Argus Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 No kidding!I guess in the adrenalin-choked haze of political one-upmanship, it doesn't occur to Harper that Parliamentarians are supposed to set an example! The only people who don't apologize when racial slurs are pointed out to them are white supremacists: They insist it is their right ... just like Poilievre and Harper. I think that statement was racist. That makes YOU a racist. I expect a full, and heartfelt apology immediately. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Jerry J. Fortin Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 It's dumb because, as this thread shows, there are vastly different assessments of what constitutes "racism", and among the weak-minded, it simply depends on whether or not the speakers is approved of, or is from an approved-of party. And there is no crime called "racism" and thus no chance anyone will be convicted of it. There are laws against discrimination, and there are laws against hatred. We do need to go a step further and actually legislate the death of racism, but that would be a very political effort. Quote
Argus Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 Incorrect... as usual."In an interview, Toni Morrison said the following of its use in her book, in an acting of reclaiming: "Tar Baby is also a name, like 'nigger,' that white people call black children, black girls, as I recall…. " Google it. I don't have to google it. I don't care if someone once or occasionally used a phrase or a word in a racially disparaging way. That doesn't make it a racist term. People use the term monkeys or apes to describe blacks in a disparaging way, but that doesn't mean the words are racist unless used in that particular reference. But, I don't think this guy meant it that way. It does not make sense in the context of what he was trying to say. Still that is how the term is understood by many people. If he doesn't know what he's saying, he should still be held responsible. What you appear to be saying is that because some people don't understand that actual reference, and might think that this term has some racial connotation, even after the reference has been explained to them, then he needs to apologize. I'd suggest instead that those people are uneducated, illiterate and stupid and thus unworthy of receiving an apology. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 So why did he apologize?Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre has apologized for saying Canada's aboriginals need to learn the value of hard work more than they need compensation for abuse suffered in residential schools. And once again, rather than quoting the words Poilivre actually said you're quoting a reporter's assesment and interpretation of the words Poilevre said. If Poilevre's words were racist then they'd stand on their own AS racist, quite clearly and obviously so, and would not need an "interpretation" so that everyone would know what they "meant". Poilievre, the parliamentary secretary to the president of the Treasury Board, rose in the House of Commons on Thursday afternoon to acknowledge his mistake. "Yesterday on a day when the House and all Canadians were celebrating a new beginning, I made remarks that were hurtful and wrong," he said. "I accept responsibility for them and I apologize." (CTV news) He made a racist comment, pure and simple. In light of his apology his intolerant behaviour continues with the lastest tar baby comment. And I'm sure we can expect more of the same. He made no racist statement. He made a truthful statement which a lot of shrill, moronic politically correct idiots jumped on - because he's a conservative - and began to play out their usual game in front of an eager media. The PMO obviously told him "Yeah I know it wasn't racist. Just apologise so the morons will have to find something else to whine about." We've already seen in this thread that tar baby is a commonly used reference, and that he used it within the confines of that reference without any possible racial connotations. Only liars and fools would think that constitutes racism. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 Tar baby was used as a derogatory description, as someone else said, referring to a child born 'with colour' clearly not belonging to the purported father. It's use evolved from that to mean any such 'sticky situation', but the reference is still based on the original, and it is still derogatory.And Poilievre is racist scum, just like Harper. So are you. You're just not as bright as either of them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 The blind cannot see. Racist! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Jerry J. Fortin Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 Racist! Argus, do you believe racism to be wrong or not? Quote
