Why do movement ultraconservatives feel entitled to respect?

Post Reply New Topic

Hanotaux wrote

Ummm....so you're in favor a tyranny of the majority then?



I suppose you consider Obama's rule to be tyranny though, so at least you're consistent. Still...I fail to see how Obama's policies are comparable in their tyranny to those of would-be theocrats like James Dobson and his ilk.





You might as well be a fundamentalist christian because your thinking is just about as irrational...not to mention hypocritical. I suppose James Dobson isn't claiming to know "what's good for everybody eh"? In fact, i'd say the "liberal elite" might just be LESS interested in deciding "what's good for everybody". Who is more likely to oppose the current policy on drugs?.....those within the "liberal elite" or the bible-bashing yahoos in Georgia? What about abortion, contraception, gay marriage, pornography, alternative religions/spiritualities, etc....? Surely any prohibitions against these qualify as a "knowing what's good for everybody" policy no?

Furthermore....i'm sorry to say that at least the "liberal elites" have science and serious societal/environmental concerns in mind when they want to impose policies that are "good for everybody". I guess you'd consider any attempts to preserve our coral reefs here in Florida as a "knowing what's good for everybody" policy. What does aspiring theocrat James Dobson have in mind in his desire to implement such policies? Gay Teletubbies who are agents of Satan or something? Would you SERIOUSLY be more comfortable with such people in charge rather than the "liberal elites" you hold in such contempt?





*sigh*


Yet another predictable and tiresome use of what SHOULD BE mere hyperbole from an American conservative. You people actually seem to take this sort of nonsense seriously though and it's indicative of a mind which is terribly unhinged. Was this your way of finding a loophole in Godwin's law or something???.....lol


Allow me to whip the world's smallest violin for the latter-day "Helots" in America. You know....the poor oppressed businessmen like Donald Trump who slave away in olive groves all day. I will lose sleep tonight over the plight of those helpless white mega-churchers who are routinely slaughtered by the evil atheist Spartans


Seriously...if this is the sort of foolishness you're going to engage in....you won't be receiving any further replies from me.

Sometimes I think conservatives (or however you wish to define yourself) like you are little more than infantile attention-whores based upon many of the things you say.

I respect the results of the 2008 election(s). Whenever the Democrats lose a Presidential election, they always whine about the electoral college, all of the illegals in Cali being cancelled out by states like Wyoming, etc. I'm more than happy though with letting Obama dig his grave and having a repeat of the 94 Republican Revolution in November of this year. THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN ! !! !! !! !! !! WOO HOO ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!



The 'Focus on the Family guy?' Is he really that terrible.



OK



Say what you will but I can't wait to watch James Carville and Wolf Blitzer S*** all over themselves with big frowny-faces as they watch Conservatives take back state after state after state in November. Obama had his chance with such support in Congress, but the best he could do was to force everyone to spend hundreds of dollars a year to buy health-care and basically tick off everyone except medicare-minorities.

It is funny when debate opponents really act as if I care for them to keep arguing with me. When they make a threat like that it's like, AWESOME!! !

I think it's funny when people with a particular bias (a conservative one in your case based upon what I can glean from your other posts) look for any occasion to rise to the defense of those who share their bias.

In other words....I am wondering if you would be as critical of a conservative who issued the sort of "threat" in question to their liberal debate opponent.

Furthermore....you have made something very similar to a fundamental attribution error here. I was fully aware of the fact that my debate opponent probably wouldn't care if I replied or not. I was simply putting him on notice to prevent him from thinking I ran away with my tail between my legs if I failed to respond. The truth of matter is that I have no desire to respond to statements which consist of little more than gross distortions and exaggerations. Sorry....but I refuse to hold dialogue with silly conservatives who compare Obama to Hitler or middle/upper class American citizens to helots.


Few people disliked George W. Bush's policies more than myself.

Nonetheless....I was equally critical of liberals who compared W to Hitler or claimed the man was ret*d or something simply because he was a poor public speaker.

I don't really care whether a person labels themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" actually, as I go on a point-by-point basis as to who my debate opponents are versus who my debate allies are. Being a conservative, as you say, though limits the number of debate allies able to be found on PPR, so I am more apt to speak on their behalf because I personally don't like feeling overrun and I would think that neither would you enjoy such a feeling also. Tell me, do you like to be swamped by opponents who nitpick every little thing you say and interpret every little thing you say as to have the worst possible meaning?

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

No I don't and to be fair, your stated motivations for speaking on behalf of your fellow conservatives here are reasonable enough.

Nevertheless I do not believe I was "nitpicking" over every little thing the poster in question said. Unless my objections to the sort of obviously absurd comparisons he made qualifies as nitpicking. Surely he is aware of how the helots were treated in Sparta. Nobody in their right mind would seriously draw any similarties between the helots and the wealthiest and most privileged people in history. How I am supposed to know if the poster was being serious here or not when so many of his fellow conservatives these days really seem to believe they are helots and that Obama is the reincarnation of Hitler?

In the USA, it's accepted that an R next to one's name means that the most extreme kookery is accepted as totally acceptable - things like Death Panels and the like. Lyndon H. LaRouche does not have R next his name and is not an official Conservative so he's not taken seriously.

That's funny since LaRouche is a "democrat" and Marxist but whatever.

My concern is that there is a continued encouragement for blacks and other minorities to practice their own ethnic exceptionalism, while Whites are virtually not allowed to form any of their own mainstream white-advocacy organizations.

Zimbabwae and South Africa are likely glimpses into America's future, 50 and 20 years from now, respectively.

Obviously whites are not "helots' at present, or visible 2nd class citizens, at least as long as American whites cling to their tenuous majority.

"White" is a broad term. If you are ethnically German and proud of it, no one is going to call you a racist. I can be proud of my Irish heritage without anyone thinking anything of it. Italians, Russians, Poles, Spaniards... all of these can certainly be proud of their background. So your claim that whites aren't allowed to form their own advocacy organizations is patently false.

Change side!

That's absolutely correct! I am very proud of my mostly German background, though I would never demean someone else's ethnic heritage.
There is something called the white pride movement, or white nationalism, which you'll find on racist, lunatic fringe sites like Storm Front. What ever you want to call it, it's just racism and white supremacy repackaged as a supposed means for whites to express their pride. Minority groups express ethnic pride because they have gone through history as second class citizens - whereas the white pride movement wants to return to the days of white supremacy by portraying whites as the victims of multiculturalism and equal rights.
I'm a white male, and trust me, I have NEVER been oppressed because of the color of my skin, or my race - and I seriously doubt anyone else has either.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I agree with what you are saying above.......

Even though I may have French heritage, that doesn't make me especially French. I am culturally American and I have no real affinity for doing "French" things, like using a bidet or whatever.

While many Southern Americans are of British descent, or Scots-Irish, they are culturally American-white.

I don't see German-American heritage groups as really the same as having a militant advocacy organization like the NAACP that agressively fights for their people. Sure, they have a parade in Chicago with a beer float......... They don't really lobby Congress and all of that and try and garner more power for German-Americans.

As are most of those who vote for either the Punch or Judy parties.

On topics like these I can't really bring myself to come up with long winded replies - I've learned that its fruitless and agonizing. So, I'll just ask this question: With the topic of race, who brings that up more? Which side actually wants to practice post-racialism and which is the one that talks to this day like we're still in the 60's?

That's because, other than terrible mistreatment during the First World War, German Americans have otherwise had it good in America.
The Black American experience, on the other hand, is very different, filled with not only denial of their civil rights, but even denial of their humanity. While racism is not nearly as bad as it once had been, it still does exist. Blacks and other minorities have every right to form organization to protect their interests, as long as those interests don't interfere with mine - and so far, they never have.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer