Originally posted by FeceMan
You know, I had forgotten about how I, as a conservative, went out of my way to stomp on the poor, forgotten homosexual. I wake up every day and think to myself, "Ima get 'em queers!" Then I put on my white robes, grab a cross, and load up on gasoline and matches. Road trip to San Fran!
I'm not sure how homosexuality is relevent in this argument. I thought we were talking about racism.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) I never Bible-beat anyone. I have no tolerance for the Bible, so no false - accusations please.
wtf is the use in coming here to debate when you dont read what others post? all you know how to do is lazily glaze over posts, look for buzz-words and give your typical knee-jerk reaction without catching any context at all. im sure you dont give a damn what i think of you, and i respect that. however when you behave and post in such a manner, you look like an idiot before the entire community who reads this thread. surely you must care remotely about that, or why bother stating your case?
now, i will just explain: you accused me of injecting religion into this based on the buzz-word "sloth". after i went on to say that i was not bible beating, you glazed over that post and saw the buzz words "bible beating" and ran with that completely out of context. so whats the word that your lazy mind will register in this particular post?
i want to accuse you of dodging the point, but am forced to confront the fact that you are far too thick and dim to even see the point, let alone dodge it.
in other words: LEARN TO READ. <----there, see that? good. just ignore everything else, like you're so good at doing.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) You are DODGING the point. You are judging lower class as lazy, and therefore reasoning thier positions as due to thier being, blaming the Poverty on the Poor...which is exactly what Conservatives want you to beleive, way to go PVS you conformist ! 👇
*urizen reads the words underclass and lazy in the same paragraph*
"RACIST/CONSERVATIVE/FACIST/EVIL/EVIL/EVIL/SATAN/BAD/WICKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111"
never mind the fact that i pointed out, as long as you get to run with what you thought i said, instead of what i said. way to dumb down a discussion 👆
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You are so blind, and think your slick by not actually answering the question:[b]Why is it that schools where the majority of students are WHITE and the majority of the neighborhood are White, recieve HIGHER FUNDING from the Government than schools where the students and neighborhoods are predominantly black or hispanic?
[/B]
classism. thats what it is. classism. as i have debated harshly in the past, which everyone who pays attention knows. then there are those who only come here to shut their eyes really tight and proceed to tag everyone with labels. i guess they lack the will and/or capacity to pick up on trends in the political/social preferences of other memers.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I would applaud you for ATTEMPTING to answer that .
...as i would applaud you for attempting to read.
you really know how to waste everyone's time. you continue to just quote posts, ignore what you're quoting, and just fart out a halfass response based on what words you choose to put in people's mouths. if it keps up, i will just ignore you, as many members here have chosen to do.
...and now urizen, i will save you the trouble and retort for you 🙂
Originally posted by PVS
wtf is the use in coming here to debate when you dont read what others post? all you know how to do is lazily glaze over posts, look for buzz-words and give your typical knee-jerk reaction without catching any context at all. im sure you dont give a damn what i think of you, and i respect that. however when you behave and post in such a manner, you look like an idiot before the entire community who reads this thread. surely you must care remotely about that, or why bother stating your case?
so thats the best you can do PVS??? call me a JERK??????? i present a valid point and all you can do is dodge it and insult me? real mature.
Originally posted by PVS now, i will just explain: you accused me of injecting religion into this based on the buzz-word "sloth". after i went on to say that i was not bible beating, you glazed over that post and saw the buzz words "bible beating" and ran with that completely out of context. so whats the word that your lazy mind will register in this particular post?
see, there you go again accusing me of bible beating. idiot!
Originally posted by PVS i want to accuse you of dodging the point, but am forced to confront the fact that you are far too thick and dim to even see the point, let alone dodge it.
in other words: LEARN TO READ. <----there, see that? good. just ignore everything else, like you're so good at doing.[/B]
I KNOW HOW TO READ!!!!! OMG you're so stupid. if i didnt know how to read, how could i communicate here? only a complete idiot would lack that simple logic!
Originally posted by PVS *urizen reads the words underclass and lazy in the same paragraph*
"RACIST/CONSERVATIVE/FACIST/EVIL/EVIL/EVIL/SATAN/BAD/WICKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111" [/B]
see? you said it again. you said that the underclass is lazy!!! ELETIST SCUM!!!!!!
Originally posted by PVS you really know how to waste everyone's time. you continue to just quote posts, ignore what you're quoting, and just fart out a halfass response based on what words you choose to put in people's mouths. if it keps up, i will just ignore you, as many members here have chosen to do.
HA!!! and now PVS exhibits his maturity by reducing this discussion to fart jokes. real mature pvs. we discuss pressing matters concerning millions of american lives and all you can do it bring toilet humor to the discussion.
RACIST!!!! CLASSIST!!!!! EVIL!!!! 👇
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Indeed. History and sociology are, generally, not on the side of certain conservative stances. Political power and influence can hold many things at bay for a long time, but in the end when it comes to extreme hard line conservative ideals it is likely they will become untenable with the progression of time.
To which history and sociology are you referring? A revisionist one, no doubt. In the current nomenclature, liberals/ "progressives" are a relatively new phenomenon on the historical scene and certainly do not much predate the French Revolution in the late 18th century. The precursors to current left-wing adherents are Rousseau, Voltaire, the French philosophes, and, ultimately, Robespierre. In varrying degrees and with different emphases, these individuals all believed in the essential moral innocence and, consequently, ultimate moral perfectability of man. From their perspective, social ills were caused not be innate human weakness or evil, but by dehumanizing civic and social systems. Correct society and perfect the individual. This aphorism more-or-less sums up the radical mindset.
Of course, correcting society begs the question-- "in what way?" How should the perfect social order manifest itself? What is current society's chief evil? Answer--inequality. Some have more material possessions and more political power/social status than others. Unfair! The simple fact of power imbalance in society is the root of all evil. Solution to the problem--dispense with personal property, or least redistribute wealth so that no one has more than anyone else. Also, eliminate all rigified conventions that connote social distincition and privilege. Make everyone equal! Great!
How? Compel the rich and powerful at gunpoint to relinquish their wealth and privilege in order to usher in the perfect society. Kill them if you must. Great!
Who controls the property redistribution? Why, the elite cadre of revolutionaries brave and committed enough to kill the rich and powerful, of course! OK....
Now what? Well, after the bloody revolution, its leaders must stay in power in order to guard the now perfect society from contamination by reactionary elements who seek to aquire personal wealth or retain a portion of personal property to improve their lot.
That sounds kind of tyranical. Well, its not! The wise leaders of the new revolutionary state preserve man in his perfect, original condition. Free of property, free of inequality (except before the revolutinary tribunal), and free of greed or suffering. Just not free to express contrary opinions or to possibly rise to the call of personal greatness or ambition. Hurray!!!
Most modern day conservatives are actually classical enlightenment liberals. That is to say, like David Hume, Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and others, they believe in a strong but limited central government that protects and promotes the growth of the private social and economic sphere. Like these 18th century figures, modern conservatives believe that the principle role of government is national defense, establishment of currency, and the regulation/protection of interstate trade, not the promotion of social equality or the reistribution of wealth. If you read the Federalist Papers by Hamilton and Madison, you will see that, besides the establishment of an oppressive monarch, the thing feared most by the founding fathers when writing the constitution was the uniformed rage of the masses, fueled by unsrcupulous demagogues, against propertied interests. These men knew that mass hysteria and class envy were sure roads to chaos and inventual tyranny, facts born out by the horror and despotism brought about by the French Revolution.
Finally, Conservatives are called such these days because most acutally espouse a belief in a relatively constant and unchanging human nature. Unlike liberals, who believe that human nature is infiinitely malleable and perfectible, conservatives believe man's greatness is flawed and limited. He needs outside influences to shield him from his own worse inclinatinos. Social institutions, family, the dictates of a supreme and unassailable God. Alexix De Toqueville, a witness to the French Revolution, was right in pointing outs these insitutions as necessary crutches to the human condition.
Left to his own devices, and if he is bold and lucky, man can acheive greatness. But life is hard. Evil abounds and, at no time and in no place is it easy to be morally courageous. Success is never the provenance of the many. Only a few achieve anything like Greek immortality or Christian sainthood. But this is no reason to construct utopian fantasies of perfect societies and take away from man even the possibility of heroism.
Damn.
Now that was a post for the ages.
Well done Zauis, you have clarified a position for me, that while I always felt inside, had a harder time putting into exact words.
Very well informed and expressed.
I don't even know if you're are a conservative or not, but thank you for at least expressing the position/mindset in an honest, un-biased way.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Damn.Now that was a post for the ages.
Well done Zauis, you have clarified a position for me, that while I always felt inside, had a harder time putting into exact words.
Very well informed and expressed.
I don't even know if you're are a conservative or not, but thank you for at least expressing the position/mindset in an honest, un-biased way.
Not only is he wrong in several accounts, but he disagrees with you on a lot of points.
while idealists in the past may have had such a black/white mentallity, you equate modern liberals with anarchists. not a fair presumption. american liberal/conservative are simply two variations of the same democratic ideal. not to mention that those ideals have been blurred to a mush considering current conservative trends in expanding governmental power (the ideal based on the presumption that government consists of inherantly irrational and imperfect humans and thus cannot be trusted with too much power). so i feel you are trying to strip reality from partisanship to illustrate liberals as wanting to let go of all law and morality for the sake of blindly trusting the nature of man as perfect and rational. its baseless, and the rest of your arguement is just hypothetical exhageration...which paints all on the left as radical, or even revolutionary blind idealists.
i could paint over all the blue and turn it to red and throw it back at you, like to say that all conservatives wish to do is jail the poor for not showing up at their minimum wage jobs and create a police state, but what good is that?