Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 361 to 383 of 383

Thread: The Rise of Far Left Extremism

  1. #361

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Yes, but you can say the same for someone like AOC who is anti-corporate, but engages in idenitarian politics by wanting mass immigration/open borders, etc. If you ignore his white identity politics and focus on immigration, Trump is not behaving that differently than Obama who had border camps and deported many illegals as well.
    I don't know where you're getting your sources from, but AOC clearly doesn't want mass immigration/open borders. However she does want to solve the current conditions of the detained immigrants in the US, and she's saying that climate change is responsible for creating more migrants and refugees seeking relief.

    It is significant that 60% of Americans approve 'Allowing refugees from central American countries to seek asylum in the US', and 80% want 'Developing a plan to allow some people living in the U.S. illegally to become legal residents'.

    http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/0...mmigration.pdf

  2. #362
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    What's intellectually dishonest is not acknowledging that tiki torch carrying bigots and all of those similarly inclined comprise only a [rather explicit] subdivision of white supremacy and exist within an overarching system of centuries old, deeply embedded structural racism that, in addition to a current US administration hellbent on rolling back human/civil rights for marginalized communities, altogether form a very real existential threat to certain Americans, as evidenced by >
    Not sure what leads one to believe that tiki-torch carrying alt-right outliers have any association with prevailing institutional power. Quite a conflation.

    bulletpoints
    I'm with you that "America" doesn't work, and we ought to stop pretending. You make an outstanding case for national divorce.

    Sounds like you're mad that we actively and accurately call a thing, a thing.
    It's the disingenuous nature of the so-called dialogue that aggravates people. Those yelling the loudest about this aren't interested in 'fairness' or 'equality', they just want to be the ones holding the whip.

  3. #363
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I don't know where you're getting your sources from, but AOC clearly doesn't want mass immigration/open borders. However she does want to solve the current conditions of the detained immigrants in the US, and she's saying that climate change is responsible for creating more migrants and refugees seeking relief.
    She wants to abolish ICE without any practical alternatives. That is basically saying open borders/mass immigration without saying it. Even if she is not for open borders/mass immigration, she has no real solutions to the border crisis regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    It is significant that 60% of Americans approve 'Allowing refugees from central American countries to seek asylum in the US', and 80% want 'Developing a plan to allow some people living in the U.S. illegally to become legal residents'.

    http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/0...mmigration.pdf
    Allowing refugees and some illegals to become legal is very different than allowing economic migrants and most illegals to become legal.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  4. #364

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    She wants to abolish ICE without any practical alternatives. That is basically saying open borders/mass immigration without saying it. Even if she is not for open borders/mass immigration, she has no real solutions to the border crisis regardless.
    ICE is just an immigration agency that was created in 2003, that arrests and deports illegal immigrants that are already in the US. It has nothing to do with immigration in general. AOC is saying that this should be a matter of civil code and not a criminal code.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Allowing refugees and some illegals to become legal is very different than allowing economic migrants and most illegals to become legal.
    That's exactly what AOC is doing.

  5. #365
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    ICE is just an immigration agency that was created in 2003, that arrests and deports illegal immigrants that are already in the US. It has nothing to do with immigration in general. AOC is saying that this should be a matter of civil code and not a criminal code.
    In other words, good luck keeping illegal immigrants out if ICE is abolished.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    That's exactly what AOC is doing.
    If you abolish ICE, then how do you enforce that? The short answer is you don't.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  6. #366

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    mandating discriminatory voter ID laws
    You mention the word "fact" at various times throughout your post -- almost as if you feel that facts are important -- but then you go and make an offhand remark such as this one. Honestly, I don't know what sort of mental gymnastics the left must be experiencing on a regular basis to argue that voter ID laws applying equally to all citizens are somehow 'discriminatory'. White, black, male, female, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian.... you'd have us believe that it's somehow 'discriminatory' to suggest that all voters regardless of affiliation or background should be required to verify their identities before they can vote?

    When considering the policies of liberal progressive countries in Europe, I don't even know how this policy became controversial in the US. (oh wait that's right.... in the 2016 presidential election, states with voter ID laws overwhelmingly voted republican and states without voter ID laws overwhelmingly vote democratic. Almost as if.... and yes this is pure speculation.... non-citizens are able to vote because there's not any voter ID laws in the state!)

    In any event, who would have thought that the policies of countries like Sweden, France, Iceland and other progressive European countries would be so discriminatory.

    France: "In France, you have to prove your identity to vote: at the registration (proof of address —A phone, water or electricity invoice...— and an identity document that prove your nationality National Identity Card or Passport— and the day of the vote, in town larger than 1000 inhabitants, an identity document is required"

    Iceland: "Voting is voluntary for all citizens 18 years or older. All voters must present photo ID before being allowed to vote."

    Sweden: "When physically voting on election day, every voter must provide a valid identification document (such as a passport, drivers license, or an ID card from the Swedish Tax Agency)."

    From making up random numbers to arguing that laws applying to everyone equally are somehow racist or discriminatory.... just goes to show you the IMMENSE mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance the left is constantly experiencing on a regular basis in order to maintain their belief set.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    What about the fact that white families hold 90% of the national wealth
    What about it? Last I checked it would be a very small percentage of white families that would be controlling most of the wealth and grossly inflating this figure, meaning that the vast majority of white families would not be 'benefiting' from this figure. This unequal distribution of wealth isn't shocking and it isn't news; it's what we're all taught in sociology 101, and it merely reinforces the notion that 'privilege' associated with class is worth far more than any 'privilege' that might be associated with skin color.

    Nice try though.


  7. #367

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Now 500 could be significant
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Your claim that "blacks are significantly more likely to commit hate crimes than whites" is simply not true.


    Do you read your own posts before posting? Again, I don't mean to be condescending or patronizing with this question. I previously asked if you had bothered to read your own sources that you took upon yourself to cite, and conveniently you've neglected to answer the question. I daresay that this isn't all that surprising -- you literally went from struggling immensely with citing accurate numbers (suggesting you're either incapable of reading your own sources that you've taken upon yourself to cite or otherwise simply are not capable of understanding what the numbers mean) to harping on what the the word significant might mean.

    You can keep trying if you want but like I said before.... at this point I envision a lot of friendly X D's from my end if you wanna keep this up.

  8. #368

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deprecator View Post
    Do you read your own posts before posting? Again, I don't mean to be condescending or patronizing with this question. I previously asked if you had bothered to read your own sources that you took upon yourself to cite, and conveniently you've neglected to answer the question. I daresay that this isn't all that surprising -- you literally went struggling immensely with citing accurate numbers (suggesting you're either incapable of reading your own sources that you've taken upon yourself to cite or otherwise simply are not capable of understanding what the numbers mean) to harping on what the the word significant might mean.
    Nice cutting off the quote, I also said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Now 500 could be significant, or it could not.
    I must say that your tactics are very childish. If you think that differences in 500 cases mean "blacks are significantly more likely to commit hate crimes than whites"... then either you're an idiot or a liar.

    I didn't bother with the other point, because it seemed not worth going over, but if you must:

    "Eighteen percent of race-based hate crimes reported to the FBI last year were anti-white, while whites make up 77 percent of the U.S. population. Compare that to black Americans, who make up 13 percent of the country, but suffered 49 percent of reported race-based hate crimes."
    Okay, so 18% of race-based hate crimes were "anti-white", and not necessarily black-on-white. 49% of race-based hate crimes were "anti-black".

    This obviously means that blacks suffer way more of race-based hate crimes than whites.

  9. #369
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    476
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deprecator View Post
    You mention the word "fact" at various times throughout your post -- almost as if you feel that facts are important -- but then you go and make an offhand remark such as this one. Honestly, I don't know what sort of mental gymnastics the left must be experiencing on a regular basis to argue that voter ID laws applying equally to all citizens are somehow 'discriminatory'. White, black, male, female, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian.... you'd have us believe that it's somehow 'discriminatory' to suggest that all voters regardless of affiliation or background should be required to verify their identities before they can vote?

    When considering the policies of liberal progressive countries in Europe, I don't even know how this policy became controversial in the US. (oh wait that's right.... in the 2016 presidential election, states with voter ID laws overwhelmingly voted republican and states without voter ID laws overwhelmingly vote democratic. Almost as if.... and yes this is pure speculation.... non-citizens are able to vote because there's not any voter ID laws in the state!)

    In any event, who would have thought that the policies of countries like Sweden, France, Iceland and other progressive European countries would be so discriminatory.

    France: "In France, you have to prove your identity to vote: at the registration (proof of address —A phone, water or electricity invoice...— and an identity document that prove your nationality National Identity Card or Passport— and the day of the vote, in town larger than 1000 inhabitants, an identity document is required"

    Iceland: "Voting is voluntary for all citizens 18 years or older. All voters must present photo ID before being allowed to vote."

    Sweden: "When physically voting on election day, every voter must provide a valid identification document (such as a passport, drivers license, or an ID card from the Swedish Tax Agency)."

    From making up random numbers to arguing that laws applying to everyone equally are somehow racist or discriminatory.... just goes to show you the IMMENSE mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance the left is constantly experiencing on a regular basis in order to maintain their belief set.
    = "IMMENSE mental gymnastics" lol Do you people do anything else besides project? I can't discern whether you are egregiously disingenuous or context blind and autistic as fuck. In theory and within certain contexts/situations, Voter ID laws are perfectly acceptable and reasonable. Who the fuck actually thinks (and has argued) that Voter ID law, in and of itself, is inherently bad or racist or whatever? No, the problem is discriminatory Voter ID law, as in Voter ID laws that are discriminatory. I didn't think I'd have to explain that to someone not retarded and reaching into the upper extremities of the exosphere for some cheap, insincere form of "gotcha!" and justification for their own biases and jaundiced worldview.

    Those countries you listed? You know what they all have in common? Their histories are not steeped in centuries of codified racism and prejudice against a disenfranchised subset (a former slave class) of the population that have a history of their right to cast a vote being stymied, stifled and restricted--although it's worth noting that during the Third French Republic, there were efforts made to disenfranchise Algerians and others living within France's colonial empire but by 1944, there was universal suffrage. Those countries didn't need a Voters Rights Act. The problem with Voter ID Law within an American context is that because of the US' precarious history, voter registration (in the form of poll taxes, literacy tests, etc...) was not conducted in good faith but was used as a method to keep disenfranchised people (largely blacks) from casting their vote/having their say in the Democratic process. This is why it was necessary to the pass the Voting Rights Act (of which the trash ass Supreme Court struck down a key aspect of it in 2013), because there are a heap of disparities (rooted in systemic and institutionalized racism) that contribute to certain Americans (particularly the non-white, young and poor) being prone to not having certain forms of ID.

    The laws discriminate against minority and younger voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates, because among other things, they’re less likely to have the money, transportation means, and flexible work hours needed to obtain a required ID. For example, many of the residents struggling to obtain a valid photo ID are ethnic minorities, elderly and poor and were born in homes rather than hospitals. As a result, birth certificates were often lost or names were misspelled in official city records, which is an impediment in states where there are strict voter ID laws that don't allow for any inconsistent information.

    Having said all that, there is an ever growing body of research that suggests voter ID laws have a much smaller effect than critics feared and proponents hoped, even though it is true that blacks and other minorities are disproportionately affected. Despite the legal and political battles over voter ID laws, they don’t really seem to do much of anything. The authors of this relatively recent study cite the laws’ apparent ineffectiveness against voter fraud and then go on to argue that adopting such laws in the first place are all but pointless considering the evidence.

    But of course the crooked and corrupt Republicans you neglect to mention in your feverish diatribes insist that Voter ID measures are meant only to protect against voter fraud, although in some cases they’ve admitted that the intent is to make it harder for some groups to vote. Excluding minority voters because they tend to vote for one party over another is nothing more than an attempt to remove minority voices from vital policy debates and avoid addressing the political needs and demands of those communities. With recent wave of court decisions concerning Voter ID laws in the past few years, federal judges, at long last, have signaled a strong message to states: Seeking to target black and other minority voters for exclusion, regardless of motive, is unconstitutional and undemocratic. Suck on that, motherfucker.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deprecator View Post
    What about it? Last I checked it would be a very small percentage of white families that would be controlling most of the wealth and grossly inflating this figure, meaning that the vast majority of white families would not be 'benefiting' from this figure. This unequal distribution of wealth isn't shocking and it isn't news; it's what we're all taught in sociology 101, and it merely reinforces the notion that 'privilege' associated with class is worth far more than any 'privilege' that might be associated with skin color.
    Ugh, more myopic, context blindness. If you don't know that within an American context, race and class involve interlocking systems that compound and exacerbate the other, thenn I don't currently have the willpower or interest to cure that degree of ignorance. How about you no longer quote me? I'm disinterested in engaging with the willfully obtuse and eternally aggrieved (when all evidence dictates otherwise). Take your disingenuous bullshit elsewhere.

  10. #370
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    476
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Not sure what leads one to believe that tiki-torch carrying alt-right outliers have any association with prevailing institutional power. Quite a conflation.
    Nope.

    1.) When one is accustomed to privilege (based on a slew of 'unearned' entitlements), equality feels like oppression. They fight to uphold a system that continues to disproportionately work for them and their interests--they are not interested in leveling the playing field, which is the true objective of those towards the opposite end of the political/ideological spectrum.

    2.) They have been implicitly and explicitly validated and emboldened by that Mrs. Butterworth built motherfucker ('fine people on both sides') in the White House, the seat of American institutional power, and his corrupt (in every sense of the word) administration--they act as the de facto foot soldiers/nigh brown shirts of his empirically racist and bigoted agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    I'm with you that "America" doesn't work, and we ought to stop pretending. You make an outstanding case for national divorce.
    Great, so long as the US is permanently crippled in alimony payments. And I'd love what that would do to the US on an international level--its standing as a moral authority was always dubious at best, but this would constitute the ultimate shirking of one's responsability for a problem it directly, clearly and undeniably caused.

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    It's the disingenuous nature of the so-called dialogue that aggravates people. Those yelling the loudest about this aren't interested in 'fairness' or 'equality', they just want to be the ones holding the whip.
    lol More projection that lacks context and self-irony. The right wing has never played 'fair'; they play to win, and will fight dirty, if necessary--to a certain degree, I respect that type of tenacity. I tend to think those on the left are spineless cowards as far as their will to fight with the same level of aggressive tactics/strategy that the right frequently employs. The problem is that because the authoritarian predisposed Right thinks and operates in this way, they assume that their opposition thinks in the same manner, despite all of the consistent evidence to the contrary (e.g., the Democrats existing in a perpetual cycle of pussy popping, back pedaling, and back bending in order to acquiesce to the Right's unreasonable demands).

  11. #371
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    1.) When one is accustomed to privilege (based on a slew of 'unearned' entitlements), equality feels like oppression. They fight to uphold a system that continues to disproportionately work for them and their interests--they are not interested in leveling the playing field, which is the true objective of those towards the opposite end of the political/ideological spectrum.
    Death is the only real equalizer. You're not stupid, so you might know enough history to see where this goes.

    2.) They have been implicitly and explicitly validated and emboldened by that Mrs. Butterworth built motherfucker ('fine people on both sides') in the White House, the seat of American institutional power, and his corrupt (in every sense of the word) administration--they act as the de facto foot soldiers/nigh brown shirts of his empirically racist and bigoted agenda.
    Didn't tons of them get doxed, disemployed, and otherwise had their lives ruined? A system that enables the persecution of white nationalists as dissidents is not a system of white supremacy.

    Great, so long as the US is permanently crippled in alimony payments. And I'd love what that would do to the US on an international level--its standing as a moral authority was always dubious at best, but this would constitute the ultimate shirking of one's responsability for a problem it directly, clearly and undeniably caused.
    I want an end to the American Empire more than anyone. But nobody's ever going to force the US into giving reparations to the world for whatever harms they've deemed it responsible for.

    Americans deserve reparations too from a govt cabal that steals from them so it can wage stupid wars & influence peddling in their name. But it won't happen. And while adorning the National Mall with public executions would be beautifully cathartic, there'll be no tribunals nor much of anyone held accountable when the bottom finally does fall out. The rats will abscond, and that'll be that.

    lol More projection that lacks context and self-irony. The right wing has never played 'fair'; they play to win, and will fight dirty, if necessary--to a certain degree, I respect that type of tenacity. I tend to think those on the left are spineless cowards as far as their will to fight with the same level of aggressive tactics/strategy that the right frequently employs. The problem is that because the authoritarian predisposed Right thinks and operates in this way, they assume that their opposition thinks in the same manner, despite all of the consistent evidence to the contrary (e.g., the Democrats existing in a perpetual cycle of pussy popping, back pedaling, and back bending in order to acquiesce to the Right's unreasonable demands).
    It's funny because of course I've heard people on the Right describe the Left that way.

    Democrats aren't really acquiescing, just playing kabuki theater along with the Republicans. These are mostly pragmatic nihilists on the psychopathic spectrum for whom Left/Right ideology means very little beyond rhetorical window-dressing.

  12. #372

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I must say that your tactics are very childish.
    Do you think there's an 'adult' way to respond to someone who is seemingly so desperate to "prove me wrong" that they literally fabricate fictional numbers? And then, instead of retracting when they’re called out for fabricating numbers (as any intellectually honest person surely would), they subsequently choose to respond by harping upon a singular definition of the word significant in yet another desperate attempt to tell me that I'm wrong?

    Though speaking of the word significant, do you know what's not significant? The marginal increase of hate crimes is not remotely significant, at least in the sense that as an overall percentage of violent crime it's remained fairly steady at .005% over these past few years.

    I even tried to emphasize this point by use of analogy; if annual flu deaths among healthy people went from 1,000 to 1,500, this 50% increase might look scary if you posted a graph along with a sensational narrative about the Spanish swine flu, and yet at the same time this increase would still not be all that significant when looking at the larger picture and factoring in the sheer number of deaths associated with heart disease and various forms of cancer.

    As a response, in a most stunning display of mental gymnastics, you then took it upon yourself to characterize my apparent "logic" associated with a hypothetical visit to a foreign country and being discriminated against for being white (implying both that I'm white and that white discrimination doesn't already exist in the country I'm currently living in ), which merely suggests that analogies or other forms of non-literal speech simply might not be your strong suit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    So when you go to another country and face discrimination for being white, then that should be ignored because whites are a minority therefore it only comprises a small number of the total victims, therefore it should be ignored. Nice logic.
    This genuinely makes me wonder…. are you not a native English speaker? Again, I don’t mean to be condescending or patronizing with this question. However, it would certainly help explain your verifiable history of both misreading your own sources as well as your apparent inability to understand the figurative nature of analogies, areas which I've personally struggled with in Spanish (my second language).

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    You said that there are more black-on-white hate crimes than white-on-black hate crimes, which is not true.

    Black-on-white hate crime is 18%
    White-on-black hate crime is 49%
    What's really not true here are these numbers you went out of your way to post. Honestly, I’d have respect for you as an intellectually honest person if you decided to retract this comment after I went out of my way to inform you of your error, but nope…. as opposed to exercising this option you were again so desperate to tell me that I was wrong that you literally took it upon yourself to harp upon a singular definition of a singular word.

    Now to me, your behavior seems far more indicative of someone blinded by a preconceived narrative than someone who's actually interested in honest discussion.

  13. #373

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    "IMMENSE mental gymnastics" lol Do you people do anything else besides project?
    Do you have any particular view point of mine that you'd like to attribute to 'mental gymnastics', or do you merely respond with wild and unsubstantiated claims of 'projection' whenever you get super triggered by facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    The laws discriminate against minority and younger voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates, because among other things, they’re less likely to have the money, transportation means, and flexible work hours needed to obtain a required ID.
    Ah, so now that you've decided to elaborate with actual specifics, I'm now starting to understand the mental gymnastics that went into developing phrases such as "discriminatory Voter ID law". After all, just like you readily claim... some people are less likely to have the money.

    Given this condition, would you also argue that the food/ agriculture industry 'discriminates' against minorities (i.e. minorities are less likely to have the money, transportation means and flexible work hours needed to obtain food), that the housing industry 'discriminates' against minorities (i.e. minorities are less likely to have the money, transportation means and flexible work hours needed to obtain housing), and that the clothing/ fashion industry also 'discriminates' against minorities (i.e. minorities less likely to have the money, transportation means and flexible work hours needed to obtain clothes)?

    Given the set of parameters that you've provided, can you name a SINGLE commercial industry -- any commercial industry at all -- that doesn't 'discriminate' against people who are less likely to have money, or are you merely performing an IMMENSE set of mental gymnastics in order to single out and harp on voter ID laws, specifically?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    Those countries you listed? You know what they all have in common?
    They're all able to acknowledge that proving one's identify and eligibility to vote could be essential to the preservation and validity of any given election? That in practice voter ID laws wouldn't have to be any more 'discriminatory' than the food, housing or virtually any other commercial industry?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    With recent wave of court decisions concerning Voter ID laws in the past few years, federal judges, at long last, have signaled a strong message to states: Seeking to target black and other minority voters for exclusion, regardless of motive, is unconstitutional and undemocratic. Suck on that, motherfucker.
    Conveniently enough, you couldn't be bothered to provide any citation of any kind in regards to this comment, meaning that I honestly don't know what specific 'court decision' that you're referring to (which, probably for the best when considering your history of posting dead links). Though when I googled 'voter ID laws court decisions', literally the very first thing that pops up is: "rawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution."

    Per this 2008 supreme court decision, voter ID laws aren't unconstitutional. They're also not inconsistent with the laws of progressive European countries and they also apply equally to all citizens regardless of background or affiliation. Yet somehow in an incredible display of mental gymnastics, the left still manages to cry out buzz words such as 'racist' and 'discriminatory' as a response. Personally, it's very tempting to speculate that all this pearl clutching outrage from the left is mostly stemming from verifiable instances which would theoretically threaten Cali's status as a blue state, as well as the striking correlation between voter ID laws and a state's tendency to vote republican. For an example:

    "Many politicians are taking firm stances on issues affecting migrants, including amnesty, entitlements and sanctuary city policies. This gives noncitizens a significant incentive to register as voters and cast a ballot. For example, in East Chicago, Indiana, a city with 30,000 residents, voting fraud was so systemic in 2003 that the State Supreme Court ordered a new election with heightened verification. When unlawful voters were prohibited from casting a ballot the outcome of the election changed.

    There is also enough evidence of noncitizen voting to indicate that it is an ongoing problem that may have a significant effect on American electoral politics. Due to the low risk of penalty, and the lack of effective controls, alien voting is easy. In states without ID requirements, the only check against noncitizens registering to vote is a box on the application form asking registrants to confirm they are U.S. citizens."


  14. #374
    Spermatozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Your most intimate spaces
    TIM
    IEE 379 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,989
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    People ultimately act in their self interest and all arguments in this thread can be reduced to that imperative.

    You're an illegal immigrant? Or a relation of one? Or maybe a recent immigrant of oriental descent? Naturally, you feel personally threatened and insulted by the actions of the government. You want to bring your family over with you to the U.S. You want the same slice of the pie Americans before you have had. I get that. We all have the same basic needs at the end of the day, but unfortunately, territory and resources are finite.

    Anyone born in the day and age has had to come to terms with the fact that man's mind has advanced far more swiftly than his soul. We simply cannot allow constant growth (which a liberal immigration policy encourages) without sacrificing all of the qualities which make our countries so attractive to immigrants.

    Allowing anyone who wants to come and live here in would just lead to a regression towards the mean. Everyone's standard of living would be reduced towards a third world average. Regardless of your personal feelings, Americans must understand what is at stake here. The Chinese are hoping to drive a wedge in your country by taking advantage of demographic change...if the U.S. becomes majority-minority, it will likely split into multiple states, and China will then align with California and use the chaos of population transfer to disrupt the alliance (they are already heavily investing in propaganda). They are waiting until your government is fragmented and unable to respond.

    Just please don't vote for a Democrat in 2020, OK, because despite their good intentions they are the cause of the problem. Most of the Pacific is too ignorant or indoctrinated by the media to say it, but we rely on you down here more than you know.
    Last edited by Spermatozoa; 07-27-2019 at 11:34 AM.

  15. #375
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know these people are a very small fringe minority of the left. However, I am going to call a spade a spade and say these people are embarrassingly stupid and insane:

    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  16. #376

    Default

    Leftists stink

  17. #377
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Sacrificing weak mortals
    Posts
    2,525
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I know these people are a very small fringe minority of the left. However, I am going to call a spade a spade and say these people are embarrassingly stupid and insane:

    The problem with some leftist such as the guy here fussing about gendered language is that they go way overboard with adhering to certain individual ideological tenets and end up missing the big picture. Communism at the end of the day is fundamentally supposed to be about people being level and chill one another and policing people over things like language goes completely against that. When it comes to social interaction you just got to use you own brain and figure out what is acceptable to say to any given person instead of following rigidly following set some of ideas/rules about what people should say.

  18. #378
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy View Post
    The problem with some leftist such as the guy here fussing about gendered language is that they go way overboard with adhering to certain individual ideological tenets and end up missing the big picture. Communism at the end of the day is fundamentally supposed to be about people being level and chill one another and policing people over things like language goes completely against that. When it comes to social interaction you just got to use you own brain and figure out what is acceptable to say to any given person instead of following rigidly following set some of ideas/rules about what people should say.
    Yeah, it is a shame that a minority of inept and ignorant people end up buying into this drivel of extreme leftist idenitarian politics. It pretty much makes the entire left look bad by association. The right then use them as a way to ridicule the entire left unfortunately. Which is unfortunate because liberalism in general can be a force of positive change for society if it isn't hijacked by inane left leaning authoritarianism. At the end of the day, they are merely co-opted as useful idiots for the corporate elite's interests.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  19. #379

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,802
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Most American leftists are backwards in that they want to institutionalize everything, rather than liberate. A true liberal should want to unchain people from an unhealthy repressive system, instead of create more of them. The modern liberal you see on TV/twitter fights for social changes within establishments, but any organic social change for the better can only happen outside the confines of an establishment or hash tag. Jesus Christ was anti-establishment. It's quite ironic how its the conservatives fighting for free speech and the right to individually express themselves, those have traditionally been things liberals have fought for.

    I could never be conservative or right wing though. Those ppl still seem too hateful & selfish for my tastes. And pretending like minorities are never discriminated against seems even more harmful to me in the long run than SJWs maximizing petty non-issues and playing thought police. I suppose there are exceptions to this, but those are negative qualities that conservatism has that it still needs to work on. Neither party is good to me. I guess my personal values I believe in are protection from the state/limiting state power (since unhealthy power hungry ppl tend to be drawn to it - and its a good thing to take away their power supply), but also socially progressive ideals and a general policy of 'If you want to govern others, then don't be a douchebag.' Mainstream liberalism in the US has been about repressing everybody socially, and using the evils of Big Brother to do it. So the opposite of what I think it should stand for lol.

    The conservatives that I respect and listen to, that are not just being hateful trolls that lack compassion - I still think they are misguided and living too much in the past. They make good arguements, but its all about crap that happened way in the past and does not really serve us now in society. So while well-meaning, to me its more like 'just move on already. Life changes.'

  20. #380
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post
    Most American leftists are backwards in that they want to institutionalize everything, rather than liberate. A true liberal should want to unchain people from an unhealthy repressive system, instead of create more of them. The modern liberal you see on TV/twitter fights for social changes within establishments, but any organic social change for the better can only happen outside the confines of an establishment or hash tag. Jesus Christ was anti-establishment. It's quite ironic how its the conservatives fighting for free speech and the right to individually express themselves, those have traditionally been things liberals have fought for.
    Very well said. This is basically the result of the Left or Liberals being hijacked by a non-sensical mainstream narrative pushing idenitarianism. It parades itself as anti-establishment, but it is as establishment as they come. If your beliefs fall in line with the mass media and corporations then it is safe to say you are unwittingly a part of the establishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post
    I could never be conservative or right wing though. Those ppl still seem too hateful & selfish for my tastes. And pretending like minorities are never discriminated against seems even more harmful to me in the long run than SJWs maximizing petty non-issues and playing thought police. I suppose there are exceptions to this, but those are negative qualities that conservatism has that it still needs to work on. Neither party is good to me. I guess my personal values I believe in are protection from the state/limiting state power (since unhealthy power hungry ppl tend to be drawn to it - and its a good thing to take away their power supply), but also socially progressive ideals and a general policy of 'If you want to govern others, then don't be a douchebag.' Mainstream liberalism in the US has been about repressing everybody socially, and using the evils of Big Brother to do it. So the opposite of what I think it should stand for lol.
    Your political beliefs are similar to mine in that you lean towards left libertarianism and you feel disenfranchised by both the mainstream left and mainstream right for different reasons. The mainstream left being a turn off with its authoritarian idenitarianism and mainstream right being a turn off with its lack of initiative to foster changes to the economic system to benefit the common man. That is my take at least and of course there are differences among you and I, but the general idea is similar.

    Some hardcore leftists or rightists brush that off as milquetoast centrism where nothing fundamentally changes, which couldn't be further from the truth. It is about having the critical thinking required to identify positive changes and retain positive structures of society to allow society to progress in the best possible way. Rather than emotionally accepting the dogma that Liberals and Conservatives are both guilty of doing. Anyone can separate themselves from emotional political dogma in order to look at issues more objectively and still be a Liberal or Conservative overall.

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post
    The conservatives that I respect and listen to, that are not just being hateful trolls that lack compassion - I still think they are misguided and living too much in the past. They make good arguements, but its all about crap that happened way in the past and does not really serve us now in society. So while well-meaning, to me its more like 'just move on already. Life changes.'
    Yeah, I do think we need to progress and allow change and not stand still. Unfortunately, liberals seem hellbent on pushing some negative changes and conservatives are hellbent on retaining some negative changes. Neither is interested in creating or retaining only positive changes overall as Liberals want to create positive and negative changes and Conservatives want to retain positive and negative changes. That is a major issue that needs to be dealt with sooner or later.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  21. #381

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,802
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yea @Raver. I also think that when you are as privileged, pampered and protected as a Limousine Liberal that has the Illuminati's Protection (in exchange for their soul and True Free Will of course) - you must force yourself to get seriously emotionally offended over minor slights and non-issues in order to keep your overly structured life from being too boring. This divides the country in harmful ways, but to the people doing it- it offers them emotional entertainment from their lives that would feel even more like being trapped inside a narcissistic wine glass if they didn't do it. They can try to cover it up as they are just being good people doing the right thing, but instead the end result is putting humanity into even more of a prison and smart people know that. It's just a huge distraction from real problems.

  22. #382
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,938
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post
    Yea @Raver. I also think that when you are as privileged, pampered and protected as a Limousine Liberal that has the Illuminati's Protection (in exchange for their soul and True Free Will of course) - you must force yourself to get seriously emotionally offended over minor slights and non-issues in order to keep your overly structured life from being too boring. This divides the country in harmful ways, but to the people doing it- it offers them emotional entertainment from their lives that would feel even more like being trapped inside a narcissistic wine glass if they didn't do it. They can try to cover it up as they are just being good people doing the right thing, but instead the end result is putting humanity into even more of a prison and smart people know that. It's just a huge distraction from real problems.
    Yes, it is just virtue signalling in the end. Wearing the veneer of caring about a variety of minorities in order to look good, but they are actually heavily narcissistic and don't really care. In actuality they want nothing to do with these minorities and live in these white gated communities detached from the harsh grim realities in major urban areas. At the end of the day, lower, working and middle class people are all in the same boat regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and political affiliation.

    We are just pitted off against each other by the real ivory tower upper class wealthy elites sadistically laughing as we tear each other apart over non-issues. If we actually all woke up to the reality and united against them then they would have something to truly fear. Unfortunately, that doesn't look like it is happening any time soon as most of us are too busy fighting each other rather than them.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  23. #383
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Sacrificing weak mortals
    Posts
    2,525
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    *You* don't exist in communism.
    Quoting here as to not derail the other thread.

    You seem to have communism confused with ultra-nationalism. A communist society by definition is one which no power structures exist to limit you as individual. What is important to remember about the "communist" countries that have existed thus far is that communism for them is a stated goal and that none them have described themselves as communist countries. Lenin/Stalin had their own specific set of ideas about how to best reach communism, which involved implementing state-capitalism and imposing a strict collectivist mindset on the people in order to rapidly industrialize and gain an edge over foreign nations militarily. Many leftist detested this system Lenin and Stalin had set up in the USSR as it was quite far from functionally being communist, though the USSR did have some merits of its own. Eventually the USSR ended up collapsing due to opportunist seeping into communist party leadership and changing things for their own benefit instead of working to transition the USSR closer towards communism. The closest places we've had to accurately representing communism was Anarchist Catalonia Catalonia and Makhnovist Ukraine.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •