There aren't parts of our society that benefit far more from our military policies then others? Likewise with police? I would suggest that the taxes we all pay for these things disproportionately benefit the affluent.
Just because it doesnt follow left wing patterns of redistribution doesn't mean it isn't doing as such.
If you believe in any form of government then you believe in re-distributive taxation. The question from there is not the morality of such a thing, anyone who has agreed that government is necessary has already agreed to that. The real question is what money should be spent on.
Oops, I meant "You're using a quote meant to support minorities as a means of supporting those who don't want to persecute minorities." as "You're using a quote meant to support minorities as a means of supporting those who want to persecute minorities."
You're basically saying "first they came for the people who were coming for people". You're using a quote meant to support minorities as a means of supporting those who don't want to persecute minorities. Your hypocrisy is astounding.
I don't understand how I need to prove anything. The most conservative area of our country in regards to race has always been the South, from slavery, to segregation, to the civil rights movement. During the realignment of the 60's and 70's the South switched parties, blacks started voting Democrat in general and whites Republican in general. These are statistical facts that are widely known even by the poorly educated. I think it's you who needs to show some sort of evidence that the South has some how magically transformed from the least racially progressive part of the country.
"The Southern Strategy/realignment proves neither — it is/was an appeal on issues of economics and rights, not racism." I chuckled a bit when I read this. The guy tantrumming about citing sources drops this entirely unsupported claim. I've posted a ton of links supporting race as an issue in the realignment, please support your arguments. Your Klan link is ridiculous by the way, you posted a list made up almost entirely of pre-realignment Democrats aside from David Duke who switch over the the Republican party from the Democrats. Basically, your link supports the generally accepted history that race played a major role in the Southern Realignment and certainly doesn't support what you are saying.
As for your last bit, yes I certainly said that and I meant that. Right wing social values can lead to that. I never said they were certain to do so. The vast majority of people are some form of moderate and thus are never part of those types of extremes. You are again putting forth false claims about what I've said. I don't know if you're lying to play the victim or if you are some how are accidentally reading into what I say things that aren't being said and then playing the victim. Either way, it's getting annoying.
Personally, I don't really care if you reply or not. You're not a very interesting person to debate as you complain too much. I'm "splitting hairs" by denying you your historical revisionism? I don't think so.
Last things first, I think it's hilarious that you have made only a single citation in your last couple of posts while making many claims and then you demand I cite sources. To keep you from throwing a tantrum though I'll spend my own time citing sources even though you cant be bothered.
Working from the end, the Southern realignment of the 60's and 70's which happened around the civil rights movement is a well known event so I certainly didn't think I would even need to even cite sources (much like I wouldn't think I would need to site a source for saying that John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln). Major party realignments don't just happen spontaneously for no reason and this was the big event effecting the South during this period. Here's some links so you can brush up on your history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://economics.yale.edu/site... https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHi... (Yes, I know it's reddit but the post is accurate) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... There's certainly more easily found resources but I was trying to find some that might be up to your demands and perceptions and didn't want to spend a lot of time on it.
Finally to your first part, I certainly never said "conservatives are racist", that's you putting words into my mouth and playing the victim. A simple look at what you literally quote me on should spell out to you that what I was saying is that racial hate groups tend to be conservative, not that conservatives tend to be racist. Most of the groups on this list are known for favoring modern American conservative politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Of course there are some liberal groups on the list and I would never say the Left in this country has clean hands in this regard. What I am saying is that the vast majority of groups on this list identify with our country's conservative politics.
You've said nothing even vaguely profound here. Every country is one elected leader away from a new Nazi Germany. Hitler wasn't the second person in his political party to be elected.
I love your link there about fascist. It can be summed up quite simply as "you know all that stuff the Nazi's did that no one cares about like their economic policies or size of government or any of that, a good amount of that stuff was a bit to the Left so fascists are Left". Of course, as mentioned, no one cares about any of that (their economic policy was really a bit of a hodgepodge of Left and Right if one really wants to be honest about it), what people care about are their Right wing social values that led to mass genocide. Unless you're an ideologue it's really the reason to hate Nazi's. In a modern context, the rest is pretty much irrelevant as none of the Left wing policies = genocide and really just make you look like a tool for even mentioning.
