Did Rick Santorum almost let the N-word slip?

  • 199 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#51 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]I think he was meant to say government negotiator. But that doesn't really make any sense, so he switched up. Nevertheless, the damage is done. As long as the idea is in people's heads, doesn't matter if it was otherwise. A shame, one of the only decent candidates for presidency.FrozenLiquid

You can't possibly believe that. He wants to turn this country into a Christian theocracy. You're okay with that?

I'm Catholic. I'm not from America, but reading the policies and views of all the presidential candidates, his views seem the most correctly ordered to the common good.

Speaking of Christian theocracies, here's what Catholic America would look like. You're probably thinking of a 'Christian theocracy' akin to Westboro Baptist Church crap. Santorum isn't like them. If he had it his way, it'd look like the one in that link.

Definitely a theocracy. No thanks.
Avatar image for Goyoshi12
Goyoshi12

9687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#52 Goyoshi12
Member since 2009 • 9687 Posts

Who cares? Really...who does?

Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#53 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts
[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You can't possibly believe that. He wants to turn this country into a Christian theocracy. You're okay with that?

DroidPhysX

I'm Catholic. I'm not from America, but reading the policies and views of all the presidential candidates, his views seem the most correctly ordered to the common good.

Speaking of Christian theocracies, here's what Catholic America would look like. You're probably thinking of a 'Christian theocracy' akin to Westboro Baptist Church crap. Santorum isn't like them. If he had it his way, it'd look like the one in that link.

Definitely a theocracy. No thanks.

Last time a Catholic theocracy occurred, Western civilization was built. I wouldn't mind that happening again, actually.
Avatar image for mrmusicman247
mrmusicman247

17601

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 mrmusicman247
Member since 2008 • 17601 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

I'm Catholic. I'm not from America, but reading the policies and views of all the presidential candidates, his views seem the most correctly ordered to the common good.

Speaking of Christian theocracies, here's what Catholic America would look like. You're probably thinking of a 'Christian theocracy' akin to Westboro Baptist Church crap. Santorum isn't like them. If he had it his way, it'd look like the one in that link.

FrozenLiquid

Definitely a theocracy. No thanks.

Last time a Catholic theocracy occurred, Western civilization was built. I wouldn't mind that happening again, actually.

How long ago was that again?

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#55 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

I'm Catholic. I'm not from America, but reading the policies and views of all the presidential candidates, his views seem the most correctly ordered to the common good.

Speaking of Christian theocracies, here's what Catholic America would look like. You're probably thinking of a 'Christian theocracy' akin to Westboro Baptist Church crap. Santorum isn't like them. If he had it his way, it'd look like the one in that link.

FrozenLiquid

Definitely a theocracy. No thanks.

Last time a Catholic theocracy occurred, Western civilization was built. I wouldn't mind that happening again, actually.

Wasn't it when the Dark Ages where the Church ruled the countries? But regardless i would prefer to keep some of the rights that were given under the American constitution and not surrender it to Catholic interests.

Also, a catholic America would conflct with its own constitution.

Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#56 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Definitely a theocracy. No thanks.mrmusicman247

Last time a Catholic theocracy occurred, Western civilization was built. I wouldn't mind that happening again, actually.

How long ago was that again?

Some time ago when the Princes of Europe took on Martin Luther's 'democratic' Christianity, kicked the Pope out of their sovereign states, and started choking because of it. Apparently, Western society hasn't got the memo. The EU is crumbling to bits, the U.S is in a bit of a muck and all the other powers are on the rise. It doesn't matter how long ago it was, Catholicism kicked out a whole lot of crap, and gave arts, philosophy, theology, science and agriculture to the world. Christ told us how to live, it was once applied. Now that we freely mock Christ, and thus, don't know how to live, we're coming to a little more than a disaster. 145 empires have crumbled since the Catholic Church began. The EU might just be the 146th. I hope to God the U.S is not the 147th.
Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#57 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Definitely a theocracy. No thanks.DroidPhysX

Last time a Catholic theocracy occurred, Western civilization was built. I wouldn't mind that happening again, actually.

Wasn't it when the Dark Ages where the Church ruled the countries? But regardless i would prefer to keep some of the rights that were given under the American constitution and not surrender it to Catholic interests.

Also, a catholic America would conflct with its own constitution.

Yes, the Catholic Church ruled many states during the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages occurred when European tribes destroyed what was once the Roman Empire. The Church saved as much as it could, converted the European tribes, and brought in the era of Scholasticism. Yeah, it's greatly understood that the American constitution greatly conflicts with a Catholic understanding of Church and State. It's not a Catholic thing to go and demolish a democracy, though. Democracies aren't intrinsically a moral evil.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#58 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"] Last time a Catholic theocracy occurred, Western civilization was built. I wouldn't mind that happening again, actually.FrozenLiquid

Wasn't it when the Dark Ages where the Church ruled the countries? But regardless i would prefer to keep some of the rights that were given under the American constitution and not surrender it to Catholic interests.

Also, a catholic America would conflct with its own constitution.

Yes, the Catholic Church ruled many states during the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages occurred when European tribes destroyed what was once the Roman Empire. The Church saved as much as it could, converted the European tribes, and brought in the era of Scholasticism. Yeah, it's greatly understood that the American constitution greatly conflicts with a Catholic understanding of Church and State. It's not a Catholic thing to go and demolish a democracy, though. Democracies aren't intrinsically a moral evil.

No, not only that. It conflicts with various amendments.
Avatar image for fueled-system
fueled-system

6529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 fueled-system
Member since 2008 • 6529 Posts

That sounds way to similar as though hes said it several times before

Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#60 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Wasn't it when the Dark Ages where the Church ruled the countries? But regardless i would prefer to keep some of the rights that were given under the American constitution and not surrender it to Catholic interests.

Also, a catholic America would conflct with its own constitution.

DroidPhysX

Yes, the Catholic Church ruled many states during the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages occurred when European tribes destroyed what was once the Roman Empire. The Church saved as much as it could, converted the European tribes, and brought in the era of Scholasticism. Yeah, it's greatly understood that the American constitution greatly conflicts with a Catholic understanding of Church and State. It's not a Catholic thing to go and demolish a democracy, though. Democracies aren't intrinsically a moral evil.

No, not only that. It conflicts with various amendments.

If I'm not mistaken, sometimes the U.S is nicknamed the Great Democratic Experiment. It was pretty revolutionary thing.

Currently though, we're seeing an abuse of it. We're not seeing a liberal democracy, we're seeing a liberal dictatorship, which is why the Church is furious over the HHS mandate. The separation of Church and State is most commonly seen as a prevention of any particular religion to exercise influence over the State, in the case that it affects people of another belief. What most people forget to see is that the separation of Church and State is also meant to prevent a state's exercise of any particular religion. The HHS mandate quite obviously violates the First Amendment.

Religious issues aside, the 'good' liberal President passed a law allowing the U.S military to detain any citizen it even suspects of being a threat to security, without any trial whatsoever. Why the American public never violently protested against it is beyond me.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#61 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"] Yes, the Catholic Church ruled many states during the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages occurred when European tribes destroyed what was once the Roman Empire. The Church saved as much as it could, converted the European tribes, and brought in the era of Scholasticism. Yeah, it's greatly understood that the American constitution greatly conflicts with a Catholic understanding of Church and State. It's not a Catholic thing to go and demolish a democracy, though. Democracies aren't intrinsically a moral evil.FrozenLiquid

No, not only that. It conflicts with various amendments.

If I'm not mistaken, sometimes the U.S is nicknamed the Great Democratic Experiment. It was pretty revolutionary thing.

Currently though, we're seeing an abuse of it. We're not seeing a liberal democracy, we're seeing a liberal dictatorship, which is why the Church is furious over the HHS mandate. The separation of Church and State is most commonly seen as a prevention of any particular religion to exercise influence over the State, in the case that it affects people of another belief. What most people forget to see is that the separation of Church and State is also meant to prevent a state's exercise of any particular religion. The HHS mandate quite obviously violates the First Amendment.

Religious issues aside, the 'good' liberal President passed a law allowing the U.S military to detain any citizen it even suspects of being a threat to security, without any trial whatsoever. Why the American public never violently protested against it is beyond me.

You're confusing the 'good' liberal president with the 'good' neoconservative president. Though i find it weird that the church whines about the state trying to enter into their affairs and practices but have no problem trying to get into the states affairs and practices.
Avatar image for DJ-Lafleur
DJ-Lafleur

35604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#62 DJ-Lafleur
Member since 2007 • 35604 Posts

Aww dammit, I was going to vote for santprum too before this.

he seemed like such a NICE, FRIENDLY, OPEN-MINDED, person beforehand. Darn...

Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#63 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts
[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] No, not only that. It conflicts with various amendments. DroidPhysX

If I'm not mistaken, sometimes the U.S is nicknamed the Great Democratic Experiment. It was pretty revolutionary thing.

Currently though, we're seeing an abuse of it. We're not seeing a liberal democracy, we're seeing a liberal dictatorship, which is why the Church is furious over the HHS mandate. The separation of Church and State is most commonly seen as a prevention of any particular religion to exercise influence over the State, in the case that it affects people of another belief. What most people forget to see is that the separation of Church and State is also meant to prevent a state's exercise of any particular religion. The HHS mandate quite obviously violates the First Amendment.

Religious issues aside, the 'good' liberal President passed a law allowing the U.S military to detain any citizen it even suspects of being a threat to security, without any trial whatsoever. Why the American public never violently protested against it is beyond me.

You're confusing the 'good' liberal president with the 'good' neoconservative president. Though i find it weird that the church whines about the state trying to enter into their affairs and practices but have no problem trying to get into the states affairs and practices.

I'm not confusing because I can rationally explain almost all the views of Santorum's that upset you (not sure about the war policies just yet, though). Santorum, being a Catholic, has views that are rich in logic and philosophy. His views are in line with Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas etc. Obama, on the other hand, hasn't been able to logically defend his positions. The current HHS mandate is ludicrous, and the amendments he made afterwards were insulting. As for the ability to detain any citizen suspected of terrorist activity, I believe his argument was something along the lines of 'I didn't want to, but I had to'. That's not an argument. The difference between the Church and the State is that the State has actually enforced a law, and by 2013, if you do not abide by that law, your institutions are illegal and must be shut down. I don't think the Church as ever tried to get into the State's affairs and practices if the law forbids it. What the Church in America only ever does is use its right of free speech to encourage how society should be. Any quick glance on the internet shows anti-Catholics absolutely offended by the mere exercise of free speech. It's intolerance like you've never seen it before.
Avatar image for rgsniper1
rgsniper1

9398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 rgsniper1
Member since 2003 • 9398 Posts

My guess is he was going to use the N word that was accepted by both black and whites as PC through the 60's and 70's until it became outdated and was replaced with black or african-american. In what context would he have been saying it, probably this. I've heard many many people say that word with the I as in It and not the e as in see.

Edit.. Sorry I didn't finish my thought, I'm guessing he stopped himself because although he and many others (including a percentage of black people) see this as a positive thing for black people (i.e. removing them from the government plantation as I pointed out in my link), but thought better of it as in our PC world someone would take offense were there was non intended. Probably make a video and post it on youtube. My thoughts on him aside I honestly honestly don't think he's so stupid and to drop the N bomb while running for office. Just my opinion of course.

Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#65 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts

Aww dammit, I was going to vote for santprum too before this.

he seemed like such a NICE, FRIENDLY, OPEN-MINDED, person beforehand. Darn...

DJ-Lafleur
Do you know why a lot of girls don't go for 'nice' guys? Because most guys act 'nice' to get into your pants. Be careful of nice people. They hold a bouquet of flowers in front of them with their right hand, while they carry a silver dagger behind them with their left. You want good, true, and just people. You want someone that is willing to wound in love, rather than someone who's going to kill you in kindness.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#66 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
Can't believe we have some one on here trying to argue that a Catholic Theocracy is a good thing.. News flash if you read history in any length you will see it was a multitude of things that led to what it is today, the Catholic church did play a role but it was as much a hinderance as it was a benefit to the region.
Avatar image for firefluff3
firefluff3

2073

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 firefluff3
Member since 2010 • 2073 Posts

I think he just slurred his speech trying to say guy, but it does sort of sound like it.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#68 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

I think he just slurred his speech trying to say guy, but it does sort of sound like it.

firefluff3
I really don't think it matters, if this is what makes people decide not to vote for him.. Then they haven't really paid attention to the crazy things he says and supports..
Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#69 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts
Can't believe we have some one on here trying to argue that a Catholic Theocracy is a good thing.. News flash if you read history in any length you will see it was a multitude of things that led to what it is today, the Catholic church did play a role but it was as much a hinderance as it was a benefit to the region.sSubZerOo
Believe it, subzero. The Christian monks preserved Greek and Roman literature and philosophy, and that culminated in Thomas Aquinas' incredible scholastic work. Catholic Europe would invent the university system. French Catholic thinkers (which came from the university system) influenced Adam Smith in modern economic thought. The Inquisition gave the western world its modern justice system. Spanish Catholic friars instigated modern international law. Scholastic thinkers gave us modern science. All this you can look up on Wikipedia. What you won't find when you do proper research is how the Catholic Church almost destroyed western civilization. Or how the Italian Renaissance saved it. Now, if you would care to illustrate how the Catholic Church was a hindrance rather than a benefit. I'm all ears.
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#70 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
The Inquisition gave the western world its modern justice system.FrozenLiquid
mite b trol
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#71 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts
It may be astonishing to believe for some people but...here's the video. I'm sorry, but at 34:30, Santorum does indeed let the N word almost slip. You can listen yourself. And it's hardly surprising. I'm amazed he managed to last this long. It's been a festering undercurrent for some (not all) of the right's hatred for President Obama for years.
Avatar image for DaBrainz
DaBrainz

7959

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 DaBrainz
Member since 2007 • 7959 Posts
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]It may be astonishing to believe for some people but...here's the video. I'm sorry, but at 34:30, Santorum does indeed let the N word almost slip. You can listen yourself. And it's hardly surprising. I'm amazed he managed to last this long. It's been a festering undercurrent for some (not all) of the right's hatred for President Obama for years.

I hope you are joking.
Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#73 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts
[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]The Inquisition gave the western world its modern justice system.Funky_Llama
mite b trol

Look up the history of tribunals. You will see the modern tribunal starts from somewhere. While I personally don't recommend it, because it is actually a sin to do so, but you could remain blissfully ignorant and pretend you never had the opportunity to look it up. I suggest you do though!
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#74 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts
[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]It may be astonishing to believe for some people but...here's the video. I'm sorry, but at 34:30, Santorum does indeed let the N word almost slip. You can listen yourself. And it's hardly surprising. I'm amazed he managed to last this long. It's been a festering undercurrent for some (not all) of the right's hatred for President Obama for years.

I hope you are joking.

What do you think he's saying in that video? Can you think of a lot of words that start with "Nig" that fit there and would cause him to abruptly catch himself and stop what he's saying?
Avatar image for DaBrainz
DaBrainz

7959

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 DaBrainz
Member since 2007 • 7959 Posts
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]It may be astonishing to believe for some people but...here's the video. I'm sorry, but at 34:30, Santorum does indeed let the N word almost slip. You can listen yourself. And it's hardly surprising. I'm amazed he managed to last this long. It's been a festering undercurrent for some (not all) of the right's hatred for President Obama for years.

I hope you are joking.

What do you think he's saying in that video? Can you think of a lot of words that start with "Nig" that fit there and would cause him to abruptly catch himself and stop what he's saying?

I will not put myself in the position to defend Santorum, I'm not interested in that. I was referring to your last statement about a "festering undercurrent" of the right. Its not fair to anybody to write that nonsense. Especially with the long intertwined history of the democratic party and the KKK. Heck it was only a few years ago when there was a former member of the KKK in congress that just happened to be a democrat.
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#76 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"] I hope you are joking.

What do you think he's saying in that video? Can you think of a lot of words that start with "Nig" that fit there and would cause him to abruptly catch himself and stop what he's saying?

I will not put myself in the position to defend Santorum, I'm not interested in that. I was referring to your last statement about a "festering undercurrent" of the right. Its not fair to anybody to write that nonsense. Especially with the long intertwined history of the democratic party and the KKK. Heck it was only a few years ago when there was a former member of the KKK in congress that just happened to be a democrat.

Which is wholly irrelevant. Past racism on the left (or rather, what Americans think is the left) and current racism on the right are not mutually exclusive.
Avatar image for GulliversTravel
GulliversTravel

3110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 GulliversTravel
Member since 2009 • 3110 Posts
Liberal media conspiracy:shock:
Avatar image for DaBrainz
DaBrainz

7959

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 DaBrainz
Member since 2007 • 7959 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] What do you think he's saying in that video? Can you think of a lot of words that start with "Nig" that fit there and would cause him to abruptly catch himself and stop what he's saying?

I will not put myself in the position to defend Santorum, I'm not interested in that. I was referring to your last statement about a "festering undercurrent" of the right. Its not fair to anybody to write that nonsense. Especially with the long intertwined history of the democratic party and the KKK. Heck it was only a few years ago when there was a former member of the KKK in congress that just happened to be a democrat.

Which is wholly irrelevant. Past racism on the left (or rather, what Americans think is the left) and current racism on the right are not mutually exclusive.

You missed the point
Avatar image for PC4lifeman2233
PC4lifeman2233

479

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 PC4lifeman2233
Member since 2012 • 479 Posts
I wonder how he'll recover from thatShadow4020
He really won't.
Avatar image for rgsniper1
rgsniper1

9398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80 rgsniper1
Member since 2003 • 9398 Posts

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]It may be astonishing to believe for some people but...here's the video. I'm sorry, but at 34:30, Santorum does indeed let the N word almost slip. You can listen yourself. And it's hardly surprising. I'm amazed he managed to last this long. It's been a festering undercurrent for some (not all) of the right's hatred for President Obama for years.nocoolnamejim
I hope you are joking.

What do you think he's saying in that video? Can you think of a lot of words that start with "Nig" that fit there and would cause him to abruptly catch himself and stop what he's saying?

I can, I posted it just few up from this your post. It fits and would sound exactly like that, do you disagree?

Avatar image for Labavo
Labavo

443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#81 Labavo
Member since 2012 • 443 Posts

[QUOTE="Shadow4020"]

I wonder how he'll recover from that, I can't think of any other word that starts with nig-.

ZumaJones07

it sounded like he was trying to say the end of the last word by adding -ing but flubbed it saying nig. that's my opinion

Of all the politicians for this to happen to, it was, of course, Rick Santorum. If it was anybody else, I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but certainly not for this lunatic.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#82 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts
[QUOTE="DaBrainz"] I will not put myself in the position to defend Santorum, I'm not interested in that. I was referring to your last statement about a "festering undercurrent" of the right. Its not fair to anybody to write that nonsense. Especially with the long intertwined history of the democratic party and the KKK. Heck it was only a few years ago when there was a former member of the KKK in congress that just happened to be a democrat.

And you ask me if I'm serious? Democrats being on the wrong side of the racism issue is ancient history by now and you know it. Happened well before nearly everyone on this forum was even born. Appealing to racism has been part of the Republican political strategy for decades now.

1964 - Democrats pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 1965 - Democrats pass the Voting Rights Act. Also, desegregation Every election since: Southern Strategy From then onward, the Southern states, which used to vote solidly Democrat because of economic interests, became a Republican Stronghold. Republican strategy for winning elections became outright appeals to poor, uneducated southern whites about scary minorities. This was OFFICIALLY DECLARED Republican strategy. [quote="Nixon Political Strategist Kevin Phillips in 1970"] From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats



[quote="Reagan Administration Official Lee Atwater in 1980"]Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nig***, nig***, nig***." By 1968 you can't say "nig***" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than *Nig*** Nig***."

Or, if you prefer some more recent examples: [quote="Rush Limbaugh"] It is clear that Senator Obama has disowned his white half, that he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side.

[quote="Rush Limbaugh"] Barack the magic negro

[quote="South Carolina Republican Senator Jake Knotts"] raghead in the white house

[quote="South Carlolina GOP Activist and former Chairman of Elections referring to an escaped gorilla"] "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless."

[quote="Glenn Beck for variety"] Obama has "exposed himself as a guy" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people"

[quote="Rush yet again"] I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

[quote="George W Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman"] "Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions," and, "by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization."

I could go on and on. For you to say that there is no racist influence at all on the right and try and dredge up stuff that literally happened probably a century ago to play the "both sides do it!" card is pretty disingenuous.
Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36094 Posts

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"] I will not put myself in the position to defend Santorum, I'm not interested in that. I was referring to your last statement about a "festering undercurrent" of the right. Its not fair to anybody to write that nonsense. Especially with the long intertwined history of the democratic party and the KKK. Heck it was only a few years ago when there was a former member of the KKK in congress that just happened to be a democrat.nocoolnamejim
*post of awesome*

That's some massive dedication you have there.

Avatar image for rgsniper1
rgsniper1

9398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#84 rgsniper1
Member since 2003 • 9398 Posts

Noco - I asnswered your question with a what I consider a good answer, yet you post more on this yet don't acknowledge my post?

Avatar image for Netherscourge
Netherscourge

16364

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#85 Netherscourge
Member since 2003 • 16364 Posts

I hope Santorum wins the Republican nomination.

He'll be a guaranteed loser in the Presidential election. Especially with Romney getting all the major endorsments already.

On a side note... is this the BEST the Republicans can do?

Romney? Santorum? Gingrich? Paul?

Are you serious?

