Who's this Veritis guy?
Another non-stop consistent anti-obama thread posting wing-nut?
... hubpages really needs to work on this stuff.
edit- I realize I mistyped its name in the subject line. My bad.
My guess is that it is all the same person - HP has a long history of turning a blind eye to banned bodies exhuming themselves - even though they probably have the same IP.
How does one get banned? Is it for exclusively posting anti-Obama threads?
Normally by posting like a total nob-head, trolling or engaging in personal abuse.
I can think of nothing more personally abusive than being called a racist yet I have been on here. Does that warrant someone being banned?
Ummmmm not if you are a racist I suppose ?
Isn't being called a racist about as filthy a name as one can be called. How does one judge another racist based? Isn't racist the expressed believe of one race's superiority over all others? I open reject and say so every time the subject is broached, the notion of race, at all. I do not understand how one man is different than another based solely on the difference in skin color. That is not much of a difference.
Yet I have been called racist. Should I complain?
I have the same problem when I say anything about China - streams of personal attacks, is that racist do you think ?
I don't believe in race and I believe those who hide behind it, in anyway, are scoundrels. The idea of race and the charge of racism permits one the luxury of no longer having to defend a position intellectually. Race trumps all arguments that is why it is so readily used as a means of squelching arguments, shaming opponents and rallying supporters. Just ask the greatest race baiter of all time Adolf Hitler about race. He was a big believer and an expert in using it as a weapon. He is often imitated today.
That having been said if one is openly attacked because of their skin color this is a file crime that must be punished.
Maybe that is your problem ? if you think Adolf was a race-baiter and not a racist then you have your glasses on upside down.
He was a racist but he employed race as a tool to get others to join him. He espoused the notion that race is immutable and eternal. He espoused the moral superiority of being racist. He also complained that it was envy of Aryan racial superiority that lead other to attack the Germanic people. It isn't racism alone for Hitler it was his use of it to convince others of the righteousness of their actions. Sounds like race baiting.
Where in anything I wrote did I reject the idea that Hitler was a racist. This is part of the problem with the terms involved. Because they are based on a convoluted view of humanity no idea is sufficiently precise. The problem isn't the evil among people about the color or origins of other people but with the idea of race. Evil is evil but what is race. Is it just skin color? Is it national origin? Is it religion? Is it language? Is it culture? Or has it become a bludgeon where by one can beat on an opponent and leave that opponent little recourse but to slink away. Is it the equivalent of the loaded question?
How about a sample conversation -
1st Person: "You are a racist and I don't talk to racists"
2nd Person: "I am not a racist."
1st Person: "You said something racist, you racist and I don't talk to racists, you racist."
2nd Person: "I am not a racist."
How does one defend against the most hateful of all possible attacks?
Racists deserve to post too. There is no legal restriction to believing something like that. It is ridiculous and horrible, but still. They have the right to post
Were you called a racist or was your comment called racist. A fine distinction perhaps?
A distinction without a difference. It is obvious that "racism" is a term so often used and misused that its meaning has been diluted and reduced. It is a horrid thing to be racist though many people hold bigoted or ignorant views. Was Archy Bunker a racist? He held ignorant and bigoted beliefs but would he subscribe to the idea that one man is worth less than another merely because of his skin color?
The dilution of the word has redounded to the benefit of race baiters, a common group on Hubpages. If one expresses any doubt about Barry's actions in office, his attitudes toward America or his qualifications for elective office than one is automatically a racist? If one merely ironically calls Barry a Muslim than one is automatically a racist? As if Muslim is a pejorative attached only to one race and suggests their inferiority.
The use of the term racist, itself, suggests a lack of insight and understanding as well as a penchant for hateful terms. But as a practitioner you would know that.
There is no doubt that racism is the source of a certain amount of anti-Obama sentiment. There are plenty of other sources--pro-lifers, global warming deniers, anti-taxers, anti-stem cell researchers, isolationists, end-of-lifers, anti-gay rightsers, pro-gun rightsers, anti-immigrantsers, birthers, truthers, drill, baby drillers, creationists, anti-Muslimers, abstinence onlyers, lock 'em up and throw away the keyers, anti-welfarers, anti-unioners, anti-environmental regulationistsers. absolutist free marketeers. What's the source of your objections to Obama?
There it is. "There is no doubt..." I have doubts because the charge is of such a grievous nature that I don't subscribe to its assertion unless I hear it or read it. Someone merely asserting that it is so is insufficient.
Then the second component of the attack. Placing the target on the defensive. "What are your reasons...." The implication is that the other person must defend their objection to prove they are not a bigot or a racist.
Check the stereotyping and shorthand needed to express ones own personal prejudices about ones opposition. Couched in negative terminology and over simplifying. I will not defend myself to anyone who asserts the racism and bigotry of others are the reason for their opposition to political policies.
"I have doubts because the charge is of such a grievous nature that I don't subscribe to its assertion unless I hear it or read it. Someone merely asserting that it is so is insufficient."
I have a hard time believing that you haven't seen the scurrilous, ugly racist pictures of President Obama and his wife that are circulating on the Internet. I would send you some if I hadn't deleted them. You'll just have to take my word for it. (And please note that I didn't call you a racist or anything you have said. I guess it would be accurate to call you a racism denier. Or one of the people who believe that white racism disappeared with Lincoln's emancipation proclamation and what remains is only black racism against whites.
Here's an example from a quick google search:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c … howing.php
Are you saying that most conservatives express concern about global warming, gay rights, women's rights, the environment, finding alternative energy sources, immigrant rights, support for foreign non-military aid, support for embryonic stem cell research, believe in evolution, support comprehensive sex education in public schools, etc.??? The "conservatives" I know fit the template more or less completely. So do the GOP presidential hopefuls. They are quite predictable and all afraid to death of the Tea Party.
Thanks for demonstrating the so vaunted high mindedness and fact based opinion that is so easily espoused yet so challenging to practice.
What's your objection? Which categories fit your views? And which don't? Some or most of the them are characteristics of some (not all) Tea Partiers.
I have a simple objection. I object to what passes for a political philosophy among liberals of all stripes running the gamut from Facism to Communism to Modern American Democrat Policy.
"A distinction without a difference."
No, there is a difference. Someone can make a racist crack unwittingly, perhaps being genuinely unaware of the racial overtones of his comment. For example, there used to be a chain of restaurants called "Sambo's," and its mascot was a black boy, the hero of a folktale who somehow managed to turn a tiger into butter. (Yeah, it's all kinds of confusing.) Anyway, the mascot was very minstrel-show-y, and the restaurant either renamed itself or went out of business entirely, I don't know which.
The reason I told you that story was so I could tell you this story. I once worked with a Black guy called Sam. The folks at work would call each other by nicknames. I called Sam "Sam-I-Am" one time, after the Dr Seuss character. One of our coworkers called him "Sambo," and was surprised when Sam was offended. (He didn't know about the restaurant or the folktake in question.) Once he understood, he apologized, saying he had no idea. Sam accepted the apology (as one should when no offense is intended).
That's an example of the difference between saying something racist and actually being a racist.
Back to the whole racism as a compnent of anti-Obama sentiment, if you haven't seen the signs with Obama as a witch doctor, the one about the african lion and the lyin' african, and the many many other signs and slogans with racial overtones, you haven't been paying attention.
The racist anti-Obama folks are out there there; their existence is undeniable. Most intelligent people do not care about Obama's race. But there are some morons out there that care very deeply. Here are a few examples, so you won't accuse me of making unsupported assertions:
This genius seems to think Obama is made of an inexpensive cotton fabric....
No racism in this sign. Nope, none at all.....
Yeah, no xenophobia or racism here...
Jeff, sadly, I believe there is a very significant portion of the country for whom race is the primary issue...
