Interesting. So you throw your family under the bus as racist Republicans. What racist acts did they take?

If we're just talking they had bad things to say, in that case, I can say that most of those who raised me, both family and friends of the family were racist democrats. People who legitimately believed that black people were just one step above animals. People who didn't want me watching shows like Fresh Prince and Family Matters because they were "lies".

Seems to me that you've taken your limited experience with your limited group and collectivized it to indicate all Republicans. The most bizarre aspect of that is that outside the progressives, I don't even go that far when speaking about Democrats.

Still waiting on your outright condemnation of Media organizations outright lying to promote riots for their activism, btw. Any time is good.

Which economic policies specifically? His healthcare plan was the Republican plan until Obama supported it, then they took a hard right turn to avoid associating with him.
His tax plan wouldn't even have raised taxes back to the Clinton levels.

Can you give me specific examples of this "racial/identitarian perspective" and examples of Europeans trying to keep us out of their system? I don't know what you're referencing. But I'll say that we have a much more diverse racial population and a much longer history of active discrimination, so racial issues and solutions may not be appropriate elsewhere since we have the worst problem with it both currently and historically.



Can you not read? His post was like 6 sentences long and he gave specific examples.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 23 2021 09:53am

my claim is that confederate democrats were very much right wing
democrat is a label, right wing conservatism is an ideology focused on tradition/order/heirarchy/authority

This post was edited by duffman316 on Apr 23 2021 09:53am

u asked for examples, i gave them swiftly, you downplay them, then call them limited. that's just lazy.

now you're pretending im a media fanboy because i wont play in a dog and pony show. you'll hear your step father tell you he's proud of you before you hear me parrot your requests alcy.



his vision is likely getting a bit blurry by now.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 23 2021 09:55am

Conservatism is based around the rights of the individual. The very thing conservatism attempts to "conserve" would be the Bill of Rights. AKA NOT authority as defined by the government, but instead, the right of the individual to live as they choose.

The Southern Democrats are antithetical to the Conservative viewpoint. People cannot be property.



The only real example you gave was that your grandfather said he'd remove you from his will if you brought home a black woman. You've made claims of racism other than that, no real examples.

And no, I'm directly stating you're a media apologist. The reason is clear. When the media edited the cam footage to spark riots, you instead highlighted on:



You have claimed that both women were "hoodrats" for no other reason than they were black, and attempted to project it on others. Then, rather than acknowledging that the lefty media clearly clipped a video in an attempt to make a cop who saved a woman's life into a monster, you made false claims that it was about "money" when it tanked their ratings.

I'm not requesting anything of you. I said you're a lefty and a lefty apologist. And you are. As far as your demands for an apology, that's laughable. I don't have anything to apologize for. You've tried to justify media activists' attempts to spawn riots as "it's just about money!!!" You're unworthy of apologies.



The only thing blurry is your view of yourself. Self-awareness is a great thing. Try taking a good hard look in the mirror at some point.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Apr 23 2021 10:07am

i have to write a 3 page essay on all of the examples of racism ive witnessed to convince you i know racist right wingers? sigh, what an embarrassing talking point. just a no true scotsmen fallacy to double down on your assessment of my life that you're not privy to.

secondly i addressed the shooting, and riots, and condemned the riots, for pages. then later, days later, i shared a tangential thought. you call a tangent my focus, even after being told it wasnt and having that written in a timeline.

your inability to admit you were wrong and bloated ego would be sad if they werent so heavily outweighed by the comedy of it all. ur so dead set and angry u cant even follow along on a simple timeline and for 10 posts or so now are relegated to the female tactic of "well u said X but i know u meant Y because u didnt say Z". you're being pathetic. but no need for an apology now, you've dug too deep, and will regret it. you'll see.

And this is how it's so incredibly obvious just how far left you are.

