Darrell Issa labeled as a Racist

[Jack V Savage]

I see a lot of spin to justify the same goal.

The goal of having a safety net? Sure, liberals support one. You're completely wrong about the reasoning, though, which is pretty significant (and telling--you're just not that bright, are you?).

oh brother

And now you're saying you don't even know what liberalism is? He wouldn't have argued with that classification of himself.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Interesting thread.

I personally think its unreasonable and irresponsible to to speculate on whether an individual is racist based on events that have nothing to to do with racism.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Yes. At the very top is an article by "the American Progressive" with the title "nationalize the banks".

The site was down hence I gave the google search. There's other good stuff in the results too like Paul Krugman.


What country are you in? Must be affecting your search results.

You said liberals "call to nationalize things constantly". Has the Democratic Party tried to nationalize food, clothing, consumer electronics, television, housing...? I don't recall any bill in Congress that gained political momentum that called for the nationalization of banks either...

 

[45ACP]

So Jack doesn't think there's any way to tell for certain if Issa is actually racist or not, but people calling him racist are being perfectly reasonable. Got it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So Jack doesn't think there's any way to tell for certain if Issa is actually racist or not, but people calling him racist are being perfectly reasonable. Got it.

Huh? Who have I defended that has called him a racist? It's a reasonable suspicion, but anyone who claims to know one way or the other is not being honest.

 

[Crocswithsocks]

Damn, a lot of serious ugliness in this thread.

...

 

[44nutman]

All I saw on the video is two race baiters yelling at each other.

The only difference between Hannity and Jesse Jackson is the color of their skin. Both have figured out how to make a living off of race.

 

[45ACP]

Huh? Who have I defended that has called him a racist? It's a reasonable suspicion, but anyone who claims to know one way or the other is not being honest.

So there's no way to know for certain, and it's dishonest to make a claim either way, but it's still reasonable to suspect him of being racist.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So there's no way to know for certain, and it's dishonest to make a claim either way, but it's still reasonable to suspect him of being racist.

Thanks for clarifying.

Um, yeah. Is that unclear to you? WTF?

 

[45ACP]

Um, yeah. Is that unclear to you? WTF?

Totally clear. Not surprised you don't see a problem with that statement but I'm sure others here will so thanks for admitting to it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Totally clear. Not surprised you don't see a problem with that statement but I'm sure others here will so thanks for admitting to it.

Is it that you don't know what "suspect" means? I'm really curious here.

 

[45ACP]

Is it that you don't know what "suspect" means? I'm really curious here.

Yeah, I don't know what that word means

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, I don't know what that word means

 

[45ACP]

So you're just going to be cryptic and not really explain what you have trouble understanding?

I never said I had trouble understanding anything. It's just not worth trying to explain anything to you since I know the types of games you like to play.

You've already said all you needed to say. The others here can interpret the statement I called you on how ever they'd like.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I never said I had trouble understanding anything. It's just not worth trying to explain anything to you since I know the types of games you like to play.

You've already said all you needed to say. The others here can interpret the statement I called you on how ever they'd like.

Jeez, what crawled up your butt? I just really want to know what you think was unclear, but I guess you're too combative to explain.

 

[James Keith]

The goal of having a safety net? Sure, liberals support one. You're completely wrong about the reasoning, though, which is pretty significant (and telling--you're just not that bright, are you?).

Whatever dude. Keep telling yourself your fellow travellers are basing their wealth redistribution desires on carefuly-thought-out macroeconomic principles most never even heard of.

And now you're saying you don't even know what liberalism is? He wouldn't have argued with that classification of himself.

No I'm groaning at your segue into the semantic argument about the distribution of groups and beliefs that have been described as liberal.... as a way to justify a claim that Milton Friedman speaks for the American left when it comes to markets versus socialism.

You know where that argument goes... modern American "liberalism" is the direct descendent of progressivism not classical liberalism. Many liberals call themselves progressives. You define liberalism based on very-carefully-selected (and immensely biased) authors' renditions of history. Then you define conservatism on the most fringe candidates or idiots in a crowd you can find. You're just a troll that tries way too hard.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Whatever dude. Keep telling yourself your fellow travellers are basing their wealth redistribution desires on carefuly-thought-out macroeconomic principles most never even heard of.

You can't even entertain liberal ideas, even if just to understand them before rejecting them. Again, very telling.

No I'm groaning at your segue into the semantic argument about the distribution of groups and beliefs that have been described as liberal.... as a way to justify a claim that Milton Friedman speaks for the American left when it comes to markets versus socialism.

You might be getting senile. I specifically noted that Friedman was on the right when telling you he was a liberal. So, no, I didn't "justify a claim" that I didn't make.

You know where that argument goes... modern American "liberalism" is the direct descendent of progressivism not classical liberalism.

There's no distinction there. Progressivism is just one of many developments of classical liberalism.

Many liberals call themselves progressives. You define liberalism based on very-carefully-selected (and immensely biased) authors' renditions of history. Then you define conservatism on the most fringe candidates or idiots in a crowd you can find. You're just a troll that tries way too hard.

I actually know this stuff pretty well so it's easy for me to refute your inaccurate claims. I define both terms correctly, but you prefer to define liberalism in terms of how it is viewed by reactionaries.

 

[csroster]

Totally clear. Not surprised you don't see a problem with that statement but I'm sure others here will so thanks for admitting to it.

I think he's saying that it's reasonable for people to suspect he could be a racist as well as that he could not be one from this event. Which I would agree with.

There are reasonable justifications to state an opinion one way or the other, but not enough to say with definite proof one way or the other.

 

[James Keith]

You said liberals "call to nationalize things constantly". Has the Democratic Party tried to nationalize food, clothing, consumer electronics, television, housing...? I don't recall any bill in Congress that gained political momentum that called for the nationalization of banks either...

So now you want to move the goal post eh?

Ok check out this funny poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116065/americans-views-bank-takeovers-appear-fluid.aspx

There's a funny hangup with the (other) "N word" that I suppose would explain a lot of the resistance I get when pointing out the socialism of the left.

 

[James Keith]

You can't even entertain liberal ideas, even if just to understand them before rejecting them. Again, very telling.

But Jack, I support market-based economics and think socialism is a horribly inefficient economic syste,. That makes me a liberal.

Try to be consistent here.