Try ignoring them. It's great. In fact, by speaking about them you are helping them. There are a lot more people from the right who make intellectually honest and valid points--I may disagree--but at least there is some realness to the discussion.
Weren't people saying Coulter crossed the line months ago with her 911 widows comment? And that she was over. Well? See, the only bad press is no press.
Unfortunately Dolo and Sabaerdaber seem to model their approach after these entertainers. I believe Peter is a decent person and probably intelligent. I wish he would engage in real debate around here. Dolo is an alias.
I call the klan a left wing organisation, not because of byrd, but for the simple reason that distinction between men on racial ground is only possible within the framework of leftist philosophy.
The rights conception of humanity is founded upon natural rights as established by locke. It views men as individuals of inflexible rights. The lefts view of humanity however is based on a collectivist outlook, it views men not as individuals but as the mere material from which the collective is shaped. Although the modern left has in the main drawn back from the vulgarity of say eugenics this thinking, and the implications it can have for race, it still in evidence. Affirmative action is a perfect example. If you truely regard men as equals, as individuals of shared and incontrovertible rights, then this practice will come as an affront to you. However since this idea is foreign to leftist thought, men being but the mulch from which the greater society is fashioned, it is embraced and ludicrously touted as egalitarian.
Since racism requires the rejection of the rights core principle whilst remaining consistient with leftwing ideology it can only, when viewed in the narrow terms of the left-right spectrum, be left wing.
Man you guys are right. Obama is a fucking racist! Fuck that guy!
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Probably not coincidentally, these same people are often involved in a vigorous attempt to rewrite WWII history to make Hitler a leftist. Uh-huh.
I call the klan a left wing organisation, not because of byrd, but for the simple reason that distinction between men on racial ground is only possible within the framework of leftist philosophy.
The rights conception of humanity is founded upon natural rights as established by locke. It views men as individuals of inflexible rights. The lefts view of humanity however is based on a collectivist outlook, it views men not as individuals but as the mere material from which the collective is shaped. Although the modern left has in the main drawn back from the vulgarity of say eugenics this thinking, and the implications it can have for race, it still in evidence. Affirmative action is a perfect example. If you truely regard men as equals, as individuals of shared and incontrovertible rights, then this practice will come as an affront to you. However since this idea is foreign to leftist thought, men being but the mulch from which the greater society is fashioned, it is embraced and ludicrously touted as egalitarian.
Since racism requires the rejection of the rights core principle whilst remaining consistient with leftwing ideology it can only, when viewed in the narrow terms of the left-right spectrum, be left wing.
Try ignoring them. It's great. In fact, by speaking about them you are helping them. There are a lot more people from the right who make intellectually honest and valid points--I may disagree--but at least there is some realness to the discussion.
Agreed.....these folks are "entertainers" not intellectuals or policy makers.
And the same goes for the other side of the aisle..
Franken Garafalo Maher Colbert Stewart
There are a lot more people from the left[/b] who make intellectually honest and valid points--I may disagree--but at least there is some realness to the discussion.
Of course those who are aligned with the right will disagree with Fatback.
And those who are aligned with the left will disagree with my above statement.
And if you are on board with one of the above mentioned list of entertainers while deriding the other, you live in a glass house.
Probably not coincidentally, these same people are often involved in a vigorous attempt to rewrite WWII history to make Hitler a leftist. Uh-huh.
Well, he was a National Socialist[/b], after all.
Hahaha! I see you've encountered this phenomenon before--that's exactly the rationale a lot of them provide. Hell, dolo himself pretty much offered it above. I didn't think he'd so enthusiastically jump in and prove my point, but there you go.
Shit. Easy. Soros. More money than the whole list.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Probably not coincidentally, these same people are often involved in a vigorous attempt to rewrite WWII history to make Hitler a leftist. Uh-huh.
Well, he was a National Socialist[/b], after all.
Hahaha! I see you've encountered this phenomenon before--that's exactly the rationale a lot of them provide. Hell, dolo himself pretty much offered it above. I didn't think he'd so enthusiastically jump in and prove my point, but there you go.
There's something truly bizarre about people who resort to Orwellian doubletalk as a) a means of making a point about the supposedly intrinsic anti-egalitarianism of the entire spectrum of leftist thought, and b) presuming that to use such methods are somehow the sign of a fair-minded and free thinker.
Did you see that news item that Soros just bought over 1M shares of Haliburton. Thats almost as good as Gore's million dollar electric bill, and a little bet better than Edwards telling us all we dont care about the little people enough from his new 800 room McMansion.
Hannity Coulter Beck Limbaugh Savage Malkin
Franken Garafalo Maher Colbert Stewart
You need one more.
Who would you prefer....Huffington or Soros??
Shit. Easy. Soros. More money than the whole list.
Did you see that news item that Soros just bought over 1M shares of Haliburton.
plaese to post.
Soros = opportunistic heartless investment automaton. Not surprised in the least that he would sell out his "ideals" to increase his portfolio. Dude sucks.
WASHINGTON, Feb 14 (Reuters) - Billionaire investor George Soros said on Wednesday he bought 2.1 million shares of CVS Corp (CVS.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and 1 million shares of Rite Aide (RAD.N: Quote, Profile , Research) in the fourth quarter of 2006.
Soros also added 1.9 million shares of Halliburton (HAL.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and 1 million shares of Take-Two Interactive Software (TTWO.O: Quote, Profile , Research) to his portfolio during the quarter.
Soros Fund Management LLC disclosed its holdings as of Dec. 31, 2006 in a quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
I call the klan a left wing organization, not because of byrd, but for the simple reason that distinction between men on racial ground is only possible within the framework of leftist philosophy.
The rights conception of humanity is founded upon natural rights as established by locke. It views men as individuals of inflexible rights. The lefts view of humanity however is based on a collectivist outlook, it views men not as individuals but as the mere material from which the collective is shaped. Although the modern left has in the main drawn back from the vulgarity of say eugenics this thinking, and the implications it can have for race, it still in evidence. Affirmative action is a perfect example. If you truly regard men as equals, as individuals of shared and incontrovertible rights, then this practice will come as an affront to you. However since this idea is foreign to leftist thought, men being but the mulch from which the greater society is fashioned, it is embraced and ludicrously touted as egalitarian.
Since racism requires the rejection of the rights core principle whilst remaining consistient with leftwing ideology it can only, when viewed in the narrow terms of the left-right spectrum, be left wing.
This has got to be one of the most bizarre and disconnected pieces of literature ever perpetrated on the strut. Dolo while philosophically intact your argument does not bear the weight of history in any way. The "right wing" has never been in the forefront to protect the "inflexible rights" of the individual (freedom of expression, thought and freedom from discrimination based on identity) in this country, going all the way back to Hamilton. It has always been the "collectivists" (Jefferson, MLK and others) who have fought for the rights of the individual. Which is odd given that philosophically they "view men not as individuals but as the mere material from which the collective is shaped." It was Adams and Hamilton (rightists in their day) who feared that the common folk would rise up like the Jacobian mob if given too much liberty. Ironically, they also advocated for a powerful central "state" in order to protect against the whimsies of the various former colonies. I can only imagine that your head must hurt trying to figure why the Republican party, like a bunch of so-called leftists, is so hell bent on keeping gays from marrying when this is clearly as case of a denial of "an inflexible right" that no card carrying "right winger" could possibly support.
Your philosophical view of the world is very laudable and forms the basis for much of what we hold dear in this country. But your scrutiny of history is incomprehensible.
Did you see that news item that Soros just bought over 1M shares of Haliburton. Thats almost as good as Gore's million dollar electric bill, and a little bet better than Edwards telling us all we dont care about the little people enough from his new 800 room McMansion.
Great work, Peter. All three of those guys are total hypocrites and that overshadows everything else they have ever done. Matter of fact, no candidate or elected official from the other side (or the middle) could ever run the government as effectively as your guys. Keep up the good work. I'm so proud of you.
1. Most of the people who fought the hardest against desegregation were southern democrats.
2. Nobody treats Affrican Americans more like mere "collective material" more then the current democratic party. To people like, Dean African Americans are just a voting blcok to be pandered to occassionally. Contrast with Latino population who could vot either way and have both parties bending over to kiss their "collective" ass.
3. Please tell me what the hell an "inflexible right" is and where it comes from.
I call the klan a left wing organization, not because of byrd, but for the simple reason that distinction between men on racial ground is only possible within the framework of leftist philosophy.
The rights conception of humanity is founded upon natural rights as established by locke. It views men as individuals of inflexible rights. The lefts view of humanity however is based on a collectivist outlook, it views men not as individuals but as the mere material from which the collective is shaped. Although the modern left has in the main drawn back from the vulgarity of say eugenics this thinking, and the implications it can have for race, it still in evidence. Affirmative action is a perfect example. If you truly regard men as equals, as individuals of shared and incontrovertible rights, then this practice will come as an affront to you. However since this idea is foreign to leftist thought, men being but the mulch from which the greater society is fashioned, it is embraced and ludicrously touted as egalitarian.
Since racism requires the rejection of the rights core principle whilst remaining consistient with leftwing ideology it can only, when viewed in the narrow terms of the left-right spectrum, be left wing.
This has got to be one of the most bizarre and disconnected pieces of literature ever perpetrated on the strut. Dolo while philosophically intact your argument does not bear the weight of history in any way. The "right wing" has never been in the forefront to protect the "inflexible rights" of the individual (freedom of expression, thought and freedom from discrimination based on identity) in this country, going all the way back to Hamilton. It has always been the "collectivists" (Jefferson, MLK and others) who have fought for the rights of the individual. Which is odd given that philosophically they "view men not as individuals but as the mere material from which the collective is shaped." It was Adams and Hamilton (rightists in their day) who feared that the common folk would rise up like the Jacobian mob if given too much liberty. Ironically, they also advocated for a powerful central "state" in order to protect against the whimsies of the various former colonies. I can only imagine that your head must hurt trying to figure why the Republican party, like a bunch of so-called leftists, is so hell bent on keeping gays from marrying when this is clearly as case of a denial of "an inflexible right" that no card carrying "right winger" could possibly support.
Your philosophical view of the world is very laudable and forms the basis for much of what we hold dear in this country. But your scrutiny of history is incomprehensible.
2. Nobody treats Affrican Americans more like mere "collective material" more then the current democratic party. To people like, Dean African Americans are just a voting blcok to be pandered to occassionally. Contrast with Latino population who could vot either way and have both parties bending over to kiss their "collective" ass.
dude, and the Republicans take gun nuts' votes for granted, too. and then sell them out when politically expedient.
it's called constituencies man. and sure they're taken for granted. that is, until those voters themselves acutally decide its in their best interests to change aisles. but that's their choice. if Black peopple wanna get used, fine.
just stop pretended you're like defending black people against evil Democrats or something. it's fucking condascending.
not to mention it's a real tired Republican talking point. maybe instead of trying to convince Blacks that they're being taking advantage of, the Repubs should start actually addressing issues that resonate with the Black community.
1. Most of the people who fought the hardest against desegregation were southern democrats.
and this is relevant to the current differences between liberals and conservatives?
2. Nobody treats Affrican Americans more like mere "collective material" more then the current democratic party. To people like, Dean African Americans are just a voting blcok to be pandered to occassionally. Contrast with Latino population who could vot either way and have both parties bending over to kiss their "collective" ass.
90% of blacks vote for democrats. so are they just fools??? and get serious with the latino argument. 70% of the latinos who got bush elected in florida said he made false promises. their whole campaign down there is a huge scam and everyone knows it. they bombard the spanish stations with tv ads that make claims they never intend to live up to. then bush appoints a few latino right-wingers and acts like he is really helping their communities. based on policy alone, there would be no reason for latinos to vote republican.
not to mention it's a real tired Republican talking point. maybe instead of trying to convince Blacks that they're being taking advantage of, the Repubs should start actually addressing issues that resonate with the Black community.
Like changing social security so that black men (who's life expectency generally precludes them form collecting any social security, and limiting the payout to their family of a paultry death benefit) instead might create an account that he can pass on to his children?
not to mention it's a real tired Republican talking point. maybe instead of trying to convince Blacks that they're being taking advantage of, the Repubs should start actually addressing issues that resonate with the Black community.
Like changing social security so that black men (who's life expectency generally precludes them form collecting any social security, and limiting the payout to their family of a paultry death benefit) instead might create an account that he can pass on to his children?
Personally I think this is a good idea......I've heard people on the right AND left say what basically comes down to "People aren't smart enough to be trusted to use this money correctly" and that the Government can do a better job.
1. Most of the people who fought the hardest against desegregation were southern democrats.
Me on the first page of this thread:
I've come across this strategy a shitload of times--basically, they point to segregationist Democrats in the South and say, "See? Democrats were the real racists!"[/b] What they never point out, of course, is the Dixiecrat phenomenon, wherein those segregationist Democrats, including heavily feted conservative Strom Thurmond, left the Democratic party and eventually found a safer home for their views in the Republican party; of course, the subsequent realignment is never brought up, either. And, of course, they never, ever mention the Southern Strategy.
based on policy alone, there would be no reason for latinos to vote republican.
in fairness, I would say cultural conservatism/faith-based initiatives are possible reasons.
Yeah....that Christianity thing is a big thorn in the Left's side.
dude I'm not saying it's an inherently bad thing. I'm saying it's a difference between Latinos as voters and other voting blocs. and a possible reason why they may gravitate toward the Republicans. Latinos seem less threatened by faith-based programs and are [I could be wrong] more socially conservative than Blacks [/I could be wrong].
Comments
Coulter
Beck
Limbaugh
Savage
Malkin
Try ignoring them. It's great. In fact, by speaking about them you are helping them. There are a lot more people from the right who make intellectually honest and valid points--I may disagree--but at least there is some realness to the discussion.
Weren't people saying Coulter crossed the line months ago with her 911 widows comment? And that she was over. Well? See, the only bad press is no press.
Unfortunately Dolo and Sabaerdaber seem to model their approach after these entertainers. I believe Peter is a decent person and probably intelligent. I wish he would engage in real debate around here. Dolo is an alias.
Man you guys are right. Obama is a fucking racist! Fuck that guy!
Well, he was a National Socialist[/b], after all.
"Word Up!"
Agreed.....these folks are "entertainers" not intellectuals or policy makers.
And the same goes for the other side of the aisle..
Franken
Garafalo
Maher
Colbert
Stewart
There are a lot more people from the left[/b] who make intellectually honest and valid points--I may disagree--but at least there is some realness to the discussion.
Of course those who are aligned with the right will disagree with Fatback.
And those who are aligned with the left will disagree with my above statement.
And if you are on board with one of the above mentioned list of entertainers while deriding the other, you live in a glass house.
Hahaha! I see you've encountered this phenomenon before--that's exactly the rationale a lot of them provide. Hell, dolo himself pretty much offered it above. I didn't think he'd so enthusiastically jump in and prove my point, but there you go.
You need one more.
Who would you prefer....Huffington or Soros??
Shit. Easy. Soros. More money than the whole list.
There's something truly bizarre about people who resort to Orwellian doubletalk as a) a means of making a point about the supposedly intrinsic anti-egalitarianism of the entire spectrum of leftist thought, and b) presuming that to use such methods are somehow the sign of a fair-minded and free thinker.
I would classify "orwellian doubletalk" as doubletalk.
plaese to post.
Soros = opportunistic heartless investment automaton. Not surprised in the least that he would sell out his "ideals" to increase his portfolio. Dude sucks.
WASHINGTON, Feb 14 (Reuters) - Billionaire investor George Soros said on Wednesday he bought 2.1 million shares of CVS Corp (CVS.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and 1 million shares of Rite Aide (RAD.N: Quote, Profile , Research) in the fourth quarter of 2006.
