Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't care if their cities are terrorized and destroyed by activities of their own. Hell, I don't care if they loot playdude's place in Manhattan and hang him from a lamp post.

You are a vile, disgusting enemy of the American people. Here you reveal the demonic presence. Wishing such a hateful outcome on your fellow countrymen. Who is the real nationalist? Is it a hatemonger like you, or is it someone who, however they may have normal human flaws, wishes the best for all Americans? Your spirit is of the ANTI-Regeneracy. It drives splits and taken to an extreme, civil war or anarchic violence. Please don't be talking about hanging from lamp posts ... people in glass houses and all that.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

...Here you reveal the demonic presence. Wishing such a hateful outcome on your fellow countrymen...

-I think you missed the point. He clearly states "by activities of their own". Why should he interfere with what Lefties want to do to each other?

I suspect there's also a little hyberbole in there.

You may now relax.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Religious freedom is protected by the US Constitution. My daughter has the right to be a Christian in America. She has the right to wear her cross as a symbol of her faith any where she wants within America. Any fucking liberal who disagrees or objects better wake the fuck up and remember what nation they are living in. Fortunately, I live in a community that doesn't bow to liberal PC or some atheist who believes his/her right to not believe and express their disbelief in god is greater than her right to believe and express her belief in god. Despite what you hear and what liberals say and often project in regards to their level of intelligence over others, you become aware that they're not very smart. Smart people don't assemble a large social powder keg without having an inkling or clue as to what they've done to alienate American nationalists of all stripes.

Of course your daughter has the right to wear a cross without being harassed, just like I have the right to wear a Magen David (Star of David) necklace without being harassed (which, I admit, nobody ever harasses me when I wear it) and my fiancé's daughter-in-law has the right to wear hijab without harassment.

My concern echoes Bob Butler's

One of the stickier problems is whether a health care provider must provide reproductive health care when their understanding is that God does not like this form of birth control, or that form of abortion. One can see a drug seller not wanting to sell an after the fact no pregnancy pill, but this could leave a rape victim going from pharmacy to pharmacy, from hospital to hospital, trying to find someone willing to sell.

Also, the concern about whether someone who has an ectopic pregnancy and lives in a community where the only hospital is affiliated with the Catholic church can get the appropriate treatment, which sadly requires terminating the (unviable) pregnancy.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

There is no evidence conservatism is dying that is just a hope against a hope.

As I have said for a long time the myth of millennial being "liberal" is mostly made up and in fact, they are the less liberal at their current age than boomers were.


Millennials are practically 60-40 when they are still in their 20's with huge undercurrents of libertarianism, and resurgent social conservatism. Just look at the internet, that is where the conservative millennials are because they are currently in institutions (colleges) that will destroy them for not towing the liberal line.

The left has pushed too hard and the backlash (through trump) is enormous. But I guess we will see keep hoping for that future of only liberal progressives forever that the left has been waiting for since 1960

Yes, there is no evidence that "conservatism," as a magic pony, is disappearing - that's one of the problems with magic ponies.

But, let's look at conservative thought as it is actually manifested in the political power arena, i.e., today's GOP.

I remember the GOP's post-2012 autopsy, and how it was completely jettison. The GOP is the angry White man's party, and your problem is that cohort is diminishing by 2% each election cycle. You're not doing anything to bring in the non-White, female or younger voter that is making up more and more of the electorate. Instead, you're waiting for them to come to you. Good luck with that.

The bigger problem is you can't grasp that conservatism is contemporarily defined by the times; what conservatism had to offer before Trump was already in a death spiral; Trump has just stripped off the veneer.

What your left with is xenophobia, and that only goes so far as the future unfolds.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-In Playwrite's head, if you observe that one Black person is a dumbass, that must mean that you think that all Blacks are dumbasses. Well, if Kinser is Black, and PW thinks that Kinser is a deluded dumbass, then that means that PW thinks that all Black people are deluded dumbasses...

You're questioning the first Black President, who graduated magna cum laude (if you don't know what that means, google it) from Harvard Law School, shortly after questioning his birthplace, and now you offer the lame excuse that you don't do this for any other Blacks??? Wow, does the stupidity come before or after being a racist?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-PW obviously didn't go to the tape. Atwatwer said that that was what Dems did; Republicans didn't have to, because they had honest issues to work with:

You must be a complete Faux News toady to think anyone other than racists buy into this. The GOP uses EXACTLY the dog whistles that Atwater talks about it. One can see it everyday on TV; it's just that warped people like yourself see it as facts.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Ah, yes. The "intelligent" leader:

http://nypost.com/2016/05/07/meet-th...ic-liars-club/

...The latest clincher is the admission of a top White House aide that much about the Iranian nuclear deal was a fabrication sold to a lazy, gullible press corps. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes boasts that most reporters were too dumb to know or care they were being misled.

“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns,” Rhodes told The New York Times. “They literally know nothing.”
He said that much of what passed for independent analysis of Iran in the media was a regurgitation of White House talking points. “We created an echo chamber,” he gloated. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

Rhodes thus joins the infamous Jonathan Gruber, the administration insider caught conceding that ObamaCare was designed to exploit the “stupidity of the American voter.” If people understood the plain meaning, Gruber said, the law would not have survived...

Unfortunately, both the Iran deal and ObamaCare will outlast Obama’s term and do lasting damage to America, and in the case of Iran, the whole world...


Neither Obamacare nor the Iran Nuke deal will ever blow up in our faces...

...as for Iraq, can anyone imagine teh Teleprompter-in-Chief trying to deal with the Middle east if we hadn't overthrown the Ba'athists? Ugh.

You get your facts from the Post? That explains a lot.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

A poster who doesn't know the difference between real life libertarians and lw anarchists and their activities that he's referring to and describing in his post doesn't appear to know WTF he's saying about other people as usual. At some point, you should really get your shit straight so you don't come across as being so clueless among your peers.

Go ahead and educate me on this if you got the gonads.

This should be fun!

Originally Posted by playwrite

You get your facts from the Post? That explains a lot.

Looks like PW didn't bother to read the original post:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

The original story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/ma...ioncollection%

That's understandable, since it was labeled "original story".

BTW, note that Playdud didn't actually attack the NYP's analysis (he couldn't, really). He simply attacked the source.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Go ahead and educate me on this if you got the gonads...

-Because, as we all know, trying to educate Playdude reguires GONADS.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't care if their cities are terrorized and destroyed by activities of their own. Hell, I don't care if they loot playdude's place in Manhattan and hang him from a lamp post.

This is what so funny about the Right's many zombie apocalypse forecasts - they truly believe they would survive it.

There's a few wingers with PTSD that hold this view, but the vast majority of wingers haven't had any experience or clue about what they hope will occur and somehow miraculously thrive - they all believe they're Sheriff Rick or Daryl, or in Classic's case, Captain America.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm not the ideal person to explain 'religious freedom' from a rural right perspective.

I think I got it - if I don't like you, my religion says I don't have to deal with you, even if I'm a government employee.

Simple enough.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Hmm ok so the way i see it the only way to maybe sort this out is for individual practices to cater to certain people do you think? So to include all as most likely some right wingers feel their beliefs are being shot down. It is the only thing i can think of atm. But that does mean laws will have to change to allow that to happen. Before left wingers hate me on that i am looking for ways to include all as things will not be sorted the way they are going. The way things are going is causing more friction between both sides. Both feeling threatened. Consensus has to be made and all somehow heard and included as people tend to double down on beliefs when threatened and close off to anything those who oppose them say.

So can we send Classic to Kiwi-land and let you deal with him?

He's far from the worse but it would be a start.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

What is even funnier is that not all libertarians are the same. Some are economic libertarians (I'm not, so long as industrial production is the main mode of production economic libertarianism will result in the formation on monopolies which could have bad economic outcomes for the nation), some are cultural libertairans (That is to say "Classical Liberals"), and then there are the anarchists (of which there are left and right varieties).


That Playdude cannot distinguish between these four distinct groups all of which are on the libertarian side of the libertarian-authoritiarian divide is not totally shocking to me.

As it stands I'm coming more and more to a Classical Liberal position with strong Nationalistic tendencies.

There is no Libertarian paradise in large part because it would first take anarchism to get there.

Your cultural libertarians are big mouths that refuse to put money where their mouths are - real easy to be one but far from anything that should be considered classy.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

... many of these Regressive Leftist news outfits and organizations go out of their way to find such people. If you go looking for racism you'll find it.

Let's give thanks that they do, otherwise we'd have to spend money on having someone going out and cutting down all that "strange fruit."



- probable more so for the really fruity ones.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Demcocrats have been the party of racism since 1828. ....

No one buys that Party of Lincoln crapola any more. In spirit, if not in actual blood, you all are the descendents of the Southern poor Whites that went off to slaughter in 1860 to protect an evil institution for the benefit of your elites - you all remain pretty consistent, and we can't reason with you, we just have to beat you into submission again.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Looks like PW didn't bother to read the original post:



That's understandable, since it was labeled "original story".

BTW, note that Playdud didn't actually attack the NYP's analysis (he couldn't, really). He simply attacked the source.



-Because, as we all know, trying to educate Playdude reguires GONADS.

No, you didn't read the original NY TIMES article but did a bait-and-switch of a NY POST with more spin than summary.

Even a hick like you should know the difference between an actual newspaper and a rag. But then again, it is outside your Faux News bubble so I guess you can be excused, bubblebrain.

Originally Posted by playwrite

So can we send Classic to Kiwi-land and let you deal with him?

He's far from the worse but it would be a start.

I do not think he would like it here. It may be a total nightmare country for him. Both our left and right wing and everything in between is too progressive in comparison to American right wing and especially conservative right wing. Not sure where he fits on the spectrum but I know he would despise it here. I mean even just recently our right wingers (National party) tried to change the design of our flag. That is exactly like if some party in America tried to change your flag of USA. That is our right wing. Very different to American right wing and more progressive than US right wing. Heck they even love immigrants just as much as our left. Just for different reasons.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I do not think he would like it here. It may be a total nightmare country for him. Both our left and right wing and everything in between is too progressive in comparison to American right wing and especially conservative right wing. Not sure where he fits on the spectrum but I know he would despise it here. I mean even just recently our right wingers (National party) tried to change the design of our flag. That is exactly like if some party in America tried to change your flag of USA. That is our right wing. Very different to American right wing and more progressive than US right wing. Heck they even love immigrants just as much as our left. Just for different reasons.

Well, okay, but that makes things difficult for me.

I'm currently negotiating with Greenland to take in Classic's tribe. It's not going to well and I needed a backup.

Maybe Antarctica?!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well, okay, but that makes things difficult for me.

I'm currently negotiating with Greenland to take in Classic's tribe. It's not going to well and I needed a backup.

Maybe Antarctica?!

Arctic maybe. Bears need food :P jk classic. I am just kidding around.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Of course your daughter has the right to wear a cross without being harassed, just like I have the right to wear a Magen David (Star of David) necklace without being harassed (which, I admit, nobody ever harasses me when I wear it) and my fiancé's daughter-in-law has the right to wear hijab without harassment.

My concern echoes Bob Butler's

A religious symbol should never be a problem in itself. The problem is with people who would harass people who show evidence of their religious beliefs. Of course if the religious symbol and is exclusively associated with a criminal or terrorist organization, then the symbol could create a legitimate problem. Thus an arrow cross (associated with Hungarian fascists of World War II) would be a perversion of the Christian cross.

Ironically I have argued that the Commie hammer-and-sickle device is itself a cross.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Hmm... The struggle for equality and acceptance is hardly over nor apt to end any time soon.

That never ends but it won't be pushed forward by censoring anyone's speech. Free speech means people have the right to say things you don't like.

The methods and specific forms of prejudice targeted change. Certainly the tools and attitudes of the late 1990s PC movement aren't very fashionable right now.

No they update the newly acceptable and newly objectionable labels about every five years.

On the other hand, I've recently encountered the concept of 'transgender'.

The existence of the mental disorder of Gender Dysphoria Disorder is not new. The idea that it should be treated with surgery and hormone injections/treatments rather than psychological counseling and perhaps even drugs (because GDD is also co-morbid with many different disorders) is what is new, and what is destructive.

If someone feels aggressive and pushy when waking up in the morning, said person would dress as a male. If the attitude is a bit more mellow, he/she would dress female. Along with the clothing shifts come changes in posture, voice inflection and which bathroom the individual would prefer to use.

The usual argument is not I'm a "masculine-ish woman" or I'm a "feminine-ish man", rather the typical argument used by transexuals is that they in fact have a female brain in a male body or vice versa. Which if true blows apart the "gender is a social construct" meme on the left. I would argue that gender is a biological construct but SOME manifestations of gender performance (acting like a man/woman) are informed by culture.

Now, in general I've been against prejudice and favored allowing people to be themselves without being harassed or hated, but this one gives me the creeps. This seems abusable. If current trends are pushed do you end up with federal laws and court precedents saying anyone has a right to use the bathroom of their choice?

It should give you the creeps because it is indulging people's mental illnesses rather than treating them with the care, compassion and medications that they need. The numbers of post-op transexuals who still kill themselves is staggering. The numbers of persons who go through these hormone treatments and operations who still have to contend with untreated psychological issues is staggering.

Finally one should make a clear distinction between transexuals (IE those who make the claim that they are the wrong sex) and Drag Queens/Kings. The latter by and large are merely making a perfomance of being the other sex. As Ru Paul said of his drag..."It is a job. I'm a man in a dress."

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't care if their cities are terrorized and destroyed by activities of their own. Hell, I don't care if they loot playdude's place in Manhattan and hang him from a lamp post.

Damn, you are sick! You have described a lynching.

Note that in some respects I qualify as a conservative: I believe in law and order as the foundation of all civil liberties. Pogroms and lynchings exemplify lawlessness that moots all human rights.

This Forum is dying, and I am going to warn the operator of a new site which has been attracting many posters from this one to keep you off it.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...You have described a lynching.
Note that in some respects I qualify as a conservative: I believe in law and order as the foundation of all civil liberties. Pogroms and lynchings exemplify lawlessness that moots all human rights. ...

There is no way to have civil dialogue with those expressing such thoughts. The ignore function is very useful function to allow discussion with the ones who want civil discussion.
I don't have a problem with different points of view, but there are some posters who are not worth any attention.

I have to say I agree with the two of you. I was quite shocked at his response to me. I realize he is speaking in anger and I wonder if he was thinking clearly about what he said due to speaking in anger, but still...i even cannot defend him on this. I would never wish ill on those who oppose me politically or ideologically.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

*vile language in the original altered without loss of meaning.

1. I don't like talking about race and ethnicity -- but while there isn't that much difference between the white middle class and the black, Latino, and Asian middle class because they share some common experiences in college education

First as I've said before there isn't a middle-class. I'm going to take you to mean middle-income which in no ways informs us about class. That being said, many of the Black, Latino and Asian middle-income does not have a college education. A large perportion of Black and Latino middle income people actually are involved in the trades--something whites should probably imulate as apprenticeships you get paid to learn as opposed to most collage course you pay to be made stupid.

I would like to point out that the boy once he graduates has decided he wanted to apprentice with a tile setter I know. (I've mentioned before my Uncles are in the trades so I know people because they know people.)

Much the same can be said of Latinos. Asians typically own their own business be it a restaurant or a store.

and similar vocational success (duh! -- that explains why people are middle class)

Managing to be middle-income should not be a measure of success, vocational or otherwise. I'd consider a middle-income Black man who owns his own contracting business to be more successful than a middle-income white bank worker. Why? The former works for himself and his clients whom he can pick and choose at will, and has liberty to pick and choose when he will do his work, the white bank worker is a tie wearing slave.

, there is a huge gap in political values and culture between poor, disadvantaged white people that does not exist between middle-class and poor blacks or between middle-class and poor Latinos.

I would argue that this is not true. The vast majority of poor blacks do not care for middle-income blacks, particularly those with education, and espeically those who use proper English, conduct themselves in a professional manner and own their own businesses. Have you never encountered the concept of "Acting white"?

I can't speak for Asians, my interactions with them is limited. With Latinos their middle-income people are held up as models of success though. Middle-income Blacks are held up as betraying their race because In The Ghettos the Regressive Left line is that being economically successful is the exact same thing as being an Uncle Tom and selling out to "da man".

To be sure, just because the Art Institute of Chicago and Symphony Hall are a couple of bus rides from the nastiest slums of Chicago doesn't mean that someone living in the worst Chicago slums will ever visit the museum or attend a concert of the Chicago Symphony. But if one is a middle-class black kid one has a chance. If one is a very promising black kid there might be some middle-class black adult who can lead one into middle-class ways.

First off the ghetto dwellers have no interest in the Art Institute or Symphony Hall because being interested in either is Acting White and liable to be strongly discouraged. Furthermore, in majority black situations it is those very "very promising" black middle-income kids who are subjected to horrific abuse by their own race. I happen to know because I've felt it in my own flesh, as has my sister. There is much truth in Chris Rock's comedy segment about how he hates (a certain word).

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2o8ab9

Middle-class blacks and middle-class Hispanics show some responsibility toward their own poor. They support policies that can (in theory, at least) raise the talented among the poor people toward whom they feel some responsibility. They recognize poverty in the light of the dictum "there but for the Grace of God go I". They know that their middle-class status is inherently shaky, dependent upon the good will of the politicians. They well know that a demagogue like Donald Trump is more likely to choose to give the shaft to non-white people if something goes wrong (and it will!). Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians know how that works in America.

I can't speak for Latinos (Hispanic is a linguistic designation and includes people of all races), or Asians, but most black middle-income people do not support welfare, they do not support state dependency and they do not support affirmative action. Why? Because and especially with affirmative action do little but support the soft bigotry of low expectations evident in the Regessive Left. The two best things I ever did was moving out of the "black" section of town, the second was moving out of the gayborhood.

2. So far it is the "Establishment" Republicans who have gone down to defeat in the Republican primaries this year. The Corporate Republicans cut a deal that they would concede 'cultural values' to the (white) Religious Right so long as the Religious Right acceded to greater power of economic elites -- lax regulation on the environment and workplace safety, weakening of unions, and monopolization of commerce. The Corporate Republicans got their way with Dubya and then got ousted from both Houses of Congress in 2006 when the deal started to go bad. Corporate Republicans then offered much the same deal as the Tea Party.

The Tea Party was largely a Silent-Boomer phenomenon and is why it quickly died back by 2014, the demographics supporting it were rapidly evaporating--and Boomers can't keep their collective shit together. The deal, which is real, and did exist, only worked when economic and foreign policy issues were front and center. 2016 is proving to be an election on the basis of culture and is being fought out by different groups. Cultural libertarians and Cultural Authoritarians. This is why on the other forum I've said that it is my view that Daddy is "flipping the script", "hitting the reset button" and other things along those lines.

So gays and lesbians should be going to prison instead of on honeymoons with their spouses; creationism should be supplanting evolution and school prayer (especially of the fundamentalist Protestant type) should be the norm in schools; pornography of any kind should be shut down instead of being easily accessible on the Web; language like yours should be completely off the airwaves. So how is that deal going?

Same Sex Marraige is a dead issue. Creationism is stupid (and only morons would support it being taught in school science courses--a humanities course is a different matter). And School Prayer is perfectly legal provided the teaching staff or administration do not lead it. The prohibition of promoting religions through the schools in no way impedes the practice of religions by staff or students.

As for pornography prohibitions...well that is being led by the Feminists these days, movements to censor the internet is also coming from SJW types. In fact Google and other corporations have teamed up with SJW outfits to develop software to filter out "problematic" content to sell to the schools. While I'm in no way going to condone the use of school computers to look at porn, these programs also filter out any dissenting opinion be it Communists and Socialists or Neo-Nazis. If the goal is to eliminate bad ideas from the public square then the best cleaning product is giving it the spotlight.

We liberals think both the cultural part of the promise and the economics are raw deals. Black and Hispanic middle-class liberals can relate to the poor who share their ethnicity (and the black and Latino middle-class groups are on the whole liberals). White middle-class people, liberal or conservative, cannot relate well to poor white people. Members of the black and Latino middle-class aren't so distant from the ghetto or barrio... and know it.

They were raw deals, and not one that was accepted by seceding generations to the Boomers and Silents. The general libertarian mindset of Xers conforms to their predecessors in other Nomad generations. As far as relating within racial groups I think that is vastly over stated, particularly by white liberal boomers (most of whom have never been in the ghetto, let alone know anything about it). As I've said before, I have more in common with a poor white than I do with a rich black. The same is true of Latinos. The greatest possible cohesiveness in our society is not race (which it could be argued is a social construct--but I'm not sure I agree with that) but on matters of economic class.

Without some sort of cultural red meat issue (which does not appeal to Xers or Millies, but does to Boomers and Silents) the Bush Republican deal breaks down because guess what...poor whites know that they are poor, and know that their interests are more in line with poor blacks and latinos than it is with rich whites.

As far as Establishment Republicans going down to defeat in the Republican primaries -- that is your Party and not mine. As a liberal Democrat I recognize that the political questions will be resolved, if at all, in the November election.

If not before. The FBI still hasn't weighed in on HRC. In any event current poll analysis suggest that she will go down because unless she dramatically changes her tune she's running as Obama's Third Term (and well that simply won't get her elected--she doesn't have Obama's gravitas) or to put it more bluntly 4 more years of accomplishing nothing.

Part of the answer is that Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Rick Santorum will not be the 45th President of the United States. We shall see about the President, the Senate, and the House a half year from now.

I expect the House to remain in GOP hands. The Senate is more up for grabs as many Tea-Party Wave Senators are up for re-election. From the looks of things the Senate is likely to be evenly split making VP picks very important.

3. If it is any consolation, the Presidential nominee of 1960 who was barely defeated that year won decisively in 1968 after Barry Goldwater scared the living daylights of "Establishment" Republicans in 1964 and gave LBJ the biggest landslide win since FDR. If your Party nominates a quasi-moderate capable of assuaging the fears of many, then after Americans have had enough of the Obama and Hillary Clinton Presidencies, then maybe we have another Republican President.

The problem here is in assuming that 2016 is anything like 1960. First there is the turning difference. Second is the economic difference and third there is the fact that the majority of people polled recently all say the country is on the wrong track (which does not bode well for HRC).

The rest of your post PBR are your standard tropes you trot out every other post, have been answered before ad nauseam and I feel little need to repeat myself yet again.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Damn, you are sick! You have described a lynching.

Note that in some respects I qualify as a conservative: I believe in law and order as the foundation of all civil liberties. Pogroms and lynchings exemplify lawlessness that moots all human rights.

This Forum is dying, and I am going to warn the operator of a new site which has been attracting many posters from this one to keep you off it.

Too late for that...he's already there. And thank god he is. That said I'm wondering if NM's prediction on the other thread might not still come true anyway, though I think it is a poor comparison to compare Generational Theory with All My Children.