Anyone following this? Saw the second debate, which was ruined by David Gregory being his usual assy self. Brown is in the lead in the last poll, but there's no Nate Silver doing poll by poll analysis. It's a tight race either way. I swear Brown's accent is fake.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html
Who the fuck are you?
:cheers:
I've been following it closely; listened to the live feed of the last debate but not tonight's.
Scotty's running dangerously close to losing his "nice guy" image.
I think Nate Silver was right. It's sad that in a year's time one of these two won't be in the Senate while Akin or McCaskill will :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2012, 09:58:23 PM
I've been following it closely; listened to the live feed of the last debate but not tonight's.
Scotty's running dangerously close to losing his "nice guy" image.
I heard he's 1/32 jerk.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2012, 09:58:23 PM
I've been following it closely; listened to the live feed of the last debate but not tonight's.
Scotty's running dangerously close to losing his "nice guy" image.
In the second debate Gregory asked Brown if he was calling her "Professor" in a derogatory way. Brown said "absolutely not!" and then kept calling her Professor. At one point he said "Don't interrupt me, I'm not one of your students." At the end of the debate, when asked to say what he admired about Warren, he said "I have some friends whose kids were taught by Professor Warren and they said she's a great teacher." Basically he's trying to paint her as an unserious kindergarten teacher (hint: because she's a woman).
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2012, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2012, 09:58:23 PM
I've been following it closely; listened to the live feed of the last debate but not tonight's.
Scotty's running dangerously close to losing his "nice guy" image.
I heard he's 1/32 jerk.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2012, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2012, 09:58:23 PM
I've been following it closely; listened to the live feed of the last debate but not tonight's.
Scotty's running dangerously close to losing his "nice guy" image.
I heard he's 1/32 jerk.
More like 99 and 44/100. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 10:00:39 PM
I think Nate Silver was right. It's sad that in a year's time one of these two won't be in the Senate while Akin or McCaskill will :(
I've heard Brown will run for governor if he loses the race. I think he'd win much more easily than with the Senate spot, given MA's history of having moderate Republican governors and a Democratic congressional delegation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 10:00:39 PM
I think Nate Silver was right. It's sad that in a year's time one of these two won't be in the Senate while Akin or McCaskill will :(
Claire's not so bad, she's good people. Unfortunately, she's in a crazier-than-a-shithouse-mouse state.
Here's to hoping the faux Indian loses.
She's kind of a disgrace, for a non-practicing lawyer.
He's kind of a douche, for a male model.
Advantage: Push.
Remember, they both want the government going through your shit with a fine toothed-comb.
On balance, I think that we're better off if we nuke Marxachusetts from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Quote from: Scipio on October 10, 2012, 10:19:02 PM
She's kind of a disgrace, for a non-practicing lawyer.
He's kind of a douche, for a male model.
Advantage: Push.
Remember, they both want the government going through your shit with a fine toothed-comb.
On balance, I think that we're better off if we nuke Marxachusetts from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Ok, MS aka maybe it's be fun to start up slavery again.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2012, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2012, 10:08:13 PM
Here's to hoping the faux Indian loses.
Naturally.
So he roots against other mulattoes for President and other fake Indians for Senator? :hmm:
Holy shit, who's the new guy!
:lol:
I think it'll be close, if Romney wins or keeps it close Brown will probably win too, but if Obama wins by a moderate amount or more than Warren will win.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 10, 2012, 11:19:54 PM
Holy shit, who's the new guy!
:lol:
No shit. :blink:
Dude, you don't show up after 7 years at the ashram and ask what's good on TV tonight.
I expect he'll hang out here for about a month or so then disappear until 2016. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 01:27:18 AM
I expect he'll hang out here for about a month or so then disappear until 2016. :hmm:
Yeah probably, and I think this the third or fourth time I've done this so want to avoid the dramatic hellos.
So apparently Languish is like SNL, only worth tuning in at election time. :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 09:03:35 AM
So apparently Languish is like SNL, only worth tuning in at election time. :lol:
:lol:
I'm impressed at the pace of non-change in the forum. Maybe Languish is purgatory.
Also I think constant facebooking has basically replaced the need for online interaction, but I'd like to meet up with people at some point. Is there still a secret subforum? :ph34r:
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:17:17 AM
I'm impressed at the pace of non-change in the forum. Maybe Languish is purgatory.
Hey, 4 years is a long enough wait to recycle a joke! <_<
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:17:17 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 09:03:35 AM
So apparently Languish is like SNL, only worth tuning in at election time. :lol:
:lol:
I'm impressed at the pace of non-change in the forum. Maybe Languish is purgatory.
Also I think constant facebooking has basically replaced the need for online interaction, but I'd like to meet up with people at some point. Is there still a secret subforum? :ph34r:
oh you think you can just waltz in after all this time and get into languishite panties?
Quote from: katmai on October 11, 2012, 09:37:34 AM
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:17:17 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 09:03:35 AM
So apparently Languish is like SNL, only worth tuning in at election time. :lol:
:lol:
I'm impressed at the pace of non-change in the forum. Maybe Languish is purgatory.
Also I think constant facebooking has basically replaced the need for online interaction, but I'd like to meet up with people at some point. Is there still a secret subforum? :ph34r:
oh you think you can just waltz in after all this time and get into languishite panties?
yes, yes I do.
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:17:17 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 09:03:35 AM
So apparently Languish is like SNL, only worth tuning in at election time. :lol:
:lol:
I'm impressed at the pace of non-change in the forum. Maybe Languish is purgatory.
Also I think constant facebooking has basically replaced the need for online interaction, but I'd like to meet up with people at some point. Is there still a secret subforum? :ph34r:
I moved to Korea and have lived there for three years since the last presidential election, so there! :p
We've been trying to get him to defect to NK. But no luck yet <_<
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:17:17 AM
I'm impressed at the pace of non-change in the forum. Maybe Languish is purgatory.
We don't like change. Change is scary.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2012, 09:50:37 AM
I moved to Korea and have lived there for three years since the last presidential election, so there! :p
Unlike most Republicans, our Tim is hardcore.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 10:04:05 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2012, 09:50:37 AM
I moved to Korea and have lived there for three years since the last presidential election, so there! :p
Unlike most Republicans, our Tim is hardcore.
Ha, I was thinking the same thing.
Does he know he doesn't have to actually vote for Obama before he can come home? :hmm:
I worked at the debate in Lowell, making the web feed go out. It was an interesting night. Was like a giant party going on outside. Inside too.
Brown came across as kind of an ass, and didn't do altogether great. The debate itself though was fluffy. Seemed like nothing much happened until the last few minutes, where they briefly covered Afghanistan, the DREAM Act, and the debt.
Has Warren ever given a plausible reason for claiming she was part-Indian if she did not do it to advance her career?
Quote from: Kleves on October 11, 2012, 11:28:42 AM
Has Warren ever given a plausible reason for claiming she was part-Indian if she did not do it to advance her career?
I think she just started dodging and weaving about how it was an unfair attack.
Quote from: Kleves on October 11, 2012, 11:28:42 AM
Has Warren ever given a plausible reason for claiming she was part-Indian if she did not do it to advance her career?
As she witnessed her mother's issues with her father's family to the point they had to elope out of state to get married as they didn't approve of her Injun blood, she decided she wasn't going to sweep it under the rug for herself.
Take pride in your tribe, baby.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: Kleves on October 11, 2012, 11:28:42 AM
Has Warren ever given a plausible reason for claiming she was part-Indian if she did not do it to advance her career?
As she witnessed her mother's issues with her father's family to the point they had to elope out of state to get married as they didn't approve of her Injun blood, she decided she wasn't going to sweep it under the rug for herself.
Take pride in your tribe, baby.
Except that she did as she quit drawing attention to it:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2012/0926/Elizabeth-Warren-and-Cherokee-heritage-what-is-known-about-allegations
QuoteHere is what has come out so far through the political campaigns and through media reports.
1. Warren listed herself as a minority. The Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directory included, as of its 1986-87 edition, a list of "minority law teachers." Warren, then at the University of Texas, was on the list. Moving to the University of Pennsylvania the next year, she continued to be on the minority list through the directory's 1994-95 edition. The later years of her listing coincided with her recruitment by Harvard Law School, initially as a visiting professor.
2. Harvard was under pressure to diversify its faculty. Warren's listing came at a time when law schools around the country faced pressure from minority advocates to show greater diversity on their faculty, in race as well as gender. In one 1992 incident, students staged a sit-in in the office of the Law School dean to push for greater faculty diversity.
A sign of the times: The AALS list of minority law professors grew from four pages in length in 1986-87 to seven pages by the mid-1990s.
3. Harvard hired her, and she was viewed as boosting racial diversity. The Boston Herald cited a 1996 Harvard Crimson article in which a law school spokesman listed "one native American" as part of a diverse faculty, a reference to Warren. Similarly, the Crimson in 1998 referred to Warren as "the first woman with a minority background to be tenured" at the law school, the Herald said. The Boston Globe reported that in 1999, Harvard published an affirmative action report that lists a native American professor at the law school, specifying that the individual is female. Before Warren arrived full time at Harvard, some of the people leading the diversity push apparently viewed Warren as a minority. A 1993 issue of the Harvard Women's Law Journal listed her among "women of color" in legal academia.
4. Full details about her hiring have not been made public. Warren's campaign has released statements from some people involved in the hiring committees that recruited her at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. Robert Clark, former dean of the Harvard Law School, said "her Native American heritage was not a factor in the discussion or the decision."
But Warren has not asked that Harvard release documents related to her hiring, as Brown has urged her to do. Some important details about her career advancement remain in question.
Warren has said that, in addition to listing herself as a minority in the AALS directory, she claimed minority status with her employers. "At some point after Elizabeth was hired at the University of Pennsylvania and at Harvard, she made officials aware of her Native American heritage because it's true and because she's proud of her background," says a statement on her campaign website.
