The real enemy of the Jews - Why does Borat ignore the left?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Ned
The founding fathers did have a problem with slavery, indeed. But beyond that, they did sign the Declaration of Independence and it speaks for itself.

Ned, what about women? Indians? Free blacks? Non-merchant, non-landholding white men? Were any of those groups equal enough to get the right to vote in the early days of the republic? Why is it that conservatives have fought ever single extension of the franchise? Why do conservatives fight every attempt to extend civil rights to the excluded? It was conservatives who led the fight against the ERA. It is conservatives who fight against the legal right of gays to marry. It was conservatives who tried to stop civil rights. It was conservatives who tried to keep unions from being legal.

Conservatives are the enemies of equality.

Perhaps, but that was the Democrat party "conservatives." Those "conservatives" also opposed the end to slavery. Today's conservatives are in the Republican party, who look back to Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson for inspiration. Do not confuse the two.

But, I expect, you will conflate them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Perhaps, but that was the Democrat party "conservatives." Those "conservatives" also opposed the end to slavery. Today's conservatives are in the Republican party, who look back to Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson for inspiration. Do not confuse the two.

Given that it was the Democrats who ended the system of segregation, and the fact most pro-segregationist then fled the Democratic party and joined the Republican party, its easy to do so.

There is a reason why most blacks, who used to vote Republicans switched to almost completely voting democrat. Obviously they know something you don't. But then, that is a common thing.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ned


Perhaps, but that was the Democrat party "conservatives." Those "conservatives" also opposed the end to slavery. Today's conservatives are in the Republican party, who look back to Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson for inspiration. Do not confuse the two.

But, I expect, you will conflate them.

Partisan lines are irrelevant, the point still stands...

Now excuse me, as an evil European, I have to burn some synagogues...I don't feel I've fulfilled my quotient.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
Perhaps, but that was the Democrat party "conservatives." Those "conservatives" also opposed the end to slavery. Today's conservatives are in the Republican party, who look back to Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson for inspiration. Do not confuse the two.

But, I expect, you will conflate them.

Didn't the Democratic Party conservatives flee to the Republican Party after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act? After all, Strom Thurmond was a Democrat (and a Dixiecrat). Jesse Helms was a Democrat, etc.

Though, in the harkening back to Jefferson... I wonder if he would have backed torture.

[MRT144]

didnt the founding fathers own slaves, and continue to own them?

[Drake Tungsten]

Though, in the harkening back to Jefferson... I wonder if he would have backed torture.

First you'd have to explain to him that "torture" doesn't mean what he thinks it means anymore. Once he finished laughing at the idea that listening to loud music is now "torture", I'd imagine he'd come down in favor of it. The founding fathers weren't ****ing pussies...

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Though, in the harkening back to Jefferson... I wonder if he would have backed torture.

First you'd have to explain to him that "torture" doesn't mean what he thinks it means anymore. Once he finished laughing at the idea that listening to loud music is now "torture", I'd imagine he'd come down in favor of it. The founding fathers weren't ****ing pussies...

yeah they whipped their own slaves on occasions

[Cyclotron]

Ned, how critical of the state of Israel and its policies can one be, in your mind, before they become anti-Semitic?

[joncha]

I'm sure that depends on the criticism. "The state of Israel is not doing enough to stop the arab menace," for example, is acceptable.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
what about women? Indians? Free blacks?

none had the franchise anywhere on earth.

non-landholding white men?

what was wrong with restricting the franchise to stakeholders?

It was conservatives who led the fight against the ERA.

it was a turd.

It is conservatives who fight against the legal right of gays to marry.

nope, we're just pushing it to the states. If you believe that 60-80 percent of the population is conservative its a wonder any Democrat ever gets elected.

It was conservatives who tried to stop civil rights.

by having republicans end segregation and overwhelmingly vote for the civil rights act. thats exactly why southern democrats left their party to join the party of Lincoln,Eisenhower,and so forth.

It was conservatives who tried to keep unions from being legal.

I can't support people trying to deny others their first amendment rights, and I would hope that you wouldn't call all those who support the current efforts to destroy unions,which are being quite successful,conservatives.

Conservatives are the enemies of equality.

There is only equality at zero.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And that his Arizona bar stunt revealed, if not anti-Semitism, then “indifference” to anti-Semitism. And that, he maintains, was the path to the Holocaust.

He's right you know... hyperbole, no doubt, but when people don't give a crap about bigotry, someone espousing extreme bigotry will not be challenged as he or she should.

Er, bear in mind that this is IRL, not online. Online, you're untouchable, so if anyone says anything you disagree with you're free to flame away. IRL, if a man who appears mentally or emotionally unstable (plus IIRC he's well over six feet tall) starts spewing this crap, and no harm appears to result...typically people play along. There's just no point in trying to correct a man who appears to be coming from bizarro world. If he were rational enough to be convinced, odds are he'd be too rational to believe the wacky rubbish coming out of his mouth.

Not that I think most people even progress that far in their explicit inner reasoning. Mostly I suspect that, as social animals, humans default to playing along until they can escape from situations where they just don't have the slightest idea WTF is going on. It's the safest course of action.

Really, can you honestly say that if some random loon came up to you one day and started babbling insane, hateful beliefs, and refused to go away until you played along, you would do anything other than A. play along or B. smile ambiguously and look uncomfortable until he was satisfied/frustrated and went away?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by joncha
I'm sure that depends on the criticism. "The state of Israel is not doing enough to stop the arab menace," for example, is acceptable.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Though, in the harkening back to Jefferson... I wonder if he would have backed torture.

First you'd have to explain to him that "torture" doesn't mean what he thinks it means anymore. Once he finished laughing at the idea that listening to loud music is now "torture", I'd imagine he'd come down in favor of it. The founding fathers weren't ****ing pussies...

If the music was "gangsta rap", I am sure anyone would be inclined to agree that that is a form of torture. Half a minute and I'd be a stoolpigeon...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
If the music was "gangsta rap", I am sure anyone would be inclined to agree that that is a form of torture. Half a minute and I'd be a stoolpigeon...

Much like anyone who criticizes Israel is a dirty anti-Semite, anyone who criticizes gangsta rap is a dirty racist.

[loinburger]

I think it's a bit silly to use "democrats" interchangably with "liberals" and "republicans" interchangably with "conservatives" while at the same time bringing the more-than-a-century-old history of the parties into the mix. If anybody is claiming that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have remained static for the past, say, 150 years, and that the Republican and Democratic platforms have remained static for the past, say, 150 years, then by all means use the terms interchangably. Short of that, this "party of Lincoln" or "party of Jefferson" or "party of Taft" or "party of Harrison (the one who died after a month in office)" crap is just as annoying as calling the other side "repukelicans" or "demoncrats" or whatever.