Soros also added 1.9 million shares of Halliburton (HAL.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and 1 million shares of Take-Two Interactive Software (TTWO.O: Quote, Profile , Research) to his portfolio during the quarter.
Soros Fund Management LLC disclosed its holdings as of Dec. 31, 2006 in a quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
This has got to be one of the most bizarre and disconnected pieces of literature ever perpetrated on the strut. Dolo while philosophically intact your argument does not bear the weight of history in any way. The "right wing" has never been in the forefront to protect the "inflexible rights" of the individual (freedom of expression, thought and freedom from discrimination based on identity) in this country, going all the way back to Hamilton. It has always been the "collectivists" (Jefferson, MLK and others) who have fought for the rights of the individual. Which is odd given that philosophically they "view men not as individuals but as the mere material from which the collective is shaped." It was Adams and Hamilton (rightists in their day) who feared that the common folk would rise up like the Jacobian mob if given too much liberty. Ironically, they also advocated for a powerful central "state" in order to protect against the whimsies of the various former colonies. I can only imagine that your head must hurt trying to figure why the Republican party, like a bunch of so-called leftists, is so hell bent on keeping gays from marrying when this is clearly as case of a denial of "an inflexible right" that no card carrying "right winger" could possibly support.
Your philosophical view of the world is very laudable and forms the basis for much of what we hold dear in this country. But your scrutiny of history is incomprehensible.
It's actually doublespeak.
Great work, Peter. All three of those guys are total hypocrites and that overshadows everything else they have ever done. Matter of fact, no candidate or elected official from the other side (or the middle) could ever run the government as effectively as your guys. Keep up the good work. I'm so proud of you.
2. Nobody treats Affrican Americans more like mere "collective material" more then the current democratic party. To people like, Dean African Americans are just a voting blcok to be pandered to occassionally. Contrast with Latino population who could vot either way and have both parties bending over to kiss their "collective" ass.
3. Please tell me what the hell an "inflexible right" is and where it comes from.
its like the inflexible left, but you like them
I dont know what constitution your reading from, but the old one doesnt mention these "inflexible rights".
real talk.
YEAH AND DID YOU KNOW ABE LINCOLN WAS A RPEUBLICAN????
dude, and the Republicans take gun nuts' votes for granted, too. and then sell them out when politically expedient.
it's called constituencies man. and sure they're taken for granted. that is, until those voters themselves acutally decide its in their best interests to change aisles. but that's their choice. if Black peopple wanna get used, fine.
just stop pretended you're like defending black people against evil Democrats or something. it's fucking condascending.
not to mention it's a real tired Republican talking point. maybe instead of trying to convince Blacks that they're being taking advantage of, the Repubs should start actually addressing issues that resonate with the Black community.
and this is relevant to the current differences between liberals and conservatives?
90% of blacks vote for democrats. so are they just fools??? and get serious with the latino argument. 70% of the latinos who got bush elected in florida said he made false promises. their whole campaign down there is a huge scam and everyone knows it. they bombard the spanish stations with tv ads that make claims they never intend to live up to. then bush appoints a few latino right-wingers and acts like he is really helping their communities. based on policy alone, there would be no reason for latinos to vote republican.
in fairness, I would say cultural conservatism/faith-based initiatives are possible reasons.
Like changing social security so that black men (who's life expectency generally precludes them form collecting any social security, and limiting the payout to their family of a paultry death benefit) instead might create an account that he can pass on to his children?
Personally I think this is a good idea......I've heard people on the right AND left say what basically comes down to "People aren't smart enough to be trusted to use this money correctly" and that the Government can do a better job.
Yeah....that Christianity thing is a big thorn in the Left's side.
Me on the first page of this thread:
dude I'm not saying it's an inherently bad thing. I'm saying it's a difference between Latinos as voters and other voting blocs. and a possible reason why they may gravitate toward the Republicans. Latinos seem less threatened by faith-based programs and are [I could be wrong] more socially conservative than Blacks [/I could be wrong].