Arkansas GOPer: We'll take the country back from Obama and the minorities!

[BigSkyBob]

Why don't we ban BS Bob so he can post full time on Stormfront? I think we will be doing him a favor.

I really don't know why he still bothers to post here; he's surely not trying to make any friends.

Well, Miles, I post here because I care about the fate of my country. Was it Harry Truman who said about Washington, "If you want a friend in this town get a dog!"

In general, I am appalled by the folks I see in politics. The only moral standards they seem to have is winning elections and raising more money than their opponents. It is so bad that often they consider their attempts to deceive the folks back home as "pandering," and consider themselves the victims of their perceived need to "pander."

Here's a little story feature you, Miles. Back in the North Carolina redistricting thread you posted some map you declared to be some sort of natural redistricting scheme. I pointed out that you had separated Winston-Salem from it suburbs, and Greensboro from its suburbs to create an urban district that a Democrat would win. I pointed out your partisanship. You indigently replied that had started out from the West and swept East letting the chips fall were they may. Apparently having forgotten what you had posted, later in the same thread you told another poster about the exact same map that you had intentionally combined Winston-Salem with Greensboro!

Well, I'd venture to say that most of the posters here care about their country; sure, I care about my country and my state. However, that doesn't give me the license to act like I have some sort of moral high ground over everyone else. I also don't see my patriotism as a barrier to building positive and constructive relationships with my fellow posters. You, on the other hand, seem to think of your fellow posters as punching bags that should be vilified if the have a red avatar. By the way, where's your avatar?

For all the complaining that you've done about redistricting, how come I've never seen you post a map you've drawn in DRA? 'Kinda funny.

As I've done more precinct-level mapping of and travelling around NC, I've become more aware of its geopolitical and partisan situation. Thus, I think my mapping/DRA skills have strengthened accordingly over the years. If you still want to cling to that point you made about the Triad, we can go back to the redistricting threads and stop hijacking this one.

First of all, I would point out that in this very thread my questioning the semantic interpretation on a remark was equated with posting on "Stormfront," whatever that means. I find it rather bizarre that the Teaparty faction of the Republican party that boosts among it own one Black and two Hispanic United States Senators is the faction that is presumed to be "racist." I find it a particular case of selective outrage on your part to claim that  I, " think of [my] fellow posters as punching bags," right after that particularly cheap shot was leveled against me without comment from you.

As to morality. It is simply an empirical fact that we have a political class that among things grants considerations to campaign donors not extended the electorate, lies habitually, and accepts future employment from the industries that they alleged regulate on the behalf of the public.  Now, you can either aspire to be more moral than that, as moral as that, or less moral than that.  I aspire to be more moral than the political class. You have a problem with the decision I have taken. I'm  kind of curious as what exactly your objection is, Miles?

As to building "positive and constructive relationships with other posters," I would again remind you of your actions towards me. Again, the statement I made was True, and you know it was True, yet, for some reason you chose to attack me on a personal level for making it. Can you see how I found that a tad bit offensive, Miles? Look, Miles, either consistency really is applying the same standards in all circumstances, or, as many in the political class believe, invariably siding against your political opponents. Quo Vadis, Miles.

I'll tell you a joke, Miles. There was a women, Jessie Winchester, who was a contestant in the Mrs Nevada beauty contest. A scandal arose when it was uncovered that she was a prostitute at the Moon Light Bunny Ranch. The organizers of the pageant were concerned that having a prostitute as a contestant detracted from the wholesome family image the Mrs Nevada pageant was trying to project. Many of my fellow conservatives were particularly incensed. I thought it was much ado about nothing. First of all, she was fifty from a very small town going up against much younger women drawn from larger pools so ignoring her would be the better option. But, I usually won them over, and bent them over with laughter, when I ask, "Would you really be making such a fuss if it were uncovered that she were a lawyer? A used car salesman? Or, a politician?"

You might notice that no one would think it funny if I said, "...a minister? A pharmacist? Or, a teacher?" That is a social reality in which we live. I believe that that social reality has valid roots. Apparently, you seem to disagree. To each his own, I suppose.

