By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Machiavellian said:
KLAMarine said:

More like others just get ahead of themselves.

"-You can't assume someone was from somewhere else."

>Sure you can: at the risk of being wrong.

"-You can't suggest they go back there."

>Why the hell not? It's a suggestion, not a command. No one is forcing anyone to go somewhere against their will.

You must live in that bizarro world where people tell other people of a different color to go back to where they came from is a suggestion.  I know since they did not specifically say the word "Get the hell out of my country", you probably would believe it was a simple suggestion.  The more you argue this point the funnier it gets.  People probably love telling you jokes since you probably do not get them unless they explicitly state the obvious.

>It sounds like a suggestion:

"Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

>It starts with a 'why' which most likely means this is a question. Granted, it does not end with a question mark so it leaves it up in the air whether this was a question or not. And let's not forget this bit:

"Then come back and show us how it is done."

>So at some point, these "progressive" congresswomen are to return and put their abilities to good use. He's not asking they leave permanently.

the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

"-You can't assume someone was from somewhere else."

>Sure you can: at the risk of being wrong.

Correction: And risk being a jerk to someone who is just trying to fit in.  In a country that has prided itself in being a melting pot of people from all over.  

People don't usually assume a white person is from somewhere else.  But it happens all the time for non-white people.  

KLAMarine said:

"-You can't suggest they go back there."

>Why the hell not? It's a suggestion, not a command. No one is forcing anyone to go somewhere against their will.

So if I were to "suggest that you go to Hell", there's nothing wrong with that? 

Even beyond that, would it be ludicrous for someone else to find that phrasing offensive?

Keep in mind, this is hypothetical.  

"Correction: And risk being a jerk to someone who is just trying to fit in."

>That's certainly a possibility too. Not sure the four congresswomen are trying to fit in, however: seems 'The Squad' is more interested in sticking out.

"So if I were to "suggest that you go to Hell", there's nothing wrong with that?"

>There's a big difference between an unnamed country and 'Hell'.

"Even beyond that, would it be ludicrous for someone else to find that phrasing offensive?

Keep in mind, this is hypothetical."

>Yes, it's possible to find that phrasing offensive. Key word: 'possible'.



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
EricHiggin said:

The definition says nothing about the giver.

Well there you go, another way in which to point out something bad so you don't have to acknowledge the good.

The definition of charity says nothing about the giver.

Why should anyone give to charity? Because in one way or another it stokes their ego. It just depends whether or not that form of ego is seen as acceptable to some people. Other people couldn't care less where the money comes from, within reason.

Bolded: Yeah in some way it ultimately strokes our ego but there is still a difference in how we use it to stroke our ego,or you just feel good about helping others and keep it mostly a personal thing or you expect people to respect you for what you've done and you try to gain a better social status in a needy way.

The first example is the good way to do charity and those that practice the second example are the more powerhungry people and the more negative use of ego in charity in my opinion,those in the second group aren't always the best of people.

Yes, some people use charity to further a separate agenda that would be seen as negative and that sucks, but as in any system, it's not perfect and you have to take the good with the bad. In a well thought out, useful system, typically much more good than bad.

That doesn't mean there aren't poor, average, and rich people who give in a manner most would accept, and even some who may push their own employees in a  somewhat 'negative' manner, while using that money for charity because they see it as more important than simply giving those employees a raise on top of what is already seen as a worthy enough wage.

Where is the line? Always moving.



Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

Depends on what the person hates about America. If they hate something like the existing tax system, that's something that can be changed to some degree without much issue, but if you hate the existence of another country and it's people and wish they would just 'go away', then that's a problem America won't be participating in unless they become an enemy, so you might as well go elsewhere if that's a problem you want to fix. The types of complaints and the type of person doing the complaining would be taken into account when determining the type of response.

If you're told to go do a job somewhere else and then expected to return when finished, with a full report and the job completed, is that racist or prejudice? By Trump saying go to your home country and fix it and come back here and show us how you did it, how is that necessarily seen as a bad thing, unless those other countries are that horrible, or those individuals couldn't complete the task? It's as if people are taking it like Trump would basically be sending them to jail, which doesn't say good things about those countries, by the same people who seem to be defending them. I also don't see how it could be looked at as racist or prejudice, as those countries are not all single race countries, and if by chance they were, then you couldn't help but wonder if those countries are racist or prejudice themselves, or just so horrible no other race wants to live there, even some of their own.

Everyone just keeps strengthening the point.

Are you saying that because both you and I have been wrong in the past and admitted it, that means we're both stupid and aren't worthy of being conversed with no matter how correct or useful our other comments may be? Just because we've made mistakes before, that means we have nothing else to offer?

Just because someone like Epstein may be a POS when it comes to woman, who may deserve to spend a lot of time behind bars, doesn't mean a blind eye should be turned to any good deeds he's done. That's not to say he should be praised for it, but like in my example, you can't even give him the smallest amount of respect or anything for that matter, just because he did something else unacceptable. When it comes to being wrong, where do you draw the line? At what age and at what level of bad deeds are your good deeds from then on inadmissible?

It's like trying to say Bill Cosby was never funny. The guy was hilarious, but apparently was also a scumbag. That doesn't change the fact he was funny when it came to his comedy though. Do I look at him in the same light as I used to? No, but I couldn't logically say he wasn't a funny guy.

I also wasn't the one who brought up Epstein's charitable donations, and for good reason.

What????

You do know context means a lot right.  So using your analogy.  If you are a mexican immigrant and someone told you to go back to mexico and work there instead of what you are doing in the US then yes that would be considered prejudice. If you are a black man doing work within a white neighborhood and a white person walks up to you and say why don't you go to your own neighborhood and do work there, that would be considered prejudice.  You see your analogy as always comes up short because you leave out context trying to make a weak point.

As to what Trump said, well we still come back to the point that they are AMERICANs not immigrants, not illegal aliens but US citizens.  Does this very context escape you.  You cannot tell someone who is an American to go back to their place of ancestry and fix something since they are now US citizens.  The majority of US citizens in America have ancestry in other Countries INCLUDING TRUMP.  So trying to tell someone to go fix where their ancestry is from before trying to do the job they were elected to do in the US is disingenuous based on his OWN ancestry.  You cannot escape or explain this point because we can all agree, what Trump stated was stupid.  But please continue to try to make what he said right.

If we continue to make the same mistakes and not improve ourselves then yes.  Are you a person who would open the refrig, take a bottle of milk drink it and notice its gone bad, put the milk back in the refrig and come back the next day and drink it again.  If people notice you doing the same failure you did before, why would they believe you are worthy of anything but continued failure.

If his good deeds are done as self interest then why should anyone praise him for doing it.  If the good deed is there to offset all the bad why would anyone fall victim to such a scheming person.  If a murderer kills someone but gives to the poor we are suppose to show this person respect.  In your example you totally ignore motives which is a huge point to dismiss.  You cannot wipe away the bad crap you do by doing something charitable since it then isn't charity.

Not sure what's unclear. People take many things into account when responding to another. If you don't then the conversation will get away from you.

Yes, go back to Mexico and work there, and bring back a report when you're done, that's what racist people say, ok...  If your a Mexican and work for an American company... and get told to go work at a job in Mexico, is that racist? What if the black guy lives in a mixed neighborhood? Would the white guy automatically be racist or prejudice or just stupid for assuming? Did you assume that? Trump is a businessman correct?... If any of the congresswoman were to try their idea's in another country they're from or respect, and failed, they would be seen as bad employees. See what he's doing? Trump rarely bothers killing one bird when he knows he can wait and get two or three with one throw. He even got Pelosi to go from criticizing them to backing them. Well which is it Nancy?

If an American is told to go back to America, is that racist? What is America in terms of race?

So is what Trump said stupid or racist or prejudice? If any of them have immigrated to America before becoming an American citizen, then what? You also realize he's criticizing them and not himself right? Why would he tell himself to leave if he thinks he's doing a good job?

Not everyone has the same tastes. Just because I like the taste of something doesn't mean you do as well, or that you should. If I think someone dresses like a bum, should I constantly throw that in their face and call them names and put them down, or let them look like that because that's how they express themselves? Should we force people not to smoke or drink? What about banning certain speech?

Show me where Epstein did this for separate negative reasons. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Even if he did, I'd still expect someone to point out that even though he made a significant charitable donation, which will surely be put to good use, that he's still a POS and that it doesn't make him a good person overall. That doesn't negate that he did something useful, and what minuscule respect it gives him, overall he would still be viewed as a terrible person. People aren't 100% good or evil. Everyone is a varying mixture.



Biggerboat1 said:
Puppyroach said:

Go back where??? They are Americans! 

I honestly wouldn't bother interacting with this guy - he has no interest in actually discussing anything - his only goal is to bore the other person into submission by repeating the same inane nonsense over & over. I'm guessing he sees that as some kind of pathetic victory...

Disingenuous arguments only meant to waste people's time is a frustratingly common strategy in this thread and on the forums in general, and there's not really any incentive for these types of posters to stop.



Federal prosecutors in New York have ended their investigation into the Trump organization and payments to Stormy Daniels. No charges were pressed.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/politics/trump-organization-hush-money-filing



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

>It sounds like a suggestion:

>So at some point, these "progressive" congresswomen are to return and put their abilities to good use. He's not asking they leave permanently.

You keep bringing this up.  

Do you honestly think that Trump wants them to come back and lead the country?

KLAMarine said:

>That's certainly a possibility too. Not sure the four congresswomen are trying to fit in, however: seems 'The Squad' is more interested in sticking out.

"So if I were to "suggest that you go to Hell", there's nothing wrong with that?"

>There's a big difference between an unnamed country and 'Hell'.

>That's certainly a possibility too. Not sure the four congresswomen are trying to fit in, however: seems 'The Squad' is more interested in sticking out.

They aren't trying to stick out for their skin color.  

>There's a big difference between an unnamed country and 'Hell'.

You were arguing that since it's only a suggestion, no one is being forced to do anything, that it was okay. 

"Do you honestly think that Trump wants them to come back and lead the country?"

>Yes! Read Trump's tweet:

"Then come back and show us how it is done."

"They aren't trying to stick out for their skin color."

>Tell that to OCR who felt the need to bring up skin color in her condemnation of Trump's tweets despite Trump never mentioning skin color in his three tweets.

HylianSwordsman said:
Biggerboat1 said:

I honestly wouldn't bother interacting with this guy - he has no interest in actually discussing anything - his only goal is to bore the other person into submission by repeating the same inane nonsense over & over. I'm guessing he sees that as some kind of pathetic victory...

Disingenuous arguments only meant to waste people's time is a frustratingly common strategy in this thread and on the forums in general, and there's not really any incentive for these types of posters to stop.

If you ever come across these disingenuous individuals, please let me know. I'd like to give them a piece of my mind.



OMG, what is happening to the republican party? Lincoln would probably turn in his grave if he heard that:

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/17/20697721/trump-racist-tweet-polling

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-racist-tweets-approval-rating-republican-increase-latest-poll-a9008201.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-poll/republican-support-for-trump-rises-after-racially-charged-tweets-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1UB2UD

Seriously, getting a big boost in approval ratings after those tweets? Is the republican party slowly turning into a party of racists?

On the flip side, it did cost him an even bigger chunk of the independent votes.



When a country gets an authoritarian leader such as Trump, his position will always be dependent on apologists that continually excuse and normalize his behaviour to the rest of the population. And I don't even think these apologists believed they would ever have to excuse such a level of racist, bigoted and misogynistic behaviour.

At the latest Trump rally, normal citizens were shouting "send her back!" almost as a scene from the 30's in Germany and Italy. These are people that most likely would have been offended by this behaviour just three years ago. But it's a slippery slope towards radicalism and the apologists are the ones who enable it.



RolStoppable said:
KLAMarine said:

Guess I'll have to be the guy with the last word. Okay, thanks.

"he has no interest in actually discussing anything - his only goal is to bore the other person into submission by repeating the same inane nonsense over & over"

And I'd appreciate you not speculate on my motive like that. You're wrong by the way, unsurprisingly.

I concur that he is wrong. You never struck me as someone who is acting deliberate, but rather as someone who is honestly very slow on the uptake.

Heh, reminds me of a certain president.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Send her back....Send her back....

Ilhan Omar co-sponsored the 9/11 victims compensation bill, and Rand Paul blocked it in the senate. Which one am I supposed to believe is the patriotic one?