Your grandfather's threat to remove you from his will if you brought home a black woman was clearly a racist act. Not a thought, not something that's nothing. He actively attempted to deny you a happy life based on his views. He was a racist. No question, and such an active racist that he'd rather ruin your life than face the potential of a black woman being part of his family. Who's responsible for that? Your grandfather. Him. Personally. Using that as an example of how people on "the right" are racist is garbage and you know it. Fits right up there with all the lefties calling black conservatives "uncle toms" and "porch niggers". If you were a centrist, or a conservative, you would not be willing to generalize the way you have. Once again, why are the two women in question "hoodrats"? What evidence do you have?

It's not a tangent. It's the point. A cop saved a woman's life. That's a good thing. A would-be murderer died. That's not good, but it's much preferable to an innocent woman who was NOT attempting to commit murder being dead. Any attempt to defend the media that tried to spin it as evil cop killing an innocent woman simply means you have no principles whatsoever. Your need to relate to a particular political ideology has destroyed your credibility.

I'm not wrong. You're a collectivist. Therefore, you're a leftist. Your viewpoints are not on behalf of the individual. Even your claim to being "libertarian" is a blatant lie. When you collectivize, you don't care about the liberty of the individual.

Edit: I love the sexism in your post, btw. That's fun. Normally just ignore such inanities, but the added example of your collectivizing should be noted, I suppose.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Apr 23 2021 10:24am

but you are wrong

you're mixing left/right with individualism/collectivism

these are two very very different things and trying to redefine the meaning of these terms is simply is not going to work
conservativism has a definition that is never going to change as is liberalism as they both apply to any era

what you're writing makes sense now as it was utterly confusing at first but you need to understand that you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of these words here

are you going to describe indians who discriminate based on caste as lefty liberals?

This post was edited by duffman316 on Apr 23 2021 10:53am

Again, and as evidence you're not reading my posts, I wasn't personally calling the women hood rats. i was paraphrasing a line we'd hear from racist usual suspects, which i wasnt inferring you were one of. i told you that already, you missed it.

this is what you've been doing for about 10 posts now, even while being told we agree multiple times. i told you we agree on what's important, and you barged through that to tell me what i think, who i am, and that we actually disagree based on not what ive said, but what i havent said, and then what i refused to say when you told me to.

recognizing the difference between general female and male communication isn't sexist, its scientific, and a practice you employ when it suits you on topics such as transgender topics. in any case i was just poking fun at you with a level of "sexism" common to hacky 1990s stand up comedy. but at this point expecting you to read for humorous context would be naïve, you're seeing far too much red for that and all of PARD knows it, including u im sure. its a practice you're known for, as you get more contentious u tend to grasp at things literally in an attempt to score points. we all laugh at you for it, and call it out, but you cant stop that any more than u can stop pulling into the gas station after work when u told yourself yesterday was the last bottle you'd buy.

About to make dinner, so not ignoring you duff, will address it later.

Snipa, transgender does not change biology, we agree, right? That being said, women think every bit as differently as men think. We can agree that I attack a subject in a very VERY different manner than you, yes? Likewise, my wife attacks a subject very very differently than either of my sisters, which also attack subjects very differently. The generalization that they must go from point a to x to z (paraphrasing) is not correct. It's true for some. For others, it's just the facts, the logic, and to the heart of the issue, the same as "men" by your definition.

I believe what you're referring to is the fact that from a statistical standpoint, women tend to be more emotionally driven. Unfortunately, that's every bit as meaningful as the "50% of violent crime" stat. There are all too many women who're so brutally logically driven that even I think they're ruthless. I get the comedy, the problem is, utilizing a collectivist stance to prove why you're not a collectivist is not good.

I already stated that I'm angry that the media tried to utilize the case of the "Innocent Child Shot by a Racist Cop" to spawn more riots. I'm not "seeing red" based on you. Merely doing my poor best to point out that this isn't a "both sides" issue. My first post in this topic in days was today, wasn't it? It was just a rather neutral post pointing out the difference in reporting. Forget the anger, I was trying to gently point out what a shitshow the riot-mongers in the activist media have become. You've opted to poke at me, in this regards. I'm not sure why. If we agree, then let's agree. If we need to talk about "hoodrats" I think you should go argue with TiStuff. I will take you seriously, because I believe you should be taken seriously. Fair?

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Apr 23 2021 11:09am