Its okay to be racist against whites

[deitydude]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
It is a very touchy subject. Should white students have the right to start on-campus clubs to celebrate their white herritage. You'll probably be surprised that I say, yeah, they probably should.

But, as with the other clubs, people of all races need to be eligible, as they are now with any african or latino clubs. If you want to join one, you may, regardless of race, creed, color or religion.

I'm not sure you are exactly right on this one. The Constitution does have a provision for freedom of association. It was ammended by the public accommodations act so now it only applies to private organizations. But whites, blacks or latinos can form a PRIVATE club and deny membership based solely on race. Just as a Catholic Church isn't required to allow Satanists to attend mass.

 

[Drekken]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Good ol' conservative 'lack of any effort to use common sense and logic'......nothing new there, hehe

Ho ho, throw my own words back at me. <sarcasm>Very witty.</sarcasm>

I'm a very liberal person

I'm sorry to hear that.

Believe me, I'd be willing to bet that as many white people would have a problem with a white baby being raised by blacks as vice versa.

So that justifies this reverse discrimination?

The overwhelming majority of liberals will tell you that ANY discrimination is wrong.

Just as long as it's NOT a white, middle-aged, heterosexual male, otherwise you perpetrate it.

Conservatives attempt to spin things and make it seem as though their pristine race is under attack. Not true, calm down, don't get so worked up.

Liberals are the ones "spinning" that white people are responible for every evil that occured in the world.

The people that don't want a black baby raised by white parents are wrong, but it has NOTHING to do with liberals or conservatives.....so I really don't see where that came from in the first place. If ayone is racist, I'd say it's the conservatives, wouldn't you?

Liberal attitudes are what caused this in the first place. Furthermore, I don't consider myself racist, yet I admit I lean right of center.

The Republican party fought civil rights tooth and claw, baby. Hell, Strom Thurmond, among others, actually bolted the Democratic party because they were becoming a bunch of $#% lovers. So, what did he do? He joined a party that went more along with his ideas of race relations (segregation, etc...). That party was the Republican party, of course.

Edit: I think rmsharpe exposed your lies there.

Republicans and conservatives were on the wrong side of history on this issue as they have been throughout their history.

That doesn't mean everything that happened was for the best.

All said and done I am not a racist and whites have mistreated blacks in the past. Although, this prevailing Liberal mindset that white people should be punished for every ill that befalls a black person is not right. The only way to have racial co-existance is understanding, and the Liberal tactic of humiliating white people is not fostering understanding but generating hate and dragging us back to square one.

 

[allan]

"and the Liberal tactic of humiliating white people is not fostering understanding but generating hate and dragging us back to square one."

Exactly. It is giving hate groups more ammunition. Can you say "backlash"?

Seems to me I hear more references to race from liberals than I do from conservatives (and I am neither, but libertarian, so I can be objective here) these days. And frankly, if I were black I'd feel insulted and patronized by the implications of what many liberals say--implying that blacks NEED something from the whites and all that. I know a few blacks who in fact DO feel patronized, and have said things about that.

And at any rate, if the liberal goal is a "color-blind" society, they sure have a strange way of going about it, don't they. I myself try to be as color-blind as I can in my day-to-day life, and so I ignore this sanctimonious and pious liberal talk of race because it distracts me from that course....

I say, everybody f*ck everybody until we're all one color! Really though, we're all Americans here in the US, and color is irrelevant--or it SHOULD be.

 

[VoodooAce]

Hhmm....couple things.

First off, I could debate this all day long. Other than Allan it doesn't seem that anybody did anything other than take bits and pieces of my posts that they didn't like....out of context, might i add....and add their comments to them. For example Drekken quotes me and then asks, "So that justifies discrimination?"

What? Hhhmm....I've looked and looked, but I don't see where I said that. I do see where I said all discrimination is wrong, but not where I said anything justifies it.

Anyway, I was a little bitter today and went off, just a little, and made some incindiary (sp?), ah hell, let's just say flamable remarks. I think it was an ignorant comment like 'typical liberals'.

Cracks me up, actually. Conservatives try to blame everything on us, but I guess if someone were ask me, I'd blame much of our woes on the conservatives, so we're pretty even on that point.

And, I should have said that CONSERVATIVES have been on the wrong side of history, not REPUBLICANS. That was my bad.

Lincoln and Roosevelt were good, liberal Republicans

Actually, I'm more confident in calling Roosevelt a liberal than I am Lincoln.

Of course, it's all got to be looked at in the context of the times. You take even a guy like WJ Bryant, and he might even be conservative today.....in todays terms, er...you know what I mean.

Liberals have been pushing the envelope for hundreds of years, conservatives always believe that it is THEIR generation that is going to hell in a handbasket. "We can't take the children out of the cannerys, man! Good God! They'll all go broke!", etc.....

One thing I think would make an interesting discussion is the evolution of the parties. Dems were the southern, conservative party for a long time and the GOP, when it wasn't ol', began as a more liberal alternative to the Dems.

How/when did this happen? I know that Roosevelt was pretty liberal socially, but Harding and Hoover, just a few terms later were pretty conservative building up big business until, imho, the balloon popped in '29.

Anyway, I'm doing it again.

I'm out!

 

[Drekken]

That's because Allan took a piece of my post and built from it.

Also, you don't have to say something explicitly to get a point across. You think since white people do something wrong, black people should do the same thing to make it right. Remember two wrongs don't make a right.

Lastly, while I will admit that Liberals do bring about positive change, why can't you know when to stop? Your blind fascination to change EVERYTHING brings about the rot of society. I'm not anti-change, change is good, but some things have to be conserved in order to preserve the stucture of society. If we can't learn that, then I'm afraid America will go the way of the Roman Empire.

 

[Caligastia]

At least none of the liberals on here are loony enough to actually support something like this. I posted the same thread on Apolyton and there was actually someone deluded enough to believe this crap was fair and okay.

Some of you may know him as Chegitz...

 

[Drekken]

Because I can't even get on. All I get is a '403 Forbidden' error.

 

[sonorakitch]

"Lincoln and Roosevelt were good, liberal Republicans "



I suggest you look a little closer. Read Roosevelts' "An American Mind", which is an enormous selection of his writings, and you will find he is a progressive Republican (yes, they do exist...I am one of them and so is Guliani, Specter, Reagan, Kemp, etc. etc.). Both Lincoln and Roosevelt were strong supporters of states' rights, personal freedoms, limited government, and strong defenses. Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet 'round the world and established the US as a global power, and Lincoln gave numerous speeches about the necessity of a small federal government. Just because Roosevelt gave us conservation (like Drekken said, he didn't go overboard like your Babbitt) and Lincoln freed the slaves doesn't make either a liberal. Lincoln was practicing a great conservative philosophy in the equalization of all mankind...liberals attempt to levy grossly more taxes on one income group, pit minorities against the majority, attempt to give one group preferential treatment...I could go on. Liberals are the devisive ones...just look at our last election with Mr. Populist himself running against Mr. Inclusiveness.

Well, a little for you to chew on, Mr. Ace.

~Chris

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Drekken
That's because Allan took a piece of my post and built from it.

Also, you don't have to say something explicitly to get a point across. You think since white people do something wrong, black people should do the same thing to make it right. Remember two wrongs don't make a right.

Lastly, while I will admit that Liberals do bring about positive change, why can't you know when to stop? Your blind fascination to change EVERYTHING brings about the rot of society. I'm not anti-change, change is good, but some things have to be conserved in order to preserve the stucture of society. If we can't learn that, then I'm afraid America will go the way of the Roman Empire.

I keep having to repeat myself, here, dang it. I DO NOT think that two wrongs make a right. I DO NOT think that the color of a childs' skin should be a factor in whether or not he/she deserves a home and family.

In fact, I would disagree very vehemently about the 'two wrongs' thing. I argued the heck out of that when people were demanding that we kill 5,000 Afghan civilians. In fact, I always find myself arguing this point. The death penalty is another very good example.

Can you, Drekken, name one time where I said that two wrongs make a right? I don't recall.

And, hhmmmm....let's see where to begin on that last paragraph. Sheesh. I am blown away to see the phrase 'liberals bring about positive change' in any sentence penned by a consevative, for one. And 'I will admit' just floored me.

Anyway, I don't think our desire for change is any blinder than yours to keep things stagnant. Sorry, unchanged I guess is much fairer. I really also think saying we are trying to change EVERYTHING is a little strong......at least an exaggeration. But it is not change, my friend, that results in rot. It's quite the oposite, isn't it?

Rome's downfall (not that I would hazard to define the cause of the fall of Rome, lol), imho, and this will be argued, so don't make it the point of my post, had something to do with the loss of the republic, which happens to be my greatest fear for America. I think that's the biggest, or one of the biggest fears for American liberals. It defines my liberalism. Thus my belief in the necessit of groups like the ACLU, etc...

I mentioned in an earlier post that each generation of conservatives believes that their generation of progressives or liberals has gone too far. It's natural in that each generation of society as a whole believes they're witnessing the beginning of the end or that the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Ayway, and lastly I promise, there is a spectrum, of course. Each generations politics can be placed on the spectrum with the liberals to the left and conservatives to the right. It's like a template. You take that template and, I believe, you get an idea of where society and people would fall. Those that are middle of the road now likely would have been middle of the road then, etc... (This philosophy, crazy as you may think it, is what turned me from a Reagan Republican to a Democrat). But I believe that conservatives now, horrified as they may be at the thought of children canning food 12 hours a day, would have probably found themselves believing the factory owners when they said that not being able to hire cheap labor in children would run them out of business and all that would do would hurt America as a whole. And if America is hurt, then those children are hurt. So wouldn't they be better off just canning the food?

I'm sure I'll get derided to kingdom come for that, but it is quite true. This was a big debate exactly 100 years ago between conservatives and progressives/liberals.

Jesus H. that was my longest post.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by sonorakitch
"Lincoln and Roosevelt were good, liberal Republicans "



I suggest you look a little closer. Read Roosevelts' "An American Mind", which is an enormous selection of his writings, and you will find he is a progressive Republican (yes, they do exist...I am one of them and so is Guliani, Specter, Reagan, Kemp, etc. etc.). Both Lincoln and Roosevelt were strong supporters of states' rights, personal freedoms, limited government, and strong defenses. Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet 'round the world and established the US as a global power, and Lincoln gave numerous speeches about the necessity of a small federal government. Just because Roosevelt gave us conservation (like Drekken said, he didn't go overboard like your Babbitt) and Lincoln freed the slaves doesn't make either a liberal. Lincoln was practicing a great conservative philosophy in the equalization of all mankind...liberals attempt to levy grossly more taxes on one income group, pit minorities against the majority, attempt to give one group preferential treatment...I could go on. Liberals are the devisive ones...just look at our last election with Mr. Populist himself running against Mr. Inclusiveness.

Well, a little for you to chew on, Mr. Ace.

~Chris

Well, you claim Roosevelt for conservatives, I'll claim him for liberals, fact is he's pretty much center cut by today's standards.

BUT DUDE!!!!!!!! Reagan a progressive?????????

Oh, wait a minute. Sorry, I thought you meant Ronald for a second, but then I realized you couldn't possibly mean Ronald Reagan. Specter, sure. Kemp, sure. Reagan, no f^cking way, bro.......

Liberals do not pit minorities against the majority. That's laughable, man. I could just make stuff up, too. Like, conservatives would liike to return to days gone by when the classes knew who they were and where they belong. But I don't believe that. Do you honestly believe there's this liberal conspiracy to pit the minorities against whites? Or were you just talking out of the side of your neck as I tend to do when I disagree and get bitter, lol.

At least debate in good faith, my man. I am for fair taxes, which you were apparently trying to reference with your previous comment. And then the following bit about giving preferential treatment......well, my gosh. Once again, just not true. Should I just say that you want only the middle class and below tro have to pay taxes? It's as true as your statement. Or that you want to completely exclude minorities? Also as true as your statment.

But I would never spew such garbage and try to put words into peoples mouth. Well, believe me, I'm still chewing, and I could go on and on, but my last post was long enough......done for the nite.

OUT!!!

 

[VoodooAce]

sonorakitch, i think you only see your side and don't attempt to see the other.....

There were two sides to that election and I'm of the opinion that dubya took the victory despite the fact that he knew more people in Florida wanted to vote for Gore. Nobody will ever convince me that 19,000 elderly Jews actually meant to vote for Pat (Adolf) Buchanan. AT LEAST 1,000 of those people, at least admit this part, intended to place their votes for Al Gore. And that 1,000 would have been approx. 500 more than he would have needed to be President.

The vote was close in the state, as it was nationally, but Al Gore deserved to win both, which just makes it sadder than heck to see the idiot sevant (minus that sevant part) bumble his way through his four years.

We did get some humor out of it, though. Like when that hilarious mob of brownshirt wannabe's tried to beat the hell out of that poor man, the one the chased kicking, hitting and punching him, because they thought he was stealing ballots or something. But, it turned out he just had a practice ballot. Hahaha, did you see that guy runnning and covering his head. I split a gut, man.

 

[sonorakitch]

Okay okay...we could debate about this one!!!!

Reagan was not a populist....but he damn sure was a progressive. If you think moving a country from high taxes, an ever expanding federal bureaucracy, and military parady with the Soviet Union to low taxes, federal programs slashed, and a huge military advantage over the USSR isn't change, then I don't know what is. A progressive is one who seeks change, and whether you like him or not, the 80's was a drastic change from old policies...a Reagan Revolution, if you will. I think we can agree on that...I just think you are not stopping to think exactly what a progressive is, for better or for worse.

I can cite you numerous examples of liberals pitting minority against the majority. Remember that beautiful NAACP commercial in last years election, that somehow equated G.W. Bush to the dragging of the black man in Texas? That was a pathetically low blow, designed for the sole purpose of angering blacks towards Republicans. This was one clear example out of a hundred thousand...I could name more. So no, I wasn't talking out of my neck. I really have thought this one through. The Democrats can thank every election they win to the genius spin-maestros churning out messages that infruriate minorities. Remember, Gore got 92% of the black vote.


"And then the following bit about giving preferential treatment......well, my gosh. "

Preferential treatment is the only way you can possibly describe Affirmative action. It is not equality, it is going one step further. I double dog dare you to argue this one!


"Once again, just not true. Should I just say that you want only the middle class and below tro have to pay taxes? It's as true as your statement."

Not at all. I think a moderately progressive tax structure is necessary. But come on! Under the Carter administration, the top bracket was $1,000,000+ earners=70%! That simply isn't fair. It is better today, but things could be even better (my, how progressive!)

Bottom line, IMHO, is that Roosevelt was a staunch Progressive-Republican, and I highly encourage you to read the aforementioned book. He even writes about the 120 or so bears that he killed during a few months' hunting expedition in North America. Great read.

~Chris

 

[sonorakitch]

Voodoo,

I did see your side. And to be honest, I felt bad for you guys. Gore had more support in the morning of November 7th...very slim (very!), but he did. So I do see it.

"Nobody will ever convince me that 19,000 elderly Jews actually meant to vote for Pat (Adolf) Buchanan. "

I totally agree. The problem was, this was unhealable. There was nothing you could do. Huge constitutional problems existed in trying to decipher votes and place them for a particular candidate. Please think of it from the other side...if W. would have attempted to snag 19,000 votes that were, and you can admit, a damn stupid mistake of those old Floridian voters in Palm Beach.

That being said, the Miami Heralds conclusion was that even if Gore had recieved his requested manual recounts in those four counties, Bush would have still won. Gore would have gained less than one hundred votes. So, legally, and therefore rightfully so, Bush did win. Just next year--fly down to Florida and help those old folks out!

And yes, that scene was damn funny. I really loved the angry mob storming the Dade County recount room too. And all those protests! Makes me very glad I have no association to southern Florida.

~Chris

P.S.- I would hope you have found Bush is not all that of an idiot after all. I do think, however, his oratory skills are pretty awful. Sometimes I just want to thump him on the head to get him to spit it out! I do think he is doing an incredible job with the recent events, though.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by sonorakitch
Okay okay...we could debate about this one!!!!

Reagan was not a populist....but he damn sure was a progressive. If you think moving a country from high taxes, an ever expanding federal bureaucracy, and military parady with the Soviet Union to low taxes, federal programs slashed, and a huge military advantage over the USSR isn't change, then I don't know what is. A progressive is one who seeks change, and whether you like him or not, the 80's was a drastic change from old policies...a Reagan Revolution, if you will. I think we can agree on that...I just think you are not stopping to think exactly what a progressive is, for better or for worse.

I can cite you numerous examples of liberals pitting minority against the majority. Remember that beautiful NAACP commercial in last years election, that somehow equated G.W. Bush to the dragging of the black man in Texas? That was a pathetically low blow, designed for the sole purpose of angering blacks towards Republicans. This was one clear example out of a hundred thousand...I could name more. So no, I wasn't talking out of my neck. I really have thought this one through. The Democrats can thank every election they win to the genius spin-maestros churning out messages that infruriate minorities. Remember, Gore got 92% of the black vote.


"And then the following bit about giving preferential treatment......well, my gosh. "

Preferential treatment is the only way you can possibly describe Affirmative action. It is not equality, it is going one step further. I double dog dare you to argue this one!


"Once again, just not true. Should I just say that you want only the middle class and below tro have to pay taxes? It's as true as your statement."

Not at all. I think a moderately progressive tax structure is necessary. But come on! Under the Carter administration, the top bracket was $1,000,000+ earners=70%! That simply isn't fair. It is better today, but things could be even better (my, how progressive!)

Bottom line, IMHO, is that Roosevelt was a staunch Progressive-Republican, and I highly encourage you to read the aforementioned book. He even writes about the 120 or so bears that he killed during a few months' hunting expedition in North America. Great read.

~Chris

Well, crap, i'm back.....i think i've got the 'one more post' syndrome now, closely related to the omt syndrome.

And sorry I don't know how to post mid-quote, but....

It took Clinton's admin. yrs to clean up Reagan's mess. And there was no military parity....at all. The commies were toast, period, by that time. It was just a matter of time. Technology and the opening up of the world had much more to do with their collapse....China's next, eventually, lol. But there was massive change and Reagan hit the spot as far as national identity and pride went, I'll admit for sure. He was a professional actor after all. But he just borrowed on the future to cut taxes at the time, much the same as his veep's boy is doing now. It looks good and increases his approval ratings among those that don't know any better or think that 'trickle-down economics' actually works.

Both parties are equally guilty of smearing and running negative campaigns (Willie Horton?).....turns me off regardless of who runs them. Sure you could name more, but so could anybody. What I didn't like was 'W's peeps running adds supporting Nader in California....that was a particularly low moment in election history as well.

I'm against affirmative action. Purpose served but been out of date for a decade or two. And, newsflash: I'm not rare among liberals in that belief. Once minorities reach that point in their lives, they have the same chance as all do to, say, get into a particular school. I do believe that, socially, many people 'of color' are stuck in a perpetually bad situation. I believe we could drastically reduce crime in our society, which would certainly make our conservative friends happy, as well as the rest of us, if there were no Watts or ghettos of the sort. Kids growing up in that place have so very little hope, and that is where I believe we fail them. I think that is pretty much another liberal standard. How do you rectify the situation now? Heck if I know, but being full on stingy only serves to perpetuate the situation.

And when I said, "Once again, just not true. Should I just say that you want only the middle class and below tro have to pay taxes? It's as true as your statement." I wasn't saying I believed this. I was comparing the ridiculousness of that statement with a similar statement by you.

I can see both sides in the tax percentage argument. In fact, believe this or not, but I do make it a point to see both sides as clearly as possible in any debate. I think that if a guy making 500K a year pays 70% in taxes, he brings home 150K. Sure, that sucks hard. But it totally blows to make 20K a year, and bring home 8K (based on about 30%). And, while I don't believe there is any valid excuse to be a criminal, I think its pretty naive to complain about crime and then make the argument that the lower classes should have to front more cash so dude making his 500K brings home anothyer 50K. I jsut don't buy it.

There is still plenty incentive for dude to get rich....I just don't buy any argument to the contrairy.

Truly OUT!!!

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by sonorakitch
Voodoo,

I did see your side. And to be honest, I felt bad for you guys. Gore had more support in the morning of November 7th...very slim (very!), but he did. So I do see it.

"Nobody will ever convince me that 19,000 elderly Jews actually meant to vote for Pat (Adolf) Buchanan. "

I totally agree. The problem was, this was unhealable. There was nothing you could do. Huge constitutional problems existed in trying to decipher votes and place them for a particular candidate. Please think of it from the other side...if W. would have attempted to snag 19,000 votes that were, and you can admit, a damn stupid mistake of those old Floridian voters in Palm Beach.

That being said, the Miami Heralds conclusion was that even if Gore had recieved his requested manual recounts in those four counties, Bush would have still won. Gore would have gained less than one hundred votes. So, legally, and therefore rightfully so, Bush did win. Just next year--fly down to Florida and help those old folks out!

And yes, that scene was damn funny. I really loved the angry mob storming the Dade County recount room too. And all those protests! Makes me very glad I have no association to southern Florida.

~Chris

P.S.- I would hope you have found Bush is not all that of an idiot after all. I do think, however, his oratory skills are pretty awful. Sometimes I just want to thump him on the head to get him to spit it out! I do think he is doing an incredible job with the recent events, though.

Well, since we're in the admitting mood, I too admit that there was nothing Bush or anybody could have done. For sure, I wouldn't really expect Bush to say "aw, shucks, Al, you can have it" Lol, I still am bitter about it all, though. Like watching my team lose the World Series on a ball that was foul but the Ump stumbled going down the line, didn't see it and called it a home run.

And it is ironic that if they used Gore's requested recount method, he'd have lost, but if they used Bush's, HE would have lost. I wish they'd have just listened to 'w', lol....

I wouldn't honestly call Bush an idiot.....I'm just not confident in his ability to fully grasp things. He's got an experienced team, and all, and that's good, i guess.....I just don't like any of them other than Powell.

What is it about that guy, anyway?

PS - I'd have actually voted for McCain over Al Gore, if you cann believe THAT.....I was NOT a big fan of him....way too plastic and rigid....not real at all....Bradley was my overall choice..

 

[allan]

Too bad McCain didn't win the nomination--I guarantee there would have been NO question about the election results had that happened. McCain would have beat Gore hands down. Oh well....

Much of the tactics of Democrats in recent years have been shades of "class warfare"--an "us versus them" mentality. And this plays into race politics insofar as certain racial groups tend to fall more into one class or other than others.

And I've heard liberals absolutely HAMMER on black conservatives in particular over the years.... As if they were somehow "traitors" or something. Not saying YOU do that, Voodoo Ace. But I've heard many liberals say some pretty bad things about them, out of some perception that if you are black, surely you MUST be a democrat if you are in your right mind....

 

[allan]

"I think that if a guy making 500K a year pays 70% in taxes, he brings home 150K. Sure, that sucks hard. But it totally blows to make 20K a year, and bring home 8K (based on about 30%). And, while I don't believe there is any valid excuse to be a criminal, I think its pretty naive to complain about crime and then make the argument that the lower classes should have to front more cash so dude making his 500K brings home anothyer 50K. I jsut don't buy it."

And I don't buy the argument that it would be necessary to raise Mr. 20K's taxes if we are to cut Mr. 500K's. I think our federal government spends WAY too much money, wastes much of it, and at any rate uses a lot of it on functions that, by the Constitution, it was never authorized to perform. And yet, when they keep pleading they need more money, we aquiesce all too often, bend over, and take it a little bit deeper in the ass, with a little less vasoline.... We don't QUESTION the government near enough as a free people should--and that is usually a sign that the status of "free people" is coming towards an end....

So instead of saying blindly, "we cannot afford to give the people a tax cut", let us instead probe a bit into WHY this perception exists, WHY so much more money is going in with little to show going out. Let us scrutinize how the government spends our money, what that money actually DOES, and if we find a bunch of money going into waste, or into programs that don't work or aren't needed, then put our leaders' feet to the fire and demand some explanations--and some accounting, if you will (both meanings intended). Are we not free? Is not the government BY and FOR the people? Well then, as the people let us play our rightful role! The government is COUNTING ON people to continue to put blind faith into their percieved "wisdom"--we've been doing it for years--but we don't have to, and there is no reason to. Nor good evidence that our faith is that well placed.

If we give them the reckoning they don't expect--i.e. we become REAL citizens again--then I can guarantee that EVERYBODY could recieve a generous tax cut, without the pain all the politicians try to scare us with.

(And btw I don't just blame democrats for sponsoring unnecessary spending--republicans also do it.)

 

[Drekken]

Originally posted by VoodooAce

And, hhmmmm....let's see where to begin on that last paragraph. Sheesh. I am blown away to see the phrase 'liberals bring about positive change' in any sentence penned by a consevative, for one. And 'I will admit' just floored me.

Anyway, I don't think our desire for change is any blinder than yours to keep things stagnant. Sorry, unchanged I guess is much fairer. I really also think saying we are trying to change EVERYTHING is a little strong......at least an exaggeration. But it is not change, my friend, that results in rot. It's quite the oposite, isn't it?

You got floored because you still think I spend my days shooting abortion doctors and worshipping Hitler, which I don't. While I do have conservative values I'm not a pure conservative. The only reason I'm center of right and appear conservative is because of the rampant Liberalism, where Liberals think they are the solution but are just part of the problem instead. If society was too far right and I could see that it was a problem then I'd be left-leaning like you are.

Like I said before change is GOOD, but just changing everything for the sake of changing it is BAD. Changing things so blacks have equal rights is good. Then you Liberals bring in affirmative action which is the antithesis of equality. Then you move on the pedofiles and cry that they are oppressed by laws made by "hatemonger" conservatives. Then keep crying and screaming (a bit like you are doing to me) until people just cave in. You don't know when to stop.

The reason I said 'liberals bring about positive change' or can at least, shows that I'm thinking about what being said here adjusting my ideas like a rational person should do. Although, I still stand by my core values and still believe that Liberals can't control themselves. Why don't you shut up and think about your values instead of just spewing everything that the Democrats taught you to say in hopes that it'll make me give up. Just like you Liberals try to everyone else that oppose you.

 

[sonorakitch]

Good post allen. Agree 100%. I actually still preferred Bush, but between September-December, I had wished McCain also won the nod from the GOP. I thought Gore, even though he ran off a decade of good times, was probably the lousiest candidate from either party in the last twenty years (and I really didn't like Dukakis, and thought Dole was a terrible choice). There are reasons for this though.

Voodoo, I suppose we will always disagree on this issue. But it is a good debate. I would argue all day that in fact, Reagan has left quite an impressive legacy. Indeed, the Soviets were on their way down, and Gorbi gets a great deal of credit, but it was Reagan who finally became firm (remember Rejkavik?) and did not budge (remember Star Wars?). I truly think Star Wars was brilliant for its time (don't like it now...), for it was known by our top scientists that it would never work, but the Soviet political machine was scared out of its wits. Reagan brought America out of the conventional parity with the Soviets, brought the first major arms reductions, and formed a very personal relationship with Gorbachev. I could never imagine the Peanut Farmer doing that. That is what I mean by a progressive. And please, lets save the "Clinton cleaned up the mess" for another day and another thread....I could go on forever!

"Both parties are equally guilty of smearing and running negative campaigns (Willie Horton?)"

Of course I agree that both parties are guilty, but Willie Horton was a very relevant case in its time. It was intended to display Dukakis as a lightweight in the crime enforcement department (it was true...). The NAACP thing I thought was horrendous. To try to label Bush somehow responsible for the hideous and bigotry-motivated death of the black man in Texas was, to me, bigotry in itself. I watched the 2000 campaign very, very closely, and came to the conclusion that I am in the right party for more ethical campaigns. Sure, there was the RATS ad, but that was childsplay in comparison.

"I'm against affirmative action."

Hey, we finally agree on something!

"But it totally blows to make 20K a year, and bring home 8K (based on about 30%). "

Actually, if one earns 20K a year, the tax bracket is only 15%, which is really low. Remember that the larger portion of the tax burden is upon the lower income groups, and while I agree there is a need for a progressive system, I think the wealthy ought not to be the sole income source for the nation (at least in Revenue Taxation). Plus, I think it has been proven that lower taxes do great things for an economy, which subsequently does great things for the working man. This is the whole supply side thing, which is again, a whole other post.

I am not going to convince you to change parties, and I am not totally loyal myself. But it is refreshing to see you supporting McCain over Mr. Populist (remember, he is a homegrown boy for me...). In honesty, however, I still preferred W. And I clarify, there are many democrats out there I find myself agreeing with on many issues...I just really can't understand liberals.

Good debate anyhow.

~Chris

 

[SunTzu]

About the interracial adoption.
I don't have a problem with it, its just that a white couple doesn't want a black baby.
A white mother and white father would like to have a white baby to make it more their baby.
Just like a black couple would rather have a black baby instead of a white baby.
Nothing racist about it.
Now-a-days i believe there's just as much black racism than white racism. Black racism being blacks being racists towards whites.
Blacks need to get over the **** that happened to their ancestors over 100 years ago..