Man I just laughed my butt off this morning. Check out this post at TPM central:
Roy Blunt Should Be Cleaned Out Of The Crapper
Now it’d probably come as no surprise that I don’t care for Steele, but if I were a Republican I’d be pretty pissed off as well. To equate a fellow Repub as a poop that needs to be cleaned out of the “crapper?” Good lord he’s a talent. If I was on your side guys, I’d be looking for someone other than a black Republican Joe Biden to be your primary party spokesman. ROFLMAO. Made some great Monday reading though.
The republicans just put Steele where he is so they could have a ‘black guy’ too. Know what I mean?
He’s a loser and fails miserably in his lame attempts to convey conservative ideas.
I don’t even consider him a conservative really. What can I do about it? Money makes the world go around.
Awfully cynical Edgar, “just so they could have a black guy too” – but I’ll bet you’re right.
Side note, I don’t see him conveying “conservative ideas” at all … I see him as a (really poor) party cheerleader. Every feed I get about him is that he’s put his foot in his mouth one way or another, and it’s always in response to something else – he’s not leading the party, it’s almost like he’s there holding the seat until the real heir apparent really comes along.
Weird.
For once perk, I agree with you 100 percent!
SWEET JESUS!
::goes out to buy a lottery ticket::
roflmao:
I think he’s really been trying to hard to speak out, since the questioning of the repubs, real, leader. (implications leaned toward Limbaugh)
Since… He really seems to be trying to put both feet in his mouth at the same time.
Personally, I like huckabee. He’s sharp. He’s smart, he’s witty and he’s funny.
Although Romney fits the presidential seat a little better, I dont like the way he leans at times. Although I think he’d make a great middle ground President.
If you were to pick a pres, from the repub, side Perk… who would it be? Edgar? Vsloathe?
I have no idea who I would pick. I don’t really like anyone out there to tell you the truth. I don’t really know enough about the potential candidates to make any kind of an informed choice, but there is no standout in my mind yet.
Ooog. Toughy today. I was OK with McCain pre-2000. Would’ve loved to see Colin Powell before he was destroyed by his presentation at the UN. Olympia Snowe might make an interesting choice.
Dunno. I think that any smart Repubs that want to make a run are probably keeping their head down and their hands in their pockets ATM … which, to my way of thinking, is a smart move. Probably see some horses break from the pack about a year from now.
fair enough….
I would have voted for Giuliani if he had made the primary. I’m still not sure why he didn’t, unless the extreme right didn’t like his “private life”.
Giuliani impressed me with his dedication to stay on offense on the war on terror, he got NYC out of the red, he’s pro-choice, is for reducing the corporate tax.
However, he is a racist (he supports affirmative action), but he doesn’t seem to hold any of the pussified, bleeding-heart liberal values, even though he is more “center” than “right”.
I’m not a fan of Yuckabee. I don’t have anything against him personally except that he looks like a smug douche, but if you dig a bit you’ll see that his history is rife with abuses of power. When his son lynched a dog (for no reason except cruelty), he told the county prosecutor that if he pursued charging his son, the county prosecutor would have to find another job. The prosecutor went ahead and did his job anyway, and Yuckabee made sure he no longer had one, true to his word.
I would have voted happily for Kucinich or Nader.
Oh sorry missed the republican bit.
Not interested. The party hasn’t had a worthy candidate since before Nixon.
Giuliani is hardcore “right” by the technical definition in that he’s an authoritarian asshole.
This is required to fight the imagined “war on terror” (you can’t go to war with an idea).
Anybody that can improve New York (the anus of the US) has my respect.
Giuliani is the candidate closest to having the correct perspsective on every issue.
As for your “imagined war on terror” horse squeeze –
I guess there’s no use wasting logic on you.
Sorry I’ve insulted your imaginary hobby horse.
Bet you like that “war on drugs” too, eh? How about the imaginary “war on Christmas”, bet that really gets your dander up?
I equate them all. You can’t go to “war” with an idea.
lol @ anus of the US, too
You probably live in one of the places that we prop up with all those tax dollars from the “anus”.
roflmao:
JTFC Nash, you just ache to be called names, huh?
(And yes, look up that acronym, it’ll make your ass twitch).
@ pro-affirmative action == racist: well, you just really cleared up what kind of asshole you are there. Whether you are pro-AA or not, being pro does not make you a racist at all. Only a racist or white supremacist would think so.
@ “pussified, bleeding heart liberal values” – well, simply put, fuck you. Or not. If compassion, empathy, negotiation instead of war and an adherence to the notions of our Constitution make me a pussified liberal, then so be it. But fuck you anyway. “Pussified” ROFLMAO.
@ NY == Anus of the US – man, you are really a piece of work. I don’t think I know many people more hurtful, angry, self righteous and selfish than you. You’re pretty amazing. Unfortunately not unique, as there are a great deal many more like you. Bummer, that.
@ vsloathe:
An “idea” does not bomb ships or buildings. People do.
I admit that the campaign should be called the “War on Terrorists”.
It is not like a “War on Drugs”. It can be like a “War on Drug Dealers”.
@ Perky:
Make no mistake –
No matter HOW you slice it, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are RACISTS. Look at the Jena 6 controversy and you’ll see what I mean.
Any government program that promotes someone SOLELY because of their race is RACIST. Affirmative Action and the NAACP are RACIST organizations. What would happen if someone started an NAAWP? Al Sharptongue would be all over it.
If a program or organization promoted whites over blacks or any other race, they’d be racist as well.
As for pussified liberals. Enough said. Or not.
“Compassion”? For whom? Illegal aliens? Terrorists? How about our own – the average hard-working middle class?
I do not like the Republicans idea of a “caste” system. The middle-class is what America is all about. However, our country is being overrun by gang-bangers, illegal immigrants, and Japanese investors. The average, middle-class, Ford driving, church going law-abiding citizen is now the enemy?? Grow a pair, would ya?
“Negotiation”? Of course diplomacy is the first course of action, even for Republicans. The great Ronald Reagan was a great example of this. “Peace Through Strength” is the best common sense idea since “We The People”. I once again remind you how quickly the Iran hostages were released after he was sworn in.
And, as for the Constitution, the Right is all about preserving it, not like your Messiah, who believes it should be changed as he sees fit.
As for NYC – with drug dealers, hookers and other urban filth, it has become as famous for muggings every 5 minutes as it has for broadway shows. I am sure that other big cities, like Chicago and LA are as bad (and mostly liberal).
Yes, I am angry, because this country has become a cesspool of decadence, and a laughing stock because other countries can see how divided, not united we are. I am all for liberty and freedom. I want a world where my little girl can go to a school free of bullies, drugs and child molesters, where she can work and keep most of her money, where she can live where she wants and drive what she wants. I want her to be able to walk down the street knowing that her country’s armed forces are keeping her safe. If you think that that’s “hurtful, angry, self righteous and selfish”, then you’re the one with the problem.
You’re such a pussy, I bet your nose bleeds every 30 days. roflmao:
vsloathe:
“This is required to fight the imagined “war on terror” (you can’t go to war with an idea).”
You mean with an idea of idiots who hate us because of who we are and try to kill us just because…. I’m pretty sure thats good enough reason to go to war.
Imagined… I’d like you to tell that to all the victims families of 9/11. I’m sure they’d be rightfully OFFENDED (uh oh… I used the liberal word….)
All the previous wars in humanity must have been imagined as well…. come on man. You sound silly!!
Perky:
“@ pro-affirmative action == racist: well, you just really cleared up what kind of asshole you are there. Whether you are pro-AA or not, being pro does not make you a racist at all. Only a racist or white supremacist would think so”
So i’m sure no one would have a problem with a “Caucasion College Fund”. Please.
Yes by archaic terms, Pro affirmative action wasn’t racist. This isn’t the 50′s.
The problem is when you give an inch to the liby’s, they’ll take 2 miles.
I’d be all for equal….EQUAL! There is no equal in pro affirmative action in todays world.
“man, you are really a piece of work. I don’t think I know many people more hurtful, angry, self righteous and selfish than you.”
Perk…man ,you just discribed yourself to a tee. I mean, have you read the spue you right down on your blogs… or do you just vomit on the blog and say to yourself, “this is ART”
Nash:
“You’re such a pussy, I bet your nose bleeds every 30 days.”
I almost pissed myself. I think you have Perk figured out, thats why you irritate him so much. Spot on Nash!
His ilk isn’t hard to figure out.
Just take Jimmy Carter and subtract about 80 IQ points.
dude… i think carter only had an iq of 75… or was that forrest gump? Hmmmm Maybe he’d make a better president than a liberal!
roflmao:
Oh, holy crap…
Someone should take your computer away (and your voter card, driver’s license…)
Affirmative action is legal discrimination based on race. White people get squeezed out of jobs just because they were born white.
That’s not equality but those are indisputable facts.
White males are being oppressed in America, legally.
dammit
I drew a nice little ASCII scene with my earlier point about the war on terror as an arrow flying with a WHOOSH! over the head of a confused smiley, with another arrow pointing to that smiley labeling it “apparently, most of the readers of this blog”.
Whoa I completely missed the part that you insinuated we’re the dumb ones.
It never ceases to amaze me. Here come the guys who can’t spell for two shits, telling me that I’m unintelligent. Spelling is something that they teach in grade school, and you haven’t mastered it yet.
It’s funny how all us “liberals” on the board are the ones who fall into that highest tax bracket and have no problem paying our fair share, and it’s you guys who are so incredibly concerned about our tax liability. What does it tell you when the most successful and educated amongst a peer group all holds a certain opinion? Maybe it’s a better-informed opinion than yours? Nah, that couldn’t be it.
He is a Constitutional law professor FFS. He’s forgotten more about the Constitution than you’ll ever even understand.
I wasn’t insinuating anything.
I was stating it loud and clear.
Kinda drives the point home, eh?
@White males are being oppressed in America, legally.
Edgar that’s just silly. If you mean that white people no longer have a natural lock on everything anymore, and that there’s legislation that has assisted in trying to balance up the profound discrimination and oppression we’ve perpetrated for the last 200+ years, then maybe.
The problem is that people think since blacks (particularly in this case) were emancipated, well then, everything is equal and we should all let bygones be bygone. Well, I disagree. We brought them here. We stole them from their country. We enslaved them and created a slave-mentality culture, right here in America. It is our obligation to try to right that wrong. And when you want to say that white people are oppressed, simply look at the color of corporate boards, all of Congress, or particularly the damn Republican party – which is just a sea of angry, self centered and self righteous white people.
@”Perk is the angry/hateful/hurtful one [sic]” Now that is funny. Yeah. You can really tell from my arguments that my intention is to be hurtful to others and that I’m one angry MoFo. C’mon Trent. Is that the best you’ve got? There’s got to be SOME kind of argument that you can present that actually makes sense…
But no. What you’ve got is name calling, “You’re all pussies,” whining (‘White people are the oppressed ones”) and “shoot first and ask questions later” type of arguments. You have no logic, no compassion, no backup, certainly nothing even CLOSE to Christianity (for which you all claim the base of your baseless moral high ground). You and your ilk imagine that strength lies in being abusive, aggressive and hard-line. That has nothing at all to do with strength.
I’d argue that one of the softest, most compassionate men the world has seen – and that you all seem to admire – died on a cross (arguably, one of the most terrible ways to kill someone that humans have devised) and did so, knowing full well that by simply recanting his convictions he could avoid that fate. If you want to understand strength, then take a look back into the philosophy that you would errantly base you notions upon. You really need to understand that Jesus was a really, really Liberal kind of guy.
@ pussy/nose bleeds every 30 – wow man, that is funny. Particularly since, if you knew even an iota of who or what I actually am, you’d probably feel differently. But hey – if you want imagine that I’m some limp-wrist, tree hugging 4’9″ whiner then you go right ahead Nash. Whatever makes you sleep at night.
But just so you know: that would *not* be an accurate characterization of me.
LOL @ Liberals, tax bracket, fair share and education VS – Spot on. OH NO! Here comes the Limousine Liberal argument again…
Perk
“@White males are being oppressed in America, legally.
Edgar that’s just silly. If you mean that white people no longer have a natural lock on everything anymore, and that there’s legislation that has assisted in trying to balance up the profound discrimination and oppression we’ve perpetrated for the last 200+ years, then maybe.”
Affirmative action is preference given to a certain group of people based only on race. That’s racism.
The intentions you described do not address the means by which they are acted out. Those means ie affirmative action are racist.
There’s no getting around this. You have to agree with me that affirmative action is based solely on race.
MLK hoped for a day when a person would be judged not on the color of their skin but rather on the content of their character.
Affirmative action is not based on the content of anyone’s character. It is based on the color of their skin.
So that means that a white guy will, by law, get squeezed out of a job he should rightly have because he was born white. That’s racism plain and simple. No room for argument since AA is solely based on race. To argue the point you need to show that AA is not based solely on race.
No, Edgar – the definition of racism is based on one race feeling *superior* to another. It is also tied intimately to hatred. Check the definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist
The point of Affirmative Action was to balance inherent, blatant or unintended racism, age and gender bias that has been rampant in our society since the inception of our country. I am not saying that it doesn’t need work, or that it’s time may even have come to go away – but in and of itself, it is the antithesis of racism.
As I also said, it is not just race-based: it is gender and age based as well. But the point is always about race, because race is the hot spot. And it makes an excellent rage-point for the right wing – you must be very careful here, because your argument is very well aligned with everything that Josef Goebbels used pre-and-post Nuremberg. “That black guy is the reason that I don’t have a job.” It’s bullshit. For the few white people that have been forced to find something else, the amount of blacks, women, latinos – you name it – that have been discriminated against for decades nay, centuries, is countless.
It is silly and racist to say that white people are oppressed.
“2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.”
AA discriminates against one group of people based on race and nothing else.
A job will be given to one person over another without regard to qualifications or character. A job will be given to one person over another based solely on race.
It’s the color of the person that entitles them to a job. That’s wrong.
Perk,
Don’t confuse my characterization of AA with the noble intentions that it persues.
I think the discrimination against blacks in the history of this country was very wrong and needed to be corrected for sure. I just think AA is solving the problem of racism with a policy based on racism.
Jobs, admittance into colleges etc should be based solely on qualifications and character and nothing else.
You disagree?
That’s a really broad definition of discrimination – because it asserts that the minority position can effectively discriminate against the majority, or power holder. I’m not sure I see it that way. Can we really say, that the relatively small amount of positions that black people gain because of AA really discriminates, when, at the core of it, they are still discriminated against every day, in every corner of our country? Without the pushback of AA, what else is on the side of the people that LIVE under the discriminatory oppression of our society? Certainly not the altruism and fair-spirited attitudes of Trent or Nash … so who/what is their advocate in an effort to reverse or at least try to compensate for the injustice done to them as a people?
BTW – I’m OK with a debate that includes the word discrimination, even though I disagree, because that is a wholly different notion that Racism.
There is a lot of argument that AA has not been good for blacks because it’s allowed them into places they’d not have gotten on their own. Well, that’s sort of the point: they’d not have gotten there on their own – I do disagree with your last post because we created the disparity.
Our relationship to black America is different than any other race in our country – because we created the problems they are in. We created the slave mentality, we’ve discriminated and oppressed them for, really, 3 centuries (even before we were a country). So I think that the retribution needs to be very different – and I’ll admit that I have no better idea of what to do, but to do nothing is more wrong to me.
“@”Perk is the angry/hateful/hurtful one [sic]” Now that is funny. Yeah. You can really tell from my arguments that my intention is to be hurtful to others and that I’m one angry MoFo. C’mon Trent. Is that the best you’ve got? There’s got to be SOME kind of argument that you can present that actually makes sense”
You really are numb to the shit you write down… Perk…DO you read the crap you write? Are your kids writing this crap in your name? What the f@ck Perk?! Post after post after post, nothing but hate speech from you AND your ilk. How can you be so numb! Put down the weed man, it’s ruining your short term memory!
”
“That black guy is the reason that I don’t have a job.” It’s bullshit. For the few white people that have been forced to find something else, the amount of blacks, women, latinos – you name it – that have been discriminated against for decades nay, centuries, is countless.”
So thats how you justify discrimination of whites due to there race? Simply ,that because the blacks where discriminated against more… that it’s okay if a few whites are discriminated against!?
I know you must be joking Perk…
I think Perk just simply likes routing for the underdog. No matter what.
Not thats theres anything wrong with that. I just think he should admit that, that IS infact his M.O and thats why he sounds insanly ridiculous at times. No big deal Perk.
LOL – nothing but hate speech from me, eh Trent? Christ, you’re unbelievable. I think all you read is people talking about progressives, you don’t actually read or listen to any of them. I do both, every single day. And most of the day as well. You’re just wrong Trent, flat out wrong.
@ “so that’s how I justify discrimination against whites” – so how do you justify the perpetual discrimination levied against non-whites, every single day Trent? Do they just “buck up” and deal? “OK – *I’M* not a racist, therefore there is no racism being brought upon you. Get over it.” Is that your posture? Can you really look at the make up of the business/government worlds and say they are genuinely un-prejudiced, unbiased and fair? Can you honestly say that we as a society have made up for what we’ve done to the African American people that now live here, because of our forefathers?
Well, actually that would make sense – because the right wing is simply in the perpetual hunt for justification of their selfishness. You feel entitled to whatever you want. You do not feel the weight of oppression that our country has brought to bear on others. Therefore you feel no responsibility to atone. Fine. But you must recognize that that is simply a self centered position that excludes you from the notion of society. And until you surrender all benefits of this society, you are equally bound to the responsibilities and liabilities of it as well.
“Can you honestly say that we as a society have made up for what we’ve done to the African American people that now live here, because of our forefathers?”
Are you kidding!!
You really are a flaming liberal Perk.
slavery was abolished in 1865.
and even though the black americans ‘were’ discriminated against, that doesnt reflect TODAYS society Perk!
We cant look back in history and try to make reperations for everyone that was wronged by this country. It’d be a long list, and we’d be a very poor country trying to ‘repay’ any such dreamt upo debt.
Did any one in todays society take part in those times…NO! So why is this an issue. Racism isnt a wide spread problem like it was. No where even close.
I swear Perk, you read history get ‘offended’ and then bring the problems to modern times. We’re supposed to learn from the past. Not drag it with us to the future. It’s people like you who keep racism alive, by continuously reinventing racism!
There are black racists too…
Where’s your outrage there Perk…
Oh thats right, Ol’ whity is still the majority. Guess we’ll have to wait to be the under dog before you become outraged.
If you feel so bad perk… send a black friend some reperation brownies.
I have plenty of black friends Perk. (more than you, I’m willing to bet)
and none of them seem to think racism is a serious issue in the united states.
Unless you dont think there opinion counts perk. maybe you think your opinion as a wealthier white man is more valuable.
Good god perk… you must really think your something. you need to pull that bleeding nose down from the clouds.
perk,
“BTW – I’m OK with a debate that includes the word discrimination, even though I disagree, because that is a wholly different notion that Racism”
No it falls squarely in the same context. Let me explain: the discrimination is based on race.
“That’s a really broad definition of discrimination – because it asserts that the minority position can effectively discriminate against the majority, or power holder.”
No perk. It’s like this: AA discriminates based on race.
That’s a policy rooted in racism.
Perk,
discrimination doesn’t have to effect a certain number of people for it to be discrimination.
1. (fact)AA forces employers and colleges to discriminate against white people.
2. (fact)This discrimination is based on race
(fact) Therefore this is racial discrimination.
Those are just plain facts.
@Trent: Well, another excellent example of how you are the voice of reason and I’m an angry Liberal.
@Edgar: I disagree with your semantics Edgar, but that’s rather immaterial.
The fallacy of your argument is that everything is normal, balanced and fair, and AA discriminates against white people ie., white people are in some way getting a bum rap or the short end of the stick. Argue for me where people of color have exactly the same opportunities – and that societal norms demonstrate this, and you’ll have my agreement. But until you can demonstrate that a far larger and more insidious discrimination is not occurring daily, then the argument is false. Until you can prove that we’ve truly erased the sins of our racist and oppressive not-too-past, then it is wrong.
Dude – all you have to do is look at the neo-nazis, skin heads, the resurgence of the clan or the gigantic growth in hate groups – even over the course of the last year, largely based on the fact that we have a black president, and you know that your argument is wrong.
Thats right edgar, Perks argument here, is that if blacks are discriminated against… then to make it fair, the whites need to be discriminated against, too! COMPLETELY logical!!!
roflmao:
There is a difference between prejudice, bogotry and racism. Programs like AA promte racism, but are not necessarily bigoted or prejudiced.
The KKK and “skinheads” are prejudiced bigots.
When an organization use terms like “quota”, then they have an agenda.
And, it doesn’t stop there!
According to the pussified liberal agenda:
1) Anyone making over $200K/year should pay to provide free services to those that would rather not work;
2) Anyone should be allowed unconditional entry to this country regardless of the painstaking process that was set forth to nationalize them;
3) Anyone that is suspected of having terrorist ties or motives should not be “profiled” against until they have actually comitted an atrocity. Then, when they are, the ACLU (and whoever else) should be brought in to make sure that they are freed.
4) The USA should comletely abolish the armed forces and we should trust that the rest of the world is basically “good”.
@Nash – you’re quite a sponge of right-wing talking points man. You regurgitate them well.
You should try applying some of your scant and preciously small brain matter to learning, rather than repeating. Also, there are psychological techniques for eliminating the embarrassment of echolalia – you should probably get that looked at.
Perk,
@Semantics
“I disagree with your semantics Edgar, but that’s rather immaterial.”
The definition of racism includes discrimination, according to the dictionary. Not a broad definition of discrimination by any means but rather a specific form of discrimination.
We can’t help but discriminate. It’s how we tell one thing from another. But when discrimination is based on race then it’s what’s called Racial Discrimination. That is a form of racism and AA is rooted in just such a form of racial discrimination. That’s just plain obvious.
@The Fallacy of My Argument
“The fallacy of your argument is that everything is normal, balanced and fair, and AA discriminates against white people ”
You made two statements there. I’ll address each point.
“the fallacy of (my) argument is that everything is normal, balanced and fair”
First, I don’t think everything is balanced and fair and that is not loaded in my premise. This is a moot point because it does not refute my first premise:
1. AA forces businesses and colleges to discriminate based on race.
The other part of your statement is, “AA discriminates against white people”
This is true by definition and therefore necessarily true.
Therefore it’s still plain to see that AA is a policy rooted in racial discrimination and therefore is a form of racism according to not only the common usage of the word among the people but even according to the specific definition (2) in the dictionary.
Let me address another point in your argument.
“Argue for me where people of color have exactly the same opportunities – and that societal norms demonstrate this, and you’ll have my agreement.”
I made no statements to the contrary. Your argument is trying to justify that it’s OK that white people are discriminated against racially because of x,y and z.
Your argument defends against the statement, “Black people now have exactly the same opportunities as whites”
I didn’t even approach that argument. My argument is about a policy and not it’s merits or demerits.
My argument is about the nature of the policy and not it’s justification or failed justification.
AA is a policy rooted in racism as it forces employers to DISCRIMINATE against a racial group.
Once again:
1. AA forces a certain type of discrimination.
2. That discrimination is based on race.
Therefore this policy is rooted in racial discrimination.
Perk, if you want to refute my argument you must refute my premises because the conclusion follows logically and inescapably. It’s a completely valid argument. The only thing you can do is show one of those premises to be false.
Since it is agreeably true that AA forces a certain type of discrimination, and that discrimination is based on race then it follows that AA is racial discrimination.
The reasons why this policy exists has nothing to do with the nature of the policy which is clearly laid out in two simply premises.
Why is it when people call things as they see them, they are accused of “regurgitating” someone else’s so-called “talking points”?
I am 45 years old, and I have worked long enought and paid enough taxes to know what’s what. Now, some things may be different in different parts of the country. Out west, there are more fruits, nuts and flakes that a bowl of granola.
Or is that you’re afraid that we free thinkers will look behind the curtain?
Edgar, The Al Sharptons of the world are racist, because they believe that the whole world owes them everything for slavery. They forget that slavery has existed for centuries, still exists, and blacks were not the only enslaved race. Reparations have already been made.