Race hatred knows no race:
Bigotry by a Black minister with important friends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XerTmS8 … re=related
Right, the country's real problem is black supremacy and discrimination against whites. Black supremacists were numerous in the sixties and seventies when the Black Panthers, Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad had many followers. Even then Martin Luther King had many more. Now, the Black Panthers have died out, Malcolm X was assassinated and we aren't hearing a lot from the Black Muslims although they are still around. Is it possible that you vision could stand a bit of correcting?
Update your thinking. No despicable idea ever really goes away. The Black Panthers are still around. Louis Farakhan is still around. There is no monopoly on bigotry or violence.
I saw an estimate of the number of Black Panthers which was around 30. Farrakahn has been keeping quiet lately. I'm not a fan of the Black Muslims, but they aren't all bad. They started here in Detroit, and their basic message was--rely on yourself, don't hold you hand out to whitey, don't do drugs, dress in clean, neat clothes, work hard and take care of yourself and your family. Sounds like traditional American values, doesn't it?
"Race hatred knows no race:"
Waitwait...I thought that accusing someone of race hatred "suggests a lack of insight and understanding as well as a penchant for hateful terms."
Which is it? Is it okay to point out racially-motivated (or seemingly racially-motivated) stuff, or does it suggest a lack of insight?
Or does it only suggest a lack of insight when someone points out that a lot of the anti-Obama sentiment in America seems to be racially motivated (or else targets and tries to take advantage of any latent racism left in white America)?
Just using the language available. One of the cumbersome aspects of the foolish idea of race. Black supremacist, White supremacist both are silly and hateful. Racism is isn't restricted to whites and capitalizing on racism isn't restricted to whites.
You can see how deeply ingrained racial language is in our culture despite race being a mere construct used to separate people. There is no limit to the foolishness and wickedness of people who want to hate each other and race is no limit. A "hater" isn't guaranteed to be white and there is ample evidence of it.
"A "hater" isn't guaranteed to be white and there is ample evidence of it."
Fair enough, but do you concede that there are some anti-Obama folks for whom race is a prime motivator, or not?
I would bet that the percentage of conservatives, Republicans, independents, Libertarians and all others opposed to Obama objecting to him because of his skin color is a much smaller over all percentage than that of those who support him because of his skin color among liberals.
I agree. Nearly all blacks vote for Obama. Same with Northeastern Jewish people. They are largely unthinking. Or is it, perhaps, self-loathing?
If he were conservative, working to bring spending into control, reducing the size, scope, reach and obnoxiousness of the Federal government I would be right there cheering him on. As he is the opposite so, too, am I. It was never about race. And it never will be, for conservatives.
"I would bet that the percentage of conservatives,... opposed to Obama objecting to him because of his skin color is a much smaller over all percentage than that of those who support him because of his skin color among liberals."
Interesting. You object to people who claim that conservatives who don't like Obama are (in whole or in part) racially biased, but you accuse liberals who support Obama of racial bias.
And here's Mister V saying that "nearly all blacks" and "Northeastern Jewish people" "are largely unthinking." Wow, does that sound like a racially biased comment to anybody else? 'Cos it does to me.
But it's those other people who are racially biased, not conservatives like you, right?
Other than skin color why would nearly all blacks vote for candidate Obama? And other than their liberalism why would Northeastern Jews vote for someone who is anti-semitic? They are unthinking beyond the allure of skin color or their liberalism. Do you have a different explanation?
Do you think that making an astute observation makes one racially biased? Is it one particular word that you don't like? Should I have said, "Nearly all blacks voted for candidate Obama, Hmmmmm"?
Or is any conclusion, other than the one you might have, automatically suspect?
"Other than skin color why would nearly all blacks vote for candidate Obama?...They are unthinking beyond the allure of skin color or their liberalism. Do you have a different explanation?"
It's the same explanation that conservatives give when someone suggests that their antipathy for Obama might have something to do with his skin color: they support his policies.
Of course, to allow that someone might support President Obama for reasons other than skin color, you'd have to concede a couple points:
One, that it's possible to support or oppose a politician based on policy and not skin color
Two, that there are people who support liberal policies and oppose conservative ones
All of this "it's the liberals who are racially biased, because there's no reason to vote for Obama other than skin color" nonsense is starting to look more like projection than anything else.
"Do you think that making an astute observation makes one racially biased?"
I dunno. Try making one and we'll see.
How about Jew-Hating anti-semite?
That make the grade?
For making a personal attack against another hubber as opposed to attacking a political office holder or celebrity. Name calling among hubbers is frowned on. The objective, in my opinion, is or should be informed, fact based, high level, congenial, respectful discussion among participants.
. . . informed, fact based . . . your having a larf guvnor what forums have those attributes !
It does seem that forum posts degenerate into hyperbole and vitriol rather than some high minded discussion. I find it amusing that one of the participants in those kind of discussions believes he is high minded.
I have always found our Ralph to be high minded, in that he does not stoop to putting views not backed by some kind of information, he is pretty fair and even handed, and I have opposing views to him on many issues.
No kidding. Ralph is astounding to me. How he keeps his from getting annoyed, responding in kind, while maintaining a standard so high with regards to the knowledge and wording of his posts is remarkable to me. Ralph, you are the standard sir.
Sometimes, you just need to vent though too. I get on here for that reason. This is where I find the people on the other side, break down their arguments, and let off some political steam. Originally, I thought it would be a debate of actual issues, that when really discussed we would end up being closer than initially thought. However, upon spending time here...there aren't too many opposing viewpoints who present a viable argument, much less actual resources for their arguments.
We do not share a universe of discourse making any discussion moot. There is no compromise possible on issues because there is no commonly held definition of meaning regarding those issues.
I have been called a racist - perhaps the most offensive name I have ever been called - by good, loving, liberal hubbers. There is nothing else I can be called that would warrant a punch in the nose if done in person but those people are still on here? Is it because I didn't whine about it to the management?
Sn53anon was accused of racism and permanently banned. Why? the phrase "the boy president". It seems that liberals, who live in the past, believe that could only be racist. In fact it is an accurate description of the very childish president we are unfortunately stuck with until the end of this term.
The charge of racism is still a powerful tool used, mostly by those on the left, to stop speech they disagree with.
It is a bit hilarious that you believe you have the actual story on virtually everything, but are always wrong or ridiculous. Take the "boy president" argument. Do you work for HB? Did you ban her? Did you talk to the person who banned her? Did you read any documentation provided by HB explaining specifically why she was banned?
No dude, no Shannon you can't. You don't believe in a legally certified and published birth certificate but we are to buy you know the mind of others. Wait, if you used to work on Johnny Carson and wore a big hat then okay, we might buy it.
Is this an example of your willingness to discuss issues? I have informed opinions. I like them. They work for me. Your mileage may vary (I stole this from someone; I have always liked it).
Isn't that a perfect description, along the lines of "the Boy who would be King"? President Obama displays childish behavior, only occasionally slipping into adulthood, before reverting to the child that he is.
I do not know about HB. Was that a person here?
Perhaps you are rambling. I cannot tell. That, in itself is a bad sign. You should see someone about it.
What is it, other than my thoughts and observations, do you think I am selling?
I think you are selling basically what most of the other ideologues are selling. At first, I thought you were just misinformed, then you showed a willingness to research and learn if you were or were not correct, then you showed that you really weren't willing.
You are selling the idea without backup and resources, being that the ones you use end up being incorrect (i.e. Israel was attacked in the 6-Day war). Propaganda is your product my man. Sad, but true.
Well, Not quite. What I remember asking was whether or not Israel had ever been attacked by her Arab neighbors. Are you telling me that the Arabs never attacked Israel?
Let's see. Quotes are from wikipedia:
The War of Independence (Civil War 1947 – 1948) Arabs attack Israel: Arab states declared that they would greet any attempt to create a Jewish state with war. The violence increased in early 1948 as the British gradually withdrew from Palestine.
The War of Independence (The Arab Invasion) Arabs attack Israel: Arab League members Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq declared war and announced their rejection of the UN partition decision.
1956 Suez War Arabs attack Israel: In 1956 Egypt blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, and closed the Suez canal to Israeli shipping. The canal was then nationalized, to the dismay of its British and French shareholders. In response, France and the United Kingdom entered into a secret agreement with Israel to take back the canal by force.
1967 Six-Day War Arabs provoke Israeli attack: Syria, Egypt and Jordan amassed troops along the Israeli borders and Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Nasser demanded that the UNEF leave Sinai, threatening escalation to a full war.
1969–1970 "War of Attrition" Arabs provoke Israeli attacks: In retaliation for repeated Egyptian shelling of Israeli positions along the Suez Canal, Israeli planes made deep strikes into Egypt...
1973 Yom Kippur War The Syrian and Egyptian armies launched a well-planned surprise attack against the unprepared Israeli Defense Forces. For the first few days there was a great deal of uncertainty about Israel's capacity to repel the invaders, however the Syrians were repulsed and, although the Egyptians captured a strip of territory in Sinai, Israeli forces had in turn crossed the Suez Canal and were 100 kilometres from Cairo.
Wow--- I wish I could do anything except say you are flat out lying.
"The war began with a large-scale surprise air strike by Israel."
War of Independence
"By May 1948, 150,000 more had fled or were evicted as the Jews overpowered the Arabs. In Haifa, the Arab Higher Committee refused to allow the Arab population to remain under Jewish control thus contributing to the departure of the city's Arab population. There was particularly heavy fighting on the approach roads to Jerusalem, where the 100,000 strong Jewish community was cut off from the Jewish held areas in the rest of the country. The Jews destroyed most of the Arab villages along the route between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Jewish preparations for the expected Arab invasion included the forced eviction of Arab communities from strategic areas and from along major routes leading from the borders."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … 93_1948.29
I am using YOUR resource...event though it is wikipedia as ridiculous as that is to use, I am using it for a purpose. Notice the last sentence in the aforementioned quote btw.
"...EXPECTED ARAB INVASION."
Why bother with any more? You don't care. You don't want truth; you could care less about it. Trolls are trolls You post lies like we can't go and check it. I also like how you don't use actual quotation but your own personal summaries. For those playing...copy one of the statements and post it in a search engine to find out where it comes from.
Sad. You believe in the idea that you can go into someone's house and take it over. When they fight back, you call them aggressors. Pathetic.
Thank you, Ralph. I see far too many people here who bash each other on a personal level simply because they don't agree with a viewpoint. I just wonder if there is not a more appropriate forum out there for people who just want to post inflammatory threads and engage in name calling. HP is not the appropriate place for that kind of behavior to me.
LOL. Even the simplest comparison of my writing style to the others indicates that we are all different people.
He's banned and came back with a new name.
One need only ask. :-)
He (I), is a brilliant individual with two amazing daughters who are smarter than he is.
He is a patriot who cannot stand to see the eager and willing destruction of (t)his country by a president who was raised by and associated with communists and Marxists.
He recognizes that the right to keep one's property is the foundation of liberty and of freedom. Defense of the right to life, liberty, and property, is the essential duty of government. This government long ago put itself on the path to tyranny when stopped defending the citizen's right to property and chose to plunder as much of it as it could. Today, tyranny has arrived.
Mr. Veritis is Paul Revere.
You called your daughters idiots 2 days ago on a public forum. Are you kidding me? Dude, do you go 4 posts without something being wrong or a lie? LALO? Is that you? Nah...couldn't be Lalo...Lalo never put in as much effort and Oly just posts articles without adding much. You are Veritis...the guy with the ironic name.
They each have one great blind spot in their lives. They are unformed, they are idiots politically. They are the kind of supporters candidate Obama looked for.
I don't know. It is worth a look through my posts to count.
I see Oly's posts so he is still here. I cannot recall ever seeing LALO. I am neither one. I am Mr. Veritis. The man with the ironic name.
Mr. Veritas and Mr. Anon have many of the same writing styles, opinions, etc. They may be one in the same.
Evan - you obviously know the Latin word is 'veritas' and spelled it correctly as a matter of reflex, while the troll who adopted the word as a component of its screenname ... lacks your education.
To be fair, Ron made an observation that he saw the same flaw.
Doug, I don't believe I have ever, ever, insulted you. Do we really want to compare educations? Is my Masters Degree better than yours? Has my life of learning stacked up higher than yours? Does it matter that I have read more than 2000 worthwhile books?
Do you have a deficit of spirit...or imagination?
Your Masters Degree impresses me - actually intimidated me - even more than the piles of money you hint that you make in your businesses. I'm truly frightened by the tally of books you say you have read. I read a lot, but I don't count them. (perhaps because I am only a Mailman and lack your education)
But I know many well-read people, but not one of them keeps score as you say you do.
My observation was only that several hubbers noticed that, despite your enlightenment, you misspelled 'veritas'.
Do NOT be intimidated. It just means I can stick to a task until I have completed it.
It is the engineer in me. I love metrics. I create mind maps of nearly every book I read. And I document my chapter notes as personally made .mp3 files.
Metrics. I document them three ways. I have an index card for each one. I use it as a sort of bibliographical number so I can annotate the number and the page number on the notes I take. I also write the number in the books as I finish them. In my early years I would see "#271, first read: 22 August 1976. Worth another scan in five years." I am up in the easy thousands now. And I write the title on a calendar ledger I use for that purpose with the starting and ending dates for any specific book.
LOL. No. I explained elsewhere that when I was starting my second company we wanted Veritas but it was taken. So we consulted with some Latin-competent people we knew and decided that Veritis was an acceptable alternative. That became the name of my second company. When I started this on-line identity I decided to use it.
I am certain that I mentioned that my first two businesses failed. I have number three and number four in the early planning stages. From my research it is not uncommon to fail many times before learning the appropriate lessons needed to succeed.
I am rich according to president Obama. Not according to me.
A Masters degree ain't all that Doug - many on here have one, but don't feel the urge to whip it out as if it were an unusually large phallus.
And successfully stayed within the lines while coloring?
When my daughters were younger we would often color the illustrations in the books I read to them. We used colored pencils. We initialed our finished drawings. It is a sweet memory for me. And, I think, for them too.
Hopefully, THEY at least have moved on to more productive pursuits.
They are doing the things they are well matched for. My oldest daughter is a people-person. She can make friends in five seconds. Anywhere. Anytime. Under any circumstance. She is an attractive woman. She is much like my wife. My youngest daughter is far smarter than I am. She is also drop dead beautiful. She takes after me in many ways. She is thoughtful, deliberate, detail-oriented, and talented. I am grateful for both of them.
I am nominating this as the best 'one line' put down of 2011
I did not see it as a put down. I saw it as an opportunity.
You do realise that you are probably autistic in some way ? This is not a put down or insult - just that the way you note everything and send yourself notes from the past in your books (worth a read in 5 years), the relationship you describe with your daughters etc - all point to it. My brother in law would think in a similar way and he was suffering from a mild autism, he was a really nice guy in truth but his adherence to rules and certain concepts was absolute and unwavering.
I pay attention to details. If I am I would wish it upon most of you. It is at the core of my success.
I did not take it as a put down. I seldom credit people with bad motives. I try to learn from everything. Cool though. I never considered my attention to detail to be a bad thing.
Another thread, useless in purpose, about hubbers who post. What relation each has and who plays the ban game is meaningless when you consider their actions, and the format in which they use for a playground.
Why bother giving them even more attention by dedicating a thread to them?
Well, I can say from what I've seen so far from you, you're right, you are all about "me". Not surprising.
I had such high hopes for you. You come so close each time to getting it right.
Be careful. Your perception is obviously skewed, if you had any hopes for me. Too bad you lack the understanding.
Getting what right? I don't have a need to know if you're some clown who likes to play the race card whenever possible. I don't have a need to know who you are at all.
Therefore, YOU make no difference in the larger picture. Which, I am sure escapes you, since you have a problem seeing beyond yourself. But, good luck with it.
There is that leftist charge once again. Where have I played "the race card"? Perhaps your disinterest is the reason why you come close but seldom get it right.
I have made no claims of making a difference. Not in the large picture. Not in the small picture. Thanks for you thoughts.
I did not say you did play the race card. Just like, I didn't call YOU a clown?
I don't know what you are, much less, know who you are. The race card is constantly thrown around the forums. Considering it is a public forum, one might expect to see or read, in or from, the posts posted.
My interests are not something you could understand. This is apparent. And, I already can see why you don't understand. Too bad you cannot.
I see, appreciate the feedback and learning experience. It was rewarding. You don't understand, and now it is obvious to everyone else who is actually paying attention. And that, to me, is priceless.
The "them" refers to the myriad clones that your posts honor by their predictability.
You are an archetype, a cliche, representing a larger body of sychophantic haters that really have no issues that matter to them save one; the removal and villification of our current president.
Some have the audacity to speculate why, as the odds that every possible decision the president makes is inevitably wrong flies in the face of reasonable statistics. We all know the hate for the man himself is at the root, but the why is a matter of conjecture.
People can make informed assumptions, though.
Just have to say...liberals are not fascists...fascism is a right-wing philosophy as was Nazism.
Just waiting to hear the argument that Nazi's were socialist
Their party was the National Socialist Party. What more proof do you need? :-)
You don't see the word "fascist" anywhere in that party name, do you?
They were socialists.
Not to mention really swell, peace-loving, humanitarian dudes.
If the Nazis were socialist why were they supported by many if not most western pro-capitalist anti-socialist industrialists?
There is no glossary of ban-worthy words or phrases here on HP.
It's an imaginary line you either cross or you don't.
If you keep your cool and keep your comments just this side of personal, you can manage a pretty good insult.
If you let someone get under your skin and snap, you may or may not be reported.
If someone says something to you that you feel is a personal insult (or says something to someone else that you feel is a personal insult), report them.
Or grow a thicker skin.
And apply some silver polish to your tongue. .
"why would Northeastern Jews vote for someone who is anti-semitic? "
Do you think if you say this enough, it makes it true?
Palestinians are semitic....Europeans are not.
YOU are the anti-semite!!
by Don W2 years ago
The recent DOJ report said there was a 'pattern and practice of constitutional violations (that primarily target African Americans) in stopping people without reasonable suspicion, arresting them without probable cause,...
by Baileybear7 years ago
Why do I bother dialoguing with black&white/rigid-view creationists? They resort to childish name-calling & accuse me of insulting them!eg just now, I was asked what schitzo meds I was on. I...
by danicole3 years ago
Reasons why Ferguson and Eric Garner has to do with race. List below
by terced ojos7 years ago
If you are a racist does that make you a evil person?One of the definitions of racism specifies that you believe that your race is superior to others. The evil effects of racism are well documented in world...
by Elizabeth4 years ago
In debates, what do you think constitutes a personal attack?With debates spanning the full spectrum from civilized and polite discussions to blatant screaming and name calling, I've noticed that a lot of people are...
by Anish Patel5 years ago
‘Reverse Racism’ - Is there such a thing?If you are White, have you ever felt discriminated against by a person of another race or a person belonging to a ‘minority’ group.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.