I found this an interesting read.

http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html?spref=fb

Strangely enough, I didn't get a black/white issue from that whole thing. Apart from the blog on Obama's Duaghter, that's just terrible. Instead I picked up more conservative/liberal issues here.

Really, I mean Really? They called it the Tea Party?

Am I the only one thinking the tea parties stances on... everything, are completely useless, and even if they did get their way, all other western countries would immediately stop kissing their asses, wise up, and let the USA rot?

Because if these fethers ever get the power they want, everyones gonna write the USA off as dead.

You mean we haven't already? (I kid, I kid)

What was that whole thing about anyway? Gun rights?

No taxes. They basically think obama is a complete socialist who wants to take money from them and give it to people who dont derserve it. They are mostly middle income middle aged.
Honestly i think obama has great goals in mind. I dont think people would mind as much if he wasnt moving so fast. people like change. just not ubrupt change.

Nah, you haven't (yes i'm still going to reply too that question). Or rather, politicians haven't. Most people I know write the USA off as a patch of land filled with morons.

Politicians here however seem very keen on kissing every square nanometre of your asses.

I agree with many of Obama's and Kevin Rudds policies, and I welcome their apparently strong 'broship'. I'll be voting for Rudd when I come of age in 10 months, Anna Bligh is a different matter.

It started out with opposition to taxes. Then to spending. Then to the healthcare bill? They keep moving. Gun rights aren't actually what it's about, they just sort of pop up randomly, like they do in a post made by Fateweaver.

Interesting article. However what I would ask is this: would this author, if faced with a similar reversal that reflected poorly on the way black people were acting in the real world, claim that the inverse of the situation is incomparable on account of black people being a minority, who have been discriminated against historically, and so forth? Because that's usually what I hear from those defending, say, scholarships being given only to black people.

Du-du-du-DOUBLE POAST!!!!

Best answer to racists: Our race was born on Africa, now shut it.

Soladrin wrote:Nah, you haven't (yes i'm still going to reply too that question). Or rather, politicians haven't. Most people I know write the USA off as a patch of land filled with morons.

Politicians here however seem very keen on kissing every square nanometre of your asses.

Most people here see europe as full of bucked teeth people who are uptight.. I my self know thats not true. You dont know america so why do you judge it?

I'm not saying I do that, but that's the general view of it. Though I do agree that it's a land of extremes, plenty of the bad kind. But yea, that's always the media's focus.

Oh.. and your all European too in a way, so that's kind of stupid. XD

Soladrin wrote:Oh.. and your all European too in a way, so that's kind of stupid. XD

Nah, we're African.

As Dakkas token blk super heart bleeding libral guy. If you want to see what the tea party would look like if it were black go to one of the crazy deep south churches. The bible twisted into "White people are the devil." or "The best thing god promised us is death." or Everything bad that happens to you is the devils fault."

Even thought the real issues were bad health, lack of education, and no jobs. All the while passing the collection plates every chance they get.

The sad thing is nobody bothered to read the bible themselves to make sure everything said was on the up and up. This is not slam against christianity as I belive in God (in some form or another).

That article raises a lot of good points. Is 'White Privilege' or whatever he called it as prevalent in Europe?

Soladrin wrote:I'm not saying I do that, but that's the general view of it. Though I do agree that it's a land of extremes, plenty of the bad kind. But yea, that's always the media's focus.

Oh.. and your all European too in a way, so that's kind of stupid. XD

So true.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:That article raises a lot of good points. Is 'White Privilege' or whatever he called it as prevalent in Europe?

Where do you think Neo-nazi's first sprouted?

And yes, because immigrants are a real problem, at least in my country. We have a guy trying to become the anti-mohammed or something (Geert Wilders, you might even have heard of this nutcase.)

I found the question it raised to be interesting.

If a large protest of angry black people carrying guns had been calling for Bush Jnr to die and republicans to be attacked and beaten, then I imagine that back in GeeDubz day, he'd have had the tear gas and water cannons out faster than you could say 'patriotism'...

And I imagine such a demonstration, if it were black people gathering in a similar manner, armed, would be heralded by Fox as the end times.

Gabe said...

Imagine leftists letting go of their race cards for just one second. What card would they play then? Tired rhetoric is tired.

I like this guys response.

I was under the impression that European racism had moved more towards an anti-Arab sort of paradigm. Though I suppose that may just be convenience masking what is really a pro-white, or nationalist agenda.

Soladrin wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:That article raises a lot of good points. Is 'White Privilege' or whatever he called it as prevalent in Europe?

Where do you think Neo-nazi's first sprouted?

And yes, because immigrants are a real problem, at least in my country. We have a guy trying to become the anti-mohammed or something (Geert Wilders, you might even have heard of this nutcase.)

I know who Geert is. A complete turd-face.

I agree with the article.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

Gabe said...

Imagine leftists letting go of their race cards for just one second. What card would they play then? Tired rhetoric is tired.

I like this guys response.

It would have been a good retort had the central focus of the article been criticism of the Tea Party.

As it stands, it was nothing more than a statement made by a person who saw the word 'race' and immediately assumed 'racist'.

dogma wrote:I was under the impression that European racism had moved back towards an anti-Arab sort of paradigm. Though I suppose that may just be convenience masking what is really a pro-white, or nationalist agenda.

Fixed it.

dogma wrote:I was under the impression that European racism had moved more towards an anti-Arab sort of paradigm. Though I suppose that may just be convenience masking what is really a pro-white, or nationalist agenda.

No, it's anti all non whites as it's always been. Arabian countries and such are just the main issue of the world at the moment, so it's only logical that they start focusing on that.

Im sorry Dogma, but after reading the 1st part of the OP in the link about swapping colour, then seeing how it turns out, i would imagine it does comes down to colour, hence a prod towards race issues.

However, i dont usually follow much to do with the US (dont really follow UK news either) so feel free to correct me if im wrong please.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I found the question it raised to be interesting.

If a large protest of angry black people carrying guns had been calling for Bush Jnr to die and republicans to be attacked and beaten, then I imagine that back in GeeDubz day, he'd have had the tear gas and water cannons out faster than you could say 'patriotism'...

And I imagine such a demonstration, if it were black people gathering in a similar manner, armed, would be heralded by Fox as the end times.

Immigration protests, many of them numberings in thousands, are generally ignored by the media. They also happen to be composed almost entirely of brown folk.

The author has made an interesting point, but I think he misses the mark in terms of gauging the difference in reaction. The issue isn't that white people are given the freedom to protest, where others are not. The issues is that we, via the media, seem to pay more attention to protests involving certain racial groups and, to some extent, certain issue areas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:

dogma wrote:I was under the impression that European racism had moved back towards an anti-Arab sort of paradigm. Though I suppose that may just be convenience masking what is really a pro-white, or nationalist agenda.

Fixed it.

Turks aren't Arabs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Im sorry Dogma, but after reading the 1st part of the OP in the link about swapping colour, then seeing how it turns out, i would imagine it does comes down to colour, hence a prod towards race issues.

However, i dont usually follow much to do with the US (dont really follow UK news either) so feel free to correct me if im wrong please.

It was a comment on race issues. However, it wasn't a comment on race issues which was being used to discredit the Tea Party. Discussing race issues is not to play the race card. Playing the race card occurs when race is brought into an issue that is seemingly unrelated to race. An example would be stating that the Tea Party is only protesting Obama because he's not white.

Jack, it's not saying 'well if black people did it, it wouldn't be allowed because that's how racist the powers that be are', it's saying 'folks lining the streets with guns and talk of killing the president and overthrowing the elected government is a bad thing, yet we aren't stopping it, why the hell not'.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Jack, it's not saying 'well if black people did it, it wouldn't be allowed because that's how racist the powers that be are', it's saying 'folks lining the streets with guns and talk of killing the president and overthrowing the elected government is a bad thing, yet we aren't stopping it, why the hell not'.

Then you must have read something else as me...

Thanks Dogma and MGS, i really need to start reading more into OT threads and read the news once in a while.
Just tend to keep away from the rants of journo scum in the papers


Also MGS, how many presidents havent had death threats or near death experiences? XD
Comes as part of the job in my opinion.

WHy not, well Democrats don't have the back bone to stop a light breeze, Republicans don't care because either way they win, and Black folks who speak up get accused of using the race card.

Turks aren't Arabs.

Go back further

You're conflating Arab with Muslim. Most of the troops that fought during the conquest of Anatolia were Greek Byzantine converts. Similarly, later conflicts were generally over religious differences rather than racial ones; at least once you move below the leadership. The only significant conflicts between Arab and Europeans took place during the Crusades.

dogma wrote:You're conflating Arab with Muslim. Most of the troops that fought during the conquest of Anatolia were Greek Byzantine converts. Similarly, later conflicts were generally over religious differences rather than racial ones; at least once you move below the leadership. The only significant conflicts between Arab and Europeans took place during the Crusades.

BINGO. I dont confuse Arab with Muslim.

Soladrin wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Jack, it's not saying 'well if black people did it, it wouldn't be allowed because that's how racist the powers that be are', it's saying 'folks lining the streets with guns and talk of killing the president and overthrowing the elected government is a bad thing, yet we aren't stopping it, why the hell not'.

Then you must have read something else as me...

Well, as your response so perfectly demonstrates, English isn't your first language, so it's entirely feasible you've missed the point of the article. It does operate on several levels.

If he was saying what you are saying, then why the hell did he need to use black people to get that message across?

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:
Also MGS, how many presidents havent had death threats or near death experiences? XD
Comes as part of the job in my opinion.

Well, quite a few, but I suspect most for starting wars, causing economic depressions and the corrupt manipulation of legislation to line the pockets of cronies (a bit like the last one then ) ... Not for trying to ensure the poor have healthcare provided by the state...

MGS - There is a reason that the body guards will take a bullet for a president.
Its part of thier job.
So if its in the job description, it stands to reason they need protection

However, he has done nothing wrong yet, give it time, not a single president has gone full without a fuckup.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Well, quite a few, but I suspect most for starting wars, causing economic depressions and the corrupt manipulation of legislation to line the pockets of cronies (a bit like the last one then ) ... Not for trying to ensure the poor have healthcare provided by the state...

So rather than it being an issue of acceptable political discourse, it's wrong because you oppose their political agenda. At least you're not trying to hide it...

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
BINGO. I dont confuse Arab with Muslim.

Then why would you tell me to 'go back further' when my retort to your repair related directly to the first three Crusades?

Only the 5th, 6th and 8th Crusades included a majority of Arab combatants.

Because people dont know (or give a gak) Which countries actually count as being Arabian. (me among them )

The Umayyad Caliphate was Arabian, they participated in the 1st Crusade....

Interesting. We went from modern Tea Party to crusades in about a single page.

Sorry, its my favorite time period.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Well, quite a few, but I suspect most for starting wars, causing economic depressions and the corrupt manipulation of legislation to line the pockets of cronies (a bit like the last one then ) ... Not for trying to ensure the poor have healthcare provided by the state...

So rather than it being an issue of acceptable political discourse, it's wrong because you oppose their political agenda. At least you're not trying to hide it...

hmmm...

We were discussing reasons some people might wish to kill a president, the bracketed reference to the last one aside, and that frankly Obama had not committed a perceived transgression worthy of that level of ire.

I don't think killing presidents is ever an issue of acceptable political discourse. I don't believe protesting by shouting for the duly elected president to be struck dead whilst carrying firearms in public areas is appropriate, when then put in the context of what he's trying to achieve, it is doubly out of context and rational behaviour.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:The Umayyad Caliphate was Arabian, they participated in the 1st Crusade....

No they didn't, they were overthrown by the Abbasids before the First Crusade began. The Abbasids were Persian.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

Gabe said...

Imagine leftists letting go of their race cards for just one second. What card would they play then? Tired rhetoric is tired.

I like this guys response.

Thats because you didn't understand the article and apparently don't have a good grasp on what people believe about the tea party.

Oh, I forgot how conquering entities replace the conquered population of the places they conquer exclusively with their people. Just think of all those American Colonists in Iraq....


Not trying to be a dick, man. But saying that Arabs avoided European racism in the first 3 Crusades is ridiculous. Regardless of the ethnicity of the ruling dynasties Arabs lived in the Holy Land, and were persecuted for being Arabian.


On second go through, the Fatamids had retaken Jerusalem from the Seljuks the year before the Crusaders arrived there. The Fatamids were North African(Tunisian) originally, but were centralized in Egypt, and extended throughout the lower middle east. Its citizens were African, Egyptian, and ARABIAN, etc.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Oh, I forgot how conquering entities replace the conquered population of the places they conquer exclusively with their people. Just think of all those American Colonists in Iraq....

Wait, so non-militarized populations do the majority of the fighting in warfare? The Abbasid armies were primarily Persian, supported by Turkish mercenaries. By the time of the First Crusade they were almost entirely Turkish.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Not trying to be a dick, man. But saying that Arabs avoided European racism in the first 3 Crusades is ridiculous.

Only if you use the word 'racism' as a catchall for discriminatory behavior.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Regardless of the ethnicity of the ruling dynasties Arabs lived in the Holy Land, and were persecuted for being Arabian.

No, they were persecuted for being, or looking like, Muslims.

There's a line of argument which suggest that discussing anything with respect to race prior to colonialism is nonsense.

dogma wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Oh, I forgot how conquering entities replace the conquered population of the places they conquer exclusively with their people. Just think of all those American Colonists in Iraq....

Wait, so non-militarized populations do the majority of the fighting in warfare? The Abbasid armies were primarily Persian, supported by Turkish mercenaries. By the time of the First Crusade they were almost entirely Turkish.

I believe the First Crusade was noted for the killing of non-combatants and letting the Good Lord do all the sorting....

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Not trying to be a dick, man. But saying that Arabs avoided European racism in the first 3 Crusades is ridiculous.

Only if you use the word 'racism' as a catchall for discriminatory behavior.

Your arguing about something that can never be proven a 100%...

There may have been aliens doing the killing and some guy wanted to blame humans and wrote it that way...

I love how people get their knickers in a twist over thing's that we can't ever be completely sure about in the first place. xD

What else is there to do on the internet?

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
I believe the First Crusade was noted for the killing of non-combatants and letting the Good Lord do all the sorting....

As were all conflicts of temporal proximity.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Which I was, so yes discriminatory behavior.

You should stop doing that, it confuses the meaning of the word. And its a pet peeve of mine.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
If you have I'd like to read it, it sounds like it'd be useful the next time I have to explain anything about ancient conflicts.

Foucault, particularly Society Must Be Defended, is a good place to start.

dogma wrote:

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
I believe the First Crusade was noted for the killing of non-combatants and letting the Good Lord do all the sorting....

As were all conflicts of temporal proximity.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Which I was, so yes discriminatory behavior.

You should stop doing that, it confuses the meaning of the word. And its a pet peeve of mine.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
If you have I'd like to read it, it sounds like it'd be useful the next time I have to explain anything about ancient conflicts.

Foucault, particularly Society Must Be Defended, is a good place to start.

This is pretty cool. This is TWO arguments that have been worked out on the OT boards in the same week. Im getting better at this posting on Dakka thing.

Soladrin wrote:Your arguing about something that can never be proven a 100%...

There may have been aliens doing the killing and some guy wanted to blame humans and wrote it that way...

I love how people get their knickers in a twist over thing's that we can't ever be completely sure about in the first place. xD

First off, arguing is fun.

Second, you're taking the time to comment on a conversation that you can never be unequivocally certain represents a component of reality. Are you saying that you love something that might not be real? That's awfully delusional of you.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:We were discussing reasons some people might wish to kill a president, the bracketed reference to the last one aside, and that frankly Obama had not committed a perceived transgression worthy of that level of ire.

I don't think killing presidents is ever an issue of acceptable political discourse. I don't believe protesting by shouting for the duly elected president to be struck dead whilst carrying firearms in public areas is appropriate, when then put in the context of what he's trying to achieve, it is doubly out of context and rational behaviour.

Maybe I was being kind of a jerk; what I probably should have said was if you're condemning an action (such as saying you want the president to be killed) on the principle that it's unacceptable political discourse, you should probably avoid saying that it's 'extra unacceptable' on account of the partisan motivations for the action, because it alienates the people you most need to convince. They'll take the criticism as a disingenuous attempt to score political points.

Soladrin wrote:

There may have been aliens doing the killing and some guy wanted to blame humans and wrote it that way...

Alien vs Predator vs Crusaders FTW!!!

I don't think killing presidents is ever an issue of acceptable political discourse. I don't believe protesting by shouting for the duly elected president to be struck dead whilst carrying firearms in public areas is appropriate, when then put in the context of what he's trying to achieve, it is doubly out of context and rational behaviour.

I am always wondering when everyone will realise that humans are not rational beings? We have the ability to be rational, but we are not by nature.

Someone from New Zealand mentioned that they were astonished that they called themselves the Tea Party, that is because the Boston Tea Party (wiki it) is considered a major run up event if not the beginning action of the American Revolution where they threw out the British on account of over taxation. I think it's a wonderful name for their purpose, and I don't blame you for not knowing American history.

As to the OP, that is because a lot of people think black people with guns are dangerous gangsters, while white people with guns are just rednecks.

Honestly, I would like to see the Tea Party acheive their goals, obviously not in the revolutionary way that was espoused in the blog but they do most of their activities in a legal way.

Someone mentioned Geert Wilders, then called him a turd. I think he is probably the most liberal anti muslim guy you will ever find in the world, as he is against Islam because of the views it holds of Homosexuality and its anti-liberal manners in its current form. Now when this is said most people go on about how most Muslims don't really care, and that they support Liberal traditions and the like. What they tend to forget is that the extremes of the movement are almost always the leaders of that movement, it takes passion in yourself to inspire passion in others.

I LIKE TURTLES !

I'll go with what one of my History Professors told me once.

"What If? Is a fun game, but that is all it is. What Is is much more interesting and important."

What if the Tea Party were mostly black doesn't mean much because it isn't. You don't understand something by pretending it is something else.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I'll go with what one of my History Professors told me once.

"What If? Is a fun game, but that is all it is. What Is is much more interesting and important."

What if the Tea Party were mostly black doesn't mean much because it isn't. You don't understand something by pretending it is something else.

The tea party would also be a tenth it's current size and largely irrelevant.

Soladrin wrote:

dogma wrote:I was under the impression that European racism had moved more towards an anti-Arab sort of paradigm. Though I suppose that may just be convenience masking what is really a pro-white, or nationalist agenda.

No, it's anti all non whites as it's always been. Arabian countries and such are just the main issue of the world at the moment, so it's only logical that they start focusing on that.

In the UK there is a lot of anti-Pole and anti-Eastern European sentiment. You can't call that racism when it comes from white people, though I suppose you can when it comes from Sikhs and Pakistanis.

What it shows is that the focus of resentment is with the settled community against new incomers during a time of economic stress.

Of course there is normal racism too.

That can be racism, can't it?

An American hating Brits is racism, even if both are white, isn't it?

Emperors Faithful wrote:That can be racism, can't it?

An American hating Brits is racism, even if both are white, isn't it?

I suppose it would depend on the ethnicity of the American. More likely it is either bigotry or prejudice in your hypothetical situation. I know racism is often used as a catch-all many times, but it doesn't actually cover everything.

Racism is normally understood to be the assumption that different skin colours indicate different levels of mental and physical ability, and culture. The racist naturally assumes his own skin colour is the best, so this validates despising people of other, 'lower' skin colourations.

From that viewpoint, it is nonsense for a white person to be racist against white people, or for a brown person to be racist against brown people.

In the UK however, we have a lot of people who aren't white. In the areas where they are settled with 'native' white people, they are as against the newcomer east Europeans and against newcomers from India/Pakistan/Somalia/Iraq as the white people.

My point is that a lot of the anti-immigration feeling is not racism as such, it is a resentment of newcomers, based on the idea that they are taking people's jobs and social security benefits.

Are you sure it's skin colour that defines race? Isn't a Pole a different race from an Anglo-Saxxon?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Are you sure it's skin colour that defines race? Isn't a Pole a different race from an Anglo-Saxxon?

It depends on how much credence people give to antique race theory.

Examined from the viewpoint of modern genetics, earlier theories about race -- anglo-saxons, normans, slavs, nordics and so on -- different head shapes and sizes, larger brains and all that -- are nonsense.

People may well have genuinely believed it in Victorian times or the mid-20th century, but it has become unsupportable in the light of modern knowledge. There isn't such as thing as race except as a cultural concept.

Consider that a large population of Poles has lived in the UK since WW2, and never been resented until more of them arrived in the past 10-15 years.

Orkeosaurus wrote:It started out with opposition to taxes. Then to spending. Then to the healthcare bill? They keep moving. Gun rights aren't actually what it's about, they just sort of pop up randomly, like they do in a post made by Fateweaver.

Interesting article. However what I would ask is this: would this author, if faced with a similar reversal that reflected poorly on the way black people were acting in the real world, claim that the inverse of the situation is incomparable on account of black people being a minority, who have been discriminated against historically, and so forth? Because that's usually what I hear from those defending, say, scholarships being given only to black people.

Guns? Did someone just send me the Fate signal? The problem with the Tea Party as presented is that most of the stories (not all) show the Tea Partiers as racist rednecks who want to violently overthrow the government (got to love MSNBC and John Stewart for presenting factual information).

Tea Party is against the government becoming too big, too powerful and too intrusive. All these taxes? Too intrusive. Trying to feth with the 2nd Amendment? Too intrusive and trying to overstep it's power. Forcing people to do something that should be left to the States and the decisions of the people, ie healthcare? Too intrusive, too powerful and too big. The Constitution was penned to limit government control, to tell the people in control "back the feth off, you are only as powerful as we are". The leftist, especially the ones that are part of Obamanation, are trying very hard to stretch the Constitution or even over step it. Forcing healthcare down our throats when the majority of the US didn't want it? Overstepping their authority. Regulating guns and or trying to ban certain guns (which given time will end up a banning of all guns from civilians) is the government overstepping it's power.

Arizona and 2 other states have it right. No need for a permit to own or buy a gun in that state. You just walk into Gander Mountain or Walmart or anywhere else that sells guns in those states and you buy one. In essence those 3 states have given the middle finger to big brother and are saying "feth you, we don't need you telling us what's good or bad for us." Same goes for the immigration law currently passed. Good on her for having the cajones to sign that bill into law.

As to the comment "if the tea party were black". Does the author of that article not see for his own eyes (and obviously some of you) see that there are quite a few blacks at Tea Party rallies. Of course they are called "Uncle Toms" by the left (and we are the racist ones how ) and sellouts and what not because according to most leftists if you are black you should be liberal (again, a racist attitude that is somehow ignored by the left).

But keep blanketing Tea Partiers as racist rednecks (funny how not many black people are rednecks and how you see black people at a gathering of racist white rednecks cleverly disguised as a movement to halt the government in it's tracks) and I'll keep blanketing all liberals as pot-smoking hippies who want the entire world to hold hands and sing kumbaya because after all I've seen enough video clips of DNC rallies to be able to back up my "pot smoking hippy" stance.

Guns? Did someone just send me the Fate signal? The problem with the Tea Party as presented is that most of the stories (not all) show the Tea Partiers as racist rednecks who want to violently overthrow the government (got to love MSNBC and John Stewart for presenting factual information).

Interestingly enough on wednesday jon stuarts guest was a guy who wrote a rather praising book on the tea party and half of his entire show was about how the media likes to categorize and label movements based on what sells best rather than the reality.

But hey, it's not like you ever know what you're talking about.

Tea Party is against the government becoming too big, too powerful and too intrusive. All these taxes? Too intrusive. Trying to feth with the 2nd Amendment? Too intrusive and trying to overstep it's power. Forcing people to do something that should be left to the States and the decisions of the people, ie healthcare? Too intrusive, too powerful and too big. The Constitution was penned to limit government control, to tell the people in control "back the feth off, you are only as powerful as we are". The leftist, especially the ones that are part of Obamanation, are trying very hard to stretch the Constitution or even over step it. Forcing healthcare down our throats when the majority of the US didn't want it? Overstepping their authority. Regulating guns and or trying to ban certain guns (which given time will end up a banning of all guns from civilians) is the government overstepping it's power.

It's a constitutionalist movement comprised largely of aging white males with conservative leaning viewpoints. It's basically populist constitutionalism, meaning fairly stupid constitutionalism. Note how they do not take issue with overseas or military prisons and tribunals for civilian police matters, and they certainly didn't care about the unconstitutional method by which we declared war in afghanistan (exercising military force as a police action is unconstitutional). I'm just going to ignore the part of your post that was an anti leftist rant with little grasp of reality.

As to the comment "if the tea party were black". Does the author of that article not see for his own eyes (and obviously some of you) see that there are quite a few blacks at Tea Party rallies. Of course they are called "Uncle Toms" by the left (and we are the racist ones how ) and sellouts and what not because according to most leftists if you are black you should be liberal (again, a racist attitude that is somehow ignored by the left).

I don't think you have been going to the same tea parties everyone else has.



I don't see any black people in there. Or seemingly any minority at all.

But keep blanketing Tea Partiers as racist rednecks (funny how not many black people are rednecks and how you see black people at a gathering of racist white rednecks cleverly disguised as a movement to halt the government in it's tracks) and I'll keep blanketing all liberals as pot-smoking hippies who want the entire world to hold hands and sing kumbaya because after all I've seen enough video clips of DNC rallies to be able to back up my "pot smoking hippy" stance.

But you've always do that. You didn't start doing it in response to something. It's what you do instead of making factually correct or logical/sensible arguments.

bottom left corner...black man.


Black Tea Party supporter.


Since we seem to be playing "Where's Waldo?" I present this picture of a DNC rally. Find me a black man/woman or any non-caucasian peoples in this photo.


If you really want to pick and choose from 1'000's of pics on Google showing Tea Party rallies and pick one that show's no black person at all when I can show you pics of black people at Tea Party rallies, can link you to sites with conservative blacks and show you footage of conservative black people speaking at tea party rallies then I refuse to go around with you on the subject. It was either you or guitardian who gave me a 7 day vacation and I really don't want to be forced off here for a month or forever just because you refuse to pull your head out your backside and see other peoples viewpoints.

You refuse to see what the Tea Party is about for yourself, you only see what MSNBC wants you to see. JS does on occasion attack the left but he is still as liberal as the next liberal so me using JS as an example is as valid as your 1 pic out of thousands showing a protest rally that has no black person (and there probably were some, im sure your eyes can't pic them out of the blurred out heads going way off into the distance).

You have been brainwashed to not see the wrong the government is doing so I can't convince you without subjecting you to extensive deprogramming and honestly I couldn't stand to be in your presence long enough to go through with that.

So that is all I'm going to say on the matter. Since you think it's okay for the government to overstep it's bounds regarding the Constitution (which does not protect non-citizens at all) then I have nothing further to say to you. I hope if this country erupts into another civil war "big brother" keeps you safe but I doubt "big brother" would be able to. I don't wish you dead Shuma so I hope "big brother" takes care of you but realize that if "big brother" oversteps his authority he'll get beaten like a red-headed stepchild and if that day comes I'll be the first to lay the switch to "his" backside.

Good day gentleman.


*Pst Shuma. Relook at your pic, ye expert of Where's Waldo? Center of the pic I spot 2 Black men, one under the black sign and one a little to the front and on his right (your left). That isn't shadows darkening their skin. Nice try though.

Gold Star.

It's a constitutionalist movement comprised largely of aging white males with conservative leaning viewpoints. It's basically populist constitutionalism, meaning fairly stupid constitutionalism. Note how they do not take issue with overseas or military prisons and tribunals for civilian police matters, and they certainly didn't care about the unconstitutional method by which we declared war in afghanistan (exercising military force as a police action is unconstitutional). I'm just going to ignore the part of your post that was an anti leftist rant with little grasp of reality.

Can you explain this a little more?

Don't get him started.

He is saying that somehow the Constitution applies to foreigners and illegals. Bill of Rights MIGHT apply to foreigners and illegals but the Constitution sure as hell doesn't.

bottom left corner...black man.

That looks like a white dude with a tan and micheal steele doesn't count.

If you really want to pick and choose from 1'000's of pics on Google showing Tea Party rallies and pick one that show's no black person at all when I can show you pics of black people at Tea Party rallies, can link you to sites with conservative blacks and show you footage of conservative black people speaking at tea party rallies then I refuse to go around with you on the subject. It was either you or guitardian who gave me a 7 day vacation and I really don't want to be forced off here for a month or forever just because you refuse to pull your head out your backside and see other peoples viewpoints.

One in ten people in america is black. Perhaps one in 200 in the tea parties are. It's not a representative movement. You're the one that said you see "Quite a few black people" at the rallies. Quite a few doesn't mean "Three token black dudes in a rally over 2000 people".

You refuse to see what the Tea Party is about for yourself, you only see what MSNBC wants you to see. JS does on occasion attack the left but he is still as liberal as the next liberal so me using JS as an example is as valid as your 1 pic out of thousands showing a protest rally that has no black person (and there probably were some, im sure your eyes can't pic them out of the blurred out heads going way off into the distance).

It was the first pic I found, but you didn't exactly do a good job defending your point with a tan white dude and micheal gosh darn steel.

o that is all I'm going to say on the matter. Since you think it's okay for the government to overstep it's bounds regarding the Constitution (which does not protect non-citizens at all) then I have nothing further to say to you.

No, you have nothing further to say to me because you're belligerent and incredibly ill informed and you've danced this dance with me before. It never turns out well.

Can you explain this a little more?

Which part? Constitutionalism, populism, police actions, or the part about the prisons?

He is saying that somehow the Constitution applies to foreigners and illegals. Bill of Rights MIGHT apply to foreigners and illegals but the Constitution sure as hell doesn't.

Nope, but wiretapping wasn't a foreigner issue. Nor was the unconstitutional ad hoc declaration of war as a police action in afghanistan, and a dozen other wars. Nor were hundreds of other things conservatives pulled. This is just a smoke and mirrors issue so that misinformed or downright idiotic tools can complain about liberals and an economic situation that the vast majority of them simply do not understand.

Shuma, how much do you know about how we took over Afghanistan? Which dozens of wars are you referring to?

I'd like to hear what you mean about police actions and the prisons.

Look again Shuma. That is NOT a tan. He's not as black as a true south african Negro but that sure as hell isn't a tan.

People suspected of communicating with terrorists had their phones tapped. Duh. As it should be.

As far as Afghan I don't see PresO doing much about it. Withdrawing troops by August. It hasn't even started yet and it's going to take longer than 4 months.

You are the ill-informed one Shuma. Enjoy your nice cushy middle class life as "big brother" grows bigger and more powerful. "Ignorance is bliss" is a phrase that you should take to heart Shuma. It should be your moniker. Afterall, "big brother" has your best interest at heart even if it steps on the interests of what this country is based on it's all good in the end, isn't it?

Typical leftist entitlement attitude.

I don't see any black people in there. Or seemingly any minority at all.

Then you are as blind as usual, Shuma. Front row center between the guy looking away from the camera and the guy with crossed arms and glasses...TWO obvious Black men.

As far as the "what if" scenario goes I'll rebut.

What if whites and an all-white beauty pageant, TV station, National organization for the "advancement" of non-colored people, white's-only scholarships...etc.


Yeah, "white privilege" sure. They should protest in the streets, they probably could use a new TV.

A "OWNED" is required here.

No, they have tans.

Let Shuma live in his world where conservatives are nothing but white; liberals are mixed (which I will give them that but only because minorities are attracted to the promise of sucking off the system even more due to liberal policies) and NOT racist and that anyone wanting to uphold the Constitution is a redneck, gun-toting white supremacist.

It's so awesome that 56 men over 200 years ago lost all they had to stand up to their British overlords but that means nothing to people who think the government should be bigger and more intrusive.

I'm done here.

Did you ever start? XD

Forgoing the pictures, the numbers of African Americans involved in the Tea Party is so small as to be insignificant, other then possible tokenism arguments. If it starts to come even slightly close to demographics (10 to 1 or so) then you might have something. As it is, the numbers don't lie about it being almost entirely a white movement.

Actually, I only spot one. (guy with his hands in pockets/jacket, behind baldie in glasses)

Out of three pictures, I only spot uno African American. It certainly doesn't look like it's representative of the minorites at all. But anyway, who am I kidding? To me this is just another example of the US sensationalisng thier polotics between liberals and conservatives. I really can't believe you two get so heated about fething polotics of all things. Do you see aussies getting so wound up about these things? No, here the common man has a more "who gives feth?" attitude towards polotics. We don't demonize one side or beatify the other. Short of thier polocies on the posobility of getting into a war with China/NZ, I really couldn't give a damn about either of thier polocies. Personally, I look at the guy. Are they a good leader, which one is slightly more interested in the wellfare of our country than covering his backside than the other?

Okay, that's enough political input from me for one day. (Not that it was useful or anything ) BTW, Fate, nice "This is my Rifle, this is my Gun" speech.

Don't take this the wrong way EF, but it is hard to take your opinion on politics seriously when you can't even spell the word correctly. Once is a typo, but every time, not so much.

Politics can be seen as important since they involve the following: what your laws are, how they are enforced, your rights, what kind and what quality the infrastructure of your community is, ect ect.

I know, but don't forget, I'm an Aussie. I'm never going to be helpful in a polotical debate.

Is it a problem that it is an almost entirely white movement? Does that invalidate it somehow? I'd imagine that the stances of the people within invalidate it, not their members ethnicity. When white people get together is that bad? Are we not allowed to do stuff anymore just because we are white?

Im just glad these fethers are moving away from social issues and moving back towards constitutional ones, even if its viewed with blinders. Social Issues are the bane of human existence.

Besides, I think my spelling improved in the last sentence.

It's hard, no matter what side of the fence you are on, to understand US politics as an outsider.

Your country is the way it is. Sure you can compare it to us and ask "what's the big deal?" but you will never begin to understand.

On the flip side of things I'd guess that the majority of people at DNC rallies are minorty. Afterall, they have the most to gain from liberal policies (well, that and most don't give a flying feth about this countries past, they just want free handouts).

The article asks what if the Tea party was black. Apparently it is SOMEWHAT black, it's not ALL white. Not to mention not every Tea Party rally has pics up on google and most pics were taken of the same rallies (TP rally in washington has dozens upon dozens of photos for just that ONE rally).

But I digress. I once again brought forth good reasons for how I feel and a certain someone once again has to attack me.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Is it a problem that it is an almost entirely white movement?

If you ignore history as well as the present condition of different groups I suppose it isn't. It isn't really even a issue of racism necessarily, but of socio-economic factors and other exciting group dynamics at play. It also is a problem, to an extent, because it highlights the narrow appeal to certain pseudo privileged classes.

Fateweaver, you're really playing the 'token black guy' card for all it's worth aren't you? This movement looks pretty much white. It certainly isn't a black movement, which is what the article was raising the question in regards to.

Fateweaver wrote:

I'm done here.

You're leaving dakka? Please, can i get your hat and coat, sir and show you precisely where the 'don't let the door hit you on the way out' door is!

I've lived lots of different places, and the place blacks have it the worst is the south (obviously), mexicans (and other latinos) have it bad pretty much everywhere unless they have taken it over (like Miami), Asians do well (especially in Hawaii, but dont get me started on 'racism' in Hawaii), and in all of these places with minorities alot of people dont realize that right alongside the minorities there are white people. The term 'white trash' is there for a reason, we have uneducated, poor, drug addicted, welfare using melon-fethers too. You just dont hear about them, because no one cares about them either. You ever been to Walmart on payday?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Fateweaver, you're really playing the 'token black guy' card for all it's worth aren't you? This movement looks pretty much white. It certainly isn't a black movement, which is what the article was raising the question in regards to.

Neither is the DNC.

But please, keep playing the "Tea party is a bunch of racist, redneck anti-government gun toters" card.

When did the idea that there are no white people, or even poor white people, come about? No one has argued that there are no poor and/or uneducated white. In fact, I believe several posters here have specifically called Tea Party members just that.

I think it began with Shuma trying to play Where's Waldo to point out no blacks exist in the tea party but failing epically.

Thats what I am saying, that the irony is some of the 'conservative' Tea Partiers are indeed in the lower socio economic spectrum and live off the government.

To me this is just another example of the US sensationalisng thier polotics between liberals and conservatives. I really can't believe you two get so heated about fething polotics of all things.

*Adopts British Accent*

Sir, that is the only thing you should get heated up about wot wot!

/Accent

And that is why america is a much more democratic nation than most other Western Ones. They actually follow their politics (if somewhat ignorantly) and they do things about it. Instead of blindly and apathetically voting for their leader every 4 years.

Fateweaver wrote:

On the flip side of things I'd guess that the majority of people at DNC rallies are minorty. Afterall, they have the most to gain from liberal policies (well, that and most don't give a flying feth about this countries past, they just want free handouts).

So all the homeless, lazy (Oh! and don't forget immigrants!) people are voting for the liberal party so that they get free handouts? And all the hardworking, hardearning, well-off (and coincidentaly white) people who love thier country and thier constitution are voting for the conservatives, who are the only real politicians who actually care about American values? How nice.

Ratbarf wrote:

To me this is just another example of the US sensationalisng thier polotics between liberals and conservatives. I really can't believe you two get so heated about fething polotics of all things.

*Adopts British Accent*

Sir, that is the only thing you should get heated up about wot wot!

/Accent

And that is why america is a much more democratic nation than most other Western Ones. They actually follow their politics (if somewhat ignorantly) and they do things about it. Instead of blindly and apathetically voting for their leader every 4 years.

We dont do anything halfway. Its all the way fethed up or not fethed up at all.

So all the homeless, lazy (Oh! and don't forget immigrants!) people are voting for the liberal party so that they get free handouts? And all the hardworking, hardearning, well-off (and coincidentaly white) people who love thier country and thier constitution are voting for the conservatives, who are the only real politicians who actually care about American values? How nice.

True generally speaking though.

Fateweaver wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Fateweaver, you're really playing the 'token black guy' card for all it's worth aren't you? This movement looks pretty much white. It certainly isn't a black movement, which is what the article was raising the question in regards to.

Neither is the DNC.

But please, keep playing the "Tea party is a bunch of racist, redneck anti-government gun toters" card.

I never did. From the start I said this is a liberal/conservative issue. Not a race one. (well, not a heart anyway, but it does come into it)

Ratbarf wrote:

To me this is just another example of the US sensationalisng thier polotics between liberals and conservatives. I really can't believe you two get so heated about fething polotics of all things.

*Adopts British Accent*

Sir, that is the only thing you should get heated up about wot wot!

/Accent

And that is why america is a much more democratic nation than most other Western Ones. They actually follow their politics (if somewhat ignorantly) and they do things about it. Instead of blindly and apathetically voting for their leader every 4 years.

I no understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Granted, it is Wikipedia but...

I believe he is referring to the way people act in the country, rather than the way the political system is actually organized.

Correct Orkeosaurus, I was commenting on the fact that the Americans are a better democrecy than most countries of the western world. They practice it better than almost everyone, regardless of whether the government is as free or democratic as some wikipedian would judge to be the case.

O rly? O.O
Care to explain?

Ratbarf wrote:Correct Orkeosaurus, I was commenting on the fact that the Americans are a better democrecy than most countries of the western world. They practice it better than almost everyone, regardless of whether the government is as free or democratic as some wikipedian would judge to be the case.

Really? Obama was fairly and democratically elected and heaps of non-liberals are throwing a hissy fit. I don't doubt it'd be the same if John McCain had been elected.

True cheese but so far it's harmless gnashing of teeth.

Most 3rd world countries show discontent with genocide, assassinations, assassination attempts, riots, looting, rapes, murders.

Last time this country tore itself apart over the government was the Civil War. Most other countries it seems as if it happens every 4 years, give or take. So civility has been our strong suit compared to other countries ways of handling hated government.

Part of it is you guys arn't afraid of getting into heated arguments over things. In Canada the poltical scene is empty. We just continue to tipsy toe around the real issues and our government tries to stay in power by any means possible, while the opposition is made up of an aging hippy, and some weird proffessor whose oppinion and stances change with the weather. Whereas in America you have actual intense politcal discourse pretty much year round regardless of how far away an election is, and they are always going on about the big issues. In Canada we just find a settlement that no one notices and doesn't really do anything and sit on it until something blows up. There is no discourse outside of the talking classes.

Probably due to the fact that conservatives and independents believe in what the country stands for and feel that 56 men didn't lose everything they had over nothing so we owe it to them and our country.

The other half don't give 2 gaks about what this country means, they think the government needs to be bigger and more powerful; that the laws of the land apply to those not of this land and that our society will be better with more taxes and more social programs.

So it boils down to the fact that one side of the fence takes pride in what this country SHOULD be and isn't afraid to stand up to those who try to control us.

Most other countries citizens don't have the nationalist or exceptional pride that American citizens have that is why those of us who love our country, aka conservatives, fight for her against those that don't.

Ratbarf:

I take it you've never actually been involved in politics eh? I recommend turning out for the party of your choice in the next federal/provincial election and finding out what actually happens.

It looks distinctly different from the inside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Most other countries citizens don't have the nationalist or exceptional pride that American citizens have that is why those of us who love our country, aka conservatives, fight for her against those that don't.

Funny, the Germans had nationalist pride once. They're getting it back though...

Dads a member of the liberal party and was on the shortlist to be our areas MPP. a Great Uncle whom I knew quite well was the Conservative rep for Westmount and loathed Jean Chretien, always called him a bastard and never said his name. I think I have seen the inside of lower level politics, but what I was talking about was the nation as a whole, not just the parties. Canadians don't in general enjoy ruffling too many feathers, so the only people who actually do anything in their politics are the French. The rest of us have too much British reservedness in us to do anything.

PS: I know that that is a grand generalisation, but aside from party members I don't exactly see a willingness to discuss messy politics and very few people I know have arguments that support their political beleifs, most simply follow what their parents choices are.

Ratbarf:

Okay, but what have you personally done besides vote? Have you campaigned? Have you organized at the municipal level?

Maybe what you're alluding to is the essential lack of ideological alternatives in what is basically a competition between competing teams of management, so it's understandable that such politics of management and responsibility are ignored by the majority of the population. But frankly a majority of the population are idiots that should be disenfranchised lest their ignorance of the basic issues interfere with the interests of our country. Fortunately they self-defranchise, and whatever party gains a majority in the commons gets the low-down by the civil service and abandons whatever ridiculous crap they came up to buy off the electorate.

Yeah, Mr. Chretien was and is a bastard; he's Power Corp through and through. But Power Corp is successful precisely because they promote bastards like that according to their ability. When the alternative are Upper Canada College establishment scions like John Turner (and then Ignatieff/Rae) who never succeeded in the private sector, and whose families bailed them out every time they failed, I'd take the arsehole who gets the job done.

Me, I'm trying to figure out how to run for the Bloc in Toronto come the next Federal...

Fateweaver wrote:Look again Shuma. That is NOT a tan. He's not as black as a true south african Negro but that sure as hell isn't a tan.

That's a racial slur. You shouldn't use racial slurs. It demeans the conversation, and makes you seem ignorant.

Fateweaver wrote:
As far as Afghan I don't see PresO doing much about it. Withdrawing troops by August. It hasn't even started yet and it's going to take longer than 4 months.

No, troop withdrawals are scheduled for consideration in June of 2011.

Fateweaver wrote:
Enjoy your nice cushy middle class life as "big brother" grows bigger and more powerful.

If the life ensured by a powerful 'big brother' is cushy, and easy why would anyone have any incentive to prevent said 'big brother' from becoming powerful?

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Look again Shuma. That is NOT a tan. He's not as black as a true south african Negro but that sure as hell isn't a tan.

That's a racial slur. You shouldn't use racial slurs. It demeans the conversation, and makes you seem ignorant.

Fateweaver wrote:
As far as Afghan I don't see PresO doing much about it. Withdrawing troops by August. It hasn't even started yet and it's going to take longer than 4 months.

No, troop withdrawals are scheduled for consideration in June of 2011.

Fateweaver wrote:
Enjoy your nice cushy middle class life as "big brother" grows bigger and more powerful.

If the life ensured by a powerful 'big brother' is cushy, and easy why would anyone have any incentive to prevent said 'big brother' from becoming powerful?

Negro is not as bad as the "other" N word but I digress.

Obama has done nothing as planned except HCR so I'm doubting 2011 for troop withdrawal (not to mention what's the point of withdrawing troops when he plans to send more in)?

Explain to me why else liberals want government in every aspect of our lives? Why the majority liberals are poor class or lower class minorities that benefit from all the social programs liberals start? There is obviously SOME reason liberals want the government to control every aspect of our life. Security? Comfort? The love of paying taxes?

Fateweaver wrote:
The other half don't give 2 gaks about what this country means, they think the government needs to be bigger and more powerful;

Very few people directly advocate a more powerful state, and most of those people are international politics specialists.

Fateweaver wrote:
...that the laws of the land apply to those not of this land...

The laws of the land apply to the land, and those in it. That's why they're called laws of the land.

Fateweaver wrote:
...and that our society will be better with more taxes and more social programs.

You've praised the President for extending unemployment assistance, have you not? If so, then you fulfill at least one of the criteria necessary to be subject to your own criticism.

Fateweaver wrote:
So it boils down to the fact that one side of the fence takes pride in what this country SHOULD be and isn't afraid to stand up to those who try to control us.

No, both sides of the fence take pride in what the country should be, as they both advocate a political position focused on an idealized understanding of the state. Of course, the 'fence' itself is a useless tool employed by those in positions of power.

Fateweaver wrote:
Most other countries citizens don't have the nationalist or exceptional pride that American citizens have that is why those of us who love our country, aka conservatives, fight for her against those that don't.

The fact that you chose to embody the nation speaks volumes to your ability to carry on this conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:
Negro is not as bad as the "other" N word but I digress.

Do you suppose that fact matters?

Damn is generally considered to be less offensive than feth, but its still considered to be offensive.

Fateweaver wrote:
Obama has done nothing as planned except HCR so I'm doubting 2011 for troop withdrawal (not to mention what's the point of withdrawing troops when he plans to send more in)?

The withdrawal message was issued as part of a statement about personnel escalation. It is an event that is to transpire following said escalation. Additionally, it was not a statement about withdrawal per se, but a statement about the consideration of withdrawal. Unobservant people frequently fail to notice the difference.

Fateweaver wrote:
Why the majority liberals are poor class or lower class minorities that benefit from all the social programs liberals start?

That's a false statement.

Fateweaver wrote:
There is obviously SOME reason liberals want the government to control every aspect of our life. Security? Comfort? The love of paying taxes?

The belief that its an effective means of solving social problems?

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
The other half don't give 2 gaks about what this country means, they think the government needs to be bigger and more powerful;

Very few people directly advocate a more powerful state, and most of those people are international politics specialists.

Fateweaver wrote:
...that the laws of the land apply to those not of this land...

The laws of the land apply to the land, and those in it. That's why they're called laws of the land.

Fateweaver wrote:
...and that our society will be better with more taxes and more social programs.

You've praised the President for extending unemployment assistance, have you not? If so, then you fulfill at least one of the criteria necessary to be subject to your own criticism.

Fateweaver wrote:
So it boils down to the fact that one side of the fence takes pride in what this country SHOULD be and isn't afraid to stand up to those who try to control us.

No, both sides of the fence take pride in what the country should be, as they both advocate a political position focused on an idealized understanding of the state. Of course, the 'fence' itself is a useless tool employed by those in positions of power.

Fateweaver wrote:
Most other countries citizens don't have the nationalist or exceptional pride that American citizens have that is why those of us who love our country, aka conservatives, fight for her against those that don't.

The fact that you chose to embody the nation speaks volumes to your ability to carry on this conversation.

Pushing HCR is letting government become more powerful. Pushing Federal government to control guns in the population is letting the government become bigger. Advocating less government and then voting for government hell bent on doing what it can to gain more power is a piss poor way of showing the rest of the country that person is all about LESS government control.

If you are in this land to do us harm than the law of the land should not apply. You weren't welcome here, you weren't here to try to make this country better so feth your so-called freedoms in this land.

UI is a social program but I also had to earn it. Food stamps, WIC and MA is NOT earned. You just need to be 18 and unemployed. That's the kind I mean but keep purposely misconstruing my meaning for your benefit.

One side is giving a finger to the Constitution every time it does things to enable the Federal government and President to become more powerful, more intrusive. That is not really showing those of us on the right side of the fence that you lot on the left care about our country.

Patriotism is not a bad thing. If you don't love this country or too ashamed to admit you love the country than I'll personally escort you to either the Northern or Southern border. Your choice. I speak for the whole country because I would hope every man, woman and child in this country loves the US. Not asking you to love the current administration but if you don't love the US of A in general than GTFO.

Fateweaver:

So what's it like being a neo-nazi?

Feels pretty good.

Hows it going to feel to get a week long ban cuz I think you just earned one?

LOL.

If being against government takeover of my country and loving my freedoms means being a neo-Nazi then I'm going to shave my head tomorrow, tattoo a swastika on my neck and shoulder and go beat up some minorities and burn some crosses.



Put ork moticons so people don't actually take me seriously although some will, as is apparent already.

Fateweaver wrote:
Pushing HCR is letting government become more powerful. Pushing Federal government to control guns in the population is letting the government become bigger. Advocating less government and then voting for government hell bent on doing what it can to gain more power is a piss poor way of showing the rest of the country that person is all about LESS government control.

It is possible to advocate less government as an ideal, while advocating more government in a particular situation.

In any case, debating what constitutes 'less' or 'more' government is nothing more than platitude pissing competition. There is no point to it, as it does little more than sway people who don't take the time to acquire more detailed knowledge.

Fateweaver wrote:
If you are in this land to do us harm than the law of the land should not apply. You weren't welcome here, you weren't here to try to make this country better so feth your so-called freedoms in this land.

Sorry, that isn't how the rule of law works. Indeed, the rule of law was established in order to police the sort of attitude you're displaying here.

Fateweaver wrote:
UI is a social program but I also had to earn it. Food stamps, WIC and MA is NOT earned. You just need to be 18 and unemployed. That's the kind I mean but keep purposely misconstruing my meaning for your benefit.

I didn't misconstrue anything, you failed to specify. Don't attempt to pin your own failings on me. It shows a lack of personal responsibility.

Fateweaver wrote:
One side is giving a finger to the Constitution every time it does things to enable the Federal government and President to become more powerful, more intrusive.

No, that's false. Many extensions of power are entirely constitutional. You seem to be conflating what the Constitution actually says with your understanding of its overall meaning.

Additionally, Republican governments have long sought to extend executive power. Note Nixon, and the latter Bush.

Fateweaver wrote:
That is not really showing those of us on the right side of the fence that you lot on the left care about our country.

When you say 'our country' here you aren't referring to the people and land that constitute the United States of America, but an ideal which you wish to approach. Considering that fact, it should be expected that people who disagree with your vision would not value your 'country'.

Fateweaver wrote:
Patriotism is not a bad thing. If you don't love this country or too ashamed to admit you love the country than I'll personally escort you to either the Northern or Southern border. Your choice. I speak for the whole country because I would hope every man, woman and child in this country loves the US. Not asking you to love the current administration but if you don't love the US of A in general than GTFO.

You don't speak for the whole country, you speak for yourself.

The Tea Party is full of dumbass rednecks who all need an ass whooping for being so dumb.

That includes you Glen Beck, Bill O'REALLY, and Fox News in general.

Karon wrote:The Tea Party is full of dumbass rednecks who all need an ass whooping for being so dumb.

That includes you Glen Beck, Bill O'REALLY, and Fox News in general.

Paint any broader stroke and you'd paint the entirety of dakka with one brush.

Better to be a dumbass redneck than a dumbass puppet who's puppeteer is the current administration.

Fateweaver:

I'm not trying to insult you. It's just that your "love it or leave it" nationalism combined with your utter assurance that people who don't agree with you are enemies of the state, and assumption of a corporate identity is pretty much the definition of neo-nazi. It's just weird seeing how you all but admit to it.

Why aren't you proud of your politics? I can understand why the liberal pc-police make you keep on the down low about your pride in the White Race, but surely they can't suppress your love of America.

Nurglitch wrote:Fateweaver:

I'm not trying to insult you. It's just that your "love it or leave it" nationalism combined with your utter assurance that people who don't agree with you are enemies of the state, and assumption of a corporate identity is pretty much the definition of neo-nazi.

Wikki-Fail

Haha, keep on Nurglitch.

So I'm proud to be a caucasian? Is that anymore wrong than Native pride or Black pride? I am a neo-Nazi because if you don't love the US you shouldn't be here? If you don't love the place you are at than how much sense does it make to stay?

If I don't love being at the Twilight movie I sure as hell won't stay, I'll leave.

By your definition every conservative is a neo-Nazi. 56 people risked all they had in 1878 to ensure the government didn't try to get too big. All 56 lost everything they had, some lost their lives. So I apologize if the Constitution, the very document that made this country worth living in, is being threatened and I along with it.

On second thought I don't apologize. Enjoy your vacation Nurglitch. I'd suggest you stop attacking me while it's only a small ban.

FW, Being proud of your race is only for non-whites, you racist!

lol

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.

No wonder I got my ass kicked in Walmart parking lot for wearing a shirt saying "White Pride".

Jeebuz Christ, how could I be so ignorant?

Glad I could help, now you know... (cue star with rainbow trail)

Fateweaver wrote:Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.

No wonder I got my ass kicked in Walmart parking lot for wearing a shirt saying "White Pride".

Jeebuz Christ, how could I be so ignorant?

If you don't understand the connotation of "White Pride" and the oppression and harm it signifies, then it isn't shocking why wouldn't understand.

Besides, it is difficult to be proud of fake things. Now if it said "Irish Pride" or "Italian Pride" no one would care, but then those are easier to qualify I suppose.

I'm 1/2 German but tell me if I wore a shirt saying "German Pride" I wouldn't STILL get my ass kicked.

Besides, like Slave said. It's racist because apparently I'm a racist, redneck gun-toter. It'd be A-okay for a liberal to wear a "White Pride" tshirt though.

Fateweaver:

Except I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out that the attitudes you're expressing indicate your political leanings, which you feel a need to hide because of the current tide of political correctness overwhelming the US at the moment.

I mean, I don't understand why you'd be ashamed of being a neo-nazi if being a neo-nazi is what you obviously believe in. Take your fetishization of the American Constitution, for example. Rather than acknowledge that intelligent and equal adults can disagree on its content and application, you place dissenters to your own interpretation outside the realm of the patriot, the freedom-loving American, and those who love their country.

That's happened before, in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy where dissenters first had their opinions dismissed, then they were 'invited' to depart, and then they were liquidated.

I can understand that you feel threatened, but that's how fascism and nazism work, by invoking the threat of dissenters trying to undermine a proud nation that was founded by the blood, sweat, and tears of your heroic ancestors. Only by confronting this threat head-on can your way of life be preserved.

You keep talking about the Founding Fathers: By harkening back to an idealized past you're conforming to the fascist tendency of myth-making. The fact is that laisse faire (sp?) has never been the case in your country, and its industries and wealth have been build on gov't intervention on behalf of business and particularly finance. The fact is that gov't intervention is a rich and successful tradition in the USA, despite the legends to the country.

The next step, the one which liberals in your own country and around the world fear, is when people like you, who honestly believe that what they are doing is right, will eventually resort to violence. That's one reason why the thought experiment about the racial make-up of the Tea Party is relevant, because it completely changes the stakes of what's involved (swapping a majority for a minority along lines that the dominant line of thought on racism regards as irrelevant: colour of your skin).

They'd have to have some first, FW.

Fateweaver wrote:I'm 1/2 German but tell me if I wore a shirt saying "German Pride" I wouldn't STILL get my ass kicked.

Besides, like Slave said. It's racist because apparently I'm a racist, redneck gun-toter. It'd be A-okay for a liberal to wear a "White Pride" tshirt though.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:They'd have to have some first, FW.

Yeah, what's up with those liberals and their lack of White Pride...

Too bad Nurglitch that neo-Nazi means I'm racist, I idolize Hitler and I deny the holocaust.

You might view me as being a neo-nazi but it's probably best not to express that publicly. People been banned for calling me less. LOL.

Again, people like me are attacked for the attitude we have. Don't like my attitude tell me once and then leave me the hell alone (and I don't mean just on dakka, I mean in life in general).

Fateweaver:

I'm not attacking you; I'm simply pointing out that there are words for people with your particular attitude: "fascist" or "neo-nazi". I've already explained how that is.

I know you're not used to seriously discussing things with people that are critical of your attitude or politics, but at least try, so that you can prove me wrong about your fascist tendencies.

Now what you need to do now is consider how this applies to your fellow travellers in the Tea Party movement. If you walk like a fascist and talk like a fascist, despite any inclination to own that description when called on it, can you understand why imagining what life would be like if the Tea Party were black is a bizarre non-sequitor?

Put another way, a Black fascist movement simply wouldn't fly in the US. The Black Muslims tried, but even they couldn't keep it together in the face of an important fascist theme, that of a majority whose values and way of life are under siege by minority elements and dissenters.

Fateweaver isn't a fascist. He isn't especially collectivistic, he favors isolationism over expansionism, he seems a strong supporter of laissez faire capitalism rather than a centrist "third way", and isn't consistently authoritarian. And you're not a neo-nazi without antisemitism.

He's just an American conservative, pretty much all the way through.

Yay, someone defending me.

I'm going to make a "White Pride" polo shirt to wear onto the golf course.

Fateweaver wrote:Yay, someone defending me.

I'm going to make a "White Pride" polo shirt to wear onto the golf course.

You just always have to go that "extra" step... don't you Fate?

Well, if people mistake White Pride for White Power perhaps they ought to read more books and watch less TV?

Besides, I don't half ass gak. I either do or I don't.

Meh,for what it's worth I certianly don't belive your a "Neo-Nazi" Fate,I've had a few run ins with the "Nazi" types and you don't seem to fit the critera.
I think Orkeo pretty much hit the "essence of Fate" on the head,you just have some extreamely conservitive views...wich,your thankfully free to have.

FITZZ wrote: Meh,for what it's worth I certianly don't belive your a "Neo-Nazi" Fate,I've had a few run ins with the "Nazi"

I also wouldn't call you that either. As for the German T-Shirt, I suppose it would depend on the shirt. If it said "German Pride" and had a swastika or SS symbols, yeah, that might cause some issues. On the other hand if it is a picture of the country or something it wouldn't be a problem.

Essence of Fate?

I like that. From now on whenever I'm with a girl I'll ask her if she wants some Essence of Fate? It even sounds romantic to a chick.

Then I'll shoot into her eyes and blind her and make her eyelids stick shut. LOL.

I recommend taking five minutes to sweep the Stormfront forums: Fateweaver's comments would not be out of place there. Here's a link to a thread on anti-racism, which apparently means "anti-white" to them.

Notice the similar "liberals are against all racism except anti-white racism" vibe?

Fateweaver wrote:Essence of Fate?

I like that. From now on whenever I'm with a girl I'll ask her if she wants some Essence of Fate? It even sounds romantic to a chick.

Then I'll shoot into her eyes and blind her and make her eyelids stick shut. LOL.

See...that's that "extra step" I was talking about...sometimes...you just shouldn't take that step.

No dude. It will so totally work too.

I will spare you pics but Essence of Fate will be my line.

Nurglitch wrote:I recommend taking five minutes to sweep the Stormfront forums: Fateweaver's comments would not be out of place there. Here's a link to a thread on anti-racism, which apparently means "anti-white" to them.

Notice the similar "liberals are against all racism except anti-white racism" vibe?

I'm simply saying that I have delt with skinheads on a first hand basis,and while some of Fates & the "Tea party" rhetoric may be simaler,I simply don't see them as the same thing.
It would be like saying all liberal points of view are"Communist".

To expand on that, you would likely find many of the sentiments expressed by moderate liberals on Dakka to be expressed by radical Marxists. You need more than that to make them the same; every ideology intersects with others.

I'm not anti-semitic; I hate everyone so I guess maybe I'm emo or is that goth?

I love gunz, beer and wominz. Oh and a good bbq.

This thread is a prime example of how discourse would be vastly improved in this forum section with a few choice permabannings.

You don't have to come in here if you don't like it Shuma.

This thread was getting positive again with no fighting for like a dozen posts.

Stop spoiling the party. Drink a beer and eat a brat.

I thought I'd gone over the extent and nature of the intersections. A prime example: Take the crack about "White Pride" not being "White Power". Search "White Pride" on Storm Front and those are synonymous.

While I definitely agree that Fateweaver and his fellow travelers do not self-identify as such, the Tea Party (and Fateweaver) are basically un-self-conscious fascists. That the thing that spooks me out. Self-conscious fascism marginalizes itself: the Tea Party, however, seeks main-stream legitimacy.

Incidentally if you tried to apply epiphets like communist to liberals, you'd fail. Indeed, fascism attempted to offer a 'third-way' between liberalism and communism. The current alliance between American socialists and 'liberals' twists the language because all Americans are either liberal or socialist, with actual conservatives being classical liberals, liberals being social-liberals, and the socialists social-democrats with a rump of communists, anarchists, and god knows what else to match the rump of libertarians, 'independents', and fascists attached to the 'conservatives'. A rose would smell as sweet, by any other name.

Fateweaver wrote:If you don't love the place you are at than how much sense does it make to stay?

If I don't love being at the Twilight movie I sure as hell won't stay, I'll leave.

So leaving a movie theater is now tacit to leaving a country?

Could you, financially, leave the United States at this very moment, if you so desired?

Fateweaver wrote:You don't have to come in here if you don't like it Shuma.

This thread was getting positive again with no fighting for like a dozen posts.

Stop spoiling the party. Drink a beer and eat a brat.

Which part? The part where nurglitch is calling you a neo nazi (incorrectly) or the part where you're calling liberals puppets? The parts where Orkeo subtly insults you repeatedly, the part where you simply stop responding to dogma because you were flat out wrong (but can't admit it), the parts where the dude with the brad pitt avatar just parots everything you say or the parts where ahtman tries to explain why people might get mad at you for wearing a white pride shirt?

Because I'm not seeing the good parts.

Fateweaver wrote:
Then I'll shoot into her eyes and blind her and make her eyelids stick shut. LOL.

Intersections between fascism and (American) conservatism can't count towards either one, you need to look at areas where they diverge. On economic issues he's pretty much a straight capitalist. He's more conservative with regards to authoritarianism and collectivism. He's isolationist rather than expansionary, which is, whatever it is, far away from fascism. His strong belief in constitutionality is a strong belief in the liberal concept of limited government and an inbuilt restriction on the power of the nation's leaders, and also very much a function of American conservatism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:The parts where Orkeo subtly insults you repeatedly

Did I? I didn't mean to, although I do find some of his opinions inconsistent.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:You don't have to come in here if you don't like it Shuma.

This thread was getting positive again with no fighting for like a dozen posts.

Stop spoiling the party. Drink a beer and eat a brat.

Which part? The part where nurglitch is calling you a neo nazi (incorrectly) or the part where you're calling liberals puppets? The parts where Orkeo subtly insults you repeatedly, the part where you simply stop responding to dogma because you were flat out wrong (but can't admit it), the parts where the dude with the brad pitt avatar just parots everything you say or the parts where ahtman tries to explain why people might get mad at you for wearing a white pride shirt?

Because I'm not seeing the good parts.

Already reported Nurglitch; Liberal puppet thing was over a dozen posts back; Orkeo is not insulting me, subtly or otherwise (not in the same vein you insult me); I'm not wrong, the best way to end an argument is to not keep it going; maybe I"m not the only one who thinks like I do but apparently my "parrot" can't think for himself; and I don't care WHY it might be misconstrued, the fact it'd be misconstrued in the first place is idiotic as Orkeo pointed out.

Now, you going to keep attacking me so I can report you too?

To be fair, Nurglitch did call you a neo-Nazi. But only in the nicest possible way.

Did I? I didn't mean to, although I do find some of his opinions inconsistent.

And they are. Is it insulting to expose or discuss the flaws of another, even if they are meant to be analyzed objectively rather than be laid out subjectively as a case for or lack of merit?

Already reported Nurglitch; Liberal puppet thing was over a dozen posts back;

It'd be A-okay for a liberal to wear a "White Pride" tshirt though.

That was more recent.

Then I'll shoot into her eyes and blind her and make her eyelids stick shut. LOL.

That too.

rkeo is not insulting me, subtly or otherwise (not in the same vein you insult me)

Actually, depending on how you view what constitutes an insult it would be in the exact same vein.

I'm not wrong, the best way to end an argument is to not keep it going

You were wrong repeatedly on almost every count, the best way for you to think you've won an argument is to leave it. In fact it's seemingly the only way most of the time. He's responded to you again if you would like to take a go at it.

Now, you going to keep attacking me so I can report you too?

I toe the line.

Jesus it smells like troll in here.

And leftists..

An incorrect use of the term is still an attack.

I expected it from Shuma but I know Shuma has smarts enough to know even he can't put that label on me.

No Orkeo, I didn't take your comments as attacking me because you explained why you didn't think I was a neo-nazi.

Conservative redneck who is a gun-toter I can handle because it's true.

Shadowbrand wrote:Jesus it smells like troll in here.

And leftists..

This I find bizzare considering at least the current discussion is really just the ruminations of whether or not fateweaver is a neo nazi (he probably isn't) and what his viewpoints are. We left the rather inflammatory original post behind a while ago.

I expected it from Shuma but I know Shuma has smarts enough to know even he can't put that label on me.

Because it's an incorrect label. There are other labels I would use.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Did I? I didn't mean to, although I do find some of his opinions inconsistent.

And they are. Is it insulting to expose or discuss the flaws of another, even if they are meant to be analyzed objectively rather than be laid out subjectively as a case for or lack of merit?

Already reported Nurglitch; Liberal puppet thing was over a dozen posts back;

It'd be A-okay for a liberal to wear a "White Pride" tshirt though.

That was more recent.

Then I'll shoot into her eyes and blind her and make her eyelids stick shut. LOL.

That too.

rkeo is not insulting me, subtly or otherwise (not in the same vein you insult me)

Actually, depending on how you view what constitutes an insult it would be in the exact same vein.

I'm not wrong, the best way to end an argument is to not keep it going

You were wrong repeatedly on almost every count, the best way for you to think you've won an argument is to leave it. In fact it's seemingly the only way most of the time. He's responded to you again if you would like to take a go at it.

Now, you going to keep attacking me so I can report you too?

I toe the line.

Okay, so they were 8 posts prior to you barging in. Point was we were being civil again but you wouldn't be Shuma without raining on my parade. Gold Star.

The Essence of Fate thing is a joke. Get over it. Nothing to attack me over as I wasn't attacking anyone in particular.

I didn't view Orkeos comments as an attack. He laid out why I'm a conservative and not a neo-Nazi. Had I felt insulted he'd be reported too.

I didn't say I ended my argument with Dogma because I was RIGHT. I ended it because it will go around in circles for all eternity. I feel how I do because of what I believe in. That won't change and neither will his stance on things. He can't prove my feelings wrong about the Constitution. He can't prove my feelings wrong in my faith in God.

I think you mean "tow" the line but I'll let that slide.

I still wonder how the hell I got 7 days last Sunday and you are still allowed to post?

Seriously Shuma, this thread was getting nice again and you had to come in and rain on my parade. Not sure what your personal vendetta is against me but it's really quite old.

Just as one might call a mallard a duck, neo-nazi is a perfectly acceptable synonyn for fascist.

Thank God I'm neither.

Okay, so they were 8 posts prior to you barging in. Point was we were being civil again but you wouldn't be Shuma without raining on my parade. Gold Star.

Civility is in the eye of the beholder that you just glued shut.

I didn't view Orkeos comments as an attack. He laid out why I'm a conservative and not a neo-Nazi. Had I felt insulted he'd be reported too.

You must hit that button like it's a tictac dispenser then.

I didn't say I ended my argument with Dogma because I was RIGHT. I ended it because it will go around in circles for all eternity. I feel how I do because of what I believe in. That won't change and neither will his stance on things. He can't prove my feelings wrong about the Constitution. He can't prove my feelings wrong in my faith in God.

No, but he wasn't trying to. He was basically just pointing out the fact that your arguments and beliefs are beholden to a mind boggling number of contradictions and that they don't seem to be based in objective reality. Feeling how you feel because it's how you feel is all well and good except insofar as it's a god-awful reason to believe something, and leaving arguments that you started with your beliefs because you can't support them doesn't do anything to keep you from being wrong.

I think you mean "tow" the line but I'll let that slide.

Oddly enough that phrase changes depending on where you're from. I've heard both and I honestly think toeing makes more sense. I mean theres the line, it's on the ground. When you're toeing it you're not really crossing it but your totally on top of it. Y'know, with your toes. When your towing it your just sort of pulling it around or something. That makes no sense.

I still wonder how the hell I got 7 days last Sunday and you are still allowed to post?

Because when you step back and look at things I'm right. I don't generalize as heavily or as often as you do, and I avoid breaking the rules as they have been laid out. When I say something that seems like it's inflammatory it's usually because you don't like what I'm saying. Not because it's not true.

Seriously Shuma, this thread was getting nice again and you had to come in and rain on my parade. Not sure what your personal vendetta is against me but it's really quite old.

It's not personal. I act the same way to everyone that posts ranty diatribes about liberals being (insert derogatory line here). You just do it all the time.

The thread never got good again, it never got back on topic, and it never found a topic. It just meandered for 12 short posts. Note how immediately after I posted 2 other people rained on your parade too. I didn't have anything to do with that.

Just as one might call a mallard a duck, neo-nazi is a perfectly acceptable synonyn for fascist.

I really don't think you know what that word means or implies.

Seeing as the wiki is the gold standard for definitions around here, clearly a "Duck is the common name for a number of species in the Anatidae family of birds."

ShumaGorath wrote:

Okay, so they were 8 posts prior to you barging in. Point was we were being civil again but you wouldn't be Shuma without raining on my parade. Gold Star.

Civility is in the eye of the beholder that you just glued shut.

I didn't view Orkeos comments as an attack. He laid out why I'm a conservative and not a neo-Nazi. Had I felt insulted he'd be reported too.

You must hit that button like it's a tictac dispenser then.

I didn't say I ended my argument with Dogma because I was RIGHT. I ended it because it will go around in circles for all eternity. I feel how I do because of what I believe in. That won't change and neither will his stance on things. He can't prove my feelings wrong about the Constitution. He can't prove my feelings wrong in my faith in God.

No, but he wasn't trying to. He was basically just pointing out the fact that your arguments and beliefs are beholden to a mind boggling number of contradictions and that they don't seem to be based in objective reality. Feeling how you feel because it's how you feel is all well and good except insofar as it's a god-awful reason to believe something, and leaving arguments that you started with your beliefs because you can't support them doesn't do anything to keep you from being wrong.

I think you mean "tow" the line but I'll let that slide.

Oddly enough that phrase changes depending on where you're from. I've heard both and I honestly think toeing makes more sense. I mean theres the line, it's on the ground. When you're toeing it you're not really crossing it but your totally on top of it. Y'know, with your toes. When your towing it your just sort of pulling it around or something. That makes no sense.

I still wonder how the hell I got 7 days last Sunday and you are still allowed to post?

Because when you step back and look at things I'm right. I don't generalize as heavily or as often as you do, and I avoid breaking the rules as they have been laid out. When I say something that seems like it's inflammatory it's usually because you don't like what I'm saying. Not because it's not true.

Seriously Shuma, this thread was getting nice again and you had to come in and rain on my parade. Not sure what your personal vendetta is against me but it's really quite old.

It's not personal. I act the same way to everyone that posts ranty diatribes about liberals being (insert derogatory line here). You just do it all the time.

The thread never got good again, it never got back on topic, and it never found a topic. It just meandered for 12 short posts. Note how immediately after I posted 2 other people rained on your parade too. I didn't have anything to do with that.

Just as one might call a mallard a duck, neo-nazi is a perfectly acceptable synonyn for fascist.

I really don't think you know what that word means or implies.

It was civil until you stepped in. If I hit the report like a tic-tac dispenser you would be on vacation too. Nurglitch is the first I've reported in months. I don't like vacations from dakka, even if it means a vacation from you and I find taking things into my own hands results in me getting vacations that I don't want to take; like being forced to get healthcare I don't want to get.

I attack liberals as often as you attack conservatives and tea partiers (especially tea partiers) as being racist, gun-toting uneducated rednecks. You don't like being called a pot-smoking hippy who wants a world wide round of kumbaya while PresO sits on his golden throne laughing in childish glee as his government takes away my guns than don't call me a gun-toting redneck who won't be happy until PresO is 6 feet under and this country is back in the hands of it's people.

You don't like being painted with broad strokes, neither do I. You also epically failed to prove your point by showing a picture of a Tea Party rally with NO Black people when there were clearly 2 black people in that pic and then saying Micheal Steele doesn't count? He doesn't count to you because he's not on your side.

Again, put this childish vendetta to rest. Maybe this thread wasn't getting on topic anytime soon but you sure as hell aren't helping it but it WAS getting civil. You just can't stand when people agree with me, can you Shuma?

I attack liberals as often as you attack conservatives and tea partiers (especially tea partiers) as being racist, gun-toting uneducated rednecks.

See, thats the thing. I call them idiots. I call them populists (idiots). I say that they are ill informed on almost every one of their principles (idiots) and I point out that the movement is largely aging, white, and conservative. I call them idiots all the time because the the gak they spew makes no sense and they have no idea why they believe it. The majority of them do not understand what the financial crisis was, what caused this recession, what is actually in the healthcare bill, and what government does and doesn't do.

Other people have claimed they're racist, I've said that they clearly have racists in there (they clearly do). Other people have claimed that they gun nuts, I've claimed that the dudes that took assault rifles to obama rallies were tea partiers (several were), but I have stated multiple times that the right to bear arms isn't really a big thing with the tea parties. I don't think I've ever used the term redneck. You seem to use it a lot though.

You don't like being called a pot-smoking hippy who wants a world wide round of kumbaya while PresO sits on his golden throne laughing in childish glee as his government takes away my guns than don't call me a gun-toting redneck who won't be happy until PresO is 6 feet under and this country is back in the hands of it's people.

Cool. I'll just keep saying what I've been saying form the start. That you don't know gak, can't debate for gak. Have absolutely no idea why you believe what you believe, and attack people because it's all you can do. Considering you just spent several sentences claiming I've been saying things that I haven't in order to fuel your little conservative persecution complex I think it goes without saying.

You don't like being painted with broad strokes, neither do I. You also epically failed to prove your point by showing a picture of a Tea Party rally with NO Black people when there were clearly 2 black people in that pic and then saying Micheal Steele doesn't count? He doesn't count to you because he's not on your side.

Goodness gracious. You found one black dude. Surrounded by SEVERAL HUNDRED WHITE PEOPLE. One in ten people is black in this country. One in several hundred is black in the tea parties, I already said like 50 posts back that you can probably find some "token black dude" but that it's meaningless because statistically the teaparties are almost entirely dominated by conservative whites. It's still true. It will be true. It is true. Finding the magic black guy doesn't make the movement multicultural, it just means that you think it matters that you can find three black dudes in a picture with hundreds of people. Hint: it really doesn't. I dislike being painted with broad strokes because it's all you can do. If you could back up a single one of your opinions with facts in any of these many arguments we've had I wouldn't care so much. But you can't.

Again, put this childish vendetta to rest. Maybe this thread wasn't getting on topic anytime soon but you sure as hell aren't helping it but it WAS getting civil. You just can't stand when people agree with me, can you Shuma?

How is talking about blowing a load in a chicks eye civil?

The show goes on and on!

Do you guys ever stop giving?

ShumaGorath wrote:

I attack liberals as often as you attack conservatives and tea partiers (especially tea partiers) as being racist, gun-toting uneducated rednecks.

See, thats the thing. I call them idiots. I call them populists (idiots). I say that they are ill informed on almost every one of their principles (idiots) and I point out that the movement is largely aging, white, and conservative. I call them idiots all the time because the the gak they spew makes no sense and they have no idea why they believe it. The majority of them do not understand what the financial crisis was, what caused this recession, what is actually in the healthcare bill, and what government does and doesn't do.

Other people have claimed they're racist, I've said that they clearly have racists in there (they clearly do). Other people have claimed that they gun nuts, I've claimed that the dudes that took assault rifles to obama rallies were tea partiers (several were), but I have stated multiple times that the right to bear arms isn't really a big thing with the tea parties. I don't think I've ever used the term redneck. You seem to use it a lot though.

You don't like being called a pot-smoking hippy who wants a world wide round of kumbaya while PresO sits on his golden throne laughing in childish glee as his government takes away my guns than don't call me a gun-toting redneck who won't be happy until PresO is 6 feet under and this country is back in the hands of it's people.

Cool. I'll just keep saying what I've been saying form the start. That you don't know gak, can't debate for gak. Have absolutely no idea why you believe what you believe, and attack people because it's all you can do. Considering you just spent several sentences claiming I've been saying things that I haven't in order to fuel your little conservative persecution complex I think it goes without saying.

You don't like being painted with broad strokes, neither do I. You also epically failed to prove your point by showing a picture of a Tea Party rally with NO Black people when there were clearly 2 black people in that pic and then saying Micheal Steele doesn't count? He doesn't count to you because he's not on your side.

Goodness gracious. You found one black dude. Surrounded by SEVERAL HUNDRED WHITE PEOPLE. One in ten people is black in this country. One in several hundred is black in the tea parties, I already said like 50 posts back that you can probably find some "token black dude" but that it's meaningless because statistically the teaparties are almost entirely dominated by conservative whites. It's still true. It will be true. It is true. Finding the magic black guy doesn't make the movement multicultural, it just means that you think it matters that you can find three black dudes in a picture with hundreds of people. Hint: it really doesn't. I dislike being painted with broad strokes because it's all you can do. If you could back up a single one of your opinions with facts in any of these many arguments we've had I wouldn't care so much. But you can't.

Again, put this childish vendetta to rest. Maybe this thread wasn't getting on topic anytime soon but you sure as hell aren't helping it but it WAS getting civil. You just can't stand when people agree with me, can you Shuma?

How is talking about blowing a load in a chicks eye civil?

Seriously drop it Shuma. You attack the right. Don't care how or with what verbage but you attack the right. Gold star.

I can point out many reasons for minorities being liberal but to point them out, regardless of the fact it's true, would be deemed racist and I don't want to stroke your epeen and give you more ammo.

You ever sat down face to face with a Tea Partier and had a polite convo or do you just go by what MSNBC and Jon Stewart have to say about Tea Partiers? I bet more are as educated, if not more educated about what's going on in this country and it's government then you are but go ahead and keep thinking they are all idiots. MSNBC told you to think that way.

The eye think was a joke that ended after 4 posts. Didn't like it you didn't have to fething read it now did you? You seem the type that would complain that X channel on tv shows porn 24/7 instead of just blocking it from the tv or flipping past it.

I know what I believe and why I believe it. I don't question your belief that Obama is our god and saviour so you have no room to question my belief in the Constitution and why I believe it shouldn't be messed with. You don't want to see the facts Shuma.

Seriously. Let it rest. Jesus H. Christ.

I can point out many reasons for minorities being liberal but to point them out, regardless of the fact it's true, would be deemed racist and I don't want to stroke your epeen and give you more ammo.

If it's true than it's not racist.

You ever sat down face to face with a Tea Partier and had a polite convo or do you just go by what MSNBC and Jon Stewart have to say about Tea Partiers? I bet more are as educated, if not more educated about what's going on in this country and it's government then you are but go ahead and keep thinking they are all idiots. MSNBC told you to think that way.

I have, but not at length. GG is a tea partier and definitly doesn't know more about than me about economics. Do you consider yourself to be a tea partier?

Also I don't watch msnbc. I've now said this seven times to you. In seven different threads.

The eye think was a joke that ended after 4 posts. Didn't like it you didn't have to fething read it now did you? You seem the type that would complain that X channel on tv shows porn 24/7 instead of just blocking it from the tv or flipping past it.

HOW DO I KNOW TO SKIP OVER IT IF I HAVEN'T READ IT.

I know what I believe and why I believe it.

No you don't but I'm certain that you believe you do. Though I'm also certain that you don't understand why you believe that you believe what you think you understand.

I don't question your belief that Obama is our god and saviour so you have no room to question my belief in the Constitution and why I believe it shouldn't be messed with.

See? Thats the thing. I've never stated that. You're just making a half baked black and white argument and lying while doing so in order to cover up the fact that you don't know anything about politics, economics, geography, or psychology. You want to have opinions on these things, but it's too hard to actually learn about them so you just lie about what others are saying and then argue against things that they never said.

Seriously. Let it rest. Jesus H. Christ.

I will as soon as you either stop being belligerently wrong or stop posting here. One is more likely than the other.

Can a mod please lock the thread.

I don't need to know economics to know that Obamacare is failcare. I don't need to be a geography expert to know that messing with the 2nd amendment is wrong (wtf does geography have to do with conservative views anyway)?. I don't need to know much about politics or psychology to know that the government, regardless of the administration, is becoming too big and too powerful; it's just that Obamanation has exacerbated the problem.

You tell me to get a world view of the other side of the fence. Do the same. You more or less admitted you haven't given a tea partier or any conservative the time of day needed to engage in conversation. I don't get my world view of the liberal side from tv. I have as many liberal friends as I do conservative friends, dated liberal women even. They aren't the nutjobs that I sometimes see in DNC rallies but if their "rational" beliefs mirror those of majority of the liberal party then I know that what you leftists believe is a load of bs.

But apparently I only know what liberals think because of what Rush and Glenn Beck tell me.

Hmm.

You totally derail the conversation for 4 pages and then call for the locking of this thread.

Fatweaver, you're piteous and contemptible.

I didn't derail it for 4 pages ty. I derailed it for like 4 posts having to do with sperm in some girls eye.

Learn2count MGS.

I don't need to know economics to know that Obamacare is failcare.

Yes. Yes you do.

I don't need to be a geography expert to know that messing with the 2nd amendment is wrong (wtf does geography have to do with conservative views anyway)?.

No, but it's important when you're attempting to talk about iran, north korea, or really any foreign policy topic.

I don't need to know much about politics or psychology to know that the government, regardless of the administration, is becoming too big and too powerful; it's just that Obamanation has exacerbated the problem.

How can you know that political administrations are becoming to big and powerful if you don't know anything about politics. Seriously. How did you just type that? How did the fingers on your hands hit the keys in that order without it sending a red flag to your brain.

You tell me to get a world view of the other side of the fence.

No, I'm just telling you to stop posting when you don't know what you're talking about. I don't ask my six year old niece about healthcare or politics, and thats because she doesn't know anything about it. This is a similar situation.

Do the same.

That would require I experience a severe concussion.

You more or less admitted you haven't given a tea partier or any conservative the time of day needed to engage in conversation.

I have, but not at length.

Read the posts you quote.

I don't get my world view of the liberal side from tv.

I know. You make it up.

I have as many liberal friends as I do conservative friends, dated liberal women even.

Yes, none of us live in bubbles.

They aren't the nutjobs that I sometimes see in DNC rallies but if their "rational" beliefs mirror those of majority of the liberal party then I know that what you leftists believe is a load of bs.

Not really. You don't know that. You believe that. You just stated you don't need to know any of the fields that you're discussing, including politics. And you certainly don't know them. The issue here is though that you seem to think your opinion is as valid as other peoples despite that fact. It is not.

But apparently I only know what liberals think because of what Rush and Glenn Beck tell me.

Children think that heavy things fall faster. No one taught them it, but they piece it together. I'm sure you've done something similar.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't need to know economics to know that Obamacare is failcare.

Yes. Yes you do.

I don't need to be a geography expert to know that messing with the 2nd amendment is wrong (wtf does geography have to do with conservative views anyway)?.

No, but it's important when you're attempting to talk about iran, north korea, or really any foreign policy topic.

I don't need to know much about politics or psychology to know that the government, regardless of the administration, is becoming too big and too powerful; it's just that Obamanation has exacerbated the problem.

How can you know that political administrations are becoming to big and powerful if you don't know anything about politics. Seriously. How did you just type that? How did the fingers on your hands hit the keys in that order without it sending a red flag to your brain.

You tell me to get a world view of the other side of the fence.

No, I'm just telling you to stop posting when you don't know what you're talking about. I don't ask my six year old niece about healthcare or politics, and thats because she doesn't know anything about it. This is a similar situation.

Do the same.

That would require I experience a severe concussion.

You more or less admitted you haven't given a tea partier or any conservative the time of day needed to engage in conversation.

I have, but not at length.

Read the posts you quote.

I don't get my world view of the liberal side from tv.

I know. You make it up.

I have as many liberal friends as I do conservative friends, dated liberal women even.

Yes, none of us live in bubbles.

They aren't the nutjobs that I sometimes see in DNC rallies but if their "rational" beliefs mirror those of majority of the liberal party then I know that what you leftists believe is a load of bs.

Not really. You don't know that. You believe that. You just stated you don't need to know any of the fields that you're discussing, including politics. And you certainly don't know them. The issue here is though that you seem to think your opinion is as valid as other peoples despite that fact. It is not.

But apparently I only know what liberals think because of what Rush and Glenn Beck tell me.

Children think that heavy things fall faster. No one taught them it, but they piece it together. I'm sure you've done something similar.

Thank God I know where on map Iran and the Koreas are but knowing geography is irrelevant to thinking we should turn them, Iran especially, into a glass bowl.

Obamacare is failcare because it forces me to do something I may not want to do. If Obamacare gave me the option to not buy health insurance without penalty then it wouldn't be failcare.

You also can't claim to know all Tea Partiers are idiots. You believe they are all idiots but you don't know that. Idiot is also relative. A Tea Partier less educated than you about economics might seem like an idiot when dealing with economics but he might be able to fine tune a race car with just his ears whereas you'd need a machine. Who's the idiot in that scenario?

I don't listen to Glenn Beck or Rush, therefore I cannot equate what they say about liberals to liberalism. One of the girls I dated was a campaign organizer for Senator Paul Wellstone (D) here in Mn. I would think that her views of how the world should be weren't much different than the view of the majority of liberals during that time, in fact her stance has mostly remain unchanged and mirrors the views of most of my other liberal friends so therefore I equate her views and those of my other liberal friends to the views of all liberals, just as you equate the nutjob conservatives with all conservatives and tea partiers. But once again I only get my facts about liberals from Glenn or Rush so therefore I am uneducated.

This song and dance has just about ended.

Thank God I know where on map Iran and the Koreas are but knowing geography is irrelevant to thinking we should turn them, Iran especially, into a glass bowl.

Nope! Thats a politics thing! Something you don't think you need to know! I mean gosh, it would sure be terrible to expect you to know the histories and event surrounding the countries you want to kill everyone inside of.

Obamacare is failcare because it forces me to do something I may not want to do. If Obamacare gave me the option to not buy health insurance without penalty then it wouldn't be failcare.

Of course it would, you would find a different fault with it.

You also can't claim to know all Tea Partiers are idiots. You believe they are all idiots but you don't know that. Idiot is also relative.

Don't hurt yourself there slick.

A Tea Partier less educated than you about economics might seem like an idiot when dealing with economics but he might be able to fine tune a race car with just his ears whereas you'd need a machine. Who's the idiot in that scenario?

The tea partier. The tea party movement isn't about race cars.

I don't listen to Glenn Beck or Rush, therefore I cannot equate what they say about liberals to liberalism. One of the girls I dated was a campaign organizer for Senator Paul Wellstone (D) here in Mn. I would think that her views of how the world should be weren't much different than the view of liberals years ago, in fact her stance has mostly remain unchanged. But once again I only get my facts about liberals from Glenn or Rush so therefore I am uneducated.

No, you're uneducated because you're uneducated. You don't know anything. I don't give a gak where you get your info from. No one does. The issue is that all the "information" you have is wrong.

This song and dance has just about ended.

It has. I'm going to bed. If anyone wants to tag in they're welcome.

So a woman in charge of a liberals campaign is misinformed compared to you?

Now that is classic and yet somehow totally expected from you.

Gold star.

Fateweaver wrote:So a woman in charge of a liberals campaign is misinformed compared to you?

Now that is classic and yet somehow totally expected from you.

Gold star.

Not talking about her, talking about you. You are not her. You are not her.

You are not her.

I'm talking about you.

You are not her.

Your knowledge is not her knowledge.

I am not talking to her.

I am talking to you.

You are who I am talking about.

We are discussing what you know, not what she knew.

You are not her.

You are not her.

You are not her.

You are not her.



I NEVER SAID YOU WERE HER, AND I NEVER EVEN SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HER.


Anyway, bed time for me!

But you attacked me saying I'm misinformed about liberal views.

Don't you think at some point during our 2 year fling we would have talked politics, that I would have been exposed to her viewpoints?

Just saying. Try to read your own posts before replying to me, mmmmmmmmkay?

*golf claps*

..that's actually a new record of alerts for a single thread.