Your views: Not guilty as alleged

Judged:

3

3

2

Woody wrote:

Hays: <<My remarks on racism interpret what many people have witnessed and remarked in the course of Obama's presidency.>>
Like when Obama called a policeman racist for doing his work?

Judged:

2

1

1

Pen Pal wrote:

Readers may be interested in the blog which I posted last week. The title is "The Failing Obama Presidency." Interested readers of the Sun-News can find it by going to the home page, then the menu bar, then opinion, then blogs, then mine.
I have to reply to comment #1 above. My "proof" is the news coverage in the mainstream press and TV. I did not take notes. Apparently, you have entirely different sources of information. It would be interesting to know where the voices come from. I reject both your guilt-by-association position, with its unwarranted inference that because one listens to someone speak, even for 20 years, he or she accepted the message(s) heard. If this statement is what, for you, passes as argument, I suggest getting a GED.

Judged:

1

Pen Pal wrote:

Readers may be interested in the blog which I posted last week. The title is "The Failing Obama Presidency." Interested readers of the Sun-News can find it by going to the home page, then the menu bar, then opinion, then blogs, then mine.
I have to reply to comment #1 above. My "proof" is the news coverage in the mainstream press and TV. I did not take notes. Apparently, you have entirely different sources of information. It would be interesting to know where the voices come from. I reject both your guilt-by-association position, with its unwarranted inference that because one listens to someone speak, even for 20 years, he or she accepted the message(s) heard. If this statement is what, for you, passes as argument, I suggest getting a GED.

Judged:

3

2

2

Paul Lindsey wrote:

Dr. Hays' original article can be found at www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_1342... .
Unfortunately, his 3rd paragraph does not begin "as a group", but "as a party". Writing as Pen Pal, he rejects the guilt-by-association argument, but then uses it himself.

Judged:

3

1

1

Think about it wrote:

'Me thinks the 'writer' doth protest too much'.
The fact that you consistently bring up racism and intolerance, makes me believe that you are writing about the man in the mirror.
You have 'friends', well we all have friends. It's not how we see our friends that defines us.
It is the stereotypes we assign to those who we do not 'know', that defines our view of the world.

Judged:

1

1

Pen Pal wrote:

<quoted text>
Right you are: I misremembered my terms. But "group" versus "party" makes no difference. My argument is not a guilt-by-association one, which you either do not understand or misuse to make a false charge. I neither claim nor imply that anyone is a racist because of membership in the Republican party or even because the membership of racists in it. I say that the party includes many people who are racist or abide racism; I imply that it includes other people who are not racist and do not abide it. Ergo, a person's membership in the party does not make them racist, and I do not claim or imply that it does.

Woody wrote:

Like when Obama called a policeman racist for doing his work?

Judged:

1

1

1

Pen Pal wrote:

<quoted text>
Right you are: I misremembered my terms. But "group" versus "party" makes no difference. My argument is not a guilt-by-association one, which you either do not understand or misuse to make a false charge. I neither claim nor imply that anyone is a racist because of membership in the Republican party or even because the membership of racists in it. I say that the party includes many people who are racist or abide racism; I imply that it includes other people who are not racist and do not abide it. Ergo, a person's membership in the party does not make them racist, and I do not claim or imply that it does.

Algernon_DAmmassa wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama never called the police officer a racist. He said that the officer "acted stupidly" and noted that there have been incidents of racial profiling that have bred mistrust between citizens and police.

Judged:

1

Paul Lindsey wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh please, Dr. Hays. Yes, in your original article www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_1342... , your 1st paragraph states that you have Republican "best friends" that your hold in high regard. In your 2nd paragraph, you note that there are "other Republicans". You go on to divide these others into two camps: "the worst" republicans who are racist, secessionist, etc, and "the best" who are "too confused, cowardly or cynical to repudiate these apostates..."
From your 3rd paragraph onwards, any modifier, such as "some", "a few", or even "a majority", is missing. Your 3rd paragraph begins, "As a party, Republicans have let racism dominate ...". In your comments under the pen name of "The Columnist" on Sep 26th http://www.topix.net/forum/source/las-cruces-... , you state, "Since I did not accuse all Republicans of racism, only most of them, those who have denied their racism have identified themselves as racists by protesting too much." In your view, anyone who identifies themselves as a Republican is an anti-government racist. Much as all Japanese were enemies in WWII, including American-born ones, you should have just come right out and said that the only good Republican is a dead one. So the only proper thing for a "mentally sound, morally fit and emotionally stable" Republican to do is to change their affliation to another party or independent, because to continue as a Republican or worse, funding Republican candidates or issues, is as bad as being a Nazi collaborator in France in WWII.
Perhaps you can explain something to me. Why do you post under unregistered names (Pen Pal, The Columnist)? Getting a registered name is easy. Perhaps "ML Hays" or even "Michael L Hays, PhD". Unfortunately, creating a registered name means that your posts are automatically titled as "from", unless you click the "not so-n-so" link. In my eyes, unregistered names have just about as much weight as anonymous sources. I guess that's why the 6th Amendment to the Constitution gives the accused the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him".

Judged:

1

Pen Pal wrote:

<quoted text>
Right you are: I misremembered my terms. But "group" versus "party" makes no difference. My argument is not a guilt-by-association one, which you either do not understand or misuse to make a false charge. I neither claim nor imply that anyone is a racist because of membership in the Republican party or even because the membership of racists in it. I say that the party includes many people who are racist or abide racism; I imply that it includes other people who are not racist and do not abide it. Ergo, a person's membership in the party does not make them racist, and I do not claim or imply that it does.

Judged:

3

3

2

Paul Lindsey wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh please, Dr. Hays. Yes, in your original article www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_1342... , your 1st paragraph states that you have Republican "best friends" that your hold in high regard. In your 2nd paragraph, you note that there are "other Republicans". You go on to divide these others into two camps: "the worst" republicans who are racist, secessionist, etc, and "the best" who are "too confused, cowardly or cynical to repudiate these apostates..."
From your 3rd paragraph onwards, any modifier, such as "some", "a few", or even "a majority", is missing. Your 3rd paragraph begins, "As a party, Republicans have let racism dominate ...". In your comments under the pen name of "The Columnist" on Sep 26th http://www.topix.net/forum/source/las-cruces-... , you state, "Since I did not accuse all Republicans of racism, only most of them, those who have denied their racism have identified themselves as racists by protesting too much."Much as you should have just come right out and said that the only good Republican is a dead one. So the only proper thing for a "mentally sound, morally fit and emotionally stable" Republican to do is to change their affliation to another party or independent, because to continue as a Republican or worse, funding Republican candidates or issues, is as bad as being a Nazi collaborator in France in WWII.
Perhaps you can explain something to me. Why do you post under unregistered names (Pen Pal, The Columnist)? Getting a registered name is easy. Perhaps "ML Hays" or even "Michael L Hays, PhD". Unfortunately, creating a registered name means that your posts are automatically titled as "from", unless you click the "not so-n-so" link. In my eyes, unregistered names have just about as much weight as anonymous sources. I guess that's why the 6th Amendment to the Constitution gives the accused the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him".

Pen Pal wrote:

<quoted text>
Think about it, yourself. In other situations, I "consistently bring up" Shakespeare and his plays. By your sorry logic, I would see myself reflected as him in my mirror. Can you really do no better than this pathetic stab at rebuttal. Yes, think about it, and keep thinking; you might come up with a thought.

Judged:

2

1

1

Paul Lindsey wrote:

<quoted text>
Pres Obama spoke out on the subject when he should not have. He should have simply referred the press to the Boston police dept and Mayor's office. The professor acted stupidly....