Getting back to Sims, notice his objection is to the "white women"?

Racist. I am sure that has been noted in the mountains of disapproval coming from the left.

Don't call him a hero. Call him average.

In case you have forgotten here is your average, non hero Democrat

Democrat protects Planned parenthood from praying white woman

(05-08-2019 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Getting back to Sims, notice his objection is to the "white women"?

Racist. I am sure that has been noted in the mountains of disapproval coming from the left.

Don't call him a hero. Call him average.

In case you have forgotten here is your average, non hero Democrat

Democrat protects Planned parenthood from praying white woman

OO, you really are a dog with a bone when it comes to this random PA legislator. I agree that this guy sounds like a turd. Both parties have plenty of them.

You don't like when Republicans are painted with a broad brush. Your painting of Democrats with the broad brush that we all celebrate this type of behavior is silly. I condemn this behavior. Does that help? Most people that I know would.

(05-08-2019 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Getting back to Sims, notice his objection is to the "white women"?

Racist. I am sure that has been noted in the mountains of disapproval coming from the left.

Don't hold your breath for mountains of disapproval. The only place that this ridiculous story is likely maintaining any level of interest is the Rice Parliament.

Quote:Don't call him a hero. Call him average.

No problem. You're the only one calling him a hero.

(05-08-2019 04:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lolz -- I guess 'more concious' is just a nice way of saying 'stupid fing deplorable'?

lad, I dont think you can be more wrong on your thesis sentence. If you want to get down to it, Republicans tend not to give a crap about the color of person's skin. Think of it as a meta-inclusiveness. For Democrats (progressives), race and ethnicity is (one of many) meta-distinctions.

As an example: my neighborhood (my house +- 6 houses, and across the street) has changed from pretty much lily-white to a very multi-ethnic area.

My neighbor's three year old is learning to swim, so last summer I volunteered my pool to them to use and help her 'practice' apart from the once-a-week lesson. The family is immigrant east Indian.

The conservative republican neighbor noted that 'awesome you lend you pool out to your next door neighbor for this.'

The three progressive neighbors noted how great it was that I lent my pool 'to [the] Hindi neighbor."

I agree with you. It is totally weird that your progressive neighbors gave you praise for helping the "Hindi neighbor". I honestly have never heard somebody refer to a person of Indian descent in that manner. And three out of three progressives in your neighborhood all did it? Those are crazy odds.

Quote:Me and the conservative neighbor dont give a rat's ass *who* people are in the neighborhood ethnic-wise. Our (much more plentiful) progressive neighbors always inject the racial component into it -- incessantly. I would say 'I wonder why' but I am not that stupid --- the note and distinction of racial composition (and any other 'difference' that can be leveraged') is part and parcel of progressive politics. At least in my neighborhood, it is part and parcel for the progressives to revel in making those racial and ethnic distinctions -- even when not nefarious.

So, get off your 'republicans are color blind because all they do is hang around with other vanilla milkshakes' tangent. Perhaps one reason the right side of the ice cream parlor has a prevalence of vanilla milkshakes is the 50 fing years that the other side has said what racist fks we were (are)..... naaaaah....... that has *nothing* to do with that......

As for 'policies affect races differently', hate to tell you that the 'real biggies' have been addressed --- i.e. deed restrictions, Loving v. Virginia, blacks at the back of the bus. And yes, for those 'biggies' racial distinctions were important. Compared to the items that made up that 'list of biggies', my guess is that the racial distinction component of those is pretty inconsequential compared to 'can't marry a black'-type impact.

I am trying to reconcile your story pointing out that it is the conservatives who are the best among us when it comes to not emphasizing ethnic or cultural differences when I see stories like this one that I came across today:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nearly...ar-AAB5hzO

You feel like racial imbalances have been pretty much taken care of. Do you imagine that members of all races feel that way as well?

(05-08-2019 06:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I am trying to reconcile your story pointing out that it is the conservatives who are the best among us when it comes to not recognizing ethnic or cultural differences

Best? Criminy -- the progressives do it 'best'. They farm the fk out of the voter pool every election by making sure those differences are highly publicized. It is the proverbial galvanic response for them.