Argus Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 There are laws against discrimination, and there are laws against hatred. We do need to go a step further and actually legislate the death of racism, but that would be a very political effort. That's even dumber. Why do you politically correct types never learn from history? Take a gander across the ocean where they did this very thing. It actually is illegal to say anything racist there. Has that led to the end of racism? Uhhhhh, no, there are race riots frequently,and the UK and France are filled with ethnic ghettos where people of the wrong racial types are physically attacked if they dare enter. Things are not getting better in terms of racism. In fact, things are much worse than they were before such laws were implemented. All idiotic laws like this do is officially separate people into different groups and help keep them there. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) Argus, do you believe racism to be wrong or not? Racist is an insulting epithet used against people you don't like. Where does right or wrong come into play? It has no apparent other meaning. Edited May 31, 2009 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Sir Bandelot Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) I don't care if someone once or occasionally used a phrase or a word in a racially disparaging way. That doesn't make it a racist term.What you appear to be saying is that because some people don't understand that actual reference, and might think that this term has some racial connotation, even after the reference has been explained to them, then he needs to apologize. I'd suggest instead that those people are uneducated, illiterate and stupid and thus unworthy of receiving an apology. I suggest it doesn't matter what you think, or what Pierre even meant. It only matters what the public thinks. Public perception, whether right or wrong... thats politics. I also suggest that he should do more to learn about the meaning of such colorful phrases, before attempting to use them. The fact that he has a history of foot in mouth disease, from previous bigoted comments does not help the party. Who is the stupid, illiterate one here? He probably never read Uncle Remus. Edited May 31, 2009 by Sir Bandelot Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 That's even dumber.Why do you politically correct types never learn from history? Take a gander across the ocean where they did this very thing. It actually is illegal to say anything racist there. Has that led to the end of racism? Uhhhhh, no, there are race riots frequently,and the UK and France are filled with ethnic ghettos where people of the wrong racial types are physically attacked if they dare enter. Things are not getting better in terms of racism. In fact, things are much worse than they were before such laws were implemented. All idiotic laws like this do is officially separate people into different groups and help keep them there. So in your mind we should not attempt to end racism by means of legislative effort. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 Racist is an insulting epithet used against people you don't like. Where does right or wrong come into play?It has no apparent other meaning. I will submit that racism is a discriminatory action based on race. The question then becomes is it wrong to utilize race as a means of determining like or dislike? Quote
YEGmann Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 I will submit that racism is a discriminatory action based on race. The question then becomes is it wrong to utilize race as a means of determining like or dislike? You pointed out a very valid point that our liberals have no idea about. For your knowledge: Racism is not an action. Racism is a theory, i.e., a though or an idea. There are human races on the Earth and they are different. There is nothing wrong in the indication of those differences or even studying them. Racism starts when the social differences among the races are explained by racial differences exclusively. And still, while it is a theory, it is not a crime. Quite opposite, forbidding expression of thoughts is a crime. (But not in liberal minds). The UN has nothing against racism. The problem and the evil is a RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. The racial discrimination is an action and is a serious crime. The UN is (as all normal people are) strongly against any form of racial discrimination. In this light, claiming Pierre Poilievre made "racist' comments is ridiculous. Where is comparison of human races in his words?! The "Tar baby" term was related to the carbon tax, not to a person! There was nothing in his comment related to a possibly (in view of liberals) undergraded race of that figurative baby. Just a father refusing to admit the baby is his. Is the term "tar baby" insulting for some people? May be. In the Southern States it would certainly be. In Nova Scotia - no way, it is just name for people from a certain area. The bleeding heart liberals are extremely sensitive for Concervatives' words (and are absolutely deaf for Liberals' deads - see Dhala scandal). You cannot say a word now without a claim of insulting some group of liberals or their suporters. Should we maintain silence? Of course not. Imagenary insult is not a crime and not a racism. One may accuse Pierre in anything but not in racism. Quote
scorpio Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 The bleeding heart liberals are extremely sensitive for Concervatives' words (and are absolutely deaf for Liberals' deads - see Dhala scandal). You cannot say a word now without a claim of insulting some group of liberals or their suporters. Wrong again. This isn't partisanship. If ANY member of parliament said the things PP said I'd feel the same way. Totally inappropriate conduct and utterings that should not be allowed in the House of Commons. Didn't the Speaker of House recently reprimand your guys about their conduct, particularly during member statements? Quote
