• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Conservative Voices (Split from Muller Investigation)

Lambchops said:
In this thread: American conservatives defending David Duke and the KKK.

And you wonder why the rest of the civilized world is laughing at you. You Trumpists really have jumped the shark. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Who is defending Duke? Why don't you do us a favor and copy and paste the person defending him for us all. Duke and Farrakhan are on the same level of disgusting to me. Opinions may vary.
 
Re: Sharia. American Christians froth at the mouth to condemn the notion that Sharia take hold anywhere in the US, but they can get equally frothy trying to impose legislation based on aspects of their faith (well, the parts they like at least). Degrees of violence and repression notwithstanding, Christians are evidently TOTALLY COOL with authoritarian, faith-based government.
 
The Shrike said:
Re: Sharia. American Christians froth at the mouth to condemn the notion that Sharia take hold anywhere in the US, but they can get equally frothy trying to impose legislation based on aspects of their faith (well, the parts they like at least). Degrees of violence and repression notwithstanding, Christians are evidently TOTALLY COOL with authoritarian, faith-based government.
Click to expand...

Upchurch, I agree repubs use it also but not nearly to the extent that democrats do.


The Shrike: My point is the hypocrisy in many liberals that would embrace the idea of someone that promotes sharia law beliefs as a womens march co chair. As we all know sharia and christianity have a violent history. This does not negate the bad choice, or message that is sent by doing so.

It would seem the message of feminism is changing quite a bit.

Personally, I'm atheist and only read of religions for entertainment and historical purposes.
 
River said:
Who is defending Duke? Why don't you do us a favor and copy and paste the person defending him for us all. Duke and Farrakhan are on the same level of disgusting to me. Opinions may vary.
Click to expand...
For the benefit of you, Rip Van Winkle, and any others emerging from a long nap. Our president performing an excellent imitation of Sergeant Schultz, on the heels of an endorsement from Duke. Some of them are fine people after all.

Bigot in Chief said:
I don't know anything about David Duke, I don't know what you're talking about with white supremacy ... I know nothing about David Duke, I know nothing about white supremacists.
Click to expand...


​
Seeing as he knows exactly who David Duke is, I'm hoping this weaseling will be recognized for what it is. By the way, I also hope for a pony.
 
River said:
Democrats need a new message, the identity politics is tired.
Click to expand...



That may be true but several non-Democrats in this very thread have explained the wrongness of your argument. Arguing against nebulous straw man arguments is easy.

Someone noted that David Duke represents a terrorist organization that has tortured and terrorized and killed people and you started talking about “speeches.” Similarly you quoted some ridiculous pundit argument about creeping Sharia which is not a thing.
Please try to do better.
 
River said:
Democrats need a new message, the identity politics is tired.
Click to expand...

Another example of "Identity politics" actually meaning "concern for the life and wealth of people who are not straight white men."

(Which brings us back where we started, the overt white supremacism and hatred of LGBT people shown by Toupee Fiasco, Tucker Carlson, and so forth - which is somehow not "Identity Politics", despite being specifically designed to inflict state violence on people based on real or perceived identities in order to feed the misplaced anger of white people who feel that, for example, black people walking fearlessly home from a 7-11 is a massive affront to them, personally.)
 
Last edited:
River said:
It would seem the message of feminism is changing quite a bit.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Looks more to me like women are finally getting serious about it, as are millions of us men.

These days women don't need men for financial stability ('cause they can work), or having children (sperm banks/fertility clinics/adoptions work great), or for sex (relaxed social stigma regarding same sex relationships permits more women to have WAY better sex with each other than they generally do with us). Women can (generally) lead fun, fulfilling lives with their best friend without having to live up to beauty standards dictated by men, don't have to worry about smelly drunk bullies coming home to beat them up, etc.

If women so choose men truly are obsolete these days, and that scares the ever-living crap out of a lot of men. In 2018, dudes actually have to provide good reason for women to spend time with them. That's what's "changed" about feminism. They're well and truly done with our bs.
 
varwoche said:
For the benefit of you, Rip Van Winkle, and any others emerging from a long nap. Our president performing an excellent imitation of Sergeant Schultz, on the heels of an endorsement from Duke. Some of them are fine people after all.




​
Seeing as he knows exactly who David Duke is, I'm hoping this weaseling will be recognized for what it is. By the way, I also hope for a pony.
Click to expand...

This might help you. If it doesn't well... (including 17 years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoXThCb8EZA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeK-f3_7Wv4
 
The Shrike said:
I dunno. Looks more to me like women are finally getting serious about it, as are millions of us men.

These days women don't need men for financial stability ('cause they can work), or having children (sperm banks/fertility clinics/adoptions work great), or for sex (relaxed social stigma regarding same sex relationships permits more women to have WAY better sex with each other than they generally do with us). Women can (generally) lead fun, fulfilling lives with their best friend without having to live up to beauty standards dictated by men, don't have to worry about smelly drunk bullies coming home to beat them up, etc.

If women so choose men truly are obsolete these days, and that scares the ever-living crap out of a lot of men. In 2018, dudes actually have to provide good reason for women to spend time with them. That's what's "changed" about feminism. They're well and truly done with our bs.
Click to expand...

I agree on a lot of levels here. If that scares men, so be it. I think it's great.

The part we disagree on is, there seems to be a different message coming out of feminism than say 20 years ago. I don't think it's unexpected or a surprise to many considering other changes in our culture in the last 20 years or so. Everything seems to be more extreme, or the polarization becomes more clear.
 
Mumbles said:
Another example of "Identity politics" actually meaning "concern for the life and wealth of people who are not straight white men."

(Which brings us back where we started, the overt white supremacism and hatred of LGBT people shown by Toupee Fiasco, Tucker Carlson, and so forth - which is somehow not "Identity Politics", despite being specifically designed to inflict state violence on people based on real or perceived identities in order to feed the misplaced anger of white people who feel that, for example, black people walking fearlessly home from a 7-11 is a massive affront to them, personally.)
Click to expand...

Identity politics meaning: i·den·ti·ty pol·i·tics
noun a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

However, your definition definitely says a lot about your perspective.
 
River said:
Identity politics meaning: i·den·ti·ty pol·i·tics
noun a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

However, your definition definitely says a lot about your perspective.
Click to expand...

"Traditional and "Broad-based" makes no sense whatsoever in combination, in terms of US politics and racial/ethnic/LGBT issues. In fact, "traditional" politics is, again, overtly hostile to any such broad political base.

ETA: As I said in the thread that this conversation spun off from, Carlson may as well get his talking points from forums with names like "Stormfront" or "Chimpout", for his obvious disdain for "diversity" and the like. Dolt 45 is even more obvious, outright calling for a nationwide police harassment based on skin color, winking and nodding towards outright Nazi fetishists and terrorists, and the like. And that explains why both attract white supremacist, Nazi wannabes, and other such trash humans so strongly. And for all of your kicking and howling about how this is somehow "Identity Politics", you have never posted an actual, substantial reply to any substantial points (no, a video from Mark Dice is not substantial).
 
Last edited:
River said:
I agree on a lot of levels here. If that scares men, so be it. I think it's great.

The part we disagree on is, there seems to be a different message coming out of feminism than say 20 years ago. I don't think it's unexpected or a surprise to many considering other changes in our culture in the last 20 years or so. Everything seems to be more extreme, or the polarization becomes more clear.
Click to expand...

It's not much different. Feminism has always been about individual freedom and fairness. That women are fairly treated. That they are not excluded from opportunities simply because they have ovaries. That they are fairly compensated and that they have the freedom to make their own choices without men telling them what to do. They get to be able to say yes or no to men regarding sex. They have full control over their own bodies and have full access to birth control.
 
What, exactly, is the fear of gender equality going a bit too far? Do men expect all marriages to become polyandrous? That all men will be forced to stay at home and change diapers while their wives go out drinking and having a fling?
 
acbytesla said:
It's not much different. Feminism has always been about individual freedom and fairness. That women are fairly treated. That they are not excluded from opportunities simply because they have ovaries. That they are fairly compensated and that they have the freedom to make their own choices without men telling them what to do. They get to be able to say yes or no to men regarding sex. They have full control over their own bodies and have full access to birth control.
Click to expand...

For instance: this or this. I think whoever came up with the idea of the pussy hats and marketed them made a nice penny though! Capitalism at its best. IMHO, and as someone that is all for equal rights for women (or anyone) the types of things I just posted are not a good front for feminism.

codepink.jpg

Stupid-Leftists-multicolored-vagina-protesters.jpg

feminism_2.jpg

vagina-hat.jpg
 
The Great Zaganza said:
What, exactly, is the fear of gender equality going a bit too far? Do men expect all marriages to become polyandrous? That all men will be forced to stay at home and change diapers while their wives go out drinking and having a fling?
Click to expand...

Personally, I am amazed that there are as many marriages as there are. Most men are pigs and not attractive. We're all not Chris Hemsworth.. I know that if I was a woman I'd be a lesbian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom