Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

Do you believe that "racist" is a word without meaning, then?In what way does the word not apply to someone who unfairly judges others by their race?

Try to keep in mind that I'm a registered Republican in Minnesota and that I voted for Bush before you jump back in to the name-calling, ok? "Ideologically far left wing" doesn't really carry much punch to a former College Republican.At any rate, your continuing assertions that you're not going to talk to me never seems to stop you from posting these frothing name-calling diatribes. Why is that?

Not so. You employed the term to refer to certain persons. Faith believes that the term itself is meaningless, apparently; yet she had no comment at all - apparently didn't even notice when you yourself employed the term to refer to certain people. Absolutely false. The right never, ever fails to play the race card, as you yourself have done consistently in this thread, when it suits their purposes. Witness your continual sour grapes "white man's burden" claims in this thread, or Congressional Republicans referring to Democrats as racists for opposing a Hispanic judicial nominee. Black people don't yet have equal opportunity, which is why a black-sounding name makes you less than half as likely to be called back for the opportunity to interview for a job.Until opportunity (which, to be realistic, we must measure by outcomes) is equal, Affirmative Action is necessary, and those who oppose it by arguing that employers are justified in making racist hiring decisions must themselves be racist.

Yeah, you're right. It's about time that the unfair censorship of lies, deceit, chicanery, flim-flam. and other varieties of made-up, unsupportable bullshit came to an end.You're unbelievable, Faith. Not in the sense that your audacity and bald-faced lies are astonishing and flabbergasting, although that's true too, but in that your credibility is essentially zero as a result of your behavior.Although I'll voice my opinion here that I believe that it was inappropriate for Jar, as involved as he is in discussions of this nature with these participants, to reject the topic out of hand. In other words I agree with Faith - Jar rejected the topic because he disagreed with the content and not because it was clearly against any forum guidelines. The topic merited refinement and discussion, at least. Jar was wrong to act as he did; he should have recused himself and allowed a more neutral admin to promote or deny the topic.

Or, they may choose not to, out of respect for your opinion and authority. Or because they like you better than CanadianSteve.I think what you did was a mistake. CanadianSteve should have the right to revise his post, if he wishes, to provide what evidence he believes supports his views. There was no requirement for you to close the topic so quickly and deny him that opportunity, was there?

I know you didn't see it. That's the point. That's how biased you are - whenever someone you agree with does something that you've criticized your opponents for, you don't even see it. Your mind just filters right out.Either that or you're not reading Steve's posts, which would make your sweeping statements of solidarity ring somewhat hollow, wouldn't you say? If you don't believe that the word applies to someone whom its definition makes clear that it does, then you don't believe the word has that definition after all. Since you've implicitly rejected the common definition of the word and supplied none of your own to replace it, we're left with the conclusion that, to you, the word "racist" has no meaning.Which makes it rather suspect of you to criticize me for using it, but to not even percieve it when Steve uses the same words.

Do you see up top, where it says "Welcome, Member Faith!" Click on that link and you'll see what I'm talking about.

For what? Challenge a specific assertion, quote it from my post, open a new thread for it, and I'll be pleased to defend it.Please, try me.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-19-2005 08:33 PM

There's no topic approval process for coffee house threads because posting new threads in the coffee house is not restricted. Schraf's post was not "allowed" or approved; she simply posted it. You know, like you could have done.