Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330042 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-31 22:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-11-02 13:37 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 160 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 22:00 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 06:21 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 09:09 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:03 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:12 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:32 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:36 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:57 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 18:05 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 11:27 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 18:48 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:12 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:20 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:24 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:54 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:26 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:29 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:37 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:55 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:42 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:06 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:36 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:24 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:42 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:08 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:31 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:22 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:39 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:40 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:43 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:09 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:38 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:57 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 14:09 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:15 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 10:40 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:09 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:27 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 10:31 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:22 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:30 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:52 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 19:02 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 12:06 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 11:16 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:44 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-02 17:43 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:39 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 07:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:15 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:48 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:50 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 23:10 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:17 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:44 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:57 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:47 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:44 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:46 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:49 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:56 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 13:27 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 13:06 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 06:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 23:28 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:53 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 19:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:19 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 12:20 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:56 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:42 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 15:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:12 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 00:31 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 19:37 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:46 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:55 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:08 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:45 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:09 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:30 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:45 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:07 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:54 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 05:24 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 04:30 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:45 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:01 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:52 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:31 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 09:02 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:25 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:55 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:03 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:35 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 04:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:46 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:26 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:29 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:35 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:48 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 12:03 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 15:21 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 15:53 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:14 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 17:28 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:34 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:53 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:08 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:41 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 08:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:20 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:17 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:24 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 12:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:36 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:09 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 16:24 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:55 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:13 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 19:53 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-02 15:21 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:40 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:46 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:51 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:59 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 10:27 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 18:31 +0100
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:48 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:18 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 13:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:13 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 13:37 -0500
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 07:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1f1450a4-dc00-4cbc-b0c7-8bd84230c09c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330042 |
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:00:53 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > http://www.jta.org/?p=1086888> > > What other candidate is willing to be this direct and honest. Amazing. > > For those in COLA who attack Muslims *this* is what I wish you would learn > from. The topic broached was actually regarding religious discrimination (specifically the Muslim religion), not racism. Notably, it was Bernie who *immediately* steered it towards the political pay dirt of racism, not her. He's a white politician in the U.S., did you expect him to say that he's *for* racism in 2015? He also knows that 'doing everything he can' will actually be pretty limited so it's easy to make these kinds of statements. If he gets elected, unless he personally goes out and starts shooting holdovers, watch how little he actually does towards removing that stain (and I agree it is a stain that needs removing). This is, most likely, the reason that statement didn't raise any applause when he said it here. Even these kids know it's just more of the same 'feel good' talk we've all heard our entire lives from politicians. As someone who believes that words have meaning for a reason, I believe it wasn't helpful to anyone other than himself that he sought to blur the line between religious discrimination and racism but politicians do that kind of disingenuous crap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 10:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n18017$t3q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330337 |
On 2015-11-02 10:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:00:53 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >> http://www.jta.org/?p=1086888> >> >> What other candidate is willing to be this direct and honest. Amazing. >> >> For those in COLA who attack Muslims *this* is what I wish you would learn >> from. > > The topic broached was actually regarding religious discrimination (specifically the Muslim religion), not racism. Notably, it was Bernie who *immediately* steered it towards the political pay dirt of racism, not her. He's a white politician in the U.S., did you expect him to say that he's *for* racism in 2015? He also knows that 'doing everything he can' will actually be pretty limited so it's easy to make these kinds of statements. If he gets elected, unless he personally goes out and starts shooting holdovers, watch how little he actually does towards removing that stain (and I agree it is a stain that needs removing). This is, most likely, the reason that statement didn't raise any applause when he said it here. Even these kids know it's just more of the same 'feel good' talk we've all heard our entire lives from politicians. As someone who believes that words have meaning for a reason, I believe it wasn't helpful to anyone other than himself that he sought to blur the line be tween religious discrimination and racism but politicians do that kind of disingenuous crap. Personally, I'm sick of people saying "this is racist," especially when they apply it to things which don't have anything to do with racism at all. Besides, even if I were a racist, it's my right to be one. I have a right to believe what I want about blacks, whites, Natives and Muslims and so long as I don't ask anyone to take up arms and hurt anyone for no reason, there is nothing wrong with believing whatever I do. Nowadays, if I make a "racist" comment and someone points it out, I simply reply "Absolutely, now fuck off." I have no interest in getting their approval and want even less to hear about their idiotic liberalism. Lastly, I want to say that it is refreshing to find that there are so many conservative individuals in this newsgroup. Liberals truly make me sick to my stomach and make me lose all hope for humanity. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 08:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b619b6df-b56a-4c27-bb58-22da9c8e72ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330339 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Charmed Tuna wrote: > On 2015-11-02 10:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:00:53 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > >> http://www.jta.org/?p=1086888> > >> > >> What other candidate is willing to be this direct and honest. Amazing. > >> > >> For those in COLA who attack Muslims *this* is what I wish you would learn > >> from. > > > > The topic broached was actually regarding religious discrimination (specifically the Muslim religion), not racism. Notably, it was Bernie who *immediately* steered it towards the political pay dirt of racism, not her. He's a white politician in the U.S., did you expect him to say that he's *for* racism in 2015? He also knows that 'doing everything he can' will actually be pretty limited so it's easy to make these kinds of statements. If he gets elected, unless he personally goes out and starts shooting holdovers, watch how little he actually does towards removing that stain (and I agree it is a stain that needs removing). This is, most likely, the reason that statement didn't raise any applause when he said it here. Even these kids know it's just more of the same 'feel good' talk we've all heard our entire lives from politicians. As someone who believes that words have meaning for a reason, I believe it wasn't helpful to anyone other than himself that he sought to blur the line be > tween religious discrimination and racism but politicians do that kind of disingenuous crap. > > Personally, I'm sick of people saying "this is racist," especially when > they apply it to things which don't have anything to do with racism at > all. Besides, even if I were a racist, it's my right to be one. I have a > right to believe what I want about blacks, whites, Natives and Muslims > and so long as I don't ask anyone to take up arms and hurt anyone for no > reason, there is nothing wrong with believing whatever I do. I agree, it's your right to believe whatever you want, it's when those beliefs get translated into unreasonable actions that the problem arises. What comprises "unreasonable" will probably always be at issue. > Nowadays, > if I make a "racist" comment and someone points it out, I simply reply > "Absolutely, now fuck off." I have no interest in getting their approval > and want even less to hear about their idiotic liberalism. This cuts both ways, the person not wanting to listen to your beliefs has every right to tell you about it. I don't generally bother because I figure people see it and act accordingly. Someone like Snit, OTOH, has proven he will use it for his own agenda. While he's mentioned it, he's not hammering you over bigotry... and you're even flatly arguing in favor of the types he pretends to abhor. With me, he falsely created it and hammered me often. For that reason I don't believe bigotry bothers him at all; he views it as just another tool he can use to attempt to silence someone who proves his BS is BS. > Lastly, I want to say that it is refreshing to find that there are so > many conservative individuals in this newsgroup. Liberals truly make me > sick to my stomach and make me lose all hope for humanity. Don't get confused that I'm down with racism or that I'm even all that hard core a conservative; despite Snit's dishonest attempts to the contrary, I'm not either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1869k$l8c$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330353 |
On 2015-11-02 11:09 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Charmed Tuna wrote: >> On 2015-11-02 10:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:00:53 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: >>>> http://www.jta.org/?p=1086888> >>>> >>>> What other candidate is willing to be this direct and honest. Amazing. >>>> >>>> For those in COLA who attack Muslims *this* is what I wish you would learn >>>> from. >>> >>> The topic broached was actually regarding religious discrimination (specifically the Muslim religion), not racism. Notably, it was Bernie who *immediately* steered it towards the political pay dirt of racism, not her. He's a white politician in the U.S., did you expect him to say that he's *for* racism in 2015? He also knows that 'doing everything he can' will actually be pretty limited so it's easy to make these kinds of statements. If he gets elected, unless he personally goes out and starts shooting holdovers, watch how little he actually does towards removing that stain (and I agree it is a stain that needs removing). This is, most likely, the reason that statement didn't raise any applause when he said it here. Even these kids know it's just more of the same 'feel good' talk we've all heard our entire lives from politicians. As someone who believes that words have meaning for a reason, I believe it wasn't helpful to anyone other than himself that he sought to blur the line be >> tween religious discrimination and racism but politicians do that kind of disingenuous crap. >> >> Personally, I'm sick of people saying "this is racist," especially when >> they apply it to things which don't have anything to do with racism at >> all. Besides, even if I were a racist, it's my right to be one. I have a >> right to believe what I want about blacks, whites, Natives and Muslims >> and so long as I don't ask anyone to take up arms and hurt anyone for no >> reason, there is nothing wrong with believing whatever I do. > > I agree, it's your right to believe whatever you want, it's when those beliefs get translated into unreasonable actions that the problem arises. What comprises "unreasonable" will probably always be at issue. And I would never advocate someone hurting another over their beliefs. >> Nowadays, >> if I make a "racist" comment and someone points it out, I simply reply >> "Absolutely, now fuck off." I have no interest in getting their approval >> and want even less to hear about their idiotic liberalism. > > This cuts both ways, the person not wanting to listen to your beliefs has every right to tell you about it. I don't generally bother because I figure people see it and act accordingly. Someone like Snit, OTOH, has proven he will use it for his own agenda. While he's mentioned it, he's not hammering you over bigotry... and you're even flatly arguing in favor of the types he pretends to abhor. With me, he falsely created it and hammered me often. For that reason I don't believe bigotry bothers him at all; he views it as just another tool he can use to attempt to silence someone who proves his BS is BS. Snit is a liberal and I think that it's clear to pretty much anyone here. He can believe whatever he wants but I'm free to believe that his liberalism is a mental issue which demands a herd mentality as well. >> Lastly, I want to say that it is refreshing to find that there are so >> many conservative individuals in this newsgroup. Liberals truly make me >> sick to my stomach and make me lose all hope for humanity. > > Don't get confused that I'm down with racism or that I'm even all that hard core a conservative; despite Snit's dishonest attempts to the contrary, I'm not either. Conservatism is not racism. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 10:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D25CEBEE.6263C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #330383 |
On 11/2/15, 10:27 AM, in article n1869k$l8c$5@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" <.m@nsn.s> wrote: ... >>> Personally, I'm sick of people saying "this is racist," especially when >>> they apply it to things which don't have anything to do with racism at >>> all. Besides, even if I were a racist, it's my right to be one. I have a >>> right to believe what I want about blacks, whites, Natives and Muslims >>> and so long as I don't ask anyone to take up arms and hurt anyone for no >>> reason, there is nothing wrong with believing whatever I do. >> >> I agree, it's your right to believe whatever you want, it's when those >> beliefs get translated into unreasonable actions that the problem arises. >> What comprises "unreasonable" will probably always be at issue. > > And I would never advocate someone hurting another over their beliefs. I agree... though that does not mean people have a right to not be offended. >>> Nowadays, >>> if I make a "racist" comment and someone points it out, I simply reply >>> "Absolutely, now fuck off." I have no interest in getting their approval >>> and want even less to hear about their idiotic liberalism. >> >> This cuts both ways, the person not wanting to listen to your beliefs has >> every right to tell you about it. I don't generally bother because I figure >> people see it and act accordingly. Someone like Snit, OTOH, has proven he >> will use it for his own agenda. While he's mentioned it, he's not hammering >> you over bigotry... and you're even flatly arguing in favor of the types he >> pretends to abhor. With me, he falsely created it and hammered me often. For >> that reason I don't believe bigotry bothers him at all; he views it as just >> another tool he can use to attempt to silence someone who proves his BS is >> BS. > > Snit is a liberal and I think that it's clear to pretty much anyone > here. He can believe whatever he wants but I'm free to believe that his > liberalism is a mental issue which demands a herd mentality as well. I am open to hearing what views you think of mine are irrational / unsupportable. Basically comes down to me thinking people should have equal rights, that hard work / productivity should be tied to rewards, and that special entitlements should be minimized. >>> Lastly, I want to say that it is refreshing to find that there are so >>> many conservative individuals in this newsgroup. Liberals truly make me >>> sick to my stomach and make me lose all hope for humanity. >> >> Don't get confused that I'm down with racism or that I'm even all that hard >> core a conservative; despite Snit's dishonest attempts to the contrary, I'm >> not either. > > Conservatism is not racism. True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330391 |
On 2015-11-02 12:31 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 10:27 AM, in article n1869k$l8c$5@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > ... >>>> Personally, I'm sick of people saying "this is racist," especially when >>>> they apply it to things which don't have anything to do with racism at >>>> all. Besides, even if I were a racist, it's my right to be one. I have a >>>> right to believe what I want about blacks, whites, Natives and Muslims >>>> and so long as I don't ask anyone to take up arms and hurt anyone for no >>>> reason, there is nothing wrong with believing whatever I do. >>> >>> I agree, it's your right to believe whatever you want, it's when those >>> beliefs get translated into unreasonable actions that the problem arises. >>> What comprises "unreasonable" will probably always be at issue. >> >> And I would never advocate someone hurting another over their beliefs. > > I agree... though that does not mean people have a right to not be offended. They can be offended all that they want, I don't care. >>>> Nowadays, >>>> if I make a "racist" comment and someone points it out, I simply reply >>>> "Absolutely, now fuck off." I have no interest in getting their approval >>>> and want even less to hear about their idiotic liberalism. >>> >>> This cuts both ways, the person not wanting to listen to your beliefs has >>> every right to tell you about it. I don't generally bother because I figure >>> people see it and act accordingly. Someone like Snit, OTOH, has proven he >>> will use it for his own agenda. While he's mentioned it, he's not hammering >>> you over bigotry... and you're even flatly arguing in favor of the types he >>> pretends to abhor. With me, he falsely created it and hammered me often. For >>> that reason I don't believe bigotry bothers him at all; he views it as just >>> another tool he can use to attempt to silence someone who proves his BS is >>> BS. >> >> Snit is a liberal and I think that it's clear to pretty much anyone >> here. He can believe whatever he wants but I'm free to believe that his >> liberalism is a mental issue which demands a herd mentality as well. > > I am open to hearing what views you think of mine are irrational / > unsupportable. Basically comes down to me thinking people should have equal > rights, that hard work / productivity should be tied to rewards, and that > special entitlements should be minimized. I agree with that. >>>> Lastly, I want to say that it is refreshing to find that there are so >>>> many conservative individuals in this newsgroup. Liberals truly make me >>>> sick to my stomach and make me lose all hope for humanity. >>> >>> Don't get confused that I'm down with racism or that I'm even all that hard >>> core a conservative; despite Snit's dishonest attempts to the contrary, I'm >>> not either. >> >> Conservatism is not racism. > > True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and > other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 11:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D25CF7D9.6266D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #330400 |
On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" <.m@nsn.s> wrote: ... >>>> I agree, it's your right to believe whatever you want, it's when those >>>> beliefs get translated into unreasonable actions that the problem arises. >>>> What comprises "unreasonable" will probably always be at issue. >>> >>> And I would never advocate someone hurting another over their beliefs. >> >> I agree... though that does not mean people have a right to not be offended. > > They can be offended all that they want, I don't care. Right. I can nit pick the "don't care" part and point out exceptions, but overall I agree. ... >>> Snit is a liberal and I think that it's clear to pretty much anyone >>> here. He can believe whatever he wants but I'm free to believe that his >>> liberalism is a mental issue which demands a herd mentality as well. >> >> I am open to hearing what views you think of mine are irrational / >> unsupportable. Basically comes down to me thinking people should have equal >> rights, that hard work / productivity should be tied to rewards, and that >> special entitlements should be minimized. > > I agree with that. Then our views are closer than we might sometimes think. ... >>> Conservatism is not racism. >> >> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. > > Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. The more their top contenders speak poorly about different ethnic and racial groups the higher their polling numbers go. You also see a lot of racial attacks at Tea Party groups and the like. Does NOT mean all conservatives agree with these, but they do not shut it down. Democrats tend to not accept such even from their own. As I noted before, McCain - a conservative - ALSO responded well to one of his supporters spouting such nonsense and I commend him for that strongly. So he is a good counter-example in the Republican party. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D25CF9E3.62673%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #330400 |
On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> Conservatism is not racism. >> >> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. > > Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> That is the view of just one Republican, no doubt, but one who sees things from the inside and has nothing to gain from the accusation. In looking for that, though, I did find references to polls which show there is comparable amounts of self-reported racism and other bigoted views in the two parties. And the fact Carson is doing so well, even though he expresses anti-Muslim bigotry, does show Republicans are open to a black president. A weird place for Republicans to be... the more bigotry shown by their black contender the more popular he becomes. Ideally one would hope black and Jews and Muslims and gays and others who are often the targets of bigotry would work together to reduce it but that is not the case. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 10:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <45bd3beb-4977-42e6-87c4-a4d4fe51c239@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330412 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:30:52 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > >>> Conservatism is not racism. > >> > >> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and > >> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. > > > > Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. > > I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> All this 'proves' is something everyone already knows (that you're an idiot). > That is the view of just one Republican, no doubt, but one who sees things > from the inside and has nothing to gain from the accusation. What someone claims to 'see' or, in this case, what someone else (you) claims a person *claims* to 'see', isn't proof of a single thing. I wonder what kind of far left loon tantrum you'd throw to a Snit-like claim that Dems and Repubs are "much the same" when it comes to racism (while the person cited the history of the Dems being even worse ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 19:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330412 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>> >>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >> >> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. > > I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> > Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for being too leftist even by their insane standards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D25D0233.6268F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #330422 |
On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>>> >>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >>> >>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >> >> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >> > > Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for > being too leftist even by their insane standards. > Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and Muslims. Do you see liberals sharing such ignorant and bigoted views? If so, where? -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 11:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6e2c05d8-1ed3-4750-a879-d10f6e9d0cbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330424 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> > >>>>> Conservatism is not racism. > >>>> > >>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and > >>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. > >>> > >>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. > >> > >> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> > >> > > > > Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for > > being too leftist even by their insane standards. > > > Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and > Muslims. "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and other forms of bigotry..." - Snit Who, in this newsgroup, is a representative of the "Republican party" where that party makes it 'clear' they're OK with these representatives 'catering' to racism and other forms of bigotry?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 14:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n18elr$rm1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330427 |
On 2015-11-02 2:16 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>>>>> >>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >>>>> >>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >>>> >>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >>>> >>> >>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for >>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. >>> >> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and >> Muslims. > > "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and other forms of bigotry..." - Snit > > Who, in this newsgroup, is a representative of the "Republican party" where that party makes it 'clear' they're OK with these representatives 'catering' to racism and other forms of bigotry? Nowhere. The statement was defamatory at best. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 13:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D25D1929.626B5%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #330433 |
On 11/2/15, 12:50 PM, in article n18elr$rm1$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2015-11-02 2:16 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed >>>>> Tuna" >>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >>>>> >>>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for >>>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. >>>> >>> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and >>> Muslims. >> >> "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >> other forms of bigotry..." - Snit >> >> Who, in this newsgroup, is a representative of the "Republican party" where >> that party makes it 'clear' they're OK with these representatives 'catering' >> to racism and other forms of bigotry? > > Nowhere. The statement was defamatory at best. The conservatives in this group repeatedly target Muslims and have targeted blacks as being, in both cases, inferior. This includes Owl and Carroll and, at least with Muslims, you. Can you find examples of liberals doing this? I know I do not do it. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n18olm$582$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330444 |
On 2015-11-02 3:44 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 12:50 PM, in article n18elr$rm1$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 2:16 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >>>> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed >>>>>> Tuna" >>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>>>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for >>>>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. >>>>> >>>> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and >>>> Muslims. >>> >>> "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>> other forms of bigotry..." - Snit >>> >>> Who, in this newsgroup, is a representative of the "Republican party" where >>> that party makes it 'clear' they're OK with these representatives 'catering' >>> to racism and other forms of bigotry? >> >> Nowhere. The statement was defamatory at best. > > The conservatives in this group repeatedly target Muslims and have targeted > blacks as being, in both cases, inferior. This includes Owl and Carroll and, > at least with Muslims, you. > > Can you find examples of liberals doing this? I know I do not do it. I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said that they were reprehensible people and they are. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 17:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <16gcfstp2u452$.bksjplpfo8dr.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330490 |
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:41:00 -0500, Charmed Tuna wrote: > On 2015-11-02 3:44 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 11/2/15, 12:50 PM, in article n18elr$rm1$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-11-02 2:16 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed >>>>>>> Tuna" >>>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>>>>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for >>>>>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. >>>>>> >>>>> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and >>>>> Muslims. >>>> >>>> "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>> other forms of bigotry..." - Snit >>>> >>>> Who, in this newsgroup, is a representative of the "Republican party" where >>>> that party makes it 'clear' they're OK with these representatives 'catering' >>>> to racism and other forms of bigotry? >>> >>> Nowhere. The statement was defamatory at best. >> >> The conservatives in this group repeatedly target Muslims and have targeted >> blacks as being, in both cases, inferior. This includes Owl and Carroll and, >> at least with Muslims, you. >> >> Can you find examples of liberals doing this? I know I do not do it. > > I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said > that they were reprehensible people and they are. Welcome to the snit circus. See how it works? You should. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 18:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n18s3e$keu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330492 |
On 2015-11-02 5:43 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:41:00 -0500, Charmed Tuna wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 3:44 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 12:50 PM, in article n18elr$rm1$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-02 2:16 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed >>>>>>>> Tuna" >>>>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>>>>>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for >>>>>>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and >>>>>> Muslims. >>>>> >>>>> "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>> other forms of bigotry..." - Snit >>>>> >>>>> Who, in this newsgroup, is a representative of the "Republican party" where >>>>> that party makes it 'clear' they're OK with these representatives 'catering' >>>>> to racism and other forms of bigotry? >>>> >>>> Nowhere. The statement was defamatory at best. >>> >>> The conservatives in this group repeatedly target Muslims and have targeted >>> blacks as being, in both cases, inferior. This includes Owl and Carroll and, >>> at least with Muslims, you. >>> >>> Can you find examples of liberals doing this? I know I do not do it. >> >> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said >> that they were reprehensible people and they are. > > Welcome to the snit circus. See how it works? > You should. Oh, I've seen it in the past but ignored it. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 07:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1j8xgq1n1ebrn.1p3y2gneztb5j.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330525 |
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:39:33 -0500, Charmed Tuna wrote: > On 2015-11-02 5:43 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:41:00 -0500, Charmed Tuna wrote: >> >>> On 2015-11-02 3:44 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 11/2/15, 12:50 PM, in article n18elr$rm1$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-11-02 2:16 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed >>>>>>>>> Tuna" >>>>>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>>>>>>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for >>>>>>>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and >>>>>>> Muslims. >>>>>> >>>>>> "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>>> other forms of bigotry..." - Snit >>>>>> >>>>>> Who, in this newsgroup, is a representative of the "Republican party" where >>>>>> that party makes it 'clear' they're OK with these representatives 'catering' >>>>>> to racism and other forms of bigotry? >>>>> >>>>> Nowhere. The statement was defamatory at best. >>>> >>>> The conservatives in this group repeatedly target Muslims and have targeted >>>> blacks as being, in both cases, inferior. This includes Owl and Carroll and, >>>> at least with Muslims, you. >>>> >>>> Can you find examples of liberals doing this? I know I do not do it. >>> >>> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said >>> that they were reprehensible people and they are. >> >> Welcome to the snit circus. See how it works? >> You should. > > Oh, I've seen it in the past but ignored it. He's using the same routine on you he always tries and that is twisting your words and trying to attribute statements to you that you've never made. That's one reason why it's trivial to point out snit's lies. Get ready for snit to fall on his sword though because you are his only supporter in cola and he doesn't want to lose that. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 09:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1afdm$opo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330620 |
