Do a search for "Race Card" and you can find a lot more
OK, I think I understand now. When a liberal expresses the opinion that someone on the right is racist, that's playing the race card. But presumably, only when you disagree with those accusations. (If you agreed with the accusations, which in some cases I'm sure you do -- as you have already said that racism does occur on both sides -- then you wouldn't complain, or call it "playing the race card". I'm sure.)
Further, I get the impression that this invalid playing of the race card applies when the player of said card does so intentionally: he or she knows the accusation is false, but goes ahead with it anyway, to bring (undeserved) disdain on his or her opponents.
I am not prepared to say, e.g., JD is guilty of that. I know neither whether his accusations are true nor whether, if they are not, he made false accusations intentionally.
But I'm afraid I'm still confused about why you think the OP of this thread somehow invalidates that tactic. You gave an example of racist comments coming (apparently) from the left. Uh. Yeah. There are jerks in all camps. And the existence of racism on the left has no real bearing on the validity of the tactic above, if my understanding is correct: the intentional false accusation of racism among one's opponents.
But I probably don't understand you. Again. And probably never will.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
OK, I think I understand now. When a liberal expresses the opinion that someone on the right is racist, that's playing the race card. But presumably, only when you disagree with those accusations. (If you agreed with the accusations, which in some cases I'm sure you do -- as you have already said that racism does occur on both sides -- then you wouldn't complain, or call it "playing the race card". I'm sure.)
It's too convenient of a tactic to use. It's one thing to legitimately defend the rights of minorities and another to conduct a witch hunt for political clout
Quote:
Further, I get the impression that this invalid playing of the race card applies when the player of said card does so intentionally: he or she knows the accusation is false, but goes ahead with it anyway, to bring (undeserved) disdain on his or her opponents.
When it's false OR when it's true but it really has no bearing on one's political party or which side of the political fence you are one.
For example the Tea Party has gotten slammed as racist because supposedly there were a few supporters who appeared to be racist. Is the entire Democratic party racist because I can quote some liberals spouting what appears to be racist comments? Of course not
That is what JD routinely has done with the Republican party.
Quote:
I am not prepared to say, e.g., JD is guilty of that. I know neither whether his accusations are true nor whether, if they are not, he made false accusations intentionally.
Read that link. He made some guy at a convention who supposedly made a racial comment towards a black reporter. This one individual was portrayed as the reason blacks dont want to be Republicans...as if that 1 individual represented the whole.
Well if that were true then the quotes I presented by Liberals represent Liberals and it begs the question of why Blacks are Democrats too! It doesn't make sense. When it happens on the left, it's ignored or downplayed. When it happens on the right, well that's the reason black people won't be Republicans. Never mind there are quite a few black Republicans who are obviously more objective than JD.
Quote:
But I'm afraid I'm still confused about why you think the OP of this thread somehow invalidates that tactic.
Then read above. The point was always that it happens on BOTH sides but it does not mean both sides are all racists.
Quote:
You gave an example of racist comments coming (apparently) from the left. Uh. Yeah. There are jerks in all camps.
Thats my point.
Quote:
And the existence of racism on the left has no real bearing on the validity of the tactic above, if my understanding is correct: the intentional false accusation of racism among one's opponents.
your understanding must not be correct IMO
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
I think the tactic you want to invalidate when the left uses it is this: pointing out racism on the right, and claiming that this proves that the Republican Party is racist.
Closer now?
I agree. Your OP doesn't prove it's invalid, though. The tactic you are complaining about would have to include a claim that there are no racist liberals, for the OP to be of any effect against it. Do you have examples of liberals who have said that? If you do, fine. You have proven those liberals wrong. Congratulations.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
I'm not pulling a race/hate card. Im showing they do it too. How many times do I need to say that to you Timmy?
Wait a confounded minute.
When I pointed out the hypocrisy of the religious right and that ultracons commit adultery, too, you whined.
But it's fine for you to pint out the hypocrisy of the political left in order to score a debate point?
I think this thread proves that you are an attention hound. Hey Prax, just get over it and move on. Don't dwell on the abuses of the political left.
__________________
I'm (sic) not cynical, I just haven't been around long enough to be Jedi mind-tricked by politics as usual. Alas, maybe in a few years I'll be beaten back into the herd. tstew
Linear Mode
