patrick.net

"Easily I could be be just as assumptive and blind and say “the left and their MSNBC”.
Really? The channel that put Michael Savage on with his circus act and then cancelled it due to lack of ratings?
"The left". What crap. You wouldn't know the left if it bit ye.

"I am not sure what you are talking about here? It would help if I knew if you had any stake in the health care debate. Are you a US citizen, resident or you still live in the socialist paradise north of the border?"

I live in the US, I have for 10 years, I have a baby here. Stake enough, as much as anyone else who has to deal with the nightmare the US healthcare system has become.

I love many things about the US, but the way the healthcare system is arranged I do not.

best,
Kent M

"I love many things about the US"

Hahahaha! Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

PolishKnight says

You still don’t get it. The whites stopped voting democrat because Democrats don’t support civil rights FOR WHITE PEOPLE.

Oh, I forgot that white people were attacked by dogs, sprayed with fire hoses, forced to sit in the back of buses, beaten by police for gathering in public, prevented from working, eating, or going to the bathroom in the same places as everyone else, or lynched in their front yards for the audacity to try to vote.

Please.

PolishKnight says

It’s rather amusing that you accuse me of conflating feminists and other special interest groups together when you had just done a similar thing in your own post to demonize middle Americans:

Oh friend, I'm not demonizing "middle Americans", I'm stating the simple truth of what poor, ignorant white people do and believe. Not all "Middle Americans" are poor and ignorant -- and not all are white for that matter. Those who are poor and ignorant just happen to vote Republican for completely illogical reasons.

Not that all Republicans are poor or white either -- and there are even a few left who aren't ignorant. Most of the rational conservatives vote libertarian these days though.

PolishKnight says

With the left, it’s somewhat more simple: You can join da club if you’re NOT 1. White 2. Male.

What do you mean by "da club" here? I know plenty of white males whom you would probably consider "leftists". I've voted for the democratic ("leftist", in your narrow world-view) candidate in the last 3 presidential elections and I'm both white and male.

PolishKnight says

Your excuse for black racism is amusing that you seem to think it matters that they “see” poor ignorant white Republicans. Hilarious. At least with whites, it’s “seen and nor heard” or more specifically, violent crime by blacks against whites occurs at a 10:1 ratio (from fedstats.gov)

There is no rational basis for racism, jackass. A racists is a racist is a racist. Do you really want to try to make the argument that whites have more grievances against blacks than the other way around?

I'll never make excuses for racists. I said that racist blacks vote democrat because they look at the republicans and see their white counterparts.

PolishKnight says

I also love the contrast between the notion that Republicans are generally poor, white trailer park trash and at the same time, evil rich white guys out to oppress everyone.

Well, friend, that is the truth. The middle class votes Democrat overwhelmingly, and has been a solid block for the democrats since the depression.

The upper class is pretty much split between republicans and democrats. The lower class skews heavily towards Republicans, with the notable exception of lower class blacks and hispanics, who vote democrat. These are publicly available statistics -- it's not something that's hard to find.

PolishKnight says

Regarding Hitler as a leftist. Look up what the term “national socialism” means. Hitler supported government funded infrastructure projects and national daycare. In fact, his own spending spree on the autobahn caused him to bankrupt the treasury early and go to war sooner than he expected and was prepared for contributing to him losing WWII.

I'm just going to ignore your obvious ignorance on the issue and point out that you have no idea what the term "left" means. You're now equating being a "leftist" with socialism, which is woefully ignorant.

Being "left wing" means that you believe in giving the power to the people, being "right wing" means that you believe that the power is best left in the hands of the elite, and that "the people" shouldn't be able to interfere with what the elite power structure wants to do.

This has nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with race, and it has nothing to do with economics.

What hitler believed and what the anarcho-capitalists believe are the same: wealthy, powerful families make all the decisions and control everything. Classic right-wing ideology.

The USSR was a perfect examples of right wing socialism.

Now, if you want to argue about economics, you're welcome to it, though I suspect you know even less about that subject than you do about the organization of society.

Kevin says

This has nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with race, and it has nothing to do with economics. What Hitler believed and what the anarcho-capitalists believe are the same: wealthy, powerful families make all the decisions and control everything. Classic right-wing ideology.
The USSR was a perfect examples of right wing socialism.
Now, if you want to argue about economics, you’re welcome to it, though I suspect you know even less about that subject than you do about the organization of society.

Wow! USSR = "right wing socialism". Bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin were right wingers?
Do you have any other novel ideas?

"Oh, I forgot that white people were attacked by dogs, sprayed with fire hoses, forced to sit in the back of buses, beaten by police for gathering in public, prevented from working, eating, or going to the bathroom in the same places as everyone else, or lynched in their front yards for the audacity to try to vote."

Sure they were. By Uncle Joe Stalin. Most of the recent horrors against humanity have been perpetuated by atheistic leftists. In addition, as I pointed out previously, most black men in recent times are greater victims of welfare policies that reward women kicking them out of the home. But those facts are an "uncomfortable truth", so to speak, so you choose to just ignore them and continue repeating comfortable platitudes.

My newfound "friend" says: "There is no rational basis for racism, jackass."

And in the same breath says:

"Do you really want to try to make the argument that whites have more grievances against blacks than the other way around?"

The very notion of group race guilt _is_ racism. Racism is judging someone by their race rather than their character (someone famous once said that...) Here's the URL (again) about a black on white race crime that you perhaps don't even classify as racism since, after all, she was white and therefore shares race guilt for all crimes against blacks:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Kreager.shtml
In Baltimore a young white woman boards a bus and wants to sit down. Each time she tries to take a seat she is told by nine black middle-schools students, ages 14 and 15, including three girls, that she can’t. Finally she sits anyway. The little—the middle-school students, I mean—attack her. From the Examiner, “She sustained ‘serious injuries’ and had to be transported to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, according to a police report…[Sarah] Kreager suffered two broken bones in her left eye socket, police said. She had eye muscles that were damaged…She had deep lacerations on the top of her head and another above her neck. Her face will never be the same."

Kevin claims, falsely: "The middle class votes Democrat overwhelmingly, and has been a solid block for the democrats since the depression." "These are publicly available statistics — it’s not something that’s hard to find."

Hahahaha! Indeed, Kevin, here you go: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
In the 2004 election, Democrats dominated income ranges below $30K. That's your "middle class!"
"I’m just going to ignore your obvious ignorance on the issue and point out that you have no idea what the term “left” means. You’re now equating being a “leftist” with socialism, which is woefully ignorant."

I'm reminded of Michael Jackson calling his accusers "ignorant". "They're so ignorant."

"Being “left wing” means that you believe in giving the power to the people, being “right wing” means that you believe that the power is best left in the hands of the elite, and that “the people” shouldn’t be able to interfere with what the elite power structure wants to do."
Yeah, and pushing all the power to Washington via big government is really about giving power "to the people..."

Your whole position is bankrupt not only economically, but also logically and morally as well. You pontificate about the evils of racism while bashing whites. You argue for socialist "solutions" that are currently socialist problems (medicaid). And the fun part is that at a certain, subconscious level, you already know this. That's the only reason we're having this conversation (isn't psychology great?)

I love this close: "What hitler believed and what the anarcho-capitalists believe are the same: wealthy, powerful families make all the decisions and control everything. Classic right-wing ideology."

Yet, you IDOLIZE the wealthy and well connected: Obama, Kennedy's, Soros (who made money turning in his fellow Jews, at least when he hated his own kind he turned a profit unlike pathetic self-hating white male leftists here). You regard the working class as schlubs and at the same time deny that you have to appeal to the lowest of them (in the welfare state) just to keep your whole ideology from dying.

The coup de gras: "The USSR was a perfect examples of right wing socialism."

Hahahaha! I really pushed your buttons. Cut back on the cool aid.

Tenpoundbass says: "I’ve always considered my self a Democrat, by default, because I knew I wasn’t with trampling over far off villages under Uncle Sams toe because their village was in the way of some agenda that American republicans had."

Welcome to the club, Tenpoundbass! I personally, when I was younger, was a liberal libertarian until I actually learned what the Democrat/leftist/socialist agenda was. It was an interesting point in my life when I had to come to grips with the fact that I was fighting on the wrong side for stuff that didn't make any sense upon the most basic examination. It was embarassing and humbling and it's no wonder that some people choose to put massive amounts of energy into denial rather than admit they're wrong (it's kind of like alcoholism or drug abuse.)

The left preaches that racism is the most horrible thing on earth and turns around and uses racism against whites as a political tool to appeal to non-whites. Ditto (hmmm, perhaps shouldn't use that word...) with sexism. Want to see a feminist turn into a traditionalist? Present her with the dinner bill! It's not only cheap sentiment but moral hypocrisy that goes to a level of sublime absurdity. In it's own way, it's beautiful.

Regarding trampling over far off villages: I personally disagreed with the Iraq war and, for that matter, with most of our military foreign aid efforts. But, that said, consider that at least these are FOREIGN places being bombed out while the leftist agenda has transformed most American metro centers into office parks. The right lives in the exoburbs while the left lives in the suburbs and drive cars to get there. Suburban sprawl? THANK WHITE FLIGHT!

The left is all about elitism beginning with getting a special membership card that proclaims: "You're a leftist and therefore not a bad, bigoted, racist, stupid, poor loser like those who disagree with us. Marxist bible study is on Thursday and the pancake dinner on Friday" (Oh, I'm getting it mixed up with Catholicism. My bad. Catholicism is BETTER!)

It's all about that even if they don't go to heaven (a nice apartment in Stockholm) they can still feel better that others are going to hell and if they wind up going too then they'll drag as many as they can down with them.

I too was thrilled when I moved to the "tolerance" mecca of the Bay Area many years ago. As the years passed, I started to notice that the many on the far left were really no different than the far right. Different causes, equally wrong. No reason or logic to back up their positions, and nothing but rhetoric and hate if you should have a different point of view.

The left can be just a vile and hate filled as the KKK.

Just look at the posts in this thread. It's a great example.

Just got back today.

nosf41 makes the most sense in these postings. Patrick is out in left field. I prefer to have my inalienable rights protected by God (the God of the bible) fearing men (and women) who would honor the Constitution. Healthcare is not an inalienable right. Don't forget that this country was founded by men escaping from religious tyranny to be governed by their God (of the bible).

PolishKnight says

Sure they were. By Uncle Joe Stalin.

Holy Shit, I didn't know Stalin was making rules in the USA. Learn something new every day!

PolishKnight says

The very notion of group race guilt _is_ racism. Racism is judging someone by their race rather than their character (someone famous once said that…) Here’s the URL (again) about a black on white race crime that you perhaps don’t even classify as racism since, after all, she was white and therefore shares race guilt for all crimes against blacks:

I don't classify these crimes as racism -- I classify them as crimes. Black people are disproportionately poorer than white people and poor people commit disproportionately more crime than everyone else, so it's inevitable that most "interracial" crime will be black-on-white. This isn't a matter of race at all -- it's a matter of poverty.

PolishKnight says

Hahahaha! Indeed, Kevin, here you go: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
In the 2004 election, Democrats dominated income ranges below $30K. That’s your “middle class!”

Maybe you should look at all elections [not just presidential, either], not one presidential election where the democrats tossed out the crappiest candidate they could shit out. Democrats definitely dominate the non-white lower class, I will give you that -- it's the whites that were the topic of discussion though.

PolishKnight says

Yeah, and pushing all the power to Washington via big government is really about giving power “to the people…”

No, you don't "push all the power" to anyone. You completely miss the point. You don't want to "push all the power" in any organization because that organization will just dominate everyone. This is why our government has checks and balances.

And, yes, I trust the government way more than corporations. At least I have some say over who runs the government.

PolishKnight says

Your whole position is bankrupt not only economically, but also logically and morally as well. You pontificate about the evils of racism while bashing whites.

My "whole position" that ignorant poor people make irrational decisions is bankrupt economically and logically and morally? How on earth does that even make sense?

Other than ignorant poor whites, which ones am I bashing? I know lots of ignorant, poor whites (I'm related to plenty of them, and I used to be one), and I'll stand by my argument that ignorant, poor whites are overwhelmingly racist and are easily manipulated (obama is a muslim, obama is not a citizen, obama is a socialist)

PolishKnight says

You argue for socialist “solutions” that are currently socialist problems (medicaid).

What socialist "solution" am I arguing for again? Please enlighten me. Why do you think I'm "arguing for" medicaid? Do you even know what you're typing?

PolishKnight says

Yet, you IDOLIZE the wealthy and well connected: Obama, Kennedy’s, Soros (who made money turning in his fellow Jews, at least when he hated his own kind he turned a profit unlike pathetic self-hating white male leftists here).

The only person on that list that I even remotely like is Obama, so I don't know why you think I'm "idolizing" these people (Soros in particular infuriates me, as he has done some truly vile shit with currency exchange that rightfully earned him a price on his head in Thailand). Why are you talking out of your ass?

PolishKnight says

You regard the working class as schlubs and at the same time deny that you have to appeal to the lowest of them (in the welfare state) just to keep your whole ideology from dying.

When did I deny that you have to appeal to the welfare state? I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Do you live in some bizarro alternate universe where I post on forums with a completely different brain?

PolishKnight says

The coup de gras: “The USSR was a perfect examples of right wing socialism.”

Hahahaha! I really pushed your buttons. Cut back on the cool aid.

Once again, you know absolutely nothing on the subject of right vs left because you're stuck in a narrow world view that thinks "left = socialism, right = capitalism", which is an ignorant stance that ignores the myriad combinations of economic systems and governance that have proven track records of failure and success. For hundreds and hundreds of years, left has referred to democratic systems where people make the decisions and right has referred to autocratic systems where dictators make the decisions.

"I don’t classify these crimes as racism — I classify them as crimes. Black people are disproportionately poorer than white people and poor people commit disproportionately more crime than everyone else, so it’s inevitable that most “interracial” crime will be black-on-white. This isn’t a matter of race at all — it’s a matter of poverty."

That's my whole point. You won't see any racism against whites even when it's clear, as it was in this case, that there was no financial motivation whatsoever for the crime. It's funny how you whitewash, pardon the pun, of black on white crime as being mere poverty based is a perfect response to acusations of police profiling and greater rates of black incarceration. Good going! This leads us to:

"Holy Shit, I didn’t know Stalin was making rules in the USA. Learn something new every day!"

Indeed, and this is not happening today either as you wrote earlier:
"Oh, I forgot that white people were attacked by dogs, sprayed with fire hoses, forced to sit in the back of buses, beaten by police for gathering in public, prevented from working, eating, or going to the bathroom in the same places as everyone else, or lynched in their front yards for the audacity to try to vote."

These crimes occurred in the past and probably also committed by a lot of poor whites. So using your own logic, whites should be absolved. You're using a clear double standard.

The rest of your thinking is full of holes that are easy to poke fun at (such as Uncle Joe supposedly being a right winger even as you love big government) but I don't want to bore the reader or give you an opportunity to weasle out of your clear illogic. You know your positions are untenable which is why you hate whites and project that hate onto them. Whatever you might say about the people you grew up with, they're better, and more honest, than you'll ever be. Live with it.

"Racism" is the new McCarthyism.

There are some great comments in this thread. Unfortunately, I believe many are wasting their breath; as I probably am now.

When a post starts using an obviously slanted reference as their source to justify fascism, than that person is not going to be swayed with rational argument. Psychology studies have shown that once people buy into a set of facts, they're unlikely to change their minds, even if presented with evidence to the contrary. So this gentleman is trying to tell you what he believes is fact and is not looking for debate. If you don't believe it; then you are a right-winger, nut, simpleton, or some other pejorative term. If another commenter presents a coherent argument - he will either ignore you, or pull out one of your sentences and take it out of context.

Funny thing is, it would be trivial to dig up an article of bullet points to fit President Obama as a communist, a fascist, or a racist. Of course, it's equally ridiculous but, the person writing it believes it absolutely.

jackrusse1l says

Laurence Britt ... is a liberal activist from New York who was on the Executive board of a Local ACLU chapter. ... He has no professional credentials, only a biased aspect to try to make fascism fit.

Thanks, Jack, for the info about Britt. I've criticized his "14 points" elsewhere:
http://orangecoyote.blogspot.com/2006/07/britt-on-fascism-in-free-inquiry.html
but briefly, the problem with his list is that he fails to define fascism, and then fails to give any examples. It's just a laundry list of things Britt does not like.

I was listening to some windbag on NPR from Canada the other day lecturing Diane Rheem, he was going on about how America criminalizes the youth in this country.
Then I thought, wait a minute, aren't these the clowns that let Motor Cycle gangs actually be more than Movie legend, myth and justification for a middle aged balding man to go into to 20K debt for a Harley.

We've had Motor Cycle gangs for decades and have never tolerated them being anything more than symbolic. Canada has them running around shooting up the gentle folks, kids and police.

I love it when other countries knows what's better for America than we do, complete with opinion and all.

PolishKnight says

Tenpoundbass says: “I’ve always considered my self a Democrat, by default, because I knew I wasn’t with trampling over far off villages under Uncle Sams toe because their village was in the way of some agenda that American republicans had.”

Welcome to the club, Tenpoundbass! I personally, when I was younger, was a liberal libertarian until I actually learned what the Democrat/leftist/socialist agenda was. It was an interesting point in my life when I had to come to grips with the fact that I was fighting on the wrong side for stuff that didn’t make any sense upon the most basic examination. It was embarassing and humbling and it’s no wonder that some people choose to put massive amounts of energy into denial rather than admit they’re wrong (it’s kind of like alcoholism or drug abuse.)

Tenpoundbass was thrown out of the tank, for not eating the Bluefish.

Sarah Palin will punish you all!

wcalleallegre says

Don’t forget that this country was founded by men escaping from religious tyranny to be governed by their God (of the bible).

Poe's Law in play.

Troy says

wcalleallegre says

Don’t forget that this country was founded by men escaping from religious tyranny to be governed by their God (of the bible).

Poe’s Law in play.

LOL!

Yeah, this country was founded by wealthy white land owners who were tired of paying taxes to England and who were tired of not having any representation in British Government so they were without say over being taxed. Don't get it twisted.

The Pilgrims who fled religious persecution really didn't found our country. Thomas Jefferson who wrote the constitution was a very wealthy land owner and owner of many slaves. George Washington, our first president and General of the Revolutionary Army, was a very wealthy land owner and owned many slaves. These white wealthy men and other white wealthy men founded our country mainly to keep their money here in the USA and have a say over the governance of their own land.

Religious freedom was an end product of the construction of government.

Oh, and the majority of the Founding Fathers weren't Christians. They were mainly Free Masons, Quakers, and Deists. They instituted a SEPARATION of church and state because THEY DIDN'T TRUST RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS in governance. Our Constitution doesn't create a Theocracy where we are "ruled by God." Our Constitution creates the polar opposite form of governance. It's supposed to be a government "for the people and by the people." God wasn't supposed to be a part of any of it. The US Consititution is a completely SECULAR document and our government is meant to be SECULAR.

Some people really need a civics class or ten.

bump!

A recent study of longevity found that educated men now lived 14 years longer than men without high school diplomas. Women in the same groups were 10 years longer. The study found that the 5 year drop in life expectancy of the uneducated whites brought them below the life expectancy for African Americans.
All you have to do is see where you are in the pecking order.
Of course in Sweden with its egalitarian income system, the longevity differences are much much closer. So what's the problem with the less educated seeing the light?

simchaland says

Some people really need a civics class or ten.

add to that: world history, economics, other languages, philosophy, etc, etc,
at free, quality, public schools.

and on top of that education (which I have) some people should follow the news before commenting on it!

nosf41 says

Any regulation preventing insurance companies from offering their service across state boundaries should be removed.

That is certainly a good point - even countries that have mixed systems with basic universal health care and either additional private insurance or opt-out for private insurance if desired do not place any limitations on where the insurance companies can or cannot operate.