Page 1 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Shadwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 568
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

29 Jul 2010, 10:44 am

And I don't mean just Republicans or Democrats, I mean both. I hate Obama as much as Bush. I hate liberals even more than the tea party because of their lack of compassion and populism. I'm so tired of this two-bit empire that commits acts of terrorism as every bit as heinous as 911 daily, such as bombing weddings. I'm tired of it claiming its the greatest ever, I've been to other countries that do it way better. It's all stolen from the Native Americans anyway. I hate its commitment to capitalism before anything else. My contempt is vast. I like the American land though, it is my home so if you call me unpatriotic go f**k yourself.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

29 Jul 2010, 10:56 am

Shadwell wrote:
It's all stolen from the Native Americans anyway.

What did we steal from the Native Americans aside from some crops and place names?

Quote:
I like the American land though, it is my home so if you call me unpatriotic go f**k yourself.

America is more than a piece of land.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,156
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Jul 2010, 11:14 am

Your contempt is vast but so is your ignorance. It's not capitalism that drives the problems but social corporatism. The merger of government and the corporation/multinational conglomerate that causes the problem. Capitalism without this would be more effective and the free market could shift freely as it should from best product to best product rather than simply a chokehold on the market by a few conglomerates and investment firms (groups such as Bain Capital, Texas Pacific Group, Blackstone Group or the Carlyle Group).

Liberals lack compassion? That's a new one. Guess they fixed that bleeding heart problem.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,732
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

29 Jul 2010, 12:25 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Liberals lack compassion? That's a new one. Guess they fixed that bleeding heart problem.


It depends on the cause. Liberals will more often be in favor of, for example, laws or policies that are tough on school bullying. And I think we all would agree that there'd be MORE actual education going on if bullying were out of the picture. Something that has been talked about in putting together these policies is that extends to verbal abuse. Well, ok, no problems there, either. Where it BECOMES a problem is when a simple statement by one person or group of people simply offends a single person or minority group--even worse, when a statement of opinion is based upon religious sensibilities. If someone makes such a statement, there are exercising their freedom of speech; as long as the speech is not overtly hateful, threatening, or untrue, then they have done nothing illegal or wrong. Courts recently have found in favor of religious expression by students on the basis that children/teenagers don't check their religion and other constitutional freedoms at the school gate. But language in anti-bullying policies takes direct aim at religious expression and free speech. Such liberal policies are NOT tolerant and certainly NOT compassionate.

The message sent by such liberal-driven policies is "you can say what you want and believe what you want as long as you agree with us." You can be anything you want as long as you aren't a conservative Christian. There's nothing compassionate about that. It's hypocrisy.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

29 Jul 2010, 1:09 pm

Well, given that freedom of expression is a liberal conception, it's ironic that liberals are seen as threats to free expression.

So, AngelRho, when a bully, in the school, says to a peer words to the effect of, "you're gonna burn in hell, fag!" is that protected speech? When I drop the perjoratives and change the sentiment to, "God says that you're an abomination." Is that protected? (These aren't rhetorical questions, by the way. These things get said daily in schoolyards, and lie at the center of this debate. I truly don't know what the answers are.)

Should a line be drawn between the expression of a religious view that promotes antagonism to another person, and protected expression? If so, how is that to be done?

For my part (and I stress, this is a personal belief), I think the answers to those questions depend very much on context. In the unregulated public sphere--out on the street, no such distinction should be drawn. Within the private sphere, the controller of the forum has every right to prohibit whatever speech the controller chooses.

So really, we are down to the regulated public sphere, where the battleground is, of course, schools. Frankly, I'm not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater by sacrificing anti-bullying programs on the altar of free religious expression. As long as some parents are raising their children with a religious belief that some other children are less worthy, I am prepared to see the expression of that belief restricted in public schools. What is said in Church, in the home and on the street is beyond reach, and provides a wide open platform in which to hold and express belief.


_________________
--James


just_ben
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 421
Location: That would be an ecumenical matter!

29 Jul 2010, 1:15 pm

If you take this rant to your local clothes shop, you get a discount on Che Guevara T-Shirts.


_________________
I stand alone on the cliffs of the world.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,156
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Jul 2010, 1:58 pm

just_ben wrote:
If you take this rant to your local clothes shop, you get a discount on Che Guevara T-Shirts.


Make it a Robert Anton Wilson shirt or a Guns and Dope Party shirt instead and you have a deal!


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Shadwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 568
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

29 Jul 2010, 2:56 pm

I think maybe some of you misunderstand my criticism of liberals. When I say liberals lack compassion I don't mean towards homosexuals or Hispanics, that I totally agree with, but really the arrogance of liberals is when they treat just your average joe with contempt. They treat the tea party base like they're stupid and they don't try to appeal to that base. Some of that base are indeed stupid, white, racist, bigots, but there are those who have been disenfranchised too and the ultra-right capitalizes on that disenfranchisement while tepid liberals do not. The substance of the Tea Party is hateful and idiotic, but I can't help but feel contempt for democrats as well. My position is similar to Noam Chomsky in this manner. Also I hate that liberals rarely can seem to break with the democrats. Often times they follow the democrats into supporting war, racism, shoddy health care "that only insurance companies could love," to quote Paul Street, privatized schools all because the democrats are the supposed left while the real left is rendered invisible by the media. The Republicans run further and further to the right while the democrats remain center right.



Last edited by Shadwell on 29 Jul 2010, 3:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Shadwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 568
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

29 Jul 2010, 3:11 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Your contempt is vast but so is your ignorance. It's not capitalism that drives the problems but social corporatism. The merger of government and the corporation/multinational conglomerate that causes the problem. Capitalism without this would be more effective and the free market could shift freely as it should from best product to best product rather than simply a chokehold on the market by a few conglomerates and investment firms (groups such as Bain Capital, Texas Pacific Group, Blackstone Group or the Carlyle Group).

Liberals lack compassion? That's a new one. Guess they fixed that bleeding heart problem.


I just disagree. I think any kind of capitalism inherently leads to the kind of authoritarianism and conglomeration we see today. Not that the left isn't without it's flaws, but I reject the idea that nothing else is possible.



Last edited by Shadwell on 29 Jul 2010, 3:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Shadwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 568
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

29 Jul 2010, 3:13 pm

Orwell wrote:
Shadwell wrote:
It's all stolen from the Native Americans anyway.

What did we steal from the Native Americans aside from some crops and place names?

Quote:
I like the American land though, it is my home so if you call me unpatriotic go f**k yourself.

America is more than a piece of land.


Have you ever read Homage to Catalonia? I refer to an America without the confines of nationalism, and I'm not saying that nothing of value came out of this country but it suffers from a major problem of empire.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,732
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

29 Jul 2010, 3:40 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Well, given that freedom of expression is a liberal conception, it's ironic that liberals are seen as threats to free expression.

So, AngelRho, when a bully, in the school, says to a peer words to the effect of, "you're gonna burn in hell, fag!" is that protected speech? When I drop the perjoratives and change the sentiment to, "God says that you're an abomination." Is that protected? (These aren't rhetorical questions, by the way. These things get said daily in schoolyards, and lie at the center of this debate. I truly don't know what the answers are.)

Should a line be drawn between the expression of a religious view that promotes antagonism to another person, and protected expression? If so, how is that to be done?

For my part (and I stress, this is a personal belief), I think the answers to those questions depend very much on context. In the unregulated public sphere--out on the street, no such distinction should be drawn. Within the private sphere, the controller of the forum has every right to prohibit whatever speech the controller chooses.

So really, we are down to the regulated public sphere, where the battleground is, of course, schools. Frankly, I'm not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater by sacrificing anti-bullying programs on the altar of free religious expression. As long as some parents are raising their children with a religious belief that some other children are less worthy, I am prepared to see the expression of that belief restricted in public schools. What is said in Church, in the home and on the street is beyond reach, and provides a wide open platform in which to hold and express belief.


Well, I mean, there's NOT an easy answer here. In your first example of bullying language, that would absolutely NOT be protected speech, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. The word "fag" has come into common usage as deliberately offensive. I wouldn't say that for the same reason I'd never use the "n" word, not even in private. I don't think I'd word it quite like your second example, but you have the basic idea.

Now why this would ever even come up in an educational situation is another matter. It's one of those things best left alone, anyway. Where we go wrong is where we have certain types of minorities represented in certain ways by encouraging student activities that are purposefully oriented towards promoting those beliefs without respect to opposing viewpoints. If you are allowed to express one opinion, there should be no problem with expressing the opposite opinion. But now all of a sudden what we're trying to do is promote the opinion of one group while silencing another group that poses no real threat. That is abhorrent to me, not just as a Christian, but as someone who respects the U.S. Constitution.

I think the public school sphere is only symptomatic of what I see as a broader agenda. If our teachers are now charged with being "thought police," I shudder to think how far this could potentially go. I happen to attend a church which does have televised services. I'm not going to say that one group or another ought to be singled out in televised sermons. After all, we believe that all are guilty of sin in one form or another, so concentrating all the blame into scapegoating ONE group or another distorts the gospel message. HOWEVER, I have to wonder in the context of televised ministry how much truth is watered down so as not to offend a minority group or the broadcasting station. If we're talking about minority representation in the media here, homosexuals specifically, one need not sit in front of the TV many hours before seeing at least one token gay couple. So why need there be fear, on either side of the debate, of expressing an opposing viewpoint? Hence the hypocrisy.

I don't mean to come across as a paranoid tea-partier. That isn't what this is about. If liberals want to be champions of freedom, then I applaud them. But shouldn't freedom mean freedom for all rather than freedom for only a select group of potential voter base?



Shadwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 568
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

29 Jul 2010, 3:47 pm

just_ben wrote:
If you take this rant to your local clothes shop, you get a discount on Che Guevara T-Shirts.


I don't have any tattoos nor do I worship Che Guevara, he executed people after all. I do think Cuba was successful in some ways, particularly in regards to their medical system, but obviously very authoritarian in other areas.



just_ben
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 421
Location: That would be an ecumenical matter!

29 Jul 2010, 3:53 pm

Shadwell wrote:
just_ben wrote:
If you take this rant to your local clothes shop, you get a discount on Che Guevara T-Shirts.


I don't have any tattoos nor do I worship Che Guevara, he executed people after all. I do think Cuba was successful in some ways, particularly in regards to their medical system, but obviously very authoritarian in other areas.



Dude it's a joke. The system's not gonna change for the better anytime soon, so either get to work on sorting it out yourself, or stop taking life so seriously.

@skafather84: you drive a hard bargain, but I'll take it. I'm also throwing in bandanas with rubbish slogans on at the minute, hurry while stocks last!


_________________
I stand alone on the cliffs of the world.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,156
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Jul 2010, 4:27 pm

Shadwell wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Your contempt is vast but so is your ignorance. It's not capitalism that drives the problems but social corporatism. The merger of government and the corporation/multinational conglomerate that causes the problem. Capitalism without this would be more effective and the free market could shift freely as it should from best product to best product rather than simply a chokehold on the market by a few conglomerates and investment firms (groups such as Bain Capital, Texas Pacific Group, Blackstone Group or the Carlyle Group).

Liberals lack compassion? That's a new one. Guess they fixed that bleeding heart problem.


I just disagree. I think any kind of capitalism inherently leads to the kind of authoritarianism and conglomeration we see today. Not that the left isn't without it's flaws, but I reject the idea that nothing else is possible.


Anarcho capitalism does but there doesn't mean there can't be regulations in place to keep the most efficient free market possible. Too much freedom, in this case, ends up sacrificing freedom at the end results.

I agree the left isn't without its flaws. It's too quick to legislate restrictively in reaction to a problem rather than analyzing the problem and maybe legislating in a proactive manner that attacks the problem without restricting individual liberties.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jul 2010, 4:32 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Anarcho capitalism does but there doesn't mean there can't be regulations in place to keep the most efficient free market possible. Too much freedom, in this case, ends up sacrificing freedom at the end results.

You know that your point there is still a matter that can be debated. The fact of the matter is that anarcho-capitalism may still end up being different to a point where it is hard to create a good intuitive model. Particularly given that we don't understand the current system well enough.

(Note: I am not saying that you have to be wrong, or even that nothing can be known. I am just critical of what you do know, as at best, all I see from the anarcho-capitalist is an inference based upon certain thought processes about the workings of society, but not a deductive proof as to what will happen.)



Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 29 Jul 2010, 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.