Log in

View Full Version : F*ck the South



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Lilith
11-12-2004, 06:48 PM
Aye, the bonus points are an endless source of amusement. Ages ago, I kept a list of all the names I had seen people call the opposition in political debate. You have no idea how funny some of them were, and I could almost picture these people positively dancing in fury that someone dared think differently. Of course, that was when I was an old-timer on a political debate site that posted the number of people who had one on ignore in one's signature as a badge of honor.

<---- twisted sense of humor

Ooh, forgot part of the second bit. Amending it now to read, " ... hypocritical, juvenile, tree-hugging atheist with no sense but to parrot the dictums of their commie-pinko-faggot university professors and possessing of all the moral aptitude of a French whore." After all, the worst a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal can accuse you of is stupidity and unpolitically correct insensitivity (you cad!); the ultimate arch-conservative makes it clear that they themselves will be sitting at the right hand of Jesus to send you to hell personally, you blaspheming infidel.

Daddyforhire
11-12-2004, 06:52 PM
And what of persons who disagree with you that have also come to their own conclusion in the same manner as you. Are those people also brainwashed?No, in that case we'd just have to agree to disagree since our opinions were both logical results of studies and predispositions and also heartfelt. And we'd both just have to accept that we live in a country where ultimately the majority rules (although that is not always remembered) when it comes to steering the course, and as a consequence hopefully we'll both be honorable enough to admit defeat if/when it happens and still try to move forward instead of pissing and moaning and trying to sabatoge the victor. Oh shit, now I'm putting out utopian theories...


;D

GnBeret
11-12-2004, 09:53 PM
Oh yeah and hate crime legislation is just such a horrible thing, right?
Actually, yes. "Hate Crimes Legislation" has started us down a VERY dangerous path - crime punishes ACTS, not THOUGHT. Why you choose to kill someone doesn't matter... you killed them, and THAT'S what we should punish you for. Think about the implications of the reasoning behind this legislation and where the thought process could lead to if it bleeds into other areas and you'll quickly conclude that it was an ill-considered overreaction to a handful of highly publicized ALREADY punishable criminal acts.

Rebuildme
11-12-2004, 10:10 PM
I'm assuming you mean that rabbits chew cud (the bible states flat out that rabbits chew cud). Um, Rabbits don't chew Cud. I'm assuming you mean that Bats are birds as stated in Leviticus...Rabbits don't have the cloven hoof, that's why you aren't supposed to eat them...The bible is one of the funniest books ever. I like how it pretty much explains that you should not eat anything but poultry and fish (with fins and scales)......

LauraLove
11-12-2004, 11:38 PM
Actually, yes. "Hate Crimes Legislation" has started us down a VERY dangerous path - crime punishes ACTS, not THOUGHT. Why you choose to kill someone doesn't matter... you killed them, and THAT'S what we should punish you for. Think about the implications of the reasoning behind this legislation and where the thought process could lead to if it bleeds into other areas and you'll quickly conclude that it was an ill-considered overreaction to a handful of highly publicized ALREADY punishable criminal acts.A hate crime as I understand it , is an act not a thought. What thoughts are defined as a crime? Hate crimes are violent acts or threats done to another based on discrimination, such as sexual, race, gender or religion.

If these crimes were not regularly brushed off, also because of discrimination, then hate crime legislation would not have been needed. The very fact that these crimes were going under or even more often un punished is why the hate crime legislation was created.

It's a checks and balances situation.It's a shame that it was needed in the first place. But it was needed, badly.

As for the argument of the "why" does not matter. I disagree and offer the various degrees of crimes such as 1st degree murder verses 2nd as an example of why it matters.

GnBeret
11-12-2004, 11:57 PM
A hate crime as I understand it , is an act not a thought. What thoughts are defined as a crime? Hate crimes are violent acts or threats done to another based on discrimination, such as sexual, race, gender or religion.

If these crimes were not regularly brushed off, also because of discrimination, then hate crime legislation would not have been needed. The very fact that these crimes were going under or even more often un punished is why the hate crime legislation was created.

It's a checks and balances situation.It's a shame that it was needed in the first place. But it was needed, badly.

As for the argument of the "why" does not matter. I disagree and offer the various degrees of crimes such as 1st degree murder verses 2nd as an example of why it matters.
Any crime you can think of that is punishable as a "hate crime" was already punishable as a crime. As for being "brushed off," this legislation changes nothing - if the DA doesn't want to prosecute under the murder statute, why will his new ability to prosecute under the hate crime statute, where he must still prove the murder in addition to the hate element to get a conviction, change anything?

As for you offer of 1st degree, 2nd degree - you're confusing "intent" with "reason/motivation". Almost all crimes have an "intent" element - which is divided into "general intent" and "specific intent." The "almost" concerns crimes such as negligent homicide, where there was no intention to commit a crime, but the result of your negligent behavior was so horrendous that we've decided it has to be punished both for purposes of retribution and societal example. General intent may be inferred, but specific in tent has to be proven, and in the case of 1st and 2nd degree murder, the specific intent described is different (i.e., intended to commit armed robbery, killed guard in process, usually charged with 2nd degree - intended to kill everybody in place while robbing, charged with 1st degree). But we don't care in either case whether you decided to rob the place on a whim or because you don't like the owner or because of whatever else you can think of - doesn't make any difference: you did it, and we punish behavior, not thought. In a "hate crimes" case, you can punish what they do already, but now you're saying that because of their thoughts, you want to punishy them more and/or differently. That, IMHO, is a VERY dangerous can of worms to open up here.

LauraLove
11-13-2004, 12:05 AM
I guess we just have to disagree on this one. I just don't see this legislation as bad thing or being used improperly at this time. I glad to say I don't see it happening in the future either.

GnBeret
11-13-2004, 12:24 AM
I guess we just have to disagree on this one. I just don't see this legislation as bad thing or being used improperly at this time. I glad to say I don't see it happening in the future either.
K... but as for the future, watch for the following, 'cause it'll likely be the first indicator of the problems which will arise from pursuing this course of action.

With the exception of hate crimes, the prosecutor doesn't have to prove "motive," as that isn't an element of the crime. By adding "motive" as an element, the legislature has told him we want you to prosecute this behavoir as a crime, and these are the things you must prove in order for you to obtain a conviction under this statute - one of which is that the perpertrator's "motive" was racial in nature. As time passes, and prosecutors have difficulty proving this element (becuase the system is not currently set up in a way that allows him to obtain the kinds of evidence he'd need to prove motive, since he doesn't have to in most cases), they'll start going back to the legislature and asking for additional investigatory "tools" that will aid them in their efforts to obtain the evidence they need to prove this new element of the crime. And since the element is "motive," i.e., "thought," the tools they'll be seeking are things that will give them access to the accused's "thoughts" re race: like library books checked out, internet sites visited, monetary donations to political and/or lobbying groups, etc. - i.e., the kinds of things that you'd be having a fit over if they were seeking to look at same on you. Well, eventually, they will - 'cause once they get the ability to use these tools, same thing that's happened with new FISA wiretap provisions under Patriot Act will happen with those as well; the use of these tools will bleed over into other areas (Look at DOJ's arguments in FISA court re use of FISA warrants to obtain evidence of crime; started out as only to be used re intelligence gathering activities - but DOJ is now using across the board... and as they can get a warrant under FISA on the basis of "reasonable suspicion," as opposed to "probable cause," you can easily see why. Result? FISA warrant requests have gone from a few hundred 2 years ago to over 2,500 last year, and are climbing like a rocket).

No offense, but this is no different than the abortion problem re "wait'll you're on the wrong end of the telling." Wait'll you're on the wrong end of their not liking your thoughts - unfortunately, you'll likely find it's too late by then.:O

devilkitty
11-13-2004, 09:36 AM
I will bash with the best of them when it comes to southern baptists. I lived i a southern baptist childrens home.......The most hypocritical fuckers in the world. For instance when i was 12 i got a rose from my lil boyfriend at school, when i got home the house dad said "What did you have to do to get that?" That is fucking sick to talk to a 12 year old like that. Also we werent allowed to buy disney stuff because Jerry Falwell said so. Any group that has Jerry Falwell as a leader is ........RETARDED

LauraLove
11-13-2004, 12:40 PM
K... but as for the future, watch for the following, 'cause it'll likely be the first indicator of the problems which will arise from pursuing this course of action.Yes, ofcourse ! I will be sure to look out for the things you have presented as it is an interesting alternative point of view to consider.

Do you happen to have any ideas on another approach to accomplish the goal of making sure that hate crimes don't go under-punished. I'd be very interested to read your thoughts on the matter as I have been enjoying your additions to other discussions here in Political Poo.


No, in that case we'd just have to agree to disagree since our opinions were both logical results of studies and predispositions and also heartfelt. And we'd both just have to accept that we live in a country where ultimately the majority rules (although that is not always remembered) when it comes to steering the course, and as a consequence hopefully we'll both be honorable enough to admit defeat if/when it happens and still try to move forward instead of pissing and moaning and trying to sabatoge the victor. Oh shit, now I'm putting out utopian theories...


;DThankyou for answering my question. I also wanted to add that in my opinion we could all use a bit more utopia in the world :)

threlayer
11-13-2004, 01:35 PM
It isn't the South, it is reactionary, religious fundamentalism, instead of practical realism.

Why should anyone back a universal concept that entirely relies on individualistic interpretations of unproveable, ancient anecdotes based on a collection of stories handed down many times to superstitious, uneducated people before they were ever written down. And then they were subject to numerous additional interpretations during the many translations, including to ancient Greek. And then the whole thing is multiply institutionalized.

Don't we have enough reality to deal with?

Djoser
11-13-2004, 06:41 PM
...hopefully we'll both be honorable enough to admit defeat if/when it happens and still try to move forward instead of pissing and moaning and trying to sabatoge the victor...


Yeah, just like the Right-Wing Jesus Freaks did after Clinton got re-elected.

Wwanderer
11-13-2004, 09:57 PM
> A Patriotic Poem
>
> The election is over, the results are now known.
> The will of the people has clearly been shown.
> We should show by our thoughts, our words and our deeds
> That unity is just what our country needs.
> Let's all get together. Let bitterness pass.
> I'll hug your elephant.
> You kiss my ass.

This is making the net rounds.

-Ww

painteddragon76
11-13-2004, 10:05 PM
Not all Southerners are bad,so don't bash us too bad.

PhaedrusZ
11-14-2004, 07:12 AM
Whatever you might say about the South, I'd forgotten...until I read an op-ed column in the newspaper a few days ago...that the last two Democrats to be elected President of the U.S. in the recent past were both governors from the South. So the primary question is "Why?" Perhaps as simple as "average folks" being more able to identify with someone nicknamed "Bubba," even if he was/is a "policy wonk"? Any other theories?


PhaedrusZ

Emily
11-14-2004, 10:37 AM
I think that that has a lot to do with it. Kerry is from the most liberal state in the union and he's supposed to connect with the people from the South?

However, Gore was from Tennessee....

Daddyforhire
11-14-2004, 10:52 AM
However, Gore was from Tennessee....
He wasn't raised here though. Gore did not represent TN in any way other than name only. Even if he had, any political capital with Tennesseans as a majority was squandered by his association with Clinton.


So the primary question is "Why?" Perhaps as simple as "average folks" being more able to identify with someone nicknamed "Bubba," even if he was/is a "policy wonk"? Any other theories?

That buy-in to lowbrow stereotypes is exactly what helped to cost the democrats this election. One of the cornerstones of warfare is "do not understimate your enemy". On political ground, this is something libs have failed to understand. And they will continue to fail as long as they cling to a false superiority complex.

PhaedrusZ
11-14-2004, 12:12 PM
That buy-in to lowbrow stereotypes is exactly what helped to cost the democrats this election. One of the cornerstones of warfare is "do not understimate your enemy". On political ground, this is something libs have failed to understand. And they will continue to fail as long as they cling to a false superiority complex.


Ah...but I'm not a Democrat and I'm not a Republican. My voter registration has been "Declines to state" almost as long as I've been old enough to vote. And I voted for the Libertarian candidate this time around as a "protest vote." Living in California, that didn't make any difference anyway. I knew before I went to my polling place Kerry would receive the California electoral vote. I would have felt the same way if I lived in Texas, where Bush received the Texas electoral vote.

Just threw the rhetorical question out to see what the reaction would be. Although it is interesting to note that both the referrenced link which started this thread and the essay by Ted Rall which started another thread will be archived by Google. If I did belong to the Republican party, I'd be using those links to "fire up the troops" during the presidential election of 2008.

Btw, Jimmy Carter always struck me as being better educated than Bill Clinton, but I kinda think Clinton was working at the "good ol' boy persona," so perhaps that's why I have that perception. Sometimes, I'm not even sure Bush's errors with the English language aren't at least partially some kind of "act," precisely for the reason you state...i.e., leading opponents to underestimate your capabilities. But otoh, Bush had much more help in the business world than most of us ever received or will receive, so who really knows, other than Bush himself.


PhaedrusZ

LauraLove
11-14-2004, 12:24 PM
I like Jimmy Carter alot.

I also agree that Clinton is very effective at working the "good ol' boy persona".

Katrine
11-14-2004, 07:32 PM
That buy-in to lowbrow stereotypes is exactly what helped to cost the democrats this election. One of the cornerstones of warfare is "do not understimate your enemy". On political ground, this is something libs have failed to understand. And they will continue to fail as long as they cling to a false superiority complex.
Maybe some liberals are highbrow, but in Texas, many smart, educated, and sophisticated people are Republicans. The conservative christian values aspect seems to skew the Republican view. Most of the repubs I know are secular. 'Dem Xians sure have a loud yell don't they.

Casual Observer
11-14-2004, 07:42 PM
Maybe some liberals are highbrow, but in Texas, many smart, educated, and sophisticated people are Republicans.

Yeah, they have quite a few of those in the north too, but the problem is that many in the south and west can't see that moderate GOP members in the northeast can add to their clout. This is why Giuliani doesn't have a realistic chance for the presidency, despite his popularity.


Btw, Jimmy Carter always struck me as being better educated than Bill Clinton, but I kinda think Clinton was working at the "good ol' boy persona," so perhaps that's why I have that perception.

Both were also notorious micromanagers of the WH. This has its ups and downs.

Daddyforhire
11-16-2004, 02:07 PM
Ah...but I'm not a Democrat and I'm not a Republican
I did not mean to imply that in my response. It was a general observation that seems to have proven true since I really started watching politics in the late '80s.


Maybe some liberals are highbrow, but in Texas, many smart, educated, and sophisticated people are Republicans.

Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough, sorry. I am not saying that liberals are more intelligent or sophisticated, rather that as a whole they tend to vastly overestimate their intelligence, sophistication, and relevance. Further, my main point was that they seem to perpetually cling to the stereotypes of the south, and that has come back to bite them in a major way several times, the elections this year being a prime example.

Tigerlilly
11-16-2004, 02:33 PM
^ hmm I see some clinging to the stereotype of liberals in that statement--not that I don't stereotype sometimes myself -- just pointing out that this: " vastly overestimate their intelligence, sophistication, and relevance" is a stereotype in itself.

Carry on ;)

Jay Zeno
11-16-2004, 02:37 PM
Both conservatives and liberals are entirely against stereotyping those races, ethnicities, and philosophies that they happen to agree with.

Daddyforhire
11-16-2004, 02:44 PM
I'm not stereotyping, my comments are based off years of study. My first degree is a poly-sci/international relations offspring. They can also be backed up by studying the strategies the more liberal candidates for the presidency utilized, some even going so far as to write off the south as unimportant. And I didn't say "all", just as a whole which is to say a majority. ;D

Tigerlilly
11-16-2004, 03:04 PM
I'm not stereotyping, my comments are based off years of study
that's what I base my stereotypes on- years of studing the world around me !

LOL, sorry-- just nit picking a bit ;)

Djoser
11-16-2004, 05:19 PM
Well, it's all too easy to generalize, and we all do it to some extent, but it's best to avoid it.

We could generalize and say that the average college graduate is an elitist, delusional, generally spoiled brat who has an exagerrated opinion of his intelligence and sophistication, easily swayed by 'liberal' rhetoric. We would be wrong, though we have all run into snotty little pricks like this.

We could also say that the average Southerner is a willfully ignorant, bigoted, generally moronic cretin, easily brainwashed by cheap hucksters of religious platitudes and 'fascist' propaganda. We would also be wrong, though many of us have run into disgusting pigs like this.

Pan Dah
11-16-2004, 06:25 PM
We could also say that the average Southerner is a willfully ignorant, bigoted, generally moronic cretin, easily brainwashed by cheap hucksters of religious platitudes and 'fascist' propaganda. We would also be wrong, though many of us have run into disgusting pigs like this.
Yeah, but you lived in Daytona. That skews the odds just a tad.

Gabe
11-16-2004, 06:30 PM
God I love the south, I love the North..... I love the United States of America.

Djoser
11-17-2004, 04:24 AM
Yeah, but you lived in Daytona. That skews the odds just a tad.

Oh hell yes it does! LOLOLOL

devilkitty
11-17-2004, 12:34 PM
For the record Clinton was a rhodes scholar

Tigerlilly
11-17-2004, 12:39 PM
Now wait- the thing about Daytona is its a place that is full of folks who came there on springbreak or vacation and never left. There alot of people who come there from all over the US to run away from things-- it's not so much the people who are actually "from" there.

- two cents from a native - who got the hell out of Daytona LOL !

threlayer
11-17-2004, 08:17 PM
For the record Clinton was a rhodes scholar

For the record Bush has a rose collar.