American groups advocating racial hatred almost exclusively identify themselves as conservative, our most conservative states had the worst segregationist policies when segregation was still an issue and your reference to Byrd is laughable as most of our "racially sensitive" Southern Democrats that continued to have political carriers switched to the Republican party during the realignment. Strom Thurdmond is an excellent, although not at all unique, example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . It's not some odd coincidence of history that our most conservative states largely switched parties to our modern conservative one, thus giving it much of its current identity, during the civil rights era.
I don't see any end game for an advanced sentient species outside of a matrix like existence. Why keep living in this imperfect universe and spend the vast amounts of resources providing luxuries to people, colonizing planets and the like when everyone can just be plugged into a computer and live in the world they want with very few resources used? Exponential growth after that is not at all the type of growth that would be noticeable by us.
I'm reading through your posts and Jesus Christ are you stupid. We don't live in the conservative utopia your stupid brain pretends we live in where everyone's needs are met by the market. Quite a lot of full time jobs in America dont offer health insurance and put you at a level of wealth that disqualifies you from government healthcare. Generally speaking, these jobs dont pay well either.
You're retarded. You just suggested the US invade a reasonably free and democratically elected government who is a major ally of ours because of some short comings in their government. Get a fucking clue. We have short comings in our own government. Let's tend our own garden before we TELL other countries how to operate their own business.
You sound like a fan boy. I clearly state I don't see the advantages of a smart watch. You could be useful and point to some or be a jackass and post as you did.
I've never understood wearing a smart watch when you already have a smart phone on your person. A smart watch with a cell connection doesnt make much more sense to me though when one could just carry a phone that does more and is easier to use.
I guess for those wearing clothes without pockets or with pockets that are impractical to use it makes sense...
Slashdot Mirror
Well there's a constitution that literally spells that out in this country....
So exactly like I said, "The real question is what money should be spent on"
So basically, like I said "The real question is what money should be spent on."
There aren't parts of our society that benefit far more from our military policies then others? Likewise with police? I would suggest that the taxes we all pay for these things disproportionately benefit the affluent.
Just because it doesnt follow left wing patterns of redistribution doesn't mean it isn't doing as such.
If you believe in any form of government then you believe in re-distributive taxation. The question from there is not the morality of such a thing, anyone who has agreed that government is necessary has already agreed to that. The real question is what money should be spent on.
Oops, I meant "You're using a quote meant to support minorities as a means of supporting those who don't want to persecute minorities." as "You're using a quote meant to support minorities as a means of supporting those who want to persecute minorities."
You're truly an idiot. What part of socialized medicine equals any of the Nazi's objectionable qualities?
You're basically saying "first they came for the people who were coming for people". You're using a quote meant to support minorities as a means of supporting those who don't want to persecute minorities. Your hypocrisy is astounding.
I don't understand how I need to prove anything. The most conservative area of our country in regards to race has always been the South, from slavery, to segregation, to the civil rights movement. During the realignment of the 60's and 70's the South switched parties, blacks started voting Democrat in general and whites Republican in general. These are statistical facts that are widely known even by the poorly educated. I think it's you who needs to show some sort of evidence that the South has some how magically transformed from the least racially progressive part of the country.
"The Southern Strategy/realignment proves neither — it is/was an appeal on issues of economics and rights, not racism."
I chuckled a bit when I read this. The guy tantrumming about citing sources drops this entirely unsupported claim. I've posted a ton of links supporting race as an issue in the realignment, please support your arguments. Your Klan link is ridiculous by the way, you posted a list made up almost entirely of pre-realignment Democrats aside from David Duke who switch over the the Republican party from the Democrats. Basically, your link supports the generally accepted history that race played a major role in the Southern Realignment and certainly doesn't support what you are saying.
As for your last bit, yes I certainly said that and I meant that. Right wing social values can lead to that. I never said they were certain to do so. The vast majority of people are some form of moderate and thus are never part of those types of extremes. You are again putting forth false claims about what I've said. I don't know if you're lying to play the victim or if you are some how are accidentally reading into what I say things that aren't being said and then playing the victim. Either way, it's getting annoying.
Personally, I don't really care if you reply or not. You're not a very interesting person to debate as you complain too much. I'm "splitting hairs" by denying you your historical revisionism? I don't think so.
Jesus, you even cite a fucking blog and then you demand all of my citations meet your standards. Ridiculous.
Last things first, I think it's hilarious that you have made only a single citation in your last couple of posts while making many claims and then you demand I cite sources. To keep you from throwing a tantrum though I'll spend my own time citing sources even though you cant be bothered.
Working from the end, the Southern realignment of the 60's and 70's which happened around the civil rights movement is a well known event so I certainly didn't think I would even need to even cite sources (much like I wouldn't think I would need to site a source for saying that John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln). Major party realignments don't just happen spontaneously for no reason and this was the big event effecting the South during this period. Here's some links so you can brush up on your history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://economics.yale.edu/site...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHi... (Yes, I know it's reddit but the post is accurate)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's certainly more easily found resources but I was trying to find some that might be up to your demands and perceptions and didn't want to spend a lot of time on it.
Finally to your first part, I certainly never said "conservatives are racist", that's you putting words into my mouth and playing the victim. A simple look at what you literally quote me on should spell out to you that what I was saying is that racial hate groups tend to be conservative, not that conservatives tend to be racist. Most of the groups on this list are known for favoring modern American conservative politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course there are some liberal groups on the list and I would never say the Left in this country has clean hands in this regard. What I am saying is that the vast majority of groups on this list identify with our country's conservative politics.
You ignored my entire second paragraph. Get back to me when you have an answer to them.
You've said nothing even vaguely profound here. Every country is one elected leader away from a new Nazi Germany. Hitler wasn't the second person in his political party to be elected.
We're lucky the Nazi's won?
Clearly you're not Jewish.
I love your link there about fascist. It can be summed up quite simply as "you know all that stuff the Nazi's did that no one cares about like their economic policies or size of government or any of that, a good amount of that stuff was a bit to the Left so fascists are Left". Of course, as mentioned, no one cares about any of that (their economic policy was really a bit of a hodgepodge of Left and Right if one really wants to be honest about it), what people care about are their Right wing social values that led to mass genocide. Unless you're an ideologue it's really the reason to hate Nazi's. In a modern context, the rest is pretty much irrelevant as none of the Left wing policies = genocide and really just make you look like a tool for even mentioning.
American groups advocating racial hatred almost exclusively identify themselves as conservative, our most conservative states had the worst segregationist policies when segregation was still an issue and your reference to Byrd is laughable as most of our "racially sensitive" Southern Democrats that continued to have political carriers switched to the Republican party during the realignment. Strom Thurdmond is an excellent, although not at all unique, example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . It's not some odd coincidence of history that our most conservative states largely switched parties to our modern conservative one, thus giving it much of its current identity, during the civil rights era.
I don't see any end game for an advanced sentient species outside of a matrix like existence. Why keep living in this imperfect universe and spend the vast amounts of resources providing luxuries to people, colonizing planets and the like when everyone can just be plugged into a computer and live in the world they want with very few resources used? Exponential growth after that is not at all the type of growth that would be noticeable by us.
I'm reading through your posts and Jesus Christ are you stupid. We don't live in the conservative utopia your stupid brain pretends we live in where everyone's needs are met by the market. Quite a lot of full time jobs in America dont offer health insurance and put you at a level of wealth that disqualifies you from government healthcare.
Generally speaking, these jobs dont pay well either.
You're retarded. You just suggested the US invade a reasonably free and democratically elected government who is a major ally of ours because of some short comings in their government. Get a fucking clue. We have short comings in our own government. Let's tend our own garden before we TELL other countries how to operate their own business.
Oh, you mean the the people who were first slaves and then kept in a subservient position due to government mandated segregationist policies?
When you shit on people long enough they become shitty. It takes a long, long time to change cultural values after all that.
I bought my first PC by getting job.
Or maybe I should use extra punctuation so as to get a constructive responds"??????"
Why should I have to ask? Should I qualify all my posts with "please keep your responses useful"?
It's a different world one lives in when one laughs off ones kids losing 100 dollar gifts.
You sound like a fan boy. I clearly state I don't see the advantages of a smart watch. You could be useful and point to some or be a jackass and post as you did.
I've never understood wearing a smart watch when you already have a smart phone on your person. A smart watch with a cell connection doesnt make much more sense to me though when one could just carry a phone that does more and is easier to use.
I guess for those wearing clothes without pockets or with pockets that are impractical to use it makes sense...