Darrell Issa labeled as a Racist

[Jack V Savage]

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.

That's exactly what I said. It's pretty clear, isn't it? I can't fathom what that other dude is thinking, and he's too much into team spirit mode to just explain it like an adult.

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.

That's only one aspect of liberalism, and it's one shared by people with many different viewpoints.

 

[strangejosh]

Issa isn't racist. He's just an idiot. Someone please run against this D-bag and win. And to Bill Maher, stop having him on your show.

 

[45ACP]

That's exactly what I said. It's pretty clear, isn't it? I can't fathom what that other dude is thinking, and he's too much into team spirit mode to just explain it like an adult.

Which team would that be?

 

[James Keith]

That's only one aspect of liberalism, and it's one shared by people with many different viewpoints.

I double-checked your math and there is indeed only a single principle in that list. Was that calculation you performed meant to be the end product or was there some underlying argument there which hinged on the fact that the result came out to be unity? and not, say, a longer list, which I could just as well have provided?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

So now you want to move the goal post eh?

I'm not moving the goalpost. You said liberals are "constantly" calling to nationalize things. If that's the case you should be able to provide a handful of examples of industries they've pushed to nationalize.

Ok check out this funny poll:

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

Funny how there are key words like "temporarily" and "in danger of failing." Also funny how it has zero political momentum... If registered Democrats were serious about nationalizing banks, don't you think they would be voting in pro-nationalization candidates during primaries?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Which team would that be?

I double-checked your math and there is indeed only a single principle in that list. Was that calculation you performed meant to be the end product or was there some underlying argument there which hinged on the fact that the result came out to be unity? and not, say, a longer list, which I could just as well have provided?

Er, so you get that if you agree with liberals about one thing, that doesn't make you a liberal?

 

[James Keith]

Er, so you get that if you agree with liberals about one thing, that doesn't make you a liberal?

I'm not?? Does your definition not encompass classical liberalism? Right to life liberty, property? Rights and freedom generally? As I said I could provide a longer list. Why is the discussion of the length of a list of examples relevant to the point that was made when it was provided? Unless of course your goal was to dodge that argument...

 

[James Keith]

I'm not moving the goalpost. You said liberals are "constantly" calling to nationalize things. If that's the case you should be able to provide a handful of examples of industries they've pushed to nationalize.

No you definitely moved it. Just admit you should have demanded more initially. Or don't whatever.

GM was nationalized then part ownership was given to unions. How communist can you get?

Funny how there are key words like "temporarily" and "in danger of failing."

Yes it would be nice to have a more direct poll. But this is a large majority of support. And if the word "temporary" completely eliminates negative aspects then why does the opposition change when temporary nationalization is proposed? It's just as temporary either way. Also notice the significant left-right difference.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

he was completely out of line and rude, but i don't know about racist.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

No you definitely moved it.
Just admit you should have demanded more initially. Or don't whatever.

What did I move the goal post from and to? You said Democrats are constantly calling for nationalization. You should be able to back that statement up with more than a poll from several years ago.

GM was nationalized then part ownership was given to unions. How communist can you get?

That doesn't equal Democrats "constantly" calling for things to be nationalized.

Yes it would be nice to have a more direct poll. But this is a large majority of support. And if the word "temporary" completely eliminates negative aspects then why does the opposition change when temporary nationalization is proposed? It's just as temporary either way. Also notice the significant left-right difference.

Again, if nationalization were a priority for Democrats, why isn't nationalization of consumer electronics, clothes, food, etc. part of the party's platform? Why aren't pro-nationalization candidates being elected in Democratic primaries?

 

[TheComebackKid]

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.

Really? What is the justification to state that he is a racist? It must be based no something outside of this situation.

 

[csroster]

Really? What is the justification to state that he is a racist? It must be based no something outside of this situation.

It's the situation itself that makes it reasonable, because race was an existing factor in it. It might not have been the reason, but its a reasonable option because it was a factor.

A white republican was rude to a black democrat.

Maybe he was rude because he's just an asshole. Maybe he's racist, maybe he's partisan, maybe he was just having a bad day, maybe he's only human, etc..

We don't know which of these motivations is true, but none of them are unreasonable.

There's no justification to state that he's racist or not, there's only justification to say that they were clearly different races and that racism exists. But so does partisanship and they were clearly different parties, so partisanship is also a reasonable justification.

We don't know.

Do you think racism is unreasonable as a justification?

 

[TheComebackKid]

It's the situation itself that makes it reasonable, because race was an existing factor in it. It might not have been the reason, but its a reasonable option because it was a factor.

A white republican was rude to a black democrat.

Maybe he was rude because he's just an asshole. Maybe he's racist, maybe he's partisan, maybe he was just having a bad day, maybe he's only human, etc..

We don't know which of these motivations is true, but none of them are unreasonable.

There's no justification to state that he's racist or not, there's only justification to say that they were clearly different races and that racism exists. But so does partisanship and they were clearly different parties, so partisanship is also a reasonable justification.

We don't know.

Do you think racism is unreasonable as a justification?

I don't think it is. I think using the mere existence of race in any random situation as justification for questioning if someones actions were racially motivated assumes way to much about an individual...and negatively at that.

I also think its irresponsible to openly speculate if someone or something was racist when there were absolutely no indications of racism having taken place. Its like when someone gets accused of being a rapist. The guy could win in court and be found completely innocent but he will always have that stigma of being a rapist. Racism works the same way. Randomly discussing and speculating whether or not someone is racist is a good way to get them labeled as a racist.

So, its not only unreasonable but also irresponsible.

 

[csroster]

I don't think it is. I think using the mere existence of race in any random situation as justification for questioning if someones actions were racially motivated assumes way to much about an individual...and negatively at that.

I also think its irresponsible to openly speculate if someone or something was racist when there were absolutely no indications of racism having taken place. Its like when someone gets accused of being a rapist. The guy could win in court and be found completely innocent but he will always have that stigma of being a rapist. Racism works the same way. Randomly discussing and speculating whether or not someone is racist is a good way to get them labeled as a racist.

So, its not only unreasonable but also irresponsible.

And for the record I'm not saying its reasonable to state or assume as facts, I'm just saying that its a reasonable justification.

Edit: I just realized I must have read your post completely wrong.

Are you saying that racial motivations are unreasonable??

Would you also say that partisan motivations are unreasonable because the mere existence of ideologies isn't enough reason to think that different ideologies may be source of conflict, when that's what disagreement is predicated on?

Are you saying that you can't even reason a situation where race could have been the motivating factor?

 

[Calmete]

And for the record I'm not saying its reasonable to state or assume as facts, I'm just saying that its a reasonable justification.

Edit: I just realized I must have read your post completely wrong.

Are you saying that racial motivations are unreasonable??

Would you also say that partisan motivations are unreasonable because the mere existence of ideologies isn't enough reason to think that different ideologies may be source of conflict, when that's what disagreement is predicated on?

Are you saying that you can't even reason a situation where race could have been the motivating factor?

So what you're saying, for example, is if TCK is offended by your posts for whatever reason, he should have the right to start telling everyone you might be a racist; as he's a person of color?

 

[OldGoat]

It's the situation itself that makes it reasonable, because race was an existing factor in it. It might not have been the reason, but its a reasonable option because it was a factor.

A white republican was rude to a black democrat.

Maybe he was rude because he's just an asshole. Maybe he's racist, maybe he's partisan, maybe he was just having a bad day, maybe he's only human, etc..

We don't know which of these motivations is true, but none of them are unreasonable.

There's no justification to state that he's racist or not, there's only justification to say that they were clearly different races and that racism exists. But so does partisanship and they were clearly different parties, so partisanship is also a reasonable justification.

We don't know.

Do you think racism is unreasonable as a justification?

Outside of the perpetual victim class, at this point what does it matter?

 

[csroster]

So what you're saying, for example, is if TCK is offended by your posts for whatever reason, he should have the right to start telling everyone you might be a racist; as he's a person of color?

I'm black too, so it could be that I'm a self hating racist.

If both mine and TCK's race were a part of the discussion to begin with, why would it be unreasonable to consider it as a factor.

And once again, I'm not saying it's reasonable to go around stating as a fact because we have no idea. I'm saying it's as reasonable to consider as a factor in the situation as any other factor we know was present in the situation.

TCK might also be offended by my posts because I'm offensive or because he's sensitive. Any or all of those could be the reason, but that's not reason enough to assume one or all are facts or go around stating them as such.

 

[45ACP]

So what you're saying, for example, is if TCK is offended by your posts for whatever reason, he should have the right to start telling everyone you might be a racist; as he's a person of color?

I like your style. You should come around here more often.

 

[csroster]

Outside of the perpetual victim class, at this point what does it matter?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

To me personally, I don't really care what his motivations are. His actions are all that matters.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

i hate issa more anyone here, but there is nothing to make me believe he's a racist. a lying sos? yes, he's one of the biggest bull shitters in congressional history. but the race issue isn't there.