Black And White Clash...why?

[Oleg Bach]

When I see Bush Cheney and Lector clash - I wonder why our white member seems to believe that all white people are smarter and better than all black people - when the evidence of the writing that takes place here signifies clearly that Bush Cheney is a brilliant and honest man..YET Lector will not submit to the idea that BC is at least an "equal" or possibly a superiour - If Lector suggests that there is no such thing as equality, then let him admit that there is such a thing as superiourity - and submit to the fact that Bush Cheney who is BLACK is superiour to him...or vise versa - what ever makes you happy.

[Oleg Bach]

Good night my friend and let the best man win. Which would leave the worst man as the victor...kind of puts the soul of the American experience in a nut shell, does it not? That the winner - the brute - the "superiour"...ends up being the bad guy - that hated one - The Ugly Amercian. Odd that the victor is always the loser..goes to show you that power is an wierd commodity...Kind of like Jesus - so powerful he could make himself helpless..strange bit of quantum mechnics at work.

[kimmy]

When I see Bush Cheney and Lector clash - I wonder why our white member seems to believe that all white people are smarter and better than all black people - when the evidence of the writing that takes place here signifies clearly that Bush Cheney is a brilliant and honest man.

This is sheer folly. I've always enjoyed Dick's contributions to the board, and never have I doubted that beneath that massive 'fro is an exceptional mind.

-k

[Sir Bandelot]

"Ignoring reality is ignorance"

Now theres a philosopher for ya.

[Argus]

This is sheer folly. I've always enjoyed Dick's contributions to the board, and never have I doubted that beneath that massive 'fro is an exceptional mind.

-k

Capable of wilful ignorance and blindness on occasions. A poster zealously against racism who avidly supports a political party which cynically and unhesitatingly exploits racist sentiments.

[Strangles]

Capable of wilful ignorance and blindness on occasions. A poster zealously against racism who avidly supports a political party which cynically and unhesitatingly exploits racist sentiments.

That's not such a bad thing.

If the Republicans begin to rely on the black vote, it will drive out all the hardcore racists from the party as the party would need to cater more to minority voters.

[lictor616]

That's not such a bad thing.

If the Republicans begin to rely on the black vote, it will drive out all the hardcore racists from the party as the party would need to cater more to minority voters.

Are you saying that the less choice and difference there is in presidential elections the better?

anyway... since when are the republicans not the same as the democrats? both parties have been indistinguishable since the late 60's

every election republicans try to out-democrat the democrats.... such is "democracy" in the country that free men once founded... but it now lost.

democracy in the US is factitious choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Edited October 25, 2009 by lictor616

[Strangles]

Are you saying that the less choice and difference there is in presidential elections the better?

anyway... since when are the republicans not the same as the democrats? both parties have been indistinguishable since the late 60's

every election republicans try to out-democrat the democrats.... such is "democracy" in the country that free men once founded... but it now lost.

democracy in the US is factitious choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

The same can be said for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Britain.

[Sir Bandelot]

since when are the republicans not the same as the democrats?

But Democrats smile more.

[Sir Bandelot]

Good night my friend and let the best man win.

Don't be so sentimental. BC has no actual friends. only those he lets live... for now.

I suspect he would bayonet you to death in one second, if given the order by his commander.

Trust me

[Oleg Bach]

Don't be so sentimental. BC has no actual friends. only those he lets live... for now.

I suspect he would bayonet you to death in one second, if given the order by his commander.

Trust me

He is the commander. As for sentimental..He is sentimental as am I - Sometimes people become closer than brothes - They see each other in the others eyes - I love BC - and I know for a fact that he is a man of not only honour but brains..He is not some fool that would say "I was just following orders" _ If this commader had to reason with his commader and chief..He would win over the chief. Don't underestimate the good men that exist in America - That is Canadas biggest fault - they look at ALL of America as one huge race - and the attitude by Canadians is RACIST.. We have been taught by our mother the queen to dispise our brother to the south..just because he left home and told mum to f**k off.

As for your "trust me" - Never trust a person that uses that term - It's similar to a liar starting off a statement with "truthfully".

[Oleg Bach]

Oh also: How can you look at a whole nation and say they are all the same - that's foolish. Or look at a whole race and say they are all the same. That is also totally foolhardy. You look for the one good thing - rarely is anything without goodness..It's impossible - If you appeal to that one good thing in a person or nation - it will blossom..If you hate the nation race or person consistantly - only evil will blossom for all...your choice.

[charter.rights]

Oh also: How can you look at a whole nation and say they are all the same - that's foolish. Or look at a whole race and say they are all the same. That is also totally foolhardy. You look for the one good thing - rarely is anything without goodness..It's impossible - If you appeal to that one good thing in a person or nation - it will blossom..If you hate the nation race or person consistantly - only evil will blossom for all...your choice.

Racists love to generalize. It is easier to keep track of the myths they keep presenting as counter reasoning to ignore their own failures as human beings.

[Sir Bandelot]

If you appeal to that one good thing in a person or nation - it will blossom..If you hate the nation race or person consistantly - only evil will blossom for all...your choice.

Real evil already exists, completely of its own accord. It needs no goading from us. When you come face to face with that evil, you can try to give it hugs and kisses. Good luck with that concept... I don't recommend it.

[Sir Bandelot]

As for your "trust me" - Never trust a person that uses that term - It's similar to a liar starting off a statement with "truthfully".

When I say "trust me", it means I have the bruises to show it

Oh get a room

[charter.rights]

Real evil already exists, completely of its own accord. It needs no goading from us. When you come face to face with that evil, you can try to give it hugs and kisses. Good luck with that concept... I don't recommend it.

"Real evil" is a figment of your religion-condition mind. While there is "human tragedy" in this world the victims are participants of the event and are often partners in their own destruction.

When you take responsibility for your own tragedies then you will see why you asked for it.

[Sir Bandelot]

"Real evil" is a figment of your religion-condition mind. While there is "human tragedy" in this world the victims are participants of the event and are often partners in their own destruction.

When you take responsibility for your own tragedies then you will see why you asked for it.

I am not religious, nor do I mean a spiritual evil. Real 'evil' is encountering a person who no longer cares about the outcome of their actions. No amount of liberal tree hugger love will change what they would do to you. Then its either you take direct action against them, ie. a conflict, or you (and maybe your loved ones) WILL suffer. Thats the insidious nature of the "beast". No matter how peaceful, loving and considerate you may be, there are others who simply are not. Their world view is different than yours. So sometimes there has to be a need for fighting.

In a sense, the greater evil would be to do nothing...

[charter.rights]

I am not religious, nor do I mean a spiritual evil. Real 'evil' is encountering a person who no longer cares about the outcome of their actions. No amount of liberal tree hugger love will change what they would do to you. Then its either you take direct action against them, ie. a conflict, or you (and maybe your loved ones) WILL suffer. Thats the insidious nature of the "beast". No matter how peaceful, loving and considerate you may be, there are others who simply are not. Their world view is different than yours. So sometimes there has to be a need for fighting.

In a sense, the greater evil would be to do nothing...

"Evil" is a religious construct - a subjective judgment of external circumstances designed to minimize goodness and demonize opposition.

The "beast" is completely in your own head. Your fear is in your own mind and it will invite fearful things into your life. World view has nothing to do with it. They may be insane in their thinking, but their use of violence as means to an end is very much supported by our society.

So if something bad happens to you, you asked for it. The perpetrator is simply just the means by which you exercise your fantasies and is a willing partner in the fear you create in your own mind.

[Sir Bandelot]

Its an indisputable fact that criminality exists. There are people who go about intending to do harm to others, anyone they can because they are sociopaths. Random acts of violence occur, no matter how good a life you try to lead you could end up being victimized. It's a roll of the dice.

Are you saying that, no matter what the circumstances the victims somehow deserve it?

Edited October 26, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[charter.rights]

Its an indisputable fact that criminality exists. There are people who go about intending to do harm to others, anyone they can because they are sociopaths. Random acts of violence occur, no matter how good a life you try to lead you could end up being victimized. It's a roll of the dice.

Are you saying that, no matter what the circumstances the victims somehow deserve it?

Criminality and demonization are two different kettles of fish. Criminality is based on not complying with the social contract in the society in which we live. Demonization is allowing an insane concept in your own mind to flourish - that somehow because you think it, some supernatural force is at work.

No one can victimize you unless you allow it. Choosing to be victimized is the same thing as choosing to do something against anothers will. And while no insane thinker deserves to be hurt by an event or crime, nonetheless, they still ask for it.....

So, while you may retreat to your Christian conditioning to see the world from a position of always blaming others for your lot in life, I prefer to see reality and take responsibility for it. Of course once you have decided to be robbed and beaten up you better damn well do something about it. By that time it is too late to undo the choices you have made to put you where you are, in a place to be robbed and beaten up.

Edited October 26, 2009 by charter.rights

[Sir Bandelot]

Nice... Lets blame the victim.

By the way as I already stated I am not religious, not christian. But maybe you just don't get that.

I completely disagree with your premise, that victims are to be blamed. Sometimes, maybe. But to say bad things simply won't happen to somebody, randomly, is foolish in my opinion. That is a gross simplification.

Nice chatting with you though

[kimmy]

I believe it is quite true that many victims of crime and violence are the authors of their own misfortune. (the rash of drug-war related murders this year in Vancouver being a prime example. People who die in gang-related violence for the most part have picked their own demise. Who do bikers kill? Almost always, other bikers...)

It is also true that one can reduce the chance of coming to harm by being sensible and cautious.

However, that certainly doesn't apply to everything. Instead of talking in nebulous terms, I'm thinking of a real situation. A woman I know, in her 60s, was at a grocery store one day and was reading the label on a package of hamburger when some meth-head walked up and punched her in the side of the head before she even realized he was there.

I'd be interested to hear charter-rights explain how she "chose" that.

-k

[charter.rights]

I believe it is quite true that many victims of crime and violence are the authors of their own misfortune. (the rash of drug-war related murders this year in Vancouver being a prime example. People who die in gang-related violence for the most part have picked their own demise. Who do bikers kill? Almost always, other bikers...)

It is also true that one can reduce the chance of coming to harm by being sensible and cautious.

However, that certainly doesn't apply to everything. Instead of talking in nebulous terms, I'm thinking of a real situation. A woman I know, in her 60s, was at a grocery store one day and was reading the label on a package of hamburger when some meth-head walked up and punched her in the side of the head before she even realized he was there.

I'd be interested to hear charter-rights explain how she "chose" that.

-k

Again blaming the victim is not the point. Knowing how things come about and then taking responsibility for it...is the point.

The 60year old woman made a whole raft of choices that put her at the exact time and place of the encounter with "some meth-head" (a demonization in YOUR mind). Her encounter was not at all random. She could have at any time made another choice that would have completely change the potential for an encounter. But why didn't she?

Fear draws fear to itself. Had she been more aware, not distracted by a label, and understood her relationship to the guy, there would likely have been a different outcome. The first choice is not to fear. All the rest made it happen.

[charter.rights]

Nice... Lets blame the victim.

By the way as I already stated I am not religious, not christian. But maybe you just don't get that.

I completely disagree with your premise, that victims are to be blamed. Sometimes, maybe. But to say bad things simply won't happen to somebody, randomly, is foolish in my opinion. That is a gross simplification.

Nice chatting with you though

Ah..."The Retreat"

"....is foolish in my opinion." Yes I agree. Your opinion is foolish.

[g_bambino]

Her encounter was not at all random. She could have at any time made another choice that would have completely change the potential for an encounter.

Right. And I suppose that if you got punched in the head when you didn't expect it, you'd apologise to your assailant for not being more dilligent in your choice making. Then again, with a head that thick, you might not feel anything anyway.