YEGmann Posted May 31, 2009 Report Posted May 31, 2009 Wrong again. This isn't partisanship. If ANY member of parliament said the things PP said I'd feel the same way. Totally inappropriate conduct and utterings that should not be allowed in the House of Commons. Didn't the Speaker of House recently reprimand your guys about their conduct, particularly during member statements? You expessed your opinion and you have all rights to do so. In my opinion PP's conduct is totally appropriate and should be encouraged in the HoC. He said nothing wrong. If somebody feels offended, sorry, you cannot say truth and be nice to everybody at the same time. It is impossible. People are different. So there must be a level of tolerance in the society. And if liberals say they are offended by this absolutely neutral "tar baby" statement, they just show their intolerance, i.e., they do not belong to the civilization. By the way, did the Speaker repremand Pierre for his this statement? I think, no - you again cannot make ends meet. And what I like to read in your last post is that the PP's statement is now not racist, just inappropriate (in your opinion). Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 1, 2009 Report Posted June 1, 2009 Much ado about nothing. It's crystal clear what Poilievre meant. Perhaps the Liberals who are pretending to be upset here need to consult a dictionary.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tar%20baby This term is in common usage, ESPECIALLY in politics (even by Liberals) to reference a sticky situation that you can't get free from. I can just imagine Liberals losing it if they hear the word "niggardly" too. Heck, lets use "niggardly", "nappy", and "tar baby" in the same sentence and watch their heads explode. The daycare workers were niggardly in their distribution of nappies...? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Argus Posted June 1, 2009 Report Posted June 1, 2009 I suggest it doesn't matter what you think, or what Pierre even meant. It only matters what the public thinks. Public perception, whether right or wrong... thats politics. So if the public can be convinced that Jews are evil and that something needs to be done about that then we should go along with their sentiment, right? I also suggest that he should do more to learn about the meaning of such colorful phrases, before attempting to use them. The meaning of this phrase has already been explained in this thread. Did you not read it? The fact that he has a history of foot in mouth disease, from previous bigoted comments There are allegations from the usual suspects, but no evidence - whatsever - none - of any "previous bigoted statements". Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 1, 2009 Report Posted June 1, 2009 So in your mind we should not attempt to end racism by means of legislative effort. No. We should not legislate the tides nor the phases of the moon, nor whether people must like and respect one another. They can make their own decisions, Mommy. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 1, 2009 Report Posted June 1, 2009 The problem and the evil is a RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.The racial discrimination is an action and is a serious crime. The UN is (as all normal people are) strongly against any form of racial discrimination. The UN is home to the world's worst racists. And racial discrimination is not a crime in Canada. It is against employment laws not to hire someone due to race, for example, but that is not a "crime" in the sense that you could ever go to jail for it. However, if I was to say very loudly and publicly, that I refuse to shop at a certain store, for example because it is owned by ane explitive deleted <insert racial epithet of your choice here> and they are all crooks or whatever, that's perfectly within my rights to do. In the UK or France you could be charged for doing that. This has not led, unsurprisingly, to a fall in racism or a feeling of love and brotherhood among the different races and religious groups there. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 1, 2009 Report Posted June 1, 2009 Wrong again. This isn't partisanship. If ANY member of parliament said the things PP said I'd feel the same way. How sad for you. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bryan Posted June 1, 2009 Report Posted June 1, 2009 That fact that the Liberals had to get their token MP of colour, Marlene Jennings, to go around to the media and EXPLAIN to them how it is that the term (commonly used in the media) is racist, is all the proof you need that the Liberals are just making faking their indignation, like usual. Quote
Smallc Posted June 1, 2009 Report Posted June 1, 2009 That fact that the Liberals had to get their token MP of colour, Marlene Jennings, to go around to the media and EXPLAIN to them how it is that the term (commonly used in the media) is racist, is all the proof you need that the Liberals are just making faking their indignation, like usual. No, that's not proof of that at all....and token MP of colour.... Such a statement is alomst biggoted in itself. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 1, 2009 Report Posted June 1, 2009 No, that's not proof of that at all....and token MP of colour.... Such a statement is alomst biggoted in itself. I suppose if 20 or 30% of the liberals were ...ahem..."Liberals of Colour" ....but to trot her out...specifically her.....opportunism comes to mind. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted June 1, 2009 Report Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) but to trot her out...specifically her.....opportunism comes to mind. Could it be that she....specifically her....was offended by what he said? His statement implies that she is only there because of her colour and nothing else. Edited June 1, 2009 by Smallc Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 1, 2009 Report Posted June 1, 2009 His statement implies that she is only there because of her colour and nothing else. In this case, yes. Optics and nothing more. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.