They spent the past 4 years trying to destroy all the repair work and progress made by Obama, and they send these 4 clowns to the forefront?

NJ Gov. Christie was smart. He stayed away knowing it was a no-win situation right now. Texas Gov. Perry of course was stupid and took the bait. Now he's dead politically.

Obama's getting 4 more year. The economy has turned the corner now anyway - may as well see it through.

Then, it'll be HIillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie in 2016 - THAT looks like a great matchup IMO.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#86 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts

Noco - I asnswered your question with a what I consider a good answer, yet you post more on this yet don't acknowledge my post?

rgsniper1
I'm sorry. Missed seeing it. Wasn't ignoring you on purpose. (Call me Jim please.) I might accept that explanation if not for the fact that the two words sound nothing alike. "Negro" sounds like "Knee" and Nig*** does not. Listen to the video closely. Unless he plans on pronouncing KNEEgro as "NIGgro", which would be a very odd pronunciation, he really was about to drop the genuine, full flavored version of the N-bomb. And he isn't exactly the first leading Republican presidential contender to say things that can easily be construed as racist. [quote="Newt Gingrich"] And so I'm prepared if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,

And then there's the Ron Paul newsletters...
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#87 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"] I hope you are joking.

What do you think he's saying in that video? Can you think of a lot of words that start with "Nig" that fit there and would cause him to abruptly catch himself and stop what he's saying?

I will not put myself in the position to defend Santorum, I'm not interested in that. I was referring to your last statement about a "festering undercurrent" of the right. Its not fair to anybody to write that nonsense. Especially with the long intertwined history of the democratic party and the KKK. Heck it was only a few years ago when there was a former member of the KKK in congress that just happened to be a democrat.

The democratic party prior to the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a much different party after the passing of said act (the same is true for the GOP). The political paradigm that existed then was vastly different to the political paradigm that exists now. The historical relationship between the KKK and the democratic party is meaningless when talking about the modern democratic party.
Avatar image for DaBrainz
DaBrainz

7959

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#88 DaBrainz
Member since 2007 • 7959 Posts
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"] I will not put myself in the position to defend Santorum, I'm not interested in that. I was referring to your last statement about a "festering undercurrent" of the right. Its not fair to anybody to write that nonsense. Especially with the long intertwined history of the democratic party and the KKK. Heck it was only a few years ago when there was a former member of the KKK in congress that just happened to be a democrat.

blah blah blah republicans are racists

I hope you didn't put to much time in that post as I have no interest in defending the hypebolic meatheads that you posted. I'm just saying its down right intellectually dishonest to generalize that republicans are racists. I was not pointing out that democrats were more racist, that can't be quantitated. I was pointing out that if anybody put forth the effort to build a case for democrats being more racist, it would be easy to do. But it would also not be fair to democrats.
Avatar image for DaBrainz
DaBrainz

7959

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89 DaBrainz
Member since 2007 • 7959 Posts
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] What do you think he's saying in that video? Can you think of a lot of words that start with "Nig" that fit there and would cause him to abruptly catch himself and stop what he's saying?

I will not put myself in the position to defend Santorum, I'm not interested in that. I was referring to your last statement about a "festering undercurrent" of the right. Its not fair to anybody to write that nonsense. Especially with the long intertwined history of the democratic party and the KKK. Heck it was only a few years ago when there was a former member of the KKK in congress that just happened to be a democrat.

The democratic party prior to the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a much different party after the passing of said act (the same is true for the GOP). The political paradigm that existed then was vastly different to the political paradigm that exists now. The historical relationship between the KKK and the democratic party is meaningless when talking about the modern democratic party.

Senator Bryd only died a few years ago. This isn't generations ago as you claim.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"] I will not put myself in the position to defend Santorum, I'm not interested in that. I was referring to your last statement about a "festering undercurrent" of the right. Its not fair to anybody to write that nonsense. Especially with the long intertwined history of the democratic party and the KKK. Heck it was only a few years ago when there was a former member of the KKK in congress that just happened to be a democrat.

The democratic party prior to the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a much different party after the passing of said act (the same is true for the GOP). The political paradigm that existed then was vastly different to the political paradigm that exists now. The historical relationship between the KKK and the democratic party is meaningless when talking about the modern democratic party.

Senator Bryd only died a few years ago. This isn't generations ago as you claim.

Senator Byrd's views on race changed dramatically during his lifetime.
Avatar image for sexyweapons
sexyweapons

5302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#91 sexyweapons
Member since 2009 • 5302 Posts

The guys crazy,whose actually voting for him?

Avatar image for DaBrainz
DaBrainz

7959

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 DaBrainz
Member since 2007 • 7959 Posts
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] The democratic party prior to the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a much different party after the passing of said act (the same is true for the GOP). The political paradigm that existed then was vastly different to the political paradigm that exists now. The historical relationship between the KKK and the democratic party is meaningless when talking about the modern democratic party.

Senator Bryd only died a few years ago. This isn't generations ago as you claim.

Senator Byrd's views on race changed dramatically during his lifetime.

I take the approach of only judging politicians for what they do not what they say. He was in the KKK. He could of said he wasn't racist all he wanted to. It doesn't change any of his actions.
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#93 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts
[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"] I will not put myself in the position to defend Santorum, I'm not interested in that. I was referring to your last statement about a "festering undercurrent" of the right. Its not fair to anybody to write that nonsense. Especially with the long intertwined history of the democratic party and the KKK. Heck it was only a few years ago when there was a former member of the KKK in congress that just happened to be a democrat.

blah blah blah republicans are racists

I hope you didn't put to much time in that post as I have no interest in defending the hypebolic meatheads that you posted. I'm just saying its down right intellectually dishonest to generalize that republicans are racists. I was not pointing out that democrats were more racist, that can't be quantitated. I was pointing out that if anybody put forth the effort to build a case for democrats being more racist, it would be easy to do. But it would also not be fair to democrats.

Ah. A No True Scotsman argument. None of the examples I posted above are TRUE Republicans? The well documented and outlined "Southern Strategy" that caused about a dozen formerly Democratic voting states to become Republican strongholds through outright appeals to white racism? That's, what, a coincidence? Timeline: Pre-1964 - Southern bloc of states votes reliably Democratic 1964 - Democrats pass things like Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act Post-1964 - Republicans outright and openly state that their strategy is to appeal to "negrophobe" white voters. Formerly reliable Democratic voting states become consistently Republican voting ones And the three examples I gave you from the current four remaining leading contenders for the Republican nomination? The "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama is Kenyan" and "where's the longform birth certificate?" conspiracy theories that won't die and that Republicans have stoked off and on? If Obama was white you really think those things would have had traction? In no way did I say that ALL Republicans are racist. I said, quote, that racism is responsible for some, but not all, of the conservative animosity towards Obama. I didn't quote nobodies up above there. I quoted some of the most influential people in conservative politics. Exactly how much more proof do you need? Do you think it is also a coincidence that ALL minorities vote overwhelmingly Democratic?
Avatar image for rgsniper1
rgsniper1

9398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 rgsniper1
Member since 2003 • 9398 Posts

[QUOTE="rgsniper1"]

Noco - I asnswered your question with a what I consider a good answer, yet you post more on this yet don't acknowledge my post?

nocoolnamejim

I'm sorry. Missed seeing it. Wasn't ignoring you on purpose. (Call me Jim please.) I might accept that explanation if not for the fact that the two words sound nothing alike. "Negro" sounds like "Knee" and Nig*** does not. Listen to the video closely. Unless he plans on pronouncing KNEEgro as "NIGgro", which would be a very odd pronunciation, he really was about to drop the genuine, full flavored version of the N-bomb. And he isn't exactly the first leading Republican presidential contender to say things that can easily be construed as racist.
And so I'm prepared if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps, Newt Gingrich
And then there's the Ron Paul newsletters...

I addressed that, I've heard it pronounced as many times as Nihgro as I have the Neegro way. So to me it sounds exactly like the infamous N word when you start to say it. Maybe the part of the country you're in makes a differance? Just like the words Missouri, accessory, refrigerator, drown, foilage, niche, precipitation, vehicle, preventive, sherbet, clothes, asterisk, cache, athelete, Norfolk (good example as some say Norfick and some say it just like it reads), or heck about anything people say that are from Boston or New York/New Jersey and some Chicago sounds diff. when different people say them. Anway, back to the topic... yeah I've heard it as Nihgro many times. Well not that i'm around people who say it a lot, i'm just old I guess :) Are these people prounouncing it wrong, sure they are but look at the list I made above and realize there's a thousand more words you could add to that which people say "oddly". So you asked if there's a word that sounded the same and yeah there is and it fits. I'm not Rick S. so I can't say for sure but in this case i'd give him the benifit of the doubt as by saying what I think he said it would help his campaign in a way. Saying what you think he said would be political suicide. Which do you think is more likely the intent if you're Rick S.?

