Liberal Forum

Huey » 17 Aug 2017 1:48 am » wrote: How many you up to now?
Lmao!

Misty » 17 Aug 2017 1:54 am » wrote: I don't get this game.
You get mad when I don't reply to your posts and now you are making fun of me for replying to your posts, which BTW, will not happen again.

Sorry conservatives. There’s no equivalence between the extreme right and the extreme left.

The president of the United States, the Republican Party and the conservative movement are all facing a moral crisis brought on by the events in Charlottesville, which were just the most vivid and tragic expression of a broader trend that has emerged in the past two years and especially since Donald Trump took office.

For some, the answer has been simple: condemn the rise of the extreme racist right and any attempt to justify it.

But others have responded by trying to explain it away and shift blame toward — you guessed it — liberals.

There are two interrelated strains to this argument, both equally wrong.

The first says that right-wing extremism exists only because of “political correctness” and “identity politics” on the left.

The second says that as regrettable as the presence of white supremacists and neo-Nazis might be, they are merely the opposite side of the coin to violent extremists on the left, two equivalent symptoms of a deeper malady of the American spirit.

In both cases, the point is to deflect conservatives’ own share of responsibility for the hatred that seems to be spreading.

President Trump first asked reporters to define the "alt-right," before saying members of the "alt-left" were also to blame for violence in Charlottesville, while taking questions from reporters on Aug. 15 at Trump Tower in New York.

So the Wall Street Journal editorial board writes that identity politics is the root problem, since “A politics fixated on indelible differences will inevitably lead to resentments that extremists can exploit in ugly ways on the right and left.”

Conservative writer Rod Dreher is even less ambiguous, characterizing American Nazism and white supremacy as a beast brought forth by liberal political correctness.

“When the Left indulges in rhetoric that demonizes whites — especially white males — it summons the demons of white nationalism,” he writes.

“When the Left obsesses over ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities, but ignores the plight of poor and working-class whites, it summons the demons of white nationalism.”

The Federalist, meanwhile, argues that the real white supremacists can be found at Planned Parenthood, while Michelle Malkin insists that President Trump was absolutely right to allocate blame for Charlottesville equally to both sides, since “of the four people arrested after the violent outbreak in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend, two were identified with the white nationalist movement and the other two were left-wing ‘antifa’ counterprotesters.” So there.

But the idea that these hatemongers are here only because of “identity politics” dissolves under the barest examination.

First of all, the ideology of white supremacy in America is as old as the country itself.

And conservatives have been complaining about left identity politics for a couple of decades now, elevating every minor campus controversy into a national issue as though an argument in the Oberlin College student center demands the urgent attention of every Fox News viewer throughout the land.

Yet somehow, the recent upsurge in the visibility and brazenness of white nationalists coincided with the candidacy and then presidency of Trump. What a coincidence!

The truth is that politics is, and always has been, about identity.

Conservatives like to pretend that it’s only when women or racial minorities make arguments related to their particular concerns that sinister “identity politics” is at work, but nobody plays identity politics with more fervor and vigor than some conservatives do.

When Republicans in the South run ads featuring Nancy Pelosi and shots of San Francisco, are they talking about issues?

When they say their opponents don’t share “[insert our state here] values,” is that a policy argument?

Was the Willie Horton ad about crime policy?

Republicans have been running campaigns based on identity politics, especially white-identity politics, for decades; Trump just made it more explicit.

He built his campaign in large part on the notion that whites in today’s America, and white Christians in particular, are victims — victims of liberals forbidding them from saying “Merry Christmas,” victims of Mexico and China taking their jobs, victims of immigrants transforming their communities, victims of Muslims coming to kill them, victims of elitists in New York and Hollywood creating a culture that excludes them.

Trump promised to wind back the clock to a time when white men occupied an unquestioned place on top of the social hierarchy, and it was that promise that thrilled so many of his supporters.

False equivalence

Now let’s consider the idea that there is an equivalence in America today between the white nationalist/white supremacist/neo-Nazi right and what conservatives increasingly refer to as the “violent left.”

This is the claim Trump made specifically about Charlottesville, but it finds increasing purchase on the right.

It has a surface appeal, when you see a guy in a hoodie with a bandana over his face smashing a Starbucks window.

That’s violent, after all, right? Isn’t all violence bad?

But the differences couldn’t be more profound.

Yes, there are a small number of antifa counterprotesters who show up to scuffle with white supremacists when the latter mount a protest (if you’re unfamiliar, historian Mark Bray explains what antifa is).

And yes, there have been other incidents, such as at Trump’s inaugural, in which antifa activists committed acts of vandalism.

But the far right is 1) large; 2) highly organized; and most importantly, 3) directly tied to the president of the United States and the Republican Party.

Antifa is none of those things.

It is tiny, not organized on a broad scale, and has precisely zero ties to any prominent Democrat.

The president of the United States and leader of the Republican Party is celebrated and endorsed by the white supremacist right (“Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa,” tweeted David Duke Tuesday); the extreme left views Democrats as an enemy.

Trump directly echoes and repeats the arguments and claims of the extreme right, as we saw him do on Tuesday; no elected Democrat shares the radical anti-capitalist ideas of the extreme left.

Trump hired Stephen K. Bannon, who ran the white nationalist website Breitbart, which Bannon himself described as “the platform for the alt-right,” to run his campaign and then to be senior adviser in his White House.

It’s hard to know for certain how many converts the white nationalist movement has gained in the past year or two.

But what we know for certain is that since Trump seized control of the Republican Party, all manner of far-right racial activists — white nationalists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis — have been emboldened to be more public and vocal about their rancid beliefs.

Trump validated them and encouraged them as a candidate, and continues to do so as president.

No conservative can claim that he or she didn’t realize that’s what Trump was doing when they endorsed him, advocated for him and supported him.

They accepted that Trump was an ignorant fool and a misogynistic creep and deeply corrupt — and they also accepted that he was welcoming the racist right with open arms.

It’s nice that so many of them have come out and said they’re opposed to murderous Nazi terrorism.

But however they might try to explain away their own complicity, they can’t blame it on liberals.

Misty » 16 Aug 2017 12:53 pm » wrote:Read your own posts dingbat.
Whataboutism, blame shifting and NO condemnation of Nazis or white supremacists.

WHO TOPPLED THAT STATUE IN DURHAM?
According to local reporting from North Carolina, members of the Workers World Party (WWP) toppled the memorial to Confederate soldiers in Durham. The group said it destroyed the statue hoping to “take down white supremacy.”

I see.

Takiyah Thompson, a member of the WWP who climbed to the top of the statue to tie a rope around its neck, declared: “The people decided to take matters into our own hands and remove the statue.” Dana Milbank has placed Thompson and her commie group squarely among “the rest of us,” so maybe they have cause to think they can act for “the people.”

But what is the WWP? It is a communist party that was founded in 1959. Apparently, it split off from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) because it thought the SWP didn’t sufficiently support Mao’s China and was wrong to condemn the Soviet invasion of Hungary. In other words, the SWP wasn’t viciously totalitarian enough to suit the WWP. Today, the WWP says it’s “dedicated to organizing and fighting for a socialist revolution in the United States and around the world.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... durham.php

ANGRY WHITE BOYS

What do these angry white boys in Virginia want?

What is it these white boys are so angry about? You don’t go to a protest because you’re happy.

You go to a protest because you are mad about something or, in my case, because it is your job.

I suppose I have been to something close to a hundred of them over the years.
[......]
There is some value in taking them at their word, or the 14 of them that make up the basic creed of the white-nationalist movement: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

Well, all right. I suppose there are a few campus radicals who oppose the existence of white people, though so far as I can tell this is mainly rhetoric rather than a plan of action.

The angry white boys talk about “white genocide,” a concept that is as conveniently vague and amorphous as “white privilege,” of which “white genocide” of course is only the rhetorical obverse.

If they are outlandish in generality, they are muddy in specificity.

They complain that white men are blamed for all of society’s troubles, that racial and ethnic pride is permitted to everyone except whites (no one has informed the Irish Americans of this), and that they are being “displaced” by immigrants.

A Charlottesville protester named Nicholas J. Fuentes, raging against the “rootless transnational elite,” vows: “You will not replace us.”

I have reviewed the passenger manifest of the Mayflower, and there is not a single “Fuentes” to be found.

Indeed, the rowdier white-power element in Texas, where I live, would very much like to see every man bearing the name “Fuentes” set down on the southerly side of a muddy little river that runs through Laredo.

Peter Cvjetanovic, the 20-year-old rage-monkey bellowing in one of the now-famous photos of the tiki-Nazi procession in Virginia, complains: “I’m not the angry racist they see in that photo.” One hopes not: “Cvjetanović” is a Croat name.

Not a whole lot of Slavs on the Mayflower, either, and the originators of that swastika flag the angry white boys in Virginia like to fly would have put every Cvjetanović they could lay hands on in a camp, eventually. Benito Mussolini reported that he himself had been impressed by a protest against “Jugo-Slav” immigrants in Italy.

Fuentes? Cvjetanović? As Rachel Dolezal knows, white people just ain’t what they used to be.

What does an angry white boy really want? “A girlfriend,” comes the mocking answer, and there’s probably more to that than mockery.

The proprietor of one of the nation’s premier websites for neo-Nazi knuckleheads advised his colleagues in Charlottesville that, after the protest — which included a murder — “random girls will want to have sex with you.”

I ran this proposition past a few random girls, and I suspect that the apfelstrudelführers are going to go home disappointed.

There are many shades of white, and Mom’s-basement white is the least popular crayon in the box.

Of course we should mock them, criticize them, lament them, and, in the case of James Alex Fields Jr., the trust-funder from Ohio charged in the death of Heather Heyer, prosecute them.

What does James Alex Fields Jr. want?

A transcript of a 911 call from his mother describes him beating her after she told him to stop playing a particular video game.

She is disabled and uses a wheelchair.

That wasn’t the only 911 call she made in fear of her son.

The angry white boys do not have a serious political agenda.

The angry white boys do not have a serious political agenda.

They don’t have any straightforward demands like the Teamsters or PETA do, and they do not have a well-developed ideological position like the Communists do, though it would be inaccurate to say that they lack an ideology entirely.

Their agenda is their anger, an anger that is difficult to understand.

Middle-class white men in the United States of America in anno Domini 2017 have their problems, to be sure.

Life is full of little disappointments.

But their motive is not to be found in their exterior circumstances, which are pretty good.

Maybe too good: A great many of these young men have an interest in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary sociology — they like to think of themselves as “alpha males,” as though they were living in a chimpanzee troop — but it never occurs to them to consider their own status as rejects and failed men in that context.

Online fantasy lives notwithstanding, random girls do not want to have sex with them.

How do we know this?

Because they are carrying tiki torches in a giant dork parade in Charlottesville.

There’s no prom queen waiting at home.

If we credit their own sociobiological model, they are the superfluous males who would have been discarded, along with their genetic material, by the pitiless state of nature.

The fantasy of proving that they are something else is why they dream of violence and confrontation.

They are the products of the soft liberal-democratic society they hold in contempt — and upon which they depend, utterly.

James Alex Fields Jr. is angry at the world, and angry at his mother, probably for the same reason.

What does an angry white boy want?

The fact that they get together to play dress-up — to engage in a large and sometimes murderous game of cowboys and Indians — may give us our answer.

They want to be someone other than who they are.

That’s the great irony of identity politics: They seek identity in the tribe because they are failed individuals.

They are a chain composed exclusively of weak links.

What they are engaged in isn’t politics, but theater: play-acting in the hopes of achieving catharsis.

Their online personas — knights, Vikings, reincarnations of Charles Martel — will be familiar enough to anybody with a Dungeons and Dragons nerd in his life.

But sometimes, role-playing around a card table isn’t enough: Sometimes, you need a stage and an audience.

In the theater, actors and audience both can forget ourselves for an hour or two.

Under the soft glow of the tiki torches, these angry white boys can be something else — for a night.

In the morning, they wake up with the same faces.

And there is something in the faces.

James Alex Fields Jr. has more than a little whiff of Dylann Roof about him, and we know what Dylann Roof wanted: to murder black people.

Sometimes, it is worth taking angry white boys at their word.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -they-want

greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Aug 2017 1:11 am » wrote:Deflection - "Waaaaa, their side is bad too". Except, the left aims their hate at only one target - Spewing fascist bigots.

Roadkill came here and took a stand. "My side is not with the Nazis. I would never be on that side." Roadkill is a man, not a limp dick deflector pretending he can avoid having to denounce fascism by pointing at the other guys.

Be a man like roadkill. Denounce those ****. You'll feel better for it, I promise.

roadkill » 16 Aug 2017 6:14 am » wrote:Your side has been attacking people everywhere...when someone bites back you wonder why?
Yours is today's leading violent ideology.

Misty » 17 Aug 2017 1:00 pm » wrote:blah, blah, blahPretty devastating.

Misty » 16 Aug 2017 11:22 am » wrote: Nazi appeaser.
You probably blame the Jews for the Holocaust.

Misty » 17 Aug 2017 1:00 pm » wrote:
Pretty devastating.

Misty » 16 Aug 2017 1:22 pm » wrote:That's the difference between me and you.
I don't want that Nazi filth in my country.

Misty » 16 Aug 2017 11:45 am » wrote: Whataboutism.
Nazi appeaser.

Misty » 16 Aug 2017 11:44 am » wrote: Nazi appeaser.

Misty » 15 Aug 2017 10:37 pm » wrote: I see Margaret Sanger is the new talking point.
What a coincidence that you mentioned her and there's also a thread about her on the forum tonight.

Huey » 16 Aug 2017 9:10 pm » wrote: Ps. You live in PA. This is not your concern.

Huey » 16 Aug 2017 10:19 pm » wrote: So Misty, you live in PA. What do you care about VA?

Huey » 16 Aug 2017 10:43 pm » wrote: So Misty, why are you concerned about this statue in a state that you do not live in?

Huey » 17 Aug 2017 12:21 am » wrote: I live in VA so this is my States issue.

Huey » 17 Aug 2017 12:12 am » wrote: I treat you better then others.

Termin8tor » 15 Aug 2017 6:29 pm » wrote: You're kidding, right?

Do you even know what guilt by association is, or are you just lying as usual?

Obama CHOSE to sit in Wright's church and listen to his racist, anti-semitic, anti-American, Marxist/Communist lunacy.

He CHOSE to make Wright his spiritual adviser.

He CHOSE to be married by that wackjob.

And Obama CHOSE to be friends and political allies with leftist wackjob and former terrorist Bill Ayers.

What has Trump done with David Duke?

Nothing, psycho.

So as usual, you're reversing reality to smear Trump while defending a leftist Democrat.

Misty » 17 Aug 2017 1:54 pm » wrote:I wonder if Huey had a problem with the white supremacist/neo-Nazi protesters who came from all over the country?

Misty » 15 Aug 2017 6:57 pm » wrote: He refused to denounce him by pretending that he didn't know who he was.

Why is he so reluctant to denounce Duke and say that he doesn't want his support?

You disgust me by not being able to say outright that people carrying Swatiskas and shouting racial epithets have no place in our society.
You keep trying to draw some kind of a moral equivalence, where there is none.

Both you and your lying BFF Huey can waste your time posting here if you want, but just know that whatever you post will be moved to the Peanut Gallery.

I will not be associated with racist/Nazi appeasers.
And I don't want that filth in my thread.

Misty » 15 Aug 2017 3:15 pm » wrote: Oh I know.
You will never confront him about his lie, because he lied about me loving ANTIFA goons, and you're okay with anyone who lies about me.
You do it yourself every day.

Misty » 15 Aug 2017 12:22 am » wrote:No one on the forum believes you have any common sense.

So have you decided which of the three lies you told about the gorilla image on Breitbart you're going to go with yet, LIAR?

1. It was in reference to the 'monkeys' in the media.
2. One image does not prove racism.
3. It was a joke.

I'm surprised that you had the nerve to show your face in here after that ridiculous string of lies you told.

When you shout LIAR in every one of your posts, you must be looking in a **** mirror.

Misty » 15 Aug 2017 12:22 am » wrote:No one on the forum believes you have any common sense.

So have you decided which of the three lies you told about the gorilla image on Breitbart you're going to go with yet, LIAR?

1. It was in reference to the 'monkeys' in the media.
2. One image does not prove racism.
3. It was a joke.

I'm surprised that you had the nerve to show your face in here after that ridiculous string of lies you told.

When you shout LIAR in every one of your posts, you must be looking in a **** mirror.

"An extensive study that professors and data scientists at Harvard and M.I.T. conducted has concluded that Breitbart News does not represent the “alt-right,” undercutting the legitimacy of left-wing activists, Democrats, reporters in the legacy media, Never Trumpers, and establishment Republican bobbing heads and mouthpieces who rushed after Charlottesville to reflexively smear, malign, and defame Breitbart News as an “alt-right” outlet associated with white supremacists and Nazis."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... alt-right/

Termin8tor » 17 Aug 2017 1:52 pm » wrote: Why don't you answer my question, you Nazi sympathizer?
My accusation is somewhat accurate, given your strong support of Sanger's organization.

Last year, 25 House Republicans campaigned to have a bust of the pioneering family planner removed from the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, where it has been included in an exhibit featuring American civil rights leaders, called “The Struggle for Justice,” with Ted Cruz’s office issuing a press release explaining that she didn’t belong there for a number of reasons, the most damning of which is that as part of her “inhumane life’s work” she “advocated for the extermination of African-Americans.”

It’s not the first time Sanger has faced this accusation. During this past primary season, Ben Carson proclaimed that Sanger “believed that people like me should be eliminated” —later clarifying, per PolitiFact, that he was “talking about the black race”—and in 2011, Herman Cain alleged that Sanger’s original goal for Planned Parenthood was to “help kill black babies before they came into the world.”

Historians and scholars who've examined Sanger's correspondence, as Salon reported in 2011, challenge those who call the activist racist.

Much of the controversy stems from a 1939 letter in which Sanger outlined her plan to reach out to black leaders — specifically ministers — to help dispel community suspicions about the family planning clinics she was opening in the South.

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,” she wrote. It was, as the Washington Post called it, an “inartfully written” sentence, but one that, in context, describes the sort of preposterous allegations she feared — not her actual mission. The irony is that it has been used to propagate those very allegations.

Sanger’s stated mission was to empower women to make their own reproductive choices. She did focus her efforts on minority communities, because that was where, due to poverty and limited access to health care, women were especially vulnerable to the effects of unplanned pregnancy.

http://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger ... -eugenics/

Termin8tor » 17 Aug 2017 2:12 pm » wrote:Gosh, who should we believe, a psychopathic liar like you or an actual study of Breitbart by liberal Harvard?