Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

CNN Reporting that RBG Has Passed


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, just654 said:

 

I have seen some outlandish views on this site. And I normally keep my mouth shut because it isnt worth the time. But Wow!!! I am left speechless on this view. I think you should be ashamed to even think this. It is pretty much inferring you think Republicans are adopting to mistreat and abuse children. Shame on you! At least have some sort of evidence to back up your outlandish claim.    

I posted one evidence above.  A republican politician claiming that her black child is statistically more prone to violence. 

Besides all this, a conservative viewpoint is that non-whites have a  lower IQ than Whites.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

I posted one evidence above.  A republican politician claiming that her black child is statistically more prone to violence. 

Besides all this, a conservative viewpoint is that non-whites have a  lower IQ than Whites.  

 

That isnt evidence of anything but 1 bad parent saying something dumb. Also, need a little bit more besides a BET article based off a Vice article. 

And that is a Very Far right view. I wouldnt even call that a conservative view. 

Edited by just654
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, redskins59 said:

I don't understand the backlash against me tbh

Your default position is that you don’t trust people who have lots of children, and that you don’t trust white conservatives that adopt underprivileged children that aren’t white. 
 

and that you assume they’re miss treating these people because you don’t have evidence they are not mistreating these people. 
 

that a potential SCOTUS nominee having a special needs child is a red flag. 
 

that you presume she is a white nationalist but maybe she’s not because she adopted non white children, but that we still don’t have proof she’s not mistreating them. 
 

your opinions/posts here are garbage. I don’t know what it is that causes you to have these default assumptions but I don’t care. This is an embarrassing way to think through evaluating her, and your attempt to justify it by evaluating other people similarly isn’t really helping your cause. 
 

no. Just because she has a lot of children that’s not a red flag. And just because she’s white and conservative doesn’t means she adopted non-white children and then mistreats them. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Briefly reading the BET article it reads more like a person who lacks understanding of the stats she’s citing. Which, honestly, is a problem a lot of people seem to have across the political spectrum. 
 

in this case, simply citing race is super misleading. Socioeconomic status plays a huge roll. I doubt the numbers on black children of affluent parents are anywhere near the general stats on black males. She’s likely stupid and misguided, based solely on those quotes

 

It hardly means she plans to mistreat him. extrapolating that out to white conservatives that adopt non white children is absurd. 

Edited by tshile
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of statistics, it's just a terrible assumption to make. 

We're supposed to be against prejudice. Don't actively practice it. (But if you do, you're more than welcome to keep it to yourself.)

No judgment, just sayin. 😉

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, redskins59 said:

The Republican party is a White Nationalist party, and if they( meaning Republicans) adopt non-White children, I will question it. What is their motivation?  

This is a view of mine.  Democrats can't use it.  I get that.  I can see that even liberals would be pissed by this argument.

 

I've seen some pretty hot takes over the years here, but dude the reaction you're receiving is justified. Claiming to not practice prejudice, but doing so yourself is not acceptable. Having said that, the Republican Party is not a white nationalist party. Sure, there are white nationalists in the party, but that does not represent the whole. You would be just as ticked off, and justifiably so, if someone made a repugnant generalization about the Democratic Party. While we have the Idiot in Chief representing that idiotic portion of the party, it's not representative of the party as a whole. 

 

Edit: 

Let me add, that in time. The party will eventually come to its senses. tshile touched on it in the thread about the party, for now the party (those conservatives who are rational) should support Democrats. The party platform will re-center on small government and responsible spending, but not while Trump has a stranglehold on the party. 

Edited by Busch1724
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

Having said that, the Republican Party is not a white nationalist party. Sure, there are white nationalists in the party, but that does not represent the whole. You would be just as ticked off, and justifiably so, if someone made a repugnant generalization about the Democratic Party. While we have the Idiot in Chief representing that idiotic portion of the party, it's not representative of the party as a whole. 

I think this is pretty debatable now.  They may not all be white nationalists, but as a whole they defend and support those who are and do their best to help white nationalists get into power and cater to them in their ads and speeches.  So while not every member of the GOP and certainly many many Republicans in general are not White Nationalists, the party itself can be fairly labeled as such.

 

 But this is probably not the thread to go into a lengthy back and forth on this.  Let’s get back to discussing Ginsburg and her possible replacement here.

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

 

You might say, this is garbage.

 

To be perfectly honest, the things that you are writing here make the most sense to me if I assume that you're actually a Russian troll trying to make liberals and minorities look bad, push undecideds to Trump, and fire up the base.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

To be perfectly honest, the things that you are writing here make the most sense to me if I assume that you're actually a Russian troll trying to make liberals and minorities look bad, push undecideds to Trump, and fire up the base.

Okay dude, but this is not facebook.  Minorities already look bad to Republicans.  Why should I be concerned?  

Should I really be concerned about energizing 10 people?

 She leads her life a certain way, and I commented on it. 

Is it super offensive?  Everybody sees that she has 7 children.  Scalia had 9.  I am saying that it may show her political leanings. Based on Scalia.

Again, caring for a special needs child is a very noble thing.  I am not attacking her.  I am talking about where she leans.  

Red flag, but in what context?  I am talking in terms of how she will rule.

Did I say caring for a special needs child is bad?  Where?

 

Anyways, I think I should stop this debate right here. No more response from me.

Edited by redskins59
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, visionary said:
ACB 2016 video

 

I really hope someone brings up the interview during her confirmation. Ask her if she still has the same opinion and/or what changed her mind. Then ask her if she usually changes her position every 4 years?

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, redskins59 said:

In general, if a person has 7 children, and is religious, that many children is due to one reason: religion.  I don't want a religious person in the supreme court. 

For all I know, adopting two Haitians is a political ploy. I don't trust conservatives adopting non-White babies, specifically because conservative means White Nationalist.  The modern conservative believes:

1.  Non-whites have a lower IQ than Whites.

2. That everything bad is due to Jews ( Soros and Qanon)

3. That segregation needs to be brought back, as blacks cannot get along with Whites.

You’re a bit of a nutter, eh?

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

i did a lot of family work down at the doctor places over the years as part of my karma---not my original plan since to me the more people involved the ****tier everything is

 

and i did a lot of work with groups of kids of all ages, singly and in little herds of various sorting 

 

(i suggested we add one called 'little ****head' but they take such things very seriously at most doctor places)

 

but es is really the only daycare work i've ever done :P

 

this recent stuff above is all it's been said to be and it's all so far off topic <_<

 

i think it would be super spiffy keen if it would end now :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Long n Left said:

Spiffy keen??

 


Spiffy Keen was opening bat for Old Worchestershironians in the 1930s and flew a Spitfire in the Battle of Britain.

 

Spiffy had first class banter.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...