It is not unusual that information about a new hire's racial identity would be provided after the fact of hiring. Data on group identities are gathered, separate from the hiring process, for tracking an institution's record on affirmative action.
5. Warren doesn't appear to fit Harvard's definition of minority. In one document published in 1997, Harvard published details of its affirmative action plan. It defined a native American as "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition." The document said this definition is consistent with federal regulations.
Warren has cited family lore of Cherokee and Delaware heritage on her mother's side of the family. But genealogists have not been able to confirm any ties. Warren is not known to have maintained any cultural affiliation, such as with a tribe.
6. She stopped listing herself as a minority. Warren's listing as a minority teacher in the AALS directory ended with the 1994-95 edition, when she was at the University of Pennsylvania and being recruited by Harvard. Early on in the controversy, Warren said her goal in the minority listing was to meet others with a similar background, and when such social contacts didn't develop she dropped the listing.
Throughout the controversy, Democrats have backed Warren even as her actions have drawn fire from native Americans including members of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.
The party opted not to have Warren face a primary opponent, and she was given a prominent speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention early this month.
The Scott Brown camp, meanwhile, has stirred up a bit of controversy on its own side this week. Some members of his campaign staff were caught on videotape whooping and making tomahawk motions near a group of Warren supporters, according to local news reports.
"It is certainly something that I don't condone," Brown said on WCVB Tuesday. "It's certainly something that, if I'm aware of it, I'll tell that member to never do it again."
In a separate comment Tuesday, he took the issue back to Warren: "The offensiveness here is the fact that Professor Warren took advantage of a claim to be somebody, a native American, using that for an advantage.... And then after she attained tenure she unchecked that box."
5. Warren doesn't appear to fit Harvard's definition of minority. In one document published in 1997, Harvard published details of its affirmative action plan. It defined a native American as "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition." The document said this definition is consistent with federal regulations.
Warren has cited family lore of Cherokee and Delaware heritage on her mother's side of the family. But genealogists have not been able to confirm any ties. Warren is not known to have maintained any cultural affiliation, such as with a tribe.
6. She stopped listing herself as a minority. Warren's listing as a minority teacher in the AALS directory ended with the 1994-95 edition, when she was at the University of Pennsylvania and being recruited by Harvard. Early on in the controversy, Warren said her goal in the minority listing was to meet others with a similar background, and when such social contacts didn't develop she dropped the listing.
Throughout the controversy, Democrats have backed Warren even as her actions have drawn fire from native Americans including members of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.
The party opted not to have Warren face a primary opponent, and she was given a prominent speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention early this month.
The Scott Brown camp, meanwhile, has stirred up a bit of controversy on its own side this week. Some members of his campaign staff were caught on videotape whooping and making tomahawk motions near a group of Warren supporters, according to local news reports.
"It is certainly something that I don't condone," Brown said on WCVB Tuesday. "It's certainly something that, if I'm aware of it, I'll tell that member to never do it again."
In a separate comment Tuesday, he took the issue back to Warren: "The offensiveness here is the fact that Professor Warren took advantage of a claim to be somebody, a native American, using that for an advantage.... And then after she attained tenure she unchecked that box."
And my grandmother stopped putting "Kiss Me, I'm Irish" bumper stickers on her car after a while, too. What's your point?
Kleves asked what the basis was for the claim, not why she may have stopped using it as she got older.
Pretty fucking funny coming from you, anyway. 1/32 blood would've gotten your cafe au lait ass poll taxed right out of the fucking booth not too long ago, zebra.
She had a primary opponent. The Party Hackery decided to just pretend she didn't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 11:49:26 AM
And my grandmother stopped putting "Kiss Me, I'm Irish" bumper stickers on her car after a while, too. What's your point?
Kleves asked what the basis was for the claim, not why she may have stopped using it as she got older.
Pretty fucking funny coming from you, anyway. 1/32 blood would've gotten your cafe au lait ass poll taxed right out of the fucking booth not too long ago, zebra.
That's not a plausible reason to start going around claiming native american heritage. Certainly not more plausible than you knew it would help you get ahead (sort of like how when applying for scholarships and colleges, I checked black).
I have no idea what that last bit of your post is about - unless you're saying that it is hypocritical of me if I point out that people shouldn't claim a heritage that there is no proof or indication that they might have.
Maybe you missed it in my article:
Quote5. Warren doesn't appear to fit Harvard's definition of minority. In one document published in 1997, Harvard published details of its affirmative action plan. It defined a native American as "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition." The document said this definition is consistent with federal regulations.
Warren has cited family lore of Cherokee and Delaware heritage on her mother's side of the family. But genealogists have not been able to confirm any ties. Warren is not known to have maintained any cultural affiliation, such as with a tribe.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 11:34:35 AM
Take pride in your tribe, baby.
Well, did she ever put herself forward as a minority in a situation where it probably
wouldn't be advantageous to her career?
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
That's not a plausible reason to start going around claiming native american heritage. Certainly not more plausible than you knew it would help you get ahead (sort of like how when applying for scholarships and colleges, I checked black).
