Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 06-12-2016, 07:54 AM   #91
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Do you see how twisted and convoluted it becomes when language becomes sloppy and words morph into incorrect meanings when it suits the speaker to use them that way? And how devious that is when used to slander someones character? And why the tactic is so prevalent in politics?
You would think a global organization like the UN should form a convention to agree on a common definition for an equitable discussion around discrimination...right?
spence is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 08:10 AM   #92
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
You would think a global organization like the UN should form a convention to agree on a common definition for an equitable discussion around discrimination...right?
You would lean on the UN 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 08:21 AM   #93
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Richard Gonzales
RICHARD GONZALES ....
The Justice Department has settled with an Iranian-American immigration judge who alleged that her superiors had ordered her not to hear cases involving Iranian nationals.

Last year Los Angeles-based Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor sued the Justice Department, claiming that the order amounted to discrimination and violated her constitutional rights.

Tuesday, the Justice Department backed down. Judge Tabaddor's attorneys announced that the Justice Department had agreed to lift its order, review its recusal policies and pay her $200,000.

"We are pleased the DOJ came to terms on this matter," said Tabaddor's attorney, Ali Mojdehi, a partner with Cooley.

The back story: Tabaddor has been handling immigration cases since 2005. She says her battle with her superiors at Justice started three years ago when she was invited to a White House meeting with other Iranian-American community leaders. She asked for permission to attend and it was granted. But her bosses also recommended that if she attended the meeting she should recuse herself from all immigration cases involving Iranians. In her lawsuit, Tabaddor claimed that when she returned from Washington the recommended recusal turned into an order.

Fellow immigration judges rose to Tabaddor's defense. President of the National Association of Immigration Judges Dana Leigh Marks told NPR in January 2015, "We do believe that this appears to be discriminatory based on her Iranian heritage."

Typically, immigration judges are randomly assigned new cases. A party can request that a judge recuse him or herself if they suspect bias.

According to her lawsuit, no one accused Tabaddor of bias.

In their court brief, Justice Department lawyers argued that as an immigration judge, Tabaddor had a responsibility to abide by standards of ethical conduct, including "the importance of avoiding the appearance of bias or partiality." They also argued for a dismissal of the case because the judge, as an employee of the Justice Department, is a civil servant and the court has no jurisdiction over her complaint.

The case raised a few eyebrows in the legal community. Ira Kurzban, who teaches immigration law at the University of Miami, said the government's case "made no sense."

"If one takes this to the logical conclusion, then any African-American judge should never hear any case of any person from the Caribbean or Africa. Or any Jewish judge should never hear a case from Israel who's Jewish," said Kurzban.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said the department had no comment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 09:01 AM   #94
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
I only see it getting twisted and convoluted by those defending him..

If you can't explain it, don't say it. Your sentence, as it is, is a string of meaningless words other than you claim to see something. But we are not informed as to what you see.

"how devious that is when used to slander someones character? " so are you admitting wrong doing by Trump? or was that for those who pushed back against his comment ?
I am admitting nothing about Trump. I have already admitted that I don't like him. I didn't like him way before he ran for President. What I am doing is pointing out that the bulk of accusations against him that he is a racist really are not examples of racism. I am pointing out how deceptive use of words is a tactic. I am pointing out not only how that is vile, just as vile if not more, than whatever Trump is accused of. I am pointing out that Progressives have long been doing the kind of thing they accuse Trump of. I guess its a sort of "it takes one to know one." Or that should be more like "I see the world as I am." Or "I am the world and everybody does it . . . except when I do it it's OK. When others do it, they're not qualified."

And I was responding to you're post about what Ryan said. And that, per your sarcastic "I guess he's wrong", indeed he actually is wrong.

You have addressed none of that, yet you think you have some idea of what I am admitting.

Last edited by detbuch; 06-12-2016 at 09:08 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 09:24 AM   #95
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Richard Gonzales
RICHARD GONZALES ....
The Justice Department has settled with an Iranian-American immigration judge who alleged that her superiors had ordered her not to hear cases involving Iranian nationals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm not sure what your point was.
spence is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 09:46 AM   #96
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
You would think a global organization like the UN should form a convention to agree on a common definition for an equitable discussion around discrimination...right?
Wrong. I believe the UN is highly politicized. Up to this point, because of politics, the UN, in my opinion, has not been "equitable." As in democratic governments, it's the number of votes, not equity, that counts. Anyway, how can a political organization which does not display an understanding of "equitable" agree on a common definition of it?

But it is not the word or concept "discrimination" as used regarding Trump, or anyone else for that matter, that I am cautioning against. It is, at least in this thread, the word and concept "racism." In Trumps case, the word is misapplied. And I think it is not only an unconscious ignorant application, but in many cases intentional. Why? Discrimination of a certain kind is not necessarily bad. It can be good. Or it can be favored by a majority whether it's good or bad. But the word "racism" is supercharged. It's inflammatory. We have been acculturated to react with revulsion to anyone who is a "racist."

So, a political trick, is to apply that inflammatory word in place of others with which it may have a kinship, such "race" for "ethnicity." Many, maybe most would favor not granting, "discriminating" against, citizenship to a large group of illegal aliens. But if that group is comprised of a common ethnicity, and if the word "race" is slyly substituted for ethnicity, the "discrimination" can be framed as being racist. The desired outcome is that most will then recoil at the thought of deporting the aliens, or not granting them citizenship. The same process can be applied to a temporary halt of immigration of a group who has in common the religion that is causing worldwide destruction.

In such a way, Trump is more easily demonized. And language is that much more debased.

And it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a common definition of anything if language is corrupted to vague, inaccurate, buzzwords. It is difficult, in that case, if not impossible, to even have common, equitable discussions.

Last edited by detbuch; 06-12-2016 at 09:57 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 10:25 AM   #97
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Anyway, how can a political organization which does not display an understanding of "equitable" agree on a common definition of it?
You have a convention.

Quote:
Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Sounds like Paul Ryan is pretty right.
spence is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 11:09 AM   #98
Fly Rod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Fly Rod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gloucester Massachusetts
Posts: 2,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

From the leading republican in the GOP I guess he's wrong along with everyone else who took his meaning
CORRECT!!!!.....

"When its not about money,it's all about money."...
Fly Rod is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 11:16 AM   #99
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,177
Fixed it...

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 12:45 PM   #100
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
Fixed it...

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The degree with which you're all bending backwards to justify racist remarks is pretty alarming.
spence is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 01:07 PM   #101
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The degree with which you're all bending backwards to justify racist remarks is pretty alarming.
The degree with which you're all bending over backwards to turn everything INTO a racist issue is even more alarming.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 03:16 PM   #102
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
The degree with which you're all bending over backwards to turn everything INTO a racist issue is even more alarming.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Everything? So the Republican Senate Majority leader and Speaker of the House agree with me and I'm on the fringe...sweet mother.
spence is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 03:44 PM   #103
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
I am admitting nothing about Trump. I have already admitted that I don't like him. I didn't like him way before he ran for President. What I am doing is pointing out that the bulk of accusations against him that he is a racist really are not examples of racism. I am pointing out how deceptive use of words is a tactic. I am pointing out not only how that is vile, just as vile if not more, than whatever Trump is accused of. I am pointing out that Progressives have long been doing the kind of thing they accuse Trump of. I guess its a sort of "it takes one to know one." Or that should be more like "I see the world as I am." Or "I am the world and everybody does it . . . except when I do it it's OK. When others do it, they're not qualified."

And I was responding to you're post about what Ryan said. And that, per your sarcastic "I guess he's wrong", indeed he actually is wrong.

You have addressed none of that, yet you think you have some idea of what I am admitting.
What should I address? I posted comments from the leading GOP Official Paul Ryan...the only topic here is what he said about the judge.. how is Ryan wrong in his conclusion or I Beside not agreeing with your View?

So when trump uses his words to slander someones character
you dont find it devious.. But when others push back against Trump its devious Slander attacking his character ...read you loud and clear
wdmso is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 04:40 PM   #104
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
TDF is right, these looney libs can think of any reason to turn an insensitive comment into racism. They are really trying to turn our society into Whoville. Too bad the grinch is still around,and if you don't like him, you must be a racist. If Ryan disagrees Spence, what is his future looking like? You truly have a one dimensional outlook which is why you don't see the whole picture.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 05:29 PM   #105
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Trump's popularity is about to soar
scottw is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 05:46 PM   #106
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
Trump's popularity is about to soar
Why?
spence is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 07:02 PM   #107
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
What should I address? I posted comments from the leading GOP Official Paul Ryan...the only topic here is what he said about the judge.. how is Ryan wrong in his conclusion or I Beside not agreeing with your View?

I explicitly explained how Ryan was wrong. I stuck to that part of your topic. But you did not respond to my explanation. Was that because you disagreed with my view? I disagreed with your view and responded to it by stating why I though it was wrong. You did not respond to that.

So when trump uses his words to slander someones character
you dont find it devious.. But when others push back against Trump its devious Slander attacking his character ...read you loud and clear
I explicitly stated that what I thought was devious was the intentional misuse of the word "racism" in place of ethnicity or nationality. And I pointed out why that use, or any such misuse of words was not only incorrect but devious and a corruption of language which also makes it difficult to even have a discussion. You responded to none of that.

As far as your Trump "uses his words to slander someone's character" goes, I don't recall him trying to deviously misuse words. When he called something or someone stupid, or lying, or crooked, or whatever name-calling he resorted to, he used the correct diction to convey what those words actually mean in order to cast exactly what those words mean onto someone's character. He wasn't being sly, tricky, or devious. He wasn't corrupting language. Whether it was slander or not, is up to you to decide. I said a few times now that I don't like him . . . or, I should say, I don't like the persona he creates. If I were to meet and associate with him, I might feel otherwise. He is reputed to be quite different than the image he creates. Many of those who personally know him say he is actually polite, kind, generous, and respectful.

As far as your "when others push back against Trump," a great deal of his comments are push backs. So, I take it that those comments are OK with you because he was pushing back against others?
detbuch is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 09:02 PM   #108
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

Anyway, how can a political organization which does not display an understanding of "equitable" agree on a common definition?


Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
You have a convention.

A convention of folks who hate each other and would gladly see others wiped off the face of the earth agreeing on an equitable definition? Really?


Quote:

Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

TDF fixed the UN definition quite well. And quite correctly.

You don't see the built-in contradictions with that definition? To begin with, it separates race from "colour, descent, or national, or ethnic origin." The structure of that definition separates thus makes different all those disparate categories. If they all had a common characteristic which could be grouped under an all inclusive word which is not one of the listed but separate and different categories, that might make sense. But to use the adjectival form of one of the categories "racial," makes one wonder what happened to all the other words. Is "ethnic" not really ethnic but really "racial"? Same for "colour, descent, national." What is race? Is race "racial" as well? What does race have in common with the other categories that makes it "racial"? Does the UN define "race"? Does it define "colour," "descent," "national," "ethnic"? If all those words can be defined as "race," then lets get rid of the clutter and replace them all with "race."

It seems, also, that the umbrella of categories is big enough to include everyone and every category of harmful discrimination in the public arena. Is there a person you know that doesn't fit into one or more of the "racial" categories defined in the UN definition of racial discrimination? No matter what a discriminator may say that her reason for discrimination is, since everybody fits into the UN definition of what racial is, and discrimination is defined as that "which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life", it can be construed that ultimately, all discrimination is racial.

How about, instead of trying to make words mean what they don't, the UN decrees that nobody shall be denied any of those things that it says racial discrimination would deny them.

Why is it necessary to basically make all discrimination "racial"? Why must all harmful discrimination in public life be labeled "racial" discrimination? Because the UN is illiterate? Because it is stupid? Because it is sly as a fox and uses the most inflammatory, fear laden, word to cow the world into submission? Because it is made up largely of little, comparatively backward nations who want unrestricted access to the big guys stuff?

I have suspicions, but don't really know. Except that the UN is not really united. It is composed of opposing, often warring, factions who infest it with their prejudices and contradictory desires. Any definition of a word it concocts is bound to be opaque enough to satisfy its bigoted, discriminatory, members.

United Nations has a nice ring to it. It seems like a good idea. But I prefer national sovereignty to a one world government. Star Trek was a fun series. It took human foibles into outer space. And united us against what was supposed to be "the other," but was really humanity wearing a different mask. And it assumed a unity back on earth. Well, we still don't have that unity here. And we don't have a Captain Kirk to put it all together for us. The mask is off here and the wars involve humans, are bloody, continuous, and not relegated to the dust bin of history by the UN. I prefer the US. And I cringe at the thought of being under the command of the UN or any other World Government.


Sounds like Paul Ryan is pretty right.
Hardly.

Last edited by detbuch; 06-12-2016 at 10:32 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 09:30 PM   #109
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
You would think a global organization like the UN should form a convention to agree on a common definition for an equitable discussion around discrimination...right?
...this is actually brilliant...really...we could have a corrupt global organization like the UN dictate speech codes for the world and then they could send their "Peace Keepers"(who apparently do more raping than peace keeping these days)..all around the world to enforce their speech codes
scottw is offline  
Old 06-12-2016, 10:21 PM   #110
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
...this is actually brilliant...really...we could have a corrupt global organization like the UN dictate speech codes for the world and then they could send their "Peace Keepers"(who apparently do more raping than peace keeping these days)..all around the world to enforce their speech codes
That's funny! And so right. And you didn't, other than some justifiable sarcasm, have to resort to the use of deceptive word morphs. And it does seem, that according to its own definition, the UN commits a lot of racial discrimination.
detbuch is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com