Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
10
... LastLast
  1. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalis View Post
    His quotes obviously aren't clear, he had a different definition of race to what we have and you can't grasp it in spite of having that explained.

    To him races were superior or inferior based on achievement, so one group of white people could be superior and one group of black people could be inferior, whilst at the same time another group of black people could be superior and another group of whites inferior.

    His definition of race was much narrower than how we typically use it and would nowadays be closer to what we regard as nationalism or possibly even ethnicism; so British would be a race and Finnish would be a different race, the former superior due to how they'd created an empire, the latter inferior due to not having achieved anything of greatness.

    So yes he was a racist in the sense that he believed in differences between races, but he wouldn't fit in with any racist groups today, as his views on what race meant are antiquated.
    If he meant nationalism when he said race, then he wouldn't have a quote where he explicitly delineated the two as separate ideas. His views of what race meant would absolutely fit in with the KKK, aside from the fact that he himself was Jewish, since the KKK also advocates racial separatism. In fact, the vast majority of racist movements advocate separatism, not extermination. Legally and colloquially, ethnic discrimination falls under the category of racism, so even that deflection doesn't work.

    Face it: The reality of conservatism is a belief in hierarchies and enforcement of those hierarchies by government. You can dress it up and try to make it more intellectual, but that's what it is. You are defending a person who was not only racist, but because of his racist views went into nations to pilfer from and murder those he saw as inferior races. The distinction between him and Hitler is one of degree, not kind. -
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  2. #142
    Banned Hammerfest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by araine View Post
    If by winning you mean caving into fascism and racism just for the sake of getting into control.
    No, by "winning" I mean winning elections based on the ideas of small government (an antithesis of fascism, btw), freedom and love of founding principles.

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by Grummgug View Post
    This is a warped and ignorant view if history. The truth is that the liberals took over the media. Once that happened, they eternally try to tar the republicans with slurs, as if the DNA of liberals is immune to thinking in such slurs. I hate to break it to you, but there are PLENTY of racists in the democratic party. The media simply uses a logical fallacy, lies of omission, and refuse to report it. It also uses fake outrage to suppress dialogue. The second anyone accuses anyone on the left of being racist, you get people coming out trying to drown out and stop debate or turn it back on the republicans. The moment you try to say there are people on the left that are racist towards white people, then they REALLY fake outrage in an attempt to halt the debate.

    1. stop debate when it goes against you.
    2. fail to report when your team does these things.

    After years of this, we arrive at people like you, who falsely define republicans as racist by their very nature. My advice is to stop letting the liberal media control you and get an education.


    [Infracted]
    You do realize, I said the right took over the racist and bigoted....etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garian View Post
    Because not all change is good.

    What "change" did you have in mind?
    Who the hell said all change is good?
    Last edited by Bodakane; 2016-11-27 at 08:21 PM.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  4. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Conservatives, by definition, resist change. Because of that, the party was able to take over the racist, bigoted, homophobic, poor and Christian fundamentalist crowds....all of which are literally about stopping change. Now they are serving 2 diametrically opposed masters, which creates the chaos that allows Dickhead to be their nominee.
    This right here is why liberals lost.

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerfest View Post
    No, by "winning" I mean winning elections based on the ideas of small government (an antithesis of fascism, btw), freedom and love of founding principles.
    "Small government" doesn't mean anything. Pinochet was hands off economically but also ran a repressive police state. The primary founding principle of America is the idea that laws and nations change.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  6. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by hydrium View Post
    This right here is why liberals lost.
    This right here is a complete an utter misunderstanding of the election and the country.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  7. #147
    The Undying Kalis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Στην Κυπρο
    Posts
    32,390
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    If he meant nationalism when he said race, then he wouldn't have a quote where he explicitly delineated the two as separate ideas. His views of what race meant would absolutely fit in with the KKK, aside from the fact that he himself was Jewish, since the KKK also advocates racial separatism. In fact, the vast majority of racist movements advocate separatism, not extermination. Legally and colloquially, ethnic discrimination falls under the category of racism, so even that deflection doesn't work.

    Face it: The reality of conservatism is a belief in hierarchies and enforcement of those hierarchies by government. You can dress it up and try to make it more intellectual, but that's what it is. You are defending a person who was not only racist, but because of his racist views went into nations to pilfer from and murder those he saw as inferior races. The distinction between him and Hitler is one of degree, not kind. -
    You are misunderstanding the context of what he was talking about.

    When he made those comments about Germany, there was no Germany as we know it today, it was a series of small states in a confederacy. The race he is talking about is the German people, that they transcend Prussia and all the other existing states of that time and seek to create a single German nation - in hindsight it would probably have been best if they didn't do so - this is similar to what happened when the Berlin wall fell down, but who regards that as a racial issue?

    To him the British were a race, the Germans a race, the Arabs a race, the Greeks a race, the Turks a race, etc. The Germans (race) didn't have a single homeland at the time, they had lots of different homelands (nationalities) and that is what he meant when he contrasted race and nationality.

    A modern example of this is the Kurds, to him they would have been a race striving for a homeland, nowadays we regard that as an ethnic/nationalist issue, rather than a racial issue.

  8. #148
    Banned Hammerfest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    "Small government" doesn't mean anything.
    Yeah, it does actually. It's a conservative principle.

  9. #149
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerfest View Post
    Yeah, it does actually. It's a conservative principle.
    A conservative principle that doesn't actually mean anything. Hence the meme "government small enough to fit into your bedroom".

  10. #150
    Banned Hammerfest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    A conservative principle that doesn't actually mean anything.
    I suppose a lefty would have trouble understanding it.

  11. #151
    What became of conservatism? The only thing the media has been able to do for the last five years is shout “IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS!” at everything, and then when the right wing finally says “Um, i…den-tity….poli-tics?” you freak out and figure that the only way they could have possibly learned that phrase is from the KKK.

  12. #152
    Legendary! Zecora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerfest View Post
    I suppose a lefty would have trouble understanding it.
    It's not hard to understand, it's just complete right-wing bullshit that is entirely disconnected from reality.

  13. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Yeah, I remember when Obama won and conservatives very gracefully and calmly told us about how he is a secret Kenyan Muslim who is going to put everyone in FEMA camps.
    I think it is probably a stretch to call it "graceful and calmly"

    "Take the time to sit down and talk with your adversaries. You will learn something, and they will learn something from you. When two enemies are talking, they are not fighting. It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. So keep the conversation going."
    ~ Daryl Davis

  14. #154
    The Lightbringer Caolela's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Divided Corporate States of Neo-Feudal Murica, Inc.
    Posts
    3,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalis View Post
    Legislation passed for the benefit of law enforcement that is overseen by an independent judiciary and subject to Parliamentary scrutiny is not Orwellian.

    The IPB was the flagship policy of Prime Minister Theresa May, who put it forward when she was Home Secretary under the previous prime minister, David Cameron. With the expiry, due to a “sunset clause”, of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) in December of this year, the even-more-authoritarian IPB was advanced as its necessary replacement.

    With the IPB, May brought together the current diverse rules governing state surveillance into a single piece of legislation. The new laws are an unprecedented attack on the rights and privacy of every UK citizen. It gives the security services the power to gather information on millions, and to process, profile and store the results. This will be achieved by compelling Internet Service Providers to keep Internet connection records for a period of 12 months for access by the police and state security services.

    The state is now legally able to monitor every Web site a person has visited, every comment made and every search term used. Companies will be forced by the spying agencies to hack into their customers’ devices and override their security. The electronic devices of millions of people will be hacked in bulk, with the agreement of the home secretary as the only prerequisite.

    ...

    The vast state spying operation that was carried out illegally for years—before being revealed by US whistleblower Edward Snowden—is now being legalised.

    After the IPB was passed, Snowden tweeted, “The UK has just legalised the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy. It goes further than many autocracies”.

    Describing the chilling implications of the IPB, Independent columnist Mike Harris wrote, “The bill will allow the Government to hand UK tech firms top-secret notices to hack their customers; the police will be able to look at your internet browsing history, and your personal data will be tied together so the state can find out if you’ve attended a protest, who your friends are, and where you live. The most authoritarian piece of spying legislation any democratic government has ever proposed has sped through Parliament with only a whimper of opposition”.

    Newsweek headlined its article on the new laws, “IP Bill Is Most Extreme Surveillance Law Ever Passed in a Democracy”. The article, written by Jim Killock—the director of civil liberties organisation, the Open Rights Group—described the IPB as an “extraordinary document”, which “grants the state the ability to harvest information in bulk and to process and profile it without suspicion”. What was under way was the “sheer revocation of democracy”, warns Killock.

    In the Guardian, Killock said, “The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy”.
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016.../snoo-n22.html

    I see nothing about scrutiny by Parliament and an independent judiciary in that article. Even if that were the case, it is as unconstitutional in many countries as it would be here in the U.S., same as the "Patriot" Act and others. It is spying and surveillance of the population by the gov't and and corporate telecoms on an industrial scale, without due process.

    That as FDR said is fascism:

    “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
    Last edited by Caolela; 2016-11-27 at 10:01 PM.

  15. #155
    Titan Seranthor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Langley, London, Undisclosed Locations
    Posts
    11,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Alydael View Post
    You do realize that conservatives and republicans are behind basically all the civil rights legislation? They also had to fight the dem/ left tooth and nail to do it. The Dems actually had a former kkk grandwizard in a leadership position in the senate until almost the year 2000 (Donald Byrd).

    The Dems have used their media propaganda machine to try to attach racism and bigotry to the republicans for decades now by highlighting fringe elements that attached themselves to the party and taking things out of context, etc. The public is lazy and does none of their own research, so they are very susceptable to lies by the media. The how the Dems are able to use the minorities as "voting blocks (a term coined by the dem media machine)."

    It is quite sad how under the wing of the Dems, nothing has improved for minorities over decades. Some might even say the situation is getting worst, just look at Chicago and race relations in this country in general. Yet, when they sided with the pubs there were vast, sweeping changes (basically all the civil rights legislation). The Dems just use them for voting numbers. They don't care about them at all. Did Obama visit the NAACP in 2012? Nah, he totally took their vote for granted and sent "Sloppy Joe" Biden.

    All the media machine has to try and paint Trump as a racist is some out of context quotes that the media ran with. Trump actually has a long history you can examine. He was never proven to be a racist in anyway. In fact, there are many minorities in prominent positions in his companies and on his tv shows. A racist would never do that.........

    Just because conservatives resist change for the sake of change, does not mean they are close minded about change or are unwilling to change. That is just crap fed to you by the media. It just means they are thoughtful about change and want to make sure the new plan is better before they change from the old one....
    Not a criticism, just correcting factual errors. Robert Byrd served until 2010, in fact he was the president pro tempore of the US Senate at the time of his death. Anyone that tells you that the Democrat party has left behind their racists hasn't bothered to pay attention.

    --- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.

  16. #156
    The Undying Kalis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Στην Κυπρο
    Posts
    32,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Caolela View Post
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016.../snoo-n22.html

    I see nothing about scrutiny by Parliament and an independent judiciary in that article. Even if that were the case, it is as unconstitutional in many countries as it would be here in the U.S., same as the "Patriot" Act and others. It is spying and surveillance of the population by the gov't on an industrial scale, without due process, and aided by private businesses and corporate telecoms.

    That as FDR said is fascism.

    “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.
    You are seriously quoting a Marxist website?

    Perhaps get a decent source, that is pretty poor, as shown by the claim "The electronic devices of millions of people will be hacked in bulk, with the agreement of the home secretary as the only prerequisite", which would require millions of warrants with each one required to have a reason that satisfies the legislation.

    And how is it relevant that other countries would have it as unconstitutional? It is not unconstitutional in the UK. Who is the arbiter of which is right and which is wrong?

    Can you explain the relevance of that quote? Was a democratically elected government, that can be voted out every five years, deemed a private power in the mid-20th century US? Companies can't request the data, only bodies authorised to carry out criminal investigations can.

  17. #157
    Titan Seranthor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Langley, London, Undisclosed Locations
    Posts
    11,355
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    He said he would appoint supreme court justices that could change things on the gay marriage ruling.
    I'm going to have to see this citation. Cause it smells like bullshit.

    --- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.

  18. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Seranthor View Post
    Not a criticism, just correcting factual errors. Robert Byrd served until 2010, in fact he was the president pro tempore of the US Senate at the time of his death. Anyone that tells you that the Democrat party has left behind their racists hasn't bothered to pay attention.
    Byrd renounced his previous views in the early 70s and became a strong proponent of civil rights, eventually earning a 100% rating from the NAACP. You talk about it like he was in the KKK while serving as president pro tempore, and I think you know you are being intentionally misleading.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Seranthor View Post
    I'm going to have to see this citation. Cause it smells like bullshit.
    WALLACE: But, Mr. Trump, let's take one issue. You say now that the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is the law of the land and that any politician who talks about wanting to amend the Constitution is just playing politics. Are you saying it's time to move on?

    TRUMP: No, I'm saying this. It has been ruled up. It has been there. If I'm a, you know, if I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things.

    But they've got a long way to go. I mean at some point, we have to get back down to business. But there's no question about it. I mean most — and most people feel this way.

    They have ruled on it. I wish that it was done by the state. I don't like the way they ruled. I disagree with the Supreme Court from the standpoint they should have given the state — it should be a states' rights issue. And that's the way it should have been ruled on, Chris, not the way they did it.

    This is a very surprising ruling. And I — I can see changes coming down the line, frankly. But I would have much preferred that they ruled at a state level and allowed the states to make those rulings themselves.

    WALLACE: But — but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?

    TRUMP: I would strongly consider that, yes.

    http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...rump-responds/
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  19. #159
    The Lightbringer Caolela's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Divided Corporate States of Neo-Feudal Murica, Inc.
    Posts
    3,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalis View Post
    You are seriously quoting a Marxist website?

    Perhaps get a decent source, that is pretty poor, as shown by the claim "The electronic devices of millions of people will be hacked in bulk, with the agreement of the home secretary as the only prerequisite", which would require millions of warrants with each one required to have a reason that satisfies the legislation.

    And how is it relevant that other countries would have it as unconstitutional? It is not unconstitutional in the UK. Who is the arbiter of which is right and which is wrong?

    Can you explain the relevance of that quote? Was a democratically elected government, that can be voted out every five years, deemed a private power in the mid-20th century US? Companies can't request the data, only bodies authorised to carry out criminal investigations can.
    If you can show where anything in the article is inaccurate, please do so. Then you should show the legislation that requires the "oversight" that you've claimed.

    As the article states from the law: "...It gives the security services the power to gather information on millions, and to process, profile and store the results." and the UK gov't will compel "Internet Service Providers to keep Internet connection records for a period of 12 months for access by the police and state security services." All that is needed is agreement from the Home Sec'y.

    Therefore, telecoms cannot refuse to provide private, secret information of all kinds about the citizenry to the gov't.

    The quote from FDR, the man who saved UK from the Axis Powers in the 1940s - the people who used the very tactics UK is now making legal but in modern form - should be a strong reminder of how far astray you've gone since then.
    Last edited by Caolela; 2016-11-27 at 10:50 PM.

  20. #160
    Titan Seranthor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Langley, London, Undisclosed Locations
    Posts
    11,355
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    *snip*
    I am sorry that you dont like having the facts about Robert Byrd exposed. But truth is truth, isn't it? Could I try and be a bit more fair? Sure, but why bother? I've learned this from the left and from the media, and I tell you, using those rules is more liberating.

    As far as Trump's comments about judges, he said he'd strongly consider it, which doesn't equal that he would. Close, but they aren't the same, (again, I'm using the rules that the left and media have taught me)

    --- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •