“Beating the old lady”? That is your idea of family love?
I can see what culture you’re definitely not part of.
Since there is no logic or reference to my own in your rambling so I only learned you think some one who prefers his woman over his guests is by inference a monster. A predictable enough socialist/muslim morality. You claim conservatism but you were always transparent as an invertebrate. Slither back under your rock.
“Arrogant whites are being punished for their arrogance today. Be nice and everything is cool.”
No, be nice and your daughter gets raped. Sorry.
What arrogance you see is just intelligence. We won’t be punished for it.
Why I hate liberals is cause they adapt to the stupidest persons because otherwise it is unfair. They never learned that to make things okay you have to honour the smart.
Immigrants from dumb countries are actually abused by people respecting their level of intelligence. They came here so they could learn to think. But as soon as they came the liberals said learning science is fascistic. Some teachers literally said that! So “brown” people never got the chance. And now they make sure unsecure women talk like them to be immune to the virus of intelligence.
We have to eat a lot of shit from minorities too.
We have to eat their racism.
Many of them are less educated, intelligent, more crime and terror prone.
Some of some of them are trying to undermine and destroy us.
Some of them have strange, unusual and disturbing customs, like forcing their women to wear burkas, and treating them like big children, or property.
Some don’t speak our language well, or at all.
Some have no comprehension of our laws, history and customs.
Many of them have five-ten kids per family, forcing us to overdevelop ourselves (I don’t want more pollution and population density), putting a strain on our environment and resources.
The illegals especially take some of our jobs from us.
And don’t say we won’t do them, Europeans built and maintained their countries without (illegal) immigration.
She has more rights than I do, so how can she say she doesn’t feel like a part of this country?
Because she’s been subjected to a little racism now and then, likely mostly because she and her ilk can’t stop blabbing about how much more she’s entitled to from us because she’s brown?
Because she’s heard mulattos with a ‘fuck da police’ attitude wind up being shot dead?
And racism goes both ways.
Nowadays whites are probably the least racist race.
And races ought to look out for their own more anyway, so long as they don’t take it to extremes.
Her speech is describing her plight.
And on college campuses, universities and philosophy forums, where facts and reason ought to count for more than fiction and feelings, she should be exposed for it.
I probably can’t become a citizen of her country, and I probably wouldn’t want to, because it’s arguably inferior.
We have more to offer than them, and yet they still complain.
Gasp you fascist pig!
How dare you force them to learn our language and customs when we should be learning theirs!
True, but it’s unfair to treat other peoples better than they treat us.
Right, other races, with the exception of Jews and east Asians (not including south east Asians) appear (of course iQ tests are limited, but that doesn’t mean they’re arbitrary either) to be less intelligent than us, but we tend to select the cream from the crop (smart, wealthy, educated…), so some (but not all) west, south, south east Asian and even some African migrant populations like Nigerians end up outperforming whites.
From my research, iQ is somewhat correlated with education and wealth.
Ashkenazi Jews appear to be as much or more white than west Asian.
I’ll accept them as white, so long as they genuinely think of themselves as white, and fight for, or at least refrain from opposing our interests.
Jews who’ve been caught opposing us, need to be exposed, and have their power stripped from them.
You seem to be pissed at whites in general, not just the white overclass.
Many or most of my threads in SG&E have been economically oriented, but other issues like race and gender need to be addressed as well.
For me, preserving our biological heritage is more important than preserving our cultural heritage.
There’s some things about our culture I’d prefer to do away with, like its current emphasis on materialism.
In a republic, we try to balance individual rights with majority rule (democracy).
I’m not telling whites or anyone else who they can/can’t elope with, but I want to restrict future immigration to whites only, or eliminate it.
Fair enough, I’m just expressing my viewpoint, other whites are free to accept, or reject what I have to say.
Just because birds of a feather flock together, doesn’t mean they hate, fear or have contempt for other birds.
That being said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being proud of your race and its achievements, so long as you don’t take it to the extreme of regarding others as subhuman.
Agreed, I was just trying to be nice.
Felt bad for telling that brown lady to go home…just wish she’d quit her bitching.
We should be able to use racial slurs in pubic, but we should be careful not to seriously offend.
I’m very much in favor of free speech, really I am, I just got triggered by that brown lady.
Not only does mass immigration hurt us in some, or many ways, but it hurts the 3rd world, because all the bright lights are going to be extracted from it, leaving it with nothing but dims.
And dims are going to cause trouble, and then we’ll have to spend trillions of dollars trying to clean up their mess.
No, I’m not in favor of moral absolutes and I don’t see a contradiction, though I am a hypocrite and have no qualms with the admission. Nevertheless, my hypocrisy has no bearing on truth. That would be a tu quoque argument.
Moral relativism. What’s good for me might not be good for you, so each case is judged independently instead of generalized absolute rules applying robotically/mindlessly/mechanistically to everyone.
The proof is here:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svbhTDVVyQc[/youtube]
and I want to suggest you first of all
00:02
that a person who believes in absolute
00:12
laws is liable to be quite dangerous
00:20
because he puts rigid structures in a
00:27
place of higher honor.
the Chinese have a word which has to be
00:59
the gift and the essential virtue of a
01:03
good judge; good judge in the law courts
01:06
in this word like this you know this
01:15
pronounced Li there are several kinds of
01:17
Li in Chinese but this one means an
01:20
innate sense of fair play of equity
01:24
which can’t be written down in laws; it
01:27
can’t be formulated. They also have a
01:33
word for laws that can be formulated
01:35
which is Zhu: it looks like that
and that’s a picture of a bronze
02:02
cauldron with a knife beside it because
02:07
in very ancient times when people
02:10
brought sacrifices to the sacrificial
02:12
cauldrons, the rulers caused the laws
02:16
to be engraved on the cauldron so that
02:18
they would read them, and the sages said
02:22
that is a bad idea because the moment
02:25
the people know what the laws are in
02:27
literal terms, they will develop a
02:29
liturgist spirit: they will start
02:31
haggling over words, so although there
02:39
has to be the Zhu, the formulated law, a
02:43
good judge must know a lot more than the
02:46
written law; he must have a sense of
02:47
equity because every case that comes to
02:51
his attention is really different.
02:52
There’s no way of describing
02:54
exhaustively all the possible
02:56
relationships between man and man and so
03:00
a judge has to have this sort of rule of
03:04
thumb like a good gardener has to have a
03:06
green thumb which is something beyond
03:07
anything you can read in a book so Li
03:15
is the sense of justice. Zhu would be
03:21
belief in absolutes, in that you must
03:25
never do so-and-so or you must always do
03:28
so-and-so: thou shalt, thou shalt not, so a
03:33
person who holds to absolute rules will
03:37
be an inflexible fool when it comes to
03:40
the test. He is reliable up to a point,
03:43
but this is what you get in bureaucracy.
03:47
I’m sorry to say it, but there is a
03:49
specially offensive kind of usually
03:53
female secretary of some government
03:56
department
03:57
who is utterly unreasonable; totally goes
04:01
by the book and will not under any
04:03
circumstances do anything one way or the
04:05
other beyond the letter. Well people like
04:09
that have a certain use, but they have
04:12
the same sort of use as machinery;
04:14
machinery which is foolproof, which does
04:16
the same everything every time and it
04:18
can’t be changed, but there must always
04:20
be some boss over this kind of person
04:22
who can consider the case from a
04:25
different point of view and say “well
04:27
obviously in this case the rules are
04:28
unreasonable and they have to be altered.”
04:32
So you see a person who takes the laws
04:36
absolutely seriously becomes inflexible
04:39
and therefore mechanical and therefore
04:42
inhuman. Now it’s like the Roman
04:45
Catholics when they get on this bit
04:48
about birth control or divorce or
04:50
something like that, they get utterly
04:52
inflexible and they seem to enjoy being
04:54
inflexible because they think it’s a
04:57
mark of tough mindedness.
People who follow absolutes are machines who must always have a boss over them who can consider situations from another point of view… and who himself cannot have moral absolutes lest he also be a machine.
Sure there are times when adversity engenders strength, like lifting weights to build muscle, but the lifting takes minutes while sleeping and eating account for far more time invested in growing muscle. The coddling is more important than the challenge and that’s what Charles Atlas noticed upon looking at animals piled-up in the shade at the zoo, doing nothing, never lifting weights, yet being really strong. artofmanliness.com/articles … les-atlas/
If it were true that adversity engendered prosperity, then the poorest neighborhoods would be churning out successes while the rich neighborhoods would be dens of crack dealers; poor schools would be academic and athletic champions because of the abundance of adversity; and never watering your garden would land you on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens. Simply being lazy and neglectful would cause the necessary adversity required to raise well-adjusted children. That’s just a nonsensical philosophy! If anything is correlated to success, it’s coddling. The very fact that humans exist is testament to the coddling of the universe by being uncharacteristically nice to us the last few hundred thousand years with such stable weather. Look around… isn’t it odd that earth is so even-keel?
It’s true that we can’t just sit in the nest being nurtured forever and we need some stimulation, but that’s something entirely different than the attribution of success to the challenge when recovery is far more important. Conservatives have made a main point from a minor aspect while trimming away entirely the most important part.
Conservatism is indeed the religion of hate. Not only have they set adversity on a pedestal, but they champion complete lack of management in favor of the invisible hand of “the market”, as if an ungoverned garden were more fruitful. It’s funny how there is no situation in nature where if we take a laissez-faire lazy attitude do we get results on par with our expectations, but somehow it’s a “common sense” notion concerning economics.
Yep, and that’s why I don’t agree with “What doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger.” Before I heard of Nietzsche, I knew whoever said that was an idiot because what doesn’t kill me, leaves me half-dead. I can think of no situation upon being brought to the brink of death that I could somehow emerge stronger because of it. More calloused, yes, but not stronger. Just like lack of fear is not bravery, so is lack of feeling not strength.
Oh goodness… it’s a CBS News 60 Minutes video about babies. How much more innocent could a video be???
Essentially it’s an experiment with young children where they are given a choice, like:
6 tokens for you and 6 for the other child coming in later or
3 tokens for you and none for the other child.
They always pick the 3 tokens and none for the other child. Kids are willing to take less for themselves if it means the other kid gets even less.
But when the kids get older, they stop doing that and instead pick the more fair option and when they get even older, they deliberately take less for themselves so the other child gets more. What’s happened is they realize the tokens aren’t worth anything and there is a camera in the room, so it’s still about social comparison.
With republicans it’s not about a rising tide lifting all boats, but sinking some boats to make theirs look higher. Instead of having a healthy and rich population that benefits everyone, including themselves, they’re more worried about who earns and deserves what and are willing to live in a crime-ridden and uneducated society in order to preserve disparity. So it’s like cutting off your own hand just to be able to cut off someone else’s arm.
That is a puzzler. I can’t imagine someone having a philosophy of disparity (good people vs evil people, rich people vs poor people, free vs slave) who wouldn’t consistently manifest that philosophy in all aspects of their life.
I think the duality of it is universal, but the labels may change.
Absolutism vs relativism. Dogma vs open mind. Religion vs science.
The belief that things must be actively managed vs things left to the whims of nature. The left wants regulations for the good of society while the right wants to get rid of regulations for the good of profits.
I can see that, but over-regulation is itself a thing to be regulated against. A good manager doesn’t micromanage every minutia. I think again this is boiling down to a man vs woman thing instead of a republican vs democrat: men want freedom without protection and women want protection at the cost of freedom. It’s less about what is good for society and more an artifact of biological differences in the sexes.
I wouldn’t say the left is 100% regulation (like I would say women are) and I actually consider that a consolidation of power more aligned with republican views (disparity), but the left is more the proper amount of regulation (not too much or little) while the right is the absence of regulation for the purpose of total regulation through consolidation of power (profits). If there are no laws whatsoever, then someone will form a monopoly to amass all the capital and become king and dictator (100% regulation). You see? Only a government can stop that eventuality, but care must be exercised that the government doesn’t also become the dictator (power consolidation). Be careful when fighting monsters that you yourself do not become a monster.
Power consolidation can arise through political power or financial power and come to the same end of total control. The ONLY thing that can stop dictatorial rule is a government for and by the people, which is a dispersal of power among the people and what I’d describe as democratic. Consolidations of power, whether political or financial, I’d describe as right wing (fascism, communism, capitalism = systems of disparity).
That’s true, but the underlying philosophy is consistent. You’re plenty smart and insightful to converse in this thread. I knew you were 
If these are meant to be Right vs. left characteristics, that is the left is relativistic, open minded and scientific, I don’t think it’s accurate.
One thing I see is the left is very christian in attitude, if less in terms of literal belief, and the right is more pagan, again not in literal belief. IOW the left is not more CHRISTIAN, but they want to be more Christlike, for good and for ill. The Right is more pagan in values, something that might bother the Christian right. The right is willing to have winners and losers and be more honest about this than liberals. Liberals live like this is fine, but makes noises that it is not. Progressives are more consistent. I don’t see either side as being particularly open minded. Nor do I see the left as relativists except in certain contexts. Though, that holds for the right also. There will always be situations where the right is much more openly happy to say, in this situation we can ignore Commandment X, and be the flexibel realist. The left certainly tends to be more secular, but not necessarily more scientific.
And the neo-con elements are not religious, don’t care about absolutism vs. relativism, are openminded about tactics, completely openminded, but not about much else.
While the left and right slap each other around the people who do not give a damn at all about sincerity or being any form of good are guiding the show.
Serensipper, did you follow any world news the past 5 year?
There’s no way you can’t have deduced that the Democrats aren’t a political party but a criminal syndicate. Youre really too smart I think to miss that. So I guess you don’t watch news.
Did you follow the Libya thing? I guess not. I guess you have no idea about the record unemoyment now given your meme. I respect you’re reading mostly scientific talks and stuff and politics is too ugly to deal with… you like the good old categories that you can vote for without thinking or re- search. … most folks never look beyond. But you should. I think.
So it boils down to whether the people can defend the country in order for it to be called a country. So might makes right. IOW, if we can take it from them, then it is right. Right?
Or else you’re saying that because the nomads didn’t do _________ with the land, then they lose ownership. Anything can fill the blank.
People were here, but they weren’t able to defend the land.
This is just arbitrary rules you made up to justify might making right. You can say “Your land doesn’t fit the profile I designed, so your land becomes mine.” The judge and advocate is the same person.
You’re taking the position that whoever inhabits the land is the owner, but denying ownership to someone else who used to inhabit the land. I’m just pointing out that if habitation didn’t matter before, then it doesn’t matter now. What matters is who is stronger.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxi-IUnCN_8[/youtube]
[i]Will : My father was not a pirate. [takes out his sword]
Jack : Put it away, son. It’s not worth you getting beat again.
Will : You didn’t beat me. you ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I’d killed you.
Jack : Then that’s not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it? [moves one of the sails so that the yard catches Will and swings him out over the sea] Now, as long as you’re just hanging there, pay attention. The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do. [/i]
So if dad steals something from you, then I get to keep it? A guy once stole a motorcycle from me and pawned it. The sheriff and I drove to the pawn shop and I rode home on my bike. The pawn shop was out of luck. Stolen property is stolen property and I don’t think that designation changes just because the property changes hands.
Luckily for us though, the owners of the land have died and their descendants arose in a different situation which I don’t think grants them claim to the land to return it to wilderness. Ethics is a can of worms, but I’m just pointing out all your justifications are beside the point of might making right.
That’s true, but lots of whites are happy with browns. The racist whites (unhappy ones) are the minority.
I think Michio blows a hole in that argument:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0Y9j_CGgM[/youtube]
[i]00:28
The educational system the United States has the worst educational system known to science. Our graduates compete regularly at the level of third world countries. How come the scientific establishment of the United States doesn’t collapse if we’re producing a generation of dummies?
00:58
America has a secret weapon, that secret weapon is the h-1b, without the h-1b, the scientific establishment of this country would collapse. Forget about Google; forget about Silicon Valley, there would be no Silicon Valley. You know what the h-1b is? It’s the “genius visa” okay. You realize that in the United States 50% of all PhD candidates are foreign-born? At my system, one of the biggest in the United States, 100% of the PhD candidates are foreign-born. United States is the magnet sucking up all the brains of the world. [/i]
Maybe we need them more than they need us.
My private property? Because I can, I guess. Even though I paid money for it and take care of it, the state can still seize it anytime they want. They probably won’t though and it’s the state keeping other people from seizing my property. So as long as my guardian doesn’t turn on me, I should be ok.
I can’t see it. All Trump can do is usher in a new FDR. Conservatism is like the darwin award: it’s self-limiting and causes its own extinction by blowing up.
If Biden runs, I’m voting for Trump because Biden is not a solution. Trump will cause catastrophic collapse which will bring the reform we need, but Biden will be more compromise that will acclimate us to mediocrity. A centrist like Biden is infinitely worse than Trump.
All I know is if you’re wanting to go extinct, breed yourself down to one perfect genotype. Genetic variability should be our prime initiative.
Another arbitrary contrivance. We should be entitled because _________. Insert anything because the judge and advocate are the same.
I vote we all verbally attack each other and laugh about it because we can’t forbid speech since it’s a slippery slope.
I guess so, but then again it’s like the weak vs the strong because being white does have some privilege. Think of the bias like a handicap in a game against a better opponent.
Such as? I can’t imagine.
I think a black woman would be more likely to keep her campaign promises than a white man on average and in general. I think the white man would be saying whatever to get elected then rest on his laurels while the black woman would be fighting for something she deeply believes in. I think this sentiment is the principle reason minorities like Ocassio are clobbering old white dudes at the polls.
Why not?
What am I entitled to? And why is that different than room n board?
I agree, but too many women get shafted lol. They agree to a certain arrangement then the guy splits leaving her to her own minimum wage devices.
It should be a crime because it’s causing crime. If businesses reject brown people, then brown people have no jobs, so they cause crime. If cops target brown people, then brown people see white people as enemies. Racism is akin to shitting where you eat as it can only mess up your own life. Either exterminate the brownies or learn to live with them, but making criminals of them isn’t a solution.
Maybe, but giving them addition environmental challenges is not helping, especially if they’re genetically ill-equipped in the first place.
Reminds me of a black man’s answer to why whites commit more suicide: blacks know the game is rigged from birth, but the white man has expectations and doesn’t realize until later in life what the black man has always accepted. I thought that was pretty insightful.
They work more white collar jobs don’t they?
I’m just going on Stefan Moylneux’s study of crime youtube.com/watch?v=TVBJ5m3sGfk
I’ve heard that, but never really verified it. The most creative people tend to be those with well-connected corpus callosums, which are women and gay men usually. Do white men have a larger propensity for homosexuality? So it would seem, but I don’t have any data.
It’s hard to compare apples to apples since the Europeans had domesticated animals, horses, good climate and soil making it tough to tell the role of genetics when compared to peoples who didn’t have those advantages.
So… is similarity a reason you should like or dislike Italians? You have more in common with men, so does that mean you want to have sex with one? Or do you want something different? Would you date a family member? You have more in common with them.
What needs to be done? We’ve gone through the agricultural and industrial revolutions, at what point can we sit down and enjoy what we’ve built? Or do we have to eternally work just because?
I’m expecting the kids to wake up and notice it’s a stupid formality. The only ones holding us back are the ones who say we “should” work and those sorts are dying off.
Another ice age is more likely and even then it’s a long way off. I don’t see nuclear war happening. All this bickering is just too silly for that.
What do you mean “pollute with inferiority?” Genes?
Work is slavery. If you do not want to work, but you have to work to live, then you are a slave, pure and simple. I don’t call that prosperity nor do I value the genes of people who can’t see it. A lot of our genetics is already polluted by yes-men due to extermination of dissidents by kings and rulers throughout history.
Why are you typing this? How much are you being paid? Who has a gun to your head? So you see people would be productive without being compelled. You probably couldn’t pay researchers to stop their work. I’m confident that if everyone received $20k annually that most would continue working because they either want to get ahead or they love what they do. The ones who don’t fit will be paid to stay out of the way and they would also have less sexual market value due to it.
Some congressman said we should raise taxes on poor people with kids as a way of deincentivizing having kids, but I think it would have the opposite effect because anywhere there is data, prosperity is associated with less reproduction; not more. So if you want poor people to stop reproducing, give them money. You also kill two birds with one stone because then the poor people go away too. People get smarter, healthier, happier, and society moves up a notch.
You just can’t stand the thought of someone getting something for nothing because you had to work, so that’s why it’s the next generation who doesn’t have your burden who will see more clearly how silly this is becoming. Generations to come will thank you for your service, but we ain’t gotta do this shit no more; you were just unlucky to have been born too early.
I don’t see why I have to hate myself to feel sorry for someone else. I just have too many knives in my back and if I list something on craigslist and the buyer doesn’t speak in broken english with latin overtones, then I’m not even gonna waste my time, er, I mean, let the inconsiderate bullshitters waste my time with more broken promises. The only way a white man can keep his word is via tattoo. Ok, I know one guy who goes out of his way to be reliable, but we agree that most are worthless and I blame social media for that: people are cheap and easily replaceable. Why bother keeping your word when it’s easier to replace anyone who is bothered by it. It’s pretty much the pinnacle of pretentiousness and, for whatever reason, social media is almost exclusively white men.
I can see that.
I don’t see the anti-white, but pro-nonwhite. Maybe a little anti-white, but mostly pro-nonwhite. Who can we trust the most: the rich or the poor people?
I have no idea what he is other than being sure he’s an imbecile. I thought he was genius for a while, but you know how those can be confused.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30E5P12DVEk[/youtube]
Seriously, he’s an imbecile.
Well, there are two kinds of democrats: the centrists or neoliberals and the progressives. The progressives (democratic socialists as opposed to the dictatorial socialists) are not involved in the underground pizza business, etc. They haven’t been tainted yet because they haven’t been in power yet.
I follow the news from the economic side since that’s my business and I don’t have a lot of interest in topics like libya or that Kavanaugh drama, so I’m either expert or totally clueless lol
Really? Not even in general? I know there are exceptions.
You may be onto something. The left wants to be the savior and that fits with my observation of the right who wants to condemn.
I think the right is more than willing.
Well the right and especially the christian right is intolerant of certain behavior and it isn’t an intolerance they came about by reason, but dogma, and then they judge others by those dogmas. So generally we can describe them as closed-minded because dogma is not open for discussion as it’s accepted to be incontrovertibly true by faith. In order to the left to be opposite, they would have to be open-minded and anti-dogmatic and more reliant upon evidence or reason to arrive at a conclusion that is never really known for certain. This is essentially what I see and what the stats that I see reveal.
Atheists on the left, christians on the right. Scientists are evolutionists who are athiests instead of creationists. Atheists are smarter. Smarter people are on the left. Hollywood, wall street, silicon valley… talent (smart) on the left, dogma (dumb) on the right. It all ties together and nothing really sticks out as being inconsistent. Sure there are exceptions, but generally speaking…
Even a dogmatist can be openminded about some things, but what’s the core philosophy? Are there absolutes? Absolute loyalty?
Maybe so. According to Watts, the guy at the top couldn’t possibly be an absolutist because he’d be a mere machine in need of a commander.
Do you sleep atop that animal or do you just climb up there to stay out of my reach? The wife-beater joke went right over your head… no wonder you think you’re so smart. 
Every woman will tell you the guys who are nicest in the beginning are meanest at the end. If you ever meet a woman who doesn’t run, ask her It’s because the guys who are overly nice are compensating for some deficiency they feel they have; some insecurity, so they put the woman on a pedestal hoping that attentiveness and adoration will compensate for lack of whatever it is he feels he doesn’t have. Then once he has her locked into a relationship, his adoration turns to tyranny for the same reasons