DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus How White People Got Made

If you are trying to make a scholarly presentation, comedians are not generally considered a solid source of factual data. This is a bit unusual and something I have never personally seen done.

It became a point because CHS kept insisting I was wrong for stating she quoted a comedian at least three times, which she did. He does not understand correct grammar, or counting to three, which I find unacceptable for an educator, if he really is one.

He kept harping on a silly and unimportant point, which I find annoying, but also did so on a totally invalid basis, either logically or grammatically, which I find incredibly stupid, and I just very much do not care for stupid.

Those quotes weren't used for factual data! Are you really that dim witted or are you back peddling? Those quotes were included for satirical nuggets of truth and some introspection during the author's journey to his conclusions. Who the heck would quote Louis C.K. for data? OMG.

Why is it unfortunate that she’s a minority?

The more you post, the more racist you look.

Who would quote a comedian for nuggets of truth or introspection? She chose to use a comedian in a presumably scholarly presentation, not once, not twice, but three times. Come up with something better.

What exactly is a "nugget of truth" if it is NOT factual data?

If she wanted to quote random truck drivers, or bird watchers, same thing, what is the point? If you have a logical contention to make, why quote people who have nothing solid to offer? A good laugh does not a good presentation make. If she were handing out doughnuts as part of the presentation, that's nice but what usable input does that provide?

if I want info on growing soybeans, I might talk to a soybean farmer, on distant planets, an astronomer, on salesmanship, Zig Zieglar, on how to make a bad business deal, Tim Patterson, on how to play a guitar, Stevie Ray Vaughn or Jimi Hendrix, on analyzing offensive play calling, Bernie Kosar. Comedians? Can't really think of anything. Most especially nothing which would relate to the subject at hand, which, IMO, was poorly presented and devoid of useful information.

Bro, I don't want to take Rocky to the paint over this but early this morning I noticed his post and wondered if he thought posting a pic of his black boss, jewish poker pal, and calling himself a cripple somehow makes him less racist sounding in his own mind. Just saying.

I’m not racist! I took a picture with a black person!

No they weren't always Southern democrats. Geeez... "The organization’s membership crossed class lines, from small farmers and laborers to planters, lawyers, merchants, physicians and ministers. In the regions where most Klan activity took place, local law enforcement officials either belonged to the Klan or declined to take action against it, and even those who arrested accused Klansmen found it difficult to find witnesses willing to testify against them."

Though some southern democrats (dixiecrats) supported slave owners over Lincoln.

Oh so that is why I have heard Trumps cabinet referred to as one big soap opera

The one thing we can agree on is that they were MOSTLY white.

True, we can. Problem is, those who support their behaviors can't agree with anyone but themselves.

Pointless to even bother with them most days, other than to run them out of the real conversations we're trying to have...

Of course I don't really think that, I love hearing what 40, Diam, Nelson, and Vambo have to add to the conversation...

All technical questions where asking an expert would be a good idea..


Comedians make a living analyzing social situations and conditions and breaking them down in funny ways.. the reason they are usually funny is because there is so much truth in what they say... if a comedian did a bit on marriage but it wasn't like an exaggeration similar to a lot of marriages, nobody would laugh.. They are far more in touch with social situations than most.. but I'm sure if she had quoted philosophers or sociologists you would have been all on board with that.. since I've seen the respect you have for the liberal arts and academics...

But just for fun, I'd like you stop complaining about the fact that the quotes are from comedians and tell me what you find so wrong with what they said...







See, I think all 3 quotes were perfectly suited to the point the author was making at the time..

I find it ironic that such a "smart person" comes to a public political forum and then complains he's offended by stupid. And then, only stupid from one side. In case you missed it, stupidity abounds here from both sides.

The very fact you browse a public political forum and then complain about stupidity doesn't seem very smart. It's like walking into a city sewer system then complaining about the smell of feces. That doesn't exude genius to me.

.

i agree.

40 has been taken behind the woodshed before about this- and more than once. It never changes a thing. I provided historical context and links to back up my assertions. No response/discourse at all. His approach here is a prime example of how facts are disposable tools to be used in following a particular agenda, but immediately jettisoned/ignored when they become inconvenient.

Haven't you people figured him out yet? I told you I was profiling him a year ago. Research has concluded.

As a poster in PP, 40 is motivated by two urges:

1. Trolling libs for Team Red as entertainment
2. Keeping pots stirred in threads that are losing momentum.

Once his modus operandi is known, it becomes easy to see that he's not here for serious discussion of any sort. He simply wants to keep as many houses ablaze as he can. Now that he's retired from the "fire department," trolling libs in PP has become his raison d'etre.



Now Nelson... he's a different species of bird altogether.

A healthy dose of barely-controlled anti-social interactive impulses (presumably from early and regular schoolyard rejection) combined with what I suspect is mild to moderate Asperger's compels him to engage in adversarial phallus-measuring contests with virtually every interaction. These contests will continue for page after page because his OCD will compel him to 'cycle'- be he right or wrong- until his opponent simply gives up and finds something else to do. You will never outlast him.

The two couldn't be more dissimilar. However, the solution to handling/tolerating them is exactly the same:

Give each only the amount attention he deserves; not the amount he craves.

Your experiences at PP will be better, with far less daily toxicity... and you'll have more free time to engage in more rewarding pursuits.

For their own unique and specific reasons, neither of them can seem to help themselves. There are professional services available for each dysfunction they present, but both are quite content to stay this way. Know what you are getting before trying to discuss anything with either of them.

Homeopathic doses of each. Build up your tolerance without endangering your health. That's the way to go.

Ok now, let's all admit that we all want to see Nelson and PDF go at it.

That would be popcorn worthy.

It would be like when there these two storytelling trolls in my game's chatbox at the same time. And they were both feeding everybody tall tales of crap. But then...they both started to try to troll each other...and disappeared in their PM's together to "swap stories about their tragic tales of woe". And then one faked their own death and gave their account to the other one. haha

That’s sounds epic eve lmfao

Wrong.

Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s. After a period of decline, white Protestant nativist groups revived the Klan in the early 20th century, burning crosses and staging rallies, parades and marches denouncing immigrants, Catholics, Jews, blacks and organized labor. The civil rights movement of the 1960s also saw a surge of Ku Klux Klan activity, including bombings of black schools and churches and violence against black and white activists in the South.

https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

Not his OCD... His Huckleberry.

like a dog with a bone...

And yet it was the Democrats who actually passed the Civil Rights Amendment while the GOP fought to block it. It was the Democrats who fought for school integration and the GOP who fought to block it. Yeah, some facts don't quite add up until you go back in history to the way things were a long, long time ago.

This snippet conveniently ignores the mass exodus of blue collar Southern Whites to the GOP during first, the campaign of Goldwater and next, Nixon.

You people are like the reverse of Putzburgh Stoolz fans:

For them, there was no NFL before 1976. With you jamokes, there was no Klan after 1968.

Those racist cousin-bumbers didn't leave the planet... they left the Democratic party. And there was only one place they went... with you under the Red Tent.

Own your history.

And it's the GOP putting their boots on the throats of brown people again now. Orange lied, it ain't the new black.

Think that thin sliver of latinos will vote for Trump again?

You have fallen for revisionist history for most of your original post. This is why we must protect our History as a Nation so the revisionists can not pull the wool over our eyes.

Yes, when they numbered in the millions, there were some others who joined but it remained a Democrat Institution.

You can keep on handling that spoon if you'd like, but you'll need a different playmate in your kitchen.


#TransparentAsSaranWrap.

Wait while I read your links to what you spew.
Oh, unlike my posts, there aren't any.

You making stuff up again?

Blacks voting democratic has really worked out well for blacks .... ....

We should re-hire Sashi .... ....

Whats the definition of insanity ... or was that stupidity ....

it has certainly worked out better than voting for republicans.

....