Best one yet -- take a gander at *any* political convention. Which party prioritizes race in the speeches, and constantly refers to attendees by racial makeup? Racial distinction and categorization is the catnip of progressives.

Quote:You feel like racial imbalances have been pretty much taken care of. Do you imagine that members of all races feel that way as well?

Im sure that the progressives think we are still pre-Loving v. Virginia for all the air time put into it. Or dont you notice that?

(05-08-2019 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 06:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I am trying to reconcile your story pointing out that it is the conservatives who are the best among us when it comes to not recognizing ethnic or cultural differences

Best? Criminy -- the progressives do it 'best'. They farm the fk out of the voter pool every election by making sure those differences are highly publicized. It is the proverbial galvanic response for them.

Best one yet -- take a gander at *any* political convention. Which party prioritizes race in the speeches, and constantly refers to attendees by racial makeup? Racial distinction and categorization is the catnip of progressives.

Quote:You feel like racial imbalances have been pretty much taken care of. Do you imagine that members of all races feel that way as well?

Im sure that the progressives think we are still pre-Loving v. Virginia for all the air time put into it. Or dont you notice that?

Perhaps there is some middle ground between pre-Loving v Virginia and "racial imbalances are a thing of the past"?

(05-08-2019 07:03 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 06:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I am trying to reconcile your story pointing out that it is the conservatives who are the best among us when it comes to not recognizing ethnic or cultural differences

Best? Criminy -- the progressives do it 'best'. They farm the fk out of the voter pool every election by making sure those differences are highly publicized. It is the proverbial galvanic response for them.

Best one yet -- take a gander at *any* political convention. Which party prioritizes race in the speeches, and constantly refers to attendees by racial makeup? Racial distinction and categorization is the catnip of progressives.

Quote:You feel like racial imbalances have been pretty much taken care of. Do you imagine that members of all races feel that way as well?

Im sure that the progressives think we are still pre-Loving v. Virginia for all the air time put into it. Or dont you notice that?

Perhaps there is some middle ground between pre-Loving v Virginia and "racial imbalances are a thing of the past"?

The issue is *how much* effort progressives put into the broadcasting the issue vs the actual level of the issue. Not whether 'imbalances are a thing of the past'.

In short, if the perception is that the issue is a crisis level === more votes for progressives. One would think with the level of messaging, the persistence of messaging, and the continuity of messaging, that African Americans still have to eat at the back counter. Wash, rinse, repeat for many other racial/ethnic distinctions, wash, rinse, repeat for females, etc etc etc.

The point is that, for the most part, the Republican Party *doesnt* stand up and yell and cheer for themselves when a Herman Cain runs for President, or addresses the body politic.

The progressives cant stop the cheering for themselves about Harris, Booker, or the two Latinos from Texas running for President.

But the issue is that progressives have an overriding urge to exclaim the 'profound injustices' that exist and that policies affect races, because they absolutely rely on those identity politics. To the extent it is almost a chicken and egg issue at this point.

(05-08-2019 07:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 07:03 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 06:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I am trying to reconcile your story pointing out that it is the conservatives who are the best among us when it comes to not recognizing ethnic or cultural differences

Best? Criminy -- the progressives do it 'best'. They farm the fk out of the voter pool every election by making sure those differences are highly publicized. It is the proverbial galvanic response for them.

Best one yet -- take a gander at *any* political convention. Which party prioritizes race in the speeches, and constantly refers to attendees by racial makeup? Racial distinction and categorization is the catnip of progressives.

Quote:You feel like racial imbalances have been pretty much taken care of. Do you imagine that members of all races feel that way as well?

Im sure that the progressives think we are still pre-Loving v. Virginia for all the air time put into it. Or dont you notice that?

Perhaps there is some middle ground between pre-Loving v Virginia and "racial imbalances are a thing of the past"?

The issue is *how much* effort progressives put into the broadcasting the issue vs the actual level of the issue. Not whether 'imbalances are a thing of the past'.

In short, if the perception is that the issue is a crisis level === more votes for progressives. One would think with the level of messaging, the persistence of messaging, and the continuity of messaging, that African Americans still have to eat at the back counter. Wash, rinse, repeat for many other racial/ethnic distinctions, wash, rinse, repeat for females, etc etc etc.

The point is that, for the most part, the Republican Party *doesnt* stand up and yell and cheer for themselves when a Herman Cain runs for President, or addresses the body politic.

The progressives cant stop the cheering for themselves about Harris, Booker, or the two Latinos from Texas running for President.

Really? I actually haven't heard anybody making any level of fuss regarding the ethnicities of these candidates. You have? Perhaps it is your three progressive neighbors who, truth be told, sound a little off to me.

(05-08-2019 07:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 07:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue is *how much* effort progressives put into the broadcasting the issue vs the actual level of the issue. Not whether 'imbalances are a thing of the past'.

In short, if the perception is that the issue is a crisis level === more votes for progressives. One would think with the level of messaging, the persistence of messaging, and the continuity of messaging, that African Americans still have to eat at the back counter. Wash, rinse, repeat for many other racial/ethnic distinctions, wash, rinse, repeat for females, etc etc etc.

The point is that, for the most part, the Republican Party *doesnt* stand up and yell and cheer for themselves when a Herman Cain runs for President, or addresses the body politic.

The progressives cant stop the cheering for themselves about Harris, Booker, or the two Latinos from Texas running for President.

Perhaps it is your three progressive neighbors who, truth be told, sound a little off to me.

How cute. When you dont like the message being relayed, just impugn. You are doing a good job of performing the smug condescending asshat role that modern progressivism seems to engender these days.

Of course, never bother to address the issue which is the message about race and divisions that the progressives act like a junkie and the message is their own personal little mexican 8 ball. You did notice you never once bothered to address that lil' ol' issue, didnt you?

(05-08-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 07:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 07:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue is *how much* effort progressives put into the broadcasting the issue vs the actual level of the issue. Not whether 'imbalances are a thing of the past'.

In short, if the perception is that the issue is a crisis level === more votes for progressives. One would think with the level of messaging, the persistence of messaging, and the continuity of messaging, that African Americans still have to eat at the back counter. Wash, rinse, repeat for many other racial/ethnic distinctions, wash, rinse, repeat for females, etc etc etc.

The point is that, for the most part, the Republican Party *doesnt* stand up and yell and cheer for themselves when a Herman Cain runs for President, or addresses the body politic.

The progressives cant stop the cheering for themselves about Harris, Booker, or the two Latinos from Texas running for President.

Perhaps it is your three progressive neighbors who, truth be told, sound a little off to me.

How cute. When you dont like the message being relayed, just impugn. You are doing a good job of performing the smug condescending asshat role that modern progressivism seems to engender these days.

Of course, never bother to address the issue which is the message about race and divisions that the progressives act like a junkie and the message is their own personal little mexican 8 ball. You did notice you never once bothered to address that lil' ol' issue, didnt you?

Didn’t I just say that I have not seen progressives make any level of fuss that there were some minority candidates running for president? I felt that was a response to your assertion that progressives make such a hullabaloo when it comes to race.

You now say that the issue is not that racial inequality is no longer a problem but that progressives amplify it to such an extent. A few posts up you made the argument that racial inequality is no longer a big deal. So do you think it is a big deal or not?

(05-08-2019 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  A few posts up you made the argument that racial inequality is no longer a big deal. So do you think it is a big deal or not?

There are certainly racial issues -- but nowhere near the scope that the progressives clamor about. Incessantly. And loudly. And nowhere near the scope as I noted previously.

When one sees Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas berated explicitly as 'Uncle Tom', respectively (or for that matter any African American that has a temerity to support anything but progressive 'group-think'), that is a small clue, is it not?

As for 'big deal', I would suspect that my definition of 'big deal' varies greatly from most progressives. Since you decided that is the 'gold-standard' of questions, perhaps you should take a stab at it. Maybe there is some overlap. Maybe not.

But given the open-endness of that query, let alone the sheer and utter vagueness, I will take a pass on that one.

(05-08-2019 06:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Getting back to Sims, notice his objection is to the "white women"?

Racist. I am sure that has been noted in the mountains of disapproval coming from the left.

Don't hold your breath for mountains of disapproval. The only place that this ridiculous story is likely maintaining any level of interest is the Rice Parliament.

Quote:Don't call him a hero. Call him average.

No problem. You're the only one calling him a hero.

Sure won't see this story on CNN.

Glad to hear you agree this bigot is an average progressive.

(05-08-2019 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 07:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 07:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue is *how much* effort progressives put into the broadcasting the issue vs the actual level of the issue. Not whether 'imbalances are a thing of the past'.

In short, if the perception is that the issue is a crisis level === more votes for progressives. One would think with the level of messaging, the persistence of messaging, and the continuity of messaging, that African Americans still have to eat at the back counter. Wash, rinse, repeat for many other racial/ethnic distinctions, wash, rinse, repeat for females, etc etc etc.

The point is that, for the most part, the Republican Party *doesnt* stand up and yell and cheer for themselves when a Herman Cain runs for President, or addresses the body politic.

The progressives cant stop the cheering for themselves about Harris, Booker, or the two Latinos from Texas running for President.

Perhaps it is your three progressive neighbors who, truth be told, sound a little off to me.

How cute. When you dont like the message being relayed, just impugn. You are doing a good job of performing the smug condescending asshat role that modern progressivism seems to engender these days.

Of course, never bother to address the issue which is the message about race and divisions that the progressives act like a junkie and the message is their own personal little mexican 8 ball. You did notice you never once bothered to address that lil' ol' issue, didnt you?

Didn’t I just say that I have not seen progressives make any level of fuss that there were some minority candidates running for president? I felt that was a response to your assertion that progressives make such a hullabaloo when it comes to race.

You now say that the issue is not that racial inequality is no longer a problem but that progressives amplify it to such an extent. A few posts up you made the argument that racial inequality is no longer a big deal. So do you think it is a big deal or not?

Come now. surely you have heard many among your candidates talk about nominating a POC or balancing the ticket with a POC. Which is the party that obsesses over "diversity"?

I guess you will just have to show me the college that black kids cannot get into, and the restaurant where black people cannot eat,and the job that says "No blacks need apply", and the "colored restrooms", and all those other manifestations of inequality. I remember those. I don't see them any more. Tell me that last time you saw a black person denied service.

Of course, there are individuals who may not be the most welcoming, for example this guy, but you cannot cleanse the minds of everybody, not without some pretty good re-education camps.

(05-08-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 07:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 07:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue is *how much* effort progressives put into the broadcasting the issue vs the actual level of the issue. Not whether 'imbalances are a thing of the past'.

In short, if the perception is that the issue is a crisis level === more votes for progressives. One would think with the level of messaging, the persistence of messaging, and the continuity of messaging, that African Americans still have to eat at the back counter. Wash, rinse, repeat for many other racial/ethnic distinctions, wash, rinse, repeat for females, etc etc etc.

The point is that, for the most part, the Republican Party *doesnt* stand up and yell and cheer for themselves when a Herman Cain runs for President, or addresses the body politic.

The progressives cant stop the cheering for themselves about Harris, Booker, or the two Latinos from Texas running for President.

Perhaps it is your three progressive neighbors who, truth be told, sound a little off to me.

How cute. When you dont like the message being relayed, just impugn. You are doing a good job of performing the smug condescending asshat role that modern progressivism seems to engender these days.

Of course, never bother to address the issue which is the message about race and divisions that the progressives act like a junkie and the message is their own personal little mexican 8 ball. You did notice you never once bothered to address that lil' ol' issue, didnt you?

Didn’t I just say that I have not seen progressives make any level of fuss that there were some minority candidates running for president? I felt that was a response to your assertion that progressives make such a hullabaloo when it comes to race.

You now say that the issue is not that racial inequality is no longer a problem but that progressives amplify it to such an extent. A few posts up you made the argument that racial inequality is no longer a big deal. So do you think it is a big deal or not?

Come now. surely you have heard many among your candidates talk about nominating a POC or balancing the ticket with a POC. Which is the party that obsesses over "diversity"?

I guess you will just have to show me the college that black kids cannot get into, and the restaurant where black people cannot eat,and the job that says "No blacks need apply", and the "colored restrooms", and all those other manifestations of inequality. I remember those. I don't see them any more. Tell me that last time you saw a black person denied service.

Of course, there are individuals who may not be the most welcoming, for example this guy, but you cannot cleanse the minds of everybody, not without some pretty good re-education camps.

So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 07:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Perhaps it is your three progressive neighbors who, truth be told, sound a little off to me.

How cute. When you dont like the message being relayed, just impugn. You are doing a good job of performing the smug condescending asshat role that modern progressivism seems to engender these days.

Of course, never bother to address the issue which is the message about race and divisions that the progressives act like a junkie and the message is their own personal little mexican 8 ball. You did notice you never once bothered to address that lil' ol' issue, didnt you?

Didn’t I just say that I have not seen progressives make any level of fuss that there were some minority candidates running for president? I felt that was a response to your assertion that progressives make such a hullabaloo when it comes to race.

You now say that the issue is not that racial inequality is no longer a problem but that progressives amplify it to such an extent. A few posts up you made the argument that racial inequality is no longer a big deal. So do you think it is a big deal or not?

Come now. surely you have heard many among your candidates talk about nominating a POC or balancing the ticket with a POC. Which is the party that obsesses over "diversity"?

I guess you will just have to show me the college that black kids cannot get into, and the restaurant where black people cannot eat,and the job that says "No blacks need apply", and the "colored restrooms", and all those other manifestations of inequality. I remember those. I don't see them any more. Tell me that last time you saw a black person denied service.

Of course, there are individuals who may not be the most welcoming, for example this guy, but you cannot cleanse the minds of everybody, not without some pretty good re-education camps.

So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

No more than your question implies that what might exist in today's society is in any way, shape, or form equivalent to pre-Loving v. Virginia or pre-Brown v. Board of Education.

I think that discrimination enshrined in law *is* more prevalent and more pernicious, no doubt. But making that statement re: level and scope is *not* saying it is the *only* type that you wish to steer that statement into.

(05-08-2019 06:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Getting back to Sims, notice his objection is to the "white women"?

Racist. I am sure that has been noted in the mountains of disapproval coming from the left.

Don't hold your breath for mountains of disapproval. The only place that this ridiculous story is likely maintaining any level of interest is the Rice Parliament.

I didnt realize TheFederalist.com was part of the Rice Parliament.

National Review article on Mr Sims

Nor did I realize the Wash Po is now part of the Rice Parliament. At this rate this back of the building mudpit in a sleepy water portion of a not so well known posting site will control the Internet en toto in a week or so.

Link to the site formerly known as the Washington Post but was conquered by the Rice Parliament by stealth and subterfuge

I wonder why the Rice Parliament keeps up the paywall to the site that was formerly the Washinton Post, but a look behind the Rice Parliament paywall

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 07:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Perhaps it is your three progressive neighbors who, truth be told, sound a little off to me.

How cute. When you dont like the message being relayed, just impugn. You are doing a good job of performing the smug condescending asshat role that modern progressivism seems to engender these days.

Of course, never bother to address the issue which is the message about race and divisions that the progressives act like a junkie and the message is their own personal little mexican 8 ball. You did notice you never once bothered to address that lil' ol' issue, didnt you?

Didn’t I just say that I have not seen progressives make any level of fuss that there were some minority candidates running for president? I felt that was a response to your assertion that progressives make such a hullabaloo when it comes to race.

You now say that the issue is not that racial inequality is no longer a problem but that progressives amplify it to such an extent. A few posts up you made the argument that racial inequality is no longer a big deal. So do you think it is a big deal or not?

Come now. surely you have heard many among your candidates talk about nominating a POC or balancing the ticket with a POC. Which is the party that obsesses over "diversity"?

I guess you will just have to show me the college that black kids cannot get into, and the restaurant where black people cannot eat,and the job that says "No blacks need apply", and the "colored restrooms", and all those other manifestations of inequality. I remember those. I don't see them any more. Tell me that last time you saw a black person denied service.

Of course, there are individuals who may not be the most welcoming, for example this guy, but you cannot cleanse the minds of everybody, not without some pretty good re-education camps.

So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

What kind are you worried about? Are you afraid the KKK will ride at night again?

Black people can go anywhere, do anything whites can. Do we need to pass laws to make people like them? Is that what you want. Wrongthink laws? We already have some of those.

(05-09-2019 09:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 06:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Getting back to Sims, notice his objection is to the "white women"?

Racist. I am sure that has been noted in the mountains of disapproval coming from the left.

Don't hold your breath for mountains of disapproval. The only place that this ridiculous story is likely maintaining any level of interest is the Rice Parliament.

I didnt realize TheFederalist.com was part of the Rice Parliament.

National Review article on Mr Sims

Nor did I realize the Wash Po is now part of the Rice Parliament. At this rate this back of the building mudpit in a sleepy water portion of a not so well known posting site will control the Internet en toto in a week or so.

Link to the site formerly known as the Washington Post but was conquered by the Rice Parliament by stealth and subterfuge

I wonder why the Rice Parliament keeps up the paywall to the site that was formerly the Washinton Post, but a look behind the Rice Parliament paywall

A quick google shows the story is not only widespread, but spreading. I wonder where they think I heard about it. The parliament?

(05-08-2019 02:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint?

The same way an atheist mayor can represent Christian constituents or vice versa

I have lots of personal opinions that I don't think should be law, nor would they meaningfully impact my legislative agenda. It would be almost impossible however for (as an example) a straight person to not initially see things through the eyes of a straight person, and a gay person through those eyes. It's our experience and perspective and it shapes our lives. But if I can imagine, or I am made aware of something in my thoughts or policies that is damaging to a group of people, I can adapt and consider and represent those opinions.

I might actually be better at convincing 'the majority' to go along with me than someone who sees things through 'the minority' lens, and has more trouble relating to that majority.

Otherwise you're literally seeking 'the perfect non-descript person' to hold every single political position in all parts of government... which is impossible and will ultimately be a lie.

I'd rather have someone tell me they aren't comfortable with something personally, but will do their best to represent those opinions fairly, than to tell me that they 'get it' when they really don't.

Your comment though begs this question...
What about those constituents who for any of a number of reasons also don't support inter-racial marriage or whatever else? Do they not deserve representation either? I'd point out that 50 years ago, this would have been the exact opposite, and people who supported gay rights and equality and inter-racial marriage would have been denied representation... and we might not be the country we are today.

When I pose this to my son, his answer is usually something along the lines of 'that would never happen', but the reality is that the power to shut down ideas you disagree with is also the power to shut down those you support. Our system is designed to protect ideas, but not necessarily actions. You can't stop people from having bad ideas... nor really should you. Remember that 'supporting TG rights' was once a 'bad' idea... but you CAN stop people from engaging in bad acts that result from those ideas

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 07:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Perhaps it is your three progressive neighbors who, truth be told, sound a little off to me.

How cute. When you dont like the message being relayed, just impugn. You are doing a good job of performing the smug condescending asshat role that modern progressivism seems to engender these days.
Of course, never bother to address the issue which is the message about race and divisions that the progressives act like a junkie and the message is their own personal little mexican 8 ball. You did notice you never once bothered to address that lil' ol' issue, didnt you?

Didn’t I just say that I have not seen progressives make any level of fuss that there were some minority candidates running for president? I felt that was a response to your assertion that progressives make such a hullabaloo when it comes to race.
You now say that the issue is not that racial inequality is no longer a problem but that progressives amplify it to such an extent. A few posts up you made the argument that racial inequality is no longer a big deal. So do you think it is a big deal or not?

Come now. surely you have heard many among your candidates talk about nominating a POC or balancing the ticket with a POC. Which is the party that obsesses over "diversity"?
I guess you will just have to show me the college that black kids cannot get into, and the restaurant where black people cannot eat,and the job that says "No blacks need apply", and the "colored restrooms", and all those other manifestations of inequality. I remember those. I don't see them any more. Tell me that last time you saw a black person denied service.
Of course, there are individuals who may not be the most welcoming, for example this guy, but you cannot cleanse the minds of everybody, not without some pretty good re-education camps.

So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.