[BigSkyBob]

Bob, do you think Senator Rapert is stupid enough not to know the double meaning of the word 'minority', naive enough not to take it into account when composing this speech, inconsiderate enough not to care, or some combination of the three?

Assuming others will interpret your remarks in good faith is not a crime. Like women who walk the streets at night without an escort, he may have acted imprudently, but, not immorally.

Second, "minority" is simply not a double entendre, nor, is "sanction" an oxymoronism.

Third, I would note the people twisting his remarks into racial remarks are the ones being "inconsiderate." He is a human being, and, what has happened to him is outrageous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are changing standards. The standard that was asserted is that some folks in the Republican party "just don't criticize the fringe, so they won't upset that faction of the party."  Well, the exact same thing is true of Democrats concerning Louis Farrakhan and a number of other people. Maybe the SPLC has stated the obvious about Louis Farrakhan,  but, that simply doesn't excuse the large number of elected Democrats who have not.
[/quote]

Probably because Farrakhan hasn't been politically relevant or in the news in 20 years.

[/quote]

A quick google search lists Farrakhan as commenting on how Django Unchained is preparing White and Black folks for an upcoming race war;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You ought to be denouncing him, not minimizing him.
[/quote]

To minimize is often more effective than to denounce. I didn't hear about this until just now, or even think to care about Farrakhan's opinion of the film. Did you, before doing this Google search? Did anyone else in this thread?
[/quote]

First of all, either ignoring the "racism" of certain "faction" within your party is inherently wrong, or it isn't. Don't tell me it is strategic "minimization" when your side does and implicit guilt when the other side does it.

Second, another poster didn't try to minimize the effectiveness of Farrakhan, but, rather deny some unpleasant facts.

Third, since his Farrakhan's remarks about Django Unchained and an impending "race war" were part of a radio broadcast it is fairly safe to assume a large number of Democrats did hear it, or ought to have heard about it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Bob, do you think Senator Rapert is stupid enough not to know the double meaning of the word 'minority', naive enough not to take it into account when composing this speech, inconsiderate enough not to care, or some combination of the three?

Assuming others will interpret your remarks in good faith is not a crime. Like women who walk the streets at night without an escort, he may have acted imprudently, but, not immorally.

Entirely true, if the racial interpretation is indeed not the one that Senator Rapert intended. You have yet to actively demonstrate that. I don't really think you can.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Minority means two related but different things in political discourse in this country and you know it. First: Those who are fewer than their opposite number (example: People who voted against Barack Obama in the most recent election). Second: Those who aren't white folk. Claiming that the second meaning is nonexistent or rendered nonexistent by the presence or absence of a definite article is absurd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're going to claim that there's no indication that his remarks were racial in import, others are free to claim that there's no indication that they weren't, because 'minority' means two related but different things in this country, whether you want it to or not. (Frankly, I think they make more sense, as instruments of rhetoric, if they are read racially.) If Senator Rapert is an innocent (and stupid) lamb, then I'm sorry that people are being mean to him on the Internet, but I doubt he's in particular need of a white knight regardless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Farrakhan isn't, to the best of my knowledge, a Democrat. Farrakhan, in his own words, 'stop[ped] short of endorsing' Obama in 2008, but Obama rejected his not-quite-endorsement. Farrakhan no longer supports Obama, whom he calls the 'first Jewish president'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet, even if so, Farrakhan was written off (as you do), no race war has occurred, and life goes on. Funny, that.

_______

I'm writing a paper about 'In a Grove' right now. Senator Rapert didn't kill a samurai or rape the samurai's wife, but your characteristically affronted and indignant defense of him reads like something out of that story. 'Interpretations'. 'Interpretations' everywhere.

[BigSkyBob]

Bob, do you think Senator Rapert is stupid enough not to know the double meaning of the word 'minority', naive enough not to take it into account when composing this speech, inconsiderate enough not to care, or some combination of the three?

Assuming others will interpret your remarks in good faith is not a crime. Like women who walk the streets at night without an escort, he may have acted imprudently, but, not immorally.

Entirely true, if the racial interpretation is indeed not the one that Senator Rapert intended. You have yet to actively demonstrate that. I don't really think you can. 

Of course, the burden of proof rests with his accusers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Minority means two related but different things in political discourse in this country and you know it. First: Those who are fewer than their opposite number (example: People who voted against Barack Obama in the most recent election). Second: Those who aren't white folk. Claiming that the second meaning is nonexistent or rendered nonexistent by the presence or absence of a definite article is absurd. [/quote]

Again, I don't dispute that the word "sanction" has two opposite meanings. What I dispute is the use of one implicitly implies the other. That would be oxymoronic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're going to claim that there's no indication that his remarks were racial in import, [/quote]

I am claiming that his intended meaning was "minority" in the sense of "political position held by fewer people than majority position."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Minority" has two definitions.  In any particular sentence, it means one or the other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What has happened to him is unjust, and I am perfectly free to note that injustice. Since when is pointing out an injustice problematic?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Farrakhan isn't, to the best of my knowledge, a Democrat. Farrakhan, in his own words, 'stop[ped] short of endorsing' Obama in 2008, but Obama rejected his not-quite-endorsement. Farrakhan no longer supports Obama, whom he calls the 'first Jewish president'. [/quote]

I take it you know for a fact that the statement that he has been an non-entity for twenty years is a strawman well-stuffed with straw?

Nathan, in your estimation, what percentage of the members of Farrakhan's movement voted for Obama? Romney? Stayed home?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care.  [/quote]

That is exactly my point! You don't care that another poster tried to sweep the activities of Louis Farrakhan under the table, but, you do care that I objected to misquoting someone. That reveals a certain set of priorities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet, even if so, Farrakhan was written off (as you do), no race war has occurred, and life goes on. Funny, that. [/quote]

So, Farrakhan's remarks are only evil when the first bullets fly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You might consider reading "The Emperor and His New Clothes."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Bob, do you think Senator Rapert is stupid enough not to know the double meaning of the word 'minority', naive enough not to take it into account when composing this speech, inconsiderate enough not to care, or some combination of the three?

Assuming others will interpret your remarks in good faith is not a crime. Like women who walk the streets at night without an escort, he may have acted imprudently, but, not immorally.

Entirely true, if the racial interpretation is indeed not the one that Senator Rapert intended. You have yet to actively demonstrate that. I don't really think you can. 

Of course, the burden of proof rests with his accusers.

Eh. I suppose I'm not taking this as seriously as you are. I don't think there really is a 'burden of proof'. You're the one who's treating this like some sort of legal case. In any case I address below why I think the quote makes more sense when one assumes the racial meaning of 'minority'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Minority means two related but different things in political discourse in this country and you know it. First: Those who are fewer than their opposite number (example: People who voted against Barack Obama in the most recent election). Second: Those who aren't white folk. Claiming that the second meaning is nonexistent or rendered nonexistent by the presence or absence of a definite article is absurd. [/quote]

Again, I don't dispute that the word "sanction" has two opposite meanings. What I dispute is the use of one implicitly implies the other. That would be oxymoronic.[/quote]

Well, yes, because the meanings are mutually exclusive, and one can usually intuit which is intended from the context pretty easily.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're going to claim that there's no indication that his remarks were racial in import, [/quote]

I am claiming that his intended meaning was "minority" in the sense of "political position held by fewer people than majority position."[/quote]

Then it makes less sense, because Obama won a majority of the vote. In that case Senator Rapert could only (assuming he's making a remotely cogent, fact-based, or coherent statement, which I'd like to, for his sake) be speaking in a very parochial manner--the absolute broadest view he could possibly be taking would be of the State of Arkansas--but that's no sin, I suppose. One also wonders why he felt the need to use the word at all, considering that by the only readily quantifiable measure--election results--it's false.

