Dick of the Week

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rnc-chair-michael-steele-confesses-to-race-based-southern-strategy/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm

Exactly what in the fuck does your posting of 2 articles, one 5 years old and the other 10 years old, have to do with the Lynch confirmation?

Those articles prove my contention that republicans have a history of pandering to bigots and racists since the 60's, and they still are in my opinion. I still haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rnc-chair-michael-steele-confesses-to-race-based-southern-strategy/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm

Exactly what in the fuck does your posting of 2 articles, one 5 years old and the other 10 years old, have to do with the Lynch confirmation?

Those articles prove my contention that republicans have a history of pandering to bigots and racists since the 60's, and they still are in my opinion. I still haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

Let's try this one more time:

Exactly what in the fuck does your posting of 2 articles, one 5 years old and the other 10 years old, have to do with the Lynch confirmation?

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rnc-chair-michael-steele-confesses-to-race-based-southern-strategy/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm

Exactly what in the fuck does your posting of 2 articles, one 5 years old and the other 10 years old, have to do with the Lynch confirmation?

Those articles prove my contention that republicans have a history of pandering to bigots and racists since the 60's, and they still are in my opinion. I still haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

Let's try this one more time:

Exactly what in the fuck does your posting of 2 articles, one 5 years old and the other 10 years old, have to do with the Lynch confirmation?

No, let's try this, what part do you not understand?

Quote :: A confirmation vote for Ms. Lynch, delayed longer than any other attorney general nominee in three decades, is vexing for a Republican Party seeking to counter accusations that it is indifferent to women and minorities.

The Times calls it being "indifferent to women and minorities', I call it bigotry and racism.
IMO, by refusing to vote on the the Lynch confirmation, the GOP is pandering to bigots and racists given the fact that the GOP has a track record of pandering to bigots and racists.
Simply, it's a logical conclusion.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rnc-chair-michael-steele-confesses-to-race-based-southern-strategy/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm

Exactly what in the fuck does your posting of 2 articles, one 5 years old and the other 10 years old, have to do with the Lynch confirmation?

Those articles prove my contention that republicans have a history of pandering to bigots and racists since the 60's, and they still are in my opinion. I still haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

Let's try this one more time:

Exactly what in the fuck does your posting of 2 articles, one 5 years old and the other 10 years old, have to do with the Lynch confirmation?

No, let's try this, what part do you not understand?

Quote :: A confirmation vote for Ms. Lynch, delayed longer than any other attorney general nominee in three decades, is vexing for a Republican Party seeking to counter accusations that it is indifferent to women and minorities.

The Times calls it being "indifferent to women and minorities', I call it bigotry and racism.
IMO, by refusing to vote on the the Lynch confirmation, the GOP is pandering to bigots and racists given the fact that the GOP has a track record of pandering to bigots and racists.
Simply, it's a logical conclusion.

The Times calls it no such thing.
The Times is reporting that the “….Republican Party (is) seeking to counter accusations that it is indifferent to women and minorities.”
There is quite a large difference between being accused of something and being actually guilty of something.
And it's not "a logical conclusion" - it's a simple act of you pulling something out of your ass and claiming that it's a fact.
Which part of that do you not understand?

Posts : 1165

Well no, I did not claim my opinion was fact.
I clearly said it is my opinion. Try reading it again:
IMO, by refusing to vote on the the Lynch confirmation, the GOP is pandering to bigots and racists given the fact that the GOP has a track record of pandering to bigots and racists.

Question for jack:
Does jack agree that the republican party has a history of pandering to bigots and racists?

And since you're overly fixated and a big fan of Al, here ya go, hope you enjoy it:

The Loretta Lynch Saga: The True Meaning & Dog Whistles
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/-the-loretta-lynch-saga-t_b_7101896.html

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: Question for jack:
Does jack agree that the republican party has a history of pandering to bigots and racists?

Question for edge:

Does edge agree that the Democrat party contains a considerably higher ratio of those who historically pander to bigots and racists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
By party
The original House version:[20]
• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[21]
• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[20]
• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]
• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: Question for jack:
Does jack agree that the republican party has a history of pandering to bigots and racists?

Question for edge:

Does edge agree that the Democrat party contains a considerably higher ratio of those who historically pander to bigots and racists?

No, I don't agree with that at all. At one time prior to 1964, the Democrat party in the South was composed of bigots and racists.

Now they're Republicans. That's not an opinion it's a fact.

You left this out:
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

So, let's try this again but with some added facts:

Does jack agree that since 1964, the republican party has a history of pandering to bigots and racists? In other words, do you agree that the Southern Strategy is not a myth?

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: Because republicans have a history of pandering to bigots and racists ....

I think we can both agree that both parties have a history of pandering to bigots and racists. The only difference between the bigots and racists being pandered to by either party is their race/color/ethnicity.
But back to the subject at hand:
Show me how race is involved in the Lynch confirmation.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: Because republicans have a history of pandering to bigots and racists ....

I think we can both agree that both parties have a history of pandering to bigots and racists. The only difference between the bigots and racists being pandered to by either party is their race/color/ethnicity.
But back to the subject at hand:
Show me how race is involved in the Lynch confirmation.

I've already done that and so has the article by Sharpton. If you choose to turn a blind eye, that's your problem, not mine.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: Because republicans have a history of pandering to bigots and racists ....

I think we can both agree that both parties have a history of pandering to bigots and racists. The only difference between the bigots and racists being pandered to by either party is their race/color/ethnicity.
But back to the subject at hand:
Show me how race is involved in the Lynch confirmation.

I've already done that and so has the article by Sharpton. If you choose to turn a blind eye, that's your problem, not mine.

You've done nothing but post a couple of articles from 5 and 10 ten years ago, neither of which has jack shit to do with the Lynch confirmation.
And then, you hold up The "Reverend" Al Sharpton as a bastion of credibility?
You've got a better sense of humor than I've previously given you credit for.

Posts : 1165

Well, I see some republican assholes finally decided enough is enough.

U.S. Senate confirms Loretta Lynch as attorney general

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate voted on Thursday to approve Loretta Lynch as President Barack Obama's next attorney general, ending a five-month deadlock that made Lynch wait longer for confirmation than the last seven attorneys general combined.

The first black woman to become the top U.S. law enforcement official, Lynch, 55, was approved by a 56-43 vote. Ten Republicans voted for Lynch, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. She is expected to take over as head of the U.S. Justice Department on Monday, replacing Eric Holder.
http://news.yahoo.com/loretta-lynch-nears-senate-confirmation-u-attorney-general-173933483--sector.html

Way to go Ted.

Dick of the Week - Page 3 Hand-clap-smiley-emoticon

Ted Cruz Was So Mad About Loretta Lynch That He Missed The Final Vote On Her Confirmation

The senator's office explained that he had to catch a flight to a fundraiser in Texas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/ted-cruz-loretta-lynch-missed-vote_n_7129486.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Posts : 6988

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-maher-unloads-sick-culture-164917888.html

Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 5:08pm EDT - US Markets are closed
Bill Maher unloads on the 'sick culture of wealth'

Comedian and political commentator Bill Maher unloaded on wealthy Americans for creating what he called a "sick culture of wealth" on his HBO show "Real Time" Friday evening.

………

"We always hear about the sick culture of poverty. What about the sick culture of wealth?" Maher added.

http://getnetworth.net/bill-maher-net-worth/

Bill Maher, real name William Maher, is an American political commentator, stand-up comedian, television host, actor and author. Bill became widely recognized as a host of the late-night talk show Politically Incorrect, which was syndicated from 1993 to 2002. He is currently hosting a similar program entitled Real Time with Bill Maher. Bill Maher net worth is currently estimated at $23 million.

You might want to think about shutting the fuck up sooner rather than later, dickwad; there are many people who would be grateful to no longer be forced to listen to your bullshit.

Posts : 2141

Yeah. Well Maher is not my favorite person, but he does have a point in this case. Did you read the supporting articles? Like this one?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rich-californians-youll-have-to-pry-the-hoses-from-our-cold-dead-hands/2015/06/13/fac6f998-0e39-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html

Sorry, but being rich doesn't mean that one is entitled to "as much water as you can pay for"... during an historic drought.

Quote :: Rich Californians balk at limits: ‘We’re not all equal when it comes to water’

That kind of attitude is pretty reprehensible, don't you think?

Posts : 9728

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well Maher is not my favorite person, but he does have a point in this case. Did you read the supporting articles? Like this one?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rich-californians-youll-have-to-pry-the-hoses-from-our-cold-dead-hands/2015/06/13/fac6f998-0e39-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html

Sorry, but being rich doesn't mean that one is entitled to "as much water as you can pay for"... during an historic drought.

Quote :: Rich Californians balk at limits: ‘We’re not all equal when it comes to water’

That kind of attitude is pretty reprehensible, don't you think?

I loved this gem from the article..

Quote :: “I think we’re being overly penalized, and we’re certainly being overly scrutinized by the world,” said Gay Butler, an interior designer out for a trail ride on her show horse, Bear. She said her water bill averages about $800 a month.

“It angers me because people aren’t looking at the overall picture,” Butler said. “What are we supposed to do, just have dirt around our house on four acres?”

You don't get more out of touch than that. Wouldn't surprise me if she had a front row seat at Mittens Romney's 47% dinner disaster.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: You might want to think about shutting the fuck up sooner rather than later, dickwad; there are many people who would be grateful to no longer be forced to listen to your bullshit.

What a load of crap.
I'd like to know how anybody is "forced to listen to" somebody who is on HBO, LOL.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: You might want to think about shutting the fuck up sooner rather than later, dickwad; there are many people who would be grateful to no longer be forced to listen to your bullshit.

What a load of crap.
I'd like to know how anybody is "forced to listen to" somebody who is on HBO, LOL.

The material sourced below did not come from HBO. It came from:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-maher-unloads-sick-culture-164917888.html

http://getnetworth.net/bill-maher-net-worth/

Pay attention.

(And, oh yeah - a lecture on the "sick culture of wealth" from a pauper with a net worth of $23,000,000.
LOL.)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-maher-unloads-sick-culture-164917888.html

Mon, Aug 10, 2015, 5:08pm EDT - US Markets are closed
Bill Maher unloads on the 'sick culture of wealth'

Comedian and political commentator Bill Maher unloaded on wealthy Americans for creating what he called a "sick culture of wealth" on his HBO show "Real Time" Friday evening.

………

"We always hear about the sick culture of poverty. What about the sick culture of wealth?" Maher added.

http://getnetworth.net/bill-maher-net-worth/

Bill Maher, real name William Maher, is an American political commentator, stand-up comedian, television host, actor and author. Bill became widely recognized as a host of the late-night talk show Politically Incorrect, which was syndicated from 1993 to 2002. He is currently hosting a similar program entitled Real Time with Bill Maher. Bill Maher net worth is currently estimated at $23 million.

Posts : 2141

It doesn't matter how rich Maher is, Jack. It's irrelevant to the argument that he was making... For example, the link that I posted about the attitude of the some of the wealthy regarding water use in a the middle of an historic drought fits perfectly with the argument Maher was making about the "sick culture of wealth."

If Maher was guilty of the same things that he was pointing out, then you might have a point. But that's simply not the case. The fact that he is wealthy and chooses to forsake the wasting of water himself actually strengthens his case.

Didn't you read the article that I posted?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: It doesn't matter how rich Maher is, Jack. It's irrelevant to the argument that he was making... For example, the link that I posted about the attitude of the some of the wealthy regarding water use in a the middle of an historic drought fits perfectly with the argument Maher was making about the "sick culture of wealth."

If Maher was guilty of the same things that he was pointing out, then you might have a point. But that's simply not the case. The fact that he is wealthy and chooses to forsake the wasting of water himself actually strengthens his case.

Didn't you read the article that I posted?

Should we just take him at his word that he is making the same sacrifices that he is demanding of everyone else?
Do you have documentation of his water usage?
If you do, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Thanks.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: You might want to think about shutting the fuck up sooner rather than later, dickwad; there are many people who would be grateful to no longer be forced to listen to your bullshit.

What a load of crap.
I'd like to know how anybody is "forced to listen to" somebody who is on HBO, LOL.

The material sourced below did not come from HBO. It came from:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-maher-unloads-sick-culture-164917888.html

http://getnetworth.net/bill-maher-net-worth/

I don't give a fuck where it came from, how exactly were YOU forced to click on the link and watch it?

Like I said, what a load of crap.

happy jack wrote:: Should we just take him at his word that he is making the same sacrifices that he is demanding of everyone else?
Do you have documentation of his water usage?
If you do, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Thanks.

It's in the video you posted, Maher showed a picture of his dried up brown lawn and said, "who gives a shit."
If you have documentation proving that it's not his lawn I'd be interested in seeing it.

Gee, it's obvious you didn't "pay attention."

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: It doesn't matter how rich Maher is, Jack. It's irrelevant to the argument that he was making... For example, the link that I posted about the attitude of the some of the wealthy regarding water use in a the middle of an historic drought fits perfectly with the argument Maher was making about the "sick culture of wealth."

If Maher was guilty of the same things that he was pointing out, then you might have a point. But that's simply not the case. The fact that he is wealthy and chooses to forsake the wasting of water himself actually strengthens his case.

Didn't you read the article that I posted?

Should we just take him at his word that he is making the same sacrifices that he is demanding of everyone else?
Do you have documentation of his water usage?
If you do, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Thanks.

You don't have to take him at his word... just watch the video of his rant. He shows a picture of his own un-watered, parched lawn just before the end of it. See for yourself...

Posts : 9728

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: It doesn't matter how rich Maher is, Jack. It's irrelevant to the argument that he was making... For example, the link that I posted about the attitude of the some of the wealthy regarding water use in a the middle of an historic drought fits perfectly with the argument Maher was making about the "sick culture of wealth."

If Maher was guilty of the same things that he was pointing out, then you might have a point. But that's simply not the case. The fact that he is wealthy and chooses to forsake the wasting of water himself actually strengthens his case.

Didn't you read the article that I posted?

Should we just take him at his word that he is making the same sacrifices that he is demanding of everyone else?
Do you have documentation of his water usage?
If you do, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Thanks.

You don't have to take him at his word... just watch the video of his rant. He shows a picture of his own un-watered, parched lawn just before the end of it. See for yourself...

Bill Maher has been a long time supporter of environmental causes,and as a result, an avowed enemy of right-wing wackjabs.

If there was the slightest evidence that he wasn't "walking the walk" they'd be all over it. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that Maher doesn't practice what he preaches.

Posts : 6988

Douche and Douchettes

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6770

Professors threaten bad grades for saying ‘illegal alien,’ ‘male,’ ‘female’

Multiple professors at Washington State University have explicitly told students their grades will suffer if they use terms such as “illegal alien,” "male," and “female,” or if they fail to “defer” to non-white students.
According to the syllabus for Selena Lester Breikss’ “Women & Popular Culture” class, students risk a failing grade if they use any common descriptors that Breikss considers “oppressive and hateful language.”
The punishment for repeatedly using the banned words, Breikss warns, includes “but [is] not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and— in extreme cases— failure for the semester.”
Breikss is not the only WSU faculty member implementing such policies.
Much like in Selena Breikss’s classroom, students taking Professor Rebecca Fowler’s “Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies” course will see their grades suffer if they use the term “illegal alien” in their assigned writing.
According to her syllabus, students will lose one point every time they use the words “illegal alien” or “illegals” rather than the preferred terms of “‘undocumented’ migrants/immigrants/persons.” Throughout the course, Fowler says, students will “come to recognize how white privilege functions in everyday social structures and institutions.”
In an email to Campus Reform, Fowler complained that “the term ‘illegal alien’ has permeated dominant discourses that circulate in the news to the extent that our society has come to associate ALL unauthorized border crossings with those immigrants originating from countries south of our border (and not with Asian immigrants, for example, many of whom are also in the country without legal documents and make up a considerable portion of undocumented immigrants living in the country).”
“The socio-legal production of migrant illegality works to systematically dehumanize and exploit these brown bodies for their labor,” Fowler continued.
White students in Professor John Streamas’s “Introduction to Multicultural Literature” class, are expected to “defer” to non-white students, among other community guidelines, if they want “to do well in this class.”
In the guidelines in his syllabus, Streamas elaborates that he requires students to “reflect” on their grasp of history and social relations “by respecting shy and quiet classmates and by deferring to the experiences of people of color.”
Streamas—who previously generated controversy by calling a student a “white shitbag” and declared that WSU should stand for “White Supremacist University”—also demands that students “understand and consider the rage of people who are victims of systematic injustice.”
Later in the syllabus, Streamas goes even further and accuses Glenn Beck of being an “insensitive white.”
Several other WSU professors require their students to “acknowledge that racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and other institutionalized forms of oppression exist” or that “we do not live in a post-racial world.”
Ari Cohn, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told Campus Reform he considers such requirements to be contradictory, even given the sensitive nature of the courses.
"It is notable that one of the syllabus provisions warns: ‘The subject material of this class is sensitive and controversial. Strive to keep an open mind.’ How are students supposed to approach these sensitive and controversial materials at all, let alone to keep an open mind, if they have to fear that a misconstrued statement, or one that unreasonably offends a classmate will lead to a grade reduction or even removal from class?"
Neither Breikss nor Streamas replied to Campus Reform’s request for comment.

» Please Keep Talking Dick Cheney! Love,Democrats
» For Van Jones, A Week Already Feels Like A Year
» What the Left Did Last Week
» funny item of the week
» A Brand New Week For Progressives