Posted on 03/20/2013 9:57:49 AM PDT by mnehring
Zo has strong words for neo-confederate libertarians, especially those who infiltrated the CPAC conference. He reminds viewers why some libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, and why Republicans should embrace the vision of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
(Video at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at pjtv.com ...
First of all, I know nothing about "American Thinker" so can't comment.
But I do know that Free Republic is quite strict in setting and enforcing standards against extreme expressions, including racism.
So I disagree with your statement: "FR had more than its share, too."
Second, experienced posters come to understand where the lines are drawn, though some apparently enjoy testing limits, just to see how much they can get away with, without their posts being deleted.
And people who play such games need to understand that small differences in expression can make a big difference in whether it's accepted here, or not.
And different forums have somewhat different standards.
But more to the point precisely of Road Glide's post, he (assume he) slipped in a claim opposite of what conservative ideas are all about: RG posted that somehow "conservatism" is based in racism.
I'd call that a False Flag operator, and whether working for Storm Front or the DNC, don't know, can't guess, but it needed to be exposed and held up for what it is.
Of course, I didn't know RG would get zotted for it, doubtless Free Republic wants us to understand: they will enforce their standards.
So don't bring your crazy-talk here.
Maybe you could take it over to American Thinker, where it's said, they're a little more, ahem, "lax" in enforcing standards?
;-)
You obviously speak of yourselves, right?
;-)
I’d say that is time to have that discussion that Eric Holder suggested. We’ve pretty much failed in Looking for the minority Superman. Survival of Western Civilization demands it.
Once you have established yourself as a neo-comm southernphobe not interested in debate but only insulting people (as demonstrated by your “myths” thread you have forfeited any claim on having discussions for their merit and only deserve insults.
Perhaps your mother never told you about the Golden Rule. I have simply returned to you that which you promoted and sought. Funny that the instigator has no brass to take what she/he/it dishes out.
Start a serious, insult free, discussion and I will reply in kind. Otherwise, reap what you have sown like a man.
;-)
Oooooo.... another graduate of the Pee Wee Herman Debate School. “I know you are, but what am I?”
LOL!
;-)
When you were a kid cane pole fishing and caught one, didn’t you play with it a while before bringing it in?
Agreed, but "Minority supermen" are not the problem -- if they really were "super" or even just your average ordinary conservative.
The real problem is Democrats keep getting away with passing off their most radical socialists under the rubric of "diversity".
So we're going to suffer under the rule of black socialists, women socialists, Hispanic socialists, gay socialists, etc., and they keep claiming it's all about "diversity".
But there's no real "diversity" in Democrat politics -- it's just different faces on the same old socialist policies.
And here's our problem: they keep telling us we need more blacks (93% Obama), Hispanics (71% Obama) and Asians (73% Obama) to vote Republican.
I'm saying: wait a minute, something wrong with this picture!
40% of whites voted for Obama.
43% of Protestants, 50% of Catholics and 69% of Jews voted Obama.
46% of married women voted Obama
47% of everyone over 40 voted Obama, and
57% of "middle income" 30k to 50k earners voted Obama.
So I'm suggesting, before we get so hot and bothered about doing "outreach" to Hispanics, blacks & other "diversity" groups, how about if we make better appeals to that 40% to 50% of our own most likely voters?
OK pal, you're on: quote even a single "insult" I have made to you personally, or "collectively".
You can’t be that stupid, can you?
You and I and everyone else knows that you are using “neo-Confederate” as an insult, a provocation. You use it the same way libtards use neo-con...because it smacks of the same evil connotations as neo-Nazi. NO ONE wanting to engage in a civil discussion would use such characterization, whether they are real terms or not. Well, if you are stupid, you might.
You could have used many other terms that don’t have such a negative connotation and started off with an honest effort to have a real discussion. No, what you did was make a list of supposed myths and then “supported” them with selected “facts”. That it itself was OK, but you then couldn’t resist trying to poke a stick in the eye of those who believe differently than you. My responses have been of the exact same tone. I told you I wouldn’t debate you because you are a neo-comm...but you’ve badgered me constantly, responding to comments I made to others, not you. So, as I indicated, I’ve stayed away from debate and simply used neo-comm to accurately describe you and your perspective.
You apparently take issue with that description, though I’m not sure why. You have indicated that neo-Confederate is a real term used to describe people like me. By the same rules, neo-comm is a real term used to describe people like you. Both are true if you want take the meaning of words and apply them selectively. Both terms are also used disparagingly.
You can’t have it both ways. Stop using provocative words you know are going to tweak people or accept the fact that people are going to disparage you in return.
OK, pal?
;-)
In law they call it the “Clean Hands Doctrine”. There is an axiom that goes “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
You make demands of others that you are not willing to meet yourself. You pretend an air of superiority whilst exhibiting more of the very behavior you decry. If you are so certain of your position why not show BroJoeK how it’s done rather than stoop to your usual low standards?
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
Who are you again? Are you guys like lovers or something?
Anyway, even I wasn’t that hard on BroJoe. Give the guy a break.
Thank you for making my point.
You are dismissed.
BWAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!
Sort of like being uninvited by the Village Idiot.
Thanks.
;-)
The home for racists is called the Black Caucus
I agree with everything you stated. The bottom line is the GOP FAILED and should be made responsible for that failure! I’m convinced Romney with the correct assistance could have easily appealed to more Reagan Democrats aka white working class voters and would have likely picked up enough votes in the Mid West industrial belt to win. The GOP/RNC failed in every way to understand the last election and even the basics about the electorate.
I unenthusiastically voted for Romney, McCain and GWB & father but I have had it with the lesser of two evils and will never vote again for an immigration amnesty traitor!
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!!!!!!!
As conservatives we need to shout from the housetops that racists are **NOT** welcome in our circles!
Road Glide had only been here since 2011. I haven't reviewed too much of his posting history, but a cursory review shows problems, including at least some indications of support for the “Second Civil War” stuff. Maybe I'm not being fair to RoadGlide, but advocacy of a “Second Civil War” is deadly dangerous, and as conservatives, we need to steer clear of it.
If we don't distance ourselves from that kind of rhetoric, we will be blamed for views we do not hold. People are known not only by their own views but also by the company they keep. That's why we quite correctly blame President Barack Obama not only for what he says and does but also for his relationship with radical extremists like Bill Ayers, who are a good indicator of what he actually thinks but won't say publicly. Let's avoid keeping company with people who want to destroy the American Republic and substitute an alien ideology — whether communist or fascist — for historic American values.
77 posted on 3/21/2013 7:28:15 AM by BroJoeK: “Yes, those words do define ‘conservatism’ in some other countries, i.e., in Europe, but not here. In America, conservatism simply means allegiance to the US Constitution and traditional family religious values. It usually (but not always) also includes commitment to a strong-enough national defense. So, if you think that ‘conservatism’ has something to do with your genetics, race or nationality, then you are utterly confused about what it means to be a real American.”
This is a really important point, and it's one which bears repeating. The American experiment truly **IS** radical, it is very different from virtually every other nation existing at the time the United States was founded, and it stems from core values that we sometimes risk forgetting in conservative circles.
Being American has nothing to do with race. It has a great deal to do with adherence to a written Constitution and shared values.
One can make a credible case that being a “good conservative German” or a “good conservative Frenchman” or a “good conservative Greek” or a “good conservative Dane” has at least something to do with shared ethnic heritage. That argument leads to ethnocentric versions of nationalism which are arguably thinly-disguised fascist bigotry. It is impossible to read the history of Europe without recognizing that such views, as detestable as they may be, have a long pedigree over there.
I'm not going to argue with people from Germany, France, Greece, or Denmark who want to argue that I'm misrepresenting the current realities of their countries. That's not my point — though I think it could be said that in a post-World War II environment, a race-based view of nationalism was so thoroughly discredited in Europe that core Western values of Judeo-Christian or even older Greco-Roman heritage became the baby thrown out with the dirty bathwater of bigotry.
The United States has a different history which, like Europe, is based on a certain view of Western ideals, but unlike Europe, not connected to shared ethnicity. We need to steer clear of non-American views of what it means to be a conservative American. We're different from Europe and those differences are important.
120 posted on 3/21/2013 1:54:16 PM by Hildred Castaigne: “I don't think it sounds leftist to warn of being wary of white nationalist infiltrators into our ranks. They talk about openly infiltrating the Tea Party over on Stormfront, if you can stand looking at that vile pit of vipers. And I've seen them try it here in GA.”
116 posted on 3/21/2013 1:30:35 PM by BroJoeK: “And like Hildy, I strongly suspect that some of those folks are just paid Democrat “false flag” operators. ;-) “
I have the same suspicions.
Unfortunately, some self-identified conservatives really **DO** believe that bigoted bulls-—.
I almost never use four-letter words. Occasionally they're appropriate. Racist bigots deserve them. They need to be driven out of the conservative movement. As I said before, I don't care whether somebody has white, black, yellow, brown, or red skin. I care a great deal whether they are red, white, and blue. Those colors on the flag count; color of skin doesn't.
Your troll-like responses are noted, along with your false allegations of personal insults against Lee'sGhost.
In fact, the term "Neo-Confederate" has been around for years -- used to describe people who interpret events in order to both defend the Confederacy and project current politics back into Civil War era history.
As with the term "Neo-Conservative" it is only as insulting as people using it intend to be.
But why would anyone even assume the term "Neo-Confederate" is a personal insult against Lee'sGhost?
Lee'sGhost: "You use it the same way libtards use neo-con...because it smacks of the same evil connotations as neo-Nazi.
NO ONE wanting to engage in a civil discussion would use such characterization, whether they are real terms or not.
Well, if you are stupid, you might."
For reference: here is a lengthy definition of the term "Neo-Confederate".
Might I suggest, if you think the definition itself is accurate, but the term "Neo-Confederate" is inappropriate, then what term, exactly, do you prefer?
By the way, I've asked that same question before, and you've refused to answer.
Lee'sGhost: "You could have used many other terms that don’t have such a negative connotation and started off with an honest effort to have a real discussion."
Go ahead, suggest what you think is a more appropriate term.
As for "a real discussion" how could it possible get more "real" than nearly 1,000 posts from dozens of contributors on Free Republic?
Lee'sGhost: "No, what you did was make a list of supposed myths and then “supported” them with selected “facts”.
That it itself was OK, but you then couldn’t resist trying to poke a stick in the eye of those who believe differently than you."
I asked before: quote even one example of an "insult" or "stick in the eye" I've posted that justifies your continuing troll-like responses.
Lee'sGhost: "My responses have been of the exact same tone.
I told you I wouldn’t debate you because you are a neo-comm...but you’ve badgered me constantly, responding to comments I made to others, not you.
So, as I indicated, I’ve stayed away from debate and simply used neo-comm to accurately describe you and your perspective."
Again, you can't quote an insult that I've directed at you personally or generally.
By stark contrast, Lee'sGhost has taken every opportunity to heap personal scorn and inaccurate insults on yours truly.
If that's not troll-like behavior, then what is?
Lee'sGhost: "You have indicated that neo-Confederate is a real term used to describe people like me."
"Neo-Confederate" is a real term which may or may not apply to Lee'sGhost, your choice.
Or chose a different term.
Lee'sGhost: "You can’t have it both ways.
Stop using provocative words you know are going to tweak people or accept the fact that people are going to disparage you in return."
"Provocative" like "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder.
So far, Lee'sGhost is the only poster I've seen on these threads to take offense at the term "Neo-Confederate", and that strongly suggests most people don't find it "provocative".
Even more, it hints that Lee'sGhost is a troll out looking for an easy mark to practice his art on, and thinks he's found one in a gentle soul like BroJoeK. ;-)
Now I'd say it's long past time to stop.
OK, pal?
;-)
Thank you Jim, and thank you to the Admin Moderator, for keeping racists off Free Republic.
Whether they are Stormfront-style true believers or paid Democratic false-flag disruptors, people advocating racist bigotry cannot be allowed to define what it means to be a conservative American.
Probably another stormfronter.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.