Assuming the racial meaning doesn't raise these questions. The quote is much more coherent and grounded in reality that way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Minority" has two definitions.  In any particular sentence, it means one or the other.[/quote]

You used the word 'double entendre' up above, but you're not really giving me much cause to believe that you know what one is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What has happened to him is unjust, and I am perfectly free to note that injustice. Since when is pointing out an injustice problematic?[/quote]

It's your insistence that your interpretation is RIGHT and ours are WRONG that's problematic. You seem to think that your view is not only objectively correct but somehow obvious. A cursory examination of this thread reveals that that's not the case. You reconcile this discrepancy by assuming bad faith. It wounds you when people assume bad faith of Senator Rapert. This is because you have a Manichean worldview.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Farrakhan isn't, to the best of my knowledge, a Democrat. Farrakhan, in his own words, 'stop[ped] short of endorsing' Obama in 2008, but Obama rejected his not-quite-endorsement. Farrakhan no longer supports Obama, whom he calls the 'first Jewish president'. [/quote]

I take it you know for a fact that the statement that he has been an non-entity for twenty years is a strawman well-stuffed with straw?[/quote]

That depends entirely on how you define status as an entity--he certainly hasn't pulled off anything as impressive as the Million Man March (which, yes, was seventeen years ago, not twenty--a comparatively minor factual inaccuracy which I doubt brittain33 is likely to bother defending or lose sleep over) of late--so, no, I'm actually not willing to concede that that's a fact, or that you know what a strawman is for that matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably quite a few, probably not very many, and probably quite a few. Why?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care.  [/quote]

That is exactly my point! You don't care that another poster tried to sweep the activities of Louis Farrakhan under the table, but, you do care that I objected to misquoting someone. That reveals a certain set of priorities.[/quote]

I don't care about what he said because I'm not him and I haven't talked to him in this thread. I care about this conversation with you because I think your priorities are suspect. I'm not interested in impugning or defending the honor of Louis Farrakhan. I think bringing Louis Farrakhan into this was entirely irrelevant and a distraction from the entirely legitimate and apropos discussion of the Senator Raperts of this world, who wield distinctly more power than the Reverend Farrakhans have, do, or will. I don't particularly care that Miles Davis apparently hated white folk either. Why should I? It's not like he could really do anything about it. It's unfortunate and a personality flaw, yes, and I guess I care in that sense, but it doesn't get my stomach burning with indignation like it does yours.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet, even if so, Farrakhan was written off (as you do), no race war has occurred, and life goes on. Funny, that. [/quote]

So, Farrakhan's remarks are only evil when the first bullets fly?[/quote]

It's not so much whether or not they're evil as whether or not they're evil in a way that necessitates comment from people who aren't even affiliated with him. I don't think Senator Rapert necessitates comment from the likes of you, either, for that matter. You obviously wanted to comment, and did. Good for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You might consider reading "The Emperor and His New Clothes."
[/quote]

1. I have.
2. The story's not called that.
3. It seems like you bring it up a lot. I don't believe you've ever explained what you think the titular metaphor means. I doubt it's the interpretation with which I'm familiar.
4. I'm not a Scandinavian Studies major, Bob.

[Simfan34]

Bob, do you think Senator Rapert is stupid enough not to know the double meaning of the word 'minority', naive enough not to take it into account when composing this speech, inconsiderate enough not to care, or some combination of the three?

Assuming others will interpret your remarks in good faith is not a crime. Like women who walk the streets at night without an escort, he may have acted imprudently, but, not immorally.

This is too archaic even for my tastes, I must say.

Have I been drunkposting as BigSkyBob? Because this seems to be me set to "not black".

[BigSkyBob]

Bob, do you think Senator Rapert is stupid enough not to know the double meaning of the word 'minority', naive enough not to take it into account when composing this speech, inconsiderate enough not to care, or some combination of the three?

Assuming others will interpret your remarks in good faith is not a crime. Like women who walk the streets at night without an escort, he may have acted imprudently, but, not immorally.

This is too archaic even for my tastes, I must say.

