Much has been made of David Duke; but where is he right now?

They send theirs to political office. We send ours to prison.



Last edited by Torone at Apr 25 2003, 08:04 AM

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/duke.jpg

I was 10/9.

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/duke.jpg[/b][/quote]
Actually, he IS in prison...

Colin, Didn't feel like quoting all of what you said, but I think your posts are right on!

I too find myself on the fence. In the end, I try to just make the best choices I can in all the aspects of life.

Fuck trying to change the world.... just roll with what comes and try to position ones self accordingly.

First of all, you really have to be pretty stupid to use the race card to attack the left's objection to a "certain Hispanic circuit court nominee", because few, if any, on the left are objecting to his appointment simply because he is Hispanic. It's the Republicans using race in this instance to avoid discussing relevant issues.

Second, Senator Byrd - like Senator Helms, Governor Wallace, and any number of politicians from that era, evolved past their Klan heritage into something else entirely. I've read a little bit on the accusations against Byrd. Many of them center on letters written to the Klan offering his continuing support after he resigned from the Klan in the 1940s. There are others that reference his opposition to the desegregation of the military under President Truman. Hardly relevant, considering that Lott was pandering to the Klan and the White Citizen's Council-type folks well into the 1990s, some 50 years or so after Bryd's so-called Klan activities.

LBJ and Byrd used the N word. Whoopie-fucking-doo. Let's see ... a Texan born in 1908, a West Virginian born in 1917 - how suprising is that? I had a pair of grandfathers born in the 1890s, and great-uncles born anywhere from the early 1880s until the early 1900s, and they all used the word. My father and my uncles all used the word, although less frequently than my grandfathers did.

And Colin - I agree with you that people should be free to say what they want. I guess my point is that when someone like Lott comes out and says the world sure would have been better if we would have elected this bigot and kept them n****rs in their place, I would hope the general public reacts with the same outcry we would see if a Senator proposed making Joseph Gobel's birthday a national holiday.

Wig. :rokk:

PD,

I agree with you, if I understand you correctly, on not holding people to their political positions from decades ago. Even some of the guys that used to be NAZI's aren't anymore. I'm not being facetious. Times change. People change.

I think we should be careful to hold people in both parties to the same standards. If we're truly interested in making such statements on the basis of such lofty and noble standards of equality we should make them equally both against people in "our parties" but also in the other. It's quite evident that whenever a Democrat makes such a statement the Republicans by and large jump down their throat and vice versa.

Members of each party can go back and forth trying to discredit the other based upon their best guesses of what the person's intent is. Seems to me that people often think the members of their own party are more honest, moral, and ethical than those of the other. Cloudy vision results from such nonsense.

but this is what politics is.

politics is based largely on discrediting the other side(s). the side that succeeds in painting a worse picture of the other side wins.

i would not say "best guesses of what the persons intent is". i would say that politicians try to discredit by sucessfully characterizing or mischaracterizing their intentions.

thats politics.

i think we all do this. we are all biased because we have political beliefs. we cant possibly look at any politician objectively if we already have a political view. having a political view on issues causes us to view those politicians, actions, statements or remarks that are consistent with our own views or beliefs in a more favorable or positive light.

The best you can do is choose your vote according to the party ethos.

One one side we have religious zealots, book burners, brainwashed redneck nationalists and secret police. On the other side you have the Democrats.

What's so hard about that choice? :P

can you direct me to the nearest reprogramming depot?
:zoinks:

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/reprogram.gif

JR,

Have you ever read the Devil's Dictionary? It's a satirical dictionary written by Ambrose Bierce who was known for his Civil War stories [he lived at that time]. I think you'd like it.

POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

POLITICIAN, n.
An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.

My favorite was always this one:

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.



Last edited by Colin at Apr 26 2003, 04:35 AM

I'm talking about "we the people" though. Not the politicians themselves.

I don't think Alex would be attempting to mischaracterize Bush, for example.
I think Alex believes Bush is bad and will ruin the country and hence the world if he stays in power.

I agree that political strategists are excellent at mischaracterizing politicians and probably do that more than the politicians themselves. There's certainly a healthy dose of those that just don't like the other person ot party and therefor guess that person's intentions as disingenuous.



Last edited by Colin at Apr 26 2003, 04:34 AM

Pd,
You mist be totally blind. Either that, or you are the thirstiest kool-aid drinker in the Liberal base.

Firstly, you seem to misunderstand the Democrat oppisition to that Hispanic and the reason it is a race issue. They paint themselves as the party of minorities; but they are really only the party of those minority people who believe in and want something for nothing. If they were truly the party of minorities they would be helping him.

Second, my point is that there was no comparable fuss raised about Bird's remarks (which happened less than 2 years ago) or LBJ's statement (which was revealed less than 2 years ago).

What's the matter? You don't think the Liberals have a chance on a level field (i.e. one where the same rules apply to both sides and any statement not preceded by "In my opinion" or "I believe" must be documentably true)? Frankly, I believe that they would soon fade into obscurity and become equal to the party represented by Pat Buchanan...

Let's be fair...

On one side we have religious zealots, book burners, brainwashed redneck nationalists and secret police.

On the other side you have the socialists, communists, collectivists, radical environmentalists and brainwashed underachievers that believe the world owes them something for nothing.

Dig, you should at least be objective if you are going to point out extremes.

The smart people, IMHO, can point out the shit on both sides.

What's so hard about understanding that?



Last edited by wig at Apr 26 2003, 07:49 AM

you should really speak nicer of 12clicks



Last edited by Forest at Apr 26 2003, 04:54 AM

Let's be fair...

On one side we have religious zealots, book burners, brainwashed redneck nationalists and secret police.

On the other side you have the socialists, communists, collectivists, radical environmentalists and brainwashed underachievers that believe the world owes them something for nothing.

Dig, you should at least be objective if you are going to point out extremes.

The smart people, IMHO, can point out the shit on both sides.

What's so hard about understanding that?[/b][/quote]
and what's so hard about understanding that communists AREN'T CAPITALISTS and have no love for Democrats? To a true communist or socialist there is no difference between a Republican and a Democrat, they hate our capitalist system.

Why do Republicans have to lie and distort in order to debate? We don't. Pat Robertson is evil in FACT, we don't have to exaggerate. Bush has set up secret courts, we don't have to lie about anything. It's right out there for anyone who actually cares about being right rather than winning a pissing match. Radical environmentalists? You mean the people who refuse to stop bitching about toxic chemicals being dumped into streams and such things? I HATE those guys, much better to let our country's natural resources get raped by anyone with the bank to buy a politician right?

The KKK votes Republican. The Moral Majority votes Republican. Look at who your friends are. You may say that both parties have evil men, and you would be right, but there is definitely such a thing as choosing the lesser of two evils, and there is no question which is the worst evil in our two party system.

When are you people going to get tired of making excuses for your evil, corrupt party and just do the right thing and switch? Are you afraid that means you 'lose' the argument?

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/sharpton.gif

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/sharpton.gif[/b][/quote]
yep, and he's REAL POWERFUL in the Democratic party, a real vote getter.

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/sharpton.gif[/b][/quote]
now that guy scares me

the biggest bigiot and shit stirer of the races that there is

I watched him in his younger years when i lived in nyc

that response does underline one of the biggest planks in the Republican platform though: Racism. The fear of a black planet. White men terrified of dealing with minorities. I'm not scared.

Things start to look bad, just show a pic of Al Sharpton, Rodney King or Willie Horton. Everybody knows the Repubs know how to keep the darkies in line.

Dig,

You say "Look at who your friends are".

Who are you talking to?

Both Wig and I are neither Democrat nor Republican. We're middle of the road. Don't think either party better than the other. You shouldn't confuse not bowing down to one party and considering the other evil with Republicans being "our friends". Sorry but I just cant believe that half the nation is evil and the other half good, that half the nation is honest and the other half corrupt and that the leading divider of these people is which major party they belong to.

From where I sit I see equal numbers of idiots and savants and charlatans in both those parties. I think both those parties have something to offer America and only in combination - systematically removing the extremes - do we get the best results.

Amusing that you think someone who has opinions that aren't lock-stepped into a party line is "trying to win a pissing match". The truth is that neither Wig nor I has a pissing match to win. How could I win? You believe that your good old boy network is honest and the other good old boy network is liars. You believe your party is good and the other evil. Your party is trying to do good for the people and the other is corrupt and only has selfish motivations at heart.

Come on, man. There's a current Democratic senator that is an ex-KKK member! Al Sharpton is every bit as racist and whacky and biblical as Pat Robertson. You know it's true. How many anti-Jewish remarks from the Democratic party does it take to equal the anti-black ones from the Republican.

Look around. Powell is the highest ranking minority in US government history. A minority woman is National Security Advisor. The man in charge is making minority hires [the best people for the job] at the highest levels of the administration.

I try to see the good of each party rather than the bad. I thin you're seeing only the good of one and only the bad of the other.

i was speaking of him as a Person

not a race

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/powell.gif http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/rice.jpg

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/powell.gif http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/rice.jpg[/b][/quote]
Thanx Colin

I was just going to say

Newt fucking grinch (lol) sacres me more than sharpeton does

I have a problem with all politicians...

Politicians think they are working when they are making new laws or more bureaucracy... no matter what party they are from, then its about *control* of the masses and sometime *ego trips*.

Yes, I understand that a civilized society needs laws and probably also some bureaucracy. But most of the real serious problems we have had have been taken care off decades ago, but still politicians find new things/issues etc. they need to control. Just look at how much the number of laws have increased in the last 20 years! Its rare for politicians to take a look at old laws and try and improve them - instead they make new laws with *their* names on them.

New generations of politicians will continue to make new laws, because that is what they are told by the politicians before them etc. They think their name will be remember, but it will only last until a new generation of politicians make new laws.

We should make a law that politicians only could update or remove old laws - no more new laws. That way we could have less and less laws, a more transparent goverment, and more freedom too the people!

BTW. I chart high on the libertarian scale :rolleyes:

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/powell.gif http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/rice.jpg[/b][/quote]
JBB

just barely black, totally uninvolved with any minority issues, tokens.

You can pretend you're even-steven politically Colin, but the fact is you primarily post in defense of conservatives. You can also pretend that the parties are the same, but you're smart enough to know that's not the truth. It's 'Religous Right' not 'Religious Middle' or 'Religious WishyWashy', it's Religious RIGHT. The people who want to ban Tom Sawyer, conjoin church and state and teach creationism in school are Republicans. The people who drape themselves in a flag and call you a traitor for questioning the govt. are Republicans. The people who created and passed the Patriot Act are Republicans. The people who allow corporations to draft the bills they present before congress are Republicans. The bubbas in the white sheets vote Republican. Conservative commentators nearly unanimously don't want oppostion in their forums for a reason. Did you see how they cried when the conservatives were getting destroyed night after night on Crossfire? hrm.. now Crossfire is on for 30 minutes instead of an hour in a worse time slot.

There is a difference. I'll say it again: look who's on your side. It means something. Conservatives are against freedom of speech, against freedom for any religion except white bread christianity, against freedom of the press and against a free mind. They are xenophobic and homophobic. They are evil. Vote Democrat :nyanya:

Uh, Dig,
The only proper response you can make is to post pictures of your party's minority appointees.

BTW, as for the socialists, communists, etc...Check out your party.

Hi Dig,

You have to understand. I am against curtailing free speech, banning books, the religious right, and the Patriot Act.

For me, there are a few basic principles which are important to me:

1. The system works. The American form of government is a good one. Constitutional Republic
with strong checks and balances on individual and government power.
2. The rule of law
3. Libertarian ideals

In just this thread, I stated that "Though the Republicans lead this category [racist remarks] by far, the Democrats do have their moments" and gave a few examples. I view that as a statement demonstrating that there are examples of racism in both camps but a statement primarily AGAINST Republicans as I said they lead the category. I then pointed out David Duke's book on "Jewish Supremacism". On the whole, I think I've primarily made anti-Republican remarks today. If you choose to see them as any different I'd say that is not a fair assessment at all. When I debate with Torone or MikeAI, they don't claim I'm "primarily a Democrat". What's the difference?

Though I would vote against the Patriot Act if there were a referendum, I think it wouldn't be the end of the world, that it's keeping in line with other legislation passed in times of perceived crisis in the US, and that if passed it wouldn't effect my life. I think it's quite possible that it would come and go just like many other such acts passed as a reaction to say WW I or WW II. Those are two different ideals in conflict. My position is perfectly public. The Patriot Act is against my libertarian philosophy. The Patriot Act is not the beginning of an Orwellian America/Oceana that would spell the end of all liberties. There are issues of national security which may make such an act justifiable and historically that has been the case. Now that I've said that let's see if I'm labelled a conservative or a liberal today.

I don't think either party has a broad and consistent enough theme that I can sign up to either one. Different people have different agendas and within any one particular party there are a quite wide range of political views and personalities. Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton are three completely different politicians. I can't judge them as "Democrats". I judge them on their individual merits. Parties change in time to reflect political reality. Parties don't dictate the borderline. People dictate the borderline. The libertarian party does reflect my philosophical views but I think by itself it would be a disaster if taken 100%.

Checks and balances on government and individual power are the guiding principle of the Constitution. Here is our strength.

"Just barely black"? WTF, man. I don't even think you believe you own words. Secretary of State is hardly a "token" position. Powell is the highest ranking minority in the history of the United States. That you would care to denigrate him on the basis of his "percentage of blackness" seems to me a sign that you are only pro-minority for Democrats but not so for Republicans. Isn't the principle more important than the party? <-_<

I liked Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. They are men who did their job. Both in character and
deeds they have their faults and they have their strengths. You can tell the story of any of their presidencies in such a way that they either saved the country or ruined it. I rather suspect the truth, for what's it's worth, is halfway in between those views for each of these men.



Last edited by Colin at Apr 27 2003, 04:55 AM

And they cancelled Donahue too!

And they cancelled Donahue too![/b][/quote]
that's right! It's a right-wing conspiracy!

Dig,

Do you ever sleep?

Republican Presidents are obligated to nominate conservative judges, and stump for Republican senatorial and gubernatorial candidates. Although you have to weigh the individual merits of each prospective candidate for any position, his party affiliation still should be your main criteria, because no matter how good you think the guy might be, he's still gonna have to pay his debts once he gets into office. The Republicans are indebted to all the wrong constituencies. Do you want to bring back the era of small government, states rights Repubs? Vote Democrat. Watch how fast the Repubs stop pandering to the lowest common denominator as soon as it stops winning them elections. Your man Shrub was making a lot of noise about bipartisanship and appointing a democrat to the cabinet and whatnot when he was running for election, and then immediately veered hard to the right once he was in office. Why? He had to pay his debts to the people who got him in office.

I liked Reagan until Iran-Contra, imho that was REAL treason against this nation. It was also pretty well established after he left office that his campaign team was in contact with the Iranian hostage takers and they made a deal to release them only after Reagan was inaugurated. If true, this is just too evil to tolerate.

Bush Sr. seemed like a pretty good man and I have nothing but love for Clinton for the most part. Shrub, I just hate him. He's awful. The worst President in my lifetime for all the reasons I stated above. Goddam I can't believe we gave the Presidency to a born-again Christian in the 21st century. It's like we're going backwards. He probably thinks war in the Middle East is going to bring about the Rapture.

yeah I'm about to right now, if I can.... :zzz:

Two words. Dade County. Bush is going to beat the Democrats to death with the Estrada/Latino issue when he campaigns in South Florida. Dems made a bad political move on this one.



Last edited by Colin at Apr 27 2003, 06:33 PM

This below image is still my favorite illustration of why political debates cannot be won and why there is no one "right" answer... only beliefs and opinions. political debates have not changed since the early days of civilization itself. Plato and others debated the very same issues 2400 years ago with no greater success than people have in the year 2003. the same concerns, the same fears, the same theories, the same worries, the same predictions of how it will all go wrong if we continue down the path of "XYZ".... the same emotions and the same confusing of opinion with fact.

Yet here we are. still going strong. never perfect as no country is, but clearly doing ok.

We live in a Democratic Republic that is a system of agreement built on dissagreement. there is no right or wrong between Democrats and Republicans. there is only successful and unsuccessful debate. the winning argument does not have to be "right". ask OJ. It amazes me that people can believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. its probably rational behavior... but its very illogical. it is self comforting i guess and part of a process of self affirmation, that serves to fortify the walls of beliefs that we build around ourselves that protect us from having to carefully weigh and consider an overwhelming amount of information and make an incalculable number of decisions everyday. easier to just tow the party line and take the good with the bad.... afterall, for any shot fired at either party, there is always something to fire back. Much easier to argue about nothing and use mindless rhetoric about which President can't spell and which lied under oath than to argue about something as massively complicated as financial markets, economies, macro-economics and global politics.

Anyone that thinks they are "right" in their views or political opinions or beliefs are acting logically and probably normally... but i think that the reality is that if you cannot allow yourself to see both sides as objectively as possible, then it cannot be logical to conclude that your views or opinions are more correct than others. The magic of the system we have however is that it fully takes this into account and in the end, it is the ranting of those at opposite ends of the spectrum that allow us to define the center.

Colin and i are very similar in our political views. We understand and agree on the need for Republicans and Democrats. But i think we both place our faith in the system, not individuals. Its the system itself, that has worked extraordinarilly well since its beginning and continues to work well. If you took a micro view of the system you would see a lot you dont agree with and a lot of things you think should be changed. Step back and take a look at the system as a whole and you see an economic and political system that has created the worlds only super power and the worlds strongest economy. it has not functioned perfectly all the time... but it has proven to be incredibly resilient, self correcting and effective.

to argue that "republicans are better because..." or "democrats are better because..." is just silly. if the arguement was strong enough for either statement, they would be in power indefinately.

http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/woman.gif



Last edited by JR at Apr 27 2003, 10:43 PM

Bullshit. If you're voting with Santorum, Jerry Falwell and David Duke, you're wrong. End of story.

how do you define wrong?

is Jerry Fallwells mother wrong if she votes for her son?
is anyone wrong that votes for someone they believe in?
is anyone wrong to vote for someone that best represents their views?
is anyone wrong that does what they believe to be the right thing?
is anyone wrong that expresses themselves within the framework of the Constitution and legal voting process?

how do you decide who is wrong?
who decides who is wrong?

if i would be "wrong" to vote for Jerry Fallwell... how do you PROVE i am wrong?

if you don't know why it's wrong to vote for Jerry Falwell, there are no words that will clarify it for you.