if anyone else had written it there would be riots.
This is why Trump won- nothing more, nothing less.
To not see the hypocrisy is mystifying. To see it and brush it off as nothing, is SO much worse.
Who said I didn't see any hypocrisy? I pointed out where the headline came from - people were responding as if the writers literally came up with that off the top of their heads. They didn't.
However, to say "this is why Trump won" is ridiculous.
NPR should NEVER get a cent of ANY taxpayer money. They are sitting on billions in merchandising with that stupid sesame street garbage. (Which I never watched as a kid anyway. I knew it was meant to dumb me down even when I was 5 years old).
if anyone else had written it there would be riots.
This is why Trump won- nothing more, nothing less.
To not see the hypocrisy is mystifying. To see it and brush it off as nothing, is SO much worse.
Who said I didn't see any hypocrisy? I pointed out where the headline came from - people were responding as if the writers literally came up with that off the top of their heads. They didn't.
However, to say "this is why Trump won" is ridiculous.
yeah, then why did Trump win? just out of curiosity how do democrats reconcile it.
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2018 04:40 PM by shere khan.)
(05-02-2018 04:41 PM)usmbacker Wrote: Just think for one second if the NRA had said that...
but but but.....its referenceing a movie.
That's the problem with Evergreen's assertion that "it's okay because it's in a title of a movie or whatever." In reality, NPR was trying to be clever, but in doing so, pointed out that the full length and breadth of today's lexicon is only available for use by the chosen few.
Another problem with translation from the original usage: for right or wrong, there is a much more strong negative reaction for black males to be called "colored boys" than there is for black females to be called "colored girls." Probably because it's way more derogatory to call a black male "boy" than to call a black female "girl."
(05-02-2018 04:41 PM)usmbacker Wrote: Just think for one second if the NRA had said that...
but but but.....its referenceing a movie.
That's the problem with Evergreen's assertion that "it's okay because it's in a title of a movie or whatever." In reality, NPR was trying to be clever, but in doing so, pointed out that the full length and breadth of today's lexicon is only available for use by the chosen few.
Another problem with translation from the original usage: for right or wrong, there is a much more strong negative reaction for black males to be called "colored boys" than there is for black females to be called "colored girls." Probably because it's way more derogatory to call a black male "boy" than to call a black female "girl."
not to mention the premise and wording of the article.
(05-02-2018 04:18 PM)shere khan Wrote: if anyone else had written it there would be riots.
This is why Trump won- nothing more, nothing less.
To not see the hypocrisy is mystifying. To see it and brush it off as nothing, is SO much worse.
Who said I didn't see any hypocrisy? I pointed out where the headline came from - people were responding as if the writers literally came up with that off the top of their heads. They didn't.
However, to say "this is why Trump won" is ridiculous.
yeah, then why did Trump win? just out of curiosity how do democrats reconcile it.
While not a democrat, IMO, Trump won because of:
A - horrible alternative options on the other ticket(s).
B - voters in "rust belt"/states with larger manufacturing industries buying into the "Trump will bring back industry" line.
C - lower voter turnout in general, but specifically among minorities.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/Fml0fgAxVx1eM/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 28a6tro.jpg]](http://i64.tinypic.com/28a6tro.jpg)
