NationStates Jolt Archive

Every now and then, you'll hear the word "liberal" replaced with the more politically correct "progressive." I am challenging this. I want to know what is so progressive about liberalism. From my assessment, their movements are more regressive.

I mean, when you look at it, a good chunk of liberal views are based on naturalism... living life according to your natural impulses and not surpressing primitive instincts. And not to generalize by any means, but many advocate the use of drugs.

Contrary to this, yet still in support of my thesis, many of them want to redefine what is considered natural, by undeniably trying to devalue or disestablish basic social concepts, such as husband and wife, roles of motherhood, family values, raising of children, and even newer concepts like racial equality, security, and charity.

Now, don't get ne wrong, a lot of them have good intentions, and some I could actually call progressive, but most of liberalism just seems more regressive than progressive.

Now, while I believe in seperation of church and state as described in the constitution, I do not believe in total secularism. Many of these people seek to remove any sign or reference of religion from the government and any other public place. Many of them strive to see, and have succeeded in enforcing, what has happened in secular france, where citizens are forbidden by law from wearing or saying anything promoting religion in any public or government establisment.

Liberals used to be on the side of racial equality, siding with civil rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr, while typical conservatives of that era were against it. Today, it seems that these roles have switched. Conservatives today have come to realize and openly accept the concepts of removing/surpressing prejudices against people of different nationality or skin color, and choose to judge people based on character and fruits of labor. While conversely, the liberals of today seek to enforce and/or strengthen the racial boundaries their fathers faught to tear down, by abusing the civil rights laws they established. For greed of power and money, many abuse the civil rights laws such as affirmative action and discrimination policies, saying that they have the right to do something because their grandparents were oppressed, or saying that they deserve free stuff because they were born into a minority skin color, or get off scott free from criminal charges because they can claim their race gets arrested too much. And in the same light, even white people can get off easy simply because they're white.

This just does not seem right.

I challenge you liberals... or... "progressivists" or whatever, to give me 5 reasons I should call you progressive, rather than regressive. It doesn't have to be paragraphs, I just want you to convince me that you really are trying to progress our society to something better or higher, instead of trying to tear it down or revert to primitive nature.

I think a five point answer does disservice to this rather expansive topic.

Basically American Liberalism since the sixties has moved away from classical liberalism, like Locke, towards a variety of different 'flavours'.

Personally, I think the work of John Rawls, a preeminent 20th century philosopher deals with many of the issues you've identified. If you have the time and patience, I strongly suggest you either read his work or at least read ABOUT his work.

Relaxation of drug laws makes sense in most sense. Marijuana is an excellent example; the cost of supressing the use of marijuna is drastically outweighed by the costs, both social and financial, of the use of the rather harmless drug itself. I don't think there's much to be gained by continuing to suppress it. However on the whole I think this a rather tangetial issue.

Affirmative action is somewhat different issues, and it's actually very contentious among liberals as well. What AA is trying to do is make society more fair. As it stands, equal rights are not consistent with a fair society- on the aggregate, white people have benefitted considerably, and black people have been badly damaged, by oppressive laws. While I'm not sure AA is actually the right answer, flat out equal rights does nothing to remedy this endemic problem.

The Secularization of government is even more important, I think. Neither myself nor Rawls would advocate secularization of society (in fact quite the opposite; religion and other philosophies are imporatnat and integral parts of a reasoable plurality government). However, what we sholud do is avoid direct government institutionalization and legitimization of one comprehensive moral doctrine over another. It's unfair to people like me and other non-christians to create a society where we cannot interact with government in a fair and equal enviroment; it is not appropriate for religion to enter into government. Period.

I feel that progressive is a more or less accurate term because I believe that liberals in general are working towards a more fair, egalitarian and meritocratic society, with of course some unfortunate exceptions.

What I would deem regressive is when various people and organizations try and push their (arbitrary) comprehensive moral doctrines on each other. For example, I think it is unreasonable to include biblical elements into law. As an atheist, I cannot reasonably be expected to see those laws as legitimate. So laws should be created with a concept of reasonable pluralism- mostly we can agree on the matter of justice (you might use the bible, and I might use John Rawls, but generally we're going to agree). Because your notion of the family is part of a comprehensive moral doctrine which I cannot reasonably accept, I do think it is unfair to make laws about it. That being said, I don't think sex/marriage should have any place in law whatsoever, and I think that's probably the most reasonable position.

Thank you for clearing that up for me, Mallberta. No, you didn't convince me that you are progressive, but you have shown me why you think you are progressive by your standards.

Anyone else?

(I'll breakdown mallberta's post in a moment ;) )

I really don't see the switch, I have yet to see a liberalist government that endorses segregating races. Liberalists don't redefine natural laws because that would forsake the meaning of "natural". Natural laws etc... cannot be tampered with, no matter the ideology. By the way, real liberalists do not believe in fully secular society, because this would impinge on the rights of freedom of religion. France is really just an extreme situation, most liberalist countries the viewpoint on religion is laissez-faire. Now, I'm not a hardcore liberal, I'm just playing devil's advocate... I also want to point out that conservatives are as bigoted as they ever were, look at the anti-gay marriage stuff in the U.S. I personally don't care either way, but that's not affording anyone any more freedoms. Secondly, what did you mean by basic social concepts? Husband and wife? Motherhood? Family? Let me take a guess this has something to do with homosexuals, Liberalists, being liberal, want to afford everyone equal treatment, this means that they believe it can be father-father or mother-mother, as well as the norm. I'm sure a true liberal would define family as two guardians and one or more children... As far as motherhood goes I have no clue about what you are implying.
Racial equality... um care to give me an example of a liberalist doctrine belittling racial equity? I don't know what you mean by security either maybe national? If so, liberalists were never overly concerned with such things as military, so it is not surprising. Charity is something Liberals are very much for, so I do not understand why you would say is redefining charity.... You really need to provide examples and proof to back up your argument or it is difficult to understand. I'm not a liberal so I won't give you five reasons or whatever, because I don't care about whether or not they call themselves progressivists. Furthermore, I certainly hope you are not trying to construe conservatism as progressive, as one major component of conservatist ideology is tradition, the only progress conservatives want is in finance and military. Before you right such a biased opion down you may want to consider what it is that makes you say these things and INCLUDE IT. You need to calm down a bit on the nationalism there, assuming you are American, what many people, (worldwide) do not understand is that your country's way of doing things is not always the best, and therefore you should not bash other government structures because of some b/s propaganda your government feeds you about why "they" are bad. And yes, the U.S. is conservatist even when the democratic party is in office, this is depicted in the lack of public services (ex: Healthcare), and the focus on military. Sorry for getting off topic there, i just didn't want to read "well my country does this way and that's why liberalism is wrong". Anyways, think about it, do some research and get a response up here.

maybe it would be helpful if you'd explain clearly what you mean by progressive.

Thank you for clearing that up for me, Mallberta. No, you didn't convince me that you are progressive, but you have shown me why you think you are progressive by your standards.

Anyone else?

(I'll breakdown mallberta's post in a moment ;) )


So what is your definition? Otherwise Liberals will have to argue for an invisible definition.

I think a five point answer does disservice to this rather expansive topic. That's fine. I was just setting a minimum.

Basically American Liberalism since the sixties has moved away from classical liberalism, like Locke, towards a variety of different 'flavours'.Most certainly.

Personally, I think the work of John Rawls, a preeminent 20th century philosopher deals with many of the issues you've identified. If you have the time and patience, I strongly suggest you either read his work or at least read ABOUT his work.I'll look into it. (probably not, but I'm not going to just turn it down :P) If I do wind up reading summaries, I'll make sure they're spun in his favor :P

Relaxation of drug laws makes sense in most sense. Marijuana is an excellent example; the cost of supressing the use of marijuna is drastically outweighed by the costs, both social and financial, of the use of the rather harmless drug itself. I don't think there's much to be gained by continuing to suppress it. However on the whole I think this a rather tangetial issue. My view on drugs is simple. We pay thousands of dollars per child to send them to tax-paid schools, and then we're going to allow them to kick their well-earned and well-paid-for futures to the curb just for a quick high? Come on, we have to take some responsibilities for our incestments. Of course, that is only one aspect of my view on drugs.

Affirmative action is somewhat different issues, and it's actually very contentious among liberals as well. What AA is trying to do is make society more fair. As it stands, equal rights are not consistent with a fair society- on the aggregate, white people have benefitted considerably, and black people have been badly damaged, by oppressive laws. While I'm not sure AA is actually the right answer, flat out equal rights does nothing to remedy this endemic problem.Good point. mostly agreeable.

The Secularization of government is even more important, I think. Neither myself nor Rawls would advocate secularization of society (in fact quite the opposite; religion and other philosophies are imporatnat and integral parts of a reasoable plurality government). However, what we sholud do is avoid direct government institutionalization and legitimization of one comprehensive moral doctrine over another. It's unfair to people like me and other non-christians to create a society where we cannot interact with government in a fair and equal enviroment; it is not appropriate for religion to enter into government. Period. Again, mostly agreed. But it is very much possible to have a moralistic society based on typical religious views and common public moral standards and values, without being completely atheist and amoral.

I feel that progressive is a more or less accurate term because I believe that liberals in general are working towards a more fair, egalitarian and meritocratic society, with of course some unfortunate exceptions. *nods*

What I would deem regressive is when various people and organizations try and push their (arbitrary) comprehensive moral doctrines on each other. For example, I think it is unreasonable to include biblical elements into law. As an atheist, I cannot reasonably be expected to see those laws as legitimate. So laws should be created with a concept of reasonable pluralism- mostly we can agree on the matter of justice (you might use the bible, and I might use John Rawls, but generally we're going to agree). Because your notion of the family is part of a comprehensive moral doctrine which I cannot reasonably accept, I do think it is unfair to make laws about it. That being said, I don't think sex/marriage should have any place in law whatsoever, and I think that's probably the most reasonable position.I agree with you about marriage... I wish it were possible to segregate that a little more from the state... it's a touchy subject. But as for moral values and biblical perspectives becoming law, I don't think that has happened. The laws we have to day are, for the most part, based on what the majority of people believe to be right. Sure, the majority happen to be Christian, but the government does not endorse christianity specifically in any way shape or form. If you're talking about the Ten Commandments, again, that was a movement by the people. I don't think the 10 commandments should be posted on the wall of every courtroom... but I don't think it should be torn down if a judge wishes to use it as decoration or as a symbol that he fights for what he and most americans believe in.

Good points man... but I do not believe I stand corrected.

maybe it would be helpful if you'd explain clearly what you mean by progressive.Advancing society. Making the world safer. Raising better people. Encouraging people to be nice to each other, instead of encouraging them to be careful of each other.

In basic... Progressive=Advancement, Regressive=Reversion.

And Chrestus, Thank you too for your comments. I would break them down, but I gotta go ^_^

Liberals used to be on the side of racial equality, siding with civil rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr, while typical conservatives of that era were against it. Today, it seems that these roles have switched. Conservatives today have come to realize and openly accept the concepts of removing/surpressing prejudices against people of different nationality or skin color, and choose to judge people based on character and fruits of labor. While conversely, the liberals of today seek to enforce and/or strengthen the racial boundaries their fathers faught to tear down, by abusing the civil rights laws they established. For greed of power and money, many abuse the civil rights laws such as affirmative action and discrimination policies, saying that they have the right to do something because their grandparents were oppressed, or saying that they deserve free stuff because they were born into a minority skin color, or get off scott free from criminal charges because they can claim their race gets arrested too much. And in the same light, even white people can get off easy simply because they're white.

of course, mlk jr was one of the main forces pushing for what became known as affirmative action. in other words, bullshit.

of course, mlk jr was one of the main forces pushing for what became known as affirmative action. in other words, bullshit.You didn't understand a word I said, did you.

Martin Luther King Jr. NEVER advocated special treatment of racial minorities, positive or negative. That was what he was against! He wanted EQUAL treatment of ALL people. His dream was to see people judged by their works deeds and content of character and NOT by skin color or heritage.

Do you even know who MLK Jr. Was? Have you ever heard the "I have a dream" speech? Or do you only know what modern-day 'civil rights' groups spin?

All Polictial Parties are truley into progress. Except for the conservatives, but even then they're just trying to reach the 'golden age' that they want to return to.

Martin Luther King Jr had a dream, and unfortunatly died for it.

Martin Luther King eventually did come to advocate affirmative action. After his I have a dream speech, he did become something of a black power advocate. There is no evidence, however, that he supported any form of affirmative action for the vast majority of his life.

That said, affirmative action is unjust. It punishes you today for what other people of your same race did two centuries ago (or, in the case of Asians, what other people of a different race did two centuries ago).

http://www.fair.org/extra/9505/king-affirmative-action.html
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/mlk3.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

mlk jr consistently argued that to achieve integration would require a massive postive program enforcing it in all spheres of life. (a synonym for "positive program" would be "affirmative action")

i'm afraid you've been taken in by the right's "wedontwanttolooklikeklanmembersanymore" spin.

How can you say that "equal rights are not consistent with a fair society?" Then what IS consistent with a fair society? By definition, "fair" means not showing favor to any one group over another.

But seriously, if you want to improve socio-economic situations, then why are you looking at race? If I want to build bicep muscle, do I do a stair-stepper routine? Claiming that all minorities are poor and that there are no poor whites is a blatant lie. If you want to improve the plight of socio-economic groups, look at ratios of income versus cost of living. That'll tell you infinitely more than race divisions.

As for the drug thing... I've heard the idea before that in order to break the drug market, we need to legalize drugs so it's no longer profitable to deal. However, my main problem with that theory is that we'd have to relent on the drug ban, telling society that "it's okay to use drugs." That too would be a lie, as even marijuana is at least as harmful as cigarettes, if not more so - especially nowadays, when they put a bunch of additives into it to make it more addictive. By the way, I think cigarettes should be banned too since they are detrimental to your health and obnoxious when smoked in public. And, unlike with alcohol, it is extremely difficult to use them and not get addicted. Granted, that's not to say there's no alcoholics in the world, but an occasional drink with dinner isn't going to do much to get you hooked.

As for society in general - I just don't like American society. Too politically correct, too much of the selfish "me, me, me" syndrome, and too much blaming everyone else for your problems instead of doing something about them. But society can't be legislated, it just happens.

If you couldn't already tell, I'm not a "liberal," but do consider myself "progressive."

maybe it would be helpful if you'd explain clearly what you mean by progressive.Advancing society. Making the world safer. Raising better people. Encouraging people to be nice to each other, instead of encouraging them to be careful of each other.

In basic... Progressive=Advancement, Regressive=Reversion.



that's still not very specific...i mean, what do you consider advancement? some people would say that expanding a nation (conquering new territory, bringing one's culture to other nations, etc) would be advancement, while others don't think any of that is a necessary part of advancing society. some people see expanding gay rights as advancement of society, while others see it as degradation of society.

based on the values that you personally have put forth on these forums, i don't think liberals fit your profile of advancing society at all, and i don't think you ever seriously entertained the idea that they might. however, by other people's standards liberals are much more progressive than conservatives. still other people (myself included) don't see any particular advantage of liberal or conservative thought, since both are thought to have drawbacks that are unacceptable.

so you have to say specifically what you mean by advancement, otherwise there's not much way to argue the topic.

Well it seems we generally agree, I'm just going to add a few coments.


I'll look into it. (probably not, but I'm not going to just turn it down :P) If I do wind up reading summaries, I'll make sure they're spun in his favor :P
This may be helpful as a very brief introduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#Criticism_of_A_Theory_of_Justice)

Because Rawls is a philosopher in the most rigorous sense, similar to Kant and Mills, it's not something that gets 'spun' per se as much as criticized.
My view on drugs is simple. We pay thousands of dollars per child to send them to tax-paid schools, and then we're going to allow them to kick their well-earned and well-paid-for futures to the curb just for a quick high?

This argument would be more effective in an ideal world. The fact of the matter is that most, not all, but a significant majority, of addicted, abusive drug users have clear medical conditions, schizophrenia being the most common, or very troubled childhoods. Drug abusers don't (generally) come from highly succesful and healthy homes; most don't have the opportunities we would like them too. I have troubled saying 'too bad' to a child who becomes addicted to drugs as a result of abuse or neglect. I also think we tend to neglect things like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, which makes it extremely difficult for people to abstract their desicions in the way you or I might. Basically, until people actually DO have a fair chance at life, I'm not willing to cast them aside. I think if we as a society are unable to protect people during their most vunerable period, it is brutal at the very least to condemn them as useless, lazy or garbage.

Again, mostly agreed. But it is very much possible to have a moralistic society based on typical religious views and common public moral standards and values, without being completely atheist and amoral.

I agree, but the key term is society. Common public moral standards have some basis in law, but 'unreasonable' (and by this I mean untenable claims in light of reasoned opposition; burden of proof etc) claims have no basis in law.

I agree with you about marriage... I wish it were possible to segregate that a little more from the state... it's a touchy subject. But as for moral values and biblical perspectives becoming law, I don't think that has happened. The laws we have to day are, for the most part, based on what the majority of people believe to be right. Sure, the majority happen to be Christian, but the government does not endorse christianity specifically in any way shape or form. If you're talking about the Ten Commandments, again, that was a movement by the people. I don't think the 10 commandments should be posted on the wall of every courtroom... but I don't think it should be torn down if a judge wishes to use it as decoration or as a symbol that he fights for what he and most americans believe in.

IN as much as a judge is a mechanism of the state, his religious beliefs should not enter into the public courtroom. Just as he can hold any personal beliefs he wants, it is unfair for him to endorse any comprehensize moral order- as a judge, he is obligated to show no preference to any particular conception of the good. IN his private life, I fully support the judge in his religious convictions. I really don't think it's appropriate to put something as overtly contentious as the 10 commandments in any public edifice, much less a courtroom which is supposed to be TOTALLY unbiased.

I'm also not sure I agree with your definition of progressive; it seems to me EVERYONE would want to be progressive by that definition. I think progression has a sense of actively moving towards a given goal, generally speaking social justice goals in the American context.

The Hippos!

maybe it would be helpful if you'd explain clearly what you mean by progressive.Advancing society. Making the world safer. Raising better people. Encouraging people to be nice to each other, instead of encouraging them to be careful of each other.

In basic... Progressive=Advancement, Regressive=Reversion.

And Chrestus, Thank you too for your comments. I would break them down, but I gotta go ^_^


You make these arguments concerning encouraging "niceness" and discouraging mistrust yet at the same time you have posted remarks displaying a complete unwillingness to seek any form of compromise or concession which could bring about such a situation. Surely if you want to make people less wary of each other you might want to stop destroying bridges between them, something you seem intent upon doing by making derogatory remarks about anyone who does not fall into the category of a heterosexual Republican Christian American.

Then again perhaps you see a society with an elimination of anything in contravention with this creed as being the progressive one you crave for.

I don't know about liberalism being "regressive," but, even if it is, it is better than the alternative, Republicans...who are REPRESSIVE!!

As to the comment about drugs...no, we don't advocate drug use...we advocate the government keeping their nose out of our private lives! If we want to do drugs, and phuck up our own bodies, that should be our choice. I don't need Big Brother to protect me from myself.

If you believe corporate welfare needs to come to an end...if you believe in getting an honest day's pay for doing an honest day;s work...if you believe that people other than the very wealthy deserve consideration

If you believe in advancing tolerance and acceptance for those different from you (race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity) if you believe that such things should NOT be a factor in making negative employment decisions...

If you believe in sticking up for the little guy instead of the powerful and well-connected...and caring for the Earth so that our children will be able to enjoy it....then you are a progressive.

There ARE some things more important than money and power...unfortunately, the conservatives do not think so. They live with the attitude "phuck everyone else, I'm getting mine! Phuck my children, phuck the little guy, phuck the planet...me first, everyone else can go to hell!"

Conservatives have not among them collectively, even so much as one OUNCE of the mil of human compassion. That is why WE LIBERALS are progressive...and y'all conservocreeps are REPRESSIVE!

Look at Sweden, highest standard of living in the world any way you look at it.

Labrador. I am sorry you have been so lied to that you think every conservative is either a redneck with bible tattoos, or some greedy rich white guy who lives in his own high society. You are sadly mistaken, deceived, and far off from the truth. Conservatives come equally from ALL areas of socioeconomic status. The majority of conservatives are people who are generally nice to their neighbors, and give money to charity and all that. The reason you people think we're all a bunch of greedy guys who don't give our money away is simply because we don't like taxes. We believe the wealthy have a obligation to give their money to the poor. You nearly-socialists on the left want the wealthy to have a [i]legal obligation to give their money to the poor. And frankly, we just do not feel that is right.

And no, sexual orientation and religion etc. should have NO weight in any form of government. When we force people to disclose such private information, then suddenly we have to change all the laws that protected it.

I don't know about liberalism being "regressive," but, even if it is, it is better than the alternative, Republicans...who are REPRESSIVE!!

If you believe in advancing tolerance and acceptance for those different from you (race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity) if you believe that such things should NOT be a factor in making negative employment decisions...

Conservatives have not among them collectively, even so much as one OUNCE of the mil of human compassion. That is why WE LIBERALS are progressive...and y'all conservocreeps are REPRESSIVE! real funny, didnt you just contradict yourself? oh sure liberals belive in tolerance and youre a shining example. conservocreeps? please, if someone started bashing liberals (as im doing now) you would be so up in their shit it wouldnt even be funny. if youre going to lecture people about tolerance and that other hippie bullshit, then at least wait until you brainwash them until you show how biased and hateful you really are!

Greater Valia: Didn't you know? Liberals are above tolerance :)

Greater Valia: Didn't you know? Liberals are above tolerance :)

Greater Valia: Didn't you know? Liberals are above tolerance :) yeah i did, i try to stay away from stuff like this but i decided id go for it tonight.

I don't know about liberalism being "regressive," but, even if it is, it is better than the alternative, Republicans...who are REPRESSIVE!!

If you believe in advancing tolerance and acceptance for those different from you (race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity) if you believe that such things should NOT be a factor in making negative employment decisions...

Conservatives have not among them collectively, even so much as one OUNCE of the mil of human compassion. That is why WE LIBERALS are progressive...and y'all conservocreeps are REPRESSIVE! real funny, didnt you just contradict yourself? oh sure liberals belive in tolerance and youre a shining example. conservocreeps? please, if someone started bashing liberals (as im doing now) you would be so up in their shit it wouldnt even be funny. if youre going to lecture people about tolerance and that other hippie bullshit, then at least wait until you brainwash them until you show how biased and hateful you really are!

Good job, Valia. The language maybe left a little to be desired, but the meaning is clear.

Greater Valia: Didn't you know? Liberals are above tolerance :) yeah i did, i try to stay away from stuff like this but i decided id go for it tonight.Yeah, it's a touchy subject. Unfortunately, the libs are the PC Police, and they are above the law.

Labrador. I am sorry you have been so lied to that you think every conservative is either a redneck with bible tattoos, or some greedy rich white guy who lives in his own high society. You are sadly mistaken, deceived, and far off from the truth. Conservatives come equally from ALL areas of socioeconomic status. The majority of conservatives are people who are generally nice to their neighbors, and give money to charity and all that. The reason you people think we're all a bunch of greedy guys who don't give our money away is simply because we don't like taxes. We believe the wealthy have a obligation to give their money to the poor. You nearly-socialists on the left want the wealthy to have a [i]legal obligation to give their money to the poor. And frankly, we just do not feel that is right.

And no, sexual orientation and religion etc. should have NO weight in any form of government. When we force people to disclose such private information, then suddenly we have to change all the laws that protected it.

No, I haven't been lied to. This is my experience through observation. Conservatives really ARE greedy, selfish, non-compassionate people. Who want to legislate MY morals...and stick their nose in MY business!

As to the tolerance thing...even I have limits. Three things I cannot abide: 1. greed (especially when the powerful get ahead AT THE EXPENSE of the not powerful), 2. apathy towrds the plight of the less fortunate (a lack of compassion) 3. buttinsky holier-than-thou types that insist only THEY know what is best for me (I can decide for myself what is best for me.)

So those are the three things I cannot abide!
Greed, non-compassion, and a holier than thou attitude.

To misquote a certain village idiot: unfortunately, with conservatives, they have hit my non-tolerance trifecta!

Labrador. I am sorry you have been so lied to that you think every conservative is either a redneck with bible tattoos, or some greedy rich white guy who lives in his own high society. You are sadly mistaken, deceived, and far off from the truth. Conservatives come equally from ALL areas of socioeconomic status. The majority of conservatives are people who are generally nice to their neighbors, and give money to charity and all that. The reason you people think we're all a bunch of greedy guys who don't give our money away is simply because we don't like taxes. We believe the wealthy have a obligation to give their money to the poor. You nearly-socialists on the left want the wealthy to have a [i]legal obligation to give their money to the poor. And frankly, we just do not feel that is right.

And no, sexual orientation and religion etc. should have NO weight in any form of government. When we force people to disclose such private information, then suddenly we have to change all the laws that protected it.

No, I haven't been lied to. This is my experience through observation. Conservatives really ARE greedy, selfish, non-compassionate people. Who want to legislate MY morals...and stick their nose in MY business!

As to the tolerance thing...even I have limits. Three things I cannot abide: 1. greed (especially when the powerful get ahead AT THE EXPENSE of the not powerful), 2. apathy towrds the plight of the less fortunate (a lack of compassion) 3. buttinsky holier-than-thou types that insist only THEY know what is best for me (I can decide for myself what is best for me.)

So those are the three things I cannot abide!
Greed, non-compassion, and a holier than thou attitude.

To misquote a certain village idiot: unfortunately, with conservatives, they have hit my non-tolerance trifecta!

Labrador. I am sorry you have been so lied to that you think every conservative is either a redneck with bible tattoos, or some greedy rich white guy who lives in his own high society. You are sadly mistaken, deceived, and far off from the truth. Conservatives come equally from ALL areas of socioeconomic status. The majority of conservatives are people who are generally nice to their neighbors, and give money to charity and all that. The reason you people think we're all a bunch of greedy guys who don't give our money away is simply because we don't like taxes. We believe the wealthy have a obligation to give their money to the poor. You nearly-socialists on the left want the wealthy to have a [i]legal obligation to give their money to the poor. And frankly, we just do not feel that is right.

And no, sexual orientation and religion etc. should have NO weight in any form of government. When we force people to disclose such private information, then suddenly we have to change all the laws that protected it.

No, I haven't been lied to. This is my experience through observation. Conservatives really ARE greedy, selfish, non-compassionate people. Who want to legislate MY morals...and stick their nose in MY business!You are wrong. I'm not greedy, I'm not selfish, I'm compassionate... you calling me otherwise is utterly insulting.

As to the tolerance thing...even I have limits. Three things I cannot abide: 1. greed (especially when the powerful get ahead AT THE EXPENSE of the not powerful), 2. apathy towrds the plight of the less fortunate (a lack of compassion) 3. buttinsky holier-than-thou types that insist only THEY know what is best for me (I can decide for myself what is best for me.)Wow, for a tolerant people, you sure do have a lot of bigotry and prejudice.

So those are the three things I cannot abide!
Greed, non-compassion, and a holier than thou attitude.Same with me, and most people. What is your point?

To misquote a certain village idiot: unfortunately, with conservatives, they have hit my non-tolerance trifecta!I'm assuming the village idiot is yourself? :P j/k

To misquote a certain village idiot: unfortunately, with conservatives, they have hit my non-tolerance trifecta!
you talkin about me? never mind i think i know the answer to that. you see when liberals are confronted with the undeniable truth, they immediatley resort to slader, and name calling. please, if you're going to insult me at least do it to my face and dont hide behind snide remarks. but that would be flaming wouldnt it? BTW: trifecta, a system of betting in which the bettor must pick the first three winners in correct sequence. also called triple

Well....YOUR ideas of what "progress" is are going to be radically different for most.

When I think of Progress...
I think of making an equal set of laws that govern its people...regardless of Race...sex, creed.....OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE.
To make laws that are biased against gays, is hardly progressive.
Obviously...Liberals are the ones who are generally in favor of this.

Liberals are also usually in favor of living wages for the blue collar workers, proper over-time compensations, and generally making sure coporations do not take too much advantage of their employees.

Conservatives tend to BE the ones who own the companies..

Liberals are environmentally conciencious, again....Conservatives are usually the ones who own the corporations...who are doing most of the polluting.
This is not to say that all Conservatives could care less about the environment.....but more Liberals do..than Conservatives do...

And...heh....most importantly......Conservatives are far more regressive than Liberals becuase they are far more concerned about civil rights than Bush's people are....(ahem..Patriot Act)

Liberals want campaign finance reform........Conservatives like all the soft money donations they recieve..and hate the idea.

Theres just a few for you...
Again, its going to come down to what you believe....and people like Raysia will never believe anything a Liberal tells them..BECUASE its a Liberal doing the talking.

Well....YOUR ideas of what "progress" is are going to be radically different for most.

When I think of Progress...
I think of making an equal set of laws that govern its people...regardless of Race...sex, creed.....OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE.
To make laws that are biased against gays, is hardly progressive.
Obviously...Liberals are the ones who are generally in favor of this.

Liberals are also usually in favor of living wages for the blue collar workers, proper over-time compensations, and generally making sure coporations do not take too much advantage of their employees.

Conservatives tend to BE the ones who own the companies..

Liberals are environmentally conciencious, again....Conservatives are usually the ones who own the corporations...who are doing most of the polluting.
This is not to say that all Conservatives could care less about the environment.....but more Liberals do..than Conservatives do...

And...heh....most importantly......Conservatives are far more regressive than Liberals becuase they are far more concerned about civil rights than Bush's people are....(ahem..Patriot Act)

Liberals want campaign finance reform........Conservatives like all the soft money donations they recieve..and hate the idea.

Theres just a few for you...
Again, its going to come down to what you believe....and people like Raysia will never believe anything a Liberal tells them..BECUASE its a Liberal doing the talking.

<reads The above post from Backwoods>

Now, you know what is going to be funny Back, is that when Raysia responds to your comments, he is basically either going to say:

"Everything you just said is totally WRONG, because your a liberal and thus Lying"

or

"And there is something wrong with all those things you say Conservtives do?"

DP

DP

wow, the forums really bad tonight

wow, the forums really bad tonight

To misquote a certain village idiot: unfortunately, with conservatives, they have hit my non-tolerance trifecta!
you talkin about me? never mind i think i know the answer to that. you see when liberals are confronted with the undeniable truth, they immediatley resort to slader, and name calling. please, if you're going to insult me at least do it to my face and dont hide behind snide remarks. but that would be flaming wouldnt it? BTW: trifecta, a system of betting in which the bettor must pick the first three winners in correct sequence. also called triple

No, I wasn't talking about you, but hey...I display a general garment and you claim it's cut to your fit. What a fascinating revelation! The "village idiot" I was referring to was the man I refuse to acknowledge as President, because he is NOT MY PRESIDENT...AND NEVER WILL BE!

My snide comment was a snide reference to Bush's famous "trifecta" remark in which he basically is laughing at the misfortune of everyone in America, except, of course, for his buddies...who are doing extraordinarily well...at the expense of the rest of us! Read a little news once in a while, and you might find it. In fact, I'll make it easy for you...do a Google search on "Bush" and "trifecta." You'll then discover what I meant with my posting.

It was intended to be sarcastic and snide. Because I've nothing but the utmost contempt for the conservative ideology...and those who hold it. As tolerant as I am in most things, there are some things I truly cannot abide. And conservatives happen to embrace, and display...all three of the things I cannot tolerate.

see Raysia, this is an example of unreasonable liberalism. She can't reasonably expect you to leave all your considerations at the door, if you know what I mean. However, just like there's some truly wacky conservatives, there is an abundance of loony lefties. The important thing is to look past the rhetoric and find points of cooperation, reciprocity and comprimise that everyone can live with.

see Raysia, this is an example of unreasonable liberalism. She can't reasonably expect you to leave all your considerations at the door, if you know what I mean. However, just like there's some truly wacky conservatives, there is an abundance of loony lefties. The important thing is to look past the rhetoric and find points of cooperation, reciprocity and comprimise that everyone can live with.Thanks for pointing that out. There are prejudiced extremists on both sides... on the left, there are hippies and dirty politicians, on the right there are rednecks and corrupt businessmen.

To misquote a certain village idiot: unfortunately, with conservatives, they have hit my non-tolerance trifecta!
you talkin about me? never mind i think i know the answer to that. you see when liberals are confronted with the undeniable truth, they immediatley resort to slader, and name calling. please, if you're going to insult me at least do it to my face and dont hide behind snide remarks. but that would be flaming wouldnt it? BTW: trifecta, a system of betting in which the bettor must pick the first three winners in correct sequence. also called triple

No, I wasn't talking about you, but hey...I display a general garment and you claim it's cut to your fit. What a fascinating revelation! The "village idiot" I was referring to was the man I refuse to acknowledge as President, because he is NOT MY PRESIDENT...AND NEVER WILL BE!

My snide comment was a snide reference to Bush's famous "trifecta" remark in which he basically is laughing at the misfortune of everyone in America, except, of course, for his buddies...who are doing extraordinarily well...at the expense of the rest of us! Read a little news once in a while, and you might find it. In fact, I'll make it easy for you...do a Google search on "Bush" and "trifecta." You'll then discover what I meant with my posting.

It was intended to be sarcastic and snide. Because I've nothing but the utmost contempt for the conservative ideology...and those who hold it. As tolerant as I am in most things, there are some things I truly cannot abide. And conservatives happen to embrace, and display...all three of the things I cannot tolerate.
ok, heres a thought, maybe your statement was too general? because i thought we were having a debate. oh, i also did a google search for bush and trifecta, and the funny thing is, all the sites that came up were all democratic propoganda. imagine that.

see Raysia, this is an example of unreasonable liberalism. She can't reasonably expect you to leave all your considerations at the door, if you know what I mean. However, just like there's some truly wacky conservatives, there is an abundance of loony lefties. The important thing is to look past the rhetoric and find points of cooperation, reciprocity and comprimise that everyone can live with.Thanks for pointing that out. There are prejudiced extremists on both sides... on the left, there are hippies and dirty politicians, on the right there are rednecks and corrupt businessmen.

Oh oh. Dirty politicians are only Liberals?????

Sorry they are on both sides.

ughhh.... once again the liberals have to bring up the 2000 election.. GET OVER IT YOU LOST 4 TIMES! once in the election and 3 times in the recounts. now i hate that term compassionate conserveative and this new tone buisness in the white house, its to far to the left for my tastes. im one who follows the reganesque form of conserveatism. ive held these belifs for nearly 4 years. 1. smaller goverment 2. lower taxes 3. the privatization of many systems the goverment is currently envolved in. labrador.. may i ask whos your role model?... its karl marx isnt it. did you go to public schools? im currently enrolled in a public high school. i enjoy haveing political dscussions with my liberal teachers. although one took my paricapation grade away becuse i was able to sway an entire class full of liberals to my side of the arguement :evil:. now with liberals the thing is they do not have any new ideas, and they bully around our right wing leaders through ways of the media. then when a new conserveative program comes on the air its part of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY! i know who the winning team is in this polotical war.

imageine a world with no liberals

KERRY FONDA 04 PUTTING THE RED IN RED WHITE AND BLUE

ugghh...i hate these liberal, conservative debates. its ludicrous to group half the population together and pass judgement. theres way more than two ideas out there. i hate american politics for this reason: no matter what you feel, you are either lumped and judged the same as the redneck, conederate flag waving, gun toting conservatives or the pinko, egg-hed, bleeding heart liberals. these wars of stereotypes are rediculous. oh you liberals, oh you conservatives, you all think the same.

imagine a world with no stereotypes. imagine a world where ideas had to be considered and not stupid political labels

ughhh.... once again the liberals have to bring up the 2000 election.. GET OVER IT YOU LOST 4 TIMES! once in the election and 3 times in the recounts. now i hate that term compassionate conserveative and this new tone buisness in the white house, its to far to the left for my tastes. im one who follows the reganesque form of conserveatism. ive held these belifs for nearly 4 years. 1. smaller goverment 2. lower taxes 3. the privatization of many systems the goverment is currently envolved in. labrador.. may i ask whos your role model?... its karl marx isnt it. did you go to public schools? im currently enrolled in a public high school. i enjoy haveing political dscussions with my liberal teachers. although one took my paricapation grade away becuse i was able to sway an entire class full of liberals to my side of the arguement :evil:. now with liberals the thing is they do not have any new ideas, and they bully around our right wing leaders through ways of the media. then when a new conserveative program comes on the air its part of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY! i know who the winning team is in this polotical war.

imageine a world with no liberals

KERRY FONDA 04 PUTTING THE RED IN RED WHITE AND BLUE

:roll:

Man you've got it all pretty figured out! It's that damn red menace back again! Seriously though, put a little thought into your next post. Start by
a) reading or learning SOMETHING about Marx; no matter where you stand politically, he's important- he effectively invented the idea of political economics.
b) realize we're not impressed by your highschool exploits. At least I'm not, and I really suspect no one else is.
c) for the love of god, capitalize and space your arguments coherently.

That's about it. If you actually have any salient points, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

imagine a world with no stereotypes. imagine a world where ideas had to be considered and not stupid political labels

well, political labels will always exist because ideas and values form natural clusters. the real problem with american political labels is that they don't actually refer to anything at all or that they refer to a bunch of contradictory things.

imagine a world with no stereotypes. imagine a world where ideas had to be considered and not stupid political labels

well, political labels will always exist because ideas and values form natural clusters. the real problem with american political labels is that they don't actually refer to anything at all or that they refer to a bunch of contradictory things.

yeah, my point is a two party system is stupid. 250 million people are going to see things in more than just two ways. and it was at least a page and a half ago that people stopped talking about liberals or conservatives in the political theory sense and just started bashing on stereotypes.

ughhh.... once again the liberals have to bring up the 2000 election.. GET OVER IT YOU LOST 4 TIMES! once in the election and 3 times in the recounts. now i hate that term compassionate conserveative and this new tone buisness in the white house, its to far to the left for my tastes. im one who follows the reganesque form of conserveatism. ive held these belifs for nearly 4 years. 1. smaller goverment 2. lower taxes 3. the privatization of many systems the goverment is currently envolved in. labrador.. may i ask whos your role model?... its karl marx isnt it. did you go to public schools? im currently enrolled in a public high school. i enjoy haveing political dscussions with my liberal teachers. although one took my paricapation grade away becuse i was able to sway an entire class full of liberals to my side of the arguement :evil:. now with liberals the thing is they do not have any new ideas, and they bully around our right wing leaders through ways of the media. then when a new conserveative program comes on the air its part of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY! i know who the winning team is in this polotical war.

imageine a world with no liberals

KERRY FONDA 04 PUTTING THE RED IN RED WHITE AND BLUEhttp://www.bateshome.com/jordan/nojfk.jpg :P

Conservatives tend to BE the ones who own the companies..

And am I to assume that owning a company is suppose to be a bad thing?

Liberals want campaign finance reform........Conservatives like all the soft money donations they recieve..and hate the idea.

This is flat out wrong here in the US (I don't know about Europe). It is a fact that the Republican party has more individual contributors who will max out at $2000 apiece, while the Democrats rely more on soft money. Of course, this doesn't mean that the Republicans don't take soft money from companies, but percentage wise Democrats are hurt more by the McCain-Feingold bill than Republicans. Of course, both sides believe they've found a loophole with unaffiliated non-profit organizations :wink: .

BTW, I mostly agreed with your other points, though they are vague, so I decided to save space and not copy them too.

imagine a world with no stereotypes. imagine a world where ideas had to be considered and not stupid political labels

well, political labels will always exist because ideas and values form natural clusters. the real problem with american political labels is that they don't actually refer to anything at all or that they refer to a bunch of contradictory things.

yeah, my point is a two party system is stupid. 250 million people are going to see things in more than just two ways. and it was at least a page and a half ago that people stopped talking about liberals or conservatives in the political theory sense and just started bashing on stereotypes.A two-party system may be stupid, but that's because 80% of America holds to one party or the other... the other 20% kinda just has to pick one. It's called a democracy... it's kinda how this all works :) Would you prefer a dictatorship/monarchy/mob rule?

A two-party system may be stupid, but that's because 80% of America holds to one party or the other... the other 20% kinda just has to pick one. It's called a democracy... it's kinda how this all works :) Would you prefer a dictatorship/monarchy/mob rule?

actually, the number of people identifying as one party or the other is declining - the plurality claim to be independents, last i heard.

but the two party system is not the result of people naturally forming into two distinct groups. it is a direct consequence of certain structural aspects of the american political system. if you have a system of single member districts chosen by plurality voting you will have two parties. if you have a different system you will have a different number of parties.

I would have to disagree with your definition of progressivism as too simplistic, Raysia. Rather, progressivism is a throwback to the Progressive Movement in the early part of the 20th century. If that is the case, then a quick run-down of some of the important issues in the Progressive Movement would be a good way of seeing whether liberals or conservatives best epitomize the values espoused by people like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

1. Progressive Income Tax--A program the Progressives were very much in favor. Contrary to what you might assume, the "progressive" in front of the Income Tax is not a reference to who made it, it is instead a reference of who should be taxed most heavily: the wealthy, as opposed to the poor (regressive). Now, liberals are typically strongly in favor of such a taxation system. Conservatives are not (hell, there are some conservatives who are still arguing for no income tax at all). As such, it would seem that liberals are the progressives on this issue.

2. Labor Unionization--Back in the time of the Progressives, the Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as several other acts, had made labor unions not only unpopular but actually illegal. It was only in the 1930's that the right to organize was fully instituted into law (and even then there have been laws weakening it, like the anachronistic "Right to Work" laws). Such unions, despite ensuring fair wages and the ability to collectively bargain, have nevertheless been under unceasing attack by the Republican party, but have been staunchly supported by the Democrats. Once again, the Democrats are the more Progressive.

3. Antitrust Legislation--One of the most critical reforms the Progressive Movement wrought was to bring about meaningful reforms in the ways that Trusts could dominate the market, namely by abolishing such domination. As such, the system actually worked more in tune with what Adam Smith originally envisioned (those people who had actually read The Wealth of Nations, not simply used it as a cudgel to beat those Pinko Liberals, would have clearly seen that he was very much against corporatization, because it allows just such domination of the market and elimination of the ability for the Invisible Hand to guide the market to optimum efficiency). As such, monopolies like Standard Oil or U.S. Steel no longer existed. . . at least until conservatives like Mike Powell have reintroduced them in the form of media conglomerates, and other conservatives who have hampered antitrust legislation against Microsoft, etc. Score another for the Liberal/Progressive connection.

4. Seperation of Business/Government-- On a similar vein to number 3, the Progressive movement worked very hard to get civil service reforms passed that prevented business from simply buying the votes it needed, up to and including a constitutional amendment that allowed for the popular election of senators (before, they were elected by state representatives, who were almost assuredly in the pockets of Big Business). This wall was maintained. . .up until conservatives began breaking down this wall, allowing such things as the news companies to effectively buy the FCC, Enron to buy state agencies like several agencies in Cali and Nevada, etc. Again, the Liberal/Progressive connection is clear.

5. Expansion of Freedoms-- The Amendment allowing Women's Suffrage was a huge victory for the Progressives, who had been fighting for it since the Civil War. Additionally, there were many Progressives who were fighting to end Jim Crow, promote contraceptive use, etc. Again, these are all battles more traditionally associated with the Liberals than the Conservatives. The only huge battle won that restricted rights during this period was the 18th Amendment banning alcohol (Prohibition), but this battle was fought most fervently not by the Progressives (although admittedly some did have something to do with it), but the Women's Christian Temperence Movement, a group that ultimately became the Eagle Alliance, an arch-conservative movement today.

So yes, Raysia, I do think Liberals have the right to call themselves Progressives, as in many ways they are simply trying to hold on to the gains made during this period, as opposed to the Republicans, who are trying to hold on to the excesses of their heyday of the Gilded Age.

As someone mentioned, liberalism has strayed a long way from its classical roots.

Modern liberalism, particularly in the US, is a strange, mutated version, of the old creed. It's obsessed with racial quotas, with extreme feminism, with "gay rights", with abortion on demand; it's been infected by anti-Christian animus.

It is rabidly multi-culturalist. No matter that multi-culturalism is the exact opposite of what made America great - assimilation, the melting pot. This obsession with group rights will inevitably lead to seperation and Balkanization (it already is).

Modern liberalism is completely irrational, and its cultural, media, and academic predominance is entirely destructive to American society.

As someone mentioned, liberalism has strayed a long way from its classical roots.

Modern liberalism, particularly in the US, is a strange, mutated version, of the old creed. It's obsessed with racial quotas, with extreme feminism, with "gay rights", with abortion on demand; it's been infected by anti-Christian animus.

It is rabidly multi-culturalist. No matter that multi-culturalism is the exact opposite of what made America great - assimilation, the melting pot. This obsession with group rights will inevitably lead to seperation and Balkanization (it already is).

Modern liberalism is completely irrational, and its cultural, media, and academic predominance is entirely destructive to American society.

I really dispute this assertion. Modern liberalism is generally well grounded in 'rational' argument, much more so than classical liberalism at any rate. Just because you're not familiar with the theory does not mean it doesn't exist or is of lesser worth. If you're interested in multiculturalism and similar current issues, I suggest you look into the work of Will Kymlicka who has written a number of really excellent books and articles on the subject. As a cohesive moral theory, Rawls effectively reasons out the background of modern liberalism. It's certianly not irrational, at the absolute very least.

it always seemed to me that what is refered to as 'liberalism' in the us is far more coherent than the hodge-podge of contradictory things that are called 'conservativism'.

Liberalism stinks. Irrationality has nothing to do with it. It's just repulsive. From the feminazis to the baby-killers to the bigots who preach hatred against Christians, to the left-wing nuts who poison the minds of kids in college, to the haters of America's western cultural heritage and so on ad nauseum. Destructive? That's an understatement. It's a true cultural catastrophe. It'll take three or four generations to clear the air of this rank stupidity.

Yeah i get a lotta liberals in SF. Just the other day I gottta group of guys yelling at me cause i pronounced his name wrong. Sdom Hussein, And Yasser is how they wanted me to say it. I said "Fuck You" Im not saying a damn terrosists name right for the sake of being "socially conscience". THeytre the reason people are dying and liberals get mad at ME for saying so. I say this is just an example of the feminism that liberals put america through.

Liberalism stinks. Irrationality has nothing to do with it. It's just repulsive. From the feminazis to the baby-killers to the bigots who preach hatred against Christians, to the left-wing nuts who poison the minds of kids in college, to the haters of America's western cultural heritage and so on ad nauseum. Destructive? That's an understatement. It's a true cultural catastrophe. It'll take three or four generations to clear the air of this rank stupidity.

HEY GUYS I'VE FOUND A TERRORIST!

Oh yeah once someone expresses there opinions different from urs theyre a terrorist. I'd be careful aboot ur choice of words man.

liberals are basically women with wigs and small dicks. STop whining. Get a life. Dont knock on conservatives because they have one. And if u want rights for gay people u should at least be one to argue for right dipshit dont u think?

Points to above post

Well now, Someone needs to work out thier agressions, But, its almost cute in a way, Sad.. Yet cute.. Hm, Liberals being women with small dicks and wigs... As Soon as I find out just WHAT that mans I will try and respond to it in some way... (pats PulpuFictiona) Poor little Conservtive... So deluded... OH! and for the record.. I am gay, so, no problem when I argue for my Own rights... That ok?

liberals are basically women with wigs and small dicks. STop whining. Get a life. Dont knock on conservatives because they have one. And if u want rights for gay people u should at least be one to argue for right dipshit dont u think?umm.. why exactly are you dissing women all a sudden? I hope you're only refering to their argumentative skills :P

liberals are basically women with wigs and small dicks. STop whining. Get a life. Dont knock on conservatives because they have one. And if u want rights for gay people u should at least be one to argue for right dipshit dont u think?umm.. why exactly are you dissing women all a sudden? I hope you're only refering to their argumentative skills :P

Bad Raysia. Bad.

liberals are basically women with wigs and small dicks. STop whining. Get a life. Dont knock on conservatives because they have one. And if u want rights for gay people u should at least be one to argue for right dipshit dont u think?umm.. why exactly are you dissing women all a sudden? I hope you're only refering to their argumentative skills :P

Bad Raysia. Bad.*shames*

Anyway, back to topic :P

Liberalism stinks. Irrationality has nothing to do with it. It's just repulsive. From the feminazis to the baby-killers to the bigots who preach hatred against Christians, to the left-wing nuts who poison the minds of kids in college, to the haters of America's western cultural heritage and so on ad nauseum. Destructive? That's an understatement. It's a true cultural catastrophe. It'll take three or four generations to clear the air of this rank stupidity.

So really this whole argument is you just spewing unfounded assertions one after another. I disagree, but since you haven't even begun to justify your point, how can I? It's poor ettiquette at the very least.

To misquote a certain village idiot: unfortunately, with conservatives, they have hit my non-tolerance trifecta!
you talkin about me? never mind i think i know the answer to that. you see when liberals are confronted with the undeniable truth, they immediatley resort to slader, and name calling. please, if you're going to insult me at least do it to my face and dont hide behind snide remarks. but that would be flaming wouldnt it? BTW: trifecta, a system of betting in which the bettor must pick the first three winners in correct sequence. also called triple

No, I wasn't talking about you, but hey...I display a general garment and you claim it's cut to your fit. What a fascinating revelation! The "village idiot" I was referring to was the man I refuse to acknowledge as President, because he is NOT MY PRESIDENT...AND NEVER WILL BE!

My snide comment was a snide reference to Bush's famous "trifecta" remark in which he basically is laughing at the misfortune of everyone in America, except, of course, for his buddies...who are doing extraordinarily well...at the expense of the rest of us! Read a little news once in a while, and you might find it. In fact, I'll make it easy for you...do a Google search on "Bush" and "trifecta." You'll then discover what I meant with my posting.

It was intended to be sarcastic and snide. Because I've nothing but the utmost contempt for the conservative ideology...and those who hold it. As tolerant as I am in most things, there are some things I truly cannot abide. And conservatives happen to embrace, and display...all three of the things I cannot tolerate.
ok, heres a thought, maybe your statement was too general? because i thought we were having a debate. oh, i also did a google search for bush and trifecta, and the funny thing is, all the sites that came up were all democratic propoganda. imagine that.

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.

ughhh.... once again the liberals have to bring up the 2000 election.. GET OVER IT YOU LOST 4 TIMES! once in the election and 3 times in the recounts. now i hate that term compassionate conserveative and this new tone buisness in the white house, its to far to the left for my tastes. im one who follows the reganesque form of conserveatism. ive held these belifs for nearly 4 years. 1. smaller goverment 2. lower taxes 3. the privatization of many systems the goverment is currently envolved in. labrador.. may i ask whos your role model?... its karl marx isnt it. did you go to public schools? im currently enrolled in a public high school. i enjoy haveing political dscussions with my liberal teachers. although one took my paricapation grade away becuse i was able to sway an entire class full of liberals to my side of the arguement :evil:. now with liberals the thing is they do not have any new ideas, and they bully around our right wing leaders through ways of the media. then when a new conserveative program comes on the air its part of the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY! i know who the winning team is in this polotical war.

imageine a world with no liberals

KERRY FONDA 04 PUTTING THE RED IN RED WHITE AND BLUE

What would you know of color? You are obviously blind.

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.And, of course, you automatically call the truth "lies" if it comes from the right...

Conservatives tend to BE the ones who own the companies..

And am I to assume that owning a company is suppose to be a bad thing?


Yes. It is a bad thing, because companies all exploit their employees. They do not pay a fair and decent wage. Why else do you think the average America has to work so hard, and has so little time for leisure? Why else do you think the American populace is wound up so tight they are ready to explode all over one another? I'll tell you why! Stress. And there is no other release for it. Our lives are so stressful all the time, because we all have to work so damn much for so damn little, just to get by. Europeans, on the other hand...they have far more leisure time, and THEIR economies aren't exactly hurting! As a reult, Eurpeans have a far lower level of death from cardiac disease than Americans do...and a far lower incidence of hypertension.

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.And, of course, you automatically call the truth "lies" if it comes from the right...

When was the last time we heard the truth come a from THE RIGHT?

so what ever happened with this?

of course, mlk jr was one of the main forces pushing for what became known as affirmative action. in other words, bullshit.You didn't understand a word I said, did you.

Martin Luther King Jr. NEVER advocated special treatment of racial minorities, positive or negative. That was what he was against! He wanted EQUAL treatment of ALL people. His dream was to see people judged by their works deeds and content of character and NOT by skin color or heritage.

Do you even know who MLK Jr. Was? Have you ever heard the "I have a dream" speech? Or do you only know what modern-day 'civil rights' groups spin?
http://www.fair.org/extra/9505/king-affirmative-action.html
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/mlk3.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

mlk jr consistently argued that to achieve integration would require a massive postive program enforcing it in all spheres of life. (a synonym for "positive program" would be "affirmative action")

i'm afraid you've been taken in by the right's "wedontwanttolooklikeklanmembersanymore" spin.

mlk jr consistently argued that to achieve integration would require a massive postive program enforcing it in all spheres of life. (a synonym for "positive program" would be "affirmative action")



Absolute BS. MLK never suggested affirmative action. He called for a society that was colorblind. Quite how anyone can reconcile the 1964 Civil Rights act, which condemned ALL forms of racial preferences (and which MLK approved of), with affirmative action, is beyond me. Affirmative action is just racism. And its defenders are racists too, anti-white racists.

Liberalism stinks. Irrationality has nothing to do with it. It's just repulsive. From the feminazis to the baby-killers to the bigots who preach hatred against Christians, to the left-wing nuts who poison the minds of kids in college, to the haters of America's western cultural heritage and so on ad nauseum. Destructive? That's an understatement. It's a true cultural catastrophe. It'll take three or four generations to clear the air of this rank stupidity.

Conservatism stinks. Irrationality has nothing to do with it. It's pure mean-spiritedness, selfishness, greed, lack of compassion, and a holier-than-thou attitude. From the Christian Taliban (my new term for the Religous Right, which is in fact neither) to the anti-science crowd that favors the life of the unborn over the advancement (through stem-cell research) of the quality of life for the already-born...to the people who claim to be pro-life and yet support the South American death squads, they oppose gun control, they oppose nuclear weapons control, they favor the death penalty...when these people talk about "right to life" they are talking about THEIR right to decide who should live or die! From those people to the bigots who preach hatred and violence against homosexuals (how many of YOU can say you have THREE close friends who were MURDERED...for no better reason than that they made someone else feel "icky?") From those to the right wing nuts who poison the minds of 50 million Americans daily on the right-wing dominated AM radio dial (because the media is so liberal, right?)...to the xenophobes who think American culture is SO superior, and yet they feel threatened by the accomodation of anyone else's culture (seems to me if American culture, such as it is...was so great, wonderful, and strong...they wouldn't have to fear accomodating others) and so on, ad nauseam! Destructive? Divisive? Polarizing? Hell, yes! You can only push so hard before others start pushing back! And we liberals are FINALLY starting to find our voices after two decades of repression, and we are pushing BACK! Goddam it, we want our country back! this conservatism is a true cultural catastrophe. It'll take four or five Presidents on the Democratic side to undo the damage caused by Regan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Lesser...and clear our air (and our airwaves) of this rank stupidity brought on by oxycontin overdosage!

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.And, of course, you automatically call the truth "lies" if it comes from the right...

Since WHEN did truth ever come from the right? It's all spin and greed, and evil non-compassion, phuck the little guy. THAT's all that EVER comes from the right. what I want to know is how they manage to brainwash so many people into voting against their own economic self-interest.

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.And, of course, you automatically call the truth "lies" if it comes from the right...

Since WHEN did truth ever come from the right? It's all spin and greed, and evil non-compassion, phuck the little guy. THAT's all that EVER comes from the right. what I want to know is how they manage to brainwash so many people into voting against their own economic self-interest. on an interesting note, one of the websites i found was called spinsanity. also aljazeera came up as a "reliable news source", are you going to tell me they arent lying bastards?

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.And, of course, you automatically call the truth "lies" if it comes from the right...

Since WHEN did truth ever come from the right? It's all spin and greed, and evil non-compassion, phuck the little guy. THAT's all that EVER comes from the right. what I want to know is how they manage to brainwash so many people into voting against their own economic self-interest.but arent democrats for wealth distribution? that sure seems like against my economic self interest..... oh well, its not like liberals have any reasoning power anyways :roll:

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.And, of course, you automatically call the truth "lies" if it comes from the right...

Since WHEN did truth ever come from the right? It's all spin and greed, and evil non-compassion, phuck the little guy. THAT's all that EVER comes from the right. what I want to know is how they manage to brainwash so many people into voting against their own economic self-interest.but arent democrats for wealth distribution? that sure seems like against my economic self interest..... oh well, its not like liberals have any reasoning power anyways :roll:It's only against your economic self-interest if you're one of the scum-sucking greedy wealthy jerks that got there on the backs of poor workers, by exploiting them, and not paying them a fair wage in the first place! Only the wealthy would have some of their income redistributed, and I firmly believe that should happen. Once everyone has enough to meet their basic survival needs, THEN...go for it. Get as filthy disgusting rich as you want, and I could care less. If that is what makes you happy. But, as long as there are homeless...as long as there are hungry, desperate people out there...as long as children in the Northeast freeze their asses off in the winter because their parents have to choose between food and heat...as long as over 40 million Americans without health insurance go without basic medical care...as long as those things are a reality in this country...I am in favor of wealth redistribution.

You guys CLAIM to be such believers in charity...well, WHERE'S YOUR PHUCKING CHARITY?!?!? I don't see it! If it were there, these peoblems wouldn't exist. If y'all wealthy weren't a bunch of heartless, cruel selfish trolls, we wouldn't HAVE to force you, through taxes...to do what you ought to do through compassion.

But, of course, conservatives HAVE no compassion...hence the need for taxes.

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.And, of course, you automatically call the truth "lies" if it comes from the right...

Since WHEN did truth ever come from the right? It's all spin and greed, and evil non-compassion, phuck the little guy. THAT's all that EVER comes from the right. what I want to know is how they manage to brainwash so many people into voting against their own economic self-interest.but arent democrats for wealth distribution? that sure seems like against my economic self interest..... oh well, its not like liberals have any reasoning power anyways :roll:It's only against your economic self-interest if you're one of the scum-sucking greedy wealthy jerks that got there on the backs of poor workers, by exploiting them, and not paying them a fair wage in the first place! Only the wealthy would have some of their income redistributed, and I firmly believe that should happen. Once everyone has enough to meet their basic survival needs, THEN...go for it. Get as filthy disgusting rich as you want, and I could care less. If that is what makes you happy. But, as long as there are homeless...as long as there are hungry, desperate people out there...as long as children in the Northeast freeze their asses off in the winter because their parents have to choose between food and heat...as long as over 40 million Americans without health insurance go without basic medical care...as long as those things are a reality in this country...I am in favor of wealth redistribution.

You guys CLAIM to be such believers in charity...well, WHERE'S YOUR PHUCKING CHARITY?!?!? I don't see it! If it were there, these peoblems wouldn't exist. If y'all wealthy weren't a bunch of heartless, cruel selfish trolls, we wouldn't HAVE to force you, through taxes...to do what you ought to do through compassion.

But, of course, conservatives HAVE no compassion...hence the need for taxes.

who said i was wealthy? anyways, what about welfare? and if you just give away money that would give people no reason to get out and support themselves. and i seriously doubt that if nobody forced you to pay taxes therefore funding the welfare system that helps the wretched poor you're always screeching about, you wouldnt do it of your own free will. you liberals are all for wealth distribution as long as its not your money, eh? and im sure that you know that lots of religious organizations(churches, mosques((sp?)), etc.) do alot to help the homeless and poor in their LOCAL towns/cities, but you hate religion dont you?

Absolute BS. MLK never suggested affirmative action. He called for a society that was colorblind. Quite how anyone can reconcile the 1964 Civil Rights act, which condemned ALL forms of racial preferences (and which MLK approved of), with affirmative action, is beyond me. Affirmative action is just racism. And its defenders are racists too, anti-white racists.

hey take it up with the man himself. seriously, look at the quotes in the links i provided. or just search it on google. mlk jr argued for a much more expansive and comprehensive program than affirmative action (which was implemented as a control valve for black radicalism).

Absolute BS. MLK never suggested affirmative action. He called for a society that was colorblind. Quite how anyone can reconcile the 1964 Civil Rights act, which condemned ALL forms of racial preferences (and which MLK approved of), with affirmative action, is beyond me. Affirmative action is just racism. And its defenders are racists too, anti-white racists.

hey take it up with the man himself. seriously, look at the quotes in the links i provided. or just search it on google. mlk jr argued for a much more expansive and comprehensive program than affirmative action (which was implemented as a control valve for black radicalism).Affirmative action as it is today is contrary to his I have a Dream Speech.

Affirmative action as it is today is contrary to his I have a Dream Speech.

we have not yet reached the level of integration that king's dream for the future is predicated upon. affirmative action is only contrary to the dream because it isn't getting us their fast enough.

from the dream speech:

...One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land...

Affirmative action as it is today is contrary to his I have a Dream Speech.

we have not yet reached the level of integration that king's dream for the future is predicated upon. affirmative action is only contrary to the dream because it isn't getting us their fast enough.

from the dream speech:

...One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land...I don't see any laws segregating the blacks. The ONLY reason places like the projects, and the ghetto, and whatever the crap you want to call these minority clusters that exist, is solely because they either are themselves racist, or they believe the lie that every white person is racist.

The important, fundamental line from the I have a dream speech:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

It doesn't get any more clearer than that. he wanted to see a color-blind nation, that saw people REGARDLESS of race. Affirmative action is the OPPOSITE of this statement. Affirmative action looks at race REGARDLESS of character!

The important, fundamental line from the I have a dream speech:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

It doesn't get any more clearer than that. he wanted to see a color-blind nation, that saw people REGARDLESS of race. Affirmative action is the OPPOSITE of this statement. Affirmative action looks at race REGARDLESS of character!

your entire picture of what mlk jr stood for is based on one line of one speech, taken out of context. yes he wanted to see a color-blind nation. and the way he saw to get there - other than outright revolution - was a legal and cultural revolution that would create equality through the use of some sort of "compensatory program".

some relevant quotes:

"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up." - why we can't wait, 1963

"...for two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages—potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation." - playboy interview, 1965

"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." - where do we go from here?, 1967

Here is a question. Why do we still need affirmative action today? Surely you don't think blacks are as uncivilized as they were 200 years ago.

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.And, of course, you automatically call the truth "lies" if it comes from the right...

Since WHEN did truth ever come from the right? It's all spin and greed, and evil non-compassion, phuck the little guy. THAT's all that EVER comes from the right. what I want to know is how they manage to brainwash so many people into voting against their own economic self-interest.but arent democrats for wealth distribution? that sure seems like against my economic self interest..... oh well, its not like liberals have any reasoning power anyways :roll:It's only against your economic self-interest if you're one of the scum-sucking greedy wealthy jerks that got there on the backs of poor workers, by exploiting them, and not paying them a fair wage in the first place! Only the wealthy would have some of their income redistributed, and I firmly believe that should happen. Once everyone has enough to meet their basic survival needs, THEN...go for it. Get as filthy disgusting rich as you want, and I could care less. If that is what makes you happy. But, as long as there are homeless...as long as there are hungry, desperate people out there...as long as children in the Northeast freeze their asses off in the winter because their parents have to choose between food and heat...as long as over 40 million Americans without health insurance go without basic medical care...as long as those things are a reality in this country...I am in favor of wealth redistribution.

You guys CLAIM to be such believers in charity...well, WHERE'S YOUR PHUCKING CHARITY?!?!? I don't see it! If it were there, these peoblems wouldn't exist. If y'all wealthy weren't a bunch of heartless, cruel selfish trolls, we wouldn't HAVE to force you, through taxes...to do what you ought to do through compassion.

But, of course, conservatives HAVE no compassion...hence the need for taxes.

who said i was wealthy? anyways, what about welfare? and if you just give away money that would give people no reason to get out and support themselves. and i seriously doubt that if nobody forced you to pay taxes therefore funding the welfare system that helps the wretched poor you're always screeching about, you wouldnt do it of your own free will. you liberals are all for wealth distribution as long as its not your money, eh? and im sure that you know that lots of religious organizations(churches, mosques((sp?)), etc.) do alot to help the homeless and poor in their LOCAL towns/cities, but you hate religion dont you?

Actually, no...I do not hate religion. It may surprise you to know I am a Christian. A Unitarian Christian, but, nevertheless, a Christian. And JESUS taught us to love our neighbors, and constantly preached love, tolerance and charity. Jesus would shake his head in disgust at conservatives. They are just like the Pharisees and Sudducees of Jesus' age. Tnhey, too, clean only the outside of the cup...inside, it's filthy!

No, I do not hate religion. What I hate is bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and political idealogue cloaking and masking itself in religion, and using it to excuse their wretched behavior towards their fellow man.

Look at Sweden, highest standard of living in the world any way you look at it.

GOOO SWEEDEN!!! i love that place...and they're VERY liberal...of course im only Half swedish...

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.And, of course, you automatically call the truth "lies" if it comes from the right...

Since WHEN did truth ever come from the right? It's all spin and greed, and evil non-compassion, phuck the little guy. THAT's all that EVER comes from the right. what I want to know is how they manage to brainwash so many people into voting against their own economic self-interest.but arent democrats for wealth distribution? that sure seems like against my economic self interest..... oh well, its not like liberals have any reasoning power anyways :roll:It's only against your economic self-interest if you're one of the scum-sucking greedy wealthy jerks that got there on the backs of poor workers, by exploiting them, and not paying them a fair wage in the first place! Only the wealthy would have some of their income redistributed, and I firmly believe that should happen. Once everyone has enough to meet their basic survival needs, THEN...go for it. Get as filthy disgusting rich as you want, and I could care less. If that is what makes you happy. But, as long as there are homeless...as long as there are hungry, desperate people out there...as long as children in the Northeast freeze their asses off in the winter because their parents have to choose between food and heat...as long as over 40 million Americans without health insurance go without basic medical care...as long as those things are a reality in this country...I am in favor of wealth redistribution.

You guys CLAIM to be such believers in charity...well, WHERE'S YOUR PHUCKING CHARITY?!?!? I don't see it! If it were there, these peoblems wouldn't exist. If y'all wealthy weren't a bunch of heartless, cruel selfish trolls, we wouldn't HAVE to force you, through taxes...to do what you ought to do through compassion.

But, of course, conservatives HAVE no compassion...hence the need for taxes.

who said i was wealthy? anyways, what about welfare? and if you just give away money that would give people no reason to get out and support themselves. and i seriously doubt that if nobody forced you to pay taxes therefore funding the welfare system that helps the wretched poor you're always screeching about, you wouldnt do it of your own free will. you liberals are all for wealth distribution as long as its not your money, eh? and im sure that you know that lots of religious organizations(churches, mosques((sp?)), etc.) do alot to help the homeless and poor in their LOCAL towns/cities, but you hate religion dont you?

Actually, no...I do not hate religion. It may surprise you to know I am a Christian. A Unitarian Christian, but, nevertheless, a Christian. And JESUS taught us to love our neighbors, and constantly preached love, tolerance and charity. Jesus would shake his head in disgust at conservatives. They are just like the Pharisees and Sudducees of Jesus' age. Tnhey, too, clean only the outside of the cup...inside, it's filthy!

No, I do not hate religion. What I hate is bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and political idealogue cloaking and masking itself in religion, and using it to excuse their wretched behavior towards their fellow man.

so you're a christian are you? i seem to remember a thread you started a while back entitled "christians how do i hate thee? let me count the ways". pwned!!!!1

ah, its good stuff!

Surely you don't think blacks are as uncivilized as they were 200 years ago.

daaaamn

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.And, of course, you automatically call the truth "lies" if it comes from the right...

Since WHEN did truth ever come from the right? It's all spin and greed, and evil non-compassion, phuck the little guy. THAT's all that EVER comes from the right. what I want to know is how they manage to brainwash so many people into voting against their own economic self-interest.but arent democrats for wealth distribution? that sure seems like against my economic self interest..... oh well, its not like liberals have any reasoning power anyways :roll:It's only against your economic self-interest if you're one of the scum-sucking greedy wealthy jerks that got there on the backs of poor workers, by exploiting them, and not paying them a fair wage in the first place! Only the wealthy would have some of their income redistributed, and I firmly believe that should happen. Once everyone has enough to meet their basic survival needs, THEN...go for it. Get as filthy disgusting rich as you want, and I could care less. If that is what makes you happy. But, as long as there are homeless...as long as there are hungry, desperate people out there...as long as children in the Northeast freeze their asses off in the winter because their parents have to choose between food and heat...as long as over 40 million Americans without health insurance go without basic medical care...as long as those things are a reality in this country...I am in favor of wealth redistribution.

You guys CLAIM to be such believers in charity...well, WHERE'S YOUR PHUCKING CHARITY?!?!? I don't see it! If it were there, these peoblems wouldn't exist. If y'all wealthy weren't a bunch of heartless, cruel selfish trolls, we wouldn't HAVE to force you, through taxes...to do what you ought to do through compassion.

But, of course, conservatives HAVE no compassion...hence the need for taxes.

who said i was wealthy? anyways, what about welfare? and if you just give away money that would give people no reason to get out and support themselves. and i seriously doubt that if nobody forced you to pay taxes therefore funding the welfare system that helps the wretched poor you're always screeching about, you wouldnt do it of your own free will. you liberals are all for wealth distribution as long as its not your money, eh? and im sure that you know that lots of religious organizations(churches, mosques((sp?)), etc.) do alot to help the homeless and poor in their LOCAL towns/cities, but you hate religion dont you?

Actually, no...I do not hate religion. It may surprise you to know I am a Christian. A Unitarian Christian, but, nevertheless, a Christian. And JESUS taught us to love our neighbors, and constantly preached love, tolerance and charity. Jesus would shake his head in disgust at conservatives. They are just like the Pharisees and Sudducees of Jesus' age. Tnhey, too, clean only the outside of the cup...inside, it's filthy!

No, I do not hate religion. What I hate is bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and political idealogue cloaking and masking itself in religion, and using it to excuse their wretched behavior towards their fellow man.

so you're a christian are you? i seem to remember a thread you started a while back entitled "christians how do i hate thee? let me count the ways". pwned!!!!1

ah, its good stuff!

Indeed...you are quite correct...and I did start that post. This was before I converted, firstly...and seconly, the word CHRISTIANS was in quote marks in that thread....indicating I was referring to the false Christians...like the gay-bashers. They aren't Christian...they use the bible only as a cudgel with which to beat other people down. THOSE are the people to whom that thread referred, and you know it.

I even said in the thread that my mother and my cousin were both born-again Christians...and that I loved them both dearly...and that they were among a very few examples I had ever encountered of REAL CHRISTIANS. Oh, I've experienced plenty of redneck nerds in bowling shirts, guzzling Lone Star Beer and thumping on their Bibles. Thos aren't Christians. They're redneck geeks and haters. THOSE are the people I was disparaging in that thread. And I feel the same way now about them as I did when I first made that thread.

You'll ALSO remember that I later CHANGED the title of the thread to "Fundamentalists, How Do I Hate Thee..." And to this day, I STILL hate fundamentalist zalot whacko redneck Christian Taliban butt heads.

Here is a question. Why do we still need affirmative action today? Surely you don't think blacks are as uncivilized as they were 200 years ago.

Holy latter-day-saints Raysia, read your own writing. THAT is why we need affirmative action.

As with all conservatives, you learned early to call the truth "propaganda" when it comes from the left.And, of course, you automatically call the truth "lies" if it comes from the right...

Since WHEN did truth ever come from the right? It's all spin and greed, and evil non-compassion, phuck the little guy. THAT's all that EVER comes from the right. what I want to know is how they manage to brainwash so many people into voting against their own economic self-interest.but arent democrats for wealth distribution? that sure seems like against my economic self interest..... oh well, its not like liberals have any reasoning power anyways :roll:It's only against your economic self-interest if you're one of the scum-sucking greedy wealthy jerks that got there on the backs of poor workers, by exploiting them, and not paying them a fair wage in the first place! Only the wealthy would have some of their income redistributed, and I firmly believe that should happen. Once everyone has enough to meet their basic survival needs, THEN...go for it. Get as filthy disgusting rich as you want, and I could care less. If that is what makes you happy. But, as long as there are homeless...as long as there are hungry, desperate people out there...as long as children in the Northeast freeze their asses off in the winter because their parents have to choose between food and heat...as long as over 40 million Americans without health insurance go without basic medical care...as long as those things are a reality in this country...I am in favor of wealth redistribution.

You guys CLAIM to be such believers in charity...well, WHERE'S YOUR PHUCKING CHARITY?!?!? I don't see it! If it were there, these peoblems wouldn't exist. If y'all wealthy weren't a bunch of heartless, cruel selfish trolls, we wouldn't HAVE to force you, through taxes...to do what you ought to do through compassion.

But, of course, conservatives HAVE no compassion...hence the need for taxes.

who said i was wealthy? anyways, what about welfare? and if you just give away money that would give people no reason to get out and support themselves. and i seriously doubt that if nobody forced you to pay taxes therefore funding the welfare system that helps the wretched poor you're always screeching about, you wouldnt do it of your own free will. you liberals are all for wealth distribution as long as its not your money, eh? and im sure that you know that lots of religious organizations(churches, mosques((sp?)), etc.) do alot to help the homeless and poor in their LOCAL towns/cities, but you hate religion dont you?

Actually, no...I do not hate religion. It may surprise you to know I am a Christian. A Unitarian Christian, but, nevertheless, a Christian. And JESUS taught us to love our neighbors, and constantly preached love, tolerance and charity. Jesus would shake his head in disgust at conservatives. They are just like the Pharisees and Sudducees of Jesus' age. Tnhey, too, clean only the outside of the cup...inside, it's filthy!

No, I do not hate religion. What I hate is bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and political idealogue cloaking and masking itself in religion, and using it to excuse their wretched behavior towards their fellow man.

so you're a christian are you? i seem to remember a thread you started a while back entitled "christians how do i hate thee? let me count the ways". pwned!!!!1

ah, its good stuff!

Indeed...you are quite correct...and I did start that post. This was before I converted, firstly...and seconly, the word CHRISTIANS was in quote marks in that thread....indicating I was referring to the false Christians...like the gay-bashers. They aren't Christian...they use the bible only as a cudgel with which to beat other people down. THOSE are the people to whom that thread referred, and you know it.

I even said in the thread that my mother and my cousin were both born-again Christians...and that I loved them both dearly...and that they were among a very few examples I had ever encountered of REAL CHRISTIANS. Oh, I've experienced plenty of redneck nerds in bowling shirts, guzzling Lone Star Beer and thumping on their Bibles. Thos aren't Christians. They're redneck geeks and haters. THOSE are the people I was disparaging in that thread. And I feel the same way now about them as I did when I first made that thread.

You'll ALSO remember that I later CHANGED the title of the thread to "Fundamentalists, How Do I Hate Thee..." And to this day, I STILL hate fundamentalist zalot whacko redneck Christian Taliban butt heads.

ergh, i've been slogging through your post history trying to find that thread, but it must have been deleted. anyways, its too late to be debating, but i would like to continue this tommorow perhaps?

maybe it would be helpful if you'd explain clearly what you mean by progressive.Advancing society. Making the world safer. Raising better people. Encouraging people to be nice to each other, instead of encouraging them to be careful of each other.

In basic... Progressive=Advancement, Regressive=Reversion.

And Chrestus, Thank you too for your comments. I would break them down, but I gotta go ^_^

Raysia, I think that liberals are progressive becuase just about every right you have, right down to the 1st Amendment that allows you religious freedom was fought and won by a liberal. Liberals simply are much more laid back and don't try to tell people how to live their lives. Liberals in many ways are much more true to your faith then conservatives, why? Because in the bible it clearly states that you shouldn't judge people.. you know this.. When was the last time you seen a conservative not try to press their opinions onto other people? I'm not saying liberals never do it.. but it's a bench mark of conservatives. Liberal is not a bad word. I guess in the USA these days it has become one.. however, every thing worth while ever has been done by liberals, civil rights.. etc..etc.. so.. I would say that is why liberals are considered progressive... they help change things for the better.. or depending on your opinion the worse.. but conservatives like to stay in their glass houses and throw stones.. I'm not trying to bash any one here.. that is just my honest opinion.

[quote=Raysia]Here is a question. Why do we still need affirmative action today? Surely you don't think blacks are as uncivilized as they were 200 years ago. *rubs eyes* am i halucinating that?

Here is a question. Why do we still need affirmative action today? Surely you don't think blacks are as uncivilized as they were 200 years ago.

Holy latter-day-saints Raysia, read your own writing. THAT is why we need affirmative action.Surely you don't think blacks are as uncivilized as they were 200 years ago.

daaaamnWhoa, holy crap, way to mishear me. In those quotes FS gave me, MLK said that blacks were 300 years behind whites in society because of segregation and slavery and all that. I am asking you guys if you HONESTLY BELIEVE that blacks are still 300 years behind whites. Sorry if my word choice was wrong, but there you go.

here's the deal. until you have a society where people of any particular ethnic background or gender, etc are represented in any particular position roughly proportionally with their representation in the whole population you do not have a free and equal society. and in order to get to that point some mechanism must be used and continue to be used until equality is the established and entrenched status quo.

i personally do not favor affirmitive action type programs, because they rely too much on the benevolence of the powerful and privileged - who are also responsible for systematically locking people out in the first place. the only real solution is the direct action version - take away power and privilege and create a just society in place of the old unjust one.

here's the deal. until you have a society where people of any particular ethnic background or gender, etc are represented in any particular position roughly proportionally with their representation in the whole population you do not have a free and equal society. and in order to get to that point some mechanism must be used and continue to be used until equality is the established and entrenched status quo.

i personally do not favor affirmitive action type programs, because they rely too much on the benevolence of the powerful and privileged - who are also responsible for systematically locking people out in the first place. the only real solution is the direct action version - take away power and privilege and create a just society in place of the old unjust one.Here's the deal. Racial boundaries ONLY EXIST because we still recognize them, and because we still give different races different treatments. If we drop the special treatment crap, and we quit giving people different oppurtunities because of skin color, then race will DISSAPPEAR. The only people keeping it alive are the racist minorities, who are growing smaller and smaller in number as decades go by.

here's the deal. until you have a society where people of any particular ethnic background or gender, etc are represented in any particular position roughly proportionally with their representation in the whole population you do not have a free and equal society. and in order to get to that point some mechanism must be used and continue to be used until equality is the established and entrenched status quo.

i personally do not favor affirmitive action type programs, because they rely too much on the benevolence of the powerful and privileged - who are also responsible for systematically locking people out in the first place. the only real solution is the direct action version - take away power and privilege and create a just society in place of the old unjust one.Here's the deal. Racial boundaries ONLY EXIST because we still recognize them, and because we still give different races different treatments. If we drop the special treatment crap, and we quit giving people different oppurtunities because of skin color, then race will DISSAPPEAR. The only people keeping it alive are the racist minorities, who are growing smaller and smaller in number as decades go by.

*Shakes Head*.. Have you talked to minorities lately to see what they say about how they are still treated? I seen a program on TV not long ago where they did a bit of an experiment. They took a black man and put him in a suit.. dressed him all up like a businessman.. then they took a white guy and he just wore a t-shirt and blue jeans.. (this was done in New York city) then they did two things, first they tried to flag down taxis.. they put the black business looking man in front and the white guy with jeans and a t-shirt about 10 feet behind him, every time the taxi passed the black guy all dressed up and picked up the white dude in jeans.. then they went to large shopping centers. Almost every time the blackman was followed by store security and the white guy wasn't. I seriously doubt that these attitudes were cause by Affirmative action, do you?

here's the deal. until you have a society where people of any particular ethnic background or gender, etc are represented in any particular position roughly proportionally with their representation in the whole population you do not have a free and equal society. and in order to get to that point some mechanism must be used and continue to be used until equality is the established and entrenched status quo.

i personally do not favor affirmitive action type programs, because they rely too much on the benevolence of the powerful and privileged - who are also responsible for systematically locking people out in the first place. the only real solution is the direct action version - take away power and privilege and create a just society in place of the old unjust one.Here's the deal. Racial boundaries ONLY EXIST because we still recognize them, and because we still give different races different treatments. If we drop the special treatment crap, and we quit giving people different oppurtunities because of skin color, then race will DISSAPPEAR. The only people keeping it alive are the racist minorities, who are growing smaller and smaller in number as decades go by.

*Shakes Head*.. Have you talked to minorities lately to see what they say about how they are still treated? I seen a program on TV not long ago where they did a bit of an experiment. They took a black man and put him in a suit.. dressed him all up like a businessman.. then they took a white guy and he just wore a t-shirt and blue jeans.. (this was done in New York city) then they did two things, first they tried to flag down taxis.. they put the black business looking man in front and the white guy with jeans and a t-shirt about 10 feet behind him, every time the taxi passed the black guy all dressed up and picked up the white dude in jeans.. then they went to large shopping centers. Almost every time the blackman was followed by store security and the white guy wasn't. I seriously doubt that these attitudes were cause by Affirmative action, do you?Just goes to prove MLK's cause needs to be progressed even further. But not the antithesis which is affirmative action.

This is a SOCIAL problem, not a rights or law enforcement problem.

Here's the deal. Racial boundaries ONLY EXIST because we still recognize them, and because we still give different races different treatments. If we drop the special treatment crap, and we quit giving people different oppurtunities because of skin color, then race will DISSAPPEAR. The only people keeping it alive are the racist minorities, who are growing smaller and smaller in number as decades go by.

race is still a useful sociological concept. people have different opportunities based on skin color and it has nothing to do with affirmative action. unless you have a non-racist explanation of the disparity in education that maps really well onto perceived racial categories... or how about one for income disparity? or an explanation as to why we have only had 4 african american senators in the 134 years since the 15th amendment (and only 2 of those were post-mlk)?

Here's the deal. Racial boundaries ONLY EXIST because we still recognize them, and because we still give different races different treatments. If we drop the special treatment crap, and we quit giving people different oppurtunities because of skin color, then race will DISSAPPEAR. The only people keeping it alive are the racist minorities, who are growing smaller and smaller in number as decades go by.

race is still a useful sociological concept. people have different opportunities based on skin color and it has nothing to do with affirmative action. unless you have a non-racist explanation of the disparity in education that maps really well onto perceived racial categories... or how about one for income disparity? or an explanation as to why we have only had 4 african american senators in the 134 years since the 15th amendment (and only 2 of those were post-mlk)?Again, you're talking about a SOCIAL problem. Racism, sadly, still exists in society. But that is in no way/shape/form the government's problem, ESPECIALLY in a so-called-liberal's view.

here's the deal. until you have a society where people of any particular ethnic background or gender, etc are represented in any particular position roughly proportionally with their representation in the whole population you do not have a free and equal society. and in order to get to that point some mechanism must be used and continue to be used until equality is the established and entrenched status quo.

i personally do not favor affirmitive action type programs, because they rely too much on the benevolence of the powerful and privileged - who are also responsible for systematically locking people out in the first place. the only real solution is the direct action version - take away power and privilege and create a just society in place of the old unjust one.Here's the deal. Racial boundaries ONLY EXIST because we still recognize them, and because we still give different races different treatments. If we drop the special treatment crap, and we quit giving people different oppurtunities because of skin color, then race will DISSAPPEAR. The only people keeping it alive are the racist minorities, who are growing smaller and smaller in number as decades go by.

*Shakes Head*.. Have you talked to minorities lately to see what they say about how they are still treated? I seen a program on TV not long ago where they did a bit of an experiment. They took a black man and put him in a suit.. dressed him all up like a businessman.. then they took a white guy and he just wore a t-shirt and blue jeans.. (this was done in New York city) then they did two things, first they tried to flag down taxis.. they put the black business looking man in front and the white guy with jeans and a t-shirt about 10 feet behind him, every time the taxi passed the black guy all dressed up and picked up the white dude in jeans.. then they went to large shopping centers. Almost every time the blackman was followed by store security and the white guy wasn't. I seriously doubt that these attitudes were cause by Affirmative action, do you?Just goes to prove MLK's cause needs to be progressed even further. But not the antithesis which is affirmative action.

This is a SOCIAL problem, not a rights or law enforcement problem.

I don't personally agree with affirmative action. I think people should be judged on their merit. I basically think people shouldn't be judged.. but you know what I mean. However, there is still a lot of racism out there. I'm just some white English girl living in Canada.. so it doesn't really affect me.. but I see it. I also see how TV shows stereotype minorities a lot. If I was a minority, I think I would be rather insulted. I have many friends who are minorities.. and they act just like me.. so it's sad.. to bad we just all weren't colour blind.

This is a SOCIAL problem, not a rights or law enforcement problem.
And racial profiling is what?

I don't personally agree with affirmative action. I think people should be judged on their merit. I basically think people shouldn't be judged.. but you know what I mean. However, there is still a lot of racism out there. I'm just some white English girl living in Canada.. so it doesn't really affect me.. but I see it. I also see how TV shows stereotype minorities a lot. If I was a minority, I think I would be rather insulted. I have many friends who are minorities.. and they act just like me.. so it's sad.. to bad we just all weren't colour blind.I am not denying that racism exists, and I am certainly not condoning it. But I am wondering how/why it should be the government's problem.

This is a SOCIAL problem, not a rights or law enforcement problem.
And racial profiling is what?Not law? A bad practice? Something to get mad over? bad?

Again, you're talking about a SOCIAL problem. Racism, sadly, still exists in society. But that is in no way/shape/form the government's problem, ESPECIALLY in a so-called-liberal's view.

well if you admit it is a problem, then what do you suggest doing about it? there really are only three courses of action. 1) the reformist way that will involve goverment programs to create equality in vital areas of society whether society wants it or not. 2) the revolutionary way that will create a radically different society where systemic racism (and sexism and classism, etc) has been put 'up against the wall'. and 3) the reactionary way, where its further back to the ghetto and the segregation for blacks (and barefoot, pregnant, and back to the kitchen for women; and no chance at all for poor folks to do anything but slave away until they die prematurely) - this is where we wind up if we just do nothing.

btw, i ain't a liberal.

I don't personally agree with affirmative action. I think people should be judged on their merit. I basically think people shouldn't be judged.. but you know what I mean. However, there is still a lot of racism out there. I'm just some white English girl living in Canada.. so it doesn't really affect me.. but I see it. I also see how TV shows stereotype minorities a lot. If I was a minority, I think I would be rather insulted. I have many friends who are minorities.. and they act just like me.. so it's sad.. to bad we just all weren't colour blind.I am not denying that racism exists, and I am certainly not condoning it. But I am wondering how/why it should be the government's problem.

Yeah, it's hard for me to really say.. I know I don't like nor agree with racism.. but you can't really legislate people's attitudes.. also I don't think it's a big as a problem in Canada as it is for you guys in the States.. so, I'm not sure why the government is involved either.. but I guess if there is a huge racism problem in America, which from what I can see from American TV there is.. then who else is going to protect them? What would be your solution? Should they just be left to their own devices with no legal protection? I'm not sure what can be done except to protect minority rights using the law.. what else is there? To say if every one just ignored it, it would go away, I think is a little naive. It wouldn't just go away.. so the question is.. what should happen then? It's easy for us to say.. I don't think this is how it should be dealt with.. but then begs the question, how should it be dealt with? I personally don't have an answer to that question.. other then to say that parents need to educated their children from a very young age that there is no difference, people are people, we all bleed red. Then what do you do if the parents are racists though? It's a complicated situation.. I see no easy fix.

Again, you're talking about a SOCIAL problem. Racism, sadly, still exists in society. But that is in no way/shape/form the government's problem, ESPECIALLY in a so-called-liberal's view.

well if you admit it is a problem, then what do you suggest doing about it? there really are only three courses of action. 1) the reformist way that will involve goverment programs to create equality in vital areas of society whether society wants it or not. 2) the revolutionary way that will create a radically different society where systemic racism (and sexism and classism, etc) has been put 'up against the wall'. and 3) the reactionary way, where its further back to the ghetto and the segregation for blacks (and barefoot, pregnant, and back to the kitchen for women; and no chance at all for poor folks to do anything but slave away until they die prematurely) - this is where we wind up if we just do nothing.

btw, i ain't a liberal.how about the continuing-what-MLK-started way? Instead of preaching about the oppressive white man, preach about how to be equal.

The door is open. Go through it.

Racism is an illusion. It exists only in a small percentage of americans.

Someone will be treated like an equal when they act like an equal. People will be treated like a victim when they act like a victim.

It has a LOT to do with attitude. And with, for example, hip-hop culture falsely representing Blacks, all they are doing is spreading racist propoganda and inspiring hatred in those who already don't have good opinions of black culture.

the only reason the political 'right' is always trying to discredit the morality of the political left is because it knows it doesn't have any of its own

~;)

the only reason the political 'right' is always trying to discredit the morality of the political left is because it knows it doesn't have any of its own

~;)LOL Yeah, comparing a Moralistic party to an Amoralistic party tends to bring forth such things :)

This is a SOCIAL problem, not a rights or law enforcement problem.
And racial profiling is what?Not law? A bad practice? Something to get mad over? bad?Practiced by law enforcement agencies. A violation of the rights of those profiled because it results in a disproportionate number of those profiled being stopped by police. Therefore, both a law enforcement and rights issue.

Making it law that you can't deny someone housing or promotion (etc.) because of their sex/age/race/gender/religion/etc. wasn't enough. Those practicing prejudisms said "Oh, no, that person didn't get passed over because of _____, Um, Steve here (applied for the apartment first, is more qualified, etc). Only too often investigation was showing that Steve didn't apply first, or wasn't as qualified, much less more qualified, so standard expectations were put in place (affirmative action).

In a perfect world, we'd automatically base decisions on character and ability. In a semi-perfect world, affirmative action wouldn't work against anyone.(Semi-perfect, because in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any discrimination.) We have neither. Sometimes AA works the way it was intended, sometimes not. It takes years to change society. It took 100 yrs. just to get society to consider the idea that blacks aren't sub-human. And that's just one minority. We've got a long way to go. When the social problem is discrimination, it IS a legal problem.

This is a SOCIAL problem, not a rights or law enforcement problem.
And racial profiling is what?Not law? A bad practice? Something to get mad over? bad?Practiced by law enforcement agencies. A violation of the rights of those profiled because it results in a disproportionate number of those profiled being stopped by police. Therefore, both a law enforcement and rights issue.

Making it law that you can't deny someone housing or promotion (etc.) because of their sex/age/race/gender/religion/etc. wasn't enough. Those practicing prejudisms said "Oh, no, that person didn't get passed over because of _____, Um, Steve here (applied for the apartment first, is more qualified, etc). Only too often investigation was showing that Steve didn't apply first, or was as qualified, much less more qualified, so standard expectations were put in place (affirmative action).

In a perfect world, we'd automatically base decisions on character and ability. In a semi-perfect world, affirmative action wouldn't work against anyone.(Semi-perfect, because in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any discrimination.) We have neither. Sometimes AA works the way it was intended, sometimes not. It takes years to change society. It took 100 yrs. just to get society to consider the idea that blacks aren't sub-human. And that's just one minority. We've got a long way to go. When the social problem is discrimination, it IS a legal problem.You're talking about law enforcers who abuse and break the law. That is a SEPERATE problem. We already have laws against racial profiling, and it has nothing to do with affirmative action.

the only reason the political 'right' is always trying to discredit the morality of the political left is because it knows it doesn't have any of its own

~;)

As some one who's been around the political life for some years.. I would have to say that wasn't always true. The "right" use to be valid some times more then the left.. and then some years the left was more on point then the right. It sort of bounced back & forth. The problem is what we are seeing now is that the right has went to far right. They have become fanatics, or fundamentalists if you will. There is no more moderates. There is, but they are growing to be smaller and smaller. The only moderates appear to be on the left. There are a couple of notable moderates in the states.. John McCain comes to mind.. but not many. Being to far to the right or left is never a good thing IMO. The problem as I see it is the right in America have went nuts. However, it wasn't always that way.

It has a LOT to do with attitude. And with, for example, hip-hop culture falsely representing Blacks, all they are doing is spreading racist propoganda and inspiring hatred in those who already don't have good opinions of black culture.

Only a small minority of 'hip-hop culture' as you call it, though. Again Raysia, your taring everyone with the same brush. I'm sure your reffering to the extreme Gangsta Hip-hop - a form of music I find abhorent. Showing off how much money, women and guns you have is just stupid. However, bands and artists such as Jurasic 5, Dilated Peoples, The Non-Prophets, the whole Anticon crew, present a positive image and a clear message of equality.

This is a SOCIAL problem, not a rights or law enforcement problem.
And racial profiling is what?Not law? A bad practice? Something to get mad over? bad?Practiced by law enforcement agencies. A violation of the rights of those profiled because it results in a disproportionate number of those profiled being stopped by police. Therefore, both a law enforcement and rights issue.

Making it law that you can't deny someone housing or promotion (etc.) because of their sex/age/race/gender/religion/etc. wasn't enough. Those practicing prejudisms said "Oh, no, that person didn't get passed over because of _____, Um, Steve here (applied for the apartment first, is more qualified, etc). Only too often investigation was showing that Steve didn't apply first, or was as qualified, much less more qualified, so standard expectations were put in place (affirmative action).

In a perfect world, we'd automatically base decisions on character and ability. In a semi-perfect world, affirmative action wouldn't work against anyone.(Semi-perfect, because in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any discrimination.) We have neither. Sometimes AA works the way it was intended, sometimes not. It takes years to change society. It took 100 yrs. just to get society to consider the idea that blacks aren't sub-human. And that's just one minority. We've got a long way to go. When the social problem is discrimination, it IS a legal problem.You're talking about law enforcers who abuse and break the law. That is a SEPERATE problem. We already have laws against racial profiling, and it has nothing to do with affirmative action.

Migods, did you read past the first paragraph?

I have a feeling that the political labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' have taken on rather different meanings in the US than in the UK, my own country.

In social terms, a conservative is someone who wishes to preserve the values of the past and respect traditions, culture, etc. They are inherently non-progressive. I don't agree that this means they are automatically regressive though.

Again in social terms, a liberal is someone who is permissive. They take the view that what people so should be regulated as little as possible. Is this progressive or conservative? I'd say progressive based on my definition, but I accept that my definition may differ from others. 'Progressive' is a woolly term.

'Liberal' and 'conservative' are not antonyms. This is a redundant debate in the sense that one cannot use them as opposite terms. It is possible to be a liberal conservative, a liberal capitalist, a conservative capitalist, a liberal socialist, even a conservative socialist.

On the evidence of the views posted on this forum by both sides, it would appear that many (though by no means all) of you have a lazy, slipshod tendency to shoot down arguments by employing almost meaningless labels that are often incorrect.

I don't think violence (in particular, policing) is a good way to rid the world of racism. Throwing racists in prison cells or taking their property will not solve the problem. Besides this, even if someone happens to only hire whites or blacks or whatever, how can you be sure race was the motivating factor? AA policies tend to violate the "innocent until proven guilty" code since anybody who employs less than x% blacks is assumed racist.

If someone is denied a job just because they're white this will make them more likely to be racist, no?

In the free market any employer who will not hire 50% of the population puts himself at a disadvantage and if he is blatently racist many people will avoid his business. Here is yet another issue where society is more able to sort out its problems when left alone.

Anyway, if I were black I wouldn't want to force some racist to let me call him "boss".

Yeah i get a lotta liberals in SF. Just the other day I gottta group of guys yelling at me cause i pronounced his name wrong. Sdom Hussein, And Yasser is how they wanted me to say it. I said "f--- You" Im not saying a damn terrosists name right for the sake of being "socially conscience". THeytre the reason people are dying and liberals get mad at ME for saying so. I say this is just an example of the feminism that liberals put america through.


Maybe the reason they shouted at you was because they thought that you were an idiot.

well if you admit it is a problem, then what do you suggest doing about it? there really are only three courses of action. 1) the reformist way that will involve goverment programs to create equality in vital areas of society whether society wants it or not. 2) the revolutionary way that will create a radically different society where systemic racism (and sexism and classism, etc) has been put 'up against the wall'. and 3) the reactionary way, where its further back to the ghetto and the segregation for blacks (and barefoot, pregnant, and back to the kitchen for women; and no chance at all for poor folks to do anything but slave away until they die prematurely) - this is where we wind up if we just do nothing.

btw, i ain't a liberal.how about the continuing-what-MLK-started way? Instead of preaching about the oppressive white man, preach about how to be equal.

that would be some combination of 1 and 2. seriously. it is only in the past decade or so that the right has been trying to spin mlk to their side - before that the same people used to just call him a communist intent on destroying ameica.

Racism is an illusion. It exists only in a small percentage of americans.

who is talking about personalized and individualized racism? that's a ridiculous detour to a dead end that the democrats have been led down. its a convenient shift in focus for those that are actually happy with the status quo but who still want to feel like they are making a difference and are better than the 'bad people'. the issue is structural racism. it always has been one of the main problems. structural racism is closely related to the class structure in general, though this particular underclass was explicitly created as a racial category.

a simple way to see that structural racism exists is a thought experiment about college admissions. imagine that there was no biographical information associated with an application during the admission process - just an id number and some grades and test scores. black people would still be disproportionately left out of higher eductation. you see, test scores have been conclusively shown to be directly related to your parents' income and education levels. and since black people's parents and grandparents were almost completely locked out of higher education and high status jobs, they will remain locked out - though for slightly less explicit reasons.

structural racism exists in all levels of education, in the workplace, in healthcare, and in access to power in general. these are the types of problems that have to be dealt with before anyone can make any sort of claim about reaching a free and equal society. and the only way to deal with them is on the structural level; either through extensive reforms or a radical restructuring of society. and i don't believe the first way will actually work - but conservatives had better hope it will.

Racism is an illusion. It exists only in a small percentage of americans.

Actually, current psychological theories of racism point to two strains still prevalent in today's society - modern and aversive. Modern racism is demonstrated by attitudes we often see in Republican legislative acts, ie squashing programs which would benefit minorities. Aversive racism is observed as a general unconscious avoidance of minorities, for fear of appearing racist. Studies of helping behavior on known Democrat and Republican households find that Republicans more often demonstrate modern racism, while Democrats often demonstrate aversive racism. Neither of these is as strong as the old-fashioned racism of burning crosses and white pillowcases, but rather are credited to unconsious racial attitudes which are still imprinted on the psyches of white Americans. As such, racism can not be said to be uncommon, nor an illusion. As an aside, though, an illusion is a trick of the mind, and as racism exists within the mind, it is an illusion or a flaw in perception. But that's semantics.

Someone will be treated like an equal when they act like an equal. People will be treated like a victim when they act like a victim.

So it's the victim's fault for acting like a victim? Do I even need to say anything about this?

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Raysia, more or less- race is not a very good characteristic to base policy on, whatever the situation. However, AA is really not as big a deal as it gets made out to be: at present, the only public institutions with AA tendencies are AFAIK public universities, who are limited to considering race as one criteria among many. So it's not really have the great an impact, one way or another.

Basically I think a more effective, fair and sensible to structure AA-like programs is on the basis of class not race. Race may still have a detrimental effect on minorities, but it is dwarfed by the immense inequalities created by the difficulties inherent in our current social structure. I think you would see a lot more beneficial changes by structuring AA to support the poor than to support a certain race. Moreover, the black poor people we want to help would in all likelyhood still be able to access this kind of program, as would white poor people. I really think this makes a lot more sense.

in a sense, i agree too - the class structure itself causes immense problems and inequalities. however, race was created and maintained as a special sort of underclass and the effects of that are still being felt. as such it needs to be specifically addressed in addition to addressing the problems of class structure as a whole. race is still a socially meaningful concept distinct from, but related to, class (though it is biologically nonsense). addressing the problems of racism is a key part of addressing the problems of the class structure in general.

in a sense, i agree too - the class structure itself causes immense problems and inequalities. however, race was created and maintained as a special sort of underclass and the effects of that are still being felt. as such it needs to be specifically addressed in addition to addressing the problems of class structure as a whole. race is still a socially meaningful concept distinct from, but related to, class (though it is biologically nonsense). addressing the problems of racism is a key part of addressing the problems of the class structure in general.

True, but race based AA does cause a whole boatload of problems, problems which are not created by focusing measures on class. You'd still see as much improvement in the quality of life of minorities, since they're over-represented in the poorer classes, but without acknowledging race (which I think government should move away from entirely; I think justify race as a criteria for AA justifies it as a criteria for law enforcement aka racial profiling). By adressing the problems of class we inadvertedly also address the problems of racism. While race issues still exist, I really don't think race-based AA is an appropriate method of rectifying these problems. It's much more effective, in my mind, to ensure public schools are of a high caliber, minority intensive residence have a high level of safety, support access and fair treatment than it is to bump up students slightly when entering college.

I agree that this would be beneficial, as AA is currently an antiquated system (meant to address older, more overt forms of racism). So, perhaps AA needs to be shifted from a solely racial focus to a class focus with racial inequalities still in mind. Now, how to navigate that gray area in actual policy?

(which I think government should move away from entirely; I think justify race as a criteria for AA justifies it as a criteria for law enforcement aka racial profiling)

hmm. i hadn't thought of that.



While race issues still exist, I really don't think race-based AA is an appropriate method of rectifying these problems. It's much more effective, in my mind, to ensure public schools are of a high caliber, minority intensive residence have a high level of safety, support access and fair treatment than it is to bump up students slightly when entering college.

nor do i. as i've said elsewhere - and i'm sure you would know about me by now - i favor a much more radical solution that actually addresses the roots of these sorts of problems rather than some political messing around with a few of the symptoms.

i'm afraid you've been taken in by the right's "wedontwanttolooklikeklanmembersanymore" spin.Maybe because we aren't klan members, and maybe because most of us never were.

i'm afraid you've been taken in by the right's "wedontwanttolooklikeklanmembersanymore" spin.Maybe because we aren't klan members, and maybe because most of us never were.

never claimed you were. just that it was easy to paint you all as such back when you were calling king a communist out to destroy everything that is good about america. hence the recent shift in spin.

I agree that this would be beneficial, as AA is currently an antiquated system (meant to address older, more overt forms of racism). So, perhaps AA needs to be shifted from a solely racial focus to a class focus with racial inequalities still in mind. Now, how to navigate that gray area in actual policy?Well, one way would be to address the situation in purely economic terms, giving aid to people from lower economic circumstances. But the ultimate problem with AA is that it addresses the inequalities in education far too late in the game. Inequalities in education need to be addressed from the pre-K level onward, and public school funding needs to be handled on a far more equitable basis than it currently is. The problem is that schools are funded mainly by local property taxes which makes the divide between rich and poor or middle class students greater and greater--we've got to find a way to fund our schools so that there's no inherent disadvantage because you live in a poor neighborhood.

I don't think violence (in particular, policing) is a good way to rid the world of racism. Throwing racists in prison cells or taking their property will not solve the problem. Besides this, even if someone happens to only hire whites or blacks or whatever, how can you be sure race was the motivating factor? AA policies tend to violate the "innocent until proven guilty" code since anybody who employs less than x% blacks is assumed racist.

If someone is denied a job just because they're white this will make them more likely to be racist, no?

In the free market any employer who will not hire 50% of the population puts himself at a disadvantage and if he is blatently racist many people will avoid his business. Here is yet another issue where society is more able to sort out its problems when left alone.

Anyway, if I were black I wouldn't want to force some racist to let me call him "boss".

So you'd rather starve?

never claimed you were. just that it was easy to paint you all as such back when you were calling king a communist out to destroy everything that is good about america. hence the recent shift in spin.I hope you don't think the majority of conservatives think MLK was a communist... or even a modern-standard liberal. For the most parts, Conservatives tend to quote MLK jr. more than the libs who have forgotten his words.

Ever listen to Sean Hannity or anything like that? Sean is totally anti-racism.

never claimed you were. just that it was easy to paint you all as such back when you were calling king a communist out to destroy everything that is good about america. hence the recent shift in spin.I hope you don't think the majority of conservatives think MLK was a communist... or even a modern-standard liberal. For the most parts, Conservatives tend to quote MLK jr. more than the libs who have forgotten his words.

am i even getting through to you at all? king thought that something much like a vastly more expansive version of aa was necessary. king actually was a socialist of some sort. and a lot of the major republicans up to reagan are on record as calling mlk jr a dangerous subversive or worse (of course, so were a bunch of the democrats of the time; after all, king did surround himself with communists and openly called for a social revolution). this whole quoting by the right is a new thing - late 80's at the earliest. and they only ever quote the one line from the dream speech.

never claimed you were. just that it was easy to paint you all as such back when you were calling king a communist out to destroy everything that is good about america. hence the recent shift in spin.I hope you don't think the majority of conservatives think MLK was a communist... or even a modern-standard liberal. For the most parts, Conservatives tend to quote MLK jr. more than the libs who have forgotten his words.

am i even getting through to you at all? king thought that something much like a vastly more expansive version of aa was necessary. king actually was a socialist of some sort. and a lot of the major republicans up to reagan are on record as calling mlk jr a dangerous subversive or worse (of course, so were a bunch of the democrats of the time; after all, king did surround himself with communists and openly called for a social revolution). this whole quoting by the right is a new thing - late 80's at the earliest. and they only ever quote the one line from the dream speech.Conservaives have changed, liberals have changed. Dare I say, they have flipped? Oh wait, that's what I said in the title of this thread ^_^ It's gone from this:

Liberals: Equality! Integration!
Conservatives: Segregation! Special treatment!

to this:
Conservatives: Equality! End Racism!
Liberals: Give minorities special treatment!

And btw, no, I still don't believe that MLK Jr. was a socialist, or wanted something worse than the AA we have today.

never claimed you were. just that it was easy to paint you all as such back when you were calling king a communist out to destroy everything that is good about america. hence the recent shift in spin.I hope you don't think the majority of conservatives think MLK was a communist... or even a modern-standard liberal. For the most parts, Conservatives tend to quote MLK jr. more than the libs who have forgotten his words.

am i even getting through to you at all? king thought that something much like a vastly more expansive version of aa was necessary. king actually was a socialist of some sort. and a lot of the major republicans up to reagan are on record as calling mlk jr a dangerous subversive or worse (of course, so were a bunch of the democrats of the time; after all, king did surround himself with communists and openly called for a social revolution). this whole quoting by the right is a new thing - late 80's at the earliest. and they only ever quote the one line from the dream speech.Conservaives have changed, liberals have changed. Dare I say, they have flipped? Oh wait, that's what I said in the title of this thread ^_^ It's gone from this:

Liberals: Equality! Integration!
Conservatives: Segregation! Special treatment!

to this:
Conservatives: Equality! End Racism!
Liberals: Give minorities special treatment!

And btw, no, I still don't believe that MLK Jr. was a socialist, or wanted something worse than the AA we have today.

Except the old southern Democrats were the main proponents of slavery, and later segregation. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat when he fillibustered the Civil Rights Act. They don't like to be reminded of this though.. it's never pretty to do so.

never claimed you were. just that it was easy to paint you all as such back when you were calling king a communist out to destroy everything that is good about america. hence the recent shift in spin.I hope you don't think the majority of conservatives think MLK was a communist... or even a modern-standard liberal. For the most parts, Conservatives tend to quote MLK jr. more than the libs who have forgotten his words.

am i even getting through to you at all? king thought that something much like a vastly more expansive version of aa was necessary. king actually was a socialist of some sort. and a lot of the major republicans up to reagan are on record as calling mlk jr a dangerous subversive or worse (of course, so were a bunch of the democrats of the time; after all, king did surround himself with communists and openly called for a social revolution). this whole quoting by the right is a new thing - late 80's at the earliest. and they only ever quote the one line from the dream speech.Conservaives have changed, liberals have changed. Dare I say, they have flipped? Oh wait, that's what I said in the title of this thread ^_^ It's gone from this:

Liberals: Equality! Integration!
Conservatives: Segregation! Special treatment!

to this:
Conservatives: Equality! End Racism!
Liberals: Give minorities special treatment!

And btw, no, I still don't believe that MLK Jr. was a socialist, or wanted something worse than the AA we have today.

What do you propose to solve the problem of pervasive racial discrimination?

And I'm not talking about AA.

never claimed you were. just that it was easy to paint you all as such back when you were calling king a communist out to destroy everything that is good about america. hence the recent shift in spin.I hope you don't think the majority of conservatives think MLK was a communist... or even a modern-standard liberal. For the most parts, Conservatives tend to quote MLK jr. more than the libs who have forgotten his words.

am i even getting through to you at all? king thought that something much like a vastly more expansive version of aa was necessary. king actually was a socialist of some sort. and a lot of the major republicans up to reagan are on record as calling mlk jr a dangerous subversive or worse (of course, so were a bunch of the democrats of the time; after all, king did surround himself with communists and openly called for a social revolution). this whole quoting by the right is a new thing - late 80's at the earliest. and they only ever quote the one line from the dream speech.Conservaives have changed, liberals have changed. Dare I say, they have flipped? Oh wait, that's what I said in the title of this thread ^_^ It's gone from this:

Liberals: Equality! Integration!
Conservatives: Segregation! Special treatment!

to this:
Conservatives: Equality! End Racism!
Liberals: Give minorities special treatment!

And btw, no, I still don't believe that MLK Jr. was a socialist, or wanted something worse than the AA we have today.

Except the old southern Democrats were the main proponents of slavery, and later segregation. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat when he fillibustered the Civil Rights Act. They don't like to be reminded of this though.. it's never pretty to do so.Not to mention the scary number of Klan members in office in the late 19th early-to-mid 20th century

What do you propose to solve the problem of pervasive racial discrimination?

And I'm not talking about AA.I don't know. All I know, is that racism is a SOCIAL problem, and no longer a government problem. In the eyes of the law, all races are equal. But racism comes from people who refuse to tolerate other people, or it is implemented by corrupt racist cops, who in turn make the minorities they target/profile also racist in reaction.

it is a SOCIAL problem. If there was as much media trying to get rid of racism as there is trying to get rid of homophobia, the world would be FAR better off.. or at least america.

What do you propose to solve the problem of pervasive racial discrimination?

And I'm not talking about AA.I don't know. All I know, is that racism is a SOCIAL problem, and no longer a government problem. In the eyes of the law, all races are equal. But racism comes from people who refuse to tolerate other people, or it is implemented by corrupt racist cops, who in turn make the minorities they target/profile also racist in reaction.

it is a SOCIAL problem. If there was as much media trying to get rid of racism as there is trying to get rid of homophobia, the world would be FAR better off.. or at least america.

Social engineering is something that governments do. Not that I like the idea of that, but it's true.

What do you propose to solve the problem of pervasive racial discrimination?

And I'm not talking about AA.I don't know. All I know, is that racism is a SOCIAL problem, and no longer a government problem. In the eyes of the law, all races are equal. But racism comes from people who refuse to tolerate other people, or it is implemented by corrupt racist cops, who in turn make the minorities they target/profile also racist in reaction.

it is a SOCIAL problem. If there was as much media trying to get rid of racism as there is trying to get rid of homophobia, the world would be FAR better off.. or at least america.

Social engineering is something that governments do. Not that I like the idea of that, but it's true.I'm afraid I am unfamililar with your term.

The government RARELY steps in on strictly-social issues... so rarely, in fact, that I can name none off my head.

Please name on strictly-social issue that the government has engineered or made laws over in the last 40 years.

I think there are times when the government should step into society, but I also think these times are relatively rare as long as the gap between official institution and society are disctinit and clear. to be frank, I think it's strange that you would advocate on one hand a strict policy of racial blindness while on the other hand advocating a role of comprehensive moral doctrines on the other, Raysia. I agree, the state should be blind to color. And by the same logic, the state should be blind to particular conceptions of the good; ergo, it's unreasonable to work against gay marriage (as you have in the past). I mean no offense, I'm simply pointing out that if the government should be blind to race, regardless of what the majority thinks (I'm fairly certain you agree with this point, if you don't feel free to correct me), surely it should be blind to specific moral senses of the 'good'?

I think perhaps that when we say things like 'blind to race' we should really investigate, regardless of political orientation, what exactly the ramifactions of such a statement are. As far as I'm concerned, blind to race is exactly the same as deaf to religion and moral doctrine.

And btw, no, I still don't believe that MLK Jr. was a socialist, or wanted something worse than the AA we have today.

some more links for you on the topic of mlk's democratic socialism
http://www.candw.ag/~jardinea/ffhtm/ff010119.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/02-91.html
http://www.fsu.edu/~religion/jre/arc/18-2/79.html
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1058/26_119/96195204/p1/article.jhtml

and at some point you are going to have to deal with the direct quotes i provided earlier where king said things like,

"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up." - why we can't wait, 1963.

and there are lots more where that came from in the links i gave. the man himself made statements that flatly contradict your opinion on what he stood for. which seems to leave you in a quite untenable position.

What do you propose to solve the problem of pervasive racial discrimination?

And I'm not talking about AA.I don't know. All I know, is that racism is a SOCIAL problem, and no longer a government problem. In the eyes of the law, all races are equal. But racism comes from people who refuse to tolerate other people, or it is implemented by corrupt racist cops, who in turn make the minorities they target/profile also racist in reaction.

it is a SOCIAL problem. If there was as much media trying to get rid of racism as there is trying to get rid of homophobia, the world would be FAR better off.. or at least america.

Social engineering is something that governments do. Not that I like the idea of that, but it's true.I'm afraid I am unfamililar with your term.

The government RARELY steps in on strictly-social issues... so rarely, in fact, that I can name none off my head.

Please name on strictly-social issue that the government has engineered or made laws over in the last 40 years.

It's a political science term. Social engineering goes on all the time. It's not on any one issue, and it's really very subtle. But you can see it if you read the letters page of the papers.

Social engineering is when the government influences or attempts to influence society. This could be in the form of propaganda, socially progressive politics, a change in laws or tax can influence a change in behaviour, or a number of other ways. Most famously:



Goering: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some
poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that
he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is
understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some
say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the
United States only Congress can declare wars.

Goering: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country.

My view on drugs is simple. We pay thousands of dollars per child to send them to tax-paid schools, and then we're going to allow them to kick their well-earned and well-paid-for futures to the curb just for a quick high? Come on, we have to take some responsibilities for our incestments. Of course, that is only one aspect of my view on drugs.


Small problem here: Nobody is suggesting schoolkids should get high, on alcohol or whatever other narcotic you care to mention.

But as an adult, my body is my own, and my life mine to use (or throw away) as I see fit.

You don't like it? Well, that's the thing about freedom; you don't have to like it. Just like I don't have to like you getting yourself all buzzed up and hyper over some dead guy.


Again, mostly agreed. But it is very much possible to have a moralistic society based on typical religious views and common public moral standards and values, without being completely atheist and amoral.


Atheist == Amoral?

*sigh*

Again, mostly agreed. But it is very much possible to have a moralistic society based on typical religious views and common public moral standards and values, without being completely atheist and amoral.


Atheist == Amoral?

*sigh*

When I'm called amoral or immoral by Raysia or someone with similar views, I take it as a complement. It usually means I'm living to excellence.

Again, mostly agreed. But it is very much possible to have a moralistic society based on typical religious views and common public moral standards and values, without being completely atheist and amoral.


Atheist == Amoral?

*sigh*

When I'm called amoral or immoral by Raysia or someone with similar views, I take it as a complement. It usually means I'm living to excellence.

Pseudo-programming in Ruby, for dummies:

if (Atheist == Amoral)
me.eat('hat')
else
accusers.each {|fool|
me.laughat(fool)
}
end

I don't think violence (in particular, policing) is a good way to rid the world of racism. Throwing racists in prison cells or taking their property will not solve the problem. Besides this, even if someone happens to only hire whites or blacks or whatever, how can you be sure race was the motivating factor? AA policies tend to violate the "innocent until proven guilty" code since anybody who employs less than x% blacks is assumed racist.

If someone is denied a job just because they're white this will make them more likely to be racist, no?

In the free market any employer who will not hire 50% of the population puts himself at a disadvantage and if he is blatently racist many people will avoid his business. Here is yet another issue where society is more able to sort out its problems when left alone.

Anyway, if I were black I wouldn't want to force some racist to let me call him "boss".

So you'd rather starve?
Those are not the options. What rediculous scaremongering. You do realise that congress could not pass AA laws unless the majority of the population was already against racism?

in a sense, i agree too - the class structure itself causes immense problems and inequalities. however, race was created and maintained as a special sort of underclass and the effects of that are still being felt. as such it needs to be specifically addressed in addition to addressing the problems of class structure as a whole. race is still a socially meaningful concept distinct from, but related to, class (though it is biologically nonsense). addressing the problems of racism is a key part of addressing the problems of the class structure in general.
People are not races. People are not classes. They are individuals.

If you want to abolish classes and racism stop causing them by interfering with individuals' freedom and cease encouraging them to see everyone who's a different colour or in a different income bracket as the enemy.

My view on drugs is simple. We pay thousands of dollars per child to send them to tax-paid schools, and then we're going to allow them to kick their well-earned and well-paid-for futures to the curb just for a quick high? Come on, we have to take some responsibilities for our incestments. Of course, that is only one aspect of my view on drugs.

It isn't an investment since you were forced to pay it and they were forced to accept it. This hardly gives you a right to throw them in a small room for years just for doing drugs. Are you trying to say you feel victimised by people who do drugs?
we have to take some responsibilities for our incestments
What, like supporting your pregnant sister? :lol:

I'm not sure what to call his previous one, but damn is that a freudian slip! hahah

Yes. Very "progressive" too!

And btw, no, I still don't believe that MLK Jr. was a socialist, or wanted something worse than the AA we have today.

some more links for you on the topic of mlk's democratic socialism
http://www.candw.ag/~jardinea/ffhtm/ff010119.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/02-91.html
http://www.fsu.edu/~religion/jre/arc/18-2/79.html
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1058/26_119/96195204/p1/article.jhtml

and at some point you are going to have to deal with the direct quotes i provided earlier where king said things like,

"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up." - why we can't wait, 1963.

and there are lots more where that came from in the links i gave. the man himself made statements that flatly contradict your opinion on what he stood for. which seems to leave you in a quite untenable position.That was in the 60s, when the civil rights movement had just got into full swing. At that time, a good chunk of the black population had not received good education or housing because they had been segregated out of society. That is an undeniable fact.

But these days, the blacks have nothing to worry about. They are equal in the eyes of the law, and most have been raised side by side with whites. The only thing keeping races segregated is social racism, where some racist black people (and other minorities) live in close clusters because they want nothing to do with their white neighbors.

The door is WIDE open for them, they just refuse to step through. Why? Prejudice, Bigotry, Racism...

But these days, the blacks have nothing to worry about. They are equal in the eyes of the law, and most have been raised side by side with whites. The only thing keeping races segregated is social racism, where some racist black people (and other minorities) live in close clusters because they want nothing to do with their white neighbors.

you live in an interesting version of reality. one that seems entirely unconnected to mine.

What do you propose to solve the problem of pervasive racial discrimination?

And I'm not talking about AA.I don't know. All I know, is that racism is a SOCIAL problem, and no longer a government problem. In the eyes of the law, all races are equal. But racism comes from people who refuse to tolerate other people, or it is implemented by corrupt racist cops, who in turn make the minorities they target/profile also racist in reaction.

it is a SOCIAL problem. If there was as much media trying to get rid of racism as there is trying to get rid of homophobia, the world would be FAR better off.. or at least america.

Social engineering is something that governments do. Not that I like the idea of that, but it's true.I'm afraid I am unfamililar with your term.

The government RARELY steps in on strictly-social issues... so rarely, in fact, that I can name none off my head.

Please name on strictly-social issue that the government has engineered or made laws over in the last 40 years.

Well, for starters, how about 100 million to "help encourage welfare mothers to get married?"
How about the Faith-Based Initiative?
How about the Federal Marriage Amendment?
How about "ending the marriage penalty tax?"
How about "ending the death tax?"
How about trying to get rid of Affirmative Action?
How about anti-sodomy laws...only recently overturned by the Lawrence case?
How about the Georgia State Assembly who is (and I am not kidding) actually considering making it a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison...for an adult woman to get her private parts pierced?

Government (especially right-wing government) is forever engaged in "strictly-social" issues, all to pander to the extremists, the fundamentalist whacko zealots on the fringe of the right...who exercise their power by pulling the Republican Party along by the nose?

What freaking country do you live in that you have to ask for exampoles in the last 40 years of government involved in strictly social issues? Do you want me to go on, or are these enough examples?

The conservatives want to ruin happiness for all whom they find "distateful," by shitting all over their rights...and conservatives still wonder why I hate them so badly?

But these days, the blacks have nothing to worry about. They are equal in the eyes of the law, and most have been raised side by side with whites. The only thing keeping races segregated is social racism, where some racist black people (and other minorities) live in close clusters because they want nothing to do with their white neighbors.

you live in an interesting version of reality. one that seems entirely unconnected to mine.

Well said Free Soviets.. I was kind of thinking the same thing..lol :P

in a sense, i agree too - the class structure itself causes immense problems and inequalities. however, race was created and maintained as a special sort of underclass and the effects of that are still being felt. as such it needs to be specifically addressed in addition to addressing the problems of class structure as a whole. race is still a socially meaningful concept distinct from, but related to, class (though it is biologically nonsense). addressing the problems of racism is a key part of addressing the problems of the class structure in general.
People are not races. People are not classes. They are individuals.

If you want to abolish classes and racism stop causing them by interfering with individuals' freedom and cease encouraging them to see everyone who's a different colour or in a different income bracket as the enemy.

birds of a fether tend to flock together. This is human nature. We prefer to surround ourselves with others who look like us, think like us, and act like us. Naturally, some people are in the "in" group, and others are not. Obvious divides are race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, income level. People of similar backgrounds in such categories tend to cluster together into groups...and form what can be called a "core group." Every core group operates to the benefit of it's own members, and hence, acts in ways inimical to the interests of those not in the core group. Hence it is that people in different income brackets ARE my enemy. They are acting in ways deleterious to MY interests.

As a worker, for example, it is in MY interest to be paid as much as possible for the work I do. For my rich boss, on the other hand...it is in HIS best interest to get me as cheap as possible. Our interests are thus diametrically opposed to one another. Therefore that puts us at loggerheads with each other. Obviously, both interests can not be served, since one is directly opposed to the other. This creates friction, resentment, and anger. This creates class warfare.

It is deleterious to MY interests if the boss gets his way, and pays me less than I am worth, and causes me to have to struggle to make ends meet. This breeds resentment and anger towards my boss in me. After all, the way I see it...he's rich...he can afford to pay me more, so that I don't have to struggle to make ends meet. The fact that he won't means that he is greedy and selfish. Meanwhile, the boss sees it this way...It is deleterious to MY interests to pay my workers more...because that means less money in my pocket...which means that I can't buy that nice Lexus or yacht, or mansion I want. Who cares if my employees are struggling to feed themselves? I don't feel their hunger pains. Phuck 'em. I'm the boss, I make the rules, and I'm not gonna pay the workers one cent more than I absolutely have to. I'll just replace the malcontents. And if I find a way to ship these jobs overseas, to people who will do them for one-tenth what Americans will work for...hell, that's even MORE money in my pocket! Who gives a shit if the Americans starve? I'll get off cheap.

These rich corporations fail to see the forest for the trees. They will make the Americans unwilling or unable to be consumers of the goods and services they are producing so cheaply, and there go their profits, right down the hole...because they won't move any product, because no one will be able, or willing, to buy the product.

People are not races. People are not classes. They are individuals.

If you want to abolish classes and racism stop causing them by interfering with individuals' freedom and cease encouraging them to see everyone who's a different colour or in a different income bracket as the enemy.

people are not races and classes but people do belong to them. race and class have predictive and explanatory power. far too much of it for us to just ignore them.

and you'll be hard pressed to find me "interfering with individuals' freedom", except in areas where i think your conception of 'freedom' is contradictory and a hollow cover for privilege and domination.

But these days, the blacks have nothing to worry about. They are equal in the eyes of the law, and most have been raised side by side with whites. The only thing keeping races segregated is social racism, where some racist black people (and other minorities) live in close clusters because they want nothing to do with their white neighbors.

you live in an interesting version of reality. one that seems entirely unconnected to mine.

No. They live in close clusters because of white flight into the suburbs, and most black people are unable to AFFORD to live elsewhere. So they end up in a ghetto. And living in that ghetto is what CAUSES the racism that exists among blacks towards whites. they feel whites have kept them down, denied them opportunity, and forced them to live in the squalid conditions they do, because they can afford no better, due to a lack of opportunity.

And are you actually suggesting that "social racism" exists only among blacks? That there are not white racists? That racism is not still practiced even today...albeit more subtly than it was in the 1960's?

You explain then, to me...how it is that a guy in New York (black) gets shot 41 times for complying with police to show some identification...and when the man reaches for his wallet, the cops open fire on him, as if they were a freaking firing squad? You explain to me how a car thief (black) in Louisville, KY gets shot 22 times while he is trying to get away from the cops, and can't, because the vehicle he stole was stuck in the mud? Why couldn't those cops have aimed for the tires of the car? Granted, he shouldn't have stolen the car...but did he deserve to DIE for it? Did he deserve to go down like Custer at Little Big Horn? Like Crockett at the Alamo? I mean, Jesus Christ...shot 22 freaking times?? That's phucking overkill! And those sort of things are fueled by racism...and the fear that racism creates.

Human nature...we fear that which is different from us. We tend to thus surround ourselves with people who look, think, and act like we do...who come from similar socio-economic status. We are not comfortable in surroundings where no one else is like us.

I assume you are a guy. Maybe you work in an office. If so, you will know my next example, since most office workers are female.

Ever have a woman at work have a baby shower...and, of course, the guys (few that there are in most offices) end up being invited to attend as well? The one or two guys in the middle of that hen party are exceedingly uncomfortable, because they are out of their element. They have little in common with the major group of attendees. So, if there are two or three guys at the aforementioned baby shower...you will see them cluster together in a small knot. and they are obviously uncomfortable.

No one likes being in an unfamiliar situtation.
That's just human nature.

Similarly, be a poor worker like me...in a small company, like I was...I used to work for a single attorney...and the office consisted of him and me. When he got married, I was invited to the wedding, and the reception. Because he was wealthy, the reception was held in a place I ordinarily wouldn't have been able to get in. A very swank, upscale place.

I was surrounded by the upper-class regular clientele of the place, and felt very uncomfortabel around all these people, with whom I had literally nothing in common except that we were of the same species! How could I talk to these people about the struggles of my daily life....they had no common frame of reference, since they had never known struggle or grinding poverty...as I have. honestly, I felt like a cockroach on the wedding cake. I was exceedingly uncomfortable around these people.

The reality is that people tend to natuarally segregate themselves along lines of class, gender, and race. Because they want to be around people who are like them. And they feel uncomfortable being in a group full of people who are ot like them.

I could go on, but I think you get my point.

imagine a world with no stereotypes. imagine a world where ideas had to be considered and not stupid political labels

well, political labels will always exist because ideas and values form natural clusters. the real problem with american political labels is that they don't actually refer to anything at all or that they refer to a bunch of contradictory things.

yeah, my point is a two party system is stupid. 250 million people are going to see things in more than just two ways. and it was at least a page and a half ago that people stopped talking about liberals or conservatives in the political theory sense and just started bashing on stereotypes.A two-party system may be stupid, but that's because 80% of America holds to one party or the other... the other 20% kinda just has to pick one. It's called a democracy... it's kinda how this all works :) Would you prefer a dictatorship/monarchy/mob rule?

Maybe you forgot that democracy is mob rule. Now, representative democracy, such as in America, cuts the direct link of mob rule. However, democracy in general caters to the mob (majority).

America's a republic....not a democracy. The founding fathers made it very clear they weren't creating a democracy. Read The Federalist Papers for more info.

America's a republic....not a democracy. The founding fathers made it very clear they weren't creating a democracy. Read The Federalist Papers for more info.

This is one of those red herrings.. Yes, you're a Republic which operates on democratic principle.. it can go either way.. :P

America's a republic....not a democracy. The founding fathers made it very clear they weren't creating a democracy. Read The Federalist Papers for more info.

Exactly. They specifically avoided creating a democracy, because they understood that pure democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner! Sounds good if you're a wof, but what if you're a lamb?

Pure democracy allows the majority to run roughshod over the minority, and this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The entire REASON for the Constitution was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

America's a republic....not a democracy. The founding fathers made it very clear they weren't creating a democracy. Read The Federalist Papers for more info.

You are right of course. Representative democracy is just my terminology for the republic. Sorry :oops:

America's a republic....not a democracy. The founding fathers made it very clear they weren't creating a democracy. Read The Federalist Papers for more info.

You are right of course. Representative democracy is just my terminology for the republic. Sorry :oops:

No problem. It's just one of the interesting things I've learned from actually reading the Federalist Papers for my history class.

interesting points about the de facto segregation. I stand corrected. Thanks.

Although, I'm still not convinced affirmative action is a good thing...

in a sense, i agree too - the class structure itself causes immense problems and inequalities. however, race was created and maintained as a special sort of underclass and the effects of that are still being felt. as such it needs to be specifically addressed in addition to addressing the problems of class structure as a whole. race is still a socially meaningful concept distinct from, but related to, class (though it is biologically nonsense). addressing the problems of racism is a key part of addressing the problems of the class structure in general.
People are not races. People are not classes. They are individuals.

If you want to abolish classes and racism stop causing them by interfering with individuals' freedom and cease encouraging them to see everyone who's a different colour or in a different income bracket as the enemy.

birds of a fether tend to flock together. This is human nature. We prefer to surround ourselves with others who look like us, think like us, and act like us. Naturally, some people are in the "in" group, and others are not. Obvious divides are race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, income level. People of similar backgrounds in such categories tend to cluster together into groups...and form what can be called a "core group." Every core group operates to the benefit of it's own members, and hence, acts in ways inimical to the interests of those not in the core group. Hence it is that people in different income brackets ARE my enemy. They are acting in ways deleterious to MY interests.

As a worker, for example, it is in MY interest to be paid as much as possible for the work I do. For my rich boss, on the other hand...it is in HIS best interest to get me as cheap as possible. Our interests are thus diametrically opposed to one another. Therefore that puts us at loggerheads with each other. Obviously, both interests can not be served, since one is directly opposed to the other. This creates friction, resentment, and anger. This creates class warfare.

It is deleterious to MY interests if the boss gets his way, and pays me less than I am worth, and causes me to have to struggle to make ends meet. This breeds resentment and anger towards my boss in me. After all, the way I see it...he's rich...he can afford to pay me more, so that I don't have to struggle to make ends meet. The fact that he won't means that he is greedy and selfish. Meanwhile, the boss sees it this way...It is deleterious to MY interests to pay my workers more...because that means less money in my pocket...which means that I can't buy that nice Lexus or yacht, or mansion I want. Who cares if my employees are struggling to feed themselves? I don't feel their hunger pains. Phuck 'em. I'm the boss, I make the rules, and I'm not gonna pay the workers one cent more than I absolutely have to. I'll just replace the malcontents. And if I find a way to ship these jobs overseas, to people who will do them for one-tenth what Americans will work for...hell, that's even MORE money in my pocket! Who gives a shit if the Americans starve? I'll get off cheap.

These rich corporations fail to see the forest for the trees. They will make the Americans unwilling or unable to be consumers of the goods and services they are producing so cheaply, and there go their profits, right down the hole...because they won't move any product, because no one will be able, or willing, to buy the product.
You say we should analyse things in terms of groups and then as an example you give a dispute involving only 2 individuals; you and your boss.

You want higher wages and he wants lower. Eventually a compromise is reached. If he tries to screw you too much you get a different job. If you try to screw him too much he hires someone else.

As for your next issue you have no awareness of economics or history and I don't have the time to dismiss your various and multitudinous errors. I'll concentrate on convincing more rational people, it's a more productive use of my time.

If you think your time is worth so much more money why won't anyone pay you more? I think I know the answer.

in a sense, i agree too - the class structure itself causes immense problems and inequalities. however, race was created and maintained as a special sort of underclass and the effects of that are still being felt. as such it needs to be specifically addressed in addition to addressing the problems of class structure as a whole. race is still a socially meaningful concept distinct from, but related to, class (though it is biologically nonsense). addressing the problems of racism is a key part of addressing the problems of the class structure in general.
People are not races. People are not classes. They are individuals.

If you want to abolish classes and racism stop causing them by interfering with individuals' freedom and cease encouraging them to see everyone who's a different colour or in a different income bracket as the enemy.

birds of a fether tend to flock together. This is human nature. We prefer to surround ourselves with others who look like us, think like us, and act like us. Naturally, some people are in the "in" group, and others are not. Obvious divides are race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, income level. People of similar backgrounds in such categories tend to cluster together into groups...and form what can be called a "core group." Every core group operates to the benefit of it's own members, and hence, acts in ways inimical to the interests of those not in the core group. Hence it is that people in different income brackets ARE my enemy. They are acting in ways deleterious to MY interests.

As a worker, for example, it is in MY interest to be paid as much as possible for the work I do. For my rich boss, on the other hand...it is in HIS best interest to get me as cheap as possible. Our interests are thus diametrically opposed to one another. Therefore that puts us at loggerheads with each other. Obviously, both interests can not be served, since one is directly opposed to the other. This creates friction, resentment, and anger. This creates class warfare.

It is deleterious to MY interests if the boss gets his way, and pays me less than I am worth, and causes me to have to struggle to make ends meet. This breeds resentment and anger towards my boss in me. After all, the way I see it...he's rich...he can afford to pay me more, so that I don't have to struggle to make ends meet. The fact that he won't means that he is greedy and selfish. Meanwhile, the boss sees it this way...It is deleterious to MY interests to pay my workers more...because that means less money in my pocket...which means that I can't buy that nice Lexus or yacht, or mansion I want. Who cares if my employees are struggling to feed themselves? I don't feel their hunger pains. Phuck 'em. I'm the boss, I make the rules, and I'm not gonna pay the workers one cent more than I absolutely have to. I'll just replace the malcontents. And if I find a way to ship these jobs overseas, to people who will do them for one-tenth what Americans will work for...hell, that's even MORE money in my pocket! Who gives a shit if the Americans starve? I'll get off cheap.

These rich corporations fail to see the forest for the trees. They will make the Americans unwilling or unable to be consumers of the goods and services they are producing so cheaply, and there go their profits, right down the hole...because they won't move any product, because no one will be able, or willing, to buy the product.
You say we should analyse things in terms of groups and then as an example you give a dispute involving only 2 individuals; you and your boss.

You want higher wages and he wants lower. Eventually a compromise is reached. If he tries to screw you too much you get a different job. If you try to screw him too much he hires someone else.

As for your next issue you have no awareness of economics or history and I don't have the time to dismiss your various and multitudinous errors. I'll concentrate on convincing more rational people, it's a more productive use of my time.

If you think your time is worth so much more money why won't anyone pay you more? I think I know the answer.
You missed the whole point of what I was trying to demonstrate there...and why groups whose interests oopose one another think of the other group as an ememy...because their interests are diametrically opposed to one another, but you didn't even bother to see that point. You're too fixated on being on the side of the wealthy, to corporations, and the Republicans