I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Even if blackface is featured on your yearbook page next to a klansman? Was that an outwardly racist, discriminating gesture? Otherwise, I agree with you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(02-14-2019 04:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Even if blackface is featured on your yearbook page next to a klansman? Was that an outwardly racist, discriminating gesture? Otherwise, I agree with you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I guess the way I would look at it is that the klansman character is outwardly racist and that is the issue. If the klansman wasn't there, it wouldn't be racist IMO. Ergo, the blackface by itself should be okay. Of course, if you did the blackface thing and acted like an idiot as part of your "costume" then that would be offensive.

I only think of that because Northam mentioned he had once dressed up as Michael Jackson and I believe he said he did blackface as part of that costume. But that sounded more like a tribute to the pop singer than anything racial.

But like I said, I'm not black so could be missing the boat here...

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Of course it's excessive PC. Unfortunately, the Dems/Progressives set the rules for how these types of actions are to go down in future cases. When your political party utilize tactics to demonize people because of stupid things that most people did in their youth (in one form or another - even telling/laughing at racist/sexist jokes) in order to curry favor with a group of minorities - Pandora's Box was opened. Moving forward, if you are a politician - independent of party affiliation - your ass WILL BE nailed to the wall if there is anything remotely racist or sexist in your youth. You're fvcked if you started a club when you were a kid that excluded women (Girls not allowed!!!) in your elementary school days.

Those are the rules laid out - those are the rules to be in effect. No quarter! Fvck it - let's tear it all down to the rafters and studs... It's not like any Dems/progressives gives a sh!t anyways...

(02-14-2019 05:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Even if blackface is featured on your yearbook page next to a klansman? Was that an outwardly racist, discriminating gesture? Otherwise, I agree with you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I guess the way I would look at it is that the klansman character is outwardly racist and that is the issue. If the klansman wasn't there, it wouldn't be racist IMO. Ergo, the blackface by itself should be okay. Of course, if you did the blackface thing and acted like an idiot as part of your "costume" then that would be offensive.

I only think of that because Northam mentioned he had once dressed up as Michael Jackson and I believe he said he did blackface as part of that costume. But that sounded more like a tribute to the pop singer than anything racial.

But like I said, I'm not black so could be missing the boat here...

Klansmen were not "racist" first, as they lynched plenty of white Republicans also.

(02-14-2019 05:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 05:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Even if blackface is featured on your yearbook page next to a klansman? Was that an outwardly racist, discriminating gesture? Otherwise, I agree with you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I guess the way I would look at it is that the klansman character is outwardly racist and that is the issue. If the klansman wasn't there, it wouldn't be racist IMO. Ergo, the blackface by itself should be okay. Of course, if you did the blackface thing and acted like an idiot as part of your "costume" then that would be offensive.

I only think of that because Northam mentioned he had once dressed up as Michael Jackson and I believe he said he did blackface as part of that costume. But that sounded more like a tribute to the pop singer than anything racial.

But like I said, I'm not black so could be missing the boat here...

Klansmen were not "racist" first, as they lynched plenty of white Republicans also.

They were racist but they had other beliefs also. It wasn't just blacks they were hostile to.

(02-14-2019 05:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 05:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Even if blackface is featured on your yearbook page next to a klansman? Was that an outwardly racist, discriminating gesture? Otherwise, I agree with you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I guess the way I would look at it is that the klansman character is outwardly racist and that is the issue. If the klansman wasn't there, it wouldn't be racist IMO. Ergo, the blackface by itself should be okay. Of course, if you did the blackface thing and acted like an idiot as part of your "costume" then that would be offensive.

I only think of that because Northam mentioned he had once dressed up as Michael Jackson and I believe he said he did blackface as part of that costume. But that sounded more like a tribute to the pop singer than anything racial.

But like I said, I'm not black so could be missing the boat here...

Klansmen were not "racist" first, as they lynched plenty of white Republicans also.

Because they were considered ni66er lovers.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(02-14-2019 05:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Of course it's excessive PC. Unfortunately, the Dems/Progressives set the rules for how these types of actions are to go down in future cases. When your political party utilize tactics to demonize people because of stupid things that most people did in their youth (in one form or another - even telling/laughing at racist/sexist jokes) in order to curry favor with a group of minorities - Pandora's Box was opened. Moving forward, if you are a politician - independent of party affiliation - your ass WILL BE nailed to the wall if there is anything remotely racist or sexist in your youth. You're fvcked if you started a club when you were a kid that excluded women (Girls not allowed!!!) in your elementary school days.