Perk is prejudiced, because he judges you solely on your political leanings. If you support PrezBO and the pussified liberals, you are accepted in his world, even if you are a murderer or rapist. If you show and conservative leanings, you are immediately judged as a Limbaugh disciple.
Nash:
@ talking points: because they are.
@ Sharptons of the world are extreme advocates, not racists. There’s a fine line and I’ll concede that it runs easily over into hysteria and stupidity. But Al Sharpton does not hate white people. He hates what they have done to him and his people.
@ Reparations: what reparations? You mean we emancipated African Americans? Is that reparation? And regardless of if the blacks were the only enslaved race in the world, they were the only enslaved race in a country where All Men Are Created Equal. Brought here, tortured, killed, enslaved and still to this day, the recipients of bigotry, hatred and discrimination.
@ Perk is prejudiced because of leanings: absolutely not. I have dear and wonderful friends that are deeply conservative. But they are smart, Nash, and they argue for the betterment of our country and it’s people, not the betterment of themselves or whine about how they’re being mistreated by Liberals. The smartest conservatives I know are some of the best compatriots in thinking of how to better our future. And they are utterly unlike you.
Perk, you just proved that you hear what you want to hear, and you twist words.
If, by “talking points”, you mean well-thought-out and important issue, then I accept your concession.
Sharpton IS racist, because his side is ALWAYS against the white man. If you hate what someone has “done to your people”, then you hate the person.
As for reparations, there is AA, the NAACP, the ACLU and welfare. Some gangstas in the ‘hood have it better than I do.
WHERE, in ANY of my posts, did I say anything that insinuated that I personally was only for the betterment of myself?
ALL of my posts reflect what this country needs to do for ALL of its people, for the betterment of everyone. This country is a great opportunity for everyone – IF you are willing to put forth the effort. I have no patience for people that want to sit back and have everything handed to them.
@Sharpton & hate/done people, hate the person: I reject that out of hand as comically superficial and simpleminded. However, if you hate the fact that black people are getting jobs and you’re not, then perhaps you DO hate black people ergo you’d feel that way.
@AA, NAACP, ACLU and Welfare. You’re kidding, right? You fight against even the essence of what AA is and then call it a reparation? And the NAACP, created by African Americans for African Americans is a reparation? Why, because we don’t lynch them when they have a meeting? And the ACLU is a reparation ? ? ? ? You mean the very same organization that has defended Nazis and the Klan in court is a reparation to African Americans (I am, BTW, a card carrying member of the ACLU because I believe absolutely in their charter.) But a reparation? And WELFARE is a reparation? So no white trash is on welfare, right? It’s only those dumb, useless black people that need it, use it and it’s a gift to them from us?
My God.
You’re for the betterment of everyone? No, you’re for eliminating assistance to anyone where it takes a dollar out of your pocket, don’t kid yourself. If you were really for the betterment of everyone, you’d be pro-AA. You’d be pro healthcare reform. You’d be pro gay marriage. You’d actually be for things that were bettering to those that need it, rather than sitting in judgement and saying why THOSE THINGS are wrong.
@ if you are willing to put forth the effort. Smug and self righteous, thy name is Nash.
Reparations:
Why should people who never owned slaves pay people reparations who were never slaves?
My whole family immigrated to this country around 1900. They and I had nothing to do with it. In fact my family, as immigrants in the early 1900′s were often the victims of discrimination.
Let’s lump ALL WHITE PEOPLE together and make them guilty by RACE.
Makes no sense to me.
An oft-quoted argument Edgar.
The answer is, because your relatives became citizens of our country. They gained instantly from all of the progress that had occurred up until that point, gained freedoms that your bloodline did not need participate in fighting for and therefore, also were instantly burdened with the liabilities that come with that gain. It’s much like why you shall always pay taxes into a public school system: others paid for you. And so long as you live, you shall be gaining from the gift of others paying for your schooling. Ergo as long as you live, you are under an implied obligation to return the favor. That is the nature of society.
And regardless of discrimination they may have felt (I have no doubt, every immigrating people to this country, for the most part, have endured more or less), they came by choice and were never enslaved as a people.
This is a problem that cannot de defined in normal terms, because we created it – blacks did not emigrate here all on their own and endure the simple discrimination that the Italians, or the Irish, the Polish etc etc did. I agree that it’s complicated, difficult and problematic. But it exists, nevertheless. And it cannot be wished away or ignored (not saying you’re saying that).
Those organizations provide services to a specific group of people, and those services are “reparations”.
What are we supposed to do? Lincoln freed them, slavery has been illegal ever since, and now that have the same opportunities as anyone else.
No, I am not for eliminating assistance, I am for eliminating handouts.
My parents, who are now retired, deserve assistance, because they have worked all of their lives for it.
I would be for “betterment” if I supported racism, Marxism, and moral decay/perversion?
I am for the betterment of the Nation as a whole, not just specific groups that feel they are “entitled” to something.
As for healthcare reform, I support it. Our premiums are too high, our coverage is shaky, and co-pays piss me off.
However, this turd of a plan that PrezBO is trying to sell us is not any better.
@ Reparations: You’ve never really said you’re sorry to someone, or atoned for anything then, have you? Freeing the slaves is no reparation for their enslavement. Letting them create a group to advocate for their race is no reparation, that’s a natural civil liberty here granted to all people.
If you really think that simply by freeing them, they now have the same opportunities that everyone else has, then we have nothing to talk about. You’re simply wrong. Utterly wrong. However, this fits well into the profile you’ve developed here.
@ handouts: the problem is that you assume that YOU have the ability to identify what is a handout or not. One man’s handout is another mans compassion. Your set of values is both welcome and an important part of our national fabric, but it is not the sole thread. The problem is that you think everyone that does not think like you is wrong.
@ betterment: Well, here we go again. One man’s perversion is another man’s humanity. My gay brother is one of the most moral, value-based citizens of this country I know. He is an incredible brother, a superb uncle and a dutiful and dedicated civil servant, having been active in politics for the last 15 years. You’ll see him and judge him on his sexual orientation – I judge him simply as a person and what his contribution to society is. You see, real Republicans understand that the government should stay out of his private life. Even Michelle Bachman is there, although she doesn’t realize the profound irony of her statement, when she said to “Keep the government off my body” in regards to health care reform (Michelle Bachman is one of the leading wacko-right voices in the fight against any and all abortion).
