Repubs save schoolchildren

[Kimmo]

and how does fairweather conflate prole's post with "racism"? i'd love to see his math on that one.

without knowing prole's intentions, it seemed to me that he was perhaps making a point about israel's conduct in the occupied territories. it doesn't take a "racist" to be horrified by the apartheid practiced there by israel.

[StevenSeagal]

if the effect of a "law and order" fellow's agenda is to lock up a particular "race" of people, it doesn't follow that said fellow is a racist.

 

(the notion of "race" is to me rather offensive in itself.)

 

 

and i also wonder how many of you who are so concerned about matters of "ethnic difference" find yourselves in the company of, say, african americans, and then would use terms like "spear-chucker" to make a point?

 

I don't think many people would talk like they do here in the company of just about anyone. That's the internets for you.

 

I don't get your first statement though. If someone says they want to exterminate all Jews, it doesn't follow that he's an anti Semite?

But if someone uses an epithet sarcastically for the specific purpose of provoking fellow whites, then that makes him...racist? Insensitive? Asshole? Humorist? Which?

 

[StevenSeagal]

and how does fairweather conflate prole's post with "racism"? i'd love to see his math on that one.

without knowing prole's intentions, it seemed to me that he was perhaps making a point about israel's conduct in the occupied territories. it doesn't take a "racist" to be horrified by the apartheid practiced there by israel.

 

that was precisely my point, but as always it went ignored by Fairweather as he was too busy constructing his strawman to address it.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i don't see racist ideas coming from conservatives on this site.

 

i love your use of the word haughty though! its so feminine.

 

I repeatedly see liberals on this site drop the "n-bomb" or other slurs, and never see "conservatives" do it. It's always the liberal posters who talk about "white people" and "brown people", bringing these terms into political discussions, pretending it's "conservatives" that think and talk this way. And yet it is the liberal calling the conservatives racist, nazi, fascist, etc. The slurs come far too readily to the lips of the liberal, the racial distinctions are always made (white people, brown people).

 

All the evidence points at liberal posters being the racist fucks.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

But if someone uses an epithet sarcastically for the specific purpose of provoking fellow whites, then that makes him...racist?

 

Yep, a racist. It speaks volumes about the poster and absolutely nothing about his "adversary".

[Kimmo]

i agree with kkk and i'm a "liberal"!

[Kimmo]

I don't get your first statement though. If someone says they want to exterminate all Jews, it doesn't follow that he's an anti Semite?

 

 

where do you jump from "law and order fellow" to the holocaust?

 

please explain.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i agree with kkk and i'm a "liberal"!

 

well, I've never heard you throw out racial slurs for the hell of it

 

I have seen you get pissed off by callous language in general (the "retard"/special Olympics posting/picture comes to mind)

[Kimmo]

although i don't think racial slurs used "ironically" by white guys make said white guys "racist" (nor does it make them hip). it often just makes them look like buffoons.

[j_b]

i don't see racist ideas coming from conservatives on this site.

 

Really? For example, what do you think motivates them to accuse illegal immigrants of every ill in America? Do you remember just a couple month ago when FW told us (and others concurred) that California was bankrupt because illegals were mooching off social services? Well, just so you know, the group that published the numbers claiming to show the cost of illegals immigrants to California is denounced as a racial hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Why do you think that is?

 

Racism and xenophobia are intrisically linked in with right wing politics and although right wingers have become leary of using overt racism on this site (compared to the time of ramping up the invasion of Iraq when 'they' were all 'camel jockeys'), it permeates much of the arguments about healthcare, income redistribution, etc ..

[Pete_H]

KKK, what an astute observation. Excuse me why I go search the internet for a picture of Jesse Helms for my Avatar image.

[ivan]

are you a racist if you think every possible color and lip-configuration of the hairless monkey sucks donkey balls, and reflect it in your language?

 

 

[j_b]

 

2) His post was a troll, plain and simple. Maybe not funny, but anyone can see it was meant as such.

 

No. He has a history of anti-Semitic posts here.

 

Fairweather, like zionist extremists, wants to conflate denounciations of israeli colonial apartheid against palestinians with antisemitism. It is complete non-sense (palestinians are semitic people while many israeli settlers aren't semitic) and it undermines the lessons we should draw from the persecution of jews throughout human history. Nobody capable of drawing such lessons supports violent colonial expansion of the israeli state at the expense of palestinians.

[Kimmo]

Really? For example, what do you think motivates them to accuse illegal immigrants of every ill in America? Do you remember just a couple month ago when FW told us (and others concurred) that California was bankrupt because illegals were mooching off social services? Well, just so you know, the group that published the numbers claiming to show the cost of illegals immigrants to California is denounced as a racial hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

they might have been denounced as a hate group, but did the SPLC denounce this hate group's methodology or findings? claiming that neither "illegal" nor LEGAL immigration does not create strain on social services is patently false (from everything i've read). smaller communities with already limited funding have experienced terrific budget strains as a result of resource-limited immigrants.

 

Racism and xenophobia are intrisically linked in with right wing politics and although right wingers have become leary of using overt racism on this site (compared to the time of ramping up the invasion of Iraq when 'they' were all 'camel jockeys'), it permeates much of the arguments about healthcare, income redistribution, etc ..

 

 

up to a point i certainly agree, but to glibly deride conservatives with such broad brush strokes is kinda silly, doncha think? conservative politics aren't necessarily racist, but some of their effects can easily be used by "liberals" (hehe) to make the charge of "racism".

 

[ivan]

can you be an anti-semite if you liked seinfeld?

 

i'm pretty sure mel brooks' suck - does that make me a jew-hater?

[j_b]

 

left-wing and anti-totalitarian simultaneously? oxymoron

i believe the social studies folks like to discriminate between the concepts of "left wing" and "ultra-left wing" - at any rate, your fringe libertarian types (usually considered leftist) want an essential total banishment of government, ergo no state to be totalitarian in the first place (the gang-based anarchic state that would naturally fill the vacuum would hardly be much better though, eh?)

 

you never answered me on the teaching the concept of propaganda question, tovarisch.

 

Actually, 'left' versus 'ultra-left' mostly refers to the means employed to engineer change, methods which may be anti-democratic or not. For example the anarchists you refer to (which you call fringe libertarians), are often labeled ultra-left yet their core philosophy is anti-authority. The right wing has done a good job (they have 80 years of practice and they own the media) of conflating 'left' with 'stalisnism/maoism' but on the left, only marxist-leninists (i.e. stalinists and maoists) are totalitarians. The immense majority of the currents that form the left (from true social democrats [not the Blair type] to anarchists, including marxists) is anti-totalitarian as is reflected in their concept of democracy, their anti-imperialism, their denounciation of all dictatorships, etc ..

[Llarian]

Looks like the White House released the text of their socialist propaganda:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

 

Yup, sure makes sense that all the true red-blooded American families out there are protecting their precious children from the message of staying in school, just like the White House said it would be about.

 

 

[Choada_Boy]

Do good in school?? Try?? Wash your hands?? What a racist Nazi anti-semite public health care option supporting well-educated and articulate black self-hating muslim jigaboo!!! I can see why the right-wing is so against this speech to school children. How dare he subject them to such virulent racist hatred and socialist brainwashing???

 

(t-Minus 5 seconds before the right-wing douche nozzles start ripping into him for being a Satan worshiping Warlock after the Harry Potter reference)

[Pete_H]

You obviously missed the subliminal messages in Arabic to "rise up and kill whitey."

[j_b]

Really? For example, what do you think motivates them to accuse illegal immigrants of every ill in America? Do you remember just a couple month ago when FW told us (and others concurred) that California was bankrupt because illegals were mooching off social services? Well, just so you know, the group that published the numbers claiming to show the cost of illegals immigrants to California is denounced as a racial hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

they might have been denounced as a hate group, but did the SPLC denounce this hate group's methodology or findings?