On 2015-11-03 7:51 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:39:33 -0500, Charmed Tuna wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 5:43 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:41:00 -0500, Charmed Tuna wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-02 3:44 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 12:50 PM, in article n18elr$rm1$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-11-02 2:16 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, "Charmed >>>>>>>>>> Tuna" >>>>>>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>>>>>>>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass for >>>>>>>>> being too leftist even by their insane standards. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about blacks and >>>>>>>> Muslims. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>>>>> other forms of bigotry..." - Snit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who, in this newsgroup, is a representative of the "Republican party" where >>>>>>> that party makes it 'clear' they're OK with these representatives 'catering' >>>>>>> to racism and other forms of bigotry? >>>>>> >>>>>> Nowhere. The statement was defamatory at best. >>>>> >>>>> The conservatives in this group repeatedly target Muslims and have targeted >>>>> blacks as being, in both cases, inferior. This includes Owl and Carroll and, >>>>> at least with Muslims, you. >>>>> >>>>> Can you find examples of liberals doing this? I know I do not do it. >>>> >>>> I never said that Muslims were inferior. That's you projecting. I said >>>> that they were reprehensible people and they are. >>> >>> Welcome to the snit circus. See how it works? >>> You should. >> >> Oh, I've seen it in the past but ignored it. > > He's using the same routine on you he always tries and that is twisting > your words and trying to attribute statements to you that you've never > made. > That's one reason why it's trivial to point out snit's lies. > > Get ready for snit to fall on his sword though because you are his only > supporter in cola and he doesn't want to lose that. The very fact that he is constantly talking about imaginary Christian "atrocities" bothers me. For a long time, I've been led to believe that Christianity had indeed acted as the aggressor in dealing with Muslims and Jews and that it had something to apologize for. After doing more extensive research in my 20s and 30s, it became clear that its actions were mostly reactionary if not necessary to combat a real threat. It is clear to me that Islam is the true problem and that its faithful should not be trusted. Our society can embrace their coming here, but only if strict rules are put in place to make it clear to them that their beliefs will never have the chance to influence any aspect of our society. Simply believing that they're nice and gentle people and that none of their "holy book" advocates crimes against humanity or the female gender because we know a SIGNIFICANT MINORITY which is kind has to be the dumbest approach a person can take. It is systematically turning a blind eye to overwhelming evidence that they are monsters. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 10:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d78fad4f-722c-46ce-b699-f6da972f8c23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330646 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 7:15 AM, in article n1afdm$opo$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > >>> Oh, I've seen it in the past but ignored it. > >> > >> He's using the same routine on you he always tries and that is twisting > >> your words and trying to attribute statements to you that you've never > >> made. > >> That's one reason why it's trivial to point out snit's lies. > >> > >> Get ready for snit to fall on his sword though because you are his only > >> supporter in cola and he doesn't want to lose that. > > > > The very fact that he is constantly talking about imaginary Christian > > "atrocities" bothers me. > > I have spoken of the Iraq war. An atrocity done in the name of the Christian > deity. Bull. I don't give a crap what Bush personally said, it wasn't a war driven by religion no matter how many times you screech it for the purposes of this argument. Elsewhere I saw you argue it was about oil, another of your arguments claimed revenge for Bush's father. You just keep tossing crap against that hopefully sticky wall, don't you? > But there are others. > > <http://reut.rs/1MFdg8v> The were defending themselves from Muslim rebels. From your reference: "The mostly Christian or animist "anti-balaka" militia took up arms in 2013 in response to months of looting and killing by mostly Muslim Seleka rebels who had toppled President Francois Bozize and seized power in March the same year." > Then their is the Bosnian Genocide (ethnic cleansing backed by Christian > factions), the Holocaust itself (tied to centuries of Christian > anti-Semitism), American slavery, destruction of native American cultures as > well as massive ethnic cleansing, and more > (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism>). All of these backed > by many Christians. With whatever Christian tie in you could ever make here (and there are some, in my opinion), these events happened decades ago, at the least. What's so bad about looking at today for you? > Now did ALL Christians back these? Of course not - just as not all Muslims > back the violence done in the name of or tied to their religion or religious > leaders! It's not merely a matter of what someone "backs" (or what *you* claim someone "backs"), it's a matter of the system of justice in place NOW, the culture as it is NOW, etc. > I think it makes more sense to join together and denounce such atrocities > than to try to figure out if Christians or Muslims are the ones doing more > harm! Given that there won't be a "join together" jamboree any time soon, I think it makes more sense to hold people accountable for their actions today. If they want to argue that today's actions are in response to yesterday's, let them take that up with the courts. > Really, isn't that the better way to deal with such things than going > back and forth seeing who can find more evil acts done in the name of > religion and horrid quotes from holy books? Strange that you ask that, being it's exactly what you are doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web