If you are for healthcare reform (and you’ve been consistent that you are) then may I suggest that you look at some of the non-partisan discussions about what the bill DOES do, rather than the lies about what it doesn’t. In a recent study, when people were actually explained to what the public option does, a full 81% of them wanted it. It’s a good thing Nash, and it will help costs go down and quality go up. It will mess with the insurance industry in a big way – and that’s OK. They’ve had us by the nuts for WAY too long. Time for them to get shook up and sorted out.
If you want to talk “reparations”, how about giving us our inner cities back?
Gangs have taken over most big cities.
Yes, I realize that blacks are not the only race involved in gangs, but they make up the majority.
Really? How?
I identify a “handout” as giving someone our tax money without them paying into it.
How do you define it?
Really?
So, by that logic, I should be able to take a 14-year-old girl as my wife without any problems.
Nash, you’re a racist. You might as well get used to that notion. Since you define New York as the anus of America, I’d wager at an intolerant protestant or evangelical as well.
@ 14 year old: I’m not the one to talk to about Michelle Bachman’s statements. But you’re ignoring a fundamental piece that defines almost all of my arguments here: each of us should be free to do what we want, right up until my liberties get in the way of yours. So, to your example: we as a society have decided that until you’re 18 years old, you cannot make the decision about whether you’d like to be sexually active yet, and we as a society have decided that before 18 it’s illegal. You of course realize this. And you ask, because I’m sure you’d find that sort of behavior as repulsive as me. But the next step, is to acknowledge that things like gay marriage *do not affect you* ergo, the ability for two men to be married does not impose on your liberties and therefore, it is not only permissible, it should be protected, rather than discriminated against.
Perk,
I believe Nash has stated more than once that he is an Atheist, not a protestant or evangelical.
Hmm, could be true, perhaps I’m mistaken. I’ll look back.
I guess we are all guilty of blanket statement sometimes. But yeah, Nash is a real atheist, no doubt.
But why were you so anxious to find him a religious man? That’s the interesting question to me.
Wrong again.
I am white, and there are white people that I don’t care for.
In my book, there are only two types of people – those that you can trust, and those you can’t.
How did even your pea-brain make THAT leap?
I call NYC the “Anus of the US” because of it’s filthy, crime-ridden, apathetic nature.
“Gay marriage” is an oxy-moron.
Allowing two people of the same sex to be “married” undervalues traditional marriage, and opens the door to other “alternatives”. It is not natural or decent.
And, with civil unions, changing the defintion of marriage is not necessary.
Even your Messiah, the Constitutional Law expert agrees with me on that one.
@racist: Sorry, read back. Many of your positions are very racially based. You don’t even know it.
@pea brain/leap: well, your over-achieving sense of self righteousness and hard-line right/wrong positions are typically the product of a devout or evangelical mid-west background. It’s not that difficult of a leap.
@ filthy, crine-ridden, apathetic: Wow man, you must live in paradise. Good for you.
@ gay marriage, oxy-moron: Here again we see your notion of “moral” and “natural.” In fact, it’s incredibly natural and the natural world see homosexuality at virtually every interval.
“Opens the door to alternatives?” Who gives a shit? How does a sexual act between two consenting adults affect you in any damn way at all? It DOESN’T. Unless you want to see the US in a fundamentalist Judaeo/Christian structure. Which would not be consistent with Edgar’s above statement that you’re an atheist.
@ my “Messiah” roflmao: man are you off base. I could care less about Obama’s agreement on this issue. Frankly, I think he probably agrees that it’s none of his business, but he’s got politics to look after.
If your marriage is so very weak that the bonding of two men , utterly unrelated to you, “undervalues it” then you are in a sorry state indeed. Perhaps you should work on strengthening your OWN marriage then, rather than worrying about other’s desires.
That’s because I am speaking of racial issues, that were not caused by me.
Again – if someone os pulling their weight and are legal productive citizens, I don’t care if they’re black, yellow or purple.
Facts are facts.
I’m an atheist, dude.
You really need to work on your listening/reading skills.
It’s not my “notion”. It’s society’s.
Why do you think that almost half of the US states have specific language in their Constitutions that correctly defines marriage as between one man and one woman? At last count, only 3-4 states allow SSM – even with the most liberal Congress we’ve seen in years.
If you want coffee, go to Starbuck’s. You don’t go to Best Buy and demand that they sell you coffee because it’s your “right”.
There are many countries that embrace SSM. The US is not particularly one of them. So, if a gay couple wants to get “married”, no one is saying that they can’t do it, The US citizens are just saying that you can’t do it here.
The bottom line is that the majority of Americans DO NOT SUPPORT SSM. The passage of Prop 8 in California – a liberal state – is a victory for us all.
@ It’s society’s: well, a great many years ago, we, society, thought black people were only good enough to be slaves. IF a black person even looked at a white woman the wrong way the husband was in right to kill him.
Not too long ago we thought women were inferior and could not even vote or hold a job. It’s funny, how in WWII we were out or workers and SUDDENLY they were all good enough for the job.
There’ve never been SSM laws before, the fact that there are 3-4 of them now says that the tide is turning and the society is growing up. Most of the sodomy laws are now off the books. Most states no longer have anti-infidelity laws. This is a sign of society changing for the good, Nash.
@ prop 8 – “a victory for us all” Ah no, only the galactically stuck, yesteryear boneheads that want to impose their moral structure on other people. And certainly not a victory for the large population of gay people either. So I’d say it was a victory for religious fundamentalism and the fantastically small percentage of people that call themselves atheists yet are locked into a Christian ethos.
@ you go to starbucks: ah, perfect analogy. Therefore, since you prefer a totalitarian state, or an authoritarian state, you’re going to have to go elsewhere, because the likes of me will not let you change what Thomas Jefferson and his buddies put together for us, no matter how hard you try.
Actually, that was a “longer ago” than you think. I think that the civilized human race is more logical now than it’s ever been. I don’t see any more frontiers.
Turning, maybe – but not growing up.
3-4 states out of 50 every 200+ years is a trend I can live with.
The fact that more states are going out of their way to create legislation to prohibit SSM than there are states approving it is an encouraging sign for moral decency.
So, a breakdown of morality and a complete disregard for marriage vows is your idea of society changing “for the good”?
My god man – even YOU can’t be THAT childish.
The news article about a man that kidnapped an 11-year-old girl and used her as his sex slave did not affect me personally, i.e. it was not my family, but that does not mean that it it right.
I gather from your horsepoop that your perfect American utopia is for everyone to participate in “free love” with no guilt, no regard for fidelity or devotion, as long as people are “consentual adults” – as defined by the whatever group is in power at the time.
All businesses should be controlled by the government, and all “evil rich” people should donate a portion of their hard-earned wealth, decided by the government, to people that have no desire to earn it for themselves.
The American people should have no voice in their health care, but should leave it up to the President.
The US military should be permanently disbanded because it infringes on other’s civil rights.
Anyone with any conservative leanings is automatically, by definition, a bible-thumping, self-serving racist.
I do not believe for one second that you are interested in a mature exchange of ideas.
I have a feeling that the reason that you started – and preside over – this forum is so that you can have a vehicle to impose your alleged “superior education” on others and force your radical ideas down other people’s throat.
You are really a pompous asshole assuming that your shit-headed opinions are what’s best for all of us.
The level of discourse here could stay civil if Nash and Trent would go away.
Edgar, thanks for having a thoughtful conversation with Perk.
Perk, I recommend that you just ignore the other two, no matter how inciteful they try to be. They do nothing but hack at straw men and talk past you. What was that idiom about “never argue with an idiot…”?
It’s not morality if the law forbids you from doing it. Unless you have a choice, you can never “do the right thing”, because you’re being compelled by law.
lol Nash you’re not an atheist, no matter what you might claim to be.
You wreak of classic god-botherer.
The most telling sign is that you’re immune to a thoughtful, well-reasoned argument. Your tactic for holding out seems to be to stick your fingers in your ears, yell NYAAAAH NYAAAH NYAAAAAH and tell Perk what a pussy he is.
…and then call him immature.
roflmao: roflmao: roflmao:
It hurts so good
roflmao: nice one VS
No, of course not. It is better for society when the LEGAL system stops pretending to me a moral authority. Go work out your values with your church, or your own value structure – let the legal system be about laws that protect the border between yours and my liberties. I am particularly fond of the separation of church and state, I also enjoy freedom from religion.
You’re clearly a Hobbsian conservative, believing that without the iron fisted control of either government or religion or both, we will descend into a place where man’s life will be “brutish and short.”
Nowhere, ever, in any case would I advocate that the behavior of that sick fuck is right or acceptable. But here again you miss the point: he chose his desires over her liberties. At a really, really fundamental level he violated her Constitutional rights (that’s a galactically stupid understatement). When two consenting men do each other, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. Nor are anybody’s rights being violated.
If, by what you mean is that I am in favor of people judging for themselves what morality is, in the privacy of their own home and in a way that they are not imposing their liberties at the expense of others, then absolutely.
Try reality for a change. I am one of those very succesful “evil” business people. I am in favor of regulated capitalism, because unrestrained capitalism is a shark that east itself. If you like that sort of thing, you should go live in Ghana.
I won’t even waste keystrokes on trying to explain the notion of the commons to you.
The American people should have no voice in their health care, but should leave it up to the President.
American people should be able to choose what they want for healthcare, which is what the president is in pushing. In the current incarnation, my health care choices are defined and controlled by a for-profit industry called insurance, that is nothing more than legalized craps and they are the “house.” Ask people on Medicare if they are upset at the way their medical system works.
Bombast and hyperbole. That’s just the way that you want to imagine and hate Liberals. Meaningless drivel.
Well, that reflects more on what you understand as interest and maturity than me, now doesn’t it? I’m uninterested in a discussion about why YOUR values should be the defining laws of our country.
roflmao:The irony of that statement is so incredible that I think I’ll just let it sit and stew a while.
“The level of discourse here could stay civil if Nash and Trent would go away.”
What, so you can continue to spread propganda?
The intelligence has soared since we started pecking away at the bullshit.
“The most telling sign is that you’re immune to a thoughtful, well-reasoned argument.”
Immune to it? Hell – I’m providing most of it!
@Perk and Nash
This is interesting. It’s not quite a food fight thank god, but the way that the level of discourse predictably succumbs to personal attack is indicative.
Indicative of what? I think it’s an expression of frustration caused by the inability to REALLY express one another’s points and ideas. Think about it for a second.
This discussion right here should continue because it’s a microcosm of what we are going through in this country right now.
First I want to point out that both sides in this debate honestly feel that the other side is not being intellectually honest. Both sides REALLY feel that the other guy ain’t listening. Both sides truly believe they are correct and both cannot imagine that the other could POSSIBLY believe the crap that he spews!
And when either side thinks, “Jeez, this guy must actually believe what he says, it’s not just obstinance…” the conclusion is that the other guy must just be stupid!
I would suggest leaving your mashed potatoes on your plate first of all.
Let’s first try to understand the fact that we live in a world where both sides have an intellectual right to their beliefs. That is not kissy-lovey bullshit either. I mean that both world views are realistically plausible.
Let me be clear. Given the world we have, the information we have and the intellect we have it is entirely possible (and logical) that two intelligent people can deduce different conclusions from the same observations.
So both world views can’t be right (but they could both be wrong) but as it stands both are valid and deserve to exist.
So how then do we rise above the common and attain a better understanding? Sublation? Kant was of the notion that a transcendental dialectic lead only to endless confict. Others believe that arguing from a thesis to an antithesis produces a synthesis which resolves the apparent conflict in an upward motion called sublation.
I believe in the latter notion of sublation however, thesis and antithesis should not be strawmen!
Put the strawmen away and have a real debate.
Arguing against strawmen always, by definition, fails to address core beliefs and core arguments. Don’t you guys see that? Don’t you see that it is your core beliefs that drive your arguments? Fundamental beliefs, very fundamental that is, are what need to be discussed.
The notion that the other guy is always wrong is the culprit here.
Just some off the cuff observations folks…don’t hold me to them.
Persuasion begins when you can get the other guy to take another look at his core beliefs, whether he admits it or not.
How to be persuasive? What inhibits persuasion? Well one thing is for sure, if you feel you are personally under attack then that will keep you from revisiting your core beliefs.
I appreciate your antithesis to what I write, but I consistently do not complain about *you* for a reason.
If you’re after a mea culpa from my direction aimed at these two clowns though, you’re barking up the wrong tree. It only gets better when you prod them, especially when you use words they don’t understand.
My objective on this blog isn’t to convince anyone I’m right. I’ve already made the observation that the people I’d care to convince – that is, people with actual influence and a station in life – already mostly agree with me, and where they don’t we can have a quiet, mutually-beneficial conversation like adults. Besides, I’m pretty confident that the antics of your two bozos speak volumes that would take me a lifetime to type.
Mea Culpa? Not at all vsloathe. I was just thinking out loud on perks blog, that’s all.
My objective is to articulate opposing views but in a rational and intelligent way, to show that both sides have legitimacy. To show that it’s not just a matter of the other guy not ‘getting it’ if you know what I mean.
My previous comment was not directed toward you but toward perk and nash, but not even toward them really. Just thinking out loud for what it’s worth.
@people with actual influence etc…
Everybody has actual influence and not merely in the theoretical sense. Underestimate that at your own peril.
That’s what’s cool about living in a democracy, sure.
But it takes a certain degree of communication skill that these two seem to lack to be truly effectual and eloquent.
Imagine that there are about 100 million people just like nash and trent in america today, and they vote.
Imagine that because it’s true.
Most people lack eloquence and highly polished communication skills but so what? You don’t need to be eloquent nor is it appreciated when you are in line at the supermarket for instance.
Watercooler conversations are where it’s at and I believe that a lot of people make their inner decision as to how to vote at the watercooler.
It can be rather tempting to look at the other guy and say to yourself, “Look at how he speaks! He’s just an idiot. No wonder he’s a right wing so and so. If more people were educated they would abandon their core beliefs.”
This is not so. Conservatism is not born out of ignorance at all. Conservatism loosely speaking, is a set of core beliefs that are valid and deserve to exist. So equating stupidity and ignorance to conservatism really misses the mark.
That kind of thinking merely highlights the mental and conceptual framework of dogmatic liberalism. It shows that you are stuck in a mental box so to speak.
So picking on people who don’t write well really doesn’t do anyone any good at all. The ideas still exist unchanged and rightfully so. A guy in one mental box cannot hear the words or wisdom of a guy stuck firmly in another mental box.
Dogma is the enemy of enlightenment and it is dogmatic to attack conservative core beliefs as the product of being uneducated or ignorant or stupid or superficial. Realize that we live in a world where smart people can be both conservative or liberal.
I don’t think that VSloathe or myself are ones to tar all opposing viewpoints with the same stupid and ignorant brush Edgar. I think the issue here is that there’s not a tremendous amount of critical thought going into one side of the argument, a huge volume of noise and misinformation that can take the less well informed from a path of logic and what’s truly best, to what is being sold.
I do not believe that Conservatism is born from ignorance, but the ignorant will more easily listen to the contemporary pseudo-conservative arguments. The arguments are tailor made for this very effect.
I believe that conservatism and liberalism are much more fundamental to a person’s personality than we might admit: which is why there’s a small “independent middle” and larger right and left. The philosophy of Hobbs and Locke, as the sort of prototype Yin/Yang of contemporary partisanship seem to appeal immediately to different personalities and I don’t know how much switching there is once assimilated.
More later, got to run, but this is an interesting line of discussion.
@perk
“I don’t think that VSloathe or myself are ones to tar all opposing viewpoints with the same stupid and ignorant brush Edgar.”
Sometimes perk your conclusions have quite a broad brush stroke to them. For instance assuming nash was a bible thumper when in fact he is an atheist.
But I’m not criticizing you in regards to that as I do it too sometimes. What I am saying though is that just because some of us don’t write with the same fluidity as others doesn’t mean that they don’t have a point of view worth dissecting.
The idea of, “this guy isn’t nearly as smart as me so why should I even listen at all?” is born out of a dogmatic thought system which is not open to other peoples ideas.
There are dumb people, kind of dumb people, smart people, very smart people and genius’s who are conservatives or liberals alike. What does that tell you?
See, when you start playing Highbrow with folks you upset them by insulting their intelligence. Then how does one expect to have a rational conversation about topics near and dear to the heart?
I’m talking about searching out the truth and attaining a higher understanding.
This is not a swipe at you or vsloathe in particular but rather it’s just an observation of how intelligent people go from having an elevated conversation to a quarrel.
@independents
I think the notion of there being some kind of middle is just not that true. Many independents are too far right or left to fit nicely into the repub or democrat party so they become independents. Not because they are in the middle but rather because they are more extreme (harsh word) in one way or another.
@ignorant people become conservatives more easily.
Pure speculation. The vast majority of the prison population is liberal and they are at the bottom of the pile. But what does that prove? Nothing imo.
@hobbs, locke and switching
There are plenty of ‘conversions’ just look at Michael Savage as a famous example of a total bleeding heart liberal becoming a conservative nationalist for lack of a more proper description.
The question is how to have a fruitful and civilized discussion that leads honestly to a greater understanding. Change and compromise only comes after attaining a new level of understanding. It’s not immediate.
Your wasting your breath Edgar. These guys are WAY to educated to learn anything!
There brains must be full. They are afraid if you teach them something new, they will forget something they have already learned.
These guys have gone to college and have most likely studied politics for some time as well as philosophy. They believe what they believe and nothing any one can say or do is going to change that.
We have tried the sensible approach early on in the debates. They would not even acknowledge statistics, facts, or information. They dismissed any information as uncredible, due to the source of information. Then later used the same source of information as ‘obvious proof’ for there arguments.
How can you reason with the unreasonable. The obstinate personalitys along with the constant unrelenting high browing makes any debate impossible.