1) Criticizing the IRS: "Republicans are using as their latest weapon in the war against the black man. ‘IRS’ is the new 'N****r.'" — Martin Bashir
2) Having a Republican National Convention during a hurricane: "They are happy to have a party with black people drowning." — Yahoo News Washington bureau chief David Chalian on the Republican National Convention, which was going on at the same time as Hurricane Isaac.
3) Wanting to own a gun to prevent break-ins: "I am loathe to bring up what is in our head because we don’t like to talk about it so much. But on this particular day, on Martin Luther King Day, I think this needs to be said. That imaginary person that’s going to break into your home and kill you, who does that person look like? You know, it’s not freckle-faced Jimmy down the street, is it really? I mean, that’s not what really, that’s not what really people, we never really want to talk about the racial or the class part of this, in terms of how it’s the poor or it’s people of color that we imagine that we’re afraid of. Why are we afraid? What is that, and it’s been a fear that has existed for a very, very long time." — Michael Moore
4) Mentioning the "Constitution" or "respect for the Founding Fathers:" "The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message,” Williams wrote. “References to a lack of respect for the ‘Founding Fathers’ and the ‘Constitution’ also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core ‘old-fashioned American values.’" — Juan Williams
5) Calling Obama "angry:" "That really bothered me. You notice (Romney) said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘n*ggerization.’" — Touré
6) Saying that Barack Obama lies: "Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!" — Maureen Dowd
7) Noting that Obama is privileged: "Spotlighting his elite education is tantamount to racial bigotry because it insinuates that 'he took the place of someone else through affirmative action, that someone else being someone white.'" — Jonathan Capehart
8) Saying that unions boss Obama around: "The Republican Party is saying that the President of the United States has bosses, that the union bosses this President around, the unions boss him around. Does that sound to you like they are trying to consciously or subconsciously deliver the racist message that, of course, of course a black man can’t be the real boss?" — Lawrence O’Donnell
9) Supporting voter ID: “If you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and – and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally – and very transparently – block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.” — Debbie Wasserman Schultz
10) Saying "I want my country back:" "Do you remember tea baggers? It was just so much easier when we could just call them racists. I just don’t know why we can’t call them racists, or functionally retarded adults. The functionally retarded adults, the racists – with their cries of, ‘I want my country back. You know what they’re really saying is, ‘I want my white guy back.’ They apparently had no problem at all for the last eight years of habeas corpus being suspended, the Constitution being on, illegal surveillance, lied to on a war or two, two stolen elections – yes, the John Kerry one was stolen too. That’s not tin-foil hat time. ” — Janeane Garofalo
11) Being fans of Herman Cain: "One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he(he’s) giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me." — Karen Finney
12) Fighting for the 2nd Amendment: "I believe the NRA is the new KKK. And that the arming of so many black youths, uh, and loading up our community with drugs, and then just having an open shooting gallery, is the work of people who obviously don’t have our best interests ." — Jason Whitlock
13) Republicans trying to keep Obama from being reelected:"Look at, look, the Tea Partiers, who are controlling the Republican Party….Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. What’s, what does that, what underlines that? ‘Screw the country. We’re going to (do) whatever we (can) do to get this black man, we can, we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here.’… It is a racist thing." — Morgan Freeman
14) Disliking the fact that Obama is President: "They can’t stand the idea that he’s president, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn’t like somebody in another racial group, so what? It’s the sense that the white race must rule, that’s what racism is, and they can’t stand the idea that a man who’s not white is president. That is real, that sense of racial superiority and rule is in the hearts of some people in this country." — Chris Matthews
15) Disliking Barack Obama: "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American." —Jimmy Carter
When I read this article, I thought of my experiences here at Radio Paradise. It was here on the forum pages of this website that I met the most ardent defenders of political correctness and the righteousness of the left. Starting with the 2004 election, I felt angry and isolated after my interactions with people here. I have since left that phase of my life behind, but I can understand how people that are still confronting political correctness and are upset about it could support a man like Trump and what he stands for. I think that a lot of Americans are fed up. They are fed up with all of it, but particularly with people telling them how to think and how they are stupid when they don't agree with the party line. Thus, Trump is their savior: someone who is not afraid to say things that are controversial and is smart enough to give as good as he gets on the political attack front. He is the guy you wished you were when a smug uber liberal taunts you during an internet argument. He is the guy that you wish you had in your corner when when you say something out loud and are immediately triple and quadruple teamed by the PC policemen who dice you up with their long knives. I don't post many political things on Facebook anymore and have unfriended most of the RP attack dogs that follow me there to pick fights and defend the Liberal Realm, but I can see how there are a lot of people that are feeling their ideals and way of life being threatened and want a champion.
That being said, I do not condone Donald Trump's actions and words. He appeals to our darker side as a country. I won't vote for him. In fact, I fear for what will happen to our country if he gets elected. But I know that Trump did not come from a vacuum, and his success has to be attributed to a larger phenomenon than some would understand and admit. Is it too late to avoid a Trumpian fate? Hopefully not, but karma is a bitch, so we had better prepare for the backlash.
And for me, I'm going back to my listener and lurker status.
This a thousand times over. And it is truly unfortunate that he can get this much traction.
And all the angst over "political correctness" is overblown too. Replace that word with "politeness" and everything you said would still be true except that is it simply what's expected. You can have too much politeness as well.
But I hope that this is the last gasp of a dying breed. It's getting riled up because it has been repressed so much by better new paradigm. I imagine most dynasties don't go away easy, so it shouldn't be a surprise. But it will still be ugly.
When I read this article, I thought of my experiences here at Radio Paradise. It was here on the forum pages of this website that I met the most ardent defenders of political correctness and the righteousness of the left. Starting with the 2004 election, I felt angry and isolated after my interactions with people here. I have since left that phase of my life behind, but I can understand how people that are still confronting political correctness and are upset about it could support a man like Trump and what he stands for. I think that a lot of Americans are fed up. They are fed up with all of it, but particularly with people telling them how to think and how they are stupid when they don't agree with the party line. Thus, Trump is their savior: someone who is not afraid to say things that are controversial and is smart enough to give as good as he gets on the political attack front. He is the guy you wished you were when a smug uber liberal taunts you during an internet argument. He is the guy that you wish you had in your corner when when you say something out loud and are immediately triple and quadruple teamed by the PC policemen who dice you up with their long knives. I don't post many political things on Facebook anymore and have unfriended most of the RP attack dogs that follow me there to pick fights and defend the Liberal Realm, but I can see how there are a lot of people that are feeling their ideals and way of life being threatened and want a champion.
That being said, I do not condone Donald Trump's actions and words. He appeals to our darker side as a country. I won't vote for him. In fact, I fear for what will happen to our country if he gets elected. But I know that Trump did not come from a vacuum, and his success has to be attributed to a larger phenomenon than some would understand and admit. Is it too late to avoid a Trumpian fate? Hopefully not, but karma is a bitch, so we had better prepare for the backlash.
And for me, I'm going back to my listener and lurker status.
I'm kinda hoping either Trump or Sanders wins. No one really wants clinton, bush, rubio...maybe it's time to give the people what they want and let em tear this place up (tongue in cheek?).
And **sigh** every time I try to articulate why people are attracted to such an obvious social neanderthal and epic asshole even while making the disclaimer that I do not agree with most of the content of his personal barbs and off the cuff thinkless (new word maybe?) remarks, I still have to disclaim that I would never vote for him and he would make a terrible President. Having said that, the idea of his lack of filter in social situations and the fresh direction he steers the conversation of the candidates (candidate?) that can actually prevail in this rigged system is important and quite frankly this is why I am glad he is running. It is way bigger than any of the candidates that are on the main stage, it is all about the process and content of the debate.
When I read this article, I thought of my experiences here at Radio Paradise. It was here on the forum pages of this website that I met the most ardent defenders of political correctness and the righteousness of the left. Starting with the 2004 election, I felt angry and isolated after my interactions with people here. I have since left that phase of my life behind, but I can understand how people that are still confronting political correctness and are upset about it could support a man like Trump and what he stands for. I think that a lot of Americans are fed up. They are fed up with all of it, but particularly with people telling them how to think and how they are stupid when they don't agree with the party line. Thus, Trump is their savior: someone who is not afraid to say things that are controversial and is smart enough to give as good as he gets on the political attack front. He is the guy you wished you were when a smug uber liberal taunts you during an internet argument. He is the guy that you wish you had in your corner when when you say something out loud and are immediately triple and quadruple teamed by the PC policemen who dice you up with their long knives. I don't post many political things on Facebook anymore and have unfriended most of the RP attack dogs that follow me there to pick fights and defend the Liberal Realm, but I can see how there are a lot of people that are feeling their ideals and way of life being threatened and want a champion.
That being said, I do not condone Donald Trump's actions and words. He appeals to our darker side as a country. I won't vote for him. In fact, I fear for what will happen to our country if he gets elected. But I know that Trump did not come from a vacuum, and his success has to be attributed to a larger phenomenon than some would understand and admit. Is it too late to avoid a Trumpian fate? Hopefully not, but karma is a bitch, so we had better prepare for the backlash.
And for me, I'm going back to my listener and lurker status.
The new era of liberal political correctness — in which colleges designate "free speech zones," words like "American" and "mother" are considered discriminatory, and children are suspended from school for firing make-believe weapons — has reached critical mass. If not for the loony sensitivities foisted upon us by the left, someone like Trump would be immediately dismissed as unprofessional and unserious, an incoherent blurter. Instead, he's the equally extreme response to extreme correctness — if everything is offensive in Liberalville, then nothing will be offensive in Trumpland.
It's all absurd, of course. Trump says things that are unequivocally offensive, and regularly. But conservatives (and even comedians) have reached their limit on political correctness. And so Trump supporters will justify nearly everything he says, no matter how bizarre or unbecoming.
Remember, too, liberals taught us a valuable lesson about political correctness that many conservatives haven't forgotten: It's only offensive if you don't like the person saying it. When conservatives tried to accept the liberal rules of political correctness, pointing out Vice President Joe Biden's too-numerous-to-count slurs and gaffes, there was a collective shrug from the left.
So, if the rules are demonstrably stupid, and they only exist for the right, why play by them?
This is how Trump supporters came to be. They have taken the governor off the racecar.
When anybody you disagree with is a fascist then the word fascist just means someone you disagree with.
There are actual fascists. What will you call them? What credibility will you have left when you do?
When I read this article, I thought of my experiences here at Radio Paradise. It was here on the forum pages of this website that I met the most ardent defenders of political correctness and the righteousness of the left. Starting with the 2004 election, I felt angry and isolated after my interactions with people here. I have since left that phase of my life behind, but I can understand how people that are still confronting political correctness and are upset about it could support a man like Trump and what he stands for. I think that a lot of Americans are fed up. They are fed up with all of it, but particularly with people telling them how to think and how they are stupid when they don't agree with the party line. Thus, Trump is their savior: someone who is not afraid to say things that are controversial and is smart enough to give as good as he gets on the political attack front. He is the guy you wished you were when a smug uber liberal taunts you during an internet argument. He is the guy that you wish you had in your corner when when you say something out loud and are immediately triple and quadruple teamed by the PC policemen who dice you up with their long knives. I don't post many political things on Facebook anymore and have unfriended most of the RP attack dogs that follow me there to pick fights and defend the Liberal Realm, but I can see how there are a lot of people that are feeling their ideals and way of life being threatened and want a champion.
That being said, I do not condone Donald Trump's actions and words. He appeals to our darker side as a country. I won't vote for him. In fact, I fear for what will happen to our country if he gets elected. But I know that Trump did not come from a vacuum, and his success has to be attributed to a larger phenomenon than some would understand and admit. Is it too late to avoid a Trumpian fate? Hopefully not, but karma is a bitch, so we had better prepare for the backlash.
And for me, I'm going back to my listener and lurker status.
You're confusing me with a libertarian. I'm a pragmatist.
I'm all for keeping out dangerous criminals. That's why we have a thorough and reasonably effective screening process for refugees.
As for immigrants from Mexico, if we build the wall as Trump suggests, we will prevent the net emigration back to Mexico from the US that has been occurring, resulting in more of them being in the US than would be here if we don't build a wall. But don't worry, a lower percentage of them are criminals compared to your fellow illegal descendants of anchor babies, so keeping them on this side of the wall should benefit us with respect to crime. Indeed, we have waves of immigration that have occured to thank for lower crime rates. Only problem is, immigrants who stay often start families, and after a generation or two of pumping out "native born" illegal Americans, their descendants (being natives) would be expected to be more crimey. We could pass a law to require vasectomy as a prerequisite for citizenship, but eventually that would drive population down so much we would have even more problems with filling job openings, and would have to expand work visa programs, I imagine.
Riiiiight. If you say so.
I have a hard time understanding how not believing that there is such a thing as illegal immigration to the US in the first place does not mean embracing open borders. I used to think that I am a pragmatist first and foremost, but since someone brought the thought of being pragnostic to my attention, I'm starting to rethink some things. The religious attachments to the term prognostic don't apply to me, rather that pragmatism is dead and I have lost faith in it.
Political correctness has killed the ability to have any discussions of facts, devoid of theory and emotion, which is my interpretation of pragmatism. The case of jihad ... it is not a criminal act, it is a state of war. To treat it like a street crime is just plain insane. It may implement street crimes to achieve its ends, but to trivialize these crimes as just work place violence, prevents the understanding of its true nature.
At any rate, this can has been kicked down the road since the Amnesty deal made during Reagan's term has turned out to be nothing more than lies and broken promises. No one was talking about fixing it since then that could draw national attention to it, until Trump showed up. And by fixing it, I don't mean passing a 2,000 page omnibus legaleeze blank check for bureaucrats to make the decisions and create regulations. 10 pages should be enough, with everything spelled out in no uncertain terms. Uncertainty is the enemy of peace and resolution. IMO, the last 7 years have brought about the deliberate growth of uncertainly to instill fear and divide into our national fabric and destroy us from within by turning us against each other. Furthermore, political correctness has made the conversations necessary to fix the divide impossible to have.
If there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, then we don't have an immigration problem.
So, I lost this really well designed reply to this post, all intellectual and everything, with references and other trappings of the intelligentia to make me look smart. So, instead, I'm gonna wing it - here goes.
Trump appeals to our baser desires as a human animal. He hits primeval brain spots, and exploits them. Not bad, not good, just that's the truth. All of us are products of our environment, intelligence, and experience, and as such, we (as a society, or race) are fallible, regardless of social standing, income, or what have you. We are all intellectually compromised, no matter what.
Anyway, I kinda like Trump, because he's not afraid of being intellectually compromised - he already knows he is, and then spouts shit that nobody in their right minds would ever utter. Trump may well be the James Dean of politics. Whatever.
I give the exact same kudos to Bernie. He's a Stoic in the face of extinction, and yet still survives. There's nothing not to like about the guy, regardless of politics, which I am pretty sure is a way overrated subject.
God Bless America
ps Hillary can go fuck herself
Popped in to backscroll and see what's been going on since my last visit. Sheeshuz.
Anyway, I basically agree with what you said. Right now the way I feel about things is that if I can't have Trump, I'll take Sanders. Either we stop this train right now or we speed it up and get to where we are presently going quicker. And what you said about Hillary ...
Truman was President when I was born. I've seen the same movie too many times. I'm too old to deal with this crap anymore. All the ethics and values that I was raised to hold near and dear are now hateful and harmful to the world I'm told. A heritage in this country that goes back 375 years, all hated and worse. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Party on, Garth ...
‘It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too. The “soldiers of Islam” received a warrior’s heaven, “a real earthly paradise” with “houris” and “wine flowing.” This, Hitler argued, was much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity.
Bullock wrote that, "once the war was over,promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches".Phayer wrote that "By the latter part of the decade of the thirties church officials were well aware that the ultimate aim of Hitler and other Nazis was the total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion. Since the overwhelming majority of Germans were either Catholic or Protestant this goal had to be a long-term rather than a short-term Nazi objective." According to Shirer, "under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists".
It would probably end up being a full-time job to check all your nonsense.
It is well-known that the Nazis initially appealed to Christianity (I called it "opportunistically" below while pointing out that +90% of Germans were Christians) and gave their own twist to it. The regime changed its tune over its course. However it is a far cry from being driven by Muslim beliefs, regardless of how much you'd like to believe and misrepresent it.
Instead, as you point out with the second quote, it relied somewhat on pagan mystical views as part of glorifying Germany's heroic past to promote their new 1000 year Reich (Empire).
If I asked you to describe Donald Trump’s supporters in one word, you might say angry. As I have taught you in the Master Persuader series, if most people have the same explanation for a thing, they’re probably right.
Now suppose I asked you for one word to describe what the opponents of Donald Trump dislike about him the most. This time your answers are all over the map. Some say he’s a fascist. Some say he’s xenophobic. Or racist. Some say he’s only in it for the money, or the ego. Some say he’s a narcissist. Others believe he is secretly working with the Clinton campaign to guarantee Hillary’s victory. Some say he is just bitter, or stupid. Some expect him to announce it was all a joke and quit.
That’s a lot of reasons. But I submit to you that all of those reasons – as varied as they seem – have one thing in common. And that one thing can be embodied in one word.
‘It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too. The “soldiers of Islam” received a warrior’s heaven, “a real earthly paradise” with “houris” and “wine flowing.” This, Hitler argued, was much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity.
Bullock wrote that, "once the war was over,promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches".Phayer wrote that "By the latter part of the decade of the thirties church officials were well aware that the ultimate aim of Hitler and other Nazis was the total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion. Since the overwhelming majority of Germans were either Catholic or Protestant this goal had to be a long-term rather than a short-term Nazi objective." According to Shirer, "under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists".
Look at this warning on Wikipedia for Hitlers views on Islam. Even they admit the rot.
This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.(November 2015)
If you could understand how Wikipedia works, you'd know that anyone can add such a disclaimer/note while backing it up on the talk page. It does not mean "Wikipedia" admits to anything. You are however welcome to set the record straight by providing sources that enhance your argument. Alternatively, you could simply rely on such reputable sources as Breitbart or maybe Conservapedia.
So many arguments and so many twistings of the truth.
Look at this warning on Wikipedia for Hitlers views on Islam. Even they admit the rot.
This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.(November 2015)
Wikipedia is SJW controlled unfortunately and many sections are completely unreliable.
I think I'd rather trust Wikipedia or primary sources than your unsourced/mendacious memes: "Therefore, I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator: By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."
or alternatively: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"
It's pretty obvious we're in Breitbart territory when we hear about SJWs (and libtards, etc.)
Wikipedia is SJW controlled unfortunately and many sections are completely unreliable.
Unfortunately, American gun control proponents like quoting Professor Harcourt out of context in order to feed their argument. If you read the full context of Harcourt’s report, it is clear the Nazis’ gun control laws were used to oppress the Jewish people.
“If you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation – as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation – several conclusions become clear. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms.”
Some sites will quote Hitler as saying, “To conquer a nation, you must first disarm its citizens.” While Hitler apparently never said this quote, what he actually did say was far worse.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.”
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2686274/obama-crying-during-speech-compared-to-adolf-hitler-fake-tears-nazis-gun-control-laws-video/#rPMF3vo4eYfmX8cl.99
Accusations of racism, misogyny etc.. are a silencing tactic used to avoid debating issues. It's been overused and doesn't work any more.
Also here's two uncomfortable truths about Hitler seeing as you are bringing him up.
1. He used gun control, starting with a very teary emotional speech, to disarm the German populace before taking absolute control.
2. He LOVED Islam saying it was the only religion he respected. He said he was fighting for Allah. Makes sense really considering just how much he hated Jews.
The media are suggesting those dancing girls at Trump's rally are little Nazi's. link
2. Hitler was a Catholic, and talked (opportunistically) of God (and "The Lord") in his infamous manifesto to a very receptive audience. Germany at the time was a country of +90% Christians. Anti-semitism was rife at the time (and had been for centuries) and by plenty of people incl. Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) and not just in Europe either. 'Allah' is just the Arabic word for God, however it was not 'Allah' that was on the Army's belt buckles.
Hitler's anti-semitism was linked first and foremost to the loss/defeat of WW I. He blamed the Communists (and their "Jew-inspired" (see Marx) ideology).
