That is total crap. They could not have possibly maintained a stitch of credibility if they didn't acknowledge that obvious reality. Just because their biased doesn't mean they have to be stupid and obvious about it.

Besides, they were admitting that in response to Republicans pointing out that conductors of the research were DEMOCRAT DONORS. They didn't admit that upfront.

The fact that they even brought up the race thing during a study that had nothing to do with it was the first indication that partisan Democrats were running this "scientific" study. To even raise such an unrelated question reveals that the conductors of the research not only had an axe to grind, but also that they equated racism with conservatives-only partisan Democrats do that. :roll:

And only really ballsy Democrats do that while being the only party with a former Klansman in charge of the Senate.
 
Che said:
Well since Rush Limburgh did 40 oxycottons a day.... and Bush has been caught drunk driving..... and Cheney was drinking when he shot a guy.....

And I could bring up Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy...And both of our sets of names would still be an irrelevant distraction to the overwhelmingly greater number of Democrat drug users than Republican ones.

Your "scientific" study does demonstrate that drug users will lie through their teeth to defend their party while no such other one-sided trend emerged... Hmmm. The vast majority of drug users are Democrats. Connect the dots.
 
Che said:
I love how out of the blue this is. First you're talking about terrified white people, and then you randomly say, without any facts, that dems are more racist. This of course isn't true due too many facts including traditionalism vs progressivness which I explained a couple of posts back, but also the fact that dems tend to be more urban while cons tend to be sub-urban.

This liberal pseudo-philosophical drivel has zero substance and is wholly impotent at explaining race in partisan politics.

You can talk about urban-rural statistics all you want. None of that can get you around the evidence...

-Republicans are the only ones pushing for people to be hired and admitted to schools based on merit, not race. Democrats advocate race preferences. This is racism. BTW this is also indicative that DEMOCRATS, not Republicans are convinced that blacks are inferior, and require handouts.

And before you start trying to peddle that paranoid crap about systemic racism like crack getting punished worse than coke because crack is a black drug, let me just clarify that crack and crack-related crimes kill exponentially more people...THAT is why crack is more aggressively persued. Likewise, you should know I am going to demand proof of any other such claim of "systemic" racism, because proof is one thing liberals can never produce on this subject.

Also, if the black community's history of slavery or systemic racism is what keeps blacks the least intelligent, least productive, most criminally violent subculture, then how do you explain Caribean immigrants who come here and do well in school, hold down jobs, start small businesses and obey the laws? And they do. The statistics between the two are like night and day, even though Caribeans have the same race and history of slavery.

I know how you explain that: Caribeans don't have Democrats leading them down the path of paranoid bigotry and professional victimhood.

-Democrats have a former Klansman in charge of the Senate.

-Condi Rice and Colin Powell have been the target of abhorrent racial slurs and indignities at the hands of liberal columnists, pundits, and cartoonists since they took office. Liberals reveal their true FAR MORE RACIST tendencies once they find a black it is ok to dimean.

-The lesson we learn from Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond is not that Republicans are racist. It is that Democrats should not be allowed into our party.

The Democrat party is not the party of the little man or the black man. It is the party of ultra-wealthy, elitist, racist snobs-as I have demonstrated in, "Democrats Favor The Rich."
 
Last edited:
aquapub said:
And I could bring up Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy...And both of our sets of names would still be an irrelevant distraction to the overwhelmingly greater number of Democrat drug users than Republican ones.

Your "scientific" study does demonstrate that drug users will lie through their teeth to defend their party while no such other one-sided trend emerged... Hmmm. The vast majority of drug users are Democrats. Connect the dots.

oh yeah i understand you know. Basically you're saying drugs make you racist so democrats are racist. Ahhh makes sense now.....
:roll:
 
Che said:
oh yeah i understand you know. Basically you're saying drugs make you racist so democrats are racist. Ahhh makes sense now.....
:roll:

Denying parts of your own scientific study while using the part you need to prove your arguement? bah...

Drug users make you more likely to lie for your party according to your research, since democrats do more drugs, it is only logical that they lie about republicans being racist.
 
aquapub said:
And only really ballsy Democrats do that while being the only party with a former Klansman in charge of the Senate.

what are you talking about??
 
Che said:
oh yeah i understand you know. Basically you're saying drugs make you racist so democrats are racist. Ahhh makes sense now.....
:roll:

Who stood on the doorstep of that school during segregation? What political party stood in front of Civil Rights reform? Any takers? What former member of the KKK is a member of the present day DNC?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Who stood on the doorstep of that school during segregation? What political party stood in front of Civil Rights reform? Any takers? What former member of the KKK is a member of the present day DNC?

Trajan, please learn your history...

back in that time it was he southern democrats and the Republicans. Now it's different. BTW out of curiousity, who is the member you refer to, and have you ever heard of David Duke of the GOP?
 
Che said:
Trajan, please learn your history...

back in that time it was he southern democrats and the Republicans. Now it's different. BTW out of curiousity, who is the member you refer to, and have you ever heard of David Duke of the GOP?

David Duke was a STATE REPRESENTATIVE in LA. That's not really baller status.

Sen. Robert Byrd. was a Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops in the KKK, and recruited over 150 of his friends to join. That was where he got his start in politics, from whence he became the longest serving person in Congress, and served as the President Pro Tempore of the Senate through most of the 90's and even up to 2003. That is baller status.
 
Che said:
what are you talking about??

Senator Robert Byrd, who is one of the most powerful Democrats in the country right now-he use to be a Klansman. It kind of makes it difficult to take it seriously when Democrats paint Republicans as the party of racists.
 
Che said:
oh yeah i understand you know. Basically you're saying drugs make you racist so democrats are racist. Ahhh makes sense now.....
:roll:

No, I am not making any statement of causation. I'm saying that a lot more recreational drug users are Democrats than Republicans. So if the people this study finds to be total liars are largely on the Democrat side, then this study you have provided has backfired on you a bit (besides the fact that it turned out to be conducted by partisan Democrats who gave money to various liberal candidates).
 
Alrighty can I ask a question?

Blacks make up 12% of the Population, Hispanics make up 14% of the population, why was this entire thread all about black people?

Believe me I aint no racist, but with the way the media protrays blacks, you would think they are the majority.
 
Although I think threads of this nature constitute flame-bait more than reasoned analysis, there remains in this specific instance a bit of evidence that is credible.

Only the liberals in our society, reflected primarily by the policies of the Democrat party, believe that minorities are organically incapable of prevailing in society without the help of white people.

Whereas the Democrats feel that anyone else in society can overcome whatever obstacles exist, through the power of their individual abilities, they consistently contend that minorities cannot so prevail.

It is this soft bigotry that defines the core of Democrat social policy.
 
jamespol said:
Alrighty can I ask a question?

Blacks make up 12% of the Population, Hispanics make up 14% of the population, why was this entire thread all about black people?

Believe me I aint no racist, but with the way the media protrays blacks, you would think they are the majority.

Asians are completely ignored.
 
Synch said:
Asians are completely ignored.

Indeed. Because Asians largely reject the presumptions of the Democrat party to a greater extent than even Caucasians.

It is truly ludicrous to suggest that Conservatives, champions of individual rights and equal opportuinty, are racist at all in any sense greater than the natural inclination of all people of whatever race.

Only the liberals maintain, as a cornerstone of their social philosophy, that certain races are inherently and organically inferior, and thus cannot succeed without the assistance of white liberals.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom