Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is a singular characteristic enough

Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:11:20 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

How about "first" outright bigoted a$$hole?
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:14:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

People can vote how they want. Honestly, a woman president would be a big step forward. But Clinton shouldn't be the one, I dont think.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:35:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:14:05 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

People can vote how they want. Honestly, a woman president would be a big step forward. But Clinton shouldn't be the one, I dont think.
lookingattheissues response
Thank you for your response, A president shouldn't be elected to office based on a "politically correct" selection but solely based on the persons personal qualification, The attributes qualifying a person to become president are honesty, patriotic love of this country, intelligence , and respect for the division of powers in government as the constitution stipulated. The sex or race or being "The first," anything, isn't a logical criterion be used in the selection of a president.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:50:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:35:00 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:14:05 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

People can vote how they want. Honestly, a woman president would be a big step forward. But Clinton shouldn't be the one, I dont think.
lookingattheissues response
Thank you for your response, A president shouldn't be elected to office based on a "politically correct" selection but solely based on the persons personal qualification, The attributes qualifying a person to become president are honesty, patriotic love of this country, intelligence , and respect for the division of powers in government as the constitution stipulated. The sex or race or being "The first," anything, isn't a logical criterion be used in the selection of a president.

Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race?
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 12:09:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:50:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:35:00 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:14:05 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

People can vote how they want. Honestly, a woman president would be a big step forward. But Clinton shouldn't be the one, I dont think.
lookingattheissues response
Thank you for your response, A president shouldn't be elected to office based on a "politically correct" selection but solely based on the persons personal qualification, The attributes qualifying a person to become president are honesty, patriotic love of this country, intelligence , and respect for the division of powers in government as the constitution stipulated. The sex or race or being "The first," anything, isn't a logical criterion be used in the selection of a president.

Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race?
Lookingattheissues response: June8Th.2016
you posted in reply to what I wrote,'....Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race"
lookingattheissues.... Then in effect what you are saying is that everyone discriminates, everyone is racist, if this is true, how can anyone be badmouthed when you say that everyone discriminates and is racist. these characteristic are human characteristics and apparently are only bad if the discrimination is displayed against someone that a person likes.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:59:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 12:09:12 PM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:50:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:35:00 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:14:05 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

People can vote how they want. Honestly, a woman president would be a big step forward. But Clinton shouldn't be the one, I dont think.
lookingattheissues response
Thank you for your response, A president shouldn't be elected to office based on a "politically correct" selection but solely based on the persons personal qualification, The attributes qualifying a person to become president are honesty, patriotic love of this country, intelligence , and respect for the division of powers in government as the constitution stipulated. The sex or race or being "The first," anything, isn't a logical criterion be used in the selection of a president.

Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race?
Lookingattheissues response: June8Th.2016
you posted in reply to what I wrote,'....Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race"
lookingattheissues.... Then in effect what you are saying is that everyone discriminates, everyone is racist, if this is true, how can anyone be badmouthed when you say that everyone discriminates and is racist. these characteristic are human characteristics and apparently are only bad if the discrimination is displayed against someone that a person likes.

Yea, discrimination happens to everyone on some level, and everyone participates in discrimination on some level. Good looking people are much more successful than plan or outright ugly people. Friendly people etc.

Discussing "discrimination" is more complex than many, especially conservatives, want to make it. Choosing someone who is "patriotic love of.." expresses some too. Patriotism has become a buzzword for many - i.e. Obama is not patriotic - Trump is?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:02:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:11:20 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

How about "first" outright bigoted a$$hole?

He isn't outright bigoted, but he certainly wouldn't be the firat if he was. I think that honor goes to Andrew Johnson. I think most of them have merely been closeted bigots.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:04:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:02:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:11:20 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

How about "first" outright bigoted a$$hole?

He isn't outright bigoted, but he certainly wouldn't be the firat if he was. I think that honor goes to Andrew Johnson. I think most of them have merely been closeted bigots.

I agree with that. How about modern or post WWII outright bigot? Regardless, he fits the a$$hole title well.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:09:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:04:20 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:02:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:11:20 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

How about "first" outright bigoted a$$hole?

He isn't outright bigoted, but he certainly wouldn't be the firat if he was. I think that honor goes to Andrew Johnson. I think most of them have merely been closeted bigots.

I agree with that. How about modern or post WWII outright bigot? Regardless, he fits the a$$hole title well.

I would say LBJ, but I think the quptes I'm thinking of were recorded behind closed doors, so it would not qualify as outright.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:14:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:09:20 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:04:20 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:02:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:11:20 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

How about "first" outright bigoted a$$hole?

He isn't outright bigoted, but he certainly wouldn't be the firat if he was. I think that honor goes to Andrew Johnson. I think most of them have merely been closeted bigots.

I agree with that. How about modern or post WWII outright bigot? Regardless, he fits the a$$hole title well.

I would say LBJ, but I think the quptes I'm thinking of were recorded behind closed doors, so it would not qualify as outright.

Did you ever hear the one with LBJ talking to his tailor about needing room for his balls?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:16:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Did you ever hear the one with LBJ talking to his tailor about needing room for his balls?

I would assume he had to have huge balls to kill the president of the United States.
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 4:03:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:35:00 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:14:05 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

People can vote how they want. Honestly, a woman president would be a big step forward. But Clinton shouldn't be the one, I dont think.
lookingattheissues response
Thank you for your response, A president shouldn't be elected to office based on a "politically correct" selection but solely based on the persons personal qualification, The attributes qualifying a person to become president are honesty, patriotic love of this country, intelligence , and respect for the division of powers in government as the constitution stipulated. The sex or race or being "The first," anything, isn't a logical criterion be used in the selection of a president.
Like I said, people can vote how they want, thats the point of a democracy. And for many sex and race is a logical criterion.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 4:24:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

If both candidates were otherwise equal, sure. Of course, that is never the case in the real world. I see no evidence in our history of people voting as you suggest. In fact, I see many examples of the opposite.

I didn't see leftist feminists rallying around Palin; I didn't see conservative African Americans rallying around Jesse Jackson; I didn't see black liberals rallying around Alan Keyes, Herman Cain, or Ben Carson...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 12:08:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:59:49 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 12:09:12 PM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:50:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:35:00 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:14:05 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

People can vote how they want. Honestly, a woman president would be a big step forward. But Clinton shouldn't be the one, I dont think.
lookingattheissues response
Thank you for your response, A president shouldn't be elected to office based on a "politically correct" selection but solely based on the persons personal qualification, The attributes qualifying a person to become president are honesty, patriotic love of this country, intelligence , and respect for the division of powers in government as the constitution stipulated. The sex or race or being "The first," anything, isn't a logical criterion be used in the selection of a president.

Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race?
Lookingattheissues response: June8Th.2016
you posted in reply to what I wrote,'....Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race"
lookingattheissues.... Then in effect what you are saying is that everyone discriminates, everyone is racist, if this is true, how can anyone be badmouthed when you say that everyone discriminates and is racist. these characteristic are human characteristics and apparently are only bad if the discrimination is displayed against someone that a person likes.

Yea, discrimination happens to everyone on some level, and everyone participates in discrimination on some level. Good looking people are much more successful than plan or outright ugly people. Friendly people etc.

Discussing "discrimination" is more complex than many, especially conservatives, want to make it. Choosing someone who is "patriotic love of.." expresses some too. Patriotism has become a buzzword for many - i.e. Obama is not patriotic - Trump is?
lookingattheissues response,You posted.."Discussing "discrimination" is more complex than many, especially conservatives, want to make it. "
With this statement you have inferred that discrimination is a type of discrimination that is a unique type that only conservatives are afflected with that all other discrimination displayed by democrats is somehow a more wholesome intellectual affliction.
Here all along I thought that discrimination was wrong no matter which political party or individual exhibited this malady. Perhaps, after all, using denigrating labels is just a way of silencing someone who disagrees with other more "enlightened" individuals who are, of course, democrats.
Like Oh, they're conservatives, Its ok to discriminate against them and label them as bigots and other like aspersions.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:21:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

Perhaps.
Meh!
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:25:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 1:21:26 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.
grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but:
"Perhaps."

"It is a tale " full of sound and fury; signifying nothing."
quote from Macbeth
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:36:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:09:20 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:04:20 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:02:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:11:20 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

How about "first" outright bigoted a$$hole?

He isn't outright bigoted, but he certainly wouldn't be the firat if he was. I think that honor goes to Andrew Johnson. I think most of them have merely been closeted bigots.

I agree with that. How about modern or post WWII outright bigot? Regardless, he fits the a$$hole title well.

I would say LBJ, but I think the quptes I'm thinking of were recorded behind closed doors, so it would not qualify as outright.
I appreciate your defense of my freedom of expression, while others would silence those who have difference of opinions , the "First Amendment" guarantees that right to all Americans. One has to ask, Why are those who feel free to express their opinions are so fast to attempt to silence others who dissent, is it because their arguments are so weak that they revert to casting aspersions on those who disagree with them
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 5:29:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 12:08:32 PM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:59:49 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 12:09:12 PM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:50:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:35:00 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:14:05 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

People can vote how they want. Honestly, a woman president would be a big step forward. But Clinton shouldn't be the one, I dont think.
lookingattheissues response
Thank you for your response, A president shouldn't be elected to office based on a "politically correct" selection but solely based on the persons personal qualification, The attributes qualifying a person to become president are honesty, patriotic love of this country, intelligence , and respect for the division of powers in government as the constitution stipulated. The sex or race or being "The first," anything, isn't a logical criterion be used in the selection of a president.

Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race?
Lookingattheissues response: June8Th.2016
you posted in reply to what I wrote,'....Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race"
lookingattheissues.... Then in effect what you are saying is that everyone discriminates, everyone is racist, if this is true, how can anyone be badmouthed when you say that everyone discriminates and is racist. these characteristic are human characteristics and apparently are only bad if the discrimination is displayed against someone that a person likes.

Yea, discrimination happens to everyone on some level, and everyone participates in discrimination on some level. Good looking people are much more successful than plan or outright ugly people. Friendly people etc.

Discussing "discrimination" is more complex than many, especially conservatives, want to make it. Choosing someone who is "patriotic love of.." expresses some too. Patriotism has become a buzzword for many - i.e. Obama is not patriotic - Trump is?
lookingattheissues response,You posted.."Discussing "discrimination" is more complex than many, especially conservatives, want to make it. "
With this statement you have inferred that discrimination is a type of discrimination that is a unique type that only conservatives are afflected with that all other discrimination displayed by democrats is somehow a more wholesome intellectual affliction.

Then you inferred wrong. Racism IS more complex than many conservatives want to imagine, that is my statement, that is true. I am not saying they are "affected" differently, or that liberals are more wholesome.

Lets just look at simple prejudice. Few honest people will say they don't gravitate naturally to "like" people, regardless if it is cultural, style, or race. This is normal, and not controversial. Ignoring it, saying there is none is intellectually dishonest. In the case of the "old boys club" I use, the effect is slight disadvantage to women - regardless of intent.

Here all along I thought that discrimination was wrong no matter which political party or individual exhibited this malady. Perhaps, after all, using denigrating labels is just a way of silencing someone who disagrees with other more "enlightened" individuals who are, of course, democrats.

Slip into conspiracy if you like, but it IS the conservatives who seem so admit in denying any prejudice or basis that steam comes out of their ears the second terms like "racism" or "sexism" are even mentioned.

Like Oh, they're conservatives, Its ok to discriminate against them and label them as bigots and other like aspersions.

Yes. It IS OK to label bigots as bigots. The amount of denial necessary from many conservatives of any issue regard any of these terms is insane. If you or me are behaving bigoted, there is no harm in stating that. To put it another way, someone who might say that some comment of mine is "bigoted" doesn't send me into a tailspin of denial. I can think about what this person has said, and make my own judgement on my behavior. Do I feel he is right? Do I care? Do I need to change something? All very reasonable, and despite what many on the right may say, no PC police will be knocking on my door.
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 1:32:48 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/9/2016 5:29:28 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/9/2016 12:08:32 PM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:59:49 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 12:09:12 PM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:50:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:35:00 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:14:05 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

People can vote how they want. Honestly, a woman president would be a big step forward. But Clinton shouldn't be the one, I dont think.
lookingattheissues response
Thank you for your response, A president shouldn't be elected to office based on a "politically correct" selection but solely based on the persons personal qualification, The attributes qualifying a person to become president are honesty, patriotic love of this country, intelligence , and respect for the division of powers in government as the constitution stipulated. The sex or race or being "The first," anything, isn't a logical criterion be used in the selection of a president.

Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race?
Lookingattheissues response: June8Th.2016
you posted in reply to what I wrote,'....Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race"
lookingattheissues.... Then in effect what you are saying is that everyone discriminates, everyone is racist, if this is true, how can anyone be badmouthed when you say that everyone discriminates and is racist. these characteristic are human characteristics and apparently are only bad if the discrimination is displayed against someone that a person likes.

Yea, discrimination happens to everyone on some level, and everyone participates in discrimination on some level. Good looking people are much more successful than plan or outright ugly people. Friendly people etc.

Discussing "discrimination" is more complex than many, especially conservatives, want to make it. Choosing someone who is "patriotic love of.." expresses some too. Patriotism has become a buzzword for many - i.e. Obama is not patriotic - Trump is?
lookingattheissues response,You posted.."Discussing "discrimination" is more complex than many, especially conservatives, want to make it. "
With this statement you have inferred that discrimination is a type of discrimination that is a unique type that only conservatives are afflected with that all other discrimination displayed by democrats is somehow a more wholesome intellectual affliction.

Then you inferred wrong. Racism IS more complex than many conservatives want to imagine, that is my statement, that is true. I am not saying they are "affected" differently, or that liberals are more wholesome.

Lets just look at simple prejudice. Few honest people will say they don't gravitate naturally to "like" people, regardless if it is cultural, style, or race. This is normal, and not controversial. Ignoring it, saying there is none is intellectually dishonest. In the case of the "old boys club" I use, the effect is slight disadvantage to women - regardless of intent.

Here all along I thought that discrimination was wrong no matter which political party or individual exhibited this malady. Perhaps, after all, using denigrating labels is just a way of silencing someone who disagrees with other more "enlightened" individuals who are, of course, democrats.

Slip into conspiracy if you like, but it IS the conservatives who seem so admit in denying any prejudice or basis that steam comes out of their ears the second terms like "racism" or "sexism" are even mentioned.

Like Oh, they're conservatives, Its ok to discriminate against them and label them as bigots and other like aspersions.

Yes. It IS OK to label bigots as bigots. The amount of denial necessary from many conservatives of any issue regard any of these terms is insane. If you or me are behaving bigoted, there is no harm in stating that. To put it another way, someone who might say that some comment of mine is "bigoted" doesn't send me into a tailspin of denial. I can think about what this person has said, and make my own judgement on my behavior. Do I feel he is right? Do I care? Do I need to change something? All very reasonable, and despite what many on the right may say, no PC police will be knocking on my door.

lookingattheissues .....You replied,"Yes. It IS OK to label bigots as bigots. The amount of denial necessary from many conservatives of any issue regard any of these terms is insane. If you or me are behaving bigoted, there is no harm in stating that"
The assessment by others as to whether someone should be rightfully classified as a "Bigot," has to be weighted in the context of the political ideology of the individual making the charge. The defamation of someone only has merit if the individual, making the charge, couldn't as well, merit the same charge being made against them.
BlueParagon
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 5:51:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

I like your username :)
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 11:13:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/11/2016 5:51:30 AM, BlueParagon wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.
I like your username :)
Thank you for your comment on my Username, If we could only get Americans to once again have pride in their country and its people and lookingattheissues from a America's side instead of from its enemies side.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 4:04:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/10/2016 1:32:48 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/9/2016 5:29:28 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/9/2016 12:08:32 PM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:59:49 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 12:09:12 PM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:50:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:35:00 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:14:05 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:07:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Should the reason for voting and electing a president be based on a singular characteristic of the candidate something that would make that particular candidate unique as a president
For instance, would the distinction of being the "First Woman" elected president, be sufficient enough reason to place someone in the office of the presidency.
This country has experimented with electing a person to the presidency with the grandiosity of voting for and electing a "First," Black man as president and the disappointing results of that exercise. There are many different characteristics that the voters might select as qualifications that might be used to make a decision whether to vote and elect a person to the presidency but I don't think that decision wisely should be made on the basis that that person would be the "First" person with a particular characteristic such as electing the "First" Woman President.

People can vote how they want. Honestly, a woman president would be a big step forward. But Clinton shouldn't be the one, I dont think.
lookingattheissues response
Thank you for your response, A president shouldn't be elected to office based on a "politically correct" selection but solely based on the persons personal qualification, The attributes qualifying a person to become president are honesty, patriotic love of this country, intelligence , and respect for the division of powers in government as the constitution stipulated. The sex or race or being "The first," anything, isn't a logical criterion be used in the selection of a president.

Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race?
Lookingattheissues response: June8Th.2016
you posted in reply to what I wrote,'....Where do you think the term "old boys club" came from? What do you think it means? Think there is no reason to choose someone who reflects your gender or race"
lookingattheissues.... Then in effect what you are saying is that everyone discriminates, everyone is racist, if this is true, how can anyone be badmouthed when you say that everyone discriminates and is racist. these characteristic are human characteristics and apparently are only bad if the discrimination is displayed against someone that a person likes.

Yea, discrimination happens to everyone on some level, and everyone participates in discrimination on some level. Good looking people are much more successful than plan or outright ugly people. Friendly people etc.

Discussing "discrimination" is more complex than many, especially conservatives, want to make it. Choosing someone who is "patriotic love of.." expresses some too. Patriotism has become a buzzword for many - i.e. Obama is not patriotic - Trump is?
lookingattheissues response,You posted.."Discussing "discrimination" is more complex than many, especially conservatives, want to make it. "
With this statement you have inferred that discrimination is a type of discrimination that is a unique type that only conservatives are afflected with that all other discrimination displayed by democrats is somehow a more wholesome intellectual affliction.

Then you inferred wrong. Racism IS more complex than many conservatives want to imagine, that is my statement, that is true. I am not saying they are "affected" differently, or that liberals are more wholesome.

Lets just look at simple prejudice. Few honest people will say they don't gravitate naturally to "like" people, regardless if it is cultural, style, or race. This is normal, and not controversial. Ignoring it, saying there is none is intellectually dishonest. In the case of the "old boys club" I use, the effect is slight disadvantage to women - regardless of intent.

Here all along I thought that discrimination was wrong no matter which political party or individual exhibited this malady. Perhaps, after all, using denigrating labels is just a way of silencing someone who disagrees with other more "enlightened" individuals who are, of course, democrats.

Slip into conspiracy if you like, but it IS the conservatives who seem so admit in denying any prejudice or basis that steam comes out of their ears the second terms like "racism" or "sexism" are even mentioned.

Like Oh, they're conservatives, Its ok to discriminate against them and label them as bigots and other like aspersions.

Yes. It IS OK to label bigots as bigots. The amount of denial necessary from many conservatives of any issue regard any of these terms is insane. If you or me are behaving bigoted, there is no harm in stating that. To put it another way, someone who might say that some comment of mine is "bigoted" doesn't send me into a tailspin of denial. I can think about what this person has said, and make my own judgement on my behavior. Do I feel he is right? Do I care? Do I need to change something? All very reasonable, and despite what many on the right may say, no PC police will be knocking on my door.

lookingattheissues .....You replied,"Yes. It IS OK to label bigots as bigots. The amount of denial necessary from many conservatives of any issue regard any of these terms is insane. If you or me are behaving bigoted, there is no harm in stating that"
The assessment by others as to whether someone should be rightfully classified as a "Bigot," has to be weighted in the context of the political ideology of the individual making the charge. The defamation of someone only has merit if the individual, making the charge, couldn't as well, merit the same charge being made against them.

That is fine. If someone calls you a bigot, it is entirely up to accept or dismiss his statement. What is the big deal in your mind? Again, contrary to popular conservative rhetoric, no PC police will be coming to get you.
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 2:36:22 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Llookingattheissues response to
"TBR" TBR Posted, ".....If someone calls you a bigot, it is entirely up to accept or dismiss his statement. What is the big deal..."
lookigattheissues reply June 13Th.2016 ......Democrats, liberal, progressives, flail away with their rhetorical grab bag of denigrating and disparaging labels in addressing conservatives and then when they are confronted for making those defamatory comments say, why are you conservatives getting so upset because someone labels them with a label that isn't true. If this is the case that conservatives shouldn't be offended by liberal/ progressives/ democrats, labeling conservatives with "denigrating and disparaging labels, why do they bother to label conservatives with those labels, are these democrats in the habit of throwing out verbiage without purpose or intent. Spir Agnew once referred to the Media as"Nattering Nabobs of negativity,"..... Doesn't what Spiro Agnew once said about the media equally apply now to the Liberal, progressive, democrats with their propensity to use denigrating and disparaging labels when addressing conservatives.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 3:01:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 2:36:22 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Llookingattheissues response to
"TBR" TBR Posted, ".....If someone calls you a bigot, it is entirely up to accept or dismiss his statement. What is the big deal..."
lookigattheissues reply June 13Th.2016 ......Democrats, liberal, progressives, flail away with their rhetorical grab bag of denigrating and disparaging labels in addressing conservatives and then when they are confronted for making those defamatory comments say, why are you conservatives getting so upset because someone labels them with a label that isn't true. If this is the case that conservatives shouldn't be offended by liberal/ progressives/ democrats, labeling conservatives with "denigrating and disparaging labels, why do they bother to label conservatives with those labels, are these democrats in the habit of throwing out verbiage without purpose or intent. Spir Agnew once referred to the Media as"Nattering Nabobs of negativity,"..... Doesn't what Spiro Agnew once said about the media equally apply now to the Liberal, progressive, democrats with their propensity to use denigrating and disparaging labels when addressing conservatives.

If you think this is one sided, you are crazy. Conservatives 'label' liberals all the time. What your objecting to is when ir hurts YOU. Do you want a list of words liberals can't call you? Need some 'safe space'? Grow up.
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 9:08:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 3:01:42 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:36:22 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Llookingattheissues response to
TBR Posted, ".....If someone calls you a bigot, it is entirely up to accept or dismiss his statement. What is the big deal..."

TBR ......" If you think this is one sided, you are crazy. Conservatives 'label' liberals all the time. What your objecting to is when ir hurts YOU. Do you want a list of words liberals can't call you? Need some 'safe space'? Grow up.
To what end does the labelling of people serve, its a childish game played by adults behaving like little children and a stealth attack on those who disagree politically with them. Those who behave like little children should take your advice offered and "Grow Up."
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 10:10:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 9:08:06 PM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:01:42 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:36:22 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Llookingattheissues response to
TBR Posted, ".....If someone calls you a bigot, it is entirely up to accept or dismiss his statement. What is the big deal..."

TBR ......" If you think this is one sided, you are crazy. Conservatives 'label' liberals all the time. What your objecting to is when ir hurts YOU. Do you want a list of words liberals can't call you? Need some 'safe space'? Grow up.
To what end does the labelling of people serve, its a childish game played by adults behaving like little children and a stealth attack on those who disagree politically with them. Those who behave like little children should take your advice offered and "Grow Up."

Ask yourself, you have done so in this conversation regarding "liberals".

Look. The point is very clear. If someone says "you are being a racist" you can do whatever you like with that information, including ignoring the person. It is, as I see it, a bunch of conservatives screaming about "PC" that can't take a swift breeze without getting hyper sensitive.

Get over yourself, and grow the he11 up.
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 2:30:11 AM
Posted: 5 months ago

TBR replied," Get over yourself, and grow the he11 up.
We're at the end of this debate and we have came out right where we both started changing either one's of our minds on this particular subject, Its on to the next debate subject.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 2:57:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 2:30:11 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:

TBR replied," Get over yourself, and grow the he11 up.
We're at the end of this debate and we have came out right where we both started changing either one's of our minds on this particular subject, Its on to the next debate subject.

Yea

1) You still think you are "persecuted" by liberals
2) I still think conservatives are hypocritical crybaby