Excuse me! Everything I have read has indicated the belief that women are "asking for it" when they walk alone on the streets at night is "archaic," and denouncations of that attitude are "modern." Since my position rests firmly on the latter, why are you using the term "archaic?"

[DC Al Fine]

Aaaannnndd... ignored

[Simfan34]

Bob, do you think Senator Rapert is stupid enough not to know the double meaning of the word 'minority', naive enough not to take it into account when composing this speech, inconsiderate enough not to care, or some combination of the three?

Assuming others will interpret your remarks in good faith is not a crime. Like women who walk the streets at night without an escort, he may have acted imprudently, but, not immorally.

This is too archaic even for my tastes, I must say.

Excuse me! Everything I have read has indicated the belief that women are "asking for it" when they walk alone on the streets at night is "archaic," and denouncations of that attitude are "modern." Since my position rests firmly on the latter, why are you using the term "archaic?"

You're saying it's imprudent for women not to walk at night without an escort. I'm calling that archaic.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Bob, do you think Senator Rapert is stupid enough not to know the double meaning of the word 'minority', naive enough not to take it into account when composing this speech, inconsiderate enough not to care, or some combination of the three?

Assuming others will interpret your remarks in good faith is not a crime. Like women who walk the streets at night without an escort, he may have acted imprudently, but, not immorally.

This is too archaic even for my tastes, I must say.

Excuse me! Everything I have read has indicated the belief that women are "asking for it" when they walk alone on the streets at night is "archaic," and denouncations of that attitude are "modern." Since my position rests firmly on the latter, why are you using the term "archaic?"

You're saying it's imprudent for women not to walk at night without an escort. I'm calling that archaic.

One would dearly love it to be archaic, and I'm sure it is in some places.

[Zioneer]

Is Bob trying to get banned?

[pbrower2a]

I don't know why people are so shocked by this. I hear this rhetoric all the time in the south. I think it's fair to say that the entire Republican party has been successfully transformed into an outlet for white resentment and anger.

Just because the democrats are now known as the "party of tolerance", it doesn't make everyone who disagrees with them a bigot, most republicans aren't like this guy, just because someone doesn't like Obama or his policies doesn't mean it's because of his skin color. You libs like to act like racism is as bad as it used to be. This is 2013, the reason you hear about these types of comments is because they are now so offensive, you think this would have been considered an inflammatory comment in 1963?

In 1963 the 'minorities' had little power.  Their influence was entirely in entertainment. Minorities usually knew the (subordinate) 'places' reserved for them and the consequences of venturing away from them.

Bigotry isn't as vicious as it used to be. That hardly excuses the pond scum of our day.

Maybe Republicans need to know what their bigotry tells not only blacks, but also Hispanics and Asians. Maybe they need to know why they are losing the non-white, non-Anglo, and non-Christian parts of the middle class that they used to make gains among.   

[BigSkyBob]

Bob, do you think Senator Rapert is stupid enough not to know the double meaning of the word 'minority', naive enough not to take it into account when composing this speech, inconsiderate enough not to care, or some combination of the three?

Assuming others will interpret your remarks in good faith is not a crime. Like women who walk the streets at night without an escort, he may have acted imprudently, but, not immorally.

This is too archaic even for my tastes, I must say.

Excuse me! Everything I have read has indicated the belief that women are "asking for it" when they walk alone on the streets at night is "archaic," and denouncations of that attitude are "modern." Since my position rests firmly on the latter, why are you using the term "archaic?"

You're saying it's imprudent for women not to walk at night without an escort. I'm calling that archaic.

It is an empirical social fact in many places. I find it utterly appalling that some people react to women being raped as if the existence of rapists lurking at night is a given.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It is an empirical social fact in many places.

Oh, sorry. I was unaware that you have internet access up in the mountains of Albania.
I guess in a few years you will become familiar with soap and penicillin too.

[Link]

You're saying it's imprudent for women not to walk at night without an escort. I'm calling that archaic.

It is an empirical social fact in many places. I find it utterly appalling that some people react to women being raped as if the existence of rapists lurking at night is a given.

While millions of women walk or jog unescorted through even some of the worst neighborhoods in America on a daily basis the vast majority of women are not raped by masked Negros (or your boogeyman of choice) jumping out of the bushes with a gun in their hand.  Actually they are typically raped by their father, uncle, cousin, family friend, etc... who are the traditional people that would escort a young lady through the dark of night in the good ol' days.

BigSkyBob, what f'ing planet do you live on?

[BigSkyBob]

You're saying it's imprudent for women not to walk at night without an escort. I'm calling that archaic.

It is an empirical social fact in many places. I find it utterly appalling that some people react to women being raped as if the existence of rapists lurking at night is a given.

While millions of women walk or jog unescorted through even some of the worst neighborhoods in America on a daily basis the vast majority of women are not raped by masked Negros (or your boogeyman of choice) jumping out of the bushes with a gun in their hand.  Actually they are typically raped by their father, uncle, cousin, family friend, etc... who are the traditional people that would escort a young lady through the dark of night in the good ol' days.

BigSkyBob, what f'ing planet do you live on?

Earth.

Other than your obvious errors in equating walking in broad daylight with walking at night, your suggestion that stepfathers would prefer to rape their stepdaughters on the streets in front of potential witnesses, your assertion that I believe escorts must be male, and your implication I have no objection to women being raped by White men, what f'ing social reality do you live in?

[BigSkyBob]

Bob, do you think Senator Rapert is stupid enough not to know the double meaning of the word 'minority', naive enough not to take it into account when composing this speech, inconsiderate enough not to care, or some combination of the three?

Assuming others will interpret your remarks in good faith is not a crime. Like women who walk the streets at night without an escort, he may have acted imprudently, but, not immorally.

This is too archaic even for my tastes, I must say.

Excuse me! Everything I have read has indicated the belief that women are "asking for it" when they walk alone on the streets at night is "archaic," and denouncations of that attitude are "modern." Since my position rests firmly on the latter, why are you using the term "archaic?"

You're saying it's imprudent for women not to walk at night without an escort. I'm calling that archaic.

No, that is the exact opposite of what I wrote. You could drop the "im..." or the "not." Nor, was it correct for you to drop the "alone" rather than "without an escort."

[BigSkyBob]

It's your insistence that your interpretation is RIGHT and ours are WRONG that's problematic. You seem to think that your view is not only objectively correct but somehow obvious. A cursory examination of this thread reveals that that's not the case. You reconcile this discrepancy by assuming bad faith. It wounds you when people assume bad faith of Senator Rapert. This is because you have a Manichean worldview.

Nathan, I can not stress how Orwellian I consider your statement to be given the fact that many of the folks quoting him seemed to have decided any question as to his innocence or guilt isn't even debatable in favor of a discussion of which third parties ought to be tarred with the "racist" brush. One poster of your avatar color even took it upon himself to be my judge, jury and executioner for my having the audacity to question the veracity of the claims made against him. Advocating that someone be banned merely for questioning the factual accuracy of a statement is taking an "insistence" that ones "interpretation is RIGHT and all others is WRONG." If such attitudes are really "problematic" with you may I suggest you turn your attention to who is clearly the most egregious offender.

As for the facts in this case. Senator Rapert, apparently, hosts a Christian outreach center that hosts mission trips to Uganda, Ghana, and, the Philipines. Can we just assume the "racist" strawman is well-stuffed with straw at that point?

As for the context of his remarks, he was speaking about how he, as a Christian, had been offended that Obama failed to host the White House National Day of Prayer celebration on the first Thursday in May as was traditionally the case. Can we just assume that his objection to Obama is based on Obama's actions and not his skin color?


As to your use of the term "double meaning," I am again pointing out that the term itself has a "double meaning." Some words have multiple meanings, while others merely have multiple definitions. Some words or phrases with "double meaning" are inherently ambiguous, while others simply are not. "Minority" is clearly in the latter camp. I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue. If you think his words were ambiguous,  then, you should oppose the rush to judgment. If you think his meaning was not ambiguous, then, you shouldn't be offering him that escape hatch.

[Sbane]

What did Rapert mean by "minorities", in your opinion? What group was he talking about specifically?

[Badger]

Oh Bob.....

[Link]

You're saying it's imprudent for women not to walk at night without an escort. I'm calling that archaic.

It is an empirical social fact in many places. I find it utterly appalling that some people react to women being raped as if the existence of rapists lurking at night is a given.

While millions of women walk or jog unescorted through even some of the worst neighborhoods in America on a daily basis the vast majority of women are not raped by masked Negros (or your boogeyman of choice) jumping out of the bushes with a gun in their hand.  Actually they are typically raped by their father, uncle, cousin, family friend, etc... who are the traditional people that would escort a young lady through the dark of night in the good ol' days.

BigSkyBob, what f'ing planet do you live on?

Earth.

Other than your obvious errors in equating walking in broad daylight with walking at night...

Only a complete moron would read the word "daily" in that context and assume it means only when the sun is up.  If your doctor tells you to take a pill once daily do you sit patiently waiting for the sun to come up before taking it or call your doctor in a panic if the sun has set and you haven't taken your pill yet?  Are you this out of arguments?

your suggestion that stepfathers would prefer to rape their stepdaughters on the streets in front of potential witnesses...

WTF?!  You are losing it.

your assertion that I believe escorts must be male...

Usually when someone refers to a traditional escort who's primary purpose was protection for a lady traveling through a high crime neighborhood after dark the thinking was the optimal choice was a close male associate.  If you think that is weird that is more of a reflection on your thought process than anything else.

your implication I have no objection to women being raped by White men, what f'ing social reality do you live in?

Is this the way you concede debates?

[BigSkyBob]

What did Rapert mean by "minorities", in your opinion? What group was he talking about specifically?

Watch the full video and see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzIQuvMzQAY

At about 5:00 a pop-up occurs to an earlier part of his speech were he clearly used the words "minority political interests."  [Opps, that was 3:45]

His statement had everything to do with his objection to an Arkansas State Supreme Court iruling that he found both objectionable, and undemocratic.  It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with race.

There was a rush to judgment.

[BigSkyBob]

You're saying it's imprudent for women not to walk at night without an escort. I'm calling that archaic.

It is an empirical social fact in many places. I find it utterly appalling that some people react to women being raped as if the existence of rapists lurking at night is a given.

While millions of women walk or jog unescorted through even some of the worst neighborhoods in America on a daily basis the vast majority of women are not raped by masked Negros (or your boogeyman of choice) jumping out of the bushes with a gun in their hand.  Actually they are typically raped by their father, uncle, cousin, family friend, etc... who are the traditional people that would escort a young lady through the dark of night in the good ol' days.

BigSkyBob, what f'ing planet do you live on?

Earth.

Other than your obvious errors in equating walking in broad daylight with walking at night...

Only a complete moron would read the word "daily" in that context and assume it means only when the sun is up. 

Only a moron would claim that "at night" means "either in daylight or dark of night."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WTF?!  You are losing it. [/quote]

I found it rather bizarre that you brought stepfathers into a discussion of women venturing out at night alone. While it is unfortunately True that a large number of young women cannot reasonably trust their stepfathers, such rapes are more apt to occur at home.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Usually when someone refers to a traditional escort who's primary purpose was protection for a lady traveling through a high crime neighborhood after dark the thinking was the optimal choice was a close male associate.  [/quote]

A close male associate may or may not in fact be the optimal choice. But, that is a giant aside. The social reality in which I live is that parents often tell their daughters when traveling to not venture out alone after dark. It is not the social reality in which I live that parents often tell their daughters when traveling to not venture out after dark unless escorted by at least one male. Most parents advice the safety in numbers theory that allows for a group of women to venture out at night.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this the way you concede debates?
[/quote]

When you play the race card by claiming that I am believe the threat to women out alone at night is racial, you are pretty much announcing your intellectual bankruptcy.

[BigSkyBob]

Oh Bob.....

By all means watch the video and see for yourself that I was right.

[Torie]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.