Washington Post: white men cause of mass shootings [Archive]

Moose-Knuckle

04-03-13, 16:02

White men have much to discuss about mass shootings
by: Harriet & Charlotte Childress (http://www.cluelessatthetop.com/h_and_c_childress.html)

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-29/opinions/38124057_1_white-men-mental-health-issues-mass-shootings

So with a tax payer funded grant from the Federal Government these two radical left twin sisters conducted “research” and penned this gem that the WP then published. I realize due to the double standard in this country as a white man I do not have the right to be offended, however I find this article to be inflammatory, racist, sexist, and an opus of misinformation.

"Imagine if African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that African Americans be “held accountable.” Then, if an atrocity such as the Newtown, Conn., shootings took place and African American male leaders held a news conference to offer solutions, their credibility would be questionable."

So they ignore the black men and boys who have committed mass shootings in this country like Mark Essex, John Allen Muhammad, and Lee Boyd Malvo. Not to mention the fact that black males only make up 7% of the total US population yet are responsible for the vast majority of firearm related homicides in this country, most of which are black on black inner city gang murders.

"Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years — not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys."

According to these enlightened intellectuals Nidal Malik Hasan, the Islamic terrorist who murdered American service men and women at Fort Hood is in fact a white American male. They also conveniently leave out the fact that the single worst mass school shooting in this country to date (Virginia Tech) was perpetrated by Seung-Hui Cho, an Asian male.

I surmise that these two libtard women suffer from a chronic case of penis envy and feel threatened by white male gun owners.

Voodoo_Man

04-03-13, 16:10

Knew it.

:laugh:

VooDoo6Actual

04-03-13, 16:21

White men have much to discuss about mass shootings
by: Harriet & Charlotte Childress (http://www.cluelessatthetop.com/h_and_c_childress.html)

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-29/opinions/38124057_1_white-men-mental-health-issues-mass-shootings

So with a tax payer funded grant from the Federal Government these two radical left twin sisters conducted “research” and penned this gem that the WP then published. I realize due to the double standard in this country as a white man I do not have the right to be offended, however I find this article to be inflammatory, racist, sexist, and an opus of misinformation.

So they ignore the black men and boys who have committed mass shootings in this country like Mark Essex, John Allen Muhammad, and Lee Boyd Malvo. Not to mention the fact that black males only make up 7% of the total US population yet are responsible for the vast majority of firearm related homicides in this country, most of which are black on black inner city gang murders.

According to these enlightened intellectuals Nidal Malik Hasan, the Islamic terrorist who murdered American service men and women at Fort Hood is in fact a white American male. They also conveniently leave out the fact that the single worst mass school shooting in this country to date (Virginia Tech) was perpetrated by Seung-Hui Cho, an Asian male.

I surmise that these two libtard women suffer from a chronic case of penis envy and feel threatened by white male gun owners.

Racist.

Ryno12

04-03-13, 16:31

White men have much to discuss about mass shootings
by: Harriet & Charlotte Childress (http://www.cluelessatthetop.com/h_and_c_childress.html)

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-29/opinions/38124057_1_white-men-mental-health-issues-mass-shootings

So with a tax payer funded grant from the Federal Government these two radical left twin sisters conducted “research” and penned this gem that the WP then published. I realize due to the double standard in this country as a white man I do not have the right to be offended, however I find this article to be inflammatory, racist, sexist, and an opus of misinformation.

So they ignore the black men and boys who have committed mass shootings in this country like Mark Essex, John Allen Muhammad, and Lee Boyd Malvo. Not to mention the fact that black males only make up 7% of the total US population yet are responsible for the vast majority of firearm related homicides in this country, most of which are black on black inner city gang murders.

According to these enlightened intellectuals Nidal Malik Hasan, the Islamic terrorist who murdered American service men and women at Fort Hood is in fact a white American male. They also conveniently leave out the fact that the single worst mass school shooting in this country to date (Virginia Tech) was perpetrated by Seung-Hui Cho, an Asian male.

I surmise that these two libtard women suffer from a chronic case of penis envy and feel threatened by white male gun owners.

I'm with you 100% bro. This article pissed me off on so many levels. I'd love to have a face-to-face debate with these two broads. ...and I wouldn't be very PC.

Mjolnir

04-03-13, 16:36

Mix a little fact.

Add a little embellishment to suit one's bias.

Draw conclusions.

Welcome to my world, brother. Pleased to meet you.

newyork

04-03-13, 16:40

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344337/white-men-dont-count-robert-verbruggen

officerX

04-03-13, 16:42

Just ridiculous.

Gutshot John

04-03-13, 16:42

Perhaps...though mass shootings account for less than 1% of firearms deaths per year.

I'll take that.

Mjolnir

04-03-13, 16:45

^ This!

jpmuscle

04-03-13, 17:08

Sooo I guess I should feel special then?

Mauser KAR98K

04-03-13, 17:24

The Washington Compost.

skydivr

04-03-13, 17:24

Cause there's a lot of white men shooting people in downtown Chicago, correct?

newyork

04-03-13, 17:30

And L.A. And NYC and...exactly

Heavy Metal

04-03-13, 17:39

John Lee Malvo

Colin Furgeson

Richard Dorner

Nidal Hassan

Seung-Hui Cho

Chai Vang

Talk about poor research!

polymorpheous

04-03-13, 17:59

Let's not forget Radcliffe Haughton.
The asshat who committed the spa shooting here.

Ryno12

04-03-13, 18:02

Let's not forget Radcliffe Haughton.
The asshat who committed the spa shooting here.

Yep, that's right. Did that make national news?

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

T2C

04-03-13, 18:03

Let's ban white men. That should do the trick. :jester:

polymorpheous

04-03-13, 18:03

It sure did.
It was weeks after the temple shooting here.

Ryno12

04-03-13, 18:07

It sure did.
It was weeks after the temple shooting here.

Yeah, I remember when it happened but I couldn't recall if it went national. Actually just drove past there the other day...

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

VooDoo6Actual

04-03-13, 18:11

"We really need to brainwash people to think about guns in a vastly different way.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-6IAOBhlU4

jaxman7

04-03-13, 18:12

Let's ban white men. That should do the trick. :jester:

It's in the works.

-Jax

VooDoo6Actual

04-03-13, 18:52

"Liberals with Guns"

http://youtu.be/FeTCkoXslsE

Sensei

04-03-13, 19:24

"Liberals with Guns"

http://youtu.be/FeTCkoXslsE

Good one.

RyanB

04-03-13, 19:26

If you use the mother Jones data set Whites are under-represented among perpetrators of mass shootings.

Mjolnir

04-03-13, 22:50

Let's ban white men. That should do the trick. :jester:

Wait your turn!

They first have to ban ALL of us Blacks.

Then and only then can YOU Get banned.

Always trying to put a brother down. Can't we just get one thing done before y'all push us back?

LOL!!

MountainRaven

04-03-13, 22:55

According to these enlightened intellectuals Nidal Malik Hasan, the Islamic terrorist who murdered American service men and women at Fort Hood is in fact a white American male.

Look at a 4473 recently? How do you think an Arab would complete it?

Abraxas

04-04-13, 00:22

Kill whitey! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sheep_(1996_film)

SteyrAUG

04-04-13, 00:38

Horrible shootings?..., you mean like shooting a baby in the face for example?

If a WHITE PERSON wrote a similar article about ANY OTHER RACE they'd be fired.

Belloc

04-04-13, 01:32

Edit.

Norinco

04-04-13, 01:49

Equinsu Ocha!!

Alaskapopo

04-04-13, 02:09

"Liberals with Guns"

http://youtu.be/FeTCkoXslsE

Tim Mcveigh killed a lot of people and he was very far to the right. There are evil people on both sides of the political spectrum and good people as well.
Pat

Mauser KAR98K

04-04-13, 02:30

Tim Mcveigh killed a lot of people and he was very far to the right. There are evil people on both sides of the political spectrum and good people as well.
Pat

Yeah, but McVeigh didn't use a gun, which seems to be the popular choice amongst the Liberal Mass Murders, which is also the instrument their cohorts want to ban.

Belloc

04-04-13, 04:49

Edit.

polymorpheous

04-04-13, 05:07

I hate that even if I put a member on ignore, I can still see their posts if they are quoted.

TriviaMonster

04-04-13, 05:21

Yeah, but McVeigh didn't use a gun, which seems to be the popular choice amongst the Liberal Mass Murders, which is also the instrument their cohorts want to ban.

Something very sad and ironic about these Ultra Libs giving the people free bullets. Wow, I have poor taste :o

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Ryno12

04-04-13, 05:33

If a WHITE PERSON wrote a similar article about ANY OTHER RACE they'd be fired.

...then there would be local rioting, nation wide protests & we'd have 3 weeks of Jesse & Al yapping about it on TV.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

Mjolnir

04-04-13, 06:01

...then there would be local rioting, nation wide protests & we'd have 3 weeks of Jesse & Al yapping about it on TV.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

Do some of you see that you're doing... THE VERY SAME THING?

It's very ironic yet not at all surprising to me.

Ryno12

04-04-13, 06:09

Do some of you see that you're doing... THE VERY SAME THING?

It's very ironic yet not at all surprising to me.

Yep, EXACTLY the same thing. The looting has already started. Oh wait, no it hasn't. :rolleyes:

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

Alaskapopo

04-04-13, 06:43

:rolleyes:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Timothy_McVeigh

He was passed right wing into Libertarian. Not sure what point your trying to make. The guy was scum yet he shared many beliefs with a lot of posters here.
Pat

mnoe82

04-04-13, 06:53

Equinsu Ocha!!

Pretty funny

Y'all should know by know that its only racism if a white person says it. Didn't you get the memo?

Belloc

04-04-13, 07:06

Edit.

VooDoo6Actual

04-04-13, 08:55

Tim Mcveigh killed a lot of people and he was very far to the right. There are evil people on both sides of the political spectrum and good people as well.
Pat

Did or do you think I said that it's ONLY exclusive to Liberals ?
Because I didn't say that & I don't think that.

At issue for me is the hypocrisy of the left on Gun Safety (another BS term for Gun Control & clearly leading to confiscation (UN ATT) etc. Jumping to an assumption about a topic because I pointed something out is on you. I hope you weren't inferring that I think it's ONLY the left. People on SSRI drugs which is another related issue are obviously on various sides of political spectrum.

That would lead us into a uncomfortable discussion about (Eric Holder's involvement) OP PATCON, Jesse Trentadue & that would not be efficacious. Or a discussion that we have a radical muslim (as I know you grapple with that) in the WH & that is already uncomfortable enough.

Mjolnir

04-04-13, 09:20

Yep, EXACTLY the same thing. The looting has already started. Oh wait, no it hasn't. :rolleyes:

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

U know exactly what I'm talking about. The ignorance of both sides is appalling... :rolleyes:

Ryno12

04-04-13, 09:27

U know exactly what I'm talking about. The ignorance of both sides is appalling... :rolleyes:

It's not so much the ignorance as it is the hypocritical double standards.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

markm

04-04-13, 09:58

I hate white people...

Just as much as I hate every other race too. :)

NeoNeanderthal

04-04-13, 10:25

I examined all the data and have come to a different conclusion. I have achieved a "C" or better in both Statistics and Biometry and am qualified enough to lend my opinion.

White people are not the cause of mass shootings, they should not be banned.

After extensive research i have found that Bushmasters are actually responsible for most mass shootings. I personally am willing to give up my right to own one of these fine pieces of Maine Made Death, in order to make the world safer.

brickboy240

04-04-13, 12:05

It is always whitey's fault!

...don't you know that?

LOL

jpmuscle

04-04-13, 18:36

I hate white people...

Just as much as I hate every other race too. :)

This, you can't be a racist if hate everyone else equally. Sometimes ot pays to be a equal opportunity hater :D

HackerF15E

04-04-13, 20:42

He was passed right wing into Libertarian.

Uh, what?

Libertarian is left of Conservatism. Right of Conservatism is fascism.

http://americainchains2009.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/left_right_political_spectrum_011.jpg

Kfgk14

04-04-13, 22:22

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-

My kid just showed me this. He is so angered by things like this I genuinely feel really bad about it :(
Jesus, these statist, marxist assholes are gonna give my high schooler a heart condition...

I ****ing hate these people. They're evil. Fundamentally, hardcore evil. They spread these vile lies about "angry white men" and launch blatant smear campaigns and they perpetuate these evil agendas to strip us of everything that is good about our society...

GOD I HATE THE ENEMY

Personally, too...it is really bad when you personally resent the existence of people whom you have never (and hopefully will never) meet. When their actions are so repugnable that you cannot even stand their presence, their existence is that aggravating to you...

Sometimes I hate being a parent...knowing I'm leaving this catastrophe of a nation to my children...

All this article accomplishes is exposing the left's constant perpetuation of racial tension for the sake of controlling the minority vote and maintaining "white guilt". Which I personally ****ing resent.

I really should retreat into isolation in the some remote mountain enclave...between these ****heads and my poor cardiac history, I'm not gonna make 60...

Edited for excessive profanity post-cooling-off

Belloc

04-04-13, 23:45

Edit.

MountainRaven

04-05-13, 00:43

Small problem: Nazis = National Socialist German Workers Party.
Does that sound 'right wing'?
Two of the main reasons the media and academic elite label the Nazis "right-wing" are because they themselves are leftists and because of the Nazi's intense hatred of Communism, i.e. hatred of communism = 'right wing' for them apparently.

http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-fascism

I would also probably put anarchism, properly understood, closer to freedom than communism, and liberalism further away, unless it was classical liberalism.

The trouble with a two-dimensional political spectrum....

Naziism is so frequently associated with the rightwing because it is reactionary, often arising in, ahem, reaction to communism and socialism. The idea of fascism being rightwing is not limited to the United States, but is an international interpretation of the movement from Germany to Japan.

The Nazis called themselves the National Socialists as a title. It's like trying to call 'anti-Constitutional' 'gun control'. It's just a label.

While Naziism and fascism are very similar in practice to communism, it must be said that where communism is the government owning everything, Naziism and fascism are, well... the government is deeply in bed with corporations and the two of them act in concert to supply the military. Or a government-military-industrial complex. Hmm... where does that sound familiar from....

ETA: I seem to recall reading an interesting political theory recently about a country that has a severe reaction to fascism... in which it so deeply embraces anti-fascist ideals that it ends up becoming fascist by another name, a sort of soft fascism: The government supports corporations which supply the military and the people do their patriotic duty to support the military. Those who question the government, the military, or the corporations are lunatics and very probably communists or fascists. The difference between this and fascism is simply that in one system, the doubters are rounded up and executed while in the other they are discredited, branded for life as morons or cowards or racists or fascists (or all of the above), and then ignored.

ETA2: From a blog written in 2006:

Reasonable people never want to believe that extremists believe their own rhetoric. But quit kidding yourselves. This is mass psychosis. The next terrorist strike, should it happen, will be blamed on the enemy within: treasonous “liberals” who dissent from the glorious reign of George W. Bush. Unless confronted, it’s through such strategems that democracies fail and constitutional republics become dictatorships.

Simply sub liberals for conservatives (or gun owners or libertarians or...) and George W. Bush for Barrack Hussein Obama and we basically have the expressed opinions of many of this forum's posters.

Belloc

04-05-13, 04:00

Edit.

montrala

04-05-13, 05:25

NSDAP was socialist party in their social and economical aspects. Nazism is "socialism+nationalism". Hitler did not hated Russians because of communism, but because Stalin was perceived as biggest treat to him and sort of "competitor".

On the other hand in Soviet Union (and after war in all countries behind steel curtain) Hitler was described as fascist and Germans were referenced as "Fascist". Reason was of pure PR - "socialist" can not be "bad guys", so let's name them fascist. This propaganda stunt worked so well, that most of people really believe that Hitler and his regime were fascist and that "nazi" is just way to describe "German fascist" as opposed to Italy or Spain (both actually had real fascist governments).

HackerF15E

04-05-13, 06:55

That's all fine and well...it does not change the fact that Libertarianism is not "right" of US conservatism.

Littlelebowski

04-08-13, 09:06

He was passed right wing into Libertarian.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Try reading http://Reason.com instead of HuffPo and DailyKos, you will learn exactly how wrong your above statement is.

polymorpheous

04-08-13, 09:44

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Try reading http://Reason.com instead of HuffPo and DailyKos, you will learn exactly how wrong your above statement is.

Libertarians are extreme right wingers is exactly what is taught in the universities.
At least around here.

Littlelebowski

04-08-13, 09:46

Libertarians are extreme right wingers is exactly what is taught in the universities.
At least around here.

Yes, but we attempt to deal in facts here and educate the ignorant (NOT an insult, Pat!) :D

polymorpheous

04-08-13, 09:53

Yes, but we attempt to deal in facts here and educate the ignorant (NOT an insult, Pat!) :D

Preaching to the choir.

Waylander

04-08-13, 12:04

Further proof an assload of college degrees don't make you more intelligent.

We are committed to making the promise of the founders of the United States a reality.

Oh really? :laugh:

If we were to analyze who have been the people carrying guns to schools and shooting people, we would realize that almost all of them have been white boys. However, we have habitually discussed school violence as a society matter, not as a white boys’ problem.

If African American or Latino boys were the ones shooting people in schools, especially schools with white kids, there would have been all kinds of media stories about the problems with African American or Latino children. The newscasts would be full of experts telling African Americans or Latina/os what they needed to do to fix their families and communities.

Since shootings involved white boys — the segment of our population that is on top of our race hierarchies — newscasters did not notice that a specific racial group was involved. Little, if any, discussion focused on specific problems in white families and communities.

Solutions
................
A television station presents a story about the problems of white families and factors that create violence among white boys.

The government funds research that focuses on what facets of the white culture cause white boys to be violent at school.

markm

04-08-13, 12:13

This, you can't be a racist if hate everyone else equally. Sometimes ot pays to be a equal opportunity hater :D

Absolutely. Now on that stupid "Chart". How is it that Nazi is on the right side?

It's called the National SOCIALIST movement.... i.e. LEFT wing ideaology based.

I get so friggin furious when the media trys to portray Neo Nazis as extreme right wing.... No, pal. Those are your homies, Lefty.

HackerF15E

04-08-13, 12:37

Absolutely. Now on that stupid "Chart". How is it that Nazi is on the right side?

It's called the National SOCIALIST movement.... i.e. LEFT wing ideaology based.

I get so friggin furious when the media trys to portray Neo Nazis as extreme right wing.... No, pal. Those are your homies, Lefty.

The problem with that is, although the name of the NSDAP says 'socialist', the political system they implemented was fascist/authoritarian; very much hardcore right-wing of the spectrum.

By the above logic (ergo, the ideology/action is directly and accurately represented by the name of the organization), North Korea's Kim Family Regime is the leader of a Democratic Republic. East Germany, too, was a Democratic Republic.

montanadave

04-08-13, 12:43

I swear to [insert deity of your choice here], threads like these make me weep.

GeorgiaBoy

04-08-13, 12:50

Hitler stated in "Mein Kampf" that German Nazism is neither left or right wing. The ideology simply can't be categorized to either side.

NeoNeanderthal

04-08-13, 13:14

Libertarians are extreme right wingers is exactly what is taught in the universities.
At least around here.

Libertarians are considered liberal by many republicans and extremely conservative by liberals. Strange hunh?

Socially liberal and fiscally conservative manages to piss off both sides. I consider them to be truly conservative- in the real sense of the word. Conserving rights and money. The argument comes down to what is a right?

Tea Party is not libertarian- remember that. They match up when it comes to money/taxes but not social rights.

Waylander

04-08-13, 13:32

Libertarians are considered liberal by many republicans and extremely conservative by liberals. Strange hunh?

Socially liberal and fiscally conservative manages to piss off both sides. I consider them to be truly conservative- in the real sense of the word. Conserving rights and money. The argument comes down to what is a right?

Tea Party is not libertarian- remember that. They match up when it comes to money/taxes but not social rights.

Neo-Conservatives share the social/religious restrictions of the tea party but favor bigger government spending like liberals. So really we have four parties interacting in the government right now. Classic conservatives (libertarians), Neo-Conservatives, the Tea Party (if you consider them a complete party - more like a movement), and Liberals.

Littlelebowski

04-08-13, 13:34

NeoNeanderthal

04-08-13, 13:41

Neo-Conservatives share the social/religious restrictions of the tea party but favor bigger government spending like liberals. So really we have four parties interacting in the government right now. Classic conservatives (libertarians), Neo-Conservatives, the Tea Party (if you consider them a complete party - more like a movement), and Liberals.

Exactly correct about the "republican" side but I (im sure many will disagree here) am sure that the "Dem" side is more complex than that. Though not nearly as complex as the "republican" side of things. (For instance you've got a number of pro 2nd amendment Dems.)

Waylander

04-08-13, 14:03

Exactly correct about the "republican" side but I (im sure many will disagree here) am sure that the "Dem" side is more complex than that. Though not nearly as complex as the "republican" side of things. (For instance you've got a number of pro 2nd amendment Dems.)

Definitely true about the 2A and Democrats though I would argue that neither Democrats nor Neo-cons are true 2A supporters. Neo-cons have been softening on the 2A. Democrats also have a strong support of the 1st Amendment when it suits their agenda such as entertainment including gratuitous language or violence, flag burning, porn, among other things (that Neo-cons generally want to restrict) but itch to restrict free speech when it comes to racist, sexist, offensive or hate speech. Both Democrats and Neo-cons choose states' rights when they suit their needs and choose to trump states' rights when they don't.

We could discuss at length the authoritarian direction which both parties have been guilty of in the last century.

Sometimes I wonder if we were to try to write a fresh Constitution today would we even succeed and what quagmire would it represent that the current Constitution hasn't already been watered down or convoluted to?

Sensei

04-08-13, 14:23

Libertarians are considered liberal by many republicans and extremely conservative by liberals. Strange hunh?

Socially liberal and fiscally conservative manages to piss off both sides. I consider them to be truly conservative- in the real sense of the word. Conserving rights and money. The argument comes down to what is a right?

Tea Party is not libertarian- remember that. They match up when it comes to money/taxes but not social rights.

I suspect that many self-described libertarians are not as devout in their political leanings as they think. Here is a little test that pertains to firearms: do you think that the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions were a win for libertarianism? If you do, then perhaps you need to critically examine your political philosophy.

Belloc

04-08-13, 15:00

Edit.

GeorgiaBoy

04-08-13, 15:29

I'm convinced that every other post from Belloc MUST contain:

1. At least ONE link to an outside article.

2. At least ONE reference to a "lunatic leftist", specifically Obama, Cuomo, Feinstein, et al.

3. Making nearly any kind of a political discussion into a discussion about gay marriage.

:p

polymorpheous

04-08-13, 15:35

Holy thread drift Batman!
What does any of this have to do with the OP?

Waylander

04-08-13, 15:37

Holy thread drift Batman!
What does any of this have to do with the OP?

Everything is homos fault...didn't you know? :jester:

polymorpheous

04-08-13, 15:39

Everything is homos fault...didn't you know? :jester:

I'll be sure to tell my brother in law that. :rolleyes:

Belloc

04-08-13, 15:41

Edit.

Belloc

04-08-13, 16:06

Edit.

SteyrAUG

04-08-13, 16:12

Hitler stated in "Mein Kampf" that German Nazism is neither left or right wing. The ideology simply can't be categorized to either side.

And yet Ernst Röhm who joined back when it was simply called the German Workers Party and co founded the SA had very definite ideologies before Hitler even joined. The NSDAP was very much a SOCIALIST (left wing) party.

Problem is that it evolved into many different things along the way according to the needs and whims of Hitler who really didn't care what you called it, how you defined it or anything else so long as his word was law.

You can try and say Fascism is right wing, Communism is left wing and National Socialism is something else. In reality they are all just words to distract from the fact that it will be Totalitarianism and that you may start out with fascism, communism, national socialism or some other kind of "state above the individual collective good" society but it will always, always, always become Totalitarianism.

This is because once you surrender your personal freedoms to the state you can never get them back unless you can organize enough people to do it successfully by force. And that is a rare, rare thing. And most of the time even if you do manage to get a bunch of people together to fight and win, in most cases you simply get another run at "let's do communism/socialism/fascism again but we won't make the same mistakes" idiocy. And once again, to the shock of everyone you have Totalitarianism.

glocktogo

04-08-13, 16:54

<snip>

And supporting giving government the power to redefine marriage and every other word to whatever they as lunatic liberals wish to forcibly impose on us? How is this idea not utterly insane?

You want to better secure freedom and liberty? Start by simply opposing everything this "social liberal" lunatic supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIyu6lYOMNg

Homosexual "marriage". What is really at stake:

"Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada... in its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.

That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.

The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005),

is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law. But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state.

Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal."

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f

Jesus, what IS your obsession with homosexuals? Are you a closet homosexual filled with self-loating? You sound just like every other proselytizing bible thumper who's ultimately found engaging in a homosexual act with a male prostitute or something. Go confess your sins elsewhere and STOP degrading every thread you post in with this shit! :rolleyes:

:nono:

J-Dub

04-08-13, 16:59

Hey I can accept that white dudes commit mass shootings.

I can also accept that the "african american community" is too busy slaying each other gangbangin, dope dealing, and just regular ignorant bullshit.

Belloc

04-08-13, 17:06

Edit.

GeorgiaBoy

04-08-13, 17:13

{snip}
2. Perhaps you are a bit sensitive about being in lock-step, ideologically speaking, with some of Boxer's, Obama's and Feinstein's agenda while I remain utterly convinced that absolutely none of their political ideology steers us as a nation towards a better future. (:p so right back at ya.)

All fun, no foul Belloc. Just messin' with ya. :)

Belloc

04-08-13, 17:19

Edit.

GeorgiaBoy

04-08-13, 17:23

SteyrAUG

04-08-13, 17:35

Yet, "pure/full communism", it its truest since, is supposed to be a system without a state. But we know that this cannot exist because it defies the natural order of civilization.

Fascism, on the other hand, has no intentions of ever begin without a state; the state is the central item. It begins with totalitarianism.

Technically fascism begins with a bunch of misguided people who think other people can run things better than they can if only they had the power (mandate) to make it happen.

Best case scenario: Trains run on schedule. I'd rather be late.

Moose-Knuckle

04-09-13, 01:56

You can try and say Fascism is right wing, Communism is left wing and National Socialism is something else. In reality they are all just words to distract from the fact that it will be Totalitarianism and that you may start out with fascism, communism, national socialism or some other kind of "state above the individual collective good" society but it will always, always, always become Totalitarianism.

This is because once you surrender your personal freedoms to the state you can never get them back unless you can organize enough people to do it successfully by force. And that is a rare, rare thing. And most of the time even if you do manage to get a bunch of people together to fight and win, in most cases you simply get another run at "let's do communism/socialism/fascism again but we won't make the same mistakes" idiocy. And once again, to the shock of everyone you have Totalitarianism.

Hurry! Hurry! Step right up folks! Here’s the answer to your problems, Dr. Utopia's sensational new discovery "ISM" . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTZmyZ8jtw0

Magic_Salad0892

04-09-13, 10:00