Can I still put white sheets on my bed? ...Or, no?

[rdean]

The latest crusade from the 'tolerant' liberal left, seems to be the good ol' Confederate flag! Imagine that? All the assorted problems we have out there and the one thing liberals have chosen to make the "Issue of the Moment" is something they believe they can goad the right into a "racial" stand-off about. Who ever saw something like that coming?

With all the talk about how the Confederate flag is somehow a "symbol of racist hate" I have to ask, am I still allowed to use white sheets on my bed? Because I really do like the white sheets, always have preferred them. 100% cotton and mother-fucking high thread count. Egyptian cotton are The Best!

But... I really don't know if it is appropriate anymore. White sheets are clearly a "symbol of racist hate" as much as the Confederate battle flag. So are pickup trucks and mullets, but I am mainly concerned about the white sheets. I don't want to offend anyone... what if I brought home a lady of a different race and she saw my white sheets and freaked out? I would never forgive myself for being so politically incorrect! So I really do need some input from radical liberal lefties on this... ARE white sheets still okay?

As for the Confederate battle flag... I don't care, take it down, erase it from all the history books... pretend it never existed. After all, we don't allow people to run around waving the Swastika flag anymore... oh wait, we do? Yes, we call that "freedom of speech" and we tolerate it. But the Confederate flag, even though it has been hijacked by racist hate groups and turned into a symbol of racial hate, is a different story. You see, it can be politically used to get some stupid republican to say something really stupid and libs can turn that into "republican calls for return to slavery" and destroy them. So yeah, get rid of it... burn it... forget about it.

But... the white sheets? ...Yes or no?

You can even wear them if you want. No one stopped you before.
Trick or Treat!

 

[Boss]

What radical extreme left are you talking about/ Names please!

This is really a hoot.... You, as a radical extremist, are NEVER going to admit that is what you are. In YOUR view, you are the reasonable one... the objective one... the one who is taking the proper stand on all the issues, and it is the "radicals on the right" who seek to prevent your social justice.

So it's sort of like Hitler asking Churchill to name his generals who have perpetrated any war crimes!

 

[JQPublic1]

I think you are blaming the wrong factions for that unflattering development. The neo-Conservatives are to blame. The have pinned that name to themselves and with it came all the dirt.
Obstructionism bigotry, intolerance and greed are just a few of the demons that drive them. I agree, these are not Conservatives and I usually use quotes and a small "c" when referring to them: "conservatives."

Well no... not really. The actual neo-conservatives have a defined agenda and ideology but it has been grossly misinterpreted and perverted by the left in this country for the past 25 years or so. The liberal radical extremist left has turned "Conservative" into a counter-ideology in which they do battle against. They NEED an enemy, otherwise they have no message. Conservatism, by and large, is not an ideology but an overall philosophy. That is why you see such ideological clashing between social cons and libertarians, for example.

Let me also be clear, I am not saying that ideologues can't also be conservative. That is very much what has happened to the strong conservative base we had under Reagan. As duplicitous as the liberal left has been at redefining Conservatism into a counter-ideology, ideologues on the right have staked out their little niche groups and ideologies to define themselves. Many of them believe they can freely attach "conservative" to what they are and thus they ARE conservatives. But Conservative already has a definition.... it is already defined and it doesn't change with the times. It is the counter-philosophy to radical extremism.

Who are these liberal radical extremist lefties you keep referring to? I'd like to know who they are? Got any names off hand? They have to be powerful if they have enough clout to turn Conservatism into a counter ideology. How did they do it?

From my perspective as a lay but aspiring student of politics, I have listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Savage and myriad other so-called Conservatives and formed my negative opinions of "conservatism" around their extremist views. I am offended by many of their social conservative views.

The Limbaugh Conservatives have melded fiscal conservatism with social conservatism by putting a black face on poverty and welfare recipients. That illusion has spread far and wide into the White voting community.
Most White males identify with conservatism, even when the political agenda runs counter to their own best interests. All that was needed to do that wast he inception of a black boogie man and the idea of a mushrooming welfare state. Limbaugh is a rich man because he gave substance to those illusions.

The left didn't create pseudo conservatism, Limbaugh and company did; and, the sheep just followed right along

 

[JQPublic1]

What radical extreme left are you talking about/ Names please!

This is really a hoot.... You, as a radical extremist, are NEVER going to admit that is what you are. In YOUR view, you are the reasonable one... the objective one... the one who is taking the proper stand on all the issues, and it is the "radicals on the right" who seek to prevent your social justice.

So it's sort of like Hitler asking Churchill to name his generals who have perpetrated any war crimes!

Well give me some time to think about it! I have never thought of myself as a radical extremist and I have to check it out. I think YOU should check your extremist meter too. We might both learn something. I see myself as more a reactionary to Right wing aggression and obstructionism. I am not a passive resister I fight back. If that is extreme, you got me.

Ideally, I would have the world be as I think Christ/God wanted it to be. A peaceful paradise where people could thrive and live long healthy lives. A place without egotistical bastards wanting to dominate and rule over others would be ideal. But human nature prevents that Shangri-La . Some one is going to eventually want to dominate and force his/her will onto others whether it be religious tradition or free love, right wing or left wing!

The Amerindians held a philosophy that no one owned the land, it belonged to all. That was way before Karl Marx, Stalin or Mao. White men came, took the land by force and placed value on it. Was that moderate conservatism at work? If so, it was born in battle and took root in the blood of Native Americans. Sorry if that clouds my objectivity and "radicalizes "my premise
when it comes to conservatives.

 

[Boss]

The Limbaugh Conservatives have melded fiscal conservatism with social conservatism by putting a black face on poverty and welfare recipients. That illusion has spread far and wide into the White voting community.

This is pure racist liberal claptrap. No one has put any kind of face on poverty and welfare recipients except liberals who exploit them for political gain. Conservatives believe a rising tide floats all boats... that comes from a rather famous Democrat conservative who was once president, I believe.

A "Social conservative" is not really a follower of Conservative philosophy, per say. They are ideologically driven, usually by religious convictions. which is fine, that's their right. They represent one of many 'ideologies' flying the "Conservative" banner... it doesn't mean they follow a Conservative philosophy always. G.W. Bush is a great example of this. He was a huge Social Conservative but because of his ideology he was not fiscally conservative at all. He called it "compassionate conservative" but what it amounted to was out of control spending and policies totally out of character for Conservatives.

Now Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer... no different than Jon Stewart, really. He doesn't shape or mold the Conservative message any more than I do. He can't change the definition of a Conservative. I've listened to Rush and I think he does make some brilliant conservative points, and to a greater degree, Mark Levin makes even better ones. These guys certainly aren't "establishment republicans" going by what they say daily. They make the point repeatedly that Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Levin talks about this in his books, I've read entire chapters on it.

Again... Radical extremist left-wing ideologues like yourself, MUST turn Conservatism into the opposing ideology! So you create these memes like "not caring about brown people" or whatever, and you run around repeating that over and over again like good little propagandists. Conservatives want EVERYBODY to succeed and to strive to do their best and realize the American Dream. The best way to accomplish this is to get government out of our way and out of our lives.

 

[G.T.]

well there you have it - he listens to the crazed rantings of limbaugh and levin

 

[Boss]

well there you have it - he listens to the crazed rantings of limbaugh and levin

Why am I constantly being harassed by the same troll? You got a problem, bud?

 

[G.T.]

well there you have it - he listens to the crazed rantings of limbaugh and levin

Why am I constantly being harassed by the same troll? You got a problem, bud?

Yes, i deteste people like you who play fake smart, act superior, while saying so many foolishly retarded things.

How.bout you? You got a problem? Good, s0n.

 

[Boss]

well there you have it - he listens to the crazed rantings of limbaugh and levin

Why am I constantly being harassed by the same troll? You got a problem, bud?

Yes, i deteste people like you who play fake smart, act superior, while saying so many foolishly retarded things.

How.bout you? You got a problem? Good, s0n.

It's becoming somewhat creepy. Every time I start a thread, here you are harassing me, trolling around in the thread trying to get my goat or push my buttons... not really sure WHAT you're trying to accomplish other than to agitate me somehow. If I were the only one here who disagreed with your stupid ass, maybe I could understand, but surely I'm not.

Any time you want to tackle one of my "fake smart" points with something of substance, feel free to do that.... as opposed to simply ridiculing me for listening to what others have to say. Of course, the problem is... every time you've attempted to argue a point on merit, I make you look like a special needs student and embarrass you in front of your friends.

For the record, I also listen to the crazed rantings of Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart and Michael Moore... but, like you... whenever someone destroys their simple-minded logic they only know how to respond with snark and denigration. Do less moronic pinheads train you up on how to be an effective internet troll or does that ability come naturally to you?

 

[G.T.]

Youre a noron, youre not worthy of reading your walls of pseudo intellectual and cynical in spirit theories.

A punk, in a word.

 

[Boss]

Youre a noron, youre not worthy of reading your walls of pseudo intellectual and cynical in spirit theories.

A punk, in a word.

Wow... well you certainly seem to be drawn to my unworthy threads a lot.

 

[G.T.]

No i point out alll the loons...unaint special

 

[Boss]

No i point out alll the loons...unaint special

But you never make any points. You simply troll the threads and denigrate people who don't think like you do. Apparently I am pretty special, you seem to always land on my threads and spend an awful lot of time insulting me. Mind you, I am not complaining, it suits me just fine.

 

[G.T.]

No i point out alll the loons...unaint special

But you never make any points. You simply troll the threads and denigrate people who don't think like you do. Apparently I am pretty special, you seem to always land on my threads and spend an awful lot of time insulting me. Mind you, I am not complaining, it suits me just fine.

Thats not accurate, unless YOU follow ME around and presume to know.

I make points and am cordial with most. All the time, the great majority of the time.

The hard headed illogical fake smart people like you are worthless to point/counter point with because you're literally incapable of seeing even your most blatant errors and fallacies.

"Ive given up on you," you're too hard headed and arrogant not to mock.

 

[JQPublic1]

his is pure racist liberal claptrap. No one has put any kind of face on poverty and welfare recipients except liberals who exploit them for political gain. Conservatives believe a rising tide floats all boats... that comes from a rather famous Democrat conservative who was once president, I believe.

"No one has put any kind of face on poverty and welfare recipients except liberals who exploit them for political gain. "

Say what??? Now I know you are delusional. John Kennedy was the last president to say he was a liberal and I haven't heard anyone in the democrat hierarchy say they were. Only frustrated right wingers continue to use the term as a pejorative put down for anyone, politician or not, who doesn't jump on board the "conservative" bandwagon.

In modern times, race continues to play a major part in the political arena. You deny it but the Right has frequently used race to galvanize White voters behind "conservative" causes. Martin Gilens nails it in his book, "Why Americans Hate Welfare." Focusing on the causal factors of that hate, a review of the book by the Library Journal reveals:

"A provocative analysis of American attitudes towards 'welfare.'. . . [Gilens] shows how racial stereotypes, not white self-interest or anti-statism, lie at the root of opposition to welfare programs." -Library Journal

Do I need to uncloak the conservative nexus? The Right played a pivotal role in masterminding and dispersion of false notions certifying the face of poverty and welfare in America is black. Must I remind you of Reagan's anecdotes pertaining to the illustrious " black Welfare Queen?" ( her blackness is questionable based on census data). If that isn't sufficient let's pull these out of the conservative closet:

Newt Gingrich told a crowd of senior citizens in New Hampshire, "The African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps." Rick Santorum was even more egregious, claiming he doesn't "want to make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money" (although he later claimed that he never intentionally said "black").

Gingrich's latest offense comes only weeks after he received widespread criticism for saying that poor children should work as janitors and clean toilets. He specifically made a point of addressing "inner city" youths -- which has become conservative code for black and brown people everywhere, from the South to the coasts, the suburbs to the metropolises, regardless of where they actually live.

For some odd reason, this is acceptable rhetoric among the conservative political class. It is especially troubling because every reliable statistic shows that white Americans are the overwhelming beneficiaries of welfare in this country and make up the largest number of those in poverty by a wide and substantial margin. The Republicans' well-rehearsed lies on the subject have been so effective that people of every hue have come to believe them, feeding widespread ignorance about the true face of poverty and the ever-growing gap between America's rich and poor.

So you see, conservatives have put a black face on poverty and welfare. Yes I know Blacks make up 39% of those on AFDC welfare but if you include food stamps and other welfare assistance Whites jump way ahead! But welfare doesn't delineate the boundaries of poverty, there are working poor and people too proud to ask for assistance. More White people are poor than are blacks. 41% of the poor in this country are non-Hispanic Whites and 25% are Black. The face of American Poverty is White! Conservatives have ignored that and played the "impoverished Black" angle to manipulate political outcomes!

 

[JQPublic1]

The link for the green colored commentary in post#95 can be found here:
Whites and Welfare GOP and the Food Stamp Fallacy - The Root

 

[Pogo]

The Limbaugh Conservatives have melded fiscal conservatism with social conservatism by putting a black face on poverty and welfare recipients. That illusion has spread far and wide into the White voting community.

This is pure racist liberal claptrap. No one has put any kind of face on poverty and welfare recipients except liberals who exploit them for political gain. Conservatives believe a rising tide floats all boats... that comes from a rather famous Democrat conservative who was once president, I believe.

You don't understand what racism is either?

And about that last part...

​

Damn. Doesn't know what Liberal means... doesn't know what moderate means... racism... Kennedy...

Yer lost dood.

 

[Boss]

No i point out alll the loons...unaint special

But you never make any points. You simply troll the threads and denigrate people who don't think like you do. Apparently I am pretty special, you seem to always land on my threads and spend an awful lot of time insulting me. Mind you, I am not complaining, it suits me just fine.

Thats not accurate, unless YOU follow ME around and presume to know.

I make points and am cordial with most. All the time, the great majority of the time.

The hard headed illogical fake smart people like you are worthless to point/counter point with because you're literally incapable of seeing even your most blatant errors and fallacies.

"Ive given up on you," you're too hard headed and arrogant not to mock.

The hard headed illogical fake smart people like you are worthless to point/counter point with because you're literally incapable of seeing even your most blatant errors and fallacies.

You haven't pointed out any errors or fallacies and whenever you have tried to claim fallacies and errors, I have addressed them. That's why you troll and insult, you don't have an argument.

USMB is supposed to be a message board forum where various ideas and issues are discussed and debated. Some people here don't want to do that at all. They had rather exploit the board by attacking and ridiculing those who don't share their political ideology. Rather than enter a thread and jump into the actual substance of the OP, they will pop in to land a few insults, call people 'stupid' and tacitly imply they have previously defeated the argument. We call this "trolling."

I challenge anyone reading this to go back through this thread and see if you find any post by G.T. where he has presented an argument or counter-argument to the OP. You'll find plenty of sarcastic retorts, insults, denigration of others... but no counter-argument. In this latest flurry of insults and put-downs he implies that it's due to frustration of me being "incapable of seeing" errors and fallacies... but where has he pointed out any?

 

[G.T.]

This thread?

Im not talking about this thread.

You have a really fucking daft mark on reality, dude.

 

[Boss]

his is pure racist liberal claptrap. No one has put any kind of face on poverty and welfare recipients except liberals who exploit them for political gain. Conservatives believe a rising tide floats all boats... that comes from a rather famous Democrat conservative who was once president, I believe.

"No one has put any kind of face on poverty and welfare recipients except liberals who exploit them for political gain. "

Say what??? Now I know you are delusional. John Kennedy was the last president to say he was a liberal and I haven't heard anyone in the democrat hierarchy say they were. Only frustrated right wingers continue to use the term as a pejorative put down for anyone, politician or not, who doesn't jump on board the "conservative" bandwagon.

In modern times, race continues to play a major part in the political arena. You deny it but the Right has frequently used race to galvanize White voters behind "conservative" causes. Martin Gilens nails it in his book, "Why Americans Hate Welfare." Focusing on the causal factors of that hate, a review of the book by the Library Journal reveals:

"A provocative analysis of American attitudes towards 'welfare.'. . . [Gilens] shows how racial stereotypes, not white self-interest or anti-statism, lie at the root of opposition to welfare programs." -Library Journal

Do I need to uncloak the conservative nexus? The Right played a pivotal role in masterminding and dispersion of false notions certifying the face of poverty and welfare in America is black. Must I remind you of Reagan's anecdotes pertaining to the illustrious " black Welfare Queen?" ( her blackness is questionable based on census data). If that isn't sufficient let's pull these out of the conservative closet:

Newt Gingrich told a crowd of senior citizens in New Hampshire, "The African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps." Rick Santorum was even more egregious, claiming he doesn't "want to make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money" (although he later claimed that he never intentionally said "black").

Gingrich's latest offense comes only weeks after he received widespread criticism for saying that poor children should work as janitors and clean toilets. He specifically made a point of addressing "inner city" youths -- which has become conservative code for black and brown people everywhere, from the South to the coasts, the suburbs to the metropolises, regardless of where they actually live.

For some odd reason, this is acceptable rhetoric among the conservative political class. It is especially troubling because every reliable statistic shows that white Americans are the overwhelming beneficiaries of welfare in this country and make up the largest number of those in poverty by a wide and substantial margin. The Republicans' well-rehearsed lies on the subject have been so effective that people of every hue have come to believe them, feeding widespread ignorance about the true face of poverty and the ever-growing gap between America's rich and poor.

So you see, conservatives have put a black face on poverty and welfare. Yes I know Blacks make up 39% of those on AFDC welfare but if you include food stamps and other welfare assistance Whites jump way ahead! But welfare doesn't delineate the boundaries of poverty, there are working poor and people too proud to ask for assistance. More White people are poor than are blacks. 41% of the poor in this country are non-Hispanic Whites and 25% are Black. The face of American Poverty is White! Conservatives have ignored that and played the "impoverished Black" angle to manipulate political outcomes!

Okay... So your evidence to support your views are from a like-minded liberal nitwit and you believe that is supposed to impress others? Liberals are good at cherry-picking quotes, taking them completely out of context and then building a false argument around their perversion of reality.

You will find NO REPUBLICAN who has EVER said "most welfare recipients are black." Not today, not yesterday, not 50 years ago. There has been no such speech by a Republican candidate, no such writing in any book by a Republican, nothing... no sign of such a statement, yet here is a liberal trying to make that a reality.

We always see these statistical percentages trotted out as if they prove some grand point. Black people represent about 15% of the population, so yeah-- more white people are on welfare, more white people are wealthy, more white people are poor, more white people do drugs, more white people commit crimes, more white people own household pets, more white people buy new cars...own homes... etc. This has nothing at all to do with the state of the black community which is experiencing the highest rate of unemployment, under-employment and under-education. When a Republican points this out, he is suddenly being "racist" because some pinhead liberal wants to take his words out of context and turn it into that.

We've had over 50 years of liberal policies to combat the "War on Poverty" started by LBJ... yet statistics show the poverty level in America (for all races) is virtually unchanged. Now the prime liberal reasoning is, as always, "not enough has been done!" Well, we've spent over $20 trillion and have committed to spend another $100 trillion in coming years... so how much more can be done? We've nearly bankrupted our country trying to eliminate poverty but poverty persists relatively unchanged. The Liberal Left's answer is to keep spending money we don't have, bilk the producers of wealth some more, keep redistributing from the 'haves' to the 'have-nots' and one day when we finally reach "Utopia" all the poverty will be gone!

Conservatives believe in enabling everyone with the tools for success and motivating them to strive for success as opposed to being dependent on government. Every person in America, regardless of their resources, has had the opportunity to succeed beyond their wildest dreams. There are countless examples of people from every race overcoming adversity and poverty to become millionaires or even billionaires. Not because of government hand outs, but because they had the motivation and determination to succeed.