|
|
Post by HughDog on Aug 21, 2003 19:11:14 GMT -5
Here's a pathetic tub of fat and back hair with so much hatred for White people that he works day and night to make sure they stay ground into the dirt. He's up there with Al Sharpton. Funny thing is, they're famous people and everybody takes them seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by conservPuNK on Aug 21, 2003 21:31:47 GMT -5
Who is this person and what could he have done to get you so steamed up? (please, no racial slurs or opinions)
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 23, 2003 3:53:01 GMT -5
He is the leader of the Anti-Defamation League ( a Jewish group). Many consider him to be a race hustler much like Duke, Sharpton or Jackson. Here is a link to one of his speeches. www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/speech_assembly.asp |
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 25, 2003 21:54:53 GMT -5
Hey, Mo-man,
A race hustler like Duke? You do mean DAVID Duke, don't you? Nah, not that nice, clean shaven, white conservative boy.
Jackson? You do mean JESSE? Nah, not that man of a different color who grew up oppressed and robbed of his Constitutional rights by...no!...conservatives? A man who has seen his lifetime - and a hundred years before - of conservatives being race hustlers to the point (I heard a rumor) that Jesse's people were actually 'slaves'.
You conservative ostriches who give lip service to racial equality (after Liberals and Blacks forced you to), but still make catty remarks against someone who represents a whole class of people wronged and still wronged like 'race hustler' should live on the other side of the branding iron for a while. Maybe, only, you might open your mind and see where someone like Jackson has a point, and some other Blacks maybe don't.
It's called being able to intelligently distinguish.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 25, 2003 22:03:13 GMT -5
I said that MANY people consider him a race hustler. I didn't say that I did. I was just answering a question for a POLITELY worded post. Someone who does not know who he is would want to know why the original post on the thread was so derogatory. IF YOU HAVE JUST COME HERE TO THROW BOMBS- GO AWAY! Take your hate to DU! Republicans have been on the right side of civil rights since they began- with Abe Lincoln. About the 1964 Civil Rights act- From www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml"Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Most of the Dixie-crats became Democrats, not Republicans! |
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 25, 2003 23:12:39 GMT -5
Mo,
This site is titled 'Rant'. Since us Lbrals have control of the media, I thought I would drop in here and just extend it. I have no hate... sorry if my frustration at the conserves' outrageous social and political authoritarian nonsense seems so.
You have something terribly confused: the terms Conservative and Republican (and Democrat thrown in).
Abe was a Republican.....in a time when the party was liberal...AND in a time when the Demos were mostly Conservative; hence their opposition to freeing the slaves and their subsequent 100 year opposition to Civil Rights.
You can't count the Civil Rights votes by Repub and Demo - you have to count by Conservative and Liberal-- you get a different count. Remember ol' LBJ saying he lost his own party and the South when he signed the bill ?(maybe you're too young). And it makes sense since the 'conservative' position has ALWAYS been against civil rights and desegregation.
Ol' Abe would switch parties faster than John Connally if he saw what you guys wuz up to today (and how you so wrongly use his name in vain). Picture liberal Abe blocking the door at the U of Alabama instead of the conservative Demo G Wallace....nah, that just doesn't fit.
You tell me to read the Constitution (really hung up on that reading it bit, huh?). Let me tell you to read history with something more than one eye open.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 26, 2003 0:23:53 GMT -5
Let's get something straight. I am not Mo-man. In fact, I am not even a man. I am not a friend of Curly, in fact I always hated that show. I am certainly not your baby, so don't flatter yourself!
Please address me as "Mo" in the future or your posts will be deleted.
Modern day liberals are not liberals in the classic lexicon. They are socialists/communists/useful idiots in sheep's clothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Aug 26, 2003 8:04:53 GMT -5
Mo,
I apologize for making fun of your password. Feel free to make fun of mine. It wasn't a bit of a stretch to think that 'Mo' was a man, but I apologize for that, too.
