Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
OP Offline
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
According to this study, yes.

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/sayar/riqs.htm

WHY DO RACISTS HAVE LOW IQs?

Studies going back over 50 years have repeatedly arrived at the same conclusion -- racists have lower IQs than non-racists. The average intelligence quotient (IQ) of all members of the human race is 100 on the Stanford-Binet scale, as illustrated in the bell curves in the figure below. The average IQ of racists is up to 4 IQ points less than this (Montagu 1952 & 1988, Allport 1946, Frenkel-Brunswick and Sanford 1945). The reasons this is true are not entirely clear. Does racism attract the unintelligent or do the unintelligent default into racist mentalities? An exploration of this phenomenon can be most informative.

Since the average IQ of a racist is less than the average, racists have two-digit IQs, while normal people have three-digit IQs, on the average. This applies to Nazi skinheads, American Nazis, the oxymoronic Aryan supremacists, Christian Identity fanatics, anti-semites, non-denominational bigots, and other such social rejects. The figure above is based on a standard deviation of 10, and is normalized for matching populations.

Many studies have explored the psychology of racism and the familial and social backgrounds of racists. Some interesting generalities can be extracted from these studies, including the fact that racists tend to be conservatives, conformists, Republicans, and hypochondriacs. The high incidence of conservatism, conformism, and Republicanism are all related phenomena. That is, one would expect a conformist to be a conservative, and a conservative to be a Republican, and a Republican to be a conformist, etc. But, why would they tend to be hypochondriacs? Perhaps they blame their body parts for imaginary illnesses in the same way they blame parts of society for imaginary social illnesses.

The arguments of racism have been demonstrated time and again to be illogical and irrational. For example, racists claim that so-called white people are "superior" to so-called black people. Ignoring for the moment the inability of science to draw a sharp line between those who are subjectively considered to be white and those who are subjectively considered to be black, lets consider the claims of superiority by racist supremacists.

As we look around us in America today we see a country full of diversity in which American blacks and other citizens of non-European descent excel in all the arts and sciences, in all aspects of business, in all political arenas, and in all athletics and other social activities. From our military commanders, to our religious and political leaders, to our star athletes both Olympic and professional, to our fastest-growing independent businesses, and in all genres of the entertainments fields -- art, music, acting, directing, film-making, etc. -- we witness a growing disproportionate dominance of non-whites, and this in spite of centuries of oppression and the continued denial of equal opportunities. Their successes are undeniable and ubiquitous, and yet the racists of our times act as if they are completely blind to this manifest proof that superiority of whites is a dying mirage.

Racists wear horse's blinders at the sight of the media heroes of our age -- Muhammed Ali, Martin Luther King, Michael Jordan, Condoleeza Rice, the Williams sisters, Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Colin Powell, Janet and LaToya Jackson, Sidney Poiter and Samuel Jackson, Sammy Sosa, Michael Johnson, the list goes on endlessly. They are deaf to the sound of world records regularly being shattered. They are dumb in their speech when asked to explain such obvious contradictions. Are racists deaf, dumb, and blind, or are they simply of such limited intelligence that they cannot recognize the truth when it is placed in bright lights before them?

Let's consider some examples of what passes for intelligence in the sub-society of what is truly an oxymoron, Aryan supremacy. Even the word "Aryan" is itself a mockery of the truth. The Aryan race doesn't exist, and has never existed. It is a myth invented by the Nazis to promote politically expedient propaganda. Hitler himself admitted that he knew there never were any Aryans, and that the notion merely served Nazi purposes, no more. All Aryan supremacists stand naked in the light of truth, but are unable to comprehend the fact that they have no clothes. Is it due to mentally deficiency, or are they really aware of this false myth? It's hard to say for sure, but their limited intelligence is certainly a factor in their confusion.

In America's war against terrorism, we should not forget about the domestic terrorists that have sprouted in our own backyard. Nazis, skinheads, and other bigots are anti-American by their very nature. If America is a nation of all races, religions, and cultures, then the enemies of any of those races, religions, and cultures are enemies of America. The attempts on the part of Nazi skinheads and the KKK to intimidate or encourage acts of violence against innocent people because of their race or creed is terrorism by definition. Once al Qaeda has been shut down, it would be prudent to focus America's attention on cleaning up all the nests of racist extremists that are festering inside our own borders. They are all just terrorists waiting to commit an act against Americans.

Some of the more radical anti-racist groups say that the only way to change a racist's mind is with a shotgun blast to the head. We at SAYAR disagree that violence is a proper response to what is essentially a mental disease. We believe that education is the key to erasing racism, and that this could be accomplished within the space of a single generation if we simply show children the light of truth, and dispel the darkness of ignorance.

(To be contiued)


The link has some graphs and some explanations of what those graphs represent.

Thoughts?

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Offline
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
...........

All I can say is brace yourself.

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
JQ Offline
2000+ posts
Offline
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
I guess it depends on what kind of racists, and how you define a "racist." This study only covers white racists. I think that smarter people don't make as many generalizations as less intelligent peopke do, but this study is just a generalization.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,789
Likes: 2
Doog the MIGHTY
10000+ posts
Offline
Doog the MIGHTY
10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,789
Likes: 2
I consider anybody who pre-judges an individual because of skin color, religion, and/or country-of-origin an idiot.

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
JQ Offline
2000+ posts
Offline
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
I blame the Germans...

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
History has had its share of intelligent, but evil, people who were racists.

For example, I would hazard a guess that certain high ranking Nazis (see, eg, Mengele) probably had pretty high IQs.

I wonder if this study isn't just one more well-intentioned, but ultimately dangerous, effort to turn every evil thought, belief or act into a genetic or mental problem.

Pretty soon, some KKK member will blow up a bus full of black kids and claim "Ah caint help it, I was BORND this way."

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Offline
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
Man!

Am I the only one who caught this??

quote:
Some interesting generalities can be extracted from these studies, including the fact that racists tend to be conservatives, conformists, Republicans, and hypochondriacs. The high incidence of conservatism, conformism, and Republicanism are all related phenomena. That is, one would expect a conformist to be a conservative, and a conservative to be a Republican, and a Republican to be a conformist, etc. But, why would they tend to be hypochondriacs? Perhaps they blame their body parts for imaginary illnesses in the same way they blame parts of society for imaginary social illnesses.

It actually reminded me of two books both published in the 50's.

quote:
A man named Milton Mayer, (a Jew) wrote a book in 1955 called "They Thought They Were Free" which explains exactly how certain people can be aroused to a fever pitch with just the right techniques.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - making constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, etc. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Government tends to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to the government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Government tends to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free _expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - The police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-35
by Milton Sanford Mayer




and two, The Authoritarian Personality.

quote:
In 1950 four social scientists published a book, The Authoritarian Personality, which studied the potentially fascistic individual, i.e., “one whose structure is such as to render him particularly susceptible to anti-democratic propaganda.” The scientists discovered that authoritarian personalities not only show “extreme susceptibility to fascist propaganda,” but also “have a great deal in common.” The manifestations of this anti-democratic syndrome include:
(1) Conventionalism (“rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values”);

(2) Authoritarian submission (“submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the ingroup”);

(3) Authoritarian aggression (“tendency to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values”);

(4) Anti-intraception (“opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tender-minded”);

(5) Superstition and stereotypy (“disposition to think in rigid categories”);

(6) Power and toughness (“exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness”);

(7) Destructiveness and cynicism (“generalized hostility; vilification of the human”);

(8) Projectivity (“disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world”); and

(9) Sex (“exaggerated concern with sexual goings-on”).

You don’t have to be Einstein to realize that the right-wing mentality and the authoritarian personality are intertwined, or that authoritarian personalities tend to become right-wingers, including fascists and fascist supporters. In their political positioning, writings, speeches, and activities, right-wingers typically display an authoritarian personality’s politics. Smugness; no sympathy for the poor or ghettoized; no compassion for the oppressed or underprivileged; draconian severity toward “criminals”; fondness for capital punishment; slavish deference to police lawlessness; a Social-Darwinist, survival of the fittest ethos; a bottom-line mentality; kowtowing to corporate wealth; enthusiastic support for the military-industrial complex; chauvinistic patriotism; a religious fundamentalism which emphasizes stern Old Testament harshness and consigns most of humanity to eternal punishment inflicted by a wrathful deity; hostility to homosexuals and gay rights; a pathological obsession with homosexual sex; these are elements of an illiberal mindset estranged from concern for liberty, freedom, and justice.


http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/33devolving.html


As they say, the more things change.....

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
I wonder what psychological illness would describe liberal schmucks hell-bent on attempting to discredit and insult conservatives, using pseudo-scientific language.

It amazes me how liberals see conservativism as a mental disease, while they label all the liberal decadence they promote as a something normal and positive.

Liberal decadence plagues our society, and warps standards to create sympathy for homosexuality, drug addiction and violent criminals, alienated teenagers who shoot up their high schools, rude and vulgar pop culture, and anything-goes sex (as if sex between a man and a woman were not enough for anyone) and rationalizes these actions with the same pseudo-science they use to bash conservatives.

While racism is common among the uneducated, there are certainly many highly educated racists as well.
One that comes to mind is William Shockley, who won the Nobel Prize in physics, who was a key part of developing the transistor circuit that replaced vaccuum tubes in electronic technology during the 1950's, later in his life put forth a theory that blacks are genetically inferior to whites and other races.

But for politically correct reasons, Shockley's theories are shunned by the global science community. Not because his theories are disproven, but that for reasons of controversy, they are pejudicially not even considered. A similar theory came out in a book titled The Bell Curve in the early 1990's. (The book also says that whites/Europeans are inferior in intelligence to Asians. )

So while I think that all races are at more or less the same intelligence level, and that there are geniuses of every race, I likewise feel saying racists are less intelligent is just another way to slander a group of people whose ideas you don't like. Something liberals are very good at.

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
JQ Offline
2000+ posts
Offline
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
I agree with your last paragraph, Dave.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Offline
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
I once knew a girl who graduated University and yet was completely oblivious as to what the State of The Union Adress was.

I found this out around the time the Monica Lewinsky story broke. The SOTU Adress as you recall was around a week afterwards. I was watching the adress and she passed by and inquired if that was the Clinton trial. :lol:

I explained what it was and she was still bewildered and clueless.

The point i'm trying to make is that you don't have to be stupid overall to be stupid about certain things.

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
Offline
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
So while I think that all races are at more or less the same intelligence level, and that there are geniuses of every race, I likewise feel saying racists are less intelligent is just another way to slander a group of people whose ideas you don't like. Something liberals are very good at.

Ah, yes, the always impartial views of Dave the Wonder Boy.

I'm not liberal, and even I think that's funny.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
Offline
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
So called "liberals" can be racists too.

Racism knows no cultural or political bounds.

There is no point in trying to turn this topic into a liberal vs. conservative or us vs. them rant.

On a side note, recently at a meeting of Arab nations, someone, and please forgive me for not having the specifics, but, someone got up and said that the world is really run by Jews, who rule by proxy.

This is a very common anti-semetic statement, although, I should point out that the Arabs, as children of Ishmael, and thus, children of Abraham, and thus, children of Shem, are also semites, anyway, my point is this:

If Jews really do rule the world, and are rich and powerful and all that, why haven't I seen any of this money or power?

As a Jew, I want to know. Come on, show me the money. Where is it?

I have enough problems paying my medical bills. I don't need to hear crap like this.

Anyway, that's racism in a nut shell. Statements with absolutely no factual, or imaginary basis to them.

But, the guy did get a standing ovation, because, after all, he actually had the guts to speak "the truth."

The "truth" my ass. Again, where is this money? Because, quite frankly, I could use some.

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
Offline
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
I haven't met many(maybe not any) racists who I would call "liberal".

I've certainly met more ignorant conversatives than I have ignorant liberal, though could certainly make a case for the contrary in that regard.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
OP Offline
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
Whomod,

This isn't a political issue. The comments about Republicans being racists were labelled as possible generalities. In many cases, it's not political ideaologies that make people racist. Most racist politicians already have their stereotypes and bigtries long before they take power.

Dave,

Are you listening to yourself? One guy shoots off his mouth and you're blaming all liberals for it. I'd challenge you on it, but since you don't seem to care about debate but prefer to take hit and run pot-shots at people, I don't feel like wasting any more time on you beyond this comment. I don't respect you enough to give you anything else.

PenWing,

I'm also Jewish and I'm also disturbed by the Malaysian Prime Minister's anti-semitic comments. However, in all fairness, I have to say that during his speech, he urged non-violent tactics as opposed to terrorism. Of course, that won't stop some nutjob from taking his words out of context and spilling innocent blood in the name of prejudice.

Although on a ligher note, I couldn't help coming up with this funny mental image.

"Gee, Rabbi Brain, what are we doing tonight?"

"The same thing we do every night, Rabbi Pinky...TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!"

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
Offline
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
quote:
"Gee, Rabbi Brain, what are we doing tonight?"

"The same thing we do every night, Rabbi Pinky...TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!"

:lol:

Now that's a good Rabbi joke!

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
quote:
originally posted by Darkknight613:

Dave,

Are you listening to yourself? One guy shoots off his mouth and you're blaming all liberals for it. I'd challenge you on it, but since you don't seem to care about debate but prefer to take hit and run pot-shots at people, I don't feel like wasting any more time on you beyond this comment. I don't respect you enough to give you anything else.

THAT, my friend, is a hit and run pot shot.

