US wants to ban the truth as terrorism

Post Reply New Topic

Such as...?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I can answer that for you; any claims of racial superiority or inferiority top the list. Citing that black people commit more murders per capita and of course suggesting that this justifies targeting them for repression. Citing stuff like "the Bell Curve" and claiming black people to be cognitively inferior. Some like to claim Jewish people to be a master race, citing their Nobel Prizes. It's usually a matter of claiming racial superiority, cultural superiority of selected groups to justify policies to promote the supremacy of said races and groups and the repression of those deemed to be inferior.

truths aren't being banned to stop terrorism they are being banned to protect people in power nothing else. People like fnord have an job to help keep the people in powers agenda going by saying the most epically ignorant thing any thinking human can say and that is the truth doesn't matter. The truth is all that matters its what makes people in power scared and gives people who don't have anything power. Every problem in the world is caused by lies being told so one person can have power over others. Lies ignorance and greed are the thoughts that control the world we live in today and republicans and more especially liberals keep these forces going at brake neck speed.

We should the name of my country from U.S.A to C.Y.A.

Unpopular truths
• That hate is an emotion, not an act or crime in itself
• That women and men are not entirely equal
• That there is a liberal bias in the media
• That democrats want to keep people on relief to retain their vote
• That modern liberal policies are often flawed
• That government is generally incompetent and inherently dangerous
• That individuals should be hired for jobs based on their ability
• That free markets produce more economic growth than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation
• That criminal profiling is a valid behavioral and investigative tool

We're not going to argue this into infinity, either.

- I don't thing anyone ever said hate itself was a crime. Rather, hate can cause individuals to commit rather grievous crimes.
- Men and women are of equal worth in the eyes of the law.
- Maybe many media outlets are liberal, but there have always been news sources that have been on the conservative side.
- Why the hell shouldn't people on "relief" retain their vote? They're still citizens not convicted of any crimes, aren't they? Besides, who would seriously represent their interests, otherwise?
- Liberal policies are often flawed? Which ones?
- And private interests aren't dangerous, or incompetent? I can't vote business into or out of office, and they are motivated solely by gain. That isn't potentially harmful?
- And when haven't they been? With racial quotas? Conservative critics seem to be saying no individual of a minority group hired for diversity are competent. And free enterprise has demonstrated already that many employers won't hire minorities if they don't want to, regardless of ability.
- Free enterprise without regulations makes big business owners rich. Workers and consumers more likely get the shaft.
- Sure, arguments against profiling have admittedly gone overboard - Bill Mahar would be the first to agree with you. But very often, law enforcement has gone to the opposite extreme in hassling minorities, to the point of targeting only minorities while ignoring white offenders. Especially regarding drug offenses.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

This theory about Democrats and relief is hilarious. If it is true, why are Republicans determined to order the Fed to change its mandate to controlling inflation only, not to reduce unemployment? Why aren't Republicans committed to a full employment strategy? They do the opposite!

That's what passing or even drafting a hate crime law is.


In the eyes of the law, yes. I'm talking about this practice of giving a woman a traditional man's job (driven at least in part by EEO) that sometimes requires strength more typical of a man, yet not actually require her to perform those tasks. A man typically will be expected to do those tasks for her, in addition to his own, but pretend that he's not really doing it, lest he wound her feelings of equality. To openly object or to let her "handle her end of the log" is universally seen as not being a team player and an obstruction to affirmative action. This is just one example and something we've had occur recently (and more than once) out in our warehouse. I could go on and on using lots and lots of other examples and I think you know it.


About the only major news agency that can be called conservative is Fox and they get beat up over it at every turn. The left has most all of the others in their camp but apparently wants them all. It’s easier to shape events when you shape opinion and control information…..


I didn't say they shouldn't vote BUT that the liberal’s reason for keeping them on relief is simply to continue getting their votes. People tend to vote in the interest of their wallets. It's a very simple and obvious strategy.


The following have failed either in original intent or their implementation:
• Crime prevention
• Education
• Economy
• Social programs
• Defense
• International Relations……
……to name a few.
These and others have all been discussed ad nauseam in countless threads since the genesis of PPR with you in them and often me as well so go there to find out what I’m talking about. I or one of the other beleaguered conservatives have already hashed everything out repeatedly and you, of course, have dutifully disagreed per your programming. Call it a dodge on my part but I have other things on my plate.


To again quote Washington: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Private industry does not regulate, prosecute, or govern outside of it’s walls.


You’re just not going to find but a piddling few companies, usually small companies at that, who specifically rule out people based on their minority status alone. The only reason they ever do that I know of is because if a minority employee (including women) starts screwing up and is called out for it, they may pull the EEO gun out. Most people in the workforce, including me, have witnessed this more than once. Tell me I’m lying.
Really, I’m surprised that employers really aren’t as gun-shy as you’d like to have me believe.
I had this discussion with a liberal coworker once. He did finally admit (with great reluctance) that my points were factual. His parting comment was that my points (already agreed by him as factual) had hate in them and that is wrong.
So now facts are hate, according to liberals, even if they agree that they are facts.


Didn’t say it should have NO regulation, but that too much regulation stifles growth and shuts down employers.


The cops tend to go after what has historically proven to be the bigger fish, given their experience and resources.

Why aren't men and women equal Raptor?The only thing I can think of is some men may be able to lift more than me,or reach an object on the top shelf.And pee standing up.

It should be abundantly clear what I meant if you'd read my response to Kraichgauer.

You must have posted that seconds before I asked my question.I would not expect to be hired for a job I physically could not do,that's stupid.But my bio mom was a correctional officer,she took and passed every test the men had to take,same for my niece who is US Border Patrol.She had to do the same tasks at Quantico that the men did.On the other hand my nephew tried to be a fireman,when he took ahold of that hose it slung him all over tarnation.But I have a female neighbor that is so large and strong, I bet she would have no problem hanging on to that hose.It's just common sense not to hire someone who can't do the job.But if I can lift the same amount, I should have an opportunity for that job, and be payed the same.

Raptor-
I agree, much of this we've gone around and around arguing with one another about, but we both know neither of us will ever convince the other.
But seriously, Democrats keep people on relief in order to garner their votes? That's just Republican propaganda that Republicans themselves have come to believe.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You believe worse things about Republicans. In fact, you're uncritically accepting of any negative statement made about Republicans or conservatism generally, and are hyper-critical of any criticism of Democrats or liberalism. You're happy to accept propaganda, as long as it's the right kind of propaganda.

The Anti-Democrats say it because it is true. Democrat "welfare" programs have kept Negroes on the Plantation just as effectively as the slave-holders chains.

ruveyn

I see. So the Republicans in power must have pursued a full employment policy, and I'm not talking either about coercive work policies designed to force people to work for pennies, I'm talking about a real full employment policy. Wait a minute, they did not. The Republicans always estimate the NAIRU as being significantly higher than the Democrats... that the Fed should abandon lowering unemployment as a purpose and focus on inflation alone... seems like they are the party of unemployment, much as the Conservatives in Britain were nicknamed.

Poverty traps are also a policy of the right... the idea of means testing everything to death and their incredible hostility to universality. That always leads to situations where as soon as people make some money they're cut off completely from any help they were getting...

I like to think my criticism consists of more than just Anti-Republican propaganda, but rather it's based on the Republican's own words.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer