"You're a fag!" A discourse upon liberal debate

There are two beliefs I have come to over the years. One is that no one is more mean-spirited and intolerant than those who claim to fight 'means-spiritedness and intolerance'. The second is that the people most likely to swear that you are an evil person if you do not sing the praises of homosexuality are also usually the very first to accuse you of it.

The term "homophobia" is not the first--although it's one of the more obvious; the term meant to imply that if you don't approve of homosexuality and accept it with open arms, it must be because you yourself are homosexual, and thus oppose 'open' homosexuals for fear of temptation. (Don't try to find the logic in it. Liberal argument contains a few tenets--conservatives are evil; capitalism is evil; Christianity is evil; Ronald Reagan is incredibly evil--and everything else shrinks or expands to fit.)

Joe McCarthy exposed dozens of Communist spies in the higher echelons of the federal government--not only have Soviet officials confirmed the status of these spies (both defectors and those who could speak freely once Reagan had defeated the Soviet Union), but it's also been confirmed by Soviet cables intercepted and decoded in the Venona Project. Liberals promptly claimed that McCarthy was a homosexual. One of his employees, Cohn, who was a homosexual (McCarthy's staff included black people (this was in the days of segregation), women, and homosexuals--not that liberals took much note) and was hounded relentlessly for it--by Democrats and the liberal press.

Whittaker Chambers was a Soviet spy, before leaving the USSR's employ and pointing out the status of, among others, his formerly fellow-spy, Alger Hiss. Chambers was not only accused of homosexuality, but of having sex repeately with his own brother--not just as an epithet, but as part of Hiss' defense in court.

J. Edgar Hoover, who also discovered several spies in the federal government--as well as speaking against the interrment of Japanese immigrants during WWII, another move that Democrats and the liberal press ignored--and is now referred to, without a shred of evidence, as a cross-dresser and a "closet" homosexual.

Hell, even Lincoln (who was a worthless tyrant, but he was also a Republican, and that's enough for liberal emnity. Probably the only worthless tyrant they didn't support) was claimed to be a homosexual, by some guy who said he'd found the diary of Lincoln's lover. He wouldn't say where it was, wouldn't let anyone else look at it, but he got plenty of front-page space over it.

Wait another ten or twenty years and see how many of Reagans "lovers" come up.

Umm...I'm not seeing your point...o_O

Clarity is preferred over blatant flaming. -- foa

If I understand you're argument correctly, liberals accuse people of being homosexual as a defense mechanism?


Take care all.

Quote:

---

The term "homophobia" is not the first--although it's one of the more obvious; the term meant to imply that if you don't approve of homosexuality and accept it with open arms, it must be because you yourself are homosexual, and thus oppose 'open' homosexuals for fear of temptation. (Don't try to find the logic in it. Liberal argument contains a few tenets--conservatives are evil; capitalism is evil; Christianity is evil; Ronald Reagan is incredibly evil--and everything else shrinks or expands to fit.)

---

What the hell? Okay, now your just making sh*t up.

Quote:

---

Clarity is preferred over blatant flaming. -- foa

---

Partly, and partly as a simple ad hominem attack.

I think neither party has their hands clean with regards to this issue to be frank. It's become such a soapbox issue when really it should be something between the person and their lover/companion, not something to throw around to further polarize the nation.

Take care all.

I am not advocating it, but I assume that some Democratic politicians would attack a conservative based on sexual preferance because conservatives themselves tend to hate homosexuals. If you have Republicans hating other Republicans based on something as trivial as sexual preferance, Democrats win. John Kerry did this, albeit briefly, during one of the presidential debates. He briefly, and unnecessarily, brought up the fact that Dick Cheneys daughter was a lesbian. I thought this was wrong, but thats politics for ya. Our politicians, both liberal and conservative, are bad people. They are out to accomplish thier political agendas and fill thier pocket books, not to make the world a better place, or to help you and me.

Liberals do this, conservatives do that, I've long since realized that people seldom fit into neat little categories like you seem to think. How do you define a liberal? How do you define a conservative? Throwing out all sorts of stereotypes, both positive and negative and not always applicable, you have nothing. Liberal and conservative are merely ways to try to categorize people so they fit neatly into some blase little world of black and white, and such simply isn't the case. Your argument is moot merely because you present your case against "liberals" and proceed to present all sorts of stereotypical evidence that attacks a group that doesn't even necessarily exist in the parameters you specified. People are too diverse to be classified as "liberal" or "conservative", and I'd say it's pretty foolish to conform to either ideal, I'd say it makes for pretty flat individuals.

Alright, I get what you're saying... and I think, in this case at least, you're totally full of it. Besides the fact that I dissapprove of your liberal (excuse the pun) use of the term "liberal" (if I were to label myself one of these ways, I would be conservative, just so you don't immediatly label me as liberal), I've never seen anything like that happen.

I've never seen anyone be called homophobic simply because someone didn't "embrace homosexuals." The only times I see a person be labeled as homophobic is when they (a) admit to being afraid of homosexuals or (b) are very openly anti-homosexual. And when someone is blatantly anti-homosexual, there is evidence to support that them being afraid of their own sexuality is often a reason.

As for your examples, I've never heard a one of them. If they were popular rumors I think I would have caught wind of at least one of those cases. Of course, I don't doubt they exist. You can find rumors about anything or anyone that some nutjob has written down somewhere. Didn't you know we've had alien presidents too? I suppose that's also the fault of someone of some generalized political label.

Ah, so now "you're totally full of it" and "conservatives themselves tend to hate homosexuals". Would those fit in your other thread, Redneck?

I have been labeled "homophobic" before, simply for disagreeing with homosexuality. Not for saying anything like "all fags are going to Hell" or anything like that, just for saying I think it's wrong. Hell, if I remember correctly, it's happened on this forum. It's a typical tactic.

One can disagree with homosexuality all they want. However, the very second you look down on someone for being homosexual you have become homophobic in my books.

(For the record, I do not know if that is what you did, Sasquatch, and I, therefore, am not accusing you of it.)

Well, Sasquatch, it would depend on who called you homophobic. Not everyone on this message board is exactly fit for CNN, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

The term "homophobia" is not the first--although it's one of the more obvious; the term meant to imply that if you don't approve of homosexuality and accept it with open arms, it must be because you yourself are homosexual, and thus oppose 'open' homosexuals for fear of temptation.

---

This part of ur arguement is correct. Its totally riddiculous to label someone who doesnt "like" homosexuality as a homosexual themselves. It makes as much sense to me as labeling someone who doesnt "like" spiders as arachnophobic then calling them, themself a spider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

(Don't try to find the logic in it. Liberal argument contains a few tenets--conservatives are evil; capitalism is evil; Christianity is evil; Ronald Reagan is incredibly evil--and everything else shrinks or expands to fit.)

---

Now i call bs. As a liberal i am a Saved and Baptisted, Baptist. I beileve whole heartedly in Capitolism. And most of my friends happen to be conservatives, and good people... and well Reagan was pretty evil... ;)

I wouldnt go around classifying peoples arguements, somebody just might suprise u.

There are indeed plenty of "ultra-liberals" who are overzealous in the way they try to force their views upon others.

Some will openly attack the Christian church because its texts prohibit homosexuality; some have a hatred of all who hold political power. In their quest to see everyone treated equally, they forget to extend the most basic courtesy and right by allowing others to disagree with them. Harmless disagreement is fine; it's only actively harmful prejudice that should be opposed. Ultra-liberals frequently forget this.

However, just because some liberals are like this does not mean that all are. To make that accusation is little more than sensationalist stereotyping, like saying all conservatives approve of racism or that all Bush supporters enjoy war. These are, generally, untrue and unfair statements. As is, "[d]on't try to find the logic in it. Liberal argument contains a few tenets--conservatives are evil; capitalism is evil; Christianity is evil; Ronald Reagan is incredibly evil--and everything else shrinks or expands to fit."

I'm rather perplexed by the argument that "liberals accuse people of homosexuality in order to attack them." Since liberals apparently embrace homosexuality, I don't see why that'd be viewed as an attack by them. Besides, it'd make no difference to me whatsoever if McCarthy or Lincoln was homosexual. It'd only matter if I somehow believed that homosexuals are inherently inferior, which I don't.

Quote:

---

...once Reagan had defeated the Soviet Union

---

Now this is something that makes no sense to me at all. How and when did Reagan "defeat" the Soviet Union?

And I could just as easily say that conservative debate largely consists of trying to dismiss, misrepresent or portray extreme liberal ideas as the general liberal consensus, because they know that they'd lose an actual, rational argument.

But that wouldn't accomplish anything.

Nothing will get accomplished until liberals stop seeing all conservatives as inbred, xenophobic, trigger happy, redneck warmongers, and conservatives stop viewing all liberals as anarchist, peacenik, promiscuous, communist hippies.

Actually I think most political parties act kinda cult-like.

Conservatives see Liberals as:
Gun-hating, tax-raising, America-hating, UN-loving, handout-giving, anti-Christian, hypocrtitical hippies who are all closet-socialists and likely on some sort of illegal substance.

Liberals see Conservatives as:
Gun-loving, poor-hating, closet-racist, America-loving, UN-hating, Christian-Fanatic proto-fascists who have never had a day of fun.

It's just a way to label people so that you don't have to listen to them anymore. If I'm a "liberal", that's all a conservative will ever need to know about me. That makes anything I say in the political realm heresy to the conservatives, and therefore they shouldn't listen to the ideas other than to find some way to shut me down. If I'm a "conservative", that's all a liberal needs to know. They already know that I'm a sad ignorant conservative to be shunned. Think of it as a way to keep the faithful from going astray. It's the same thing with religion. If I'm not the same religion that you are, than anything I might say about religion is automatically suspect, because I don't know "the Truth (TM)". That way a Christian won't listen to what a Muslim says about God, and therefore think of other possibilities. Nor will a Muslim wonder about the things a Christian says about God. All of it is designed to keep people from listening to the other side and thus possibly questioning the orthodox viewpoint. Very human. It happens everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CSaZ

This part of ur arguement is correct. Its totally riddiculous to label someone who doesnt "like" homosexuality as a homosexual themselves. It makes as much sense to me as labeling someone who doesnt "like" spiders as arachnophobic then calling them, themself a spider.

---

That is the best and most accurate thing that has been said in this thread, aaaand I love you for it.

Politicians sling mud. That's why they're politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Quote:

---

...once Reagan had defeated the Soviet Union

---

Now this is something that makes no sense to me at all. How and when did Reagan "defeat" the Soviet Union?

---

He, and a band of friends got together and they journeyed to the center of the the northern crator and defeated the evil Soviet Union which freed Holy. meanwhile, the while the big Communist Meteor was still heading towards America, threathing to destory our very way of life. Holy was freed and once it moved, it sped towards meteor and tried to stop it, but it wasnt enough. It had the reverse effect. But then the lifestream came to help....err...i think you know may know the rest of the story...




anywayz, labels suck. And i believe the Republican party that Lincoln was in back in the 1860's is today's Democratic party. I have to check my sources on that though.

Actually, no, the party that Lincoln ran under would be today's Republican party.

"Conservatives see Liberals as:
Gun-hating, tax-raising, America-hating, UN-loving, handout-giving, anti-Christian, hypocrtitical hippies who are all closet-socialists and likely on some sort of illegal substance."

Let's see...gun-hating...tax-raising...UN-loving...handout-giving...anti-Christian... For the most part, those are true of the majority of liberals and Democratic voters. Of these I picked out, what have liberals done to dispel those stereotypes upon them? As for the rest of your post, you make the assumption that nobody is open to even hear any other ideas/ideals, which is incorrect.

"Well, Sasquatch, it would depend on who called you homophobic. Not everyone on this message board is exactly fit for CNN, you know."

Not everyone, but many would be a good fit for Dan Rather's two left shoes.

"One can disagree with homosexuality all they want. However, the very second you look down on someone for being homosexual you have become homophobic in my books."

pho·bi·a
n.
A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

Looking down on homosexuality doesn't make somebody a homophobe. But a person in America can't disagree with homosexuality without being labeled as somebody who hates gays. I've had gay friends, and I called 'em queer and they called me a thumper and we steered clear of the topic because we disagreed on it. Like many people (and many Christians, following what it says in the Bible about "hate the sin, love the sinner"), I disagree with homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.

You forgot to point out how the conservative stereotypes are true 99% of cases as well. That's what it means to be "liberal/democrat" or "conservative/republican". It's not like it's an ethnicity or something - it's a label you give yourself. It's like calling yourself a Nazi, but then complaining that people say all Nazis hate Jews.

I don't call myself a democrat, but people just automatically assume I am one. Am I liberal? Of course...as is any decent person (and no, liberal doesn't mean Michael Moore. Look it up in a dictionary for a change). If I have to pick from one of the two though, I'd go democrat.

Quote:

---

"Conservatives see Liberals as:
Gun-hating, tax-raising, America-hating, UN-loving, handout-giving, anti-Christian, hypocrtitical hippies who are all closet-socialists and likely on some sort of illegal substance."

Let's see...gun-hating...tax-raising...UN-loving...handout-giving...anti-Christian... For the most part, those are true of the majority of liberals and Democratic voters. Of these I picked out, what have liberals done to dispel those stereotypes upon them? As for the rest of your post, you make the assumption that nobody is open to even hear any other ideas/ideals, which is incorrect.

---

Not exactly. I'm basing partially on chatrooms. and for the most part at least in the yahoo general politics chatroom, saying something liberal will put you on the ignore list of any conservative in the room. Or saying something conservative puts you on the liberal ignore list. even for those who don't ignore a person of the opposite persuasion, there isn't much of a "discussion". It's mostly name calling. In fact several of the conservatives in general yahoo chat greet the room with phrases like "hello Americans ... and liberals". Now I'll grant you that internet chat isn't the same thing as talking to your buddies about politics, but I don't really do that much. Most of my buddies are not interested in politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Actually, no, the party that Lincoln ran under would be today's Republican party.

---

I really don't think so. I wouldn't neccessarily say that Lincoln would be a Democrat, because every politician from his time period would be pretty shocked by the crap that goes on in politics now--but he'd definitely be a moderate, and probably a left-leaning one at that...or maybe a flat-out liberal. The party names really did a flip-flop.

This is the funniest thread ever.

Seriously. I live in a very conservative area of the Univted States, and I can say, accurately and safely, that your broad, sweeping generalizations are inaccurate. Reading your essay was like reading a bad stream-of-conciousness rant. Somehow you get from hypocrisy about Homosexuals on the liberals to...Joe McCarthy? You act like McCarthy was the only person in the 50s to hire minorities. Are you aware McCarthy never produced a single shred of evidence for any of his sporadic accusations (He once called LBJ a communist, if that shows anything about his credibillity)?

Also, you use the words liberal and conservative in the context of today referring to...the mid 1800's, calling the Rebuplicans the conservatives and Democrats the liberals as they are today. American history clearly proves this blatant assumption false. The greatest opposition towards the civil rights act (of LBJ) came from democrats (which was, in many ways conservative). THus, you employ highly convoluted logic towards Abraham Lincoln. Interestingly, you never once mention the word 'liberal' in that entire paragraph. Maybe because that paragraph is less about liberals and more about incoherent ranting?

Please don't use sexual slurs as insults. -- foa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

if you don't approve of homosexuality

---

This phrase is the problem with your entire arguement, "approving of homosexuality." This is not like approving of someone's choice of political party or university. Disapproving of homosexuality is like disapproving of naturally red hair or left-handedness. You may not see it that way, but the reality of the situation is that it is that way, and that's just sad.

If you want us a take you seriously, you should definitely not blatantly and liberally(no pun intended) use ludicrous stereotypes. I haven't even heard of some of this crap - sources, please?

Quote:

---

(Don't try to find the logic in it. Liberal argument contains a few tenets--conservatives are evil; capitalism is evil; Christianity is evil; Ronald Reagan is incredibly evil--and everything else shrinks or expands to fit.)

---

I could just as easily say Conservative argument contains few tenets - free speech is evil, unions are evil, homosexuality is evil, abortion is evil, Bill Clinton is incredibly evil - and everything else shrinks or expands to fit. Same logic.

Quote:

---

Joe McCarthy exposed dozens of Communist spies in the higher echelons of the federal government--not only have Soviet officials confirmed the status of these spies (both defectors and those who could speak freely once Reagan had defeated the Soviet Union), but it's also been confirmed by Soviet cables intercepted and decoded in the Venona Project. Liberals promptly claimed that McCarthy was a homosexual. One of his employees, Cohn, who was a homosexual (McCarthy's staff included black people (this was in the days of segregation), women, and homosexuals--not that liberals took much note) and was hounded relentlessly for it--by Democrats and the liberal press.

---

McCarthy also enoucraged people to "expose" their neighbors if they were communists, which turned it into the biggest witch hunt since the Salem Witch Trials. Have you ever read The Crucible? That's a political allegory written during the time period. Was blacklisting perfectly acceptable? If you even insinuate that, you lose all credibility in my eyes - the Red Scare of the 1950s was one of the worst constitutional tragedies in American history.
However, I've never heard of McCarthy being accused of homosexuality. I've heard of him being accused of many worse things, but never of being gay.

Quote:

---

J. Edgar Hoover, who also discovered several spies in the federal government--as well as speaking against the interrment of Japanese immigrants during WWII, another move that Democrats and the liberal press ignored--and is now referred to, without a shred of evidence, as a cross-dresser and a "closet" homosexual.

---

It must not be too prominent of an opinion, as two years of US History completely glossed over that little tidbit.

Quote:

---

Hell, even Lincoln (who was a worthless tyrant, but he was also a Republican, and that's enough for liberal emnity. Probably the only worthless tyrant they didn't support) was claimed to be a homosexual, by some guy who said he'd found the diary of Lincoln's lover. He wouldn't say where it was, wouldn't let anyone else look at it, but he got plenty of front-page space over it.

---

Lincoln was a worthless tyrant? Wow - that doesn't even deserve a response. I know plenty of liberals who praise Lincoln...quite honestly, I've never known of a liberal to attack Lincoln. However, I have heard of conservatives who attacked Lincoln.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

pho·bi·a
n.
A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

Looking down on homosexuality doesn't make somebody a homophobe. But a person in America can't disagree with homosexuality without being labeled as somebody who hates gays. I've had gay friends, and I called 'em queer and they called me a thumper and we steered clear of the topic because we disagreed on it. Like many people (and many Christians, following what it says in the Bible about "hate the sin, love the sinner"), I disagree with homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.

---

You apparently do not understand the definition of "homophobia". Here is the definition, so you can get your facts straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dictionary

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

---

Quote:

---

The party names really did a flip-flop.

---

Omg!!1 Democrat is teh flip fl0pz!@!!11one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Actually, no, the party that Lincoln ran under would be today's Republican party.

---

I really don't think so. I wouldn't neccessarily say that Lincoln would be a Democrat, because every politician from his time period would be pretty shocked by the crap that goes on in politics now--but he'd definitely be a moderate, and probably a left-leaning one at that...or maybe a flat-out liberal. The party names really did a flip-flop.

---

Lincoln would be a moderate democrat today though. The "radical republicans" of the era wanted to break up all the southern plantations with the whole "40 acres and a mule" as reperations for slavery. Lincoln and johnson opposed it.

Two notes, and then I'm going to bed because I'm sick as hell (physically too, this time) and hacking up gobs of some substace that I can't identify and really don't want to from my lungs.

Gnostic Yevon--
You've got to remember that politics have changed a lot over even a hundred years. The ideas that are now considered old-fashioned anachronisms tht we hold simply because we always have were, in many cases, extremely radical ideas that no one would consider not so long ago. :D Of course, sometimes we come around full circle and start adopting some recycled version of what didn't work last time, as well. Really, as far as politics and history goes, in very many cases the only thing that changes is the technology.

Quote:

---

Nothing will get accomplished until liberals stop seeing all conservatives as inbred, xenophobic, trigger happy, redneck warmongers,

---

Hey now--I am NOT inbred! My parents were only related by marriage.

how does calling someone a "homophobe" equate to accusing them of being a closet homosexual? I know that some people leap to this conclusion, but it's not at all implied. It is generally thought that one (of many possible) causes of homophobia is an unwillingness to accept one's homosexuality, but it certainly isn't the only cause. People who start making these illogical leaps all the time and insult others should be ignored regardless of their political bent.

I don't feel your generalization on liberals is any more fair than the liberal generalizations you are complaining about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Quote:

---

Nothing will get accomplished until liberals stop seeing all conservatives as inbred, xenophobic, trigger happy, redneck warmongers,

---

Hey now--I am NOT inbred! My parents were only related by marriage.

---

You miss my point completely. I KNOW that for God's sake. But for now all anyone seems to do is throw stereotypes around as a way of avoiding talking about the real issues. That goes for BOTH sides of the debate!

Reagan wasn't evil. I never thought he was. But I thought he was a bad president, and did some really foolish things. I think it's absurd that he was made out to be a 'hero'.

I don't have all the answers about whether homosexuality is 'natural' or not. I don't care either, it's none of my business what preference you have. I think it's homophobic when someone is not just disgusted by homosexuality, but can't handle it at all, emotionally... as if it was a god damn plague. It's not going to 'infect' you, I think we can be adults and put aside our differences for a second. It's not like everyone is going to become a homosexual, like some fad.

Of course it's wrong to judge someone as being homosexual simply for disagreeing with homosexuality. That's completely illogical on so many levels. First off, you're assuming someone's stance on an arguement determines their sexuality. How is that even arguable? Give me the vague phychological theoretical bullcrap which bring nothing but the same uncertainty that existed before.

Since no one 'knows the answer' all we have is our beliefs to rely on. If you believe it's [homosexuality] wrong, so be it, but you can't prove it either way, without bringing up religion, or disputed scientific evidence. You're going nowhere with it.

--------------

Also, don't give me that 'everything is in the grey, not black and white' speech again. No one thinks in the grey. You are prejudice about certain things, whether you believe it or not. Think of waht you imagine the next president will look like. Was it an older white male? We do it all the time. It's an undisputed fact that all our presidents were white and male.

It means that sometimes you CAN stereotype, because sometimes they are true. Sometimes you're biased, somtimes you're wrong. Who knows? We're all trying to figure it out, and saying 'stereotyping gets you nowhere' doesn't help anything but make things fuzzier.

A lot of republicans ARE white, older, males. Why!? Don't want to accept it? it's true. more woman are democratic than men. Minorities are more democratic than whites. oh noes, stereotyping. No, facts.

Using the terms redneck warmongors and all of that junk is simply a policial correctness issue. We don't want to offend the racist southern states, so we wont even bring up the issue, when in fact there might be a major racism issue more-so there than the cities along the coast. Why?

People use these terms out of anger, because they disagree with certain political issues a certain party is for/against. "Bush is a redneck warmongor" is not politically correct, but it's true to someone who holds a certain image of Bush. Bush is white and from the south, he started a war. By someone's definition that makes him just that -- a redneck warmongor. It has a negative connotation because of the feelings that person holds towards bush. It's not politically correct, and you may not agree with it, but no one is going to 'stop' thinking a certain way because it's not politically correct. A serious issue in our[US] society is PC in my opinion. Everyone is so incredibly afraid of offending other people... it's like we're even more segregated because of it (this isn't a new idea).


Anyway I think I've ranted enough already.

------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

Oh hey, it's a WSU student. I know some people over there. Anyways...

Not everybody sees things in black and white, and things AREN'T in black and white, even if we perceive them to be. There are trends of things, yes, and they are statistically proven as fact, but that hardly makes them black and white. Black and white is one side or another, and in a world this complex it simply isn't plausible. There are people who tend to see things in black and white, and they are also generally more prone to certain traits like racism, but again just because the traits are correllated doesn't mean that they are always the case. Simply because there are exceptions to every stereotype is what makes it... unprofessional. Political Correctness is a whole other issue, so I'll not agree or disagree with you there, but I will say that there is a time when too much of something becomes a bad thing, and I believe that sums up my stance on that issue.

---

I totally agree with you. there is no such thing as black and white, in fact, sometimes there are simply no right answers to a question. But what I really meant is that some things are generalizations, labeled and stereotyped regardless. There are certain ideologies which we live in for exaple, that we accept as 'normal'... they are structured 'beliefs' that are sometimes not entirely obvious. Some people grow up believing and thinking in certain ways, liking the same foods, etc. It's common for people to stereotype certain people just by what they percieve them as, like the white male president I was talking about (but that's an extreme example). You can only give generalizations. People still however tend to stereotype these generalizations, which is impossible to stop... we all do it subconsciously; it's natural. If you see 10 red signs in a row you expect the next one to be red, even if most of the signs are yellow. That's the way our brains work.

Oh hey, it's a WSU student. I know some people over there. Anyways...

Not everybody sees things in black and white, and things AREN'T in black and white, even if we perceive them to be. There are trends of things, yes, and they are statistically proven as fact, but that hardly makes them black and white. Black and white is one side or another, and in a world this complex it simply isn't plausible. There are people who tend to see things in black and white, and they are also generally more prone to certain traits like racism, but again just because the traits are correllated doesn't mean that they are always the case. Simply because there are exceptions to every stereotype is what makes it... unprofessional. Political Correctness is a whole other issue, so I'll not agree or disagree with you there, but I will say that there is a time when too much of something becomes a bad thing, and I believe that sums up my stance on that issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skogs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Quote:

---

Nothing will get accomplished until liberals stop seeing all conservatives as inbred, xenophobic, trigger happy, redneck warmongers,

---

Hey now--I am NOT inbred! My parents were only related by marriage.

---

You miss my point completely. I KNOW that for God's sake. But for now all anyone seems to do is throw stereotypes around as a way of avoiding talking about the real issues. That goes for BOTH sides of the debate!

---

No no, see, that was a joke. Out of all those things, the only thing he was denying was that he's imbred. He was being somewhat sarcastic...umm... Don't worry about it, you'll get it tomorrow.

"Using the terms redneck warmongors and all of that junk is simply a policial correctness issue. We don't want to offend the racist southern states, so we wont even bring up the issue, when in fact there might be a major racism issue more-so there than the cities along the coast.
...
Bush is white and from the south, he started a war. By someone's definition that makes him just that -- a redneck warmongor."

"Don't want to offend the racist southern states"? So you think all the Southern states are racist? It's not a political correctness issue, it's an ignorance issue. No free-thinking intelligent person would call Bush a "redneck warmonger". Do people call Clinton a "hillbilly hippie"? Hell, he was from Arkansas, and he was a coward when it came to foreign relations and military (not to mention he smoked weed), and those weren't even the start of his problems, so by some people's definitions, that would be right, wouldn't it?

By the way, genius, not every white person from the South is a redneck. And PC is generally a liberal subject--most conservatives don't care if they're politically correct or not, or who they offend, and most liberals don't either, as long as nobody offends them. Labeling all Southerners as racists and rednecks though, that's ridiculously ignorant.

And Bush didn't "start a war". He led the U.S. to continue the war that was already being fought against us. It's called the War on Terror, you should read up on it sometime. Even so, the creation of a war does not mean that everybody who supports it is a "warmonger". If it does, then I'm proud to be one of those "bloodthirsty redneck warmongers" that you have so much against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

"Don't want to offend the racist southern states"? So you think all the Southern states are racist? It's not a political correctness issue, it's an ignorance issue. No free-thinking intelligent person would call Bush a "redneck warmonger". Do people call Clinton a "hillbilly hippie"? Hell, he was from Arkansas, and he was a coward when it came to foreign relations and military (not to mention he smoked weed), and those weren't even the start of his problems, so by some people's definitions, that would be right, wouldn't it?

By the way, genius, not every white person from the South is a redneck. And PC is generally a liberal subject--most conservatives don't care if they're politically correct or not, or who they offend, and most liberals don't either, as long as nobody offends them. Labeling all Southerners as racists and rednecks though, that's ridiculously ignorant.

And Bush didn't "start a war". He led the U.S. to continue the war that was already being fought against us. It's called the War on Terror, you should read up on it sometime. Even so, the creation of a war does not mean that everybody who supports it is a "warmonger". If it does, then I'm proud to be one of those "bloodthirsty redneck warmongers" that you have so much against.

---

The war on terror is a joke. You can't fight terrorism with war.

I don't think all southern states are racist. I Definitely don't think that, despite what I have said. I'm not that ignorant. In certain areas there is some heavy racism still however, texas specifically. If you don't think so, then you're wrong. I've known some people from texas who have told me about the racism in the areas they lived in. I don't think everyone in texas is white, either. Also, I never said I had any stance on the war, I was giving an example, although you probably implied I was liberal from my examples, but actually, I'm neither conservative or liberal. I dont' want to get into a political debate. I don't appreciate you accusing me of ignorance and then insulting me.

The traditional definition of a redneck is a poor, uneducated white person usualy living in the country side in the southern US. Used as an insult, it's more of saying you 'act' like such, and that is more of a matter of opinion, so you can think whatever the heck you want for your definition. A dictionary doesn't define a word, people do.

I never even said that if you support the war you're a warmongor. In fact, I take that whole statement as completely radical, and probably not the best example, since I pissed you off just by using it. I "labeled" southerners as racist to get a point across on ust that subject, labeling. Political correstness has all to do with labeling. I kind of went off on a tangent.

I like how you used genius sarcastically, as if I was an idiot. I know you enjoy ripping my arguements to shreds. I was never trying to offend you, yet you explode with such hatred. You have some serious anger issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwelenguchenkus

The war on terror is a joke. You can't fight terrorism with war.

I don't think all southern states are racist. I Definitely don't think that, despite what I have said. I'm not that ignorant. In certain areas there is some heavy racism still however, texas specifically. If you don't think so, then you're wrong. I've known some people from texas who have told me about the racism in the areas they lived in. I don't think everyone in texas is white, either. Also, I never said I had any stance on the war, I was giving an example, although you probably implied I was liberal from my examples, but actually, I'm neither conservative or liberal. I dont' want to get into a political debate. I don't appreciate you accusing me of ignorance and then insulting me.

The traditional definition of a redneck is a poor, uneducated white person usualy living in the country side in the southern US. Used as an insult, it's more of saying you 'act' like such, and that is more of a matter of opinion, so you can think whatever the heck you want for your definition. A dictionary doesn't define a word, people do.

I never even said that if you support the war you're a warmongor. In fact, I take that whole statement as completely radical, and probably not the best example, since I pissed you off just by using it. I "labeled" southerners as racist to get a point across on ust that subject, labeling. Political correstness has all to do with labeling. I kind of went off on a tangent.

I like how you used genius sarcastically, as if I was an idiot. I know you enjoy ripping my arguements to shreds. I was never trying to offend you, yet you explode with such hatred. You have some serious anger issues.

---

Dont get Sasquatch Started. He's gonna try and make his agenda and his beliefs seem like its the absolute truth. He cant debate without making snide remarks and insults about people.


Anywayz, that war on terror is a joke. There was never a war against us. The thing about america is, although 9/11 was a terrible thing, we only got a little taste of what the world goes through ALL THE TIME. This wasnt even the first time america has had a terrorism attack. They tried to blow up the WTC back in 1993/94. Terrorism isnt something new. Its just new to us. We as americans have a silly way of thinking that we are safe in america from outside forces. Its a foolish belief, but its the only one we know because thats all we've had. There is no way to fight an army that has no country or face. Who do we fight? Do we only fight arabs to fight terrorism? What about terrorist who come from white countries? What about terrorist that come from black countries? What about jewish Terrorist? This war on terror is a complete joke and a waste of money. I supported bush when he wanted to go after Osama. That was justified, but when he wanted to go into Iraq, it didnt make since. Saddam was a bad person but come on. He wasn't a Direct treat to america. I dont want to even here that right-wing BS about how he was. He wasnt. Not only that, when his arguement about WMD's in iraq fell through, he started sprouting off crap about fighting for iraqi freedom. Why the hell is that our job? If those iraqi's had wanted saddam out, they should have (and eventually would have) ousted his regiem themselves. Why should we be even forcing democracy in the middle east. Who cares. Thats another problem with america. We wanted to be separate from england so that we could be free to do what we please, and yet, we tell the rest of the world they have to be a democracy. Cause its the "right" thing to be. SAys who? Thats why arab countries hate us. We are a land of hypocracies. Our government says one thing, then does another. The sad thing is, People are so concerned now about the labels we call ourselves that we either have to be Liberal or concervative. So its come down to either being agaisnt the war or for the war, without either side taking a look at whats really going on here. We are being LIED to day in and day out by our government and no one is making a big deal about it.

Now Sasquatch, in know your gonna sprout off to me some crap about you being in the Army so you presumed to know so much more than everybody else, but who cares. The keep the military in the dark just as much as the public. Your job is to fight the war and follow orders. So unless your pretty high up in rank, you dont know much more than anybody else does. Oh, thank you for serving the country though.( not sarcastic). Somebody has to protect iraqi freedom and stop terrorism ( sarcastic)

I think all southern states are predominantly populated by racist bastards, save Florida maybe,. Why? Because nearly all the southerners I encounter online and all the people I encounter where I live has the "I hate niggers and speks" attitude. To say every last person in a particular state is racist is silly though. Oklahoma is extremely racist though, in it's government too. They pay Native American students money for getting A's in school here. It's a well known fact that the south is predominantly racist...and if you say it isn't, you've either never spent time here, or you fail to walk outside your house much.

I'm pretty much convinced that I'm the only one in this state who isn't racist though.

I'm with you Big D, Reagen didn't defeat Communism, he happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Quote:

---

A lot of republicans ARE white, older, males. Why!? Don't want to accept it? it's true. more woman are democratic than men. Minorities are more democratic than whites. oh noes, stereotyping. No, facts.

---

I don't see that as stereo typing. Now if you saw a random woman and just assumed that they were a Democrat then that would be stereo typing.

Quote:

---

(not to mention he smoked weed)

---

When he was in office? Yeah right... :rolleye2

Quote:

---

The war on terror is a joke.

---

the war on terror doesn't even exist. It's just a political tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

---

I was never trying to offend you, yet you explode with such hatred. You have some serious anger issues.

---

I don't feel that Sasquatch has anger issues. I am the same way. If someone pisses me off, I am prone to respond rudely. I would venture to guess that you do the same from time to time. We all do.

Quote:

---

like the white male president I was talking about (but that's an extreme example). You can only give generalizations.

---

Saying that "all presidents have been white males" is not a generalization. If I were to say "All presidents will always be white males" now THAT is a generalization.

Quote:

---

Dont get Sasquatch Started. He's gonna try and make his agenda and his beliefs seem like its the absolute truth. He cant debate without making snide remarks and insults about people.

---

There was no reason for this comment. It was just rude. Would you have said the same thing about me, or DMKA, or Shadow Nexus? I don't think so. The three of us (in my opinion) can be quite rude from time to time. The difference is you agree with us.

Quote:

---

That was justified, but when he wanted to go into Iraq, it didnt make since.

---

It makes sense if you realize that the war on terror is just a tool.

Quote:

---

he started sprouting off crap about fighting for iraqi freedom. Why the hell is that our job?

---

It's no secret. Politicians need excuses to go to war. This was his.

Quote:

---

I'm with you Big D, Reagen didn't defeat Communism, he happened to be in the right place at the right time.

---

I have actually heard some say that it was largely due to John Paul II that communism failed. It would make sense, seeing as how people in that region are Catholic, and thier religion was being supprest by the Soviets. I cannot comment more on this, because that's as far as I know.

Oh, there's a lot today... But I did notice that nik0tine defended me. Twice. Wow.

I wouldn't say at all that I have any "anger problems", nor did I "explode with such hatred". I tried to make a calm, collected, intelligent reply, as I usually do. Now, I'm a smartass, and I made some sarcastic comments, but if you took my post as insulting your ignorance, that's upon you.

"The traditional definition of a redneck is a poor, uneducated white person usualy living in the country side in the southern US. Used as an insult..."

First off, that's your definition of a redneck. Some others may disagree with that. Secondly, some people take being called "redneck" not as an insult, but as a compliment, because it means that they stand out from the people around them--and when they dislike the ideals of the people around them, some people liked to be labeled as somebody who stands apart from them. If I was surrounded by yuppies, I would be proud to be called a redneck, just as if I was surrounded by white supremacists, I would be proud to be called a "nigger lover"--these terms are used as insults by those groups, but in some contexts can be taken (and perhaps should be taken) as compliments.

"I don't think all southern states are racist....In certain areas there is some heavy racism still however, texas specifically. If you don't think so, then you're wrong......I don't appreciate you accusing me of ignorance and then insulting me."

Your made a reference to "the racist southern states", that's a pretty ignorant thing to say. I have lived in the South, and I saw as much racism against minorities as I did against white people. "If you don't think so, then you're wrong." And, mind you, I don't believe I have ever made a direct insult towards you. (EDIT: Damn. Sorry. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings.)

"Dont get Sasquatch Started. He's gonna try and make his agenda and his beliefs seem like its the absolute truth."

Should I debate by trying to make my beliefs look like they're wrong? Interesting strategy. (Reminds me of Dodgeball..."It looks like Average Joe's is forfeiting..." "That's an interestering strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off.")

"Anywayz, that war on terror is a joke. There was never a war against us."

So, let's see..."war on terror"...implying that terrorism is the enemy... You're saying that we've never had a terrorist attack, or what? Do you not see that there's been a war against us, and against everything Western and Capitalist and Jewish and Christian, for centuries? 11 September was a major blow that got America's attention, and helped raise American support against terrorism.

"Who do we fight? Do we only fight arabs to fight terrorism? What about terrorist who come from white countries? What about terrorist that come from black countries? What about jewish Terrorist?"

How many Jewish terrorists have you heard of? How many black terrorists, or white terrorists? There's Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kazinski, Eric Rudolph (although he's somewhat of a different situation, as I believe the Olympic Park bombing was simply pinned on him as a matter of convenience), and those people have been dealt with. The simple fact is, whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not, the vast majority of people willing to commit terrorist acts against America are Arabs.

"Not only that, when his arguement about WMD's in iraq fell through, he started sprouting off crap about fighting for iraqi freedom. Why the hell is that our job? If those iraqi's had wanted saddam out, they should have (and eventually would have) ousted his regiem themselves."

Ah...that's why it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the beginning. Why is it our job? Who's job is it? It's the UN's job, but they have quite a history in failing miserably, and they weren't about to do anything about Iraq (mainly because of France and Germany, which were both profiting from under-the-table illegal trade with Saddam). So, if the UN doesn't do it, does that mean it just shouldn't be done, or should somebody else pick up the torch? I agree, it's not America's job to police the world. It's the UN's job--but since the UN doesn't do their job, it's America's responsibility as a superpower and a country which prides itself on its moral convictions to do what should be done. And as for the Iraqi people ousting Saddam...they already tried that. More than once, I believe, but the most recent was after the Persian Gulf War. All resistance against Saddam's regime was brutally crushed. Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands slaughtered, thousands tortured and executed, some buried in mass graves, some left to rot in the streets they died in.

"Now Sasquatch, in know your gonna sprout off to me some crap about you being in the Army so you presumed to know so much more than everybody else, but who cares...Oh, thank you for serving the country though.( not sarcastic). Somebody has to protect iraqi freedom and stop terrorism ( sarcastic)"

Actually, having been there, logic would tell that I know a bit more about the situation than somebody who has only gotten their information from cable news. I can tell you that there's a lot that happens--good and bad--that doesn't get relayed back and played on CNN. If you disagree with that, you are free to, but with that having been said, you don't know any better. Seeing as The Redneck was in Korea a few years ago, at the time, I'm sure he knew more about the situation there than most of the rest of us did. And if you were sincere in it, I would appreciate the gratitude. We all do.

As for Reagan, he did contribute greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union. One of the ways he did so was, basically, by inventing a lie (missile defense) and outspending them. Not to say that he was the primary cause leading up to it, but he did play an important role.

And for perhaps what is the first time, I didn't find anything in nik0tine's post that would warrant a reply from me. Except that, perhaps, the Clinton-weed thing didn't mean to imply while in office, just that he had at least once before, which would go along with the "hippie" label. And that, well...everytime I see your avatar, nik0tine, I think you're a lady. I dunno. You debate like a lady would, too, for the most part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

So, let's see..."war on terror"...implying that terrorism is the enemy... You're saying that we've never had a terrorist attack, or what? Do you not see that there's been a war against us, and against everything Western and Capitalist and Jewish and Christian, for centuries? 11 September was a major blow that got America's attention, and helped raise American support against terrorism.

---

Yes, i know all of this. But that is exactly what im talking about when i talk of America's hypocracy. We only wanted to do something about terrorism when it hit us. Had 9/11 never happened, we wouldnt have given one thought about terrorism.

[q=Sasquatch]
How many Jewish terrorists have you heard of? How many black terrorists, or white terrorists? There's Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kazinski, Eric Rudolph (although he's somewhat of a different situation, as I believe the Olympic Park bombing was simply pinned on him as a matter of convenience), and those people have been dealt with. The simple fact is, whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not, the vast majority of people willing to commit terrorist acts against America are Arabs.[/q]

Well that would depend on what you describe as a terrorist act. Maybe they are the vast majority, but they are not the ONLY ones commiting terrorist acts. my point was, a terrorist could be anybody. Therefore taking the "War on Terrorism" to the middle east and no where else is stupid because terrorism has no country.

[q=Sasquatch]
Ah...that's why it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the beginning. Why is it our job? Who's job is it? It's the UN's job, but they have quite a history in failing miserably, and they weren't about to do anything about Iraq (mainly because of France and Germany, which were both profiting from under-the-table illegal trade with Saddam). So, if the UN doesn't do it, does that mean it just shouldn't be done, or should somebody else pick up the torch? I agree, it's not America's job to police the world. It's the UN's job--but since the UN doesn't do their job, it's America's responsibility as a superpower and a country which prides itself on its moral convictions to do what should be done. And as for the Iraqi people ousting Saddam...they already tried that. More than once, I believe, but the most recent was after the Persian Gulf War. All resistance against Saddam's regime was brutally crushed. Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands slaughtered, thousands tortured and executed, some buried in mass graves, some left to rot in the streets they died in.
[/q]

You know what, this would all be valid except for one small thing. Our government doesnt care about the iraqi's really. Its just that, Bush has a reason to want to be in iraq. Oil. Now, the same types of Atrocities that you just mentioned went on in African countries for years and America never stepped in once. If our government cares so much about that type of stuff, why didnt it do something about that? Why does it let those african countries still suffer. You could label those people who terrorize its citizens terrorist. But america wont do a damn thing about it there. Why? Cause they get nothing out of helping those countries.
Also, why does our moral convictions have to be FORCED on a nation that is run differently than ours? What makes us right and makes them wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

But I did notice that nik0tine defended me. Twice. Wow.

---

Well, you most certainly piss me off sometimes. I know that I piss you off sometimes. However, just because we dissagree doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up for each other when we need it. How on Earth can I help make this world a better place if I can't even get past our political differences? We're all human, and we should all look out for each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

And that, well...everytime I see your avatar, nik0tine, I think you're a lady. I dunno. You debate like a lady would, too, for the most part.

---

Was that an insult? It sure sounds like one...

Also, I don't see why what I posted did not warrent a reply. It's a simple fact that this war was waged for purposes of power, as all wars are. Now, I must say that good things have come out of this war, but the intent was never to help people. I believe that you are there with the intent to help people, and I believe that in your heart, your intentions are, for the most part, good. However, the politicians who sent you there have a different agenda. It makes no sense to believe that a politicians would spend billions of dollars on a war with the intent to help people. It just doesn't add up, sorry. If you think it does, I would be glad to hear your rebuttal.

I guess whether or not you see the war on terror to solely exist as an excuse to war is up to you. Maybe it doesn't, but I have my doubts. However, to deny the fact that it was used as a reason to go to war is undeniable.

Quote:

---

Also, why does our moral convictions have to be FORCED on a nation that is run differently than ours? What makes us right and makes them wrong?

---

What America is doing isn't necessarily right. However, what Saddam was doing was most definetly WRONG. However, that still doesn't give us the right to overthrow him, at least not for the reasons that we did. If it was REALLY about Saddam we could have had him and his kids assasinated, and we could have incited a revolution in Iraq, and then supplied the rebels with arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

How on Earth can I help make this world a better place if I can't even get past our political differences? We're all human, and we should all look out for each other.

---

I couldn't agree more. I don't exactly agree with many political arguements that Sasquatch has, but I'm not going to counter every arguement he has even if I agree with it.

I also agree that there's probably something seriously wrong with that white male president's example I gave, and that there was a serious misunderstanding on the racism issue. I didn't intend to give the impression I thought EVERYONE was racist in the south, I was actually giving an example of a generalization to make a point about something offtopic which I can hardly remember at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

(By the way, you double-posted, you moron.) (Just kidding! I don't mean it!) ... (Seriously, I hope you're not offended at that, I was just making a joke. I hope other people think it's funny, including you. If you are offended, I'll gladly edit it out.)

---

I'm sure everyone was rolling with laughter after that 'joke'. I didn't see anything wrong with double posting, considering I was replying to two seperate people, one response which I didn't even see until after I had posted the first time. I guess that makes me a moron. Oh whoops, you were just joking!

God, that was hilarious.

EDIT: I put both posts together into one post, to prevent being called a moron again.

SKEET SKEET SKEET

Edit by D: Don't spam in a serious topic please.

Damn y'all, lighten up. nik0tine, I in no way meant that as an insult. Gwel, I apologize for that comment, and I'll go back and edit it back out. I thought it was amuzing, but apparently you take offense to it. I don't want to hurt your feelings.

"Yes, i know all of this. But that is exactly what im talking about when i talk of America's hypocracy. We only wanted to do something about terrorism when it hit us. Had 9/11 never happened, we wouldnt have given one thought about terrorism."

What's your point? How is that hypocritical? America didn't realize the threat until they were attacked. And? If we had never had a terrorist attack against us, what would be our reasoning for fighting a war against terrorism? We would have no standing, and no support.

"Well that would depend on what you describe as a terrorist act. Maybe they are the vast majority, but they are not the ONLY ones commiting terrorist acts. my point was, a terrorist could be anybody. Therefore taking the "War on Terrorism" to the middle east and no where else is stupid because terrorism has no country."

Again I ask, how many terrorists--other than the ones I've already pointed out--have you heard of that weren't Arab? Alright, there was the French guy that got caught trying to light a fuse to his shoe. And maybe the people in Japan that released the nerve agent into the subway. Who else? The 9/11 hijackers? All of 'em? Arab. The Madrid train bombers? Arab. And obviously those terrorists in the Middle East would mostly be of Middle Eastern heritage. You're right, terrorism has no country. But there's no point in going from door to door looking for poeple that we know are in another state, you get the drift?

"You know what, this would all be valid except for one small thing. Our government doesnt care about the iraqi's really. Its just that, Bush has a reason to want to be in iraq. Oil...Also, why does our moral convictions have to be FORCED on a nation that is run differently than ours? What makes us right and makes them wrong?"

Now you can use the "war for oil" crap all you want, I won't even bother responding to such an ignorant statement. It's been shown time and time again that this war is not about oil, in fact the U.S. is getting no more oil now from Iraq than it was a few years ago. And why do we have to "force" our moral convictions on another nation? BECAUSE SADDAM WAS SLAUGHTERING AND TORTURING HIS OWN PEOPLE! Is that so hard to understand? And there's nothing they could do about it. It's not like we're trying to convert them all to Christianity, we're ousting a cruel dictator and putting in somebody that will better serve the interests of the people--and, it's said, no doubt will also better serve the interests of the United States, or the Western World in general.

nik0tine, again, I didn't mean offense. And I realized that nothing in your post warranted a reply from be because it was mainly about the war on terror, which we obviously have to very differing opinions of, and it wouldn't do any good.

Gwel, you okay buddy? You need a hug? C'mere and get a hug. Come on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

"You know what, this would all be valid except for one small thing. Our government doesnt care about the iraqi's really. Its just that, Bush has a reason to want to be in iraq. Oil...Also, why does our moral convictions have to be FORCED on a nation that is run differently than ours? What makes us right and makes them wrong?"

Now you can use the "war for oil" crap all you want, I won't even bother responding to such an ignorant statement. It's been shown time and time again that this war is not about oil, in fact the U.S. is getting no more oil now from Iraq than it was a few years ago. And why do we have to "force" our moral convictions on another nation? BECAUSE SADDAM WAS SLAUGHTERING AND TORTURING HIS OWN PEOPLE! Is that so hard to understand? And there's nothing they could do about it. It's not like we're trying to convert them all to Christianity, we're ousting a cruel dictator and putting in somebody that will better serve the interests of the people--and, it's said, no doubt will also better serve the interests of the United States, or the Western World in general.

---

Nice way to edit out the bulk of that paragraph. Once again, if america is so righteous, why doesnt it help the African countries who have dictators who are as bad as Saddam was? And in those countries their leaders are as you so nicely put it, "SLAUGHTERING AND TORTURING HIS OWN PEOPLE!". Yet...We do nothin there. why? But you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence:

"...and, it's said, no doubt will also better serve the interests of the United States, or the Western World in general."


We have no reason to really want to see a free iraq. It doesnt benifit us that iraq be free. Unless...there was something in it for us. The oil is there, and that DOES benifit Bush's agenda. Sas, you gotta be able to come up with a better reason for why we are really in iraq. Its obvious that the American government doesnt give a damn about freedom around the world. So what other reason is there to be in iraq.

[q=Sasquatch]
"Yes, i know all of this. But that is exactly what im talking about when i talk of America's hypocracy. We only wanted to do something about terrorism when it hit us. Had 9/11 never happened, we wouldnt have given one thought about terrorism."

What's your point? How is that hypocritical? America didn't realize the threat until they were attacked. And? If we had never had a terrorist attack against us, what would be our reasoning for fighting a war against terrorism? We would have no standing, and no support.[/q]

I see that you are one of those people that dont care about anything until it affects you. Terrorism has been going on forever. No one ever thought about fighting a war against terrorism until now. its hypocritical because terrorism has been going on for forever and we NEVER thought to do anything about it. Your right though, there would have been no support. Why? Because the American people dont give a damn what happens outside of america. But when it happened to us, now the world is so much more unsafe and we gotta go off and fight a war on false pretences. Thats why its hypocritical.

Hi guys.

First of all, this thread has gone WAY off topic. This isn't about the Bush Administration or about how much you hate rednecks or southerners, nor is it about the war in Iraq or former President Lincoln. This thread is about the use of homosexuality as a poor tactic for debate, and how The Redneck feels it has been used by liberals throughout the years (prior to the conversion to political correctness) as an attack. My point? This is the topic, stay on it.

Secondly, there are some of you who are indirectly trolling/flaming and you KNOW who you are. Because it's indirect and I'm not about to get into a giant argument about why I edited your posts, my hands are tied on the issue. But stop it, or someone will have to 1) Delete your posts or 2) Close the thread all together.

Finally, keep all your opinions about your fellow members to yourself. If you think I'm a drooling idiot, that's perfectly alright, but saying so in the thread is NOT. Cut it out.

Basically, everybody use your common sense. Please.

Quote:

---

Nice way to edit out the bulk of that paragraph. Once again, if america is so righteous, why doesnt it help the African countries who have dictators who are as bad as Saddam was? And in those countries their leaders are as you so nicely put it, "SLAUGHTERING AND TORTURING HIS OWN PEOPLE!". Yet...We do nothin there. why? But you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence:

"...and, it's said, no doubt will also better serve the interests of the United States, or the Western World in general."


We have no reason to really want to see a free iraq. It doesnt benifit us that iraq be free. Unless...there was something in it for us. The oil is there, and that DOES benifit Bush's agenda. Sas, you gotta be able to come up with a better reason for why we are really in iraq. Its obvious that the American government doesnt give a damn about freedom around the world. So what other reason is there to be in iraq.

---

Who's interest should America look out for? The French? The Japanese? Zimbabwe? I agree that we should try to encourage freedom and democracy in places other than the ME, but you are asking America to do things that you would not ask of any other country. Every country acts in its own best interest.

Anyway, the only time I've actually heard a person declare that a person opposed to them was gay was a preacher who was trying to convince people that evolution was false. One of the things he said was that evolutionists promote evolution because they are homosexual and therefore they don't want to believe in God because he says gayness is wrong. I've never heard a liberal say something like that, because for the most part liberals support gay rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

Quote:

---

Nice way to edit out the bulk of that paragraph. Once again, if america is so righteous, why doesnt it help the African countries who have dictators who are as bad as Saddam was? And in those countries their leaders are as you so nicely put it, "SLAUGHTERING AND TORTURING HIS OWN PEOPLE!". Yet...We do nothin there. why? But you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence:

"...and, it's said, no doubt will also better serve the interests of the United States, or the Western World in general."


We have no reason to really want to see a free iraq. It doesnt benifit us that iraq be free. Unless...there was something in it for us. The oil is there, and that DOES benifit Bush's agenda. Sas, you gotta be able to come up with a better reason for why we are really in iraq. Its obvious that the American government doesnt give a damn about freedom around the world. So what other reason is there to be in iraq.

---

Who's interest should America look out for? The French? The Japanese? Zimbabwe? I agree that we should try to encourage freedom and democracy in places other than the ME, but you are asking America to do things that you would not ask of any other country. Every country acts in its own best interest.

---

no no no no no. Im not asking america to do anything but to live up to what it says. I know that every country does things in its own interest. I have no problem with that. But, if you saying that your doing this for the world and your really just lying to your own people and blatantly showing it and just really pushing your own personal agenda , then, i have a problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skogs

You miss my point completely. I KNOW that for God's sake. But for now all anyone seems to do is throw stereotypes around as a way of avoiding talking about the real issues. That goes for BOTH sides of the debate!

---

I couldn't agree with you more. Both Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of labeling and stereotyping their political opponents. Furthermore, when we disagree with someone else's position on an issue, it is important to remember to attack their position rather than their person.

Consider this: Are you likely to listen to another person's argument if they begin by personally insulting you? On the other hand, would you be more likely to listen if they first acknowledge your position, and then explain the points on which they disagree?

Case in point: Debate will get us nowhere unless we look beyond labels such as "liberal" or "conservative"; "Democrat" or "Republican", and focus on the issue at hand. The moment you personally attack another person, you may as well throw the towel in, as you have lost all hope of convincing them to accept your position.

Persuasion is only effective if you are able to first understand the other person's viewpoint and why they hold their position. Compromise is also effective--if you are on the same page, and you are willing to concede part of your argument, they will probably be willing to do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mihalis

I couldn't agree with you more. Both Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of labeling and stereotyping their political opponents. Furthermore, when we disagree with someone else's position on an issue, it is important to remember to attack their position rather than their person.

Consider this: Are you likely to listen to another person's argument if they begin by personally insulting you? On the other hand, would you be more likely to listen if they first acknowledge your position, and then explain the points on which they disagree?

Case in point: Debate will get us nowhere unless we look beyond labels such as "liberal" or "conservative"; "Democrat" or "Republican", and focus on the issue at hand. The moment you personally attack another person, you may as well throw the towel in, as you have lost all hope of convincing them to accept your position.

Persuasion is only effective if you are able to first understand the other person's viewpoint and why they hold their position. Compromise is also effective--if you are on the same page, and you are willing to concede part of your argument, they will probably be willing to do the same.

---

Well said, I quite agree. Bravo.

Few things....

First, Sasquatch--
There's one small problem--the missile defense "lie" actually works--or at least has so far in 5 out of 6 tests. In this age of terrorism when we have more to worry about from truck-bombs than from ICBMs it's not nearly as useful as it was when it was us vs. the Communists, but it's up there now.

And second, the shoebomber "Richard Colson Ried" was known to French authorities as Tariq Raja, and at the time he tried to bomb a plane he answered to Abdel Rahim. Likewise, 19 out of the 20 men on the FBI's Most Wanted List are Arabic, and half answer to "Mohammed".

About McCarthy--those attacking him need to be aware of the Venona Project, which I linked to in my first post. The short version--in 1943, we were scared that there would be another Hitler-Stalin pact; Russia was suffering severely from the war, even if they were winning, and Germany was fighting a two-front war, which is nearly always bad. If such a pact had succeeded, then the Nazis may very well have taken over all of Europe and used it as a springboard to Africa and eventually the United States. Therefore, we wanted to know as much about it as we possibly could, and thus the Army Special Branch started working on breaking the Soviet Code. We haven't yet decoded them all, but what we have decoded (declassified in 1995) proves something very important: McCarthy's "innocent victims" were indeed Soviet spies.

The Hollywood Blacklisting (oh, the shame that peple wouldn't hire screenwriters supporting a Communist Empire and refusing to tell the truth in court--you wanna see some blacklisting, try being a conservative actor. Humphrey Bogart flew to Washington DC to support them and later called the trip "Ill-advised, even foolish." Lauren Bacall said "We were so naive it was ridiculous.") had nothing to do with McCarthy. Senator McCarthy took up the anti-Communist cause in his 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia--the "HollyWood Ten" were called before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947.

The gay-baiting of Whittaker Chambers was noted in the official deposition of Alger Hiss, Soviet spy. It can also be found in Allen Weinsten's report on the matter, Perjury.

Among the more obvious insinuations, playwright Lillian Hellman referred to McCarthy and his two assistants, Roy Cohn and David Schine (all unmarried men, at the time) as "Bonnie, Bonnie, and Clyde". Hank Greenspun, publisher of the Las Vegas Sun] called McCarthy a "disreputable pervert", and in their final payback the New York Times used Cohn's obituary to "out" him as a homosexual.

Likewise, among the most famous gay-baiting of Hoover was the musical comedy written by Harry Shearer and Tom Leopold, J. Edgar!, from the Aspen Comedy Arts Festival in 2003 (the same folks that gave their "Freedom of Speech Award" to Micheal Moore two years in a row.).


As for Reagan's defeat of communism, I'm going to put that to a new thread.

Liberalism, Conservatism, individuals are relativly good people that want what's best.

But when they get in large numbers God help us. The views become peverted and disgusting.

Take homosexuality as you meationed for example. It's great that we live in a country where people want to see these misfits have equal rights because they were born differantly, as well as they should, homosexuals are people too.

But that's not enough, they have to shove it down our throat every five moments, they have to expose our children to it constantly with hidden and sometimes blatant messages, they have to have annual parades, possibly even a "gay-day", all this attention and commercialism cannot POSSIBLY allow a homosexual to appear just like Joe Dude down the street And Lord forgive me if I say something you interput wrong or don't much like me saying about them.. :mad:

So then I look to conservatives, who believe in tradition and following the values of the Bible. This seems good, untill they condemn poor gays and either ignore them completely, treat them like crap, or do thier best to "re-habilate" them like thier some kind of lunatic. It's horrible.

The problem lies not in your cause or your actions but you damn gluttony. It's never enough for you, and that's why all your plans fail. Just like super villains in comic-books, if they were just happy and celebrated the success they got and didn't aim for something ten times bigger they'd be alot better off.

Oh, you don't know how great you made me feel with that last post Harvest Moon! :D

I agree with you 100%. I'm all for gays just being left alone and treated as people. But as it is with certain "femenists" and "black rights activists" and other people of this form, they get "equality" and "special treatment" mixed up. You say you want "equality", so how do you try to achieve it? By dancing around out in the street waving pink flags in leather boytoy bondage gear to it's raining men? Ummm....wrong answer...

I think gays getting married and going out to dance together and whatever is cool. But the pride parades and the basic selling of homosexuality as it is currently, or so it seems (Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, anyone?), it's rediculous. Gays are people too, but there's absolutely no reason to throw your sexuality in everyone's faces like that and then turn around and say "OMG HOMOPHOBE!" when someone says something about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

Oh, you don't know how great you made me feel with that last post Harvest Moon! :D

I agree with you 100%. I'm all for gays just being left alone and treated as people. But as it is with certain "femenists" and "black rights activists" and other people of this form, they get "equality" and "special treatment" mixed up. You say you want "equality", so how do you try to achieve it? By dancing around out in the street waving pink flags in leather boytoy bondage gear to it's raining men? Ummm....wrong answer...

I think gays getting married and going out to dance together and whatever is cool. But the pride parades and the basic selling of homosexuality as it is currently, or so it seems (Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, anyone?), it's rediculous. Gays are people too, but there's absolutely no reason to throw your sexuality in everyone's faces like that and then turn around and say "OMG HOMOPHOBE!" when someone says something about it.

---

DMKA, I don't think I've ever agreed with anything you've said more than I agreed with that post. (Actually, I don't know if I've ever agreed with anything else you've said...but I'm sure there's been something.) Anyway, well said. And you even mentioned the "fight for equality" involving black people, too.

I have to agree with harvest moon here. I think i'll post more later when I can articulate what I am thinking better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AkiraMakie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwelenguchenkus

The war on terror is a joke. You can't fight terrorism with war.

I don't think all southern states are racist. I Definitely don't think that, despite what I have said. I'm not that ignorant. In certain areas there is some heavy racism still however, texas specifically. If you don't think so, then you're wrong. I've known some people from texas who have told me about the racism in the areas they lived in. I don't think everyone in texas is white, either. Also, I never said I had any stance on the war, I was giving an example, although you probably implied I was liberal from my examples, but actually, I'm neither conservative or liberal. I dont' want to get into a political debate. I don't appreciate you accusing me of ignorance and then insulting me.

The traditional definition of a redneck is a poor, uneducated white person usualy living in the country side in the southern US. Used as an insult, it's more of saying you 'act' like such, and that is more of a matter of opinion, so you can think whatever the heck you want for your definition. A dictionary doesn't define a word, people do.

I never even said that if you support the war you're a warmongor. In fact, I take that whole statement as completely radical, and probably not the best example, since I pissed you off just by using it. I "labeled" southerners as racist to get a point across on ust that subject, labeling. Political correstness has all to do with labeling. I kind of went off on a tangent.

I like how you used genius sarcastically, as if I was an idiot. I know you enjoy ripping my arguements to shreds. I was never trying to offend you, yet you explode with such hatred. You have some serious anger issues.

---

Dont get Sasquatch Started. He's gonna try and make his agenda and his beliefs seem like its the absolute truth. He cant debate without making snide remarks and insults about people.


Anywayz, that war on terror is a joke. There was never a war against us. The thing about america is, although 9/11 was a terrible thing, we only got a little taste of what the world goes through ALL THE TIME. This wasnt even the first time america has had a terrorism attack. They tried to blow up the WTC back in 1993/94. Terrorism isnt something new. Its just new to us. We as americans have a silly way of thinking that we are safe in america from outside forces. Its a foolish belief, but its the only one we know because thats all we've had. There is no way to fight an army that has no country or face. Who do we fight? Do we only fight arabs to fight terrorism? What about terrorist who come from white countries? What about terrorist that come from black countries? What about jewish Terrorist? This war on terror is a complete joke and a waste of money. I supported bush when he wanted to go after Osama. That was justified, but when he wanted to go into Iraq, it didnt make since. Saddam was a bad person but come on. He wasn't a Direct treat to america. I dont want to even here that right-wing BS about how he was. He wasnt. Not only that, when his arguement about WMD's in iraq fell through, he started sprouting off crap about fighting for iraqi freedom. Why the hell is that our job? If those iraqi's had wanted saddam out, they should have (and eventually would have) ousted his regiem themselves. Why should we be even forcing democracy in the middle east. Who cares. Thats another problem with america. We wanted to be separate from england so that we could be free to do what we please, and yet, we tell the rest of the world they have to be a democracy. Cause its the "right" thing to be. SAys who? Thats why arab countries hate us. We are a land of hypocracies. Our government says one thing, then does another. The sad thing is, People are so concerned now about the labels we call ourselves that we either have to be Liberal or concervative. So its come down to either being agaisnt the war or for the war, without either side taking a look at whats really going on here. We are being LIED to day in and day out by our government and no one is making a big deal about it.

Now Sasquatch, in know your gonna sprout off to me some crap about you being in the Army so you presumed to know so much more than everybody else, but who cares. The keep the military in the dark just as much as the public. Your job is to fight the war and follow orders. So unless your pretty high up in rank, you dont know much more than anybody else does. Oh, thank you for serving the country though.( not sarcastic). Somebody has to protect iraqi freedom and stop terrorism ( sarcastic)

---

yeah my opinion on this would probaly get me banned.Like by saying Bush preyed on the fears of americans what group which im not saying but if oyur sas then you know what im talking about and if your akira then you know what im talking about and if you watched bowling for Colubime then you know what im talking about.When the OKC bombing happened man i remember that.We were in class and we were saying the pledge of allegiance then booom the whole building jsut started to shake and there was a load sound.That classified as a terrorist attack yeah Tuesday was its anniversary.

I was, am, and will probably always be against the war. Those Middle-Eastern people are smurfing crazy, I don't think it's a good idea for us to be messing with them unless we want to expose our people to biological warfare and confusing battles/alliances..

Nor do I believe terrorism is something you could fight, that's like saying "I declare war on evil!"

However Saddam Hussein WAS an asshole, so i'm not heart-broken over it.

Despite how I know this is all a mass conspiracy. :mad: