Why Democrats (Liberals) Piss Me Off

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LSDSeeker, Jun 23, 2005.

  1. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    LSD

    You sound like you are trying to find excuses with which to evade an explanation of your views, if you have any confidence in your argument why is it you seem so reluctant to express it?

    However if you really did find my post ‘rude’ then I can only feel sympathy for you since you must be such a delicate flower that life in the real world must be nearly intolerable.

    And as to only replying to post if everyone is politely to you or shows you what you deem to be genuine interest, you just come across as some kind of spoilt and snooty prima donna.

    **

    As to me supporting laws forbidding incitement to racial violence I’m unsure what your point is because I’m still in the dark as to your argument against them. I am in support of them with reservations, I think that they are unfortunately necessary but only if they are not used to stifle debate. It is a sorry fact that some people try to incite hatred to gain power one method is to attack a smaller groups, race, religion or beliefs. This is seldom about debate and is in fact it is more often than not about the suppression of debate.

    For example the McCarthy witch-hunts were not about opening debate over the merits or otherwise of communism and the Ku Klux Klan were not into discussing the merits of racial diversity or tolerance.

    As to the law you mentioned I’m against it since it seems unnecessary as much of it is covered by existing laws. It is meant to extend the existing blasphemy law to cover other religions , many of us think that the blasphemy law is a relic of another time and should be scrapped anyway. But even with the current blasphemy laws in place this is a country where ‘Jerry Spinger the Opera’ can be shown on TV.

    **

    The funny thing is that the only one who seems unwilling to debate their views about race publicly is you! And I must not be the only one wondering why?

    You say that the ‘left’ denies racial differences but I replied that I understand that there are differences but think they are of little relevance. I don’t understand what you mean by ‘racial differences’ because you continue to be unwilling to present your viewpoint.

    **

    "I did not find in your responses the level of impartiality that I would expect of a "super moderator."

    My dear LSD I will try to explain since you seem rather politically naive that in politics it is often a good thing to be wary of those that claim to be fair and balanced. There have been those that have come here claiming to be politically independent and impartial but have been nothing of the sort and thankfully most people see through such bullshit. I’m open about being a leftie and I have my own opinions that I will express that are based on left wing views, therefore people know where I’m coming from I think that better than someone pretending they are impartial. .
    **
     
  2. LSDSeeker

    LSDSeeker Member

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    Balbus,

    I don't think you understood my post. I am interested in debating just about any topic in these forums, but I am not interested in debating you. From what I gather you are not mature enough for a debate.

    I am at a loss as to why someone who demonstrates minimum literacy would refer to others' posts as "ignorant," particularly when he claims he even lacks clarification on a specific issue. My first impression was that you were not a native Briton because of your writing.

    And yes, a "super moderator" should have a certain amount of impartiality. This is not the same as saying that everyone is objective, but I have noticed that those with more intelligence tend to be more objective in life.

    Again, I am not interested in debating you, since I don't find you to be objective enough nor stimulating enough as a potential debater.

    Sincerely,

    LSD
     
  3. Sera Michele

    Sera Michele Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,579
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think this thread could have been titled "why politicians piss me off" because your descriptions sound like democrats and republicans just the same...

    And some of it was just silly...I have never met a democrat or liberal that denies race exists. And as far as thinking the gov't should take care of people....I don't think any of our 2 parties really have anything like that in mind (regardless what rhetoric either side spouts), although the left I believe has the right idea that our gov't should at least make sure it's citizens aren't starving and has the health care they need - the basics...if a gov't isn't there for the people of it's country then who is it here for?
     
  4. Mui

    Mui Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,059
    Likes Received:
    4
    republican bashing -- it makes sense... i can see why people do such things... but that doesnt mean democrats do not deserve to be bashed as well... its a good idea to shit on the whole system, IMO.
    Most democrats arent really liberal, most of them are more moderate/conservative if anything... especially when you look at democrats as far who is in senate... NONE of them are really liberal. The left vs right scale is flawed, there is more than just "liberal" vs "conservative" and no not all liberals are stupid, and no not all conservatives are... in fact a lot of the extreme liberals and extreme "conservatives" have a lot in common as far as beliefs go... its just how they interpret/misinterpret things... Democrats arent liberal... they are just like the republicans... in fact neither of them are conservative either... they're just both Evil, because they are the ones who control the US government, which is obviously evil.

    Im never voting for the 2 major parties ever again, hope that others will follow along.

    anyone who supports the 2 party police state supports american genocide and therefore DESERVES to be bashed constantly, and all rude and negative actions directed towards those is much deserved
     
  5. LSDSeeker

    LSDSeeker Member

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the evidence:

    http://www.vdare.com/francis/pbs.htm

    It's pretty common in academia to deny the existence of race. That was just one issue against the left in my initial post. Come to think about it, the clustering of various issues under one thread was perfectly legitimate, unlike what the "super moderator" has stated (from what I could read of his incoherent writing), because my criticism was largely directed at "liberals" as a whole from a personal viewpoint. Those who felt the post was too broad could have either ignored it or focused on whatever issue they were interested in.

    Think about it. In libraries and bookstores it is common to see books published attacking or critiquing a certain political group. These books will thus cover many issues. Generally, you want to stick to one or two issues in a post, but there is no reason why, in an internet political forum, there can't be room for attacking a group as a whole, and the main (or more ridiculous) beliefs of such a group.

    I looked at some previous threads the "super moderator" was involved in and I saw that there have been previous complaints against him for making long-winded posts. I will have to agree.
     
  6. .......anthropologists won't deny the existence of race, unless they are really screwed up........
     
  7. LickHERish

    LickHERish Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,009
    Likes Received:
    2
    Nice source for your views there LSD, nothing more credible for proving a "scientific" (let alone political) assertion such as your racial distinction beliefs like a white supremacist organisation. :rolleyes:



    http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106

    Makes one wonder why you take issue with fellow bigots in the Christian Coalition of the Neocon Brotherhood of Ideological Zombies. You have far more in common with them than you appear willing to admit to yourself.

    Oh my our nation is being polluted by mongrel races! Shall we fire up the ovens now or perhaps wait until the Grand Dragon arrives with the bedsheets?
     
  8. LSDSeeker

    LSDSeeker Member

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! [​IMG]

    I expected some knee-jerk reactions, but I must admit this is a bit fun. Yes, I did cite Sam Francis, but only to show that there is in fact a debate going on in scientific circles on whether race is a valid biological concept. So, you assume, because I link to Sam Francis, that I am ideologically aligned with him?

    I don't know about you, or many of Mr. Francis's detractors, but I have read probably 75 of his essays so I know a little about the guy. I have about as much in common with Mr. Francis as with any random person in society. In fact, if it were up to Mr. Francis, I'd be in jail for my use and promotion of drugs for recreational purposes.

    I have a lot in common with neoconservatives and the Christian Right because I link to Sam Francis? Because I posted a link to show a female member something?

    I assure you that my intention is not to promote a Holocaust by criticizing liberals. [​IMG]

    I think you need to take some LSD.
     
  9. listen to screw

    listen to screw Member

    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol nice
     
  10. LickHERish

    LickHERish Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,009
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ill pass on the LSD thanks.

    As for your notion about race distinctions. I suggest if you wish bolster an argument on a scientific basis, you link to articles from less ideologically charged sites. Perhaps something along the lines of peer reviewed scientific journals would lend your argument greater credence.
     
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    It would seems LSD is having a tantrum (oh bless) he is stamping his foot and saying huffily that he will not play with me. Which he seems to believe, rather amusingly, to be a sign of maturity.
    Well that is his privilege.

    But it doesn’t hid the fact that he still isn’t telling us what he means by ‘racial differences’

    **

    Yes he has given us a link but as he makes clear this is not to explain what he means by ‘racial differences’ but to back up his claim that ‘the left’ deny that there is such a thing as ‘racial differences’.

    So let us take a closer look at the link.

    It seems to be mainly based on the article -


    Race is a Myth?
    The left distorts science for political purposes. by Michael Rienzi (by the way Michael Rienzi, is a pseudonym)


    So I had a look at that

    Mr Rienzi’s argument seems to be that the small amount of difference between humans is very important he even says -

    It is also worth considering that a butterfly and the caterpillar from which it developed are 100 percent genetically identical! The genes do not change; the enormous differences between caterpillar and butterfly result from the activation of different genes at different times. This should give some pause to those who think a 0.1 percent difference in tens of thousands of human genes "makes no difference."

    this is mean to back up just how important the difference is, although I am at a loss to know why this should "give pause" the comparison is completely mad.

    He later goes on to explain that although racial differences are important it first has to be remembered that -

    "no scientists talk about "pure" races. What does racial "purity" mean, anyway? It is true that certain populations are more genetically differentiated and distinct than are other more hybridized groups."

    So although we are ‘different’ none of us it seems is pure which makes you wonder why the small amount of difference is so important?

    He tries to explain –

    The English, for example, are a predominantly Nordic population made up of Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Normans/Vikings, Romans, and possibly early Mediterraneans. Many European groups are similarly composed of multiple related strains; if having an ancestry of different but relatively similar European groups makes someone a "mongrel," then indeed we are all mongrels.

    (Well that reads a lot like my post earlier in this thread)

    But then he qualifies things

    "But this does not invalidate in any way the concept of race, or the fact that the various "mongrel" populations are still genetically and phenotypically distinct from each other and thus are separate races."


    Why? He tries to explain -
    The "we are all mongrels" arguments fails in two ways. First, the various stocks that have gone into producing many of today's ethnic groups were relatively similar to each other, so it stretches the definition of the word to call them "mongrels." How different were the Anglo-Saxons from the Celts? Likewise, would a person of mixed English and German ancestry be considered a "mongrel?" French-Italian?

    This is bollocks

    Think about it a while

    Why are people in the European region mainly made up of a mixture of Europeans and people in the Asian region mainly made up of a mixture of Asian people and where the two regions meet up they are a mixture of both. The thing is what Mr Rienzi is only highlighting is that when humans come together they have a habit of breeding with each other. Travel was not so easy right up to the 19th century, so Europeans mainly bread with other Europeans (even if they sometimes travelling from Norway to Sicily to do so). The thing is that when humans get the chance they breed with all the other people they meet up with as did the Romans, Vikings, Hun, Mongols and Zulus. The Roman soldiers on the frontiers took ‘native’ wives, Scandinavians (remember the Normans in France) conquered and took native wives (or raped the local women) etc etc.

    From Europe later Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French and British adventures and colonists took native wives (or raped the local women) in places further afield as their empires grew.

    He asks "Do we call the millions of white Americans of mixed European stock "mongrels?"

    Well I would ask why not, I’m a European and I’m happy with my Celt, Norman, Nordic ancestry and if I happened to have any Zulu or Mongol blood in me I’d be proud of that too.

    "Second, mixtures of related stocks can stabilize over time, and form a new, unique, and separate ethnic group, race, or breed. Such is the case with the various European ethnic groups, formed by mixtures of related ethnic strains. Europeans could be bred for hundreds–perhaps thousands–of generations without producing offspring that look like Africans or Asians. The reverse is also true. Even if today's races are the result of ancient mixtures the mixtures are distinct and extremely stable."


    Again bollocks, that’s like saying if the Celts hadn’t breed with the Scandinavians, then the Celts wouldn’t have so many cases of blond hair or blue eyes, it is true but was it a disaster that they did interbreed? People from Europe, Africa and Asia have been interbreeding for centuries along the periphery. The thing is that when groups from differing racial groups are put together there will be a certain amount of inbreeding even if there is an artificial taboo in place it may be smaller but it will still take place.

    If people of European descent can be convinced that race does not exist, in particular that their race does not really exist, there will be no resistance to the displacement of whites by the forces currently at work in America, Europe, and elsewhere.

    What ‘forces’? I can only think he means the urge to breed?

    People will not defend something they have been convinced is not real.


    Defend what?

    If–against their own instincts and the clear evidence of their senses–whites can be made to think race is an illusion they can have no reason to oppose across-the-board integration, miscegenation, and massive non-white immigration.

    If whites are mixing with and being displaced by people who are really no different from themselves nothing is being lost.

    What is being ‘lost’? What are these "instincts" and "clear evidence"?

    Nor in the vast majority of cases is there the slightest disagreement about who belongs in which race.

    But we are all humans, yes? We are slightly different but if Mr Rienzi doesn’t see much wrong with a Scandinavian breeding with a Celt, and agrees that this kind of racial mixing is the norm. What is his problem?

    **

    This last bit I think is just bizarre

    Children can distinguish race unerringly by the age of two or three. Nature is parsimonious and does not often endow its creatures with senses to distinguish things that do not matter.An inborn ability, acquired at a very early age, of who are "our people" and who are not is essential to group survival.

    Any attempt to override or downplay that ability is a direct attack on the group itself.

    It seems to be saying that children should be taught to see other children that are different in looks or skin colour from their own as a threat and that parents that don’t teach their children this are a threat to the ‘group’.



    **
     
  12. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    **

    So the things LSD wants us to look at are basically racist gibberish that doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

    The question that then comes to mind is if LSD’s arguments are equally weak and it is for that reason that he is so unwilling to debate not the many excuse he has put forward?

    **
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    What we seem to have is a disagreement over the importance and relevance of race and the interbreeding of differing racial and ethnic threads of the human race.

    **

    Some people like Mr Rienzi seem to feel that interbreeding is wrong but for what reasons he seem confused and irrational.

    He agree that interbreeding has been going on for thousands, tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands years.

    So people who think like him must also agree that there isn’t a ‘pure’ breed of human and so the idea of trying to preserve racial purity is silly.

    Yet that is in essence what he and they seem to be advocating.

    Rienzi seems to be saying that ‘white Europeans’ should preserve their ‘race’ by not breeding with other ‘races’.

    But who are the ‘white Europeans’ and what is this ‘purity’ meant to preserve?
     
  14. LSDSeeker

    LSDSeeker Member

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    You should take some before posting. It seems like you are locked in very dogmatic views. ;)

    I was not trying to "bolster an argument on a scientific basis." Unlike you, I know a little about Mr. Francis, and one thing he is not is a scientist. Nor is he a neoconservative, although he may have some sympathies with the Christian Right. I linked to him to show a member of this Web site that there is in fact a debate going on about whether race is a valid biological concept. While I do not agree with much of what Mr. Francis wrote, I found the article for the most part agreeable.

    There was nothing "scientific" about Mr. Francis's article.
     
  15. LSDSeeker

    LSDSeeker Member

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know how the hell you ever became a "super moderator." As if your writing weren't bad enough (geez!), you have a really bad attitude to boot.
     
  16. LSDSeeker

    LSDSeeker Member

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess I like to play devil's advocate on occasion. I just can't stand conformity and people who behave in stereotypical ways. I see that all too often in this forum. I don't care what some hippy says about the corporate world and whatnot, but if the hippy looks and behaves like other hippies there is, in my view, a problem. The same goes for leftists, conservatives, neo-Nazis, etc.

    By the way, I did not appreciate how this thread deteriorated from a critique of liberalism to insinuations that I was a neo-Nazi, or had Nazi sympathies. On to the topic of Nazis, my first impression when I saw the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) cited was "oh, gosh, not those fanatics!" But I am starting to believe that groups like the SPLC and the ADL, among other so-called leftist watchdog groups, serve a positive social function, even if it is not so obvious.

    The truth is, during the 20th century there were all kinds of atrocities committed against people over stupid things like their ethnicity or nationality. Even today, it's frightening to see what is written by certain neo-Nazis, who clearly are driven by an irrational hatred of other races and like many of the leftists they criticize prefer to avoid open debate. There is a reason why the vast majority of intellectuals are opposed to and even ridicule the neo-Nazis. There just aren't many intelligent neo-Nazis, and of those who are, they tend to be somewhat balmy.

    So, overall, my view of human nature remains somewhat positive, or at least less cynical than it used to be. Still, my conscience forces me to question the more absurd beliefs of some liberals, especially when it comes to race.
     
  17. FNA

    FNA Member

    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    2
    Very true, except this:

    That sounds more like, ummmm, every campaign I've ever seen. I think the democrats are a little better at avoiding the low blows though. But, hey, they are all the same. It really wouldn't make much of a difference if the democrats controlled. They would just do things a little differently. The reason people pick on The Bush Admin. so muchis because they are so blatantly decietful. People call it fashionable. But the Admin. makes it so easy to pick up on, it's really just people being pissed off for the insult on their intelligence. That's what happens whenever Bush or Rumsfeld talks publicly. They are insulted everyone's intelligence, and also saying "This is what I say, and if you don't like it, what are you going to do about it?" So, what are you going to do about it. If you think the democrats will save you, think again. They have their agendas too, and they can be just as underhanded.

    Really, until there are more than two parties for you to vote for, political parties will just be a big joke. It's symbolic of a time when there actually was representation of the people.
     
  18. LSDSeeker

    LSDSeeker Member

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    The left seems much more open-minded than the right to me. I can voice my views and for the most part the counterculture types, who are overwhelmingly of a leftist persuasion, are civil and level-headed (there are exceptions, of course). On the other hand, in right-wing forums I find people to be more judgmental (or openly so).

    The right has too many hang-ups about sex, drugs, and how a person should live life. Leftists support more individuality in their own ways. If you do not conform to middle class, stereotypical ways, the right is more likely to brand you as pathological in some way. I can just imagine some conservatives going to some hippy festivals and decrying the "degeneracy" and "freaks," when the truth is that hippies have a lot in common with the way Jesus lived, and many of them are very pleasant to be around and talk with. On the other hand, many conservatives are materialistic and neurotic.

    My gripe against liberals mostly revolves around what people refer to as "political correctness." It has been argued that it serves a social function by bringing about more peace between groups and in particular protecting minorities, but there are cases when it just goes over the line, in my view.
     
  19. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    **



    I remember someone who came to the forum who would argue that the poor and minorities should stop complain about their problems and do some hard work. In his viewpoint it was laziness that was their main problem and if they studied hard or worked hard they would succeed.

    The thing was that the more the person posted the more it became clear that they were the lazy one. They would cut and paste or link to articles that they said backed up their claims but it became clear quickly they had not read them and had little knowledge of the content (some amusingly even contradicted their position). They were very strong on assertion but the statements were only based on prejudice and ignorance, which could be easily refuted and even they would have found false if they had bothered to do a little work.

    When eventually confronted by his laziness he ended up agreeing that he was lazy, yes he believed others should work hard but that didn’t mean he had to do any.

    He wasn’t the only one but he was the most candid usually such people make excuses about why they cannot explain their views, I swear one day one of these lazy bugger’s going to say that they would reply but their dog eat their homework.

    **

    LSD was asked to explain what he meant by ‘racial differences’ and what the left denied about it way back at the beginning of the thread.

    His reply only reiterated the same claims without any explanation.

    He then went on to say that his reason for holding back was that he wanted to spare the feelings of some unspecified people.

    Still later he claimed that he would give an explanation but only if people asked him politely

    Then the reason for making no comment had something to do with the maturity of those asking.

    He then without having given any reason or explanation claimed again that the left denied the existence of race. The same unsubstantiated claim being expressed all over again.

    In fact the only thing that gives any indication of LSD’s views is a link to some racist gibberish.

    He then says that his “conscience forces me to question the more absurd beliefs of some liberals, especially when it comes to race.” It is a pity his conscience isn’t strong enough to do the job of telling us what these ‘absurd beliefs’ are and what actually makes them absurd.

    He tells us his “gripe against liberals mostly revolves around what people refer to as "political correctness." It has been argued that it serves a social function by bringing about more peace between groups and in particular protecting minorities, but there are cases when it just goes over the line, in my view.

    In his view? What view? I mean if you actually look at what he’s actually said about race he doesn’t have a view or not one he is willing to express in public.

    I’m beginning to think that the reality is he doesn’t have a viewpoint, I mean that would take some effort on his part a bit of study and thought, and he might not be up to that.

    **


    So since Mr LSD is too lazy to explain his views we will have to look at this issue in more general terms. Not of the person that brought the issue up but the ideas that person seems to be passing on from elsewhere since all the things hinted at by LSD are common slurs or slogans amongst some political groups.

    The thing is that so often a genuine concern about oppression or discrimination and a desire to combat it is classified as ‘political correctness’ by those that don’t care about the oppression or discrimination or even support it.

    And that can be the problem some that use it are attacking only some of the methods to bring about more racial tolerance others can actually be racists.

    However people with a rational viewpoint usually are happy to express it while the racist who is hiding behind the ‘political correctness’ slur might be more circumspect and so it may be possible to distinguish between them this way.

    I will post more later as I have to go now, baby calls.

    **
     
  20. LSDSeeker

    LSDSeeker Member

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    0
    I seriously doubt anyone is reading every single word you write, because your posts are too long and with little substance. It is well established netiquette to keep your posts concise so as to not clog threads or bore readers. As if that were not enough, you are barely even literate, which should embarrass the other Britons who post here.

    There have been complaints against you in the past, and you have not learned or modified your behavior since then.

    Why are you even a moderator? A moderator is supposed to be gentlemanly and more objective than most participants.

    Your post, again, was full of nonsense. You claim that there is no debate about whether race is a valid biological concept, with the left largely taking the position in academia that race does not exist (at least among humans).

    Racial differences are shown in many ways: body dimensions, susceptibility to diseases, to some degree in different talents (for example, most top sprinters are of West African descent). Those who argue that race does not exist point out that there is overlap, largely due to racial admixture over the course of history. There is controversy over whether the races differ psychologically, which is not something I am particularly concerned with, since there is plenty of overlap anyway among the races and since environment is a strong shaper of psychology.

    But as I said before, you really are not qualified for a serious discussion on these and other issues, and you ought to be replaced as "super moderator" by someone who can write in standard English, for the sake of the forum.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice