"This is for Malcom X, cracka!"

ehtheist said:
While you're not wrong on one front, I find it interesting that you say "we have more trinkets"... You're damned right on this one. We have more trinkets. *LOTS* more trinkets. I have to ask you - how did Americans come about acquiring those trinkets? Did Santa start dropping off more and more every year? Obviously not. Americans bought them. The amount of our expendable income which goes in to "trinkets" compared to that of our parents is *staggering*. When we're sitting here in a rented house with three big screen TV's, four computers, a cel phone with an pricey subscription in every hand, cable and internet bills, a car for each parent, maybe it's time to pause before we point a finger and take a look in the mirror. Is maybe at least part of the reason we don't have as much "wealth" as our parents did because we spent it all on "trinkets," our two vacations a year, and our daily trip to Starbucks that our parents never did/had?

There was a point when I was young where I tallied up the amount of money I spent on "trinkets" and small things each year - things which just weren't even options in my parents' time, things which didn't exist for them to spend money on. I tallied it up, saw a very big number, and cut most of it out... I put a down payment on my first apartment just a few short years later and now I own a house to boot. It's odd how much of the "wealth" we don't have is not there because we spent it all on "trinkets"...
Click to expand...

I just dont see it the way you do. I think flat wages busted unions and all profits going to the very top is a much bigger part of the problem than buying too many trinkets
 
Gutter Chris said:
I just dont see it the way you do. I think flat wages busted unions and all profits going to the very top is a much bigger part of the problem than buying too many trinkets
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Though, I'd ask a lot of people at least consider both sides of it. The people on the top *will* try and take more and more if they can - I know this. But as we're rushing to point a finger, I just say, look in a mirror too. At least part of why many of us are doing worse than our parents did for "wealth" is because we willingly put so much of our capital into things which don't contribute to our wealth in the long term - the "trinkets." I think that, for a lot of us, if we're honest, when we're looking at the problem of our "wealth" compared to our parents, we'll see that at least part of the problem is us.
 
ehtheist said:
Fair enough. Though, I'd ask a lot of people at least consider both sides of it. The people on the top *will* try and take more and more if they can - I know this. But as we're rushing to point a finger, I just say, look in a mirror too. At least part of why many of us are doing worse than our parents did for "wealth" is because we willingly put so much of our capital into things which don't contribute to our wealth in the long term - the "trinkets." I think that, for a lot of us, if we're honest, when we're looking at the problem of our "wealth" compared to our parents, we'll see that at least part of the problem is us.
Click to expand...

I think our parents bought just as many toys as we did just less options. Instead of big screens and play stations they bought boats cottages mustangs and season tickets. Im standing by my theory that its stagnat wages and inflation and not the toys that are doing us in


I will pay you a compliment now. I like your posting style I might not agree with what your saying but you are very back and forth with no waiting and I like that
 
Graverobber said:
is 'cracka' the equivalent to ':eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:' in the current neo-lexicon?
Click to expand...

If you walked up and called me a cracka, I'd call you an idiot and walk away shaking my head. Sorry, it's not offensive to white people.
 
Gutter Chris said:
I think our parents bought just as many toys as we did just less options. Instead of big screens and play stations they bought boats cottages mustangs and season tickets. Im standing by my theory that its stagnat wages and inflation and not the toys that are doing us in


I will pay you a compliment now. I like your posting style I might not agree with what your saying but you are very back and forth with no waiting and I like that
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure of that - in fact, my impression is very strong in the other direction. But eh, I'm in bed in under 20 minutes, so it's time for me to taper off the arguments. Enjoyed the back and forth.
 
BlueMerle said:
I feel the sarcasm, but I'm highly confused then as to why you're supporting a candidate that when asked "Do all lives matter or do black lives matter?" answered:

"Black lives matter."
Click to expand...
Source?
 
Bunch of salty whities out there
 
BlueMerle said:
Not sure why you couldn't google this yourself.

Click to expand...

Meh, though I disagree with his initial answer, he's obviously a man who believes all lives matter. He just went off on a tangent and used that as an opportunity to appeal to the black vote. Poor answer, on his behalf.
 
ehtheist said:
I'm glad someone actually asked me this rather than just assuming I support Bernie to troll or some such.

Actually, I disagree with Bernie on a *lot* of his stances. The thing is, I *hugely* appreciate one thing about Bernie... He's one of the most genuine candidates to come through the American political system in decades. Candidate after candidate comes through with fake smiles, popular promises that their voting records don't match, and a history of scandals and coverups and "changes of heart" on popular issues, where those changes of heart just happen to get them votes. Bernie, on the other hand? For all of his faults, his position matches his record which matches the way he lives his life. Though he's not perfect, ahead of any candidate in recent memory who actually had a shot, he's fairly genuine.

I'm supporting Bernie and voting for him... Not because I agree with a great deal of his platform, but I'd like to send a message to the political parties of the U.S. that a political candidate can actually be who they are and they can still get votes. If Bernie gets in, it might send a message to the U.S. political system - that we're sick of sow's ears dressed up like silk purses. Seeing as the other person on the Democrat card is the epitome of this at the moment, I really, really hope Bernie gets it - I don't want the Democratic party to be rewarded for shoving scheisters in our faces.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter if he's genuine, when you disagree with his stances? Would you support your father cheating on your mother, if he was genuinely in love with another woman?

You realize people can be genuinely wrong, right?

I mean we had Americans who literally died on the battlefields overseas to stop socialism and communism from spreading to America just a few decades ago, and here we are in 2016 with an open socialist gaining momentum. That's scary.

And believe me, voting Democrat isn't going to send a message to Capitol Hill. Lol. If you want to send a message to the political parties, vote Trump, with whom both parties establishments are vehemently against. Also, Trump is not a career politician like Bernie, and is just as genuine.

So really, based on the justifications you just used for supporting Bernie, you can literally copy and paste them to Trump and make the same point.

It just saddens me to see emotional, one-issue voters try and justify why they support someone with whom they don't even agree with fundamentally. I would suggest you do some research on socialism vs capitalism and decide which side of the fence you're on. At least that way you would have some sort of principle on which to stand, rather than having to resort to giving someone the most powerful position in the world because he seems "genuine". That's just weak.
 
dontsnitch said:
Masterful answer to a question that should not have been even acknowledged.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if there's some special significance attached to those phrases, other than what they actually state, but anyone who treats the two as if they're mutually exclusive, is either ignorant or racist(but likely both).
 
gspieler said:
Meh, though I disagree with his initial answer, he's obviously a man who believes all lives matter. He just went off on a tangent and used that as an opportunity to appeal to the black vote. Poor answer, on his behalf.
Click to expand...

He sidestepped a purposeful landmine of a false dichotomy by being politically correct, yet retaining half an ounce of believability. That's a homerun in politics.
 
dontsnitch said:
He sidestepped a purposeful landmine of a false dichotomy by being politically correct, yet retaining half an ounce of believability. That's a homerun in politics.
Click to expand...

How is asking whether all lives matter, or black lives matter a false dichotomy?

Also, by praising his politically correct answer, you're perpetuating and supporting more political correctness by rewarding it. We certainly don't need that.

It's a simply question, with one logical answer.

ALL LIVES MATTER.

End of story, Over. Done. If you're offended by that, you're prejudiced and anti-equality.
 
dontsnitch said:
He sidestepped a purposeful landmine of a false dichotomy by being politically correct, yet retaining half an ounce of believability. That's a homerun in politics.
Click to expand...
The answer certainly got him over with the crowd. But would it be that difficult, or controversial for that matter, to explain that if all lives matter, then black lives neccessarily matter as well?
 
BlueMerle said:
How is asking whether all lives matter, or black lives matter a false dichotomy?

Also, by praising his politically correct answer, you're perpetuating and supporting more political correctness by rewarding it. We certainly don't need that.

It's a simply question, with one logical answer.

ALL LIVES MATTER.

End of story, Over. Done. If you're offended by that, you're prejudiced and anti-equality.
Click to expand...

This is politics. Honesty has no place here. If he said "well duh, all lives matter, wadda ya mean?" he would be shooting himself in the foot, undermining the very platform he's running on.

As for how it's not a false dichotomy, do you actually think that either black lives matter, or all lives matter. Are not black lives a subset of all lives? It's a stupid question aimed at one specific answer, which he delivered, and sounded like he meant it.
 
gspieler said:
The answer certainly got him over with the crowd. But would it be that difficult, or controversial for that matter, to explain that if all lives matter, then black lives neccessarily matter as well?
Click to expand...

Yes, 'cause that's the trap. He's not in the War Room trying to be objective and philosophize about identity politics, he's trying to win the Presidency.
 
jefferz said:
If you walked up and called me a cracka, I'd call you an idiot and walk away shaking my head. Sorry, it's not offensive to ME.
Click to expand...

There fixed it for ya. We don't need one person claiming to speak for all people of a race. And that applies to all races.

If you want to lambaste someone for being offended at being called a cracka, that's another issue.

But you then need to apply that to all races and racial slurs evenly, because in order to hold a moral stance it needs to be universal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

koquerelle
Crime 3 Palestinian students were shot in Vermont
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
4K
PEDS Help me Post
PEDS Help me Post

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,864
Messages
55,451,026
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top