Those are the rules laid out - those are the rules to be in effect. No quarter! Fvck it - let's tear it all down to the rafters and studs... It's not like any Dems/progressives gives a sh!t anyways...

Yea I think few people could measure up to the standards that are promulgated, if one looks at a person's entire life. Especially when it was 40 years ago.

(02-14-2019 05:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Of course it's excessive PC. Unfortunately, the Dems/Progressives set the rules for how these types of actions are to go down in future cases. When your political party utilize tactics to demonize people because of stupid things that most people did in their youth (in one form or another - even telling/laughing at racist/sexist jokes) in order to curry favor with a group of minorities - Pandora's Box was opened. Moving forward, if you are a politician - independent of party affiliation - your ass WILL BE nailed to the wall if there is anything remotely racist or sexist in your youth. You're fvcked if you started a club when you were a kid that excluded women (Girls not allowed!!!) in your elementary school days.

Those are the rules laid out - those are the rules to be in effect. No quarter! Fvck it - let's tear it all down to the rafters and studs... It's not like any Dems/progressives gives a sh!t anyways...

I'm with Miko. Dems need to die by their own rules, even if they are silly.
Couple of those late night hosts need to go also. They did it too. And as adults, on TV.

Until their own get skewered a few times, this nonsense will just keep getting worse and worse.

(02-14-2019 05:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 05:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 05:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Even if blackface is featured on your yearbook page next to a klansman? Was that an outwardly racist, discriminating gesture? Otherwise, I agree with you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I guess the way I would look at it is that the klansman character is outwardly racist and that is the issue. If the klansman wasn't there, it wouldn't be racist IMO. Ergo, the blackface by itself should be okay. Of course, if you did the blackface thing and acted like an idiot as part of your "costume" then that would be offensive.

I only think of that because Northam mentioned he had once dressed up as Michael Jackson and I believe he said he did blackface as part of that costume. But that sounded more like a tribute to the pop singer than anything racial.

But like I said, I'm not black so could be missing the boat here...

Klansmen were not "racist" first, as they lynched plenty of white Republicans also.

They were racist but they had other beliefs also. It wasn't just blacks they were hostile to.

The ones in the 1920s hated lots of different groups. Blacks were a small part or their target zone.

(02-14-2019 05:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 05:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Even if blackface is featured on your yearbook page next to a klansman? Was that an outwardly racist, discriminating gesture? Otherwise, I agree with you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I guess the way I would look at it is that the klansman character is outwardly racist and that is the issue. If the klansman wasn't there, it wouldn't be racist IMO. Ergo, the blackface by itself should be okay. Of course, if you did the blackface thing and acted like an idiot as part of your "costume" then that would be offensive.

I only think of that because Northam mentioned he had once dressed up as Michael Jackson and I believe he said he did blackface as part of that costume. But that sounded more like a tribute to the pop singer than anything racial.

But like I said, I'm not black so could be missing the boat here...

Klansmen were not "racist" first, as they lynched plenty of white Republicans also.

A fact conveniently left out of all text books. The Klan was the invention of the Democrat party.

(02-17-2019 11:36 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 05:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 05:04 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Even if blackface is featured on your yearbook page next to a klansman? Was that an outwardly racist, discriminating gesture? Otherwise, I agree with you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I guess the way I would look at it is that the klansman character is outwardly racist and that is the issue. If the klansman wasn't there, it wouldn't be racist IMO. Ergo, the blackface by itself should be okay. Of course, if you did the blackface thing and acted like an idiot as part of your "costume" then that would be offensive.

I only think of that because Northam mentioned he had once dressed up as Michael Jackson and I believe he said he did blackface as part of that costume. But that sounded more like a tribute to the pop singer than anything racial.

But like I said, I'm not black so could be missing the boat here...

Klansmen were not "racist" first, as they lynched plenty of white Republicans also.

A fact conveniently left out of all text books. The Klan was the invention of the Democrat party.

in the 'sip, we call that irony....

I take it Governor CoonMan is still in office?

(02-14-2019 04:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I might get crucified for this, but it doesn't seem like painting your face black as part of a costume, for example, for Halloween, should be considered racist. Just my .02. I'm not black either... but if a black person did the same thing to dress up as a white person I couldn't care less. I guess if it was done in the past as a outwardly racist, discriminating gesture, than I can see where it would bother people. Just seems a bit overly PC to me.

Carl Jung wrote two fantastic books: "Modern Man in Search of a Soul" is the best known. However, "Modern Minority in Search of an Insult" is equally relevant.

just when you think that the GOP in VA is dead and buried, the democrats hand them the resurrection stone.

(02-17-2019 09:01 PM)EagleX Wrote:  just when you think that the GOP in VA is dead and buried, the democrats hand them the resurrection stone.

But why in the hell didn't republican opposition researchers people figure this out before the election? Dropping this information on voters in October 2017 would almost certainly have turned the elections around. So why didn't that happen?

(02-17-2019 09:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 09:01 PM)EagleX Wrote:  just when you think that the GOP in VA is dead and buried, the democrats hand them the resurrection stone.

But why in the hell didn't republican opposition researchers people figure this out before the election? Dropping this information on voters in October 2017 would almost certainly have turned the elections around. So why didn't that happen?

um, because they didn't have the resurrection stone. obviously.

(02-17-2019 09:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 09:01 PM)EagleX Wrote:  just when you think that the GOP in VA is dead and buried, the democrats hand them the resurrection stone.

But why in the hell didn't republican opposition researchers people figure this out before the election? Dropping this information on voters in October 2017 would almost certainly have turned the elections around. So why didn't that happen?

ok, srsly . . . who knows? maybe mining yearbooks for time bombs isn't a mature industry in VA. maybe there was a run on yearbooks that year. maybe it was sort of a blowout to begin with, and no one thought you could mine enough dirt to matter. it didn't come to light until one of his classmates who developed a sudden ax to grind exposed it, so I think you could probably file it under "obscure **** no one thought could be relevant".

(02-17-2019 09:22 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 09:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 09:01 PM)EagleX Wrote:  just when you think that the GOP in VA is dead and buried, the democrats hand them the resurrection stone.

But why in the hell didn't republican opposition researchers people figure this out before the election? Dropping this information on voters in October 2017 would almost certainly have turned the elections around. So why didn't that happen?

ok, srsly . . . who knows? maybe mining yearbooks for time bombs isn't a mature industry in VA. maybe there was a run on yearbooks that year. maybe it was sort of a blowout to begin with, and no one thought you could mine enough dirt to matter. it didn't come to light until one of his classmates who developed a sudden ax to grind exposed it, so I think you could probably file it under "obscure **** no one thought could be relevant".

But would it have been any harder than it was for democrats to find the yearbooks that Roy Moore signed? And that's certainly an election that looked like a slam dunk for republicans until those rumors surfaced. Did republicans even try in Virginia?

I guess my problem is that I just don't see republicans as shrewd when it comes to politics.

Another, very different example. There's this sudden clamor to go after McCabe, et al, for attempting a coup. But there's nothing there that wasn't known two years ago. So why didn't republicans get right on this back then? There was no republican Adam Schiff. Why not?

(02-17-2019 09:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 09:22 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 09:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 09:01 PM)EagleX Wrote:  just when you think that the GOP in VA is dead and buried, the democrats hand them the resurrection stone.

But why in the hell didn't republican opposition researchers people figure this out before the election? Dropping this information on voters in October 2017 would almost certainly have turned the elections around. So why didn't that happen?

ok, srsly . . . who knows? maybe mining yearbooks for time bombs isn't a mature industry in VA. maybe there was a run on yearbooks that year. maybe it was sort of a blowout to begin with, and no one thought you could mine enough dirt to matter. it didn't come to light until one of his classmates who developed a sudden ax to grind exposed it, so I think you could probably file it under "obscure **** no one thought could be relevant".

But would it have been any harder than it was for democrats to find the yearbooks that Roy Moore signed? And that's certainly an election that looked like a slam dunk for republicans until those rumors surfaced. Did republicans even try in Virginia?

I guess my problem is that I just don't see republicans as shrewd when it comes to politics.

Another, very different example. There's this sudden clamor to go after McCabe, et al, for attempting a coup. But there's nothing there that wasn't known two years ago. So why didn't republicans get right on this back then? There was no republican Adam Schiff. Why not?

it's weird that people consistently see republican culpability in what is clearly democrat malfeasance. it's not just you, I see it all the time.

but on the subject of who sucks worse at dirty politics, I would simply observe that the racist bastard won a democrat primary in which that yearbook page would have been the end of all life on planet Ralph -- worse than in the general, since republicans are all racists anyway, and all*

*although my yearbook page hasn't got any ******* klansmen on it.