Avatar image for DarkGamer007
DarkGamer007

6033

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 DarkGamer007
Member since 2008 • 6033 Posts

"Negotiator" would have fit correctly into the context of his sentence.

If his campaign picks up on it, they'll probably just say that. but it doesn't explain why he stopped himself mid-word.

Blue-Sky

Or say "I meant negotiator, excuse me." and then continuted.

Avatar image for pie-junior
pie-junior

2866

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#96 pie-junior
Member since 2007 • 2866 Posts
[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]I don't think he was trying to say the N word. I dislike him as much as the next guy, but let's be fair.

Avatar image for DaBrainz
DaBrainz

7959

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#97 DaBrainz
Member since 2007 • 7959 Posts
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] blah blah blah republicans are racists

I hope you didn't put to much time in that post as I have no interest in defending the hypebolic meatheads that you posted. I'm just saying its down right intellectually dishonest to generalize that republicans are racists. I was not pointing out that democrats were more racist, that can't be quantitated. I was pointing out that if anybody put forth the effort to build a case for democrats being more racist, it would be easy to do. But it would also not be fair to democrats.

Ah. A No True Scotsman argument. None of the examples I posted above are TRUE Republicans? The well documented and outlined "Southern Strategy" that caused about a dozen formerly Democratic voting states to become Republican strongholds through outright appeals to white racism? That's, what, a coincidence? Timeline: Pre-1964 - Southern bloc of states votes reliably Democratic 1964 - Democrats pass things like Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act Post-1964 - Republicans outright and openly state that their strategy is to appeal to "negrophobe" white voters. Formerly reliable Democratic voting states become consistently Republican voting ones And the three examples I gave you from the current four remaining leading contenders for the Republican nomination? The "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama is Kenyan" and "where's the longform birth certificate?" conspiracy theories that won't die and that Republicans have stoked off and on? If Obama was white you really think those things would have had traction? In no way did I say that ALL Republicans are racist. I said, quote, that racism is responsible for some, but not all, of the conservative animosity towards Obama. I didn't quote nobodies up above there. I quoted some of the most influential people in conservative politics. Exactly how much more proof do you need? Do you think it is also a coincidence that ALL minorities vote overwhelmingly Democratic?

Reading comprehension. As I said before I am not going to defend specific individuals. Generalizations are bad and anti-intellectual. Otherwise I can point you to my sig and tell you how democrats are prejudice against handicap people. That isn't a fair assessment and you know it. Yet you are doing the same exact thing.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#98 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"] Senator Bryd only died a few years ago. This isn't generations ago as you claim.

Senator Byrd's views on race changed dramatically during his lifetime.

I take the approach of only judging politicians for what they do not what they say. He was in the KKK. He could of said he wasn't racist all he wanted to. It doesn't change any of his actions.

And what Robert Byrd did in his latter years was help aquire more funding for the MLK memorial, endorsed Barack Obama, and received a perfect rating from the NAACP based on his voting record. Robert Byrd lived a very long time, and he lived through one of the most tumultuous time periods in American history. He was on the wrong side of history then, but since then he's drastically changed his views on race, something that is reflected in his actions as senator later in his life. To use Robert Byrd as an example of racism in the modern democratic party is just lazy and a woeful distortion of the facts.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

Generalizations are bad and anti-intellectual. DaBrainz

In no way did I say that ALL Republicans are racist.nocoolnamejim

Reading comprehension.DaBrainz

Avatar image for DaBrainz
DaBrainz

7959

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#100 DaBrainz
Member since 2007 • 7959 Posts
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Senator Byrd's views on race changed dramatically during his lifetime.

I take the approach of only judging politicians for what they do not what they say. He was in the KKK. He could of said he wasn't racist all he wanted to. It doesn't change any of his actions.

And what Robert Byrd did in his latter years was help aquire more funding for the MLK memorial, endorsed Barack Obama, and received a perfect rating from the NAACP based on his voting record. Robert Byrd lived a very long time, and he lived through one of the most tumultuous time periods in American history. He was on the wrong side of history then, but since then he's drastically changed his views on race, something that is reflected in his actions as senator later in his life. To use Robert Byrd as an example of racism in the modern democratic party is just lazy and a woeful distortion of the facts.

Wondering if you would come to his defense so quickly if he was republican.