Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's at least as relevant as the Michael Steele made-up-oreo-tossin tangent you were perfectly happy to discuss a single page ago.

Beyond that, you don't see a connection between claiming that it's OK to attack black republicans with racist insults being rebutted with instances of the one-time Republican party presidential frontrunner insinuating that blacks who are not Republicans are brainwashed and live on a plantation?

 Ouze wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
You didn't hear about it because it is perfectly okay to attack Black Republicans, especially with racist insults.

Indeed. I remember when a prominent democrat recently referred to the Republican Party as a "plantation", thus insinuating that black Republicans are "brainwashed" uncle toms.

Oh, wait.

I remember when a NC head of NAACP called NC's Black Senator Tim Scott a Ventriloquist’s ‘Dummy’...

Gutter politics is gutter politics...

Both sides do it.

 Ouze wrote:
It's at least as relevant as the Michael Steele made-up-oreo-tossin tangent you were perfectly happy to discuss a single page ago.

Okay I will entertain you for a passing moment. How is a Black Republican making racial comments relevant to people making racial comments against Black Republicans? The existence of one doesn't imply the nonexistence of the other. All you're doing is waving your hands around frantically while shouting, "But guys! This Black Republican is a jerk too! Guys!!!"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The cowbuy guy who wears a hat bigger then his own head and hates anything liberal and believes in unrestricted hunting and owns a range that does "Canned Hunts"
Is this a surprise to anyone?

I'm just wondering...do you wear hats that are smaller than your head? If so, how?

 Ouze wrote:
It's at least as relevant as the Michael Steele made-up-oreo-tossin tangent you were perfectly happy to discuss a single page ago.

Beyond that, you don't see a connection between claiming that it's OK to attack black republicans with racist insults being rebutted with instances of the one-time Republican party presidential frontrunner insinuating that blacks who are not Republicans are brainwashed and live on a plantation?

Are you foolishly assuming that I said it is okay to make racist insults against Black Republicans?

I didn't, at any time, pretend (as you did) that this is a one-way street.

And where exactly did I pretend that?

 Idolator wrote:
I'm just wondering...do you wear hats that are smaller than your head? If so, how?

Have you never seen Oz?

Exult from me for Ouze on this thread :

 trexmeyer wrote:

You didn't hear about it because it is perfectly okay to attack Black Republicans, especially with racist insults. Calling an African-American an Oreo is more insulting than calling that same person a n***** in my book.

Why?

I mean, they're obviously both racial slurs, but the only way I can imagine "oreo" being considered worse than the N-bomb is because, in this case, it may have been aimed at a candidate whose party you sympathize with.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Are you foolishly assuming that I said it is okay to make racist insults against Black Republicans?

That's a weak attempt at trolling.

Kanye West vs Ted Nugent

Let's get ready to RRRUUUUMMMBBLLLEEEEE

 Ouze wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I'm just wondering...do you wear hats that are smaller than your head? If so, how?

Have you never seen Oz?

I watched every episode. That look only works if your are Adibisee. ( i have no idea how to spell that name.) It is however larger than the part of his head that it's on.

Most people do wear hats that are larger than their head, fictional murderers and steam punk chicks aside. It's standard operating procedure.

 dogma wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

You didn't hear about it because it is perfectly okay to attack Black Republicans, especially with racist insults. Calling an African-American an Oreo is more insulting than calling that same person a n***** in my book.

Why?

I mean, they're obviously both racial slurs, but the only way I can imagine "oreo" being considered worse than the N-bomb is because, in this case, it may have been aimed at a candidate whose party you sympathize with.

I don't sympathize with either party, both have their flaws and both have their strengths. Very strong assumptions in this thread. I consider "Oreo" worse because of the implications behind its usage. It is implying that the person is an Uncle Tom and a race traitor. It is hatred of the person for being different. Often enough, it is hatred for that person for daring to better themselves. It is a hatred that is holding back an entire ethnic group out of fear of being "not black enough" and being rejected by the majority of your perceived people. I strongly believe that the fact African-Americans that excel in school are belittled by their peers as being an Oreo/Uncle Tom/White/whatever is a significant reason for the lack of upward mobility manifested by African-Americans.

N***** is simply hatred for another race or culture. "Oreo" contains elements of hatred toward not only the individual under attack, but also self-hatred. Those who seek to insult others are often the most insecure.

 Ouze wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I'm just wondering...do you wear hats that are smaller than your head? If so, how?

Have you never seen Oz?

OMG!

Am I a bad person for laughing?

 Idolator wrote:

Most people do wear hats that are larger than their head, fictional murderers and steam punk chicks aside. It's standard operating procedure.

You forgot Jews.

 trexmeyer wrote:

I don't sympathize with either party, both have their flaws and both have their strengths. Very strong assumptions in this thread.

I made no assumptions. I made a statement regarding the slur "oreo" relative to the N-bomb, and the possible reasons one might consider the former worse than the latter.

For someone who seems perturbed by assumptions, it seems odd that you would seemingly make one regarding my intent.

 trexmeyer wrote:

I consider "Oreo" worse because of the implications behind its usage. It is implying that the person is an Uncle Tom and a race traitor. It is hatred of the person for being different.

The N-bomb as a slur is grounded in the notion that the target is different.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Often enough, it is hatred for that person for daring to better themselves. It is a hatred that is holding back an entire ethnic group out of fear of being "not black enough" and being rejected by the majority of your perceived people. I strongly believe that the fact African-Americans that excel in school are belittled by their peers as being an Oreo/Uncle Tom/White/whatever is a significant reason for the lack of upward mobility manifested by African-Americans.

I don't agree, but I appreciate the explanation.

Ted Nugent is an imbecile, and everyone who counts knows that. I think Republicans could do a lot more to distance themselves from his bitter nonsense, but that isn't always easy to do, so as long as most of them are ignoring the guy and the idiot who's using him as part of his campaign remains on the fringe, I think that's okay.

I mean, we've just had Republicans cross the floor to pass a no-strings increase to the debt limit. It's only a small step and the divide between the floors is large, but it opens the door just a little for a return to sensible governance, and a move away from the name calling silliness. Trying to score points against the other side by pointing out the stupid things said by fringe lunatics just seems to be the opposite of what's needed, right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:
I'm just wondering...do you wear hats that are smaller than your head? If so, how?

The best thing about dakka is when you're scrolling through another political thread, and comedy gold just comes out of nowhere.

Guys... the 'Nuge doesn't "represent" the Republican Party anymore than Michael Moore representing the Democratic Party.

 sebster wrote:
It's only a small step and the divide between the floors is large, but it opens the door just a little for a return to sensible governance, and a move away from the name calling silliness. Trying to score points against the other side by pointing out the stupid things said by fringe lunatics just seems to be the opposite of what's needed, right now.

This is a good point. A really good point, even. I think I will personally endeavor, going forward, to avoid doing that.

 whembly wrote:
Guys... the 'Nuge doesn't "represent" the Republican Party anymore than Michael Moore representing the Democratic Party.

Yeup. Exactly.

Personally, I still like him though. :-P

 cincydooley wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Guys... the 'Nuge doesn't "represent" the Republican Party anymore than Michael Moore representing the Democratic Party.

Yeup. Exactly.

Personally, I still like him though. :-P

I respect some of the things he does, but i'm not that big a fan of his. He runs a hunting ranch that just does canned hunts, which isn't cool in my book, and sometimes his mouth just creates more controversy then it's worth.

Can wail on a guitar though.

He's a mad man on his guitar... that's for sure.

It seems that this is NOW an issue 'cuz Nugent is campaigning with Texas Republican Greg Abbott.

Dontcha think?

 whembly wrote:

It seems that this is NOW an issue 'cuz Nugent is campaigning with Texas Republican Greg Abbott.

Dontcha think?

Abbot is running for governor in a state that will never elect a Democrat.

So, no. Nugent's statements are just that reprehensible.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It seems that this is NOW an issue 'cuz Nugent is campaigning with Texas Republican Greg Abbott.

Dontcha think?

Abbot is running for governor in a state that will never elect a Democrat.

So, no. Nugent's statements are just that reprehensible.

Texas Governor's.

Democrat: 39
Republican: 6
Other: 2

Watch those facts. They get sticky.

 djones520 wrote:
[Texas Governor's.

Democrat: 39
Republican: 6
Other: 2

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Thu, Feb/20/2014 10:00:16 PM

I see you caught that arithmetic error in Wikipedia

That being said, there was a party switch in the 30s, yes? There probably hasn't been anyone we'd consider a Democrat by today's metric since then, aside from Mrs. Richards and Mr. White - is that fair to say?

 whembly wrote:
Guys... the 'Nuge doesn't "represent" the Republican Party anymore than Michael Moore representing the Democratic Party.

Well, as you later point out he is campaigning with Abbott, and Abbott is not distancing himself from the comments. So there is some scope to use Nugent's comments to challenge Abbott, but I don't think that means anything outside of Texas state politics... and a Texas Republican happily overlooking some crazy gak from a guy with a well known opinion on gun freedom is basically par for the course. It's about as interesting as trying to discredit the whole of the Democratic party because there was yet another corruption scandal in Chicago.

Well are we done with "Oreo" vs "November" slurs? In my former line of work either those words regardless who says it I slam. 14/14 Non Judicial.
Now though I am interested with the Texas governor race being the guy in the wheelchair vs the Lady with chuckleheads and a questionable background....I'm betting the guy in the wheelchair will take it.

 djones520 wrote:
Texas Governor's.

Democrat: 39
Republican: 6
Other: 2

You've fallen in to the trap of assuming politics are unchanging, and that an election in 1936 means anything for future elections.

I don't agree with dogma's statement, but the actual reasons for disagreeing are because there was a recent Democratic victor, you do get blue party governors in red states and vice versa as they cater their message to local state politics, and Texas demographics signal a slow shift towards Democrats in the next decade or two.

But your argument that just lists the history of governors and ignores the shift in Texas politics and what the actual meaning of Democrat and Republican is over time... that's not a good argument.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
[Texas Governor's.

Democrat: 39
Republican: 6
Other: 2

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Thu, Feb/20/2014 10:00:16 PM

I see you caught that arithmetic error in Wikipedia

That being said, there was a party switch in the 30s, yes? There probably hasn't been anyone we'd consider a Democrat by today's metric since then, aside from Mrs. Richards and Mr. White - is that fair to say?

Well, only 4 Republicans since the 30's. Texas is not as hardcore right wing as many would believe. Maybe of late they've just been growing wiser, and that's been guiding their choices.