|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Aug 2, 2011 7:12:47 GMT -5
the founding fathers loathed the common man Another reason to like them. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 2, 2011 7:31:19 GMT -5
the founding fathers loathed the common man Another reason to like them. They were clearly liberal elitists. And no doubt unamerican. |
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Aug 2, 2011 7:57:17 GMT -5
the founding fathers loathed the common man Another reason to like them. They were truly wonderful people, magnificent examples of humanity. In other news, I certainly never would have guessed the Republicans are racist. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 2, 2011 9:34:13 GMT -5
Personally I don't see it. It may have been a iffy term to use but I don't think it was racist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Aug 2, 2011 9:48:22 GMT -5
Here's a solution for the teabaggers.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexiel on Aug 2, 2011 9:49:58 GMT -5
The Electoral system was done because the founding fathers loathed the common man and viewed Democracy as "rule by rabble." I wouldn't say they loathed the common man. I would even say that is an awfully extreme conclusion. If that were truly the case, they would have gone with their original intent and just have the president be appointed by the House of Representatives with no public say whatsoever. However, many felt the office was important enough that the public had a right to a vote. Yes, the Founding Fathers did have hang-ups over giving too much influence to "mob rule," but I can't say I blame them. The associated problems with democracy have been known since the time of Socrates. It's also why many Founding Fathers felt that public education was extremely important to the long-term survival of the nation. An educated mob would be far preferable over a mob of fools and loonies. In essence, even during the time of the Revolution, the founding fathers were concerned about tea-bagger-type "movements" damaging the integrity of the country. The irony, of course, isn't lost on me considering how often the tea-baggers cite (falsely) the Founding Fathers in a lot of their rhetoric. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Aug 2, 2011 11:02:11 GMT -5
Personally I don't see it. It may have been a iffy term to use but I don't think it was racist. Glad to know that. Ironbite-moving you to the appropriate category in my mind...now. |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Aug 2, 2011 11:28:12 GMT -5
I thought the Tar Baby was a man-eating tar pit...I guess I know better than to refer to SCPs in public now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Aug 2, 2011 11:34:01 GMT -5
Personally I don't see it. It may have been a iffy term to use but I don't think it was racist. ...wow. |
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Aug 2, 2011 11:56:11 GMT -5
Nickerson, please remind me again, what planet did you borrow your lexicon from if "tar baby" (Only moderately less spiteful than that little N-word) isn't racist?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 2, 2011 12:35:42 GMT -5
Personally I don't see it. It may have been a iffy term to use but I don't think it was racist. At best, it's racially insensitive. The term "tar baby" is a fairly well-known slur, so regardless of which context he was using it in, he's still a dick for saying it. |
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Aug 2, 2011 12:40:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 2, 2011 15:29:49 GMT -5
If that were truly the case, they would have gone with their original intent and just have the president be appointed by the House of Representatives with no public say whatsoever. The fact that pretty much everything I've said so far was intentionally extreme (Seriously, a couple posts later, I called them Un-American....FFS) aside, I couldn't let this slide. That's a rather favourable and silly statement. Many of the tenets of the Constitution and ther Government it created were created out of compromise or fear the nation would fall apart. The notion that this could potentially be little more than appeasement is not even remotely extreme, all things considered. By the same logic, the founding fathers were largely fond of slavery, because : otherwise they wouldn't have codified it." Pretty sure nobody would assert that logical fallacy, though. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Aug 2, 2011 15:37:09 GMT -5
At best, it's racially insensitive. The term "tar baby" is a fairly well-known slur, so regardless of which context he was using it in, he's still a dick for saying it. I'd agree with the racially insensitive, and that he was a moron for saying it. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 2, 2011 15:37:16 GMT -5
Nickerson, please remind me again, what planet did you borrow your lexicon from if "tar baby" (Only moderately less spiteful than that little N-word) isn't racist? In Nick's defense, my liberal, college-edificated shrink didn't know it was a racial slur, either. It's possible he just wasn't exposed. I mean, seriously, before the Don Imu incident, I'd never heard "Nappy" was offensive. Not that I ran around calling people "Nappy-Headed Hos" but when I found out the "Other N-Word" was considered nearly as bad, I was like, "You're kidding me, right?" My reaction's changed a bit, and I do know Nappy has a history of slur usage now, but I got over two decades into my life without knowing that. The difference between Nick and an elected official is I expected this to not happen again, given the public attention it got the last couple of times someone tossed out a "tar baby" reference. |
|
