Ed Perry's property named ******head

[Noztradamus]

Political parties are redefined all the time. Political ideologies aren't.

Conservatism is and always has been the ideology that embraces bigotry.

We have always been at war with Eastasia

Again: Woodrow Wilson

 

[Newtons Bit]

Bigotry isn't confined to just racism.

So you no longer think that they're racist?

Same-sex couples who wish to marry might disagree.

And I'm sure people that want reparations disagree as well.

While "Traditional Marriage" is part of the 2008 GOP platform, it's not on some of the state platforms. So, are the GOP in Massachusetts conservatives? If so, maybe you could point out what part of the platform is bigoted?

 

[johnny karate]

So you no longer think that they're racist?

I never said they were racist.

While "Traditional Marriage" is part of the 2008 GOP platform, it's not on some of the state platforms. So, are the GOP in Massachusetts conservatives? If so, maybe you could point out what part of the platform is bigoted?

I never claimed all member of the GOP are bigoted. But there's no denying that the GOP - or more accurately, Conservatives - by and large are anti-gay, i.e. bigots. Pointing out exceptions does not disprove that thesis.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I never said they were racist.

Perhaps not, but concluding that's what you meant in a thread about racism seems reasonable.

I never claimed all member of the GOP are bigoted. But there's no denying that the GOP - or more accurately, Conservatives - by and large are anti-gay, i.e. bigots. Pointing out exceptions does not disprove that thesis.

You pointed out that conservative ideology ALWAYS embraces bigotry. Remember this:

Conservatism is and always has been the ideology that embraces bigotry.

So is the Massachusetts GOP conservative? Are they embracing some sort of bigotry it in a hidden conspiratorial fashion? Maybe the GOP in Massachusetts is sad that they don't have anything bigoted to embrace right now.

I doubt you'll answer the question and I don't care to continue this stupid tangent much further. I'll just say that it is incredibly prejudicial to paint an entire movement with as large as a brush as you have.

 

[johnny karate]

Perhaps not, but concluding that's what you meant in a thread about racism seems reasonable.

What's even more reasonable is to address things I've said as opposed to things you assume I believe.

You pointed out that conservative ideology ALWAYS embraces bigotry.

From a historical perspective, it does.

So is the Massachusetts GOP conservative? Are they embracing some sort of bigotry it in a hidden conspiratorial fashion? Maybe the GOP in Massachusetts is sad that they don't have anything bigoted to embrace right now.

You're conflating individual members of the GOP with the ideology of conservatism as a whole. The conservative movement of the last few years is virulently anti-gay. That a small minority of the GOP might not subscribe to that anti-gay sentiment doesn't change that.

I'll just say that it is incredibly prejudicial to paint an entire movement with as large as a brush as you have.

Let the non-bigoted conservatives make an effort to wrest control of their movement from the anti-gay bigots, and then maybe I'll be more careful not to hurt their feelings with my prejudice.

 

[Newtons Bit]

What's even more reasonable is to address things I've said as opposed to things you assume I believe.

Oh please. The topic was racism. If you wanted to talk about a different form of bigotry than racism, on a thread about racism and seemingly in reply to a post about a party switching from being racist to not then you should have made that clear.

You're conflating individual members of the GOP with the ideology of conservatism as a whole. The conservative movement of the last few years is virulently anti-gay. That a small minority of the GOP might not subscribe to that anti-gay sentiment doesn't change that.

No I'm not. The national GOP platform is opposed to gay marriage at a national level. Many of the local branches of the GOP are not. You said always. I've provided an obvious example of how obvious is in fact incorrect. You're welcome to backtrack and say "sometimes" if you like. At which point someone can easily point out that your argument is hypocritical.

You're also confusing conservatives with the GOP. They're not identical. You're also making the assumption that conservatism is a single ideology. It's not. There are many different forms of "conservatism". The only one that most members of the GOP ascribe to is that of fiscal conservatism, but even that isn't unanimous.

No one has to wrest control of my particular ideology of conservatism away from the anti-gay people. Why? Because it's not the same ideology. I do have the problem with the national GOP platform being anti-gay. But that's not my ideology either.

Maybe you'd like to reform your argument as "social conservatism is and always has been the ideology that embraces bigotry." You'd be pretty close to correct there. But then in a topic about Democrats, Republicans and racism you'd be posting a fairly silly non-sequitur.

eta:

Let the non-bigoted conservatives make an effort to wrest control of their movement from the anti-gay bigots, and then maybe I'll be more careful not to hurt their feelings with my prejudice.

Do you expect me to tell you to "CRY SOME MOAR" next time you correct a ridiculous assertion by a right-winger on this forum? No, of course not. Because correcting ridiculous assertions have nothing to do with hurt feelings. They have everything to do with ridiculous assertions.

 

[varwoche]

Correction:

But then in a topic sidetrack about Democrats, Republicans and racism...

 

[Alferd_Packer]

What if you only beat your wife on Tuesdays?

What if you admit that you are a malignant dwarf

 

[mhaze]

Really? Bigotry a common theme amongst conservative ideology? I don't see any bigotry on the GOP platform. They're true conservatives, right? How come they aren't affiliated with the KKK? Why are their people of all races in the GOP?

That statement is dumber than mhaze's claim that Perry left the party of racism.

He didn't leave the party that 100% wanted the KKK organizer and recruiter, Byrd, to be the Majority Leader of the Senate?

Hint.

Yes, he did leave that party during those exact same years.

And historically, is the Democratic party closely associated with racism?

Yes, it is. Check out Woodrow Wilson.

And is it during the term of KKK organizer Robert Bird that the issue of the rock with N---head arose?

Sure 'nuff is.

And what did Perry do?

He left the party that had this convenient, under the table terrorist arm - the KKK - and joined the party that fought for all the major civil rights legislation. And note many, many members of the Republican party were victims of vicious and brutal attacks by the KKK. The KKK, historically no more or less than the terrorist arm of the Democratic party.

He left a party with a long, long history of racism, and painted over the rock, and he joined Republican Party.

 

[johnny karate]

Oh please. The topic was racism. If you wanted to talk about a different form of bigotry than racism, on a thread about racism and seemingly in reply to a post about a party switching from being racist to not then you should have made that clear.

The topic was actually the unfortunate moniker of the Perry family hunting camp. From there it broadened into a larger discussion about racism. I took it a step further and referred to bigotry in general.

The national GOP platform is opposed to gay marriage at a national level. Many of the local branches of the GOP are not. You said always.

That's not at all what I said. Take another look:

Conservatism is and always has been the ideology that embraces bigotry.

That doesn't mean that all conservative are bigots all the time.

It means that when there is bigotry being politicized, it's conservatives who are on the side of the debate in support that bigotry.

 

[mhaze]

.....
That doesn't mean that all conservative are bigots all the time.

It means that when there is bigotry being politicized, it's conservatives who are on the side of the debate in support that bigotry.

Except to support your argument, you have to step outside the political parties of Republican and Democrat. You have to somehow claim that "conservatives" once existed in the Democrat party, and were therein responsible for the persecutions and brutal physical assaults on Republicans by the terrorist arm of the Democrat party, the KKK.

Worse than that, you have to ignore the bigoted, prejudiced subset of the Democratic party today - the radical (and militant) environmental nazis, the hard core socialists, the Black Panthers, the Reverend Wright, and countless other weird puppies.

Down that road, you can't argue, so back to your claim. Somewhere in the "conservatives" lurk bigots. Somewhere. Somewhere in the "conservatives" are really bad bigots. Somewhere.

And you've got a True Scotsman.

 

[mhaze]

Correction:

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit
But then in a topic sidetrack about Democrats, Republicans and racism...

You know what? Next time you start propagating the narrative on a mean, vindictive smear, maybe you should carefully think out whether the counters are there to reverse the argument.

If you don't like where it's headed go whining to the Mods. I know you have more character than that and won't.

So I'm going to lay off now.

 

[Spindrift]

He left a party with a long, long history of racism, and painted over the rock, and he joined Republican Party.

So he could continue with the Party that took over the mantle of racism in the last half of the 20th century?

 

[mhaze]

That's not at all what I said. Take another look:
Quote:
Conservatism is and always has been the ideology that embraces bigotry.

Why thank you that makes everything so nice and clear.

It explains so well Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Casto, Pol Pot....

No...wait...

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Why thank you that makes everything so nice and clear.

It explains so well Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Casto, Pol Pot....

No...wait...

Ah, Goodwin. . . .

 

[mhaze]

Ah, Goodwin. . . .

There should be a phrase for trotting out the entire lineup of left wing mass murderers.

Any suggestion?

MegaGoodwin?

 

[Skepticemea]

Why thank you that makes everything so nice and clear.

It explains so well Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Casto, Pol Pot....

No...wait...

In other news, all birds have wings so planes are actually birds!

 

[Skepticemea]

There should be a phrase for trotting out the entire lineup of left wing mass murderers.

Any suggestion?

MegaGoodwin?

You joke, surely? Hitler and Il Duce? Left wing?

ETA: And how is Pol Pot a bigot? He killed 3 million of his own countrymen!

 

[Newtons Bit]

He didn't leave the party that 100% wanted the KKK organizer and recruiter, Byrd, to be the Majority Leader of the Senate?

Hint.

Yes, he did leave that party during those exact same years.

And historically, is the Democratic party closely associated with racism?

Yes, it is. Check out Woodrow Wilson.

And is it during the term of KKK organizer Robert Bird that the issue of the rock with N---head arose?

Sure 'nuff is.

And what did Perry do?

He left the party that had this convenient, under the table terrorist arm - the KKK - and joined the party that fought for all the major civil rights legislation. And note many, many members of the Republican party were victims of vicious and brutal attacks by the KKK. The KKK, historically no more or less than the terrorist arm of the Democratic party.

He left a party with a long, long history of racism, and painted over the rock, and he joined Republican Party.

Perry was a Democrat until 1989. That's not the civil rights era. And I don't think the Democrats could be called the party of the KKK in 1989...

 

[varwoche]

You know what? Next time you start propagating the narrative on a mean, vindictive smear

Full stop. What makes this a smear? Can you try to answer without the baseline assumption that Perry's word is to be taken at face value, critical thinking be damned?

maybe you should carefully think out whether the counters are there to reverse the argument.

More like:

maybe you should carefully think out whether certain members have a propensity for spewing adhoms and similar forms of neener-neener.