Angry Leftists vs. Angry White Men

[M.Dancer]

Jesus said to teach a man how to fish as he will eat for a lifetime rather than to give him a fish so that he can eat for a day.

I assume you mean Jesus De Souza? The famous Cuban fishing instructer?

[Black Dog]

I see now. You are upset not as to what Rev Wright said, merely by the damage his actions may cause to the leftists?

It can't be both? Anyway, I'm still not sold on this guy being a leftist, though I'm open to someone like Dancer showing me some more evidence.

That is what is making you upset? Then I would develop a thicker skin as it is the left's rooster coming home to roost so to speak.

???

How often does the left trot out Bush = Hitler now a days? Harper = Bush's lapdog?

Who does that? College students, web forum posters.

lol For a leftist to get upset about the right driving the agenda and painting the issues is ridiculous at best and patently hypocritical at worst.

Uh...why?

Jesus said to teach a man how to fish as he will eat for a lifetime rather than to give him a fish so that he can eat for a day.

He most certainly did not.

Many of today's leftist social/economic policy encourages the repeat business of giving the poor a fish for a day.

Like when Jesus divided the loaves and fishes at the sermon on the mount and then gave them all away?

Perhaps you would like to use another example that would be accurate.

No, I'll stick with the one I have, since it stands.

feel free to point out any typos or grammatical mistakes if this post confounds you to blustering again.

Naw. The factual errors are a rich enough vein to mine.

[M.Dancer]

It can't be both? Anyway, I'm still not sold on this guy being a leftist, though I'm open to someone like Dancer showing me some more evidence.

Ok fine.....

The emphasis on the collective or the individual...

Commitment to the Black Community. The highest level of achievement for any Black person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the Black Community.

Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the Black Community.

Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions.

Haven't a clue what thsi means, so it could be leftist....

Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.” Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:

Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”

So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.” If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.

The scarely bit....probably includes Farrakhan....

Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System.

[Black Dog]

I think the defining difference is the supremacy of the collective which is why National Socialism is left even if it espouses extreme right wing causes.

So you can be left and right at the same time?

The emphasis on the collective or the individual...

This is what gets me: pleas to the collective-community, country, church-are just as common on the right. Does that make some conservatives leftists? Is Louis Farrakahen a pinko lefty? At the same time, there are a number of pet "leftist" causes that swing on the supremacy of the individual: gay rights and abortion to name two.

IMV, there's no single defining trait that makes one one or the other: it's the sum of the parts.

[M.Dancer]

At the same time, there are a number of pet "leftist" causes that swing on the supremacy of the individual: gay rights and abortion to name two.

I would say those are not individual rights they are fighting for, but collective rights....it isn't the issue whether bruce can be wed, but whether Gays can wed....it isn't an issue of whether Susan can have an abortion, but womens rights in general.

[Black Dog]

I would say those are not individual rights they are fighting for, but collective rights....it isn't the issue whether bruce can be wed, but whether Gays can wed....it isn't an issue of whether Susan can have an abortion, but womens rights in general.

Disagree. The issue is that each individual within the group has certain inalienable rights.

[Pliny]

Disagree. The issue is that each individual within the group has certain inalienable rights.

An inalienable right is not given it just is. The idea that government gives rights is a fallacy. It is supposed to protect rights. The right of the individual to security of person and property is understood. It isn't something that the government or any agency should decide. It is not something that anyone else is obligated to provide. It is something that government is given responsibility by society to protect. Social democratic governments constantly violate this right by considering itself the provider of rights and usurping the will of the people to benefit special interests.

It is not ok for it to assume it's actions are the will of the people.

[Argus]

Sorry if I have gotten this all wrong.

I was merely observing that posters like Leafless (who blames everything on Quebec and the French) or posters like Argus (who blames everything on goat-herding immigrants) are remarkably similar to the Rev. Wright (who blames verything on white America) or posters like eyeball (who blames everything on Bush and America)

August, you like to assume this arrogant stance of an unbiased observer who chides more "emotional" posters, but your stance is often superficial and disingenuous. I blame everything on immigrants? I discuss immigrants in the context of uh, immigration. And even then I don't blame immigrants, but rather, tend to blame the error-prone immigration system for taking in too many people and the wrong kinds of people. I don't think I'm unique in that respect, but at least, unlike yourself, I'm honest about my feelings. You assume this lofty, intellectual standpoint of welcoming immigration, of it being a wonderful thing - but not for Quebec. When it comes to immigration to Quebec you're as much a rednecked pequiste as they get. You might not worry about masses of immigrants sweeping away Canada's culture but you're damned sure not going to have it in Quebec. That's sheer hypocrisy, and I wonder why you continue at it when you must realize how obvious it's become to everyone by now. Every time you weigh in on this we-are-the-world bullshit about immigration being all wonderful and great and how small a world it is and what great benefits mass immigration hold I ask you about Quebec and you run away from the thread without reply. EVERY TIME.

I blame everything on immigrants? Bullshit. Back it up or slink away again.

Edited June 8, 2008 by Argus

[BubberMiley]

I would say those are not individual rights they are fighting for, but collective rights....it isn't the issue whether bruce can be wed, but whether Gays can wed....it isn't an issue of whether Susan can have an abortion, but womens rights in general.

I'm sorry to be rude, but that is one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. Individual rights, when applied to society, are collective rights.

Edited June 8, 2008 by BubberMiley

[capricorn]

Individual rights, when applied to society, are collective rights.

