We must tear down the Democratic Party!

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If you say so, but what if you ended up among those designated second class citizens with less rights and freedoms than whatever demographic is favored by the powers that be? What if LHP literature, communication, assembly, etc. were banned and those who openly identified as LHP were imprisoned? It's in our self-interest to protect the rights and freedoms of others - regardless of our personal opinions - to avoid setting a precedent where our own rights become threatened.

And what if kittens were born with wings and what if beer could be tapped from trees and...

Anyway, if that unlikely scenario happened all of the 'LHP' people that would be likely to walk around advertising it would drop it like a bad habit because they are only play acting anyway. Those that are into truly sinister things already know how to keep their head down, or even gain by such a situation.

 

[idav]

Both of the mainstream parties court racists, because they don't actually care where they get their money. Blaming either for it specifically is a drastic over-simplification, since they both engage...

Not after Trump, racists now found some solidarity in one particular party.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Not after Trump, racists now found some solidarity in one particular party.

Yes, the party that likes to make everything about race.

 

[idav]

Yes, the party that likes to make everything about race.

You think any racist democrats actually voted for Hillary lol.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You think any racist democrats actually voted for Hillary lol.

Maybe not by your definition of racism. Maybe not the klan, or Arian brotherhood, but that's only a few thousand people. A micro fraction of a percentile.

Transforming everything under the sun into a race issue is equally as malignant, more so really, than a preference for one's own race or a dislike of any given group of people. It's a fan to the flames.

 

[idav]

Maybe not by your definition of racism. Maybe not the klan, or Arian brotherhood, but that's only a few thousand people. A micro fraction of a percentile.

Transforming everything under the sun into a race issue is equally as malignant, more so really, than a preference for one's own race or a dislike of any given group of people. It's a fan to the flames.

Well it never get was about race before but something was different this election. Y ah only take few thousand here and
a few thousand there. I vote based on many many issues race doesn't even matter.

 

[idav]

I think you're conflating religious values with political ones... Certainly, there is a large wing of right Christians who shape some of these policies. The LHP doesn't address law, in fact, the LHP generally encourages people to follow the laws of their country whatever they would be.

Anyway, it's a trade - you can be with a bunch of loons, or deal with a few weird views on abortion/drugs/whatever. Personally, I think both parties are completely retarded in regard to these things - neither value science in the discussion, and that's about where I think it's an irrelevant selection criteria. If the Libertarian party wasn't fielding literal clowns like Gary, I'd have voted for them.

They're retarded because the issues are not real, no humans would be just spit down the middle on everything, what a laugh.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Bad naive and ambiguous generalization. Slavery was present throughout the world up until the change began to take place in the late 18th century through the 20th century. Even the Jews of the Bible practiced and regulated slavery, and Christians up until the 19th century justified slavery based on the Bible.

So? If anything, of those values mentioned in the Constitution, the greatest is perhaps that we can in the future do better. It gave us freedom, but "all men" did not even include all men.

Even the Jews of the Bible practiced and regulated slavery, and Christians up until the 19th century justified slavery based on the Bible.

Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Zoroastrian, and Judaism did not prohibit slavery in scripture leaving the question ambiguous concerning moral and ethical issues of slavery.

Which is a reason I consider such religions morally reprehensible.

 

[shunyadragon]

Most of us hear what we want to hear, usually without really listening to what's being said. Welcome to the club.

Some of us have difficulty saying hat they mean, and meaning what they say.

If there is a problem, please make your view clearer.

 

[shunyadragon]

So? If anything, of those values mentioned in the Constitution, the greatest is perhaps that we can in the future do better. It gave us freedom, but "all men" did not even include all men.

You have failed to take into consideration your 'laying the specific blame;' without considering the context of history. which you seem to back up and acknowledge somewhat here. Your previous post:

The entire American state was built upon racism and slavery.

Laying the blame in a useless generalization here as you are doing fails to acknowledge that these leaders are a part of the evolving nature of human morals, ethics, and civilization of the history of humanity. They are a part of that history of progressive change and not specifically at fault in and of themselves of the culture they were a part of. In fact many if not most were advocates of change, and were not comfortable with the status quo of the time.

I believe that our founding fathers, and later leaders like Abraham Lincoln advocated privately more radical changes, but knew that if they openly and aggressively promoted that change they would have not been in a position to achieve the change they accomplished, and in some cases their private beliefs if made public potentially could have put them in jail, such as the more Humanist views of some of the founding fathers.

Which is a reason I consider such religions morally reprehensible.

The religions of the past ere not totally morally reprehensible for the time the scripture was written. It is morally reprehensible to still believe that these ancient scriptures are still relevant today as the standard of morals and ethics and relationships with selective biased consideration of scripture, or a rewrite to make it sound better,

This is why I consider these religions a part of our spiritual heritage, and not standards of morality and ethics to live by today. I consider the spiritual teachings of the Baha'i Faith, the humanist alternatives of Unitarian Universalism with 'Humanist Manifesto' to be worthy standards of morals, ethics for the contemporary civilization.

It is also well documented in history that our founding fathers, and later leaders like Abraham Lincoln privately advocated in private correspondence with fellow founding fathers for more radical change than they were able to do in the public. They realized that they probably would have failed to achieve what they did if the advocated immediate radical changes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think there should be a Basket of Deplorables DIR.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think there should be a Basket of Deplorables DIR.

Interesting......I wonder if we need a whole slew of new DIRs in addition to Basket Of Deplorables....
Alt Left
Alt Right
Illiberal Liberals
Nazi
White Supremacist
Black Separatist
BLM
Meh....
SJW

It could be fun!

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting......I wonder if we need a whole slew of new DIRs in addition to Basket Of Deplorables....
Alt Left
Alt Right
Illiberal Liberals
Nazi
White Supremacist
Black Separatist
BLM
Meh....
SJW

It could be fun!

You left out Trumpism

 

[Revoltingest]

You left out Trumpism

It wasn't a comprehensive list.
I depend upon more imaginative posters to complete it.

 

[idav]

Interesting......I wonder if we need a whole slew of new DIRs in addition to Basket Of Deplorables....
Alt Left
Alt Right
Illiberal Liberals
Nazi
White Supremacist
Black Separatist
BLM
Meh....
SJW

It could be fun!

 

[Revoltingest]

!

 

[BSM1]

Some of us have difficulty saying hat they mean, and meaning what they say.

If there is a problem, please make your view clearer.

I think I get it but I don't know what "...saying hat..." means.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have failed to take into consideration your 'laying the specific blame;' without considering the context of history. which you seem to back up and acknowledge somewhat here. Your previous post:

Jesus mentioned some stuff about peace, loving your neighbor, taking care of one another, but, yet, he also said to kill those who don't want him to reign over him and he is part of the dramatis personae that is very authoritarian, intolerant, blood thirsty, misogynist, and he is included in the mythology of those who condone slavery and tell slaves to serve. Ergo, even though there is some good, the Bible is not suitable as a guide for morality, as so much of what it considers moral and even necessary via divine mandate we do not tolerate (such as killing your rebellious teenager).
The Constitution gave us fine words, but actions speak louder than words. With the Constitution, we were encouraged and given permission to update it, so that each new generation would not be governed by the dead and they could address their own new problems in their own new society unknown to those who lived during the mid-to-late 18th century. And we did make it better by making sure all men have those rights, and not just men but women, and we are granting these rights to other minority groups.
Where there are flaws and shortcomings, we shouldn't pretend they don't exist. Rather, we should acknowledge the mistakes of the past and boldly declare we can and will do better, and rise to a system were truly everyone does have the same rights and equality under the law, rather than clinging onto systems of past inequities that were/are terribly inadequate and require constant updating because the past didn't actually grant rights to all men despite those words saying it did.

 

[idav]

Jesus mentioned some stuff about peace, loving your neighbor, taking care of one another, but, yet, he also said to kill those who don't want him to reign over him and he is part of the dramatis personae that is very authoritarian, intolerant, blood thirsty, misogynist, and he is included in the mythology of those who condone slavery and tell slaves to serve.

Hold on Jesus never said to kill anyone. You have a verse. He didn't say to serve either he washed his own apostles feet and showed the slave becomes he master. Jesus was well ahead of his time, even more so than some modern folks. Really the only thing I have against Jesus was cursing a tree lol. Anyhow just needed to interject that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hold on Jesus never said to kill anyone. You have a verse. He didn't say to serve either he washed his own apostles feet and showed the slave becomes he master. Jesus was well ahead of his time, even more so than some modern folks. Really the only thing I have against Jesus was cursing a tree lol. Anyhow just needed to interject that.

In Luke 19 Jesus talks of a parable of a king who bears stark and uncanny resemblance to Christ, and this King's order is to kill those who don't want him to reign over them (specifically, gather them, bring them here, and kill them in front of me). Jesus didn't say anything about slavery, but he said three times at least he did not come to do away with the law or prophets, and this law does permit slavery, and Paul would later affirm the status of slaves by telling them to serve, especially so if they are Christian and serve a Christian master.
Cursing a fruitless fig tree that was out of season, it's more evidence, albeit more trivial and less significant overall, as to why the Bible fails as a guide for morality and reason.