[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]I still think the propoganda mostly hit the mark, were quibbling over the diffrence between 900,000 dead, and say 1.2 million, even if Vickery's low numbers of 800,000 are right, thats still a hell of alot considering were only talking a country of 7.2 million.
But your right calling him a "khmer Rouge apologist" isnt right, however that doesnt clear the critisim that he has been rather quiet on the subject even though his initial beliefs have been proven wrong.[/B][/QUOTE]
I think it is rathe worth noting that there is more to the propaganda than simply the quantity of dead. Not that the country doesn't basically swim in blood regardless. As for his comments since, I can't really say. I don't follow everything he does, and he may well have ammended his previous comments. I haven't noticed anything either way. I suppose it is worth noting that almost all of controversey over this was over before I was even born, so I did kind of miss that one.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]I was commenting about your comments on Thomas Sowell, your usage of cuntbucket and other bits of diatrbe, plus calling me an idiot are wonderfull examples of skilled debating tactics.[/B][/QUOTE]
As opposed to just calling your opponent a communist, an entirely legitimate and worthwhile argument to present.
And Thomas Sowell [i]is[/i] an oreo and a cuntbucket. If saying that makes me a communist, I guess it's time to start uniting with some workers or something.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Yeah, but his moves to the "Right" are blatantly obvious to those of us in this corner as simple pandering in attempt to firm up his chances for 2008, his actual politics as evidenced by his voting record, even recently, is still pretty far left.[/B][/QUOTE]
Questionable. I don't debate that they are pandering (rather a change from his last public persona), however, I am not nearly so certain it isn't more than posturing. I'm rather certain his politics in effect will have to change in order to win the presidency and keep it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Then it sounds to me like alot of people who are registered Dems need to to alot of soul searching, because it sounds like dispite talking the talk, they are not going to walk the walk on this issue.[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think this is a partisan issue at all. The outspoken and open racists may tend more often to register Republican (if they even register at all), but they are, for the most part, a dying and irrelevant breed. They still exist, but I'm talking about the majority of this country: people who are entirely convinced they are not racist and perhaps even identify themselves as socially liberal to a degree (and if not, would at least find the idea of identifying with a neo-Nazi or white nationalist group abhorrent)— and yet still are truly racist and otherwise prejudiced in ways that are either permissable in society or latent enough to be deniable. Racism is still a very real and very significant problem in this country. Its institutions and its structure have changed since the days of Jim Crow and the civil rights movement, but it is still alive and more pervasive than ever.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Actualy if its like that, then no, they arent targeting because they hate blacks or anything, unless you think secrently they go to bed every night hoping to wake up white.
Not all the time when cops shoot people that they shouldnt is it down to the racism card, hell, considering how much and how lousy they shot, I think the officers in question shoulda been tox screened, considering they damn near took out two transit authority police who were a few blocks away, I mean what the hell, were they drinking?
While some sort of discriminatory behavior was taking place, there were probably other factors at play other then simply skin color.
Note I am not claiming it was a justifiable shoot, I think the cops had some lame ass personal motive for it, perhaps one of the party goers made some very negative comments about cops while telling a story or something. I wouldnt be suprised if this was cops engaged in rampent thuggery, but not one based on skin color.[/B][/QUOTE]
While I agree that more than simple race was involved (ie it wasn't "omg, a black man! let's shoot him!"), it's rather hard to believe that race did not play a significant role. An extremely oversimplified view of racism may lead you to believe that black officers are incapable of behaving in identically abusive ways as white officers, but this is simply not true. Racism and its structure within an oppressive society are far more complex.
Strictly speaking, it is [i]possible[/i] that race played a neglible role in the shooting; however, given the circumstances surrounding it and the NYPD's history of shooting black men ("Oh my god, he's got a wallet! Take him down!"), I find it extremely improbable.
Comments
[B]I still think the propoganda mostly hit the mark, were quibbling over the diffrence between 900,000 dead, and say 1.2 million, even if Vickery's low numbers of 800,000 are right, thats still a hell of alot considering were only talking a country of 7.2 million.
But your right calling him a "khmer Rouge apologist" isnt right, however that doesnt clear the critisim that he has been rather quiet on the subject even though his initial beliefs have been proven wrong.[/B][/QUOTE]
I think it is rathe worth noting that there is more to the propaganda than simply the quantity of dead. Not that the country doesn't basically swim in blood regardless. As for his comments since, I can't really say. I don't follow everything he does, and he may well have ammended his previous comments. I haven't noticed anything either way. I suppose it is worth noting that almost all of controversey over this was over before I was even born, so I did kind of miss that one.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]I was commenting about your comments on Thomas Sowell, your usage of cuntbucket and other bits of diatrbe, plus calling me an idiot are wonderfull examples of skilled debating tactics.[/B][/QUOTE]
As opposed to just calling your opponent a communist, an entirely legitimate and worthwhile argument to present.
And Thomas Sowell [i]is[/i] an oreo and a cuntbucket. If saying that makes me a communist, I guess it's time to start uniting with some workers or something.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Yeah, but his moves to the "Right" are blatantly obvious to those of us in this corner as simple pandering in attempt to firm up his chances for 2008, his actual politics as evidenced by his voting record, even recently, is still pretty far left.[/B][/QUOTE]
Questionable. I don't debate that they are pandering (rather a change from his last public persona), however, I am not nearly so certain it isn't more than posturing. I'm rather certain his politics in effect will have to change in order to win the presidency and keep it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Then it sounds to me like alot of people who are registered Dems need to to alot of soul searching, because it sounds like dispite talking the talk, they are not going to walk the walk on this issue.[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think this is a partisan issue at all. The outspoken and open racists may tend more often to register Republican (if they even register at all), but they are, for the most part, a dying and irrelevant breed. They still exist, but I'm talking about the majority of this country: people who are entirely convinced they are not racist and perhaps even identify themselves as socially liberal to a degree (and if not, would at least find the idea of identifying with a neo-Nazi or white nationalist group abhorrent)— and yet still are truly racist and otherwise prejudiced in ways that are either permissable in society or latent enough to be deniable. Racism is still a very real and very significant problem in this country. Its institutions and its structure have changed since the days of Jim Crow and the civil rights movement, but it is still alive and more pervasive than ever.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Actualy if its like that, then no, they arent targeting because they hate blacks or anything, unless you think secrently they go to bed every night hoping to wake up white.
Not all the time when cops shoot people that they shouldnt is it down to the racism card, hell, considering how much and how lousy they shot, I think the officers in question shoulda been tox screened, considering they damn near took out two transit authority police who were a few blocks away, I mean what the hell, were they drinking?
While some sort of discriminatory behavior was taking place, there were probably other factors at play other then simply skin color.
Note I am not claiming it was a justifiable shoot, I think the cops had some lame ass personal motive for it, perhaps one of the party goers made some very negative comments about cops while telling a story or something. I wouldnt be suprised if this was cops engaged in rampent thuggery, but not one based on skin color.[/B][/QUOTE]
While I agree that more than simple race was involved (ie it wasn't "omg, a black man! let's shoot him!"), it's rather hard to believe that race did not play a significant role. An extremely oversimplified view of racism may lead you to believe that black officers are incapable of behaving in identically abusive ways as white officers, but this is simply not true. Racism and its structure within an oppressive society are far more complex.
Strictly speaking, it is [i]possible[/i] that race played a neglible role in the shooting; however, given the circumstances surrounding it and the NYPD's history of shooting black men ("Oh my god, he's got a wallet! Take him down!"), I find it extremely improbable.