The way I see it, collective rights are those rights conferred on a society by governments. Residual rights are what I would term individual rights. In other words, there's not much residue.

[BubberMiley]

So the right to bear arms is a left-wing, collective right and not an individual right because the government decided it should be so?

[Pliny]

So the right to bear arms is a left-wing, collective right and not an individual right because the government decided it should be so?

The right to bear arms as a law would apply to every citizen equally. The right for gays to wed is a law that applies to a special interest. Weddings are traditionally religious, there are civil marriages for the State to recognize a couple outside of religion, a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gay marriages are an impossibility. Gay unions for the purposes of State recognition of marriage equivalence, from the States point of view, are a possibility but are an unnecessary infringement upon society if enacted in legislation. The State, in my estimation, should make no laws regarding marriage. It is a function of society, culture and tradition. If some disagree with society, culture and tradition then they should have the freedom to disagree but culture and tradition should have no laws to protect it and neither should any other interest have laws to protect them. The protection of law should be in the freedom to disagree not in the "right" to infringe upon others. All should be equal before the law.

Now I know that gays just want to feel normal and so they fight for normalcy. They aren't fighting because they like being gay, if they did they would insist they wanted no part of marriage and wished to just live whatever may be defined as a gay life. They insist upon marriage because it is perceived to be normal, and normalcy is something they seek.

Obviously, it never will be normal. Only a small percentage of people are gay. I would never get too friendly with someone who is gay and I don't think most heterosexuals would. They might, in light of laws of tolerance attempt to display tolerance, but a wall, unacknowledged and ignored or under pretense denied, will always exist.

[Pliny]

I'm sorry to be rude, but that is one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. Individual rights, when applied to society, are collective rights.

It isn't because the collective, as it is understood, doesn't exist. The collective is a group of people who agree on something. It is not all-inclusive but is implied to be. The "collective" enables the ignoring of disagreement.

Gay marriage laws are an example of laws made to include gays in the "collective" when they were previously ignored.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Pliny

[August1991]

August, you like to assume this arrogant stance of an unbiased observer who chides more "emotional" posters, but your stance is often superficial and disingenuous. I blame everything on immigrants? I discuss immigrants in the context of uh, immigration. And even then I don't blame immigrants, but rather, tend to blame the error-prone immigration system for taking in too many people and the wrong kinds of people. I don't think I'm unique in that respect, but at least, unlike yourself, I'm honest about my feelings. You assume this lofty, intellectual standpoint of welcoming immigration, of it being a wonderful thing - but not for Quebec. When it comes to immigration to Quebec you're as much a rednecked pequiste as they get. You might not worry about masses of immigrants sweeping away Canada's culture but you're damned sure not going to have it in Quebec. That's sheer hypocrisy, and I wonder why you continue at it when you must realize how obvious it's become to everyone by now. Every time you weigh in on this we-are-the-world bullshit about immigration being all wonderful and great and how small a world it is and what great benefits mass immigration hold I ask you about Quebec and you run away from the thread without reply. EVERY TIME.

I blame everything on immigrants? Bullshit. Back it up or slink away again.

Uh, Argus, I merely described you as an "Angry White Guy" and that rant of yours seems to confirm the supposition. (I added that your rants have a tendency to be directed at specific groups.)

Obama's Rev. Wright also seems t be an "Angry Leftist" with a penchant for rants, but his are directed at a different group or groups than yours.

----

It was the predilection for Angry Rants that drew my attention. As I said in the OP, Rev. Wright's internal conversations must be doozies. (Imagine what this guy says in his head if he gets blocked in a traffic jam.) In teh same sense, I read posts here and I wonder sometimes about what kind of internal conversations some of the posters have. They must be doozies of internal family arguments.

Argus, what are your internal conversations like?

You assume this lofty, intellectual standpoint of welcoming immigration, of it being a wonderful thing - but not for Quebec. When it comes to immigration to Quebec you're as much a rednecked pequiste as they get. You might not worry about masses of immigrants sweeping away Canada's culture but you're damned sure not going to have it in Quebec.

Since you raise the issue, I have never said that immigration was good for English Canada but bad for Quebec. Rather, I have said that we live in a world where people can more easily travel than in the past. I've also argued that we must preserve collectively our basic values and ensure that we pass them on to future generations. I happen to think Quebecers can take tremendous pride in having done this, despite the weight of history, in a civilized manner. Edited June 17, 2008 by August1991

[Argus]

Uh, Argus, I merely described you as an "Angry White Guy" and that rant of yours seems to confirm the supposition.

Uh, August, you did not. You said or posters like Argus (who blames everything on goat-herding immigrants)

I asked you just when and where I had blamed everything on immigrants, for that matter, where I blamed anything on immigrants. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Since you raise the issue, I have never said that immigration was good for English Canada but bad for Quebec. Rather, I have said that we live in a world where people can more easily travel than in the past.

You dismiss arguments against immigration. In fact, your "he blames everything on immigrants" was yet another offhand dismissal of any concerns which might be raised about immigration, basically associating it with "angry white men rants".

Of course, your views on immigration is merely logical and thoughtful, right?

I've also argued that we must preserve collectively our basic values and ensure that we pass them on to future generations. I happen to think Quebecers can take tremendous pride in having done this, despite the weight of history, in a civilized manner.

Yes, by blocking the large scale immigration you support for the rest of Canada. Ontario takes in well over 100,000 largely non-English speaking immigrants a year. Would you like us to triple the immigration to Quebec? Would that make you happy or would you be screaming about the need to protect Quebec's culture?