Christo-fascists harass High School Student

Post Reply New Topic

Of course they don't. The thing is, zealotry begats zealotry...

Then you must hate yourself, given the zealous comments you made in the London Riots threads.

Quite frankly, your utterly lack of consistency in respecting equality disgraceful. I don't know what depraved value system you developed or were raised with, but receiving death threats for upholding the law IS a big issue of moral concern to me and I'd hope every sane human being agrees.

According to them. Under their rule we wouldn't *have* any rights.

Some of us who are far from sane agree, too!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I adore that picture, so true.

And yet Atheists are always painted as the violent ones, to the point people claim Hitler did what he did because he was an atheist

I do indeed live in a constitutional monarchy (although the Queen is just a figurehead and has no real power over the Canadian government). This does not mean that I should be forced to agree with her religion, or the religion the majority of the government accepts, or to swear by gods that mean nothing to me.

I will not move elsewhere, because like most other humans I would rather do my best to change my environment to suit me, and in this also to suit many others.

I'll try and clean that quote up a bit, I don't know where it got screwed.

Then you must hate yourself, given the zealous comments you made in the London Riots threads.

Quite frankly, your utterly lack of consistency in respecting equality disgraceful. I don't know what depraved value system you developed or were raised with, but receiving death threats for upholding the law IS a big issue of moral concern to me and I'd hope every sane human being agrees.

Girl: Hey, that banner is not constitutional...

School Admin: Umm... Wow, you're right! We were hoping no one would notice... I guess we'll have to take it down.

*school removes banner*

Girl: Hey, that banner is not constitutional...

School Admin: Yeah well, it's really just historical... a traditional thing, you know?

Girl: Yeah, but it's still unconstitutional, you should take it down.

School Admin: Yeah... not gonna happen.

*Girl does mental calculations and concludes it's just a silly, superstitious banner*

Girl: JERKS...

*Girl walks away*

You live in a Constitutional Monarchy, it is a country that like mine, has religious traditions. As such, feel free to move elsewhere if you do not like them. Also can you clean up your post a bit, it seems like you are quoting me when you are actually quoting others.



Really??? Must have missed this part:

"The sick are the great danger of man, not the evil, not the 'beasts of prey.' They who are from the outset botched, oppressed, broken those are they, the weakest are they, who most undermine the life beneath the feet of man, who instill the most dangerous venom and skepticism into our trust in life, in man, in ourselves…Here teem the worms of revenge and vindictiveness; here the air reeks of things secret and unmentionable; here is ever spun the net of the most malignant conspiracy – the conspiracy of the sufferers against the sound and the victorious; here is the sight of the victorious hated." - The Genealogy of Morals

Or some more:

"Man shall be trained for war and woman for the procreation of the warrior, anything else is folly"
on women: "They belong in the kitchen and their chief role in life is to beget children for German warriors."

It would take a pretty myopic view to think that the movie 'Triumph of the Will' is not based on 'The Will to Power'. For myself, I don't necessarily think Neitchze was a fascist or a Nazi, but it did not make much reading into his work to get to some pretty nasty conclusions.

I agree with M_P when it comes to GoonSquad's comments on the London Riots. Who the hell are you to start riding on your high horse and point fingers when it comes to zealotry when you think it's perfectly ok to go target just about any doctor, lawyer, or banker in a riot regardless of how they conduct themselves? I agree that the banner isn't such a big deal, but guess what? The as*holes that sent her the death threats made a much bigger deal out of it than she did.

*source->CLICK*



WHEN this happens in America I hope the mobs have the good sense to target bankers, politicians, and greedy doctors and lawyers, NOT mom & pop shops and candy stores!


What's wrong with people?

It seems that most of the people advocating vigilantee riots in this thread are targeting bankers. While I condemn vigilantism in all it's form, lets just remember that the Financial Collapse was caused due to a grand amount of corporate fraud which wasn't prosecuted, the culture of white collar crime was systemic. AceOfSpades has said that he supports killing people like Bernie Madeoff, so it's only a logical extension of his own pro-Death Penalty ideology that all the bankers should be executed and the few "good apples" who might be wrongful executed are "acceptable causalities" in a war on crime (he used that phrase when describing people wrongfully convicted of the murder in the USA).

There really isn't that much of a gap between the Pro-Death Penalty ideology of AceOfSpades and teh Pro-Death Pentalty against bankers ideology of ValetineWiggim.

What constitutes total crap is a matter of opinion.

Bottom line is we will either learn to make real compromise on both sides to make progress everyone can live with or people will stop participating in the system and start killing each other.

We've done it before. Remember a little thing called the civil war? Americans aren't above killing each other to make a political point despite what some folks here might think.

Let me say it one last time. The American political system is not a spectator sport for people too mean-spirited and barbaric to appreciate professional wrestling.

It's a system of governance designed to let us work out our differences peacefully as we strive to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.

When system stops working because one side or the other or both engages in willful obstruction there's no reason to participate any longer. That leaves people with grievances and no peaceful way to deal with them.

What do you think is likely to happen next?

This thread is brought to you by the letter P…

Politics

Polarization

Paralysis

The topic of this thread is just the sort of wedge issue that drives the working/middle class away from the left in spite of their own economic interests. Indulging in such politics is why the left is so unsuccessful in the US.

Figure 1 shows remarkably little evidence of class voting in presidential elections from
1952 through 1972. Averaging over this period, Democratic presidential candidates garnered
46% of the votes of whites in the bottom third of the income distribution, 47% of those in the
middle third, and 42% of those in the upper third. In only one of these six elections, 1964, did
the gap in Democratic support between upper-income whites and lower-income whites exceed
6%.

On the other hand, from 1976 through 2004 there is a strong and fairly consistent income
gradient evident in the presidential voting behavior of white Americans. Averaging over the
eight presidential elections of this period, whites in the bottom third of the income distribution
cast 51% of their votes for Democrats, as compared with 44% of middle-income whites and 37%
of upper-income whites. The gap in Democratic support between upper-income whites and
lower-income whites thus increased from 4% in the earlier period to 14% after 1976. The 2004
election was, as it happens, quite consistent with the pattern since 1976: John Kerry received
50% of the two-party vote among whites in the lower third of the income distribution and 39%
among those in the upper third of the income distribution – a difference of 11%.

It should be clear from these comparisons that economic status has become more
presidential elections from 1952 to 2004, this adjustment increases the average Republican vote share by
0.4 percentage points.

The Democratic vote share for the middle third of the income distribution is omitted from the figure for
visual clarity, but generally falls between those for the lower and upper thirds.
13
important, not less important, in structuring the presidential voting behavior of white Americans
over the course of the past half-century. Moreover, the general trend in support for Democratic
presidential candidates among whites in the bottom third of the income distribution has been
upward, not downward. Nor is this merely an artifact of anemic working-class support for Adlai
Stevenson running against Dwight Eisenhower in the first two elections of this sequence; Al
Gore and John Kerry did better among low-income whites in the close elections of 2000 and
2004 than John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey did in the close elections of 1960 and 1968.
Thus, while it is generally true that Democratic presidential candidates have lost support among
white voters over the past half-century, those losses have been entirely (and roughly equally)
concentrated in the middle- and upper-income groups, and have been partially offset by
increasing support for Democratic candidates among low-income white voters.

Progressive

Pragmatism

The left needs to start classifying wants and needs. At this point, I’d say scouring every bit of benign religious expression from the public sphere is a want.

I’d say that forming a broad coalition of working and middle class people to effect positive, lasting economic reforms is a definite NEED.

Piss people off about Jesus AFTER we’ve figured out how to give everyone a fair shot at food, shelter, education, medical care etc. Until then, stuff like this is petty, indulgent self-sabotage.

First, economics in an unjust society is a more valid reason for violence than a dispute over a Jesus rag in the gym…

I don't think it's fair to say militant religious folks are violent while militant atheists are just simply annoying. Militant extremists in general are a vast minority, and since atheists are already a minority, then militant atheists are a vast minority within a minority. This could possibly mean that there's an equal proportion of extremism among both atheists and religious people. Let's not give atheists some BS halo effect when it comes to logic and reason. While I do think religion brings out the worst of dogmatism, authoritarianism, etc. I think this is because it appeals to human nature, not because it only appeals to irrational or stupid people. Which is why I leave the possibility that militant extremism may be equally proportionate on both sides.

I agree with M_P when it comes to GoonSquad's comments on the London Riots. Who the hell are you to start riding on your high horse and point fingers when it comes to zealotry when you think it's perfectly ok to go target just about any doctor, lawyer, or banker in a riot regardless of how they conduct themselves? I agree that the banner isn't such a big deal, but guess what? The as*holes that sent her the death threats made a much bigger deal out of it than she did.

The whites at the bottom 1/3 of the income distribution still leans Democratic and have increasingly done so.

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansas.pdf

Advocating the disenfranchisement of younger voters because *some* of them switched their support from Obama to Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a VERY polarizing thing to do and - if you're position was actualized - would cripple the long-term chances of the progressive left.