Also, feel free to answer my reply regarding the Civil Rights vote. You seem to have gotten your info from Pope O'Really instead of the history books. Kinda puts a dent in 'fair and balanced', doesn't it.
PS: I can understand, though; there being that Lbral bias in the history books......
and thanks for that strange, extended quote (I think)... it only proves my point that it's being Conservative, not the party affiliation that counts. This is not a 'Republican' chat site, it's a Conservative one
|
|
|
|
Post by Stonewall on Nov 21, 2003 11:45:13 GMT -5
 Wow! That was REALLY bad! Your Community College poetry class isn't having the desired effect. Please stop! PS This in reference to a post that has been deleted and does not refer to the one that is now above it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angmar on Jan 19, 2004 0:23:28 GMT -5
USA50: Behold, I have the utmost rudest of awakenings for you. Yes, Abraham Lincoln was extraordinarily liberal for the time. Yes, in modern America he would be considered a Democrat, as they switched philosophies.
Here you are, the Lincoln-Douglas Presidential Debate of September 16, 1859: The heroic signer of the Emancipation Proclamation:
"There is no room for two distinct races of White men in America, much less for two distinct races of Black and White. I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal.... Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the Negro [to Africa] and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable."
-Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
Post by Angmar on Jan 19, 2004 0:26:15 GMT -5
^^^
Behold, from the mouth of your liberal stoic, the first civil rights leader.
|
|
|
|
Post by WASPS AGAINST DUKE on May 1, 2004 2:34:00 GMT -5
David Duke is a malignant narcissist.
He invents and then projects a false, fictitious, self for the world to fear, or to admire. He maintains a tenuous grasp on reality to start with and the trappings of power further exacerbate this. Real life authority and David Duke’s predilection to surround him with obsequious sycophants support David Duke’s grandiose self-delusions and fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience.
David Duke's personality is so precariously balanced that he cannot tolerate even a hint of criticism and disagreement. Most narcissists are paranoid and suffer from ideas of reference (the delusion that they are being mocked or discussed when they are not). Thus, narcissists often regard themselves as "victims of persecution".
Duke fosters and encourages a personality cult with all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, and mythology. The leader is this religion's ascetic saint. He monastically denies himself earthly pleasures (or so he claims) in order to be able to dedicate himself fully to his calling.
Duke is a monstrously inverted Jesus, sacrificing his life and denying himself so that his people - or humanity at large - should benefit. By surpassing and suppressing his humanity, Duke became a distorted version of Nietzsche's "superman".
But being a-human or super-human also means being a-sexual and a-moral.
In this restricted sense, narcissistic leaders are post-modernist and moral relativists. They project to the masses an androgynous figure and enhance it by engendering the adoration of nudity and all things "natural" - or by strongly repressing these feelings. But what they refer to, as "nature" is not natural at all.
Duke invariably proffers an aesthetic of decadence and evil carefully orchestrated and artificial - though it is not perceived this way by him or by his followers. Narcissistic leadership is about reproduced copies, not about originals. It is about the manipulation of symbols - not about veritable atavism or true conservatism.
In short: narcissistic leadership is about theatre, not about life. To enjoy the spectacle (and be subsumed by it), the leader demands the suspension of judgment, depersonalization, and de-realization. Catharsis is tantamount, in this narcissistic dramaturgy, to self-annulment.
Narcissism is nihilistic not only operationally, or ideologically. Its very language and narratives are nihilistic. Narcissism is conspicuous nihilism - and the cult's leader serves as a role model, annihilating the Man, only to re-appear as a pre-ordained and irresistible force of nature.
Narcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the "old ways" - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order. Narcissistic movements are puerile, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon David Duke like (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state, or group, or upon the leader.
Minorities or "others" - often arbitrarily selected - constitute a perfect, easily identifiable, embodiment of all that is "wrong". They are accused of being old, they are eerily disembodied, they are cosmopolitan, they are part of the establishment, they are "decadent", they are hated on religious and socio-economic grounds, or because of their race, sexual orientation, origin ... They are different, they are narcissistic (feel and act as morally superior), they are everywhere, they are defenseless, they are credulous, they are adaptable (and thus can be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction). They are the perfect hate figure. Narcissists thrive on hatred and pathological envy.
This is precisely the source of the fascination with Hitler, diagnosed by Erich Fromm - together with Stalin - as a malignant narcissist. He was an inverted human. His unconscious was his conscious. He acted out our most repressed drives, fantasies, and wishes. He provides us with a glimpse of the horrors that lie beneath the veneer, the barbarians at our personal gates, and what it was like before we invented civilization. Hitler forced us all through a time warp and many did not emerge. He was not the devil. He was one of us. He was what Arendt aptly called the banality of evil. Just an ordinary, mentally disturbed, failure, a member of a mentally disturbed and failing nation, who lived through disturbed and failing times. He was the perfect mirror, a channel, a voice, and the very depth of our souls.
Duke prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments. His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions. In the aftermath of his regime - Duke having died, been deposed, or voted out of office - it all unravels. The tireless and constant prestidigitation ceases and the entire edifice crumbles. What looked like an economic miracle turns out to have been a fraud-laced bubble. Loosely held empires disintegrate. Laboriously assembled business conglomerates go to pieces. "Earth shattering" and "revolutionary" scientific discoveries and theories are discredited. Social experiments end in mayhem.
It is important to understand that the use of violence must be ego-syntonic. It must accord with the self-image of David Duke. It must abet and sustain his grandiose fantasies and feed his sense of entitlement. It must conform David Duke like narrative. Thus, David Duke who regards himself as the benefactor of the poor, a member of the common folk, the representative of the disenfranchised, the champion of the dispossessed against the corrupt elite - is highly unlikely to use violence at first. The pacific mask crumbles when David Duke has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, and the prime sources of his narcissistic supply - have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, David Duke strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. "The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)", "they don't really know what they are doing", "following a rude awakening, they will revert to form", etc. When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail, David Duke becomes injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized - is now discarded with contempt and hatred. This primitive defense mechanism is called "splitting". To David Duke, things and people are either entirely bad (evil) or entirely good. He projects onto others his own shortcomings and negative emotions, thus becoming a totally good object. Duke is likely to justify the butchering of his own people by claiming that they intended to kill him, undo the revolution, devastate the economy, or the country, etc. The "small people", the "rank and file", and the "loyal soldiers" of David Duke - his flock, his nation, and his employees - they pay the price. The disillusionment and disenchantment are agonizing. The process of reconstruction, of rising from the ashes, of overcoming the trauma of having been deceived, exploited and manipulated - is drawn-out. It is difficult to trust again, to have faith, to love, to be led, to collaborate. Feelings of shame and guilt engulf the erstwhile followers of David Duke. This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 1, 2004 12:03:22 GMT -5
Who cares? Don't you think he is rather irrelevant at this point? I can't imagine expending so much energy on your opinion of him.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 1, 2004 12:16:55 GMT -5
All this talk of Republicans and Democrats "switching sides" is simply absurd. It was Republicans who freed the slaves, Republicans who gave women the right to vote and Republicans that passed the civil rights act. They have consistently been on the side of equal treatment for all. Democrats have simply flip flopped on their ways of oppressing people and keeping them down. They now do it through government dependency and affirmative action programs. The subtle racism of lower expectations.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on May 29, 2004 22:22:21 GMT -5
Hey you dweeb troll. I deleted your post because not only are you long winded and boring as hell, you're redundant. Please don't cut and paste the same tired rant over and over.
The first one still stands. Don't you have anything else to say?
|
|
Wow! That was REALLY bad! Your Community College poetry class isn't having the desired effect. Please stop!