I'm agreeing with liberals more and more lately
- Thread starter K Dogg
- Start date
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
See the 'work" the the filthy homosexual communist, Herbert Marcuse, who is personally responsible for stool-pushing the disgusting hate-America concept of "multiculturalism
This is all I need to read of your ideology to realize that deep down inside, you are just a lonely ignorant hater, totally disconnected from reality.
This is all I need to read of your ideology to realize that deep down inside, you are just a lonely ignorant hater, totally disconnected from reality.
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
Messenger said:
I've never used one single penny of stolen tax money in "social services" in almost 50 years of existance, so NO, I do not like having money stolen from me to be redistributed to the indolent, the inferior and the unlucky.
Fuck them!
Why should I pay for some beaners kids' medical care or education? Why should I pay for some junky's rehabilitation? Why should I pay for some ghetto negro's apartment? Why should I pay for some codger's presription drugs? Why should I pay for your 'disability'?
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
TJHairball said:
I can agree with you somewhat on this point. Corprotate/globalist moneypigs represent the fascistic melding of socialist ideology with ubercapitalist greed.
I see you've drunk the high-potency kool aid. Leftist "claim" to prize individual liberty when it comes to amoral behaviors, but when it comes to thought and philosophy, they are all surprisingly monolithic and utterly intolerant.
By "property oppresses people" do you mean that if I have three dollars more than you, you are "oppressed" if I don't give you a buck fifty? Or is the state supposed to take two dollars from me, keep 50¢ and give you the other $1.50?
And here we go with the patented "bludgeon" words. I'm supposed to back off my position and go on the defensive because you call me a "hater". I guess "racist" and "homophobe" can't be far behind.
No, I'm talking about "Cultural Marxism". Look it up. Corporation have no more "rights" than do "homosexuals" or "one-eyed syphilitic dwarves".
Again with the "hate". What's with you leftist fairies and "hate". Am I not supposed to "hate" people who want to destroy everything I hold dear? It seems it's perfectly OK for you and your ilk to "hate" anyone opposed to your agendas. Why is that?
Yes, it is. If you had the wherewithall to actually research the work of the Frankfurt School (I did hint that you should, after all.) You might have learned by now that these neo-marxist scum theorized that it is western civilization itself that must be "deconstructed" (as in destroyed) in order for the socialist utopia to be realized. This is why marxist academics to this day are all high on "Critical Theory" as a means to "deconstruct" the traditions and values of western society that they deem to be impediments to their utopian dreams.
Of course you do.
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
The Question said:
You still haven't defined "good".
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
jack said:
Wassa matta, Jack? Marcuse one of your gay heroes?
How does pointing out that Marcuse was a vile homosexual pervert and an evil communist make me a "hater"? And how is relating these FACTS in any way "disconnected from reality"?
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
Hambil said:
... and there's the "racist" tag from the gerbil-packing faggot.
Blindgroping
U mad 'bro?
Do you guys EVER stop with the gay references?
Any psychologist would tell you that Freud is speaking through you.
Any psychologist would tell you that Freud is speaking through you.
TJHairball
I love this place
Not exactly. Try just the melding of ubercapitalist greed with government.Gurk_MacGuintey said:
"Monolithic," says the man. This from someone who thinks facism is a variety of socialism. If it looks monolithic to you, it's only because everything you disagree with gets lumped together in your head.
Not at all.
Gurk, I'll ask you a question: What's the state of absolute personal liberty, and what defines it?
(I'll give you a hint: The first part of the answer starts with "A" and ends with "narchy.")
"Hate, hate, hate" = "bludgeon" words?
My, Gurk, for someone whose rants are about 50% insult by volume, you have a really thin skin.
That's funny...
...because in my book, homosexuals and one-eyed syphilitic dwarves have the rights that individuals do. They are individuals, after all - each and every one. A corporation is a group, and therefore oughtn't have any rights unless you start ascribing rights to groups. Gurk, do you understand what an individual is, as opposed to a group? You seem to have it backwards in your ranting.
Gurk, dearie... did I say I hated you?
Aww, did you just drop the soap in surprise? Bend over and pick it up, would you ... :yoohoo:
Face it, Gurk. Summary executions on the basis of belief are about as much a violation of personal rights as you can come up with... and just the sort of thing the Founding Fathers detested.
Ever heard of the Inquisition? The Thirty Years' War?
Again with your confusion. Deconstruction is a very different thing from destruction, Gurk. You keep mixing the two up, and it's not helping you any.
Gurk, Gurk, Gurk... how long is it going to take you to get a grip on what deconstruct means?
Blindgroping
U mad 'bro?
don't care, not interested.
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
TJHairball said:
Of course anarchy is the "absolute" state of personal liberty. But can you tell me the diference between "total anarchy" and "perfect anarchy"?
Believe it or not, hairbag, I went through an anarchist stage back in my university days. I had the goatee, the bandanna and fatigues, the black flag - the whole schmeer ... but then the drugs ran out, the hippie chick ran off and I graduated, so I shaved off the goatee and went out and got a job.
I know you're fixated upon the evil corporations, but let's stick with the marxist concept of Identity Group ideology for a moment. you said: " ... because in my book, homosexuals and one-eyed syphilitic dwarves have the (same) rights that individuals do.
Exactly so! There is not one single constitutionally enumerated or implied right that I have that any filthy homosexual pig, or one-eyed syphilitic dwarf, or black man or ugly feminist woman or legal-resident beaner does not also have.
... not a single one.
Yet we see libtard "useful idiots" talking about "gay rights", "black rights", "hispanic rights" and "womens rights" all the time. Why is that, do you think?
I have not said that anyone (except muslim scum) should be executed for their "beliefs". Rather, vermin scum leftist bugs should be executed for their "actions". For example: Dalton Trumbo should have been executed for conspiring with known Soviet operatives for the purpose of overthrowing the government of the United States and inciting "world socialist revolution". It was his "actions", not his "beliefs" that should have condemned Trumbo to the ignominious death of a traitor, just as the Rosenburgs were executed for their actions and not their beliefs.
You seem to like Wikipedia. Here, let me do your work for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
This is actually a very balanced overview of the vermin scum marxist bugs - and it talks about "deconstruction" in the context of the marxist imperative to destroy the social cohesion of western civilization.
It also mentions Jack's disgusting homosexual communist hero, Herbert Marcuse.
TJHairball
I love this place
Now, what defines anarchy?Gurk_MacGuintey said:
You can answer two ways. First, the lack of rules. Second, the ability of a person to do pretty much whatever they want.
Property laws are a codification of rules restricting people from doing things. It's pretty simply, Gurk. Property happens to be the largest restriction on personal liberty in place today.
Thanks to the civil rights movement. Which you so decry.
Let's see... because the rights being given to those individuals of those groups didn't (and sometimes still don't) quite measure up to the rights being given to straight white males?
It's a very simple contention, Gurk - that certain groups of people are not being granted the same individual rights as other groups of people.
Aww, Gurk, what a short memory you have.
"Adhering to a collectivist ideology" is having a belief. "Summary execution" is a form of execution.[/iGurk earlier said:
Ah, yes. So you want to execute Trumbo for writing scripts, do you? Did you think Spartacus was that dangerous a movie?
And you still can't grasp the difference between deconstruction and destruction.
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
Hi Hairyballbag!
So, let me see if I have this straight- you believe that if a law stops you from walking into my house and sitting on my couch and watching my TV, I'm "restricting" your personal liberty?
Have I got that right?
[QUOTE}
Thanks to the civil rights movement. Which you so decry. Let's see... because the rights being given to those individuals of those groups didn't (and sometimes still don't) quite measure up to the rights being given to straight white males?
[/QUOTE]
Really? What 'rights' do I have as a normal, non-homo white male that any other American does not also enjoy? Please provide a few examples?
Again - please provide examples. I've heard so much about this fabled 'white privilege' I supposedly enjoy, but someone must have taken mine.
... and it's obvious you failed to read the linked article or lack the cognitive ability to grasp the concepts conveyed therein. If you had you would understand that the very concept of "deconstruction" is an integral component of the neo-marxist philosophy of Critical Theory, which itself is an epistimological model designed to implement the marxian imperative on the macro, cultural-wide level rather than just the narrow economic sphere.
And, of course, that marxian imperative is and has always been the "sweeping away of the pillars of bourgeois capitalist society", i.e. the destruction of the social cohesion of western civilization.
TJHairball said:
So, let me see if I have this straight- you believe that if a law stops you from walking into my house and sitting on my couch and watching my TV, I'm "restricting" your personal liberty?
Have I got that right?
[QUOTE}
Thanks to the civil rights movement. Which you so decry. Let's see... because the rights being given to those individuals of those groups didn't (and sometimes still don't) quite measure up to the rights being given to straight white males?
[/QUOTE]
Really? What 'rights' do I have as a normal, non-homo white male that any other American does not also enjoy? Please provide a few examples?
Again - please provide examples. I've heard so much about this fabled 'white privilege' I supposedly enjoy, but someone must have taken mine.
... and it's obvious you failed to read the linked article or lack the cognitive ability to grasp the concepts conveyed therein. If you had you would understand that the very concept of "deconstruction" is an integral component of the neo-marxist philosophy of Critical Theory, which itself is an epistimological model designed to implement the marxian imperative on the macro, cultural-wide level rather than just the narrow economic sphere.
And, of course, that marxian imperative is and has always been the "sweeping away of the pillars of bourgeois capitalist society", i.e. the destruction of the social cohesion of western civilization.
TJHairball
I love this place
Does that not restrict my choices, my activities, and my movements? In a word, my freedom of action?Gurk_MacGuintey said:
This is why anarchy in its purest form never takes off very well.
It's also worth noting that absolute freedom of action is only possible for a single individual, as adding additional "unrestricted" individuals winds up restricting [potentially and probably] either's activity. There's a trade-off. If I'm free to shoot you dead on sight, that restricts your freedoms immensely if it happens. (You are at that point only free to decompose, at a rate not of your choosing.)Laws delineate boundaries between more and less important personal liberties. In practice, much restrictive activity (e.g., getting stuffed in jail, forcibly moved, prevented from taking a particular action) relates to laws protecting property rather than people. Thus, property is the main current restrictor of personal liberty, here and now. (This is not always the case.)
For example... the right to marry a singular consenting adult partner you find sexually appealing in a state other than Massachussetts.
50 years ago (i.e., before the Civil Rights movement had significant successes) the right to vote, sit on the front of buses, etc etc etc.
Millions of people have been working hard for decades to take it away.
It hasn't been easy. Right now, it's been pretty severely reduced, to the point where any "extra" rights or preferential treatment is purely unofficial and prosecutable in civil court if demonstrable.
If you had any grasp of the term, you'd've noted by now that deconstruction is quite seperate from destruction.
Deconstruction is a question of analysis; not action, but understanding. It is in no way synonymous with destruction, as you keep insisting.
As far as the destruction of social cohesion, a number of philosophers the Frantfurt school actually would like to increase social cohesion in certain fashions. It is not a question of destroying society as much as re-shaping society into something morally defensible.
Gurk_MacGuintey
Valhallan Ambassador
TJHairball said:Does that not restrict my choices, my activities, and my movements? In a word, my freedom of action?
This is why anarchy in its purest form never takes off very well.
Laws delineate boundaries between more and less important personal liberties. In practice, much restrictive activity (e.g., getting stuffed in jail, forcibly moved, prevented from taking a particular action) relates to laws protecting property rather than people. Thus, property is the main current restrictor of personal liberty, here and now.
Interesting perspective, Hairyballbag. I'm begining to like you. You obviously take your black and red seriously and have spent some time contemplating the hidden depths of the philosophy. I was just into it for the drugs and the hippie chicks.
Hold on! In an earlier post you said:
"Thanks to the civil rights movement. Which you so decry. Let's see... because the rights being given to those individuals of those groups didn't (and sometimes still don't) quite measure up to the rights being given to straight white males?"
And then you said:
"It's a very simple contention, Gurk - that certain groups of people are not being granted the same individual rights as other groups of people."
This clearly impies that there are a whole host of rights that these Identity Groups are oppressively denied (in favor of hated white straight males, of course). I asked you to provide some examples of these rights that are denied ... and ALL you could come up with is homosexual marriage?
That's IT?
First of all, no homosexaul is denied the 'right' to marry, as marriage rights (Except Massachusetts) are exactly equal for all men and women. Secondly, the contention that homosexuals are denied a "right" if they can't "marry" is based upon the false premise that homosexual relationships are "the same thing/equal to in every way" to a good and wholesome marriage.
They're not.
Redefining marriage to include the transient love afairs of homosexuals would effectively denude the institution of most of the cultural connotations that have always been associated with marriage - cultural connotations that pre-date every existing government and legal code . Marriage has ALWAYS been associated culturally with the inception of new families (bloodlines) and the raising of children. To legally define the barren and sterile love affairs of homosexuals as being *equal* to the wholesome and fertile unions of men and women excises - cuts away, amputates, divorces - from marriage its primary cultural meaning: starting families and raising children.
Furthermore; the attempts to legally define homosexual relationships as "marriages" is nothing less than a Cultural Assault upon THE basic cultural institution that IS the vertitable brick upon which all societies, all cultures, all civilizations are built.
The "root" of this assault comes directly from classic Marxist Dialectic, with it's imperative to "sweep away the pillars of bourgeois society" in order to pave the way for the creation of the fairy tale utopia where "social justice" will reign and "true equality" will ensure an egalitarian happiness for all men and women. You may remember from your readings back in college as you sat under your Che Guavera poster that Marx identified three key "pillars of bourgeois society" that had to be "swept away". Do you remember them, Hairyballbag?
1) The Church, which has already been effectively destroyed as a cultural force, 2) The Family, which the leftist bugs are constantly trying to redefine, (It Takes A Village) and, yes 3) Marriage.
Thus I dispose of the "denied right" of homosexual marriage.
You got any other rights that I have as a straight white male that others are denied?
There it is - the leftist bugs want to "re-shap(e) society into something morally defensible", demanding that their paradigm and their morality be forced upon all of society while ignoring the simple pragmatic fact that most people want nothing to do with their ideas or methods. This is why 100 million people have been murdered by the ideological left over the past 100 years - because most people don't want anything to do with it and refuse to go along with that "re-shaping of society into something morally defensible" unless it's at the point of a gun.
TJHairball
I love this place
Gurk, that's the really big active current issue. Doesn't mean it's the only one out there... it's just the big one.Gurk_MacGuintey said:
So now you're claiming marriage rights are equal for all men and women everywhere except Massachussetts?
See Jane. Jane, being unmarried and of legal age, has the right to marry Bob, who is also of legal age and unmarried.
Jack, however, does not have the right to marry Bob, even though Jack is unmarried and of legal age. Ergo, Jack does not have the same right to marry as Jane.
You may claim that these are rights with parity, but where Jane, in any non-MA state, has the right to marry any single, willing, and adult male, Jack clearly does not.
And now you're claiming Jack and Jane have unequal rights in MA to boot when related to marriage? Show me the test case for that, Gurk. Demonstrate something willing, adult, and human that Jack can marry in MA that Jane can't, and vice versa.
Note that gay marriages are not transient, any more than heterosexual marriages are transient.
Figures are still mixed this early (higher in Sweden, the same in the Netherlands, lower in the US), but it doesn't look like gay marriages are "transient love affairs" by any standard of affairs.
Incidentally, Massachussetts has the lowest divorce rate - substantially lower than any other state.
Would you like to know how many kids my lesbian cousin, who tied the knot officially just about as soon as it was legal in MA (she actually lives in the DC area, but the symbology was nice), is raising?
It's more than any of my straight cousins have.
And while under that Che Guavera poster, you should remember that Che got married, and that in America, it was Jefferson leading away the sweep of the power of the Church; Marx, who shuttled between England and Germany, thought it was a really good idea. "Kudos, Jefferson et al," said Marx with that pillar, notorious for his poor relationship with the rest of his family.
That said, churches are still a very powerful cultural force. I don't know where you live that you think they aren't.
Marx suggested getting rid of marriage entirely. This is exactly the reverse of what we're talking about here with the expansion of marriage.
Right now, in America, gay people are taking marriage more seriously than most straight people.
Thus your claim is disposed of.
Mmm? Try getting past the marriage question first, then we'll talk. There aren't too many left that are legally recognized, thanks to the civil rights movement, but there are one or two others we can get to in time.
"100 million over the past 100 years," says the man who keeps trying to define facists as the ideological left, when the Axis of WWII was in fact ideologically opposed to the left. Mmm... shall we then move 50 million or so deaths over from your left hand column to your right hand column? That should just leave you with ideologically linked deaths attributed to Mao, Stalin, the Russian Revolution, and the Khmer Rouge, which could easily be estimated in the approximate range of 50 million*. In the case of Stalin and Mao, such readily avoidable deaths as could be laid at their feet are precisely the general type of activity as you're advocating against leftists.
If your suggestion about summarily executing all the leftists was carried out, it would be a far higher death toll, of course. Much more than any in history.
This, when about 200 million or so individuals have been tracably murdered by various states over the years, with estimates widely varying on who is to blame for how many deaths and what counts as one of the murders in question. The ideological left is no more to blame than the ideological right, thank you muchly.
*Milage may vary.
Blindgroping
U mad 'bro?
I'm sure I speak for a lot of people here when I say...
