Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/26/07 12:52 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

When I've made it clear that "diversity crap" is when people are putting this bullshit under the guise of diversity. It's not just affirmative action. People will swallow forced diversity by the bucket load. Yeah, sure, my original quote was ambiguous, but I've made it sufficiently clear.

Actually, you've made it "sufficiently clear" as an addendum after I proved you wrong. It's like if I say "Tom Brady has the post touch downs ever in the NFL". You respond with no, he doesn't, and I respond with "Well.... Ok, him AND Payton Manning do!".

Your addendum altered the origional statement sufficiently, and your inability to simply say "Hey, I was wrong" proves you have no integrity.

How about how racism is applauded when it's for the sake of diversity? I asked someone, too. You do a great job of derailing a point and mucking it up.

What do you mean, derailing the point? You only brought that up LATER. I agree it's bad to use racism in the name of diversity, that's not what you originally claimed.

You've latched onto one thing I said,

Actually, I adressed ALL of your original points.

refused to acknowledge the explanation and

Because you only used that explanation after I proved your point wrong.

not just that, ignored the point I was trying to make originally.

Let's see, what your your two original points? Adversity was racist, affirmative action was racist. I addressed both points.

My whole first post was about how preferential treatment on race was celebrated. It was entirely topical.

Actually, that was part of your first post. You made two points in the first post, and I addressed both.

You've been doing nothing but trying to pin me down on an ambiguous point which has been fully and, entirely logically explained.

Except it hasn't been logically explained. You gave a loose explanation of what you meant that clearly doesn't match your original statement.

However, you've succeeded in completely diluting the point.

Not really. The original point, as you bluntly put it, was that diversity was racist. I have been adressing that point.

And I haven't brought diversity into it? I described affirmative action and I said that it is racism that is under the guise of diversity.

Yet you didn't say "affirmative action under the guise of diversity is wrong". You said that Diversity was racist, and you said affirmative action was racist.

Diversity has everything to do with it because it's the sugar-coating that people swallow when politicians shove racism down their throats. I've been saying that, unequivocally when you brought attention to my usage of "diversity crap."

Yet, once again, that's not what you originally claimed. You said diversity and affirmative action, as two separate points, where racist.

That was far from my point. My point was that racism is being applauded in this nation.

One one form of that racism that you listed was diversity.

You didn't prove me wrong, you got a little quote that was ambiguous

'Diversity is racist' isn't ambiguous, just like saying "All muslims are terrorists" isn't ambiguous.

and you latched onto what you think it meant and didn't want to hear anything to the contrary.

Because what your saying to the contrary is blaringly different then what you actually said. If I say "All terrorists and all muslims are to blame for 9/11", I just claimed that Muslims caused 9/11. Even if I go "lol no, i ment that all terrorists that hid their terrorism in the guise of islam are responcibal 4 9/11", it doesn't change the fact that that ISN'T what I said; it's an explanation put out at a later date. What you "meant" and what you said are wildly different.

I don't recall ever saying that diversity in and of itself was racist. I granted you that the statement was ambiguous. I'm not disagreeing, however there was meaning I was trying to convey. Even after I've explained this, you're trying to tell me what I was, in fact, trying to say and it's wrong.

At 8/26/07 01:16 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Your addendum altered the origional statement sufficiently, and your inability to simply say "Hey, I was wrong" proves you have no integrity.

I've been wrong before, even when it wasn't simply me accidentally typing the wrong words and I've been able to say that I was wrong. You refuse to back down even when I've acknowledged that something I've said needs clarification and then fully clarified my intent and you're still arguing me on something that, by now, should be moot.

I will also stand by the fact that it wasn't my point. It was backing up my point, sure, but that's minor to what I was saying. Again, how would you like to stop harping on your interpretation of something I said, especially when I've explained what I meant by it. Are you trying to say that I think diversity is racist? I've never said such a thing on this board and I certainly wouldn't start now. So, you can either accept that I just now started believing that diversity is racist out of the blue and then stopped believing it a second later, or you can admit that you, justifiably so, took what I said out of the intended context. It was unclear.

What isn't justifiable is that you keep harping on it like I'm somehow trying to make it seem like I don't believe that diversity has nothing to do with racism. I'm not quite sure what you're after here except for an argument, something that I like to call trolling.

At 8/26/07 01:54 AM, Gunter45 wrote: I don't recall ever saying that diversity in and of itself was racist.

"All this diversity crap and affirmative action is all racist"

Qed. 'Diversity crap and affirmative action is all racist'.

There. You say that affirmative action is all racist, and you say diversity is all racist. If I say "All Muslims and Osama Bin Laden are all terrorists", I just called all muslims terrorists.

I granted you that the statement was ambiguous.

It wasn't. Saying that diversity is all racist isn't ambiguous.

I'm not disagreeing, however there was meaning I was trying to convey. Even after I've explained this, you're trying to tell me what I was, in fact, trying to say and it's wrong.

What you claim you meant and what you actually did say are two wildly different things.

I've been wrong before, even when it wasn't simply me accidentally typing the wrong words and I've been able to say that I was wrong.

Now you're chalking it up to "accidentally typing the wrong words"?

You refuse to back down even when I've acknowledged that something I've said needs clarification and then fully clarified my intent and you're still arguing me on something that, by now, should be moot.

Because the "clarification" you offered constrasts violently with your words. It's like when Margret Scott praised Hitler, then said "No, what I meant is that he was bad".

I will also stand by the fact that it wasn't my point.

If that wasn't your point, you shouldn't have typed it.

It was backing up my point, sure, but that's minor to what I was saying. Again, how would you like to stop harping on your interpretation of something I said,

I'm not harping my "interpretation", I'm harping what the dictionary say's you said.

especially when I've explained what I meant by it.

Yet, again, you explained something wildly different then what you said. If that's what you meant to say, then what you actually DID say was wrong.

Are you trying to say that I think diversity is racist?

No. I'm not saying you believe that, but I proved you said it.

I've never said such a thing on this board and I certainly wouldn't start now.

"Diversity and A.A are all racist!"
"I never said diversity was racist!"

So, you can either accept that I just now started believing that diversity is racist out of the blue and then stopped believing it a second later, or you can admit that you, justifiably so, took what I said out of the intended context. It was unclear.

"I don't believe that, therefor I can't have said it" is scientifically invalid. Logical error much?

What isn't justifiable is that you keep harping on it like I'm somehow trying to make it seem like I don't believe that diversity has nothing to do with racism. I'm not quite sure what you're after here except for an argument, something that I like to call trolling.

Notice how you are arguing as much as I am. Also notice how even after proving that diversity wasn't racism, instead of admitting error you argued that that's not what you meant. If I say 2+2=5, I am incorrect. It doesn't matter WHAT the fuck I meant to say, what I DID say was wrong. I could have MEANT 2+3=5, at what I meant sure was correct, but the words that I said where incorrect.

At 8/26/07 02:07 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: There. You say that affirmative action is all racist, and you say diversity is all racist. If I say "All Muslims and Osama Bin Laden are all terrorists", I just called all muslims terrorists.

Yes, but what if you said "all muslim (modifier)s and Osama Bin Laden are all terrorists." Your modifier could drastically alter the context of that phrase, take, for instance, the word "extremist." That was the intention.

That kind of alters the whole equation just a bit. Saying "diversity crap" doesn't define it so well, so, sure, there's confusion on what "diversity crap" is. I explained what I meant. This should have already been over.

where did u here this? do u hav a quote?

At 8/26/07 02:19 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

Yes, but what if you said "all muslim (modifier)s and Osama Bin Laden are all terrorists." Your modifier could drastically alter the context of that phrase, take, for instance, the word "extremist." That was the intention.

Yes, but your modifier DIDN'T do that. The modifier that would best fit the analogy is me saying "All those ([that]) Muslim assholes and Osama Bin Laden are all terrorists".

That kind of alters the whole equation just a bit. Saying "diversity crap" doesn't define it so well, so, sure, there's confusion on what "diversity crap" is. I explained what I meant. This should have already been over.

"Diversity crap" is the same as saying diversity.

At 8/26/07 05:25 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: "Diversity crap" is the same as saying diversity.

I meant it as the crap that was done in the name of diversity. I've explained this. You're taking it as meaning diversity BEING crap. There's a world of difference as to how it could be taken but they're both valid. Valid, of course, until I explained how I meant it. And that's the difference right there.

At 8/25/07 07:43 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/25/07 08:58 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

What? Where do you get your information?

The Colbert interview of him wanting to abolish the U.N and I.R.S.

You've never heard of the FairTax, have you?

At 8/26/07 06:46 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

I meant it as the crap that was done in the name of diversity. I've explained this. You're taking it as meaning diversity BEING crap.

Because that's what "diversity crap" means.

There's a world of difference as to how it could be taken but they're both valid. Valid, of course, until I explained how I meant it. And that's the difference right there.

You can argue what you meant all you want. But the fact is that what you meant is not what you said, and what you said was wrong.

At 8/26/07 06:55 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Because that's what "diversity crap" means.

If someone told me that they hate all this "patriotism crap," I would immediately know that they hate all the flag waving and ribbon wearing stuff. I would not mistake it for them hating the idea of patriotism, itself. That's the crux of what you've turned the issue into.

At 8/25/07 07:43 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: The Colbert interview of him wanting to abolish the U.N and I.R.S.

Income taxes are only 1/3 of government income, moron.

At 8/25/07 02:30 AM, Syphonik wrote: I've read somewhere that Ron Paul has been known to make racial remarks and show hatred towards black people. Now if this is true, why do people like him so much?

because it's less well known, old history and the primary issue with people at present is the iraq war and the constitution and ron paul's stances on both critical issues happen to be favored. personally im not gonna vote for him because his policies are borderline whacko

At 8/27/07 08:02 AM, Pheidippides wrote: Income taxes are only 1/3 of government income, moron.

Only? Last I heard, that's a lot of fucking money. I mean, legality of income tax aside, I don't think you're quite on the ball with your math. One third is a very sizable chunk.

At 8/27/07 08:02 AM, Pheidippides wrote:

At 8/25/07 07:43 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: The Colbert interview of him wanting to abolish the U.N and I.R.S.

to be precise he wanted to retract membership of un, abolish irs, federal reserve, (i think) dept. education and every single governmental institution there is.

Income taxes are only 1/3 of government income, moron.

youre a moron. only 1/3?

At 8/27/07 02:37 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 8/27/07 08:02 AM, Pheidippides wrote:

At 8/25/07 07:43 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: The Colbert interview of him wanting to abolish the U.N and I.R.S.

to be precise he wanted to retract membership of un, abolish irs, federal reserve, (i think) dept. education and every single governmental institution there is.

Income taxes are only 1/3 of government income, moron.

youre a moron. only 1/3?

He would like to rid us of those things and I support that. Also, like Ron Paul, I'm realistic on the matter. Meaning, while he would like to get rid of those things, he won't be able to because of a major thing he wants to do as president. That being not extending his powers beyond what the Constitution allows a president to do. He knows he can't just remove it and expect everything to be ok. If the IRS and federal reserve is to be abolished, it would have to be gradual and with Congress' approval. Congress will not approve the abolishment of those things and Ron Paul is aware of that.

All Ron Paul will do is lower taxes and cut spending and baby steps is the best way, if not the only way, for the IRS and federal reserve to be abolished with acceptance.

BTW, states and cities deal with financing police and fire departments, not the federal government. The removal of the IRS and federal reserve would not affect those things in any way.

Now for the main issue. Racism. Yes, Democrats are racists. Racism doesn't have to be hateful. The racism Democrats perpetuates views minorities as nothing more than children who are useless to society without their governmental hands carrying them. Minorities are weak and will always be weak as long as they depend of the Democrats to do things for them. Democrats love that they're weak. It keeps them submissive to their power. Turns out slavery wasn't abolished, after all.

Ron Paul had his own take this as well;
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."

I've never heard of him.

Apparently, there were some racist comments made in an official Newsletter of Paul's, which he didn't even write. Link.

you all fail

fuck taxes, the federal reserve (central bank)act ruined America. It was written by BANKERS, not elected officials, income tax is absolutly un-constitutional, read the 16th amendment, you fucks

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is
controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst
ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no
longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the
majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."-Woodrow Wilson Last days in the white house

"The real truth of the matter is that a finacial element in the large (financial) centers has owned the American government since the days of Andrew Jackson"-Franklin D. Roosevelt.

the federal reserve is nothing more than a GAINT SCAM. Wake the fuck up america. Racsism in america should be the last thing we're worried about.

Ron Paul For Presient!

At 8/28/07 11:18 AM, AwesomeSauce wrote: Apparently, there were some racist comments made in an official Newsletter of Paul's, which he didn't even write. Link.

If I recall, he did take responsibility for those comments and he expressed regret for it's print. He didn't write, yes, but he took the hit, anyways.

At 8/28/07 09:41 AM, DubleG wrote: I've never heard of him.

Well, I hoped you learn a little something. :-) Maybe?

At 8/25/07 02:30 AM, Syphonik wrote: I've read somewhere that Ron Paul has been known to make racial remarks and show hatred towards black people. Now if this is true, why do people like him so much?

I take issue with this entire thread, the phrasing of the title alone implies Ron Paul is a racist 'Racist People like Ron Paul?" Putting a question mark in an inflammatory title doesn't make it all OK, that is a Socratic question and that implies guilt, it would be like asking a husband, have you stopped beating your wife? No matter how he answers it is implied he at one time beat his wife. That is what Syphonik has done here with Ron Paul in spite of the fact even the most basic search of the net would immediately reveal he certainly is not.

For the record, Ron Paul's position on racism is well documented and quite clear to anyone that would take ten seconds to look into it, he opposes it completely. Government and Racisim by Ron Paul Further, Syphonik launched this thread with an unsubstantiated even malicious statement "I've read somewhere that Ron Paul has been known to make racial remarks.." yet sites no evidence whatsoever to support this claim "... and show hatred towards black people." Where? When? Again no evidence. And to add insult to injury he asks another Socratic question. "Now if this is true, why do people like him so much?" A bit more subtle still it implies the previous statement is true.

For those who don't know the facts, there was in fact a newsletter published by Ron Paul's staff that included statements that some people felt to be racist. However Ron Paul did not write those words but he felt a "moral responsibility" to answer the critics of those statements--in other words he was a stand up guy who took responsibility for the actions of those who worked for him but that doesn't mean he agreed with those supposedly racist statements.

Quote from Ron Paul in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine--"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it."

Clearly Ron Paul is being condemned not just here but elsewhere for words and feelings that were never his--he is not and never has been a racist and I would challenge anyone to provide valid evidence to the contrary.

To Syphonik directly I ask this, where you aware of any of this when you started the thread? Did you realize you were making inflammatory statements or asking Socratic questions? If the answer is no then I would advice you to learn from Ron Paul's plight and immediately post a statement retracting any and all implication that Ron Paul is or ever was a racist. If the answer is yes you did know this and went ahead anyway knowing full well you were perpetuating a lie then shame on you.

In closing, to anyone that hears a nasty rumor about anyone, do us all a favor and verify the validity of that story before making a thread to discus it, and for hell's sake don't ask a Socratic question in the title.

At 8/25/07 04:20 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/25/07 02:58 AM, Syphonik wrote:

Because I sure as hell wouldn't want someone in office who's racist.

Then you clearly have no idea on what makes a president, and would rather have someone in office based on how "cool of a guy" they are then what they can do for the nation.

"What's that? God is competing with the Devil to be president? And god will give us all wealth and harmony if elected, whilst Satan will murder our children and sell us as slaves? I hear gods racist, give me Satan!"

That is a totally distorted interpretation of what he said, which seems to be a specialty of yours.

If it came down to those choices, of course we would side with the "God" candidate because HE'S NOT GOING TO KILL US!!! Unfortunately for your analogy, there are many choices out there for people to choose from, not just good an evil.

;