Careful Swish, they want to confuse black voters so they don't vote at all.

Using your assertion of the "flip", I'd like to take that a step forward. Even if there was a migration of Democrat racists in to the GOP, how does that automatically make the Democrat Party no longer racist?

Did all those Republicans who pushed to get the Civil Rights Act in to law see the influx of racists and migrate to the Democrat Party?

If not, then what can you site to show that the Democrat Party "progressed"? I think there's plenty of evidence to show that the Democrat Party never was and still is:

-Robert Byrd had a home with the Democrats well through the 90's (there's still a highway named after him)

-In our discussions on inequality towards blacks within the criminal justice system, much of what transpires today has it's roots in the Anti Crime Bill put together and passed by Democrats during the Clinton presidency

-A mainstay of the Democrat platform is the expansion of entitlements. Black folks appear to be disproportionately represented in lower economic classes. It's generally been agreed that our entitlement system isn't designed so that it's easy to get off of it. Why is it the Democrats year after year push to expand the entitlement system, but never talk about reforming it to assist people in getting off of it?

-Generally speaking, when you look at cities that the Democrat Party has had a lock on for literally decades, they are also home to some of the crappiest living conditions? #Hello Detroit

I'm not asking about this in an effort to say "see, the GOP isn't racist"" or trying to provide a "whataboutism". I'm challenging the assumption/notion/belief that the Democrat Party magically and suddenly lost all that racial hate in their heart.

Is it because they simply claim to be the party concerned with equality?

Is it because groups like the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus align with the Dems? Not for nothin, those guys are all politicians. Why should I believe that a black politician is any less likely to exploit people for their own gain than any white politician?

It doesn't. And you should know me well enough by now to also know that I'd never assert something like that. A little credit, huh?




Of course not. They were quite happy to see their numbers grow. Period.



Yes. Many civic leaders from minority communities advocated strongly for the tougher laws. Many have since publicly admitted regret for not the policies, but how enforcement of those policies was carried out. Many of those same leaders are now publicly advocating a revisiting of those laws for possible revision.



I see evidence of both being addressed all the time. Most of the substantive changes being made are at the local level, so coverage of the positive stuff is scarce.




There's nothing to challenge, because I don't operate under that assumption. Most people with any sense at all wouldn't either.

You've created a strawman argument to oppose, but reality AND my narrow focus don't fit your description.

My assertion that there was a migration in the 60's is fact. The methods employed to facilitate this migration are well-documented. This is irrefutable History, pure and simple. At no time did I ever assert, infer or imply that the Dem party was purged of all racism and bigots. I was stating facts to 40cent, who was trying to use a cherry-picked excerpt from a wiki article on the origins of the KKK, while trying to ignore Goldwater's and Nixon's. "Southern Strategy."

That is something very different from saying that the entire Dem party is racist-free and pure.

There are racists in both parties. There are racists here in the middle with me as well. There are racists who are white, black, yellow, and red. There are mean, hateful, nasty, and vile folks in both parties, as well as here in the middle. There are also wonderful, loving, caring, and beautiful folks in both parties as well as in the middle. Which is why I hate it when people on this board and anywhere else keep lumping others into one single group. All white folks are not scum, all black folks are not scum, all asians, Indians, Mexicans, are not scum. All Right wingers, left wingers, and people in the middle are not scum. Yet far to many people in this world want to lump everybody together instead of taking the time to get to know each other and treat each and every person as an individual and not as a entire group.

Man.... I hope the libs read your post and live by it cause they call anyone that disagrees with them a liar, racist, homophobic and so many other hateful names no debate just crazy insults.

The irony of this post is beyond laughable.

Do you shave in front of a fun house mirror?


#selfunaware

Quote by Clem in another thread...

"He will never stop banging this gong because it keeps his Trumpanzees exercised."

Nope, gotta side with Riley on this one.

Trumpanzees?

lmao

haha

That's a new one. It made me laugh.

It's mot like he came up with the name he stole it from memes. Then takes credit for it like Obama.