Lifestyle > Train of Thought
The Detention and Subsequent Abuse of Female Iraqis
Ant:
--- Quote from: Woodrow on January 25, 2005, 08:08:34 AM ---
--- Quote from: Ant on January 23, 2005, 08:59:00 PM ---You imply your support by supporting GWB, his administration, and Alberto Gonzales.
--- End quote ---
Speaking of racism, Ant's "Logic" doesn't really work out and he contradicts himself even in the above statement.
Ant: Everybody who voted for Bush implies their support of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales and every other minority in Bush's cabinet.
How can the Republican Party be "Racist" like you portray it, but support these figures?
--- End quote ---
Republicans as a whole aren't racist. But the republican party enjoys the support of racist america, and has no problem promoting racist individuals to leadership positions, as in the case of Trent Lott, or Strom Thurmond.
Modern racists speak in different terms than historical racists. Traditional racists hate all niggers, and to them all blacks are niggers, modern racists still hate all nigers but as their logic goes (there are black people and there are niggers). I've heard it said to me many a time by a modern racist republican: I don't hate black people, I hate niggers.
And your logic regardless of my pervious point remains faulty. There are two political options in america, both have black people in their party. So the option for a racist american isn't: do i vote for the white party or the party with blacks in it. That choice never existed... so racist america still votes republican, because even though there are "black people" in the republican party, the republican party isn't filled with "niggers." Or at least that is how it is often explained.
Racist voters aren't voting for the party of Jesse Jackson, but they can tolerate voting for the party of colin powell as long as its still pushing politicies that they believe are in the best interest of white america (ie ending affirmative action).
That having been said, I have yet to hear you give your opinion on the use of torture or share your thoughts on who is responsible and how we can best assure the world this was actually an isolated incident. Appointing Alberto Gonzales surely isn't the correct option.
Woodrow:
--- Quote from: Ant on January 25, 2005, 11:27:48 AM ---Republicans as a whole aren't racist. But the republican party enjoys the support of racist america, and has no problem promoting racist individuals to leadership positions, as in the case of Trent Lott, or Strom Thurmond.
--- End quote ---
I'll show you an example of Robert Byrd, who's a grand dragon in the KKK, and used the word Ni**er on television as recently as 2001. He's not a republican, but a democrat. You can just forgive him for using these types of words, and having those type of associations, but you can't forgive republicans?
--- Quote from: Ant on January 25, 2005, 11:27:48 AM --- Or at least that is how it is often explained.
--- End quote ---
I guess you must hang out with a lot of racists because I've never heard anything remotely like this come from anybody I know or associate with.
--- Quote from: Ant on January 25, 2005, 11:27:48 AM ---That having been said, I have yet to hear you give your opinion on the use of torture or share your thoughts on who is responsible and how we can best assure the world this was actually an isolated incident. Appointing Alberto Gonzales surely isn't the correct option.
--- End quote ---
What do you REALLY think I'm gonna say about torture? It's a good idea? It should be done? Get the fuck outta here. It's clear as day that I don't support torture.
Woodrow:
--- Quote from: Ant on January 25, 2005, 11:27:48 AM ---Republicans as a whole aren't racist.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Ant on November 28, 2004, 09:36:31 PM ---You do realize that a large portion of the conservative base is actually racist?
--- End quote ---
You actually belive the tripe you write don't you?
Ant:
1) Regardless of the fact that I've pointed out previously that you took Byrd out of context, you still continue to do so. Byrd never called black people niggers. He was criticizing the hypocrisy of white supremacists, in a rather vulgar way, by reminding white supremacists that there are "white niggers too." You continually say Byrd called Black people 'niggers' which is entirely untrue he said there are "white niggers" or in other words, just like their are lazy, incompentent black people, the same is true of the white race.
But you continually take this story out of context despite the fact ive corrected you more than once. It's pathetic and a blatant display of the blinding ignorance your partisanship imparts on you.
2) Who is responsible foe the abu graib scandal and how can we insure it never happens again, and is no longer occuring? You have nothing to say except giving BS political answers.
Thirteen:
--- Quote from: Ant on January 25, 2005, 11:57:35 AM ---1) Regardless of the fact that I've pointed out previously that you took Byrd out of context, you still continue to do so. Byrd never called black people niggers. He was criticizing the hypocrisy of white supremacists, in a rather vulgar way, by reminding white supremacists that there are "white niggers too." You continually say Byrd called Black people 'niggers' which is entirely untrue he said there are "white niggers" or in other words, just like their are lazy, incompentent black people, the same is true of the white race.
But you continually take this story out of context despite the fact ive corrected you more than once. It's pathetic and a blatant display of the blinding ignorance your partisanship imparts on you.
2) Who is responsible foe the abu graib scandal and how can we insure it never happens again, and is no longer occuring? You have nothing to say except giving BS political answers.
--- End quote ---
we were taught the first rules about prisoner handling and i must admit they were very vague, if you were to just take account of those rules it would make most of the things that happened in abu gharib seem normal then on the other hand the ROE states pretty much the opposite.... but then again the UCMJ still has rules against assault and all those other rules that were broken, plus there's the geneva convention that the US has signed up to...
so bottom line is the people that commited the torture are responsible...they choose to follow certain rules and forget about all the others.
the only way we can ensure it doesn't happen again is redesigning the laws, making them more specific and prisoner handling training is currently being held in utmost important military wide.... almost 40 hours of lectures pertaining to just this one subject....plus they keep pressing the ROE on us to make sure we understand those also....i think if it's still occuring, it isn't as open or as broad as happening to a whole prison anymore
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version