Sure it is; plenty of people across all sorts of lineages have rediscovered their roots. Has happened to plenty of ethnic backgrounds over the generations, reclaiming their original names after their parents or grandparents emigrated to this country, when names like "Takeshito" or "Klepacki" were frowned up, and they were changed. I see no problem with a woman who, after seeing the emotional pain her own mother went through, decided that she was going to be proud of her heritage. Shame you're not proud of America's.
QuoteI have no idea what that last bit of your post is about - unless you're saying that it is hypocritical of me if I point out that people shouldn't claim a heritage that there is no proof or indication that they might have.
No, just an example that 1/32 bloodlines are valid, and have been for quite some time. Besides, we already know you're self-loathing on a number of levels.
Quote from: Kleves on October 11, 2012, 12:02:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 11:34:35 AM
Take pride in your tribe, baby.
Well, did she ever put herself forward as a minority in a situation where it probably wouldn't be advantageous to her career?
I don't know, Kleves. Why don't you fucking ask her.
Last I saw, mixed blood in this country is no fast track to riches. It's so advantageous, why don't you get a transfusion and try it? How about knocking up a sistah, and finding out in 18 years?
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 11:52:26 AM
Maybe you missed it in my article:
Quote5. Warren doesn't appear to fit Harvard's definition of minority. In one document published in 1997, Harvard published details of its affirmative action plan. It defined a native American as "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition." The document said this definition is consistent with federal regulations.
Warren has cited family lore of Cherokee and Delaware heritage on her mother's side of the family. But genealogists have not been able to confirm any ties. Warren is not known to have maintained any cultural affiliation, such as with a tribe.
5 years before she was already teaching law at Harvard. Big fucking deal. You're chasing dog whistles.
You want to bitch about her advancing her career, I'd much rather accept the argument of her marrying a Harvard law professor before she started teaching there. :P We all know chicks sleep their way to the top, anyway. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:02:37 PM
Sure it is; plenty of people across all sorts of lineages have rediscovered their roots. Has happened to plenty of ethnic backgrounds over the generations, reclaiming their original names after their parents or grandparents emigrated to this country, when names like "Takeshito" or "Klepacki" were frowned up, and they were changed. I see no problem with a woman who, after seeing the emotional pain her own mother went through, decided that she was going to be proud of her heritage. Shame you're not proud of America's.
Except that no one can find proof of her heritage. That's pretty odd seeing as how you have kind of suggested - we have lots of people who are trained on teasing out genealogies.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:02:37 PM
No, just an example that 1/32 bloodlines are valid, and have been for quite some time. Besides, we already know you're self-loathing on a number of levels.
So you were combating a strawman? I don't recall saying that I had an idea of a fractional limit to when you can claim something as your heritage.
Of course, as that article states, Warren's claim of heritage doesn't seem to meet the guidelines of the institution at which she was claiming it.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:08:40 PM
Of course, as that article states, Warren's claim of heritage doesn't seem to meet the guidelines of the institution at which she was claiming it.
She checked a fucking box in a social networking directory. Big deal.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:07:58 PM
5 years before she was already teaching law at Harvard. Big fucking deal. You're chasing dog whistles.
:huh:
She's claiming a heritage that no one can find proof of and oddly enough was claiming said heritage at the time that she was looking for employment at an institution that was looking to diversify its faculty (and then went on to mention her as part of their diversity). There's no real chasing that needs to be done there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:09:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:08:40 PM
Of course, as that article states, Warren's claim of heritage doesn't seem to meet the guidelines of the institution at which she was claiming it.
She checked a fucking box in a social networking directory. Big deal.
It wouldn't be except that she made it one by making a whole set of awkward claims when confronted. I'd have no problem is she said - I thought based on stories from my mother that I was part Native American and then started identifying that way as I thought it'd help my career prospects.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:12:36 PM
It wouldn't be except that she made it one by making a whole set of awkward claims when confronted. I'd have no problem is she said - I thought based on stories from my mother that I was part Native American and then started identifying that way as I thought it'd help my career prospects.
That's because you're a conniving little cynical shit.
Her resume, her marriage and her ovaries already locked her in to Harvard long before she checked any "East Asian/Pacific Islander/Other" application boxes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:04:45 PM
Last I saw, mixed blood in this country is no fast track to riches. It's so advantageous, why don't you get a transfusion and try it? How about knocking up a sistah, and finding out in 18 years?
O RLY?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1f%2FBarackObama2005portrait.jpg%2F220px-BarackObama2005portrait.jpg&hash=cbc1e8edbb29ec620a802c373dfc287b7ab985b3)
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 12:18:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:04:45 PM
Last I saw, mixed blood in this country is no fast track to riches. It's so advantageous, why don't you get a transfusion and try it? How about knocking up a sistah, and finding out in 18 years?
O RLY?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1f%2FBarackObama2005portrait.jpg%2F220px-BarackObama2005portrait.jpg&hash=cbc1e8edbb29ec620a802c373dfc287b7ab985b3)
I don't think those Ivy League degrees were attached to the umbilical cord.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:16:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:12:36 PM
It wouldn't be except that she made it one by making a whole set of awkward claims when confronted. I'd have no problem is she said - I thought based on stories from my mother that I was part Native American and then started identifying that way as I thought it'd help my career prospects.
That's because you're a conniving little cynical shit.
Her resume, her marriage and her ovaries already locked her in to Harvard long before she checked any "East Asian/Pacific Islander/Other" application boxes.
Or maybe it's because I'd rather a politician own up to what they did rather than hide it? :huh:
Seems to me that it is an odd thing for you do want to defend coverups.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:20:09 PM
Or maybe it's because I'd rather a politician own up to what they did rather than hide it? :huh:
There's nothing to cover up.
QuoteSeems to me that it is an odd thing for you do want to defend coverups.
Sorry, can't hear you from the back of the bus. Going to have to speak up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:21:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:20:09 PM
Or maybe it's because I'd rather a politician own up to what they did rather than hide it? :huh:
There's nothing to cover up.
Then why can't she give a coherent answer to the question about why she did what she did?
Oh and I agree this should be a non-issue except that it resonates as it is a lie about race. That upsets people all along the spectrum.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:21:48 PM
Sorry, can't hear you from the back of the bus. Going to have to speak up.
Oh on this - wtf? Why would I ever be on a bus?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:19:49 PM
I don't think those Ivy League degrees were attached to the umbilical cord.
We won't ever see his transcripts, so we'll never know for sure. One thing I can say that for such a hailed scholar he never published anything significant other than two books about himself.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
We won't ever see his transcripts, so we'll never know for sure. One thing I can say that for such a hailed scholar he never published anything significant other than two books about himself.
Funny how this statement can reference either Obama or Romney at the same time. But one of them is a nigger. Interesting how that works.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:30:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
We won't ever see his transcripts, so we'll never know for sure. One thing I can say that for such a hailed scholar he never published anything significant other than two books about himself.
Funny how this statement can reference either Obama or Romney at the same time. But one of them is a nigger. Interesting how that works.
I don't know that many people who talk about Romney as a great scholar. :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:30:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
We won't ever see his transcripts, so we'll never know for sure. One thing I can say that for such a hailed scholar he never published anything significant other than two books about himself.
Funny how this statement can reference either Obama or Romney at the same time. But one of them is a nigger. Interesting how that works.
Romney's known as a fat-cat businessman, not a scholar.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:34:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:30:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
We won't ever see his transcripts, so we'll never know for sure. One thing I can say that for such a hailed scholar he never published anything significant other than two books about himself.
Funny how this statement can reference either Obama or Romney at the same time. But one of them is a nigger. Interesting how that works.
I don't know that many people who talk about Romney as a great scholar. :hmm:
I don't know that many people who talk about Obama as a "great scholar", either--except for people who'd rather use hyperbole because he's an uppity nigger that didn't know only the Mitt Romneys of the world could attend Harvard Law and write two books about themselves.
He's not a great scholar- he did very well at Harvard Law and later was an adjunct constitutional law professor. Most people who do really well at Harvard and the like don't become renowned scholars.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:37:58 PM
I don't know that many people who talk about Obama as a "great scholar", either--except for people who'd rather use hyperbole because he's an uppity nigger that didn't know only the Mitt Romneys of the world could attend Harvard Law and write two books about themselves.
Really? I recall people talking a lot about how intelligent Obama is. Most chatter about Romney isn't the same.
I'm just trying to see how many times I can get an irritated Seedy to use the n-word.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 12:35:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:30:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
We won't ever see his transcripts, so we'll never know for sure. One thing I can say that for such a hailed scholar he never published anything significant other than two books about himself.
Funny how this statement can reference either Obama or Romney at the same time. But one of them is a nigger. Interesting how that works.
Romney's known as a fat-cat businessman, not a scholar.
I didn't know Obama was known as a scholar. I though he was just a community organizer that edited his school newspaper.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:41:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:37:58 PM
I don't know that many people who talk about Obama as a "great scholar", either--except for people who'd rather use hyperbole because he's an uppity nigger that didn't know only the Mitt Romneys of the world could attend Harvard Law and write two books about themselves.
Really? I recall people talking a lot about how intelligent Obama is. Most chatter about Romney isn't the same.
He's very articulate. You are, too.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:44:20 PM
I didn't know Obama was known as a scholar. I though he was just a community organizer that edited his school newspaper.
We learned he was a constitutional scholar earlier this year when he made an absurdly incorrect statement about how unprecedented it would be for the USSC to overturn a law passed by congress. It was explained to me by someone on MSNBC that he was using shorthand that only smart constitutional scholars like himself would understand, and that his only mistake was forgetting that we're not as educated as he is and might take it the wrong way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:45:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:41:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:37:58 PM
I don't know that many people who talk about Obama as a "great scholar", either--except for people who'd rather use hyperbole because he's an uppity nigger that didn't know only the Mitt Romneys of the world could attend Harvard Law and write two books about themselves.
Really? I recall people talking a lot about how intelligent Obama is. Most chatter about Romney isn't the same.
He's very articulate. You are, too.
It's odd that you're more about race than any of the supposed racists.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 12:45:04 PM
He's very articulate. You are, too.
He's also good at basketball (Obama) and look like he can fight.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:50:32 PM
It's odd that you're more about race than any of the supposed racists.
I always love it when Seedy calls you a racist for not voting for Obama because he's black. :D
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 10:06:33 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 10:04:05 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2012, 09:50:37 AM
I moved to Korea and have lived there for three years since the last presidential election, so there! :p
Unlike most Republicans, our Tim is hardcore.
Ha, I was thinking the same thing.
Well Hans is out in Afghanistan trying to convince our allies not to shoot our soldiers in the back, so that's why there is a spike in that behavior in the last few months. We also found out that a board we used to troll was used by that underwear bomber guy. So Languish is still making a difference.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 12:54:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:50:32 PM
It's odd that you're more about race than any of the supposed racists.
I always love it when Seedy calls you a racist for not voting for Obama because he's black. :D
I'd be interested to hear Seedy's take on that chick of color from Clueless who is voting for Romney.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 12:54:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:50:32 PM
It's odd that you're more about race than any of the supposed racists.
I always love it when Seedy calls you a racist for not voting for Obama because he's black. :D
Like a true white man, Seedy always has to tell a brother what to do.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:50:32 PM
It's odd that you're more about race than any of the supposed racists.
That's because I readily acknowledge that it exists, permeates our society on fundamental levels, and is still a barrier to our progression as a republic.
Those that don't are simply facilitating it and continue to enable it as a divisive wedge, arresting our development as a more perfect union.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 12:57:12 PM
I'd be interested to hear Seedy's take on that chick of color from Clueless who is voting for Romney.
She was hotter when she was younger.
And just like any other Hollywood trog, I really don't give a shit who she votes for.*
*Except for George Clooney, because he is The Word(tm).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:50:32 PM
It's odd that you're more about race than any of the supposed racists.
That's because I readily acknowledge that it exists, permeates our society on fundamental levels, and is still a barrier to our progression as a republic.
Those that don't are simply facilitating it and continue to enable it as a divisive wedge, arresting our development as a more perfect union.
:hug:
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:58:58 PM
Like a true white man, Seedy always has to tell a brother what to do.
I give you shit about it not because you're Burnt Sienna in the Crayola Crayon box, but because you betray your own most fundamental premise to who you are: your own sexual identity.
Log Cabiners like you will be the first ones up against the wall with today's GOP. And no, not facing it, palms up, slightly bent over.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:50:32 PM
It's odd that you're more about race than any of the supposed racists.
That's because I readily acknowledge that it exists, permeates our society on fundamental levels, and is still a barrier to our progression as a republic.
Those that don't are simply facilitating it and continue to enable it as a divisive wedge, arresting our development as a more perfect union.
But you're equally complicit in making it a wedge by insisting that it is the primary factor that people don't want to support/vote for Obama.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:13:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:58:58 PM
Like a true white man, Seedy always has to tell a brother what to do.
I give you shit about it not because you're Burnt Sienna in the Crayola Crayon box, but because you betray your own most fundamental premise to who you are: your own sexual identity.
Log Cabiners like you will be the first ones up against the wall with today's GOP. And no, not facing it, palms up, slightly bent over.
That's rather limiting. Why does one aspect of my life (who I fuck) have to then override everything else in my life? Who are you to tell me what is my most important identity?
As to the other portion - if Darth Cheney can be brought over to our side...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:04:13 PM
She was hotter when she was younger.
Dionne? I don't think I've seen her in anything since.
Just another example of how the GOP tries to stir up publicity anytime a black person expresses support for them. Being a black conservative is probably the easiest route to mini-celebrity/getting paid to talk on camera.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:04:13 PM
She was hotter when she was younger.
Dionne? I don't think I've seen her in anything since.
Just another example of how the GOP tries to stir up publicity anytime a black person expresses support for them. Being a black conservative is probably the easiest route to mini-celebrity/getting paid to talk on camera.
Did you hear that, garbon?? You can be FAMOUS! I think you should petition to be the "Joe the Plumber" of this election. :D
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:27:49 PM
But you're equally complicit in making it a wedge by insisting that it is the primary factor that people don't want to support/vote for Obama.
Oh, it's not
the primary factor: merely a really, really substantial one for a particular segment of detractors; detractors that would rather deflect it into such things as birth certificates, how they wish he"would learn to be an American", Muslimism, his "foreign ideals", Kenyan anti-colonialism, et cetera, et cetera. All very good examples of plausible deniability, oh no, we're not racist, it's not becuase he's black or anything. C'mon.
But even if his detractors won't, at least I can call a spade a spade. As it were.
Garbon would have the problem that he isn't actually a conservative. Though as long as he kept to Obama and the Democrats' shortcomings he might do alright.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:40:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:27:49 PM
But you're equally complicit in making it a wedge by insisting that it is the primary factor that people don't want to support/vote for Obama.
Oh, it's not the primary factor: merely a really, really substantial one for a particular segment of detractors; detractors that would rather deflect it into such things as birth certificates, how they wish he"would learn to be an American", Muslimism, his "foreign ideals", Kenyan anti-colonialism, et cetera, et cetera. All very good examples of plausible deniability, oh no, we're not racist, it's not becuase he's black or anything. C'mon.
But even if his detractors won't, at least I can call a spade a spade. As it were.
The issue is that you spread around to anyone who calls themselves a Republican or against Obama.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 01:44:14 PM
Garbon would have the problem that he isn't actually a conservative. Though as long as he kept to Obama and the Democrats' shortcomings he might do alright.
My lack of social conservatism would be a problem - though perhaps I could gain points on discipline for children and church attendance (though mine is lax).
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 01:39:59 PM
Did you hear that, garbon?? You can be FAMOUS! I think you should petition to be the "Joe the Plumber" of this election. :D
It would likely have a detrimental effect on my sex life (given the Republican=ev0l!!1) though I suppose it could help me to snag more of those wealthy men. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:30:09 PM
That's rather limiting. Why does one aspect of my life (who I fuck) have to then override everything else in my life? Who are you to tell me what is my most important identity?
Meh, suit yourself, nothing basic or fundamental about something like sexual preferences. Luckily, my sexual preferences are already ensconced in liberty and legality*.
*[spoiler]Except as defined by the Mann Act.[/spoiler]
QuoteAs to the other portion - if Darth Cheney can be brought over to our side...
Never happen. He sold his soul working for the Nixon Administration. I believe it was a condition of employment at the time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:50:29 PM
Meh, suit yourself, nothing basic or fundamental about something like sexual preferences. Luckily, my sexual preferences are already ensconced in liberty and legality*.
Not sure I should let you weasel out so fast. Again, why should who I fuck be the most important part of my identity? It isn't like I spend most of my time going down on someone (or vice versa).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:50:29 PM
Never happen. He sold his soul working for the Nixon Administration. I believe it was a condition of employment at the time.
Except, of course, when he said he doesn't have any issue with gay marriage.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:53:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:50:29 PM
Meh, suit yourself, nothing basic or fundamental about something like sexual preferences. Luckily, my sexual preferences are already ensconced in liberty and legality*.
Not sure I should let you weasel out so fast. Again, why should who I fuck be the most important part of my identity? It isn't like I spend most of my time going down on someone (or vice versa).
Because sexual orientation and identification are fundamental rights. They're human rights. The fact that you support politicians that don't want to make them legal rights, and therefore abrogate your own rights, doesn't mean I can't give you shit about it.
Therefore, I will continue to do so. For your own damned good.
Except for bisexuality. That's just a cop-out.
QuoteQuote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:50:29 PM
Never happen. He sold his soul working for the Nixon Administration. I believe it was a condition of employment at the time.
Except, of course, when he said he doesn't have any issue with gay marriage.
Well, that's only because he can't abort her now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 02:26:36 PM
Because sexual orientation and identification are fundamental rights. They're human rights. The fact that you support politicians that don't want to make them legal rights, and therefore abrogate your own rights, doesn't mean I can't give you shit about it.
Therefore, I will continue to do so. For your own damned good.
You've just conflated two topics though. A person's identity can be more than their sexual orientation - and that's what I'm taking you to task over.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 02:26:36 PM
Because sexual orientation and identification are fundamental rights. They're human rights. The fact that you support politicians that don't want to make them legal rights, and therefore abrogate your own rights, doesn't mean I can't give you shit about it.
Therefore, I will continue to do so. For your own damned good.
You've just conflated two topics though. A person's identity can be more than their sexual orientation - and that's what I'm taking you to task over.
No I haven't. Sexual orientation is a fundamental identifier and the core of one's individuality than being Unitarian or a Cubs fan.
The fact that you want to identify yourself as a Cub's fan first and gay second won't change that.
Embrace your gayness, G. I do.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 02:50:52 PM
No I haven't. Sexual orientation is a fundamental identifier and the core of one's individuality than being Unitarian or a Cubs fan.
The fact that you want to identify yourself as a Cub's fan first and gay second won't change that.
Embrace your gayness, G. I do.
But I don't see why that's the case. You wouldn't say that core of a heterosexual man's individuality is that he's straight. I'd guess one would look to other minority characteristics.
What you're doing seems odd to me as it seems to validate the Martis of the world in making everything about their gayness.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 02:50:52 PM
No I haven't. Sexual orientation is a fundamental identifier and the core of one's individuality than being Unitarian or a Cubs fan.
The fact that you want to identify yourself as a Cub's fan first and gay second won't change that.
Embrace your gayness, G. I do.
But I don't see why that's the case. You wouldn't say that core of a heterosexual man's individuality is that he's straight. I'd guess one would look to other minority characteristics.
It is, but it's not necessary to say it, is it?
QuoteWhat you're doing seems odd to me as it seems to validate the Martis of the world in making everything about their gayness.
I've considered that pitfall. But Marty's an asswipe.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 08:05:35 PM
It is, but it's not necessary to say it, is it?
Sorry, Freud, but it isn't all about sex. :console:
This discussion has fatigued me. I'm rolling over and going to sleep.
You can have the wet spot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 08:46:51 PM
This discussion has fatigued me. I'm rolling over and going to sleep.
You can have the wet spot.
I know you probably thought it would be easy to suggest to a homosexual that it is all about being gay. Sorry!
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 08:48:07 PM
I know you probably thought it would be easy to suggest to a homosexual that it is all about being gay. Sorry!
I know: you're anti-teacher's union first, and gay second.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 08:56:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 08:48:07 PM
I know you probably thought it would be easy to suggest to a homosexual that it is all about being gay. Sorry!
I know: you're anti-teacher's union first, and gay second.
Please, I rarely think about teachers - why would I?
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2012, 10:30:29 PM
Quote from: Scipio on October 10, 2012, 10:19:02 PM
She's kind of a disgrace, for a non-practicing lawyer.
He's kind of a douche, for a male model.
Advantage: Push.
Remember, they both want the government going through your shit with a fine toothed-comb.
On balance, I think that we're better off if we nuke Marxachusetts from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Ok, MS aka maybe it's be fun to start up slavery again.
That's cute.
Quote from: Scipio on October 11, 2012, 09:44:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2012, 10:30:29 PM
Quote from: Scipio on October 10, 2012, 10:19:02 PM
She's kind of a disgrace, for a non-practicing lawyer.
He's kind of a douche, for a male model.
Advantage: Push.
Remember, they both want the government going through your shit with a fine toothed-comb.
On balance, I think that we're better off if we nuke Marxachusetts from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Ok, MS aka maybe it's be fun to start up slavery again.
That's cute.
It is cute when a backwater tries to attack Massachusetts. Well not cute so much as deranged. :wacko:
See, this is why garbon can't get a job with fox.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 09:52:08 PM
See, this is why garbon can't get a job with fox.
As long as they don't know about this - can't hurt me. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:04:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 12:57:12 PM
I'd be interested to hear Seedy's take on that chick of color from Clueless who is voting for Romney.
She was hotter when she was younger.
And just like any other Hollywood trog, I really don't give a shit who she votes for.*
*Except for George Clooney, because he is The Word(tm).
Does this also apply to sports teams? ;)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bleacherreport.net%2Fimages_root%2Fslides%2Fphotos%2F002%2F450%2F308%2Fgeorgeclooney_display_image.jpg%3F1343618427&hash=452aba895df7041d843acb5c93d338c0dc6b6cc4)
:lol: As I have already proclaimed Clooney as The Word(tm), I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to walk that one back. WHO DEY :yeah:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 12:50:32 PM
It's odd that you're more about race than any of the supposed racists.
That's because I readily acknowledge that it exists, permeates our society on fundamental levels, and is still a barrier to our progression as a republic.
Those that don't are simply facilitating it and continue to enable it as a divisive wedge, arresting our development as a more perfect union.
I'm pretty sure it's those who insist on categorizing everyone and everything by "race" that are facilitating it. In fact, that's pretty close to the definition of racism.
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2012, 01:41:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:01:46 PM
That's because I readily acknowledge that it exists, permeates our society on fundamental levels, and is still a barrier to our progression as a republic.
Those that don't are simply facilitating it and continue to enable it as a divisive wedge, arresting our development as a more perfect union.
I'm pretty sure it's those who insist on categorizing everyone and everything by "race" that are facilitating it. In fact, that's pretty close to the definition of racism.
Acknowledging it exists =/ categorizing everyone and everything by "race".
I, however, acknowledge that there are those individuals that do. I categorize everyone and everything by height, weight and body mass index.
Racism certainly exists whereas race...that's dubious at best as it only really exists to the extent that individuals create fake categories based on appearance.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 01:57:31 PM
Racism certainly exists whereas race...that's dubious at best as it only really exists to the extent that individuals create fake categories based on appearance.
Both racism and race are social constructs. Height differentials are not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 01:52:59 PM
Acknowledging it exists =/ categorizing everyone and everything by "race".
granted
Quote
I categorize everyone and everything by height, weight and body mass index.
Uh huh
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2012, 02:05:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 01:52:59 PM
I categorize everyone and everything by height, weight and body mass index.
Uh huh
I readily admit that I am prejudiced towards those substantially taller than myself. And if they're thin, too? Fuck.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 01:57:31 PM
Racism certainly exists whereas race...that's dubious at best as it only really exists to the extent that individuals create fake categories based on appearance.
Both racism and race are social constructs. Height differentials are not.
Can't really have racism without race. And so I think Max was right in pointing out (like I did) that it doesn't help to have people braying about hidden racism every time someone says something critical of a black president. If anything it suggest that maybe there is something wrong with having a black president.
Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Garbon wins! :D
Ugh.