I don't engage in cheap shots, as you allege. My last post with you (in the Partisanship" topic),
http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000971
was a lengthy explanation of my views. Your response demonstrated that you're clearly very entrenched in yours, and with both our views made clear, I saw no reason to take it any further. I was also turned off by your arguing from a "Devil's Advocate" anonymous Democrat point of view, rather than taking personal accountability for the perspective you were arguing, which is clearly your own opinion, that you passionately argued, and not some vague/general "Devil's Advocate" viewpoint.

I engage in discussions, not "hit and run potshots", as you allege. I explain what I believe, why I believe it, and try to discuss the issue without getting personal (something you and several others here would do well to learn). Which isn't always easy, given the personalness of many of the remarks directed at me.

If you were reading these topics objectively, you would observe that you're the one insulting me, and that my comments were a direct response to a trashing of conservatives. A trashing that seems to go on relentlessly in the recent past here.

I'm not saying that ALL Democrats/liberals use these tactics, but it is a frequent and consistent tactic used by a large percentage of liberals, I'd say the majority of liberals, constantly portraying Conservatives as narrow-minded, stupid, repressors, Nazis, Draconian thugs, out-of-touch, bluebloods, incompetents promoted because of wealthy privelege (despite the fact that their Democrat opponents, including Al Gore, are wealthy and priveleged also), etc.
This biased and negative portrayal of Republicans has pretty much been the standard liberal press/Democrat portrayal of every Republican Presidential candidate since 1984, and pretty much the same biased portrayal in Senate and Congress elections I've observed over the last 20 years.
I'd say this is not an isolated campaign tactic of Democrats and the liberal press, but a standard way of practicing liberal politics.

I might add that liberal removal of prayer from schools, liberal attempts to remove "under God" from the pledge, Liberal attempts to bar from nomination any true conservative from the higher courts (Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, the recent hispanic judge, whose name escapes me at this writing), liberal attempts to change the definition of marriage to something other than one man/one woman, as it has been for 6000 years, trying to change Christian tradition, instead of just creating their OWN tradition, liberal attempts to push religion out of all public institutions, which can only promote secularism over that of our unquestionably Judao/Christian rooted governmnent, that is unquestionably inspired by the Bible, with phrases and ideas directly from the Bible, and a belief that Christianity (according to the writings of the founding fathers, was an ESSENTAL part of a healthy democracy, the absence of Christianity being what caused every previous attempt at Democracy in human history to fail). Plus relentless media portrayals in news and entertainment, that negatively portray conservatives and Christians as hypocritical, narrowminded and ignorant, and promote hostility toward these groups.
And on and on.
ALL of these things, promoted by liberals and the liberal press, can be seen as a narrowminded repression of the beliefs and practices of moderates and conservatives in this country, and a repressive and Draconian HIJACKING of what our democracy was intended to be.

Repression, limiting of freedoms, bastardization of the Constitution itself, is just fine, it seems, as long as it is CONSERVATIVE ideas, beliefs, public expression and lifestyle that are being repressed.

Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.

I get really tired of liberal rhetoric on these boards that relentlessly bashes conservatives, and consistently bypasses these facts.

What constitutes "freedom" or "repression" for conservatives and liberals, really depends on which side best represents your views.
As a conservative, I find the liberal advances repressive on MY beliefs.

And I am deeply annoyed by a news media that favors liberals, and relentlessly and biasedly portrays Conservatives as the repressors. It cuts both ways.

If you went through my posts over the last two years on these boards, you'd see my firm rhetoric against liberals began here at EXACTLY the point all the anti-conservative/anti-Republican rhetoric began here. I'd say the Republican-bashing began in earnest about 9 or 10 months ago.

I might add that you've once again proven, as a liberal, your attempt to discredit my conservative view, once again using slanderous tactics to block-label my views into a dismissive category.

My rhetoric is defensive, against an onslaught of anti-conservative liberal propaganda posted here. Which is painfully obvious to anyone here who is not... a liberal !

There are many liberals that I can talk to (in sharp contrast to many of the Democrats and liberals who post on these boards, who really feel a burning need to trash Republicans).

As I've said repeatedly, there are many ideas regarding health care reform, housing, affordable education, labor law, tax reform and so forth, even defense, from Democrats in Washington that I think at least offer a good brainstorm of ideas, if not ideas on many issues that are superior to what Republicans propose.
While my sensibilities lean toward the Republican perspective, I listen to both sides.

In a democracy, it should be the sharing of ALL ideas, and selecting the best ideas from them, to have the best government.

For close to 20 years, Democrats have been unfairly slanting the news and demonizing Republicans, and certainly doing so here on these boards.
And then you have the audacity to call ME partisan for firing back?

Unlike yourself, I've just answered the allegations, instead of dismissively slandering your viewpoint.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Offline
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
Whomod,

This isn't a political issue. The comments about Republicans being racists were labelled as possible generalities. In many cases, it's not political ideaologies that make people racist. Most racist politicians already have their stereotypes and bigotries long before they take power.


Well I'm not saying I actually took too much credence in this study. It was just amusing, is all.

After all, i do live in Los Angeles and as a latino male who spends a great deal of time in the music and entertainment sector of this town, I can safetly say that many of the westside "Hollywood liberals" are just as bigoted as any southern conservative man. If they're not just being condescending in their compassion.

A lot of the time it seeps thru in films where the only latinos you'll find are the only latinos they ever come into contact with in their sheltered little corner of this city, as valets, as maids and as janitors. And they'll usually be portrayed as that. Unless they're being portrayed as street thugs or ignorant natives that enlightened whites come into contact with in their travels. "The sun came out last night. It played me a song". [yuh huh]

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
OP Offline
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
originally posted by Darkknight613:

Dave,

Are you listening to yourself? One guy shoots off his mouth and you're blaming all liberals for it. I'd challenge you on it, but since you don't seem to care about debate but prefer to take hit and run pot-shots at people, I don't feel like wasting any more time on you beyond this comment. I don't respect you enough to give you anything else.

THAT, my friend, is a hit and run pot shot.


Sorry about that. That was a bad week talking. For some reason, your post just rubbed me the wrong way, and I blew it out of proportion. So I apologize.

However...

I don't engage in cheap shots, as you allege. My last post with you (in the Partisanship" topic),
http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000971
was a lengthy explanation of my views. Your response demonstrated that you're clearly very entrenched in yours, and with both our views made clear, I saw no reason to take it any further. I was also turned off by your arguing from a "Devil's Advocate" anonymous Democrat point of view, rather than taking personal accountability for the perspective you were arguing, which is clearly your own opinion, that you passionately argued, and not some vague/general "Devil's Advocate" viewpoint.


You obviously misunderstood my intentions and my point (something you have done in previous debates we've had, and I've gotten tired of it). That's how I argue with someone with an apparent bias - I present the other side to try and get them to consider ideas and possibilities they might not have considered. I've played this role for both sides many times. You presented yours, I presented an alterate, and if you were really interested in debate, or if you really did try to listen to all views, you would have challenged them or at least commented on them, rather than just assuming I had a bias of my own, and ignoring them. To me, that constitutes a pot shot. I would have debated with you, with my own views, had you asked. This isn't the first time you've done this either. That shows me a lack of respect to my ideas, and has me doubting whether or not you're actually interested in real debate.

I engage in discussions, not "hit and run potshots", as you allege. I explain what I believe, why I believe it, and try to discuss the issue without getting personal (something you and several others here would do well to learn). Which isn't always easy, given the personalness of many of the remarks directed at me.

See above. But again, my apologies for getting personal. I was wrong, and I admit it.

If you were reading these topics objectively, you would observe that you're the one insulting me, and that my comments were a direct response to a trashing of conservatives. A trashing that seems to go on relentlessly in the recent past here.

I am very much aware that your posts are responses to conservative/Republican bashing (something you'll notice I also took whomod to task for, and it's not the first time). I don't like it when anybody's "side" gets trashed. But a lot of your posts seem to be nothing more than rants based on biases and not on facts. Whomod, at least, tends to back up his comments with proof. Granted that proof is selective, but I take a researched comment more seriously than someone who apprears to be just mouthing off. Call it shallow, but that's how it works.

I'm not saying that ALL Democrats/liberals use these tactics, but it is a frequent and consistent tactic used by a large percentage of liberals, I'd say the majority of liberals, constantly portraying Conservatives as narrow-minded, stupid, repressors, Nazis, Draconian thugs, out-of-touch, bluebloods, incompetents promoted because of wealthy privelege (despite the fact that their Democrat opponents, including Al Gore, are wealthy and priveleged also), etc.
This biased and negative portrayal of Republicans has pretty much been the standard liberal press/Democrat portrayal of every Republican Presidential candidate since 1984, and pretty much the same biased portrayal in Senate and Congress elections I've observed over the last 20 years.
I'd say this is not an isolated campaign tactic of Democrats and the liberal press, but a standard way of practicing liberal politics.


Based on this post and several other debates you and I have had, you do come off like you're slamming every liberal under the sun at times. If you don't put a disqualifier, how am I supposed to know whether or not you're referring to everybody in a certain group? Perhaps in the future, you might want to be careful about that so that you don't keep having this debate.

I might add that liberal removal of prayer from schools, liberal attempts to remove "under God" from the pledge, Liberal attempts to bar from nomination any true conservative from the higher courts (Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, the recent hispanic judge, whose name escapes me at this writing), liberal attempts to change the definition of marriage to something other than one man/one woman, as it has been for 6000 years, trying to change Christian tradition, instead of just creating their OWN tradition, liberal attempts to push religion out of all public institutions, which can only promote secularism over that of our unquestionably Judao/Christian rooted governmnent, that is unquestionably inspired by the Bible, with phrases and ideas directly from the Bible, and a belief that Christianity (according to the writings of the founding fathers, was an ESSENTAL part of a healthy democracy, the absence of Christianity being what caused every previous attempt at Democracy in human history to fail). Plus relentless media portrayals in news and entertainment, that negatively portray conservatives and Christians as hypocritical, narrowminded and ignorant, and promote hostility toward these groups.
And on and on.


Didn't we discuss this on the last thread?

ALL of these things, promoted by liberals and the liberal press, can be seen as a narrowminded repression of the beliefs and practices of moderates and conservatives in this country, and a repressive and Draconian HIJACKING of what our democracy was intended to be.

Repression, limiting of freedoms, bastardization of the Constitution itself, is just fine, it seems, as long as it is CONSERVATIVE ideas, beliefs, public expression and lifestyle that are being repressed. [/QB]

It seems to go both ways. Both sides seem to have a tendency to want the other side's ideals to be repressed, seeing it as a threat to their own.

Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.

I get really tired of liberal rhetoric on these boards that relentlessly bashes conservatives, and consistently bypasses these facts.


So do I. I get tired of any bashing whatsoever. That's exactly what the point of the Partisnaship thread was. Because I'm sick of liberals and conservatives constantly demonizing each other. And it bothers me that nobody walked away from that without thinking about the mesage I was trying to get through.

What constitutes "freedom" or "repression" for conservatives and liberals, really depends on which side best represents your views.
As a conservative, I find the liberal advances repressive on MY beliefs.


And as a moderate, I find the tug of war between conservatives and liberals leaves this country locked in a stalemate where nothing gets done because nobody can see past their own ideals.

And I am deeply annoyed by a news media that favors liberals, and relentlessly and biasedly portrays Conservatives as the repressors. It cuts both ways.

As am I. I study journalism, and journalists are supposed to be objective and not take sides. Although I have to say, there are times when the media portrays liberals as total woo-woos and the conservatives as the greatets thing to ever happen to this country.

If you went through my posts over the last two years on these boards, you'd see my firm rhetoric against liberals began here at EXACTLY the point all the anti-conservative/anti-Republican rhetoric began here. I'd say the Republican-bashing began in earnest about 9 or 10 months ago.

I might add that you've once again proven, as a liberal, your attempt to discredit my conservative view, once again using slanderous tactics to block-label my views into a dismissive category.

Now you're stereotyping. My challenge to your views came from sensing a bias, and I was just trying to show you another way of thinking. The insult came from, as I stated before, a bad week and a growing annoyance with you snubbing my comments in previous encounters.

My rhetoric is defensive, against an onslaught of anti-conservative liberal propaganda posted here. Which is painfully obvious to anyone here who is not... a liberal !

The way you come off, you sound like someone who refuses to listen to any other viewpoint than your own, and that's what turns me off. On a message board, it's tough to tell what one is really thinking based on a few paragraphs. Defensive or not, there's something about a person who refuses to listen to the other side that really bothers me, no matter what side or what issue we're talking about.

There are many liberals that I can talk to (in sharp contrast to many of the Democrats and liberals who post on these boards, who really feel a burning need to trash Republicans).

As I've said repeatedly, there are many ideas regarding health care reform, housing, affordable education, labor law, tax reform and so forth, even defense, from Democrats in Washington that I think at least offer a good brainstorm of ideas, if not ideas on many issues that are superior to what Republicans propose.
While my sensibilities lean toward the Republican perspective, I listen to both sides.


If you'll forgive me for saying so, you don't always give that impression.

In a democracy, it should be the sharing of ALL ideas, and selecting the best ideas from them, to have the best government.

Agreed.

For close to 20 years, Democrats have been unfairly slanting the news and demonizing Republicans, and certainly doing so here on these boards.
And then you have the audacity to call ME partisan for firing back?

Unlike yourself, I've just answered the allegations, instead of dismissively slandering your viewpoint.


Now I've answered yours.

And where were you when I politely responded to your post on the Partisanship thread? It took an insult in a brief moment of anger to get your attention. I can't help wondering if you would have even responded to my earlier post in this thread if not for those harsh words. I didn't dismiss and slander your viewpoint on the other thread. I made my response to yours, and you apparently snubbed it. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my intentions, but it's not fair to blame me for that.

But again, my apologies for the "lack of respect" comment. It's not fair for me to take out my problems on you or anyone else.

Hopefully next time, we'll be able to keep it civil.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
I find the discussions a lot less fun when you get into a point-by-point quote-and-response format, and I think aside from you and me, Darknight613, probably no one else will read this.
It's NOT snubbery when I haven't answered previous long point-by-point lengthy posts like this in the past. It's recognition that you have your opinion, you've frequently add-libbed on my opinion, that even my CORRECTING where you add-libbed will likely not change your mind, and it's a lot of time and effort to go through point-by point and respond, when you're just going to deny the logic of what I've said in your next post, or (intentionally or not, I think often it SEEMS intentional but it's not) misinterpreting what I've said, or putting me in a dismissive category, no matter HOW many times I respond.

Your posting style in many ways resembles that of Typhoid Dave's, in that you seem to have good intentions, but you have a strong opinion, and you seem to be UNCONSCIOUS of the fact that you have an opinion, and credit yourself with impartial objectivity that you really don't have. I think T-Dave's a very bright guy, and I like him (at least I did until he started attacking me with bitter labels and hate rhetoric), but I find him very frustrating to debate with in the recent past. And no doubt he has a similar opinion of my own posts. YOU have an opinion, I have an opinion, EVERYONE has an opinion, and it's presumptuous for you to delegate yourself a superior position of objectivity when you're just as immersed in the discussion.

I don't pretend to have total objectivity, but neither is my opinion so skewed that it can be box-categorized and dismissed, as you've attempted to do repeatedly in your last two posts. My opinion is just as subjective, and just as OBJECTIVE, as yours.

On to the point-by-point:
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


Dave,

Are you listening to yourself? One guy shoots off his mouth and you're blaming all liberals for it. I'd challenge you on it, but since you don't seem to care about debate but prefer to take hit and run pot-shots at people, I don't feel like wasting any more time on you beyond this comment. I don't respect you enough to give you anything else.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:


THAT, my friend, is a hit and run pot shot.


quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


Sorry about that. That was a bad week talking. For some reason, your post just rubbed me the wrong way, and I blew it out of proportion. So I apologize.



I appreciate that. And again, I'm not above that either. I'd be lying to say I haven't done the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


However...

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

I don't engage in cheap shots, as you allege. My last post with you (in the Partisanship" topic)...
http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000971

...was a lengthy explanation of my views.
Your response demonstrated that you're clearly very entrenched in yours, and with both our views made clear, I saw no reason to take it any further.
I was also turned off by your arguing from a "Devil's Advocate" anonymous Democrat point of view, rather than taking personal accountability for the perspective you were arguing, which is clearly your own opinion, that you passionately argued, and not some vague/general "Devil's Advocate" viewpoint.

You obviously misunderstood my intentions and my point (something you have done in previous debates we've had, and I've gotten tired of it). That's how I argue with someone with an apparent bias - I present the other side to try and get them to consider ideas and possibilities they might not have considered. I've played this role for both sides many times.
I've never seen you take a Republican perspective, the closest I've seen you do is a "Both sides stop fighting" type statement. Perhaps you've argued the Republican/conservative side in a topic I haven't seen.


quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:

You presented yours, I presented an alterate, and if you were really interested in debate, or if you really did try to listen to all views, you would have challenged them or at least commented on them, rather than just assuming I had a bias of my own, and ignoring them.

As I said, your liberal perspective was clear. I didn't feel it worth the time and effort for me to roll over the same ground in another two or three rounds of posts. In past discussions, the opposition tends to repeat their allegations against me, and not acknowledge any of the corrections I take the time to write.
(see the Canadians legalize Same-sex Marriage topic, as one example, or the many Iraq/WMD debates)


quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


To me, that constitutes a pot shot. I would have debated with you, with my own views, had you asked. This isn't the first time you've done this either. That shows me a lack of respect to my ideas, and has me doubting whether or not you're actually interested in real debate.

I find that rather accusing, from the guy who's hurling the insults at me, and boxing MY opinion into dismissive categories. Until you took me on personally, I was limiting myself to the issues, and in a necessarily defensive way, in answer to your questions, I still am.

I frankly explain my ideas more fully, offer more links to sources for my perspective, than just about any conservative here (I consider myself moderate Republican, but due to my giving equal time to the Republicans, I've been BRANDED a Conservative extremist by the political opposition here), with the exception of maybe G-man, Britney, and maybe a few others.

It seems no matter WHAT i post, no matter what references, from PBS News to the Wall Street Journal, to the New York Times, to the Associated Press, to 60 Minutes, I'm accused of "not backing up" my perspective with facts. And no matter how many times I say I DIDN'T EVEN VOTE for George W. Bush, I'm accused of being a fanatical zombie of the Republican party.

I've said OVER AND OVER that I accept the possibility that Bush could be guilty of these allegations, but that the case has not been made yet, to the point that liberals and the liberal media can call our President and his administration liars and criminals.
I say over and over that the level of venom directed at Bush reeks of bias and false allegation, to the point that I question the ALLEGATIONS rather than the President.

No matter how many times I say that, people on the other side of the aisle here continue to label me as a "right wing fanatic" and "biased to the Republicans" for simply being disturbed by the level of venom against a president who has yet to be proven guilty of anything.


quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:


I engage in discussions, not "hit and run potshots", as you allege. I explain what I believe, why I believe it, and try to discuss the issue without getting personal (something you and several others here would do well to learn). Which isn't always easy, given the personalness of many of the remarks directed at me.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:

See above. But again, my apologies for getting personal. I was wrong, and I admit it.




"See above"?!? I guess I get the point.

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:


If you were reading these topics objectively, you would observe that you're the one insulting me, and that my comments were a direct response to a trashing of conservatives.
A trashing that seems to go on relentlessly in the recent past here.

quote:
originally posted by Darknight613:

I am very much aware that your posts are responses to conservative/Republican bashing (something you'll notice I also took whomod to task for, and it's not the first time).



Yes, I did see that you challenged Whomod for his harsh rhetoric. Although you didn't make the personal accusations toward him that you did to me, that my opinion is basically "not worthy" of serious response (in your subjective opinion).

WITHOUT Whomod's insulting portrayal of conservatives, my response would definitely have been something far different. I feel that you gave token admonishment to Whomod, and saved your real venom for dismissively attempting to discredit me.
Which is a tactic I see the news media use quite often. They give a surface appearance of exploring both sides, but clearly favor one side and caricature the other.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 748
500+ posts
Offline
500+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 748
Well, as is common with racist organizations I'd say you have a few very intelligent people at the top leading the show and a bunch of dumbasses at the bottom. To come up with stated 94 IQ.

The median is probably lower than that.

This seems like more of a jab at conservative republicans than an honest study. I've found liberal democrats aren't racist because they are RIGHT and repbican conservatives are wrong.And since they control the media they can spin it how they like.

So, in retrospect, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are both groups of moronic twits. Best to create your own personal political ideals and vote for who your conscience tells you tells you to. Both parties are full of educated idiots.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
OP Offline
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
[QUOTE]Yes, I did see that you challenged Whomod for his harsh rhetoric. Although you didn't make the personal accusations toward him that you did to me, that my opinion is basically "not worthy" of serious response (in your subjective opinion).

Well, you can't really judge somebody's tone accurately on a message board (and if I were to put in emoticons or smileys, I doubt I would have been taken seriously). I was pretty annoyed at whomod for turning this thread into a political debate, but I was also annoyed with you for taking one loudmouth's rant as (what I saw at the time to be) an excuse for slamming all liberals. Combined with what I perceived as a snub on your part in the partisnaship thread, and remebering past instances where you seemed to be doing the same (and the aforementoned bad week I've been having, which has actually gotten worse), I ended up using you as an outlet for my frustration. I'm not denying I was wrong, but I hope you'll at least understand where I was coming from.

As for the personal accusation, you've rubbed me the wrong way in the past, and some past comments you've made have genuinely insulted me (although you probably didn't mean to), whereas whomod has never done so. So maybe I was painting you a darker shade than whomod, and for that, I also apologize. But I hope you can see where I'm coming from, and that we now understand each other a little better.

Deal?

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
(Because it was too long for one post, part 2 : )

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


I don't like it when anybody's "side" gets trashed. But a lot of your posts seem to be nothing more than rants based on biases and not on facts. Whomod, at least, tends to back up his comments with proof. Granted that proof is selective, but I take a researched comment more seriously than someone who apprears to be just mouthing off. Call it shallow, but that's how it works.

Again, your self-proclaimed objectivity.
As I said, I quote a lot of sources, for which I'm not given credit for.

Most of Whomod's "proof" is recycled rhetoric from vitriolically anti-Bush liberal websites, and propaganda images, and reporting from that oh-so-objective and fair-to-Republicans publication, The Los Angeles Times. I find the L.A. Times quite unashamedly biased.

Although I value Whomod's opinion, precisely because it comes from a perspective very different from my own. Many of the sources he lists are sources of some weight, and many are not. Reading Whomod's links allows me to step outside my own perspective.

But you cite Whomod's stuff as objective "sources"?
Liberal perspective, perhaps, but hardly "objective" sources, or "proof".

And meanwhile you describe my comments as "rants and biases" and Whomod's as "proof". Talk about spinning things to your own point of view. You appear conciliatory, but then backhand me in the same sentence. I seriously question your "objectivity".

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

I'm not saying that ALL Democrats/liberals use these tactics, but it is a frequent and consistent tactic used by a large percentage of liberals, I'd say the majority of liberals, constantly portraying Conservatives as narrow-minded, stupid, repressors, Nazis, Draconian thugs, out-of-touch, bluebloods, incompetents promoted because of wealthy privelege (despite the fact that their Democrat opponents, including Al Gore, are wealthy and priveleged also), etc.
This biased and negative portrayal of Republicans has pretty much been the standard liberal press/Democrat portrayal of every Republican Presidential candidate since 1984, and pretty much the same biased portrayal in Senate and Congress elections I've observed over the last 20 years.
I'd say this is not an isolated campaign tactic of Democrats and the liberal press, but a standard way of practicing liberal politics.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:



Based on this post and several other debates you and I have had, you do come off like you're slamming every liberal under the sun at times. If you don't put a disqualifier, how am I supposed to know whether or not you're referring to everybody in a certain group? Perhaps in the future, you might want to be careful about that so that you don't keep having this debate.

Perhaps if liberals posting here were more selective in their words, and did not use sweeping generalizations of conservatives/Republicans so consistently and insultingly, they would not find so much --or any-- backlash from myself and other Republicans.

You try to say "both sides should stop".

But it's your side, the liberal side, THAT IS INITIATING these insulting sweeping generalizations. I'm just RESPONDING to them.
And then in your objectivity, I'm characterized as "mouthing off" for even responding to them. Very objective.

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

I might add that liberal removal of prayer from schools, liberal attempts to remove "under God" from the pledge, Liberal attempts to bar from nomination any true conservative from the higher courts (Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, the recent hispanic judge, whose name escapes me at this writing), liberal attempts to change the definition of marriage to something other than one man/one woman, as it has been for 6000 years, trying to change Christian tradition, instead of just creating their OWN tradition, liberal attempts to push religion out of all public institutions, which can only promote secularism over that of our unquestionably Judao/Christian rooted governmnent, that is unquestionably inspired by the Bible, with phrases and ideas directly from the Bible, and a belief that Christianity (according to the writings of the founding fathers, was an ESSENTAL part of a healthy democracy, the absence of Christianity being what caused every previous attempt at Democracy in human history to fail). Plus relentless media portrayals in news and entertainment, that negatively portray conservatives and Christians as hypocritical, narrowminded and ignorant, and promote hostility toward these groups.
And on and on.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


Didn't we discuss this on the last thread?

Apparently not enough.

You glossed over my crucial point, of how liberals try to stomp all over the rights of conservatives.

And then constantly portray conservatives, (who just don't want the traditions they grew up with taken away) as the goose-stepping Nazis and defilers of the Constitution.
The conservative perspective, of liberals as the defilers of a nation FOUNDED on Christian principles, is not even given token mention.

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

ALL of these things, promoted by liberals and the liberal press, can be seen as a narrowminded repression of the beliefs and practices of moderates and conservatives in this country, and a repressive and Draconian HIJACKING of what our democracy was intended to be.

Repression, limiting of freedoms, bastardization of the Constitution itself, is just fine, it seems, as long as it is CONSERVATIVE ideas, beliefs, public expression and lifestyle that are being repressed.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


It seems to go both ways. Both sides seem to have a tendency to want the other side's ideals to be repressed, seeing it as a threat to their own.



While I might phrase that differently, I won't disagree with that sentence. I do feel liberals are more deceptive, venomous and malicious in their rhetoric than their conservative opposition.

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.

I get really tired of liberal rhetoric on these boards that relentlessly bashes conservatives, and consistently bypasses these facts.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


So do I. I get tired of any bashing whatsoever. That's exactly what the point of the Partisnaship thread was. Because I'm sick of liberals and conservatives constantly demonizing each other. And it bothers me that nobody walked away from that without thinking about the message I was trying to get through.



I'm not demonizing liberals and Democrats. I've been very clear that I think Democrats have good ideas, and that all ideas should be considered.

I think it becomes very difficult for myself and other conservatives to trust Democrats/liberals, when they thoroughly slander and trash what I believe in, doing so with the most insulting, venomous and contemptuous of rhetoric.
(see Whomod's characterization of conservatism as a psychological illness above. A characterization I've heard multiple times from the liberal side.
Or charicature cartoons and photomanipulations, of Bush officials in Nazi uniforms and so forth, on and on. I don't see that from the Republican side. )

quote:
What constitutes "freedom" or "repression" for conservatives and liberals, really depends on which side best represents your views.
As a conservative, I find the liberal advances repressive on MY beliefs.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


And as a moderate, I find the tug of war between conservatives and liberals leaves this country locked in a stalemate where nothing gets done because nobody can see past their own ideals.

I dislike the notion of impartially spreading the blame across both sides.

This topic is the perfect example. Whomod posted something so outrageous, that I just HAD to respond. And as I said, I've seen this liberal/Democrat vitriol posted more than once. It's highly inflammatory and insulting. And then I'M out of line for responding to this ?!? Get real !

I think the vitriol begins an ends on the liberal side. And I believe this bitter, iconoclastic, urination on the beliefs of others is what makes them liberals.

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

And I am deeply annoyed by a news media that favors liberals, and relentlessly and biasedly portrays Conservatives as the repressors. It cuts both ways.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


As am I. I study journalism, and journalists are supposed to be objective and not take sides. Although I have to say, there are times when the media portrays liberals as total woo-woos and the conservatives as the greatest thing to ever happen to this country.

It's been many years since I've seen THAT, if EVER.

Even the Afghan invasion in late 2001 was portrayed as the U.S. brutally and arrogantly invading an impoverished third world nation, conspiracy theories that it wasn't about U.S. self-preservation and eliminating al Qaida camps training tens of thousands of terrorists.
And how much more anti-Republican and liberally biased, the coverage of Iraq in 2003, before, during, and post-war?

Somewhere along the line, journalists seemed to realize that they could slant the news and get away with it. And no one would would call them on it, or at least not enough for them to stop and strive for more objectivity.
In the 60's and 70's, there was more of an attempt to deliver "just the facts", and to separate the commentary from the news.
That line has now completely blurred.

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

If you went through my posts over the last two years on these boards, you'd see my firm rhetoric against liberals began here at EXACTLY the point all the anti-conservative/anti-Republican rhetoric began here.
I'd say the Republican-bashing began in earnest about 9 or 10 months ago.

quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:

I might add that you've once again proven, as a liberal, your attempt to discredit my conservative view, once again using slanderous tactics to block-label my views into a dismissive category.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


Now you're stereotyping. My challenge to your views came from sensing a bias, and I was just trying to show you another way of thinking. The insult came from, as I stated before, a bad week and a growing annoyance with you snubbing my comments in previous encounters.

I'm not stereotyping. That's your subjective opinion -vs- my subjective opinion. You haven't got superior insight, you've only lobbied for the liberal perspective (from my viewpoint).

You seem to feel that your opinion is superior to mine.

I was turned off, as I said, by your 100% liberal counter-argument to the arguments I raised in the "Partisanship" topic.
http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000971

I posted at length, and I didn't feel your "Devil's Advocate" point of view was truly in the spirit of objectivity, but simply to de-bunk my posted opinion. And my opinion posted was already a tiny piece of equal time for yet another topic that had become a liberal bash-fest toward conservativism. But it wasn't allowed to stand unchallenged.

I think the sheer volume of liberal opinion allows quite a number of liberal views and allegations to go unchallenged here.

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

My rhetoric is defensive, against an onslaught of anti-conservative liberal propaganda posted here. Which is painfully obvious to anyone here who is not... a liberal !

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


The way you come off, you sound like someone who refuses to listen to any other viewpoint than your own, and that's what turns me off.
[/QUORE]

That is, once again, your partisan spin of it, your hiding behind an illusion of impartial objectivity, even while you'rejust as subjectively immersed in the discussion as I am.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darknight613:

On a message board, it's tough to tell what one is really thinking based on a few paragraphs. Defensive or not, there's something about a person who refuses to listen to the other side that really bothers me, no matter what side or what issue we're talking about.

That is more spin. Is it that I "refuse to listen"?

Or is it that I DO listen, and remain unconvinced by the counter-argument from the liberal side, particularly when that liberal perspective is rife with personal insults and veiled partisan comments, that hide behind a false face of impartial "objectivity", even as they make a partisan argument against my stated views.

Do you truly believe that you can participate in the debate here, and yet remain objectively above the rest of us in the discussion?

For you to declare yourself "objective" over me or others in the discussion, is condescending and insulting, whether or not you intend it to be.

And YOU "refuse to listen" to what I'm saying. And stereotype/dismissively categorize me, to rationalize your viewpoint.

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

There are many liberals that I can talk to (in sharp contrast to many of the Democrats and liberals who post on these boards, who really feel a burning need to trash Republicans).

As I've said repeatedly, there are many ideas regarding health care reform, housing, affordable education, labor law, tax reform and so forth, even defense, from Democrats in Washington that I think at least offer a good brainstorm of ideas, if not ideas on many issues that are superior to what Republicans propose.
While my sensibilities lean toward the Republican perspective, I listen to both sides.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


If you'll forgive me for saying so, you don't always give that impression.

If you'll forgive me for responding, that is your subjective opinion.

If I weren't constantly responding to false allegations against my conservative beliefs raised by conservative-bashing liberals here, I might have more ability to explore where I agree with Democrats.

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

In a democracy, it should be the sharing of ALL ideas, and selecting the best ideas from them, to have the best government.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


Agreed.

quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

For close to 20 years, Democrats have been unfairly slanting the news and demonizing Republicans, and certainly doing so here on these boards.
And then you have the audacity to call ME partisan for firing back?

Unlike yourself, I've just answered the allegations, instead of dismissively slandering your viewpoint.

quote:
originally posted by Darknight613:

Now I've answered yours.

And where were you when I politely responded to your post on the Partisanship thread?

You keep dragging up this allegation. I already answered it.

I wasn't happy with your response, I felt I'd already explained my position, you'd already demonstrated your partisanship, and I didn't feel like going another three rounds covering the same ground, of "you said this" and "no, no, you said this...".

Your opinion was clear, even if it was veiled in an anonymous "Devil's Advocate". I found your view one-sided, and I wasn't convinced that continuing the discussion would go anywhere. I feel the same way here. That you're just interested in proving me wrong or rendering me dismissable somehow.

If that's not your goal, then what is it you want from my responses?

You strongly argue the liberal mindset, but try to paint yourself as "objective" and impartial.
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


It took an insult in a brief moment of anger to get your attention. I can't help wondering if you would have even responded to my earlier post in this thread if not for those harsh words. I didn't dismiss and slander your viewpoint on the other thread. I made my response to yours, and you apparently snubbed it. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my intentions, but it's not fair to blame me for that.

Boy, you really won't let go of it, will you?

I've answered repeatedly. On several topics you've come into the discussion and jumped in my face, and not knowing you either, I don't know the reason for it. The first I recall was the Saddam's sons believed dead" topic:
http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000844

And again, while more polite, what you call "Devil's Advocate", I call liberally dismissing every point I raised, with no apparent objectivity or balance to the valid conservative viewpoint I voiced in the "Partisan" topic.
"Partisanship":
http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000971

It's not "snubbing" on my part, as you allege over and over, it's simply seeing that your mind was made up, and not wanting to continue to argue my personal and heartfelt perspective against an anonymous "Devil's Advocate". I found that perspective a bit too ambiguous to pursue.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:


But again, my apologies for the "lack of respect" comment. It's not fair for me to take out my problems on you or anyone else.

Hopefully next time, we'll be able to keep it civil.

You know, I want to fully accept your apology, but then conversely to a sincere apology, I find it mixed in with a whole bunch of other nasty things you said, about my "just mouthing off", not being worthy of response, lacking objectivity, being blindly conservative and so forth.

What am I to make of it when you apologize and insult me in the same breath ?

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
OP Offline
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
I take it you didn't read my response to Part 1 before posting Part 2.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:

Yes, I did see that you challenged Whomod for his harsh rhetoric. Although you didn't make the personal accusations toward him that you did to me, that my opinion is basically "not worthy" of serious response (in your subjective opinion).

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:

Well, you can't really judge somebody's tone accurately on a message board (and if I were to put in emoticons or smileys, I doubt I would have been taken seriously). I was pretty annoyed at whomod for turning this thread into a political debate, but I was also annoyed with you for taking one loudmouth's rant as (what I saw at the time to be) an excuse for slamming all liberals. Combined with what I perceived as a snub on your part in the partisnaship thread, and remembering past instances where you seemed to be doing the same (and the aforementoned bad week I've been having, which has actually gotten worse), I ended up using you as an outlet for my frustration. I'm not denying I was wrong, but I hope you'll at least understand where I was coming from.

As for the personal accusation, you've rubbed me the wrong way in the past, and some past comments you've made have genuinely insulted me (although you probably didn't mean to), whereas whomod has never done so. So maybe I was painting you a darker shade than whomod, and for that, I also apologize. But I hope you can see where I'm coming from, and that we now understand each other a little better.

Deal?

I apologize for anything that was personally insulting to you, that was not my intention at any time. Athough as you know, passions run high in these discussions.
That's certainly equally true for me, and the type of day I've had can color my reaction as well.

I'm conflicted here, because as I said, I'd like to be conciliatory, and yet I feel slighted and dismissed as well.

I'm sorry for not answering your questions on the other topic, if I'd known it was important to you, I'd have answered immediately. And again, I didn't know your thoughts when writing it, back then. I'm pretty spent tonight, but I'll take a look at it again tomorrow.

I don't know if you've experienced this before, but when you argue with some people simultaneously on these boards, at least for me, it becomes hard to separate who said what, and conversely, it's possible to treat more moderate voices the same as your harshest critics. For my own part in that, I apologize.
I've sometimes gone back to topics where I felt like three or four people were ganging up on me, and re-reading the thread later seen that one or two were laying into me, and the others were much less confrontational.

I've endeavored to answer all your points here, and as I feared, my response has become cumbersomely long.

In re-reading your posts and proofreading what I've posted (those damn quote brackets are hard as hell in long posts, I always miss one or two), and in doing so, I've re-read your comments and tried to read further into where you're coming from.

I don't think you're a liberal propagandist, as my earlier comments might imply. (Although, as I said, I don't think you have total objectivity either, any more than I have total objectivity. )

But combined with other partisanly liberal comments by others, they can be interpreted that way. I get tired of being the Lone Conservative. I often argue that point of view, because so few others do, and then get branded an extremist. I'm just arguing equal time, for a persective that I feel is neglected.

And on the Left, Right, and all subtle grades in between, I doubt any of us believe precisely the same thing. We all run the spectrum of opinion from issue to issue.

But just as you were rubbed the wrong way by some of my comments, I was rubbed the wrong way by your comments about me. And I'm mindful that much of what you said about me is perception on your part, from the little we've crossed paths, not a deep-seated accusation.

So I am struggling to see your perspective.
I hope you have a better understanding of mine as well.

In the heat of so many partisan topics here, that heat has boiled over here too.

The very premise of this topic (which YOU started, by the way) is inflammatory and political, although it's based on an article. But to me the very promotion of such a preposterous idea, as legitimate news, is mockery of conservatives, and the media's willing endorsement of that mockery.
The very title incites partisanship and insult. The article is a prime example of inflammatory liberal rhetoric bashing conservatives.


Although there must be an equivalent conservative piece about liberals out there, somewhere, in the present or past.


quote:
originally posted by Darknight613:


I take it you didn't read my response to Part 1 before posting Part 2.

I did see the comments, after-the-fact. Sorry about the delay in responding.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Offline
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
[QUOTE]Yes, I did see that you challenged Whomod for his harsh rhetoric. Although you didn't make the personal accusations toward him that you did to me, that my opinion is basically "not worthy" of serious response (in your subjective opinion).

Well, you can't really judge somebody's tone accurately on a message board (and if I were to put in emoticons or smileys, I doubt I would have been taken seriously). I was pretty annoyed at whomod for turning this thread into a political debate

But..but ... but ...but.. [who, me?]

I realized tha danger in my posting but honestly, the initial article was pretty partisan to begin with. I even went so far as to highlight and quote that one paragraph where it was the most evident.

Out of the other two paragraphs and articles regarding books and studies (both published in the 50's. I think is important to restate lest they be taken as just part of the recent trend of liberal leaning non-fiction), I'd only give serious credence to the 1st one concerning Germany in the mid 30's, "They
Thought they were Free" as being completely non-partisan. After all how could it. It's obviously about another countrys gradual slide into fascism more then 50 years ago.

When I read the initial article, the dig at conservatism really stood out to me and it reminded me actually of the 2nd article I posted which deals with personality types who are attracted to fascism and right wing mindsets. Similar in tone and subject matter certainly as they both make generalizations and political observations to make their point but perhaps not in keeping with the strict letter of the thread topic.

If it rubbed you the wrong way then I apologize. [cool]

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
Offline
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
I wonder why it is that the Republican party rejects open racists like David Duke reforms past racists like Strom Thurman and censures people who make even remote potentially racist statements like Trent Lott. At the same time Democrats ignore the past ofopen racists like Byrd uphold past racists while ignoring the fact that they were prowd racists like Al Gore Sr. and pretend that blatently racist coments never happened like in the case of Cruz Bustamove.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
Offline
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
I oppologise if my last post was woded in a way that made it come across as incoherant, but it's late and I'm very sleepy.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
Offline
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
Oh and as far as racists having lower IQs, well that's simple. A higher IQ allows you to draw distant conclusions and racist ideas don't hold up to logical scrutiny.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5