 

I don't know. Said group was labeled 'hate group' before the collapse of the californian economy.

 

claiming that neither "illegal" nor LEGAL immigration does not create strain on social services is patently false (from everything i've read). smaller communities with already limited funding have experienced terrific budget strains as a result of resource-limited immigrants.

 

when you are bankrupt any expense contributes to your bankruptcy. It doesn't mean that we don't owe immigrants access to social services because of their large and poorly rewarded contribution to the economy, nor does it mean that investing in social services for immigrants is the cause of bankruptcy, nor that it won't help pull the economy out of bankruptcy because a well educated, healthy population is always a plus for any economy except for the robber barons of course.

 

Racism and xenophobia are intrisically linked in with right wing politics and although right wingers have become leary of using overt racism on this site (compared to the time of ramping up the invasion of Iraq when 'they' were all 'camel jockeys'), it permeates much of the arguments about healthcare, income redistribution, etc ..

 

 

up to a point i certainly agree, but to glibly deride conservatives with such broad brush strokes is kinda silly, doncha think? conservative politics aren't necessarily racist, but some of their effects can easily be used by "liberals" (hehe) to make the charge of "racism".

 

I fail to think of any conservative policy to deny social services to lower income brackets, to deny voting rights to minorities, to grab assets in foreign lands, to justify the wanton murder of brown people, etc .., (policies that have always been a mainstay of conservative politics) that doesn't rely on racism and xenophobia but feel free to list them if you can.

 

P.S. also note that I didn't say that all conservatives were racist (although it is debatable whether implicitly condonning the use of racist fear-mongering by right wing demagogues to impress the feeble-minded doesn't consitute racism), but discussed how conservative politics relied on racism.

Edited September 7, 2009 by j_b

[Kimmo]

I don't know. Said group was labeled 'hate group' before the collapse of the californian economy.

 

ok. my only point with the above was that there is a type of immigration that leads to fiscal crises for certain agencies. because a "hate group" notes this doesn't mean it's an irrelevant point, and doesn't make a conservative into a racist for speaking about it. are you in favor of unlimited immigration?

 

 

when you are bankrupt any expense contributes to your bankruptcy. It doesn't mean that we don't owe immigrants access to social services because of their large and poorly rewarded contribution to the economy, nor does it mean that investing in social services for immigrants is the cause of bankruptcy, nor that it won't help pull the economy out of bankruptcy because a well educated, healthy population is always a plus for any economy except for the robber barons of course.

 

it's overstating the problem, for one's own agenda, to say immigration has led to state bankruptcies; evaluate cali's problem for example. but to also say immigration DOESN'T lead to solvency problems for many communities is understating the problem in support of one's agenda. a highly recommended book: When the Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down; on Hmong immigration into the US.

 

I fail to think of any conservative policy to deny social services to lower income brackets

 

i think you might be overlooking a cultural belief in "hard work" as a possible underpinning to this agenda. i have "conservative" republican (OMG!) relatives and friends, and i don't think they are simply the puppets of a PR scheme perpetrated by the robber barons. their position is hardly "racist" in intent, but of course it plays out in a way that can easily be called that.

 

 

to deny voting rights to minorities

 

not familiar with contemporary examples.

 

to grab assets in foreign lands, to justify the wanton murder of brown people, etc .., (policies that have always been a mainstay of conservative politics) that doesn't rely on racism and xenophobia but feel free to list them if you can.

 

hmmm i don't think this is exclusively a "conservative" agenda. democrats simply do a better PR campaign, and don't flaunt their empery!

 

i also think the "racist" charge misses the point a little bit. shit, bush chums with arabs, blacks, africans, etc and counts them as personal friends. he's got more "minority" friends than any fucker on this little fringe message board.

[j_b]

Agencies are in fiscal crises for a lot of reasons including the large number of destitute people who need help with essential services they can't afford (services existing in most other OECD nations), and lack of tax revenues from wealth and some type of economic activity. Average Californians and manufacturing are paying more taxes but financial and trading activities have hardly ever been less taxed than today due to the widespread use of tax havens and transfer pricing, tax exemptions (real estate, extraction industry, ...), etc. Illegal immigrants are a drop in the bucket once one accounts for their important contribution to the economy for not 'living wages' and their paying taxes including the form of taxation that has increased over the last 30 years (sales tax, licensing fees and whatnot). If you don't pay people enough, destroy the real economy and don't tax the wealthy and financial speculation, a crisis ensues.

 

because a "hate group" notes this doesn't mean it's an irrelevant point, and doesn't make a conservative into a racist for speaking about it. are you in favor of unlimited immigration?

 

I agree with your logic, and I wasn't fully explicit: last time I looked (couple months), the only existing numbers that argue the point they make is out of their "report" that doesn't account for the economic contribution of immigration to the economy. Accusing immigrants of economic ills is standard operating practice for the far-right (always, and for ideological/racial reasons) and during times of economic crisis by conservatives in general in an attempt to deflect criticism of the policies that caused the crisis (unfettered capitalism in this case). Why do you think fascism was supported by so many industry barons and right wing politicians during the 30’s?

 

Realistically I am not for unlimited immigration because of the hardship it entails, but if they keep destroying the real economy south of the border (thanks to NAFTA) while capital and goods can travel freely, so should people and they will. A wall won’t stop them.The cultural belief in "hard work" in this context implies that immigrants and the poor are lazy and don’t work hard, which is racist.

 

to deny voting rights to minorities

 

not familiar with contemporary examples.

 

read up on ‘caging lists’ implemented by the GOP during recent elections to deny the right of vote to millions of people without steady residence, people who don’t drive, people who have names similar to that of felons, etc … Read up on the 2004 Ohio elections and the lack of voting machine in ethnic neighborhoods. Etc ..

 

to grab assets in foreign lands, to justify the wanton murder of brown people, etc .., (policies that have always been a mainstay of conservative politics) that doesn't rely on racism and xenophobia but feel free to list them if you can.

 

hmmm i don't think this is exclusively a "conservative" agenda. democrats simply do a better PR campaign, and don't flaunt their empery!

 

You are assuming that all democrats aren’t conservatives and that the Democratic party never implements conservative policies, which is clearly not true.

 

i also think the "racist" charge misses the point a little bit. shit, bush chums with arabs, blacks, africans, etc and counts them as personal friends. he's got more "minority" friends than any fucker on this little fringe message board.

 

having ethnic friends doesn’t mean one doesn’t advocate policies implemented through racist fear-mongering.

 

Edited September 7, 2009 by j_b

[hafilax]

Looks like the White House released the text of their socialist propaganda:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

 

Yup, sure makes sense that all the true red-blooded American families out there are protecting their precious children from the message of staying in school, just like the White House said it would be about.

 

The thing that struck me about the content of this speech was the overwhelming emphasis on going to university and higher education. The trades were completely left out. I don't know if this was on purpose or an oversight but I believe it detracts from the message.

 

I would probably feel left out if I were a senior who intended to train as an electrician, for example. I'm not sure that the target at risk group of the speech, the potential dropouts, will feel inspired by the examples and may even feel further alienation by the education system.

 

The examples are all of people at the extremes of changing society. He doesn't talk about the small contributions that are necessary for a healthy society, like social work or teaching, but focuses on the big paradigm shifts. Those are going to come from very few people and they don't need speeches from the president to be inspired IMO. They will get there on their own.

 

I'm not sure what the political motivations were for this speech and I'm not sure that it will have any kind of effect on the drop out rate. Overall it was a disappointing read. Maybe it would have been more inspiring in the presentation.

[Fairweather]

I'm not sure what the political motivations were for this speech and I'm not sure that it will have any kind of effect on the drop out rate. Overall it was a disappointing read. Maybe it would have been more inspiring in the presentation.

 

Style over substance seems to be a hallmark of this administration.

[Choada_Boy]

Yeah, what a dick head.