Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Well, sorry if this offends but yes, I believe there's no way the strong southern Republican base would vote for a black candidate. IMO they'd prefer a white Democrat that a black Republican. And that's why Colin Powell or Condi haven't entered the race - they know too many of their own voters "ain't gonna vote for no nigger". Sorry about the language but you know the kind of people I'm talking about, and we both know they exist in the redneck gun-toting Republican heartland of the South.
JT wrote:It doesn't offend so much. It's just amazing to me how people can be so amiss in their 'read' on us. I'm as Right-wing as you can get and I'd much rather have a black Right-winger than a white Leftie. Are there people in the South who are racist? yes. Just like there in the U.K. or anywhere else. But is this the pervasive thing that is normally attributed to Southern Republican - no. They exits in the 'redneck gun-toting Republican heartland of the South' but despite the lies and demagoguery of liberals, it is no longer 1964. 'Progressive' my ass. They can't seem to progress beyond 1964.
I have my own complaints about Southern culture, but the idea that Powell or Rice haven't entered the race because Southern Republicans "ain't gonna vote for no nigger" is so far off base it cries out for ridicule. But go ahead and believe it if you want. But I just find it amazing that people profess to know my mind better than I do.
What is more interesting to me than the so-called stereotypical conservative southern white racist is the different manifestations of racism amongst liberals. Now that is interesting.
Lastly, consider this: There will be more people - many, many more people - who vote for Barrack Obama because he is black than won't vote for him because he is black. Anyone who doesn't believe that is just out of touch with reality. Liberal politics, among other dysfunctionalities, is all about symbolism over substance.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Well, I didn't base ALL my opinions on Mississippi Burning y'know! Apart from the vast array of excellent movies and TV shows we glean from the US we are also treated to excellent US news coverage (Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC - take your pick) which often include quite insightful documentaries. I base my opinions on those up-to-date items rather than the history books (1964 being a full 8 years before I was born! )..........I just believe the majority of the Southern Republican demographic have those beliefs, based on what I've seen.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:You should come and live in the UK JT, the TV shows are virtually identical and the place is awash with Liberals - you'd love it!
Mr Blue Sky wrote:Now now, you may not have been offended by what I said earlier but you sure as heck have taken it personally. I never said "Powell and Condi won't run because people like YOU are too racist". I believe you're a highly educated chap well above such backward thinking.
Lastly, consider this: There will be more people - many, many more people - who vote for Barrack Obama because he is black than won't vote for him because he is black. Anyone who doesn't believe that is just out of touch with reality. Liberal politics, among other dysfunctionalities, is all about symbolism over substance.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:I agree with you there - there's definitely a possibility of 'affirmative action' with Obama and that's not something I'd like to see. But to be frank people have voted Presidents in for far worse reasons than because they were black - Bush in 2004 comes to mind, his campaign was based almost entirely on playing on voters' worst fears.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:I'll reply in detail later JT, I just have to say how pleased I am that Senator McCain seems to have the Republican vote sewn up today - looks like there'll be a Liberal in the White House come what may in November!
JT wrote:Mr Blue Sky wrote:I'll reply in detail later JT, I just have to say how pleased I am that Senator McCain seems to have the Republican vote sewn up today - looks like there'll be a Liberal in the White House come what may in November!
Yea, it looks that way. But we'll have him by the nuts squeezing every bit of what ever right-wingedness he may have out of him. He'll know which side of his bread is buttered. btw, McCain currently leads Clinton in head-to-head national polls.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:JT wrote:Mr Blue Sky wrote:I'll reply in detail later JT, I just have to say how pleased I am that Senator McCain seems to have the Republican vote sewn up today - looks like there'll be a Liberal in the White House come what may in November!
Yea, it looks that way. But we'll have him by the nuts squeezing every bit of what ever right-wingedness he may have out of him. He'll know which side of his bread is buttered. btw, McCain currently leads Clinton in head-to-head national polls.
I'm not overly concerned - either way we're getting a Liberal! I imagine Senator McCain is what you would refer to as a RINO, given his stance on immigration and the environment...
JT wrote:Yea, certain issues point to too much of a liberal instinct (illegal immigration, interrogation, etc.), however, he supposedly has an '83% conservative voting record' over his career by one accounting. Besides, like I said, he knows which side of his bread is buttered. He'll have to be responsive to a more right-wing base to unite the party, get elected, and win re-election.There is no way he can win a close election in a 50/50 patriot/nut national split without us right-wingers coming out to vote. So you won't be getting the liberal you think you will. And if he thinks he is going continue to schmooz those fat-ass liberal nutjobs like Teddy Kennedy in the name of 'reaching across the aisle' or proving his ID as a 'maverick' he's got another thing a comin'. He doesn't have to prove that anymore. He knows his critics - his watchdog - is on his Right. And we'll be a watchin. I think on those especially contentious issues like illegal immigration he will have to capitulate. We've hammered the hell out of him and will intensify if he doesn't play ball. And the son-of-a-bitch better take on a right-wing running mate. And if its Hick-abee I aint votin. Stupid, Southern Baptist, anti-Mormon bigot. There's your stereotypical regressive Southern Republican, Blue Sky. Except with surprisingly liberal instincts and all polished up with a politicians veneer.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:
Well, you're obviously aware of this but you've re-enforced my views from an earlier post right there - you are NOT representative of those regressive southern Republicans JT; you're far too open and fair-minded (dare I say Liberal? )
Mr Blue Sky wrote:My point was that the bible belt would reject candidates like Condi and Powell simply on grounds of race; they're far more comfortable with Hick-abee (love that pun! ). I mean, look how he did in those southern primaries, it's incredible really. Someone like him would be a disaster as President, and my fear (like yours, I suspect) is that he'll end up being the running mate for the eminently more sensible Senator McCain.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:I think whatever happens, the way the Primaries have gone proves that Americans are fed up of Bush's hard right policies and are ready to embrace another way. Roll on November!
Mr Blue Sky wrote:Again, I'll reply in detail when I have more time on my hands JT, I just had to post about that McCain/Hick-abee 'nightmare ticket' of yours becoming more of a reality now Mitt Romney has pulled out. Huckabee will be under great pressure to do likewise and leave McCain as the last man standing before the Republican party tears itself apart, but I expect him to stay in for the 'long haul', as he's often been quoted as saying, to give himself more leverage to run on McCain's ticket.
Either way, this ain't good news for staunch Republicans such as yourself JT. Doen't ya just love US politics?
Rodge wrote:JT, I have been reading this thread with interest for some time and briefly bringing it back to the title subject.
I really do not understand how you can be so anti-liberal, and yet still live in a country which prides itself to be called the Land of the Free, and who's most well known landmark is the Statue of Liberty? Surely if you are so against Liberalism otherwise defined as the pursuit for individual liberty, then how can you be so hypocritical to stay in a country that has boasts about it's freedom & liberty?
JT wrote:Rodge wrote:JT, I have been reading this thread with interest for some time and briefly bringing it back to the title subject.
I really do not understand how you can be so anti-liberal, and yet still live in a country which prides itself to be called the Land of the Free, and who's most well known landmark is the Statue of Liberty? Surely if you are so against Liberalism otherwise defined as the pursuit for individual liberty, then how can you be so hypocritical to stay in a country that has boasts about it's freedom & liberty?
Hey Rodge.
To answer that question, its probably best to refer you to my anecdote on my conversation with a liberal in a convenience store. Its back a few posts. Classical liberalism is indeed all about the statue of liberty and other American symbols and institutions. But not dysfunctional modern liberalism. Two different animals.
Rodge wrote:
That's fair enough, but I do not refer to modern liberalism, and you are unfair if you put all liberal ideas into that category. Specific to your anecdote, I was very much in favour for a member of the BNP (British National Party) to take part in a debate at Oxford University some months back. I am very much in favour of extreme right wingers speaking publicly in a formal debate. It allows people to hear the views of the extreme right, gain an informed opinion and hopefully dismiss them as the ramblings of a fascist madman. Although when listening to my staff sometimes I do worry that if Hitler was a politician today, he would get the vote!
"Crazy Left, indeed. Liberalism: symbolism over substance."
"What about the problems of lack of governmental experience and being liberal?"
"The demoncats best hope would be the incompetent (due to inexperience (not to mention liberalism))Barrack Obama."
"I'm afraid in this day and age of threats to America - including liberalism itself"
"Liberal politics, among other dysfunctionalities, is all about symbolism over substance."
"I have my issues with elements of Southern/midwestern culture, including their near-bigotry against certain religions. But its nothing like the dysfunction of modern liberalism, with its anti-American base..."
"I'll say this, though - at least the Republican landscape is a rich, ideological one. With the demoncrats its all about symbolism and 'style' - hence the obama-RaMa carnival."
"No, liberals are always fed up with [b]sensible right-wing things,..."
Just imagine - a nuclear bomb is about to go off and Joe Liberal won't let us pour some water up Ahmed's nose to try to prevent it. The ultimate expression of liberal destructiveness and insanity.
A Liberal is someone who is so broadminded, they can't even take their own side in a fight....
Not only is she ideologically uber-liberal, she is also cold, calculating, irritating, and even the liberal Carl Bernstein said his research led him to characterize a dominant part of her personality as 'having a problem telling the truth.
I'd love the soccer, hate the liberal world view, have mixed feelings toward the weather, hate the food, love it that I wouldn't have to pay for basic health care (at least not directly), but move back to the good ole US of A when they tell me I couldn't be screened for prostate cancer because it "is not cost effective".
JT wrote:Rodge wrote:
That's fair enough, but I do not refer to modern liberalism, and you are unfair if you put all liberal ideas into that category. Specific to your anecdote, I was very much in favour for a member of the BNP (British National Party) to take part in a debate at Oxford University some months back. I am very much in favour of extreme right wingers speaking publicly in a formal debate. It allows people to hear the views of the extreme right, gain an informed opinion and hopefully dismiss them as the ramblings of a fascist madman. Although when listening to my staff sometimes I do worry that if Hitler was a politician today, he would get the vote!
If you or anyone is truly a classical liberal Your alignment in my view would actually be closer to today's Right. But most people in my experience who criticize my opposition to modern liberalism and invoke an argument of founding concepts of liberty, etc., turn out on the slightest scratch of their surface to suffer from the dysfunction of modern lib. I do not know whether you fall into this category. However, what do you mean by 'extreme right'? And 'fascist madman'? Specifics, please? I would automatically be wary of any assessment of political orientation made within the context of Oxford University. And in our opinion any association made between Hitler and the modern Right is a worn cliche at best and only serves to strengthen our arguments. Hitler, or 'fascist', 'racist', '____phobe, etc. are demagogic trigger words long used, abused and confused by the Left.
Now, is the Left-wing long-time domination of the media an example of fascistic abuse of power? How about academia? Is the refusal by some American universities to allow the military ROTC programs on their campuses an example of fascistic abuse of power? How about the unfairness of affirmative action? Is that a fascistic abuse of power?
And, you can pay for that prostate cancer to be screened and treated if you wish, it just happens you don't have to pay thousands to get it diagnosed in the first place. I'm pretty sure that's not so different from the US, if you can afford it, i just think you're more likely to get some 'free' treatment for it over here if you don't have health insurance? We'll promise to warm that saw and give you a tasty bit of stick to bite on before cutting into you
Mr Blue Sky wrote:Great replies M-C, it won't surprise you to hear I agree with almost every word you said. I wish I had more time to devote to this debate, I'll probably have to leave work to do that!
Mr Blue Sky wrote:Without wanting to derail the thread, I do have to pick you up on this:And, you can pay for that prostate cancer to be screened and treated if you wish, it just happens you don't have to pay thousands to get it diagnosed in the first place. I'm pretty sure that's not so different from the US, if you can afford it, i just think you're more likely to get some 'free' treatment for it over here if you don't have health insurance? We'll promise to warm that saw and give you a tasty bit of stick to bite on before cutting into you
Cancer treatments in particular have a much higher survival rate in the US than the UK. Chronic under-investment in the NHS over the years (first by the Tories, then by the admin-crazy Labour Party wasting the extra funding they raised through higher NI charges) has left some of our cancer survival rates on a par with the third world. It's shameful really.
Moon-Crane wrote:I haven't bothered commenting on any of this for a while, as i wanted to see if just a fraction of ground could be conceded away from the diatribe of Conservatives being right/good/patriotic and 'Liberals' being wrong/evil/traitors.
JT wrote:Thanks for coming in and posting a bunch, MC. Of course it will take me a while to respond - and respond in detail I want to do. For now I will just take a few snippets.Moon-Crane wrote:I haven't bothered commenting on any of this for a while, as i wanted to see if just a fraction of ground could be conceded away from the diatribe of Conservatives being right/good/patriotic and 'Liberals' being wrong/evil/traitors.
I'll clarify a little. I'm not going to give a fraction of ground in my convictions about enormous dysfunction (sorry if thats getting a bit old, but it is most descriptive) of liberalism. That is not to say that Conservative is all right/good/patriotic and 'Liberals' being wrong/evil/traitors but my goodness, so many of that side's influential member's behavior is outrageous. Blaming us for 9/11 and such. As I have said, its not so much that i'm conservative, or that i'm against some of the ideals of liberalism. Its more that the liberal movement of the last half of the 20th century is a runaway train and a perversion of classical liberal ideals. On scales of political/social orientation, I actually fall very near the center (one scale - that on Alan Colmb's web site - I was smack center in terms of government involvement in citizen's lives and one click rightward on degree of economic laissez-faire) Furthermore, a liberal office holder can be a better manager than a conservative one (and vice-versa). Same goes for corruption (although ideologically I think liberalism itself suffers more from corruption). It's the destructive and ridiculousness of so much that is fundamental to modern liberalism that I am so strident about. At the risk of seeming overly acrimonious, superficial and narrow-minded, i'll continue in this vain because it is so important in my mind. But i do agree that a thoughtful approach is usually more persuasive. But it is thoughtful consideration that leads me to my 'diatribes'. To not be aggressive in my opinions would be giving in to 'open-mindedness' to a destructive and ridiculous degree. Give an inch? I won't give anything to seeing common ground with things like "America is evil", or "the world would be a better place without America" and things that like that. But, to give an inch for the sake of said open-mindedness: There is a place for government programs to help the disadvantaged (but.......); there is a place for thoughtful consideration about our application of power throughout the world (but.....); there is a point to be made about past discrimination against groups claiming grievances today (but......); there is a point in the fact no one can help the circumstances they were born into and the government does have a role in helping them become competitive (the kind of 'conservative' i am is one who idealizes the preeminence of fair competition - I don't idealize those born on 3rd base) (but......); There is a point to the idea that since America has so much power it needs to be especially thoughtful in the application of it - and the fact that the anger to certain actions/policies may therefor be disproportional vis a vis the outrageous behavior of other states (Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, the nutjob in Venezuela, etc) (but....)
I'm tired now. I'll go through the rest later.
JT wrote:Rodge wrote:
That's fair enough, but I do not refer to modern liberalism, and you are unfair if you put all liberal ideas into that category. Specific to your anecdote, I was very much in favour for a member of the BNP (British National Party) to take part in a debate at Oxford University some months back. I am very much in favour of extreme right wingers speaking publicly in a formal debate. It allows people to hear the views of the extreme right, gain an informed opinion and hopefully dismiss them as the ramblings of a fascist madman. Although when listening to my staff sometimes I do worry that if Hitler was a politician today, he would get the vote!
If you or anyone is truly a classical liberal Your alignment in my view would actually be closer to today's Right. But most people in my experience who criticize my opposition to modern liberalism and invoke an argument of founding concepts of liberty, etc., turn out on the slightest scratch of their surface to suffer from the dysfunction of modern lib. I do not know whether you fall into this category. However, what do you mean by 'extreme right'? And 'fascist madman'? Specifics, please? I would automatically be wary of any assessment of political orientation made within the context of Oxford University. And in our opinion any association made between Hitler and the modern Right is a worn cliche at best and only serves to strengthen our arguments. Hitler, or 'fascist', 'racist', '____phobe, etc. are demagogic trigger words long used, abused and confused by the Left.
Rodge wrote:As you state in you latest post, you will not budge from your convictions; I am not asking for that. But at the same time please stop forcing your definitions of political 'leanings' onto us.
Rodge wrote:The more I read your posts the more I am beginning to realise that they lack any substance as to what exactly you believe in. You spend more time bashing "modern" liberalism than actually telling us what you want in this world.
Rodge wrote:Do you ever concede that liberalism hasn't changed at all maybe you have. They say the older we get the more right wing we become.
Rodge wrote:I am not confused by the definitions of racism; a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. It rings a few bells in many things said in this thread. It doesn't have to involve direct abuse to other races. Or is the definition above just a "modern" liberal form of propaganda?
Rodge wrote:So please feel free to tell us what you want from this world, but stop telling us what we believe and how wrong & perverse of us it is for us to believe it.
JT wrote:But what if 'what I want from this world' is for people like you to stop shoving liberalism down my throat? Look, as long as I am not into personal attacks - and I don't think I am - then I think I should continue to offer up what may be uncomfortable opinions. If you're offended - then feel free to join another thread. If being told you're 'wrong' is upsetting to you then the other threads in this forum should feel warm and cozy. I don't give two shits about the UN, Brussels, the rest of Western Europe's opinion, 'green' this or that, Chavez of Venezuela, Muslim 'sensitivity', so-called 'victimized' groups, people who are for some reason angry towards America or Caucasian men or meat-eaters or SUV drivers or church-goers or this or that or that or this. I'm sure there are things you don't give two shits for. You can gripe about them on here all you want. I may respond, but hey, ain't that what its all about? I'm not trying to stir up animosity. I am trying to stir up debate, and thoughtful consideration in an environment that has very few of the mind-set that myself and nearly half of at least the United States claim. I have nothing against you personally. But if I can take (but not without comment!) people insinuating I am a racist, fascist, war-monger, imperialist, greedy capitalist, homophobe, misogynist pig then fending off insinuations of being an effete pinko commie bastard should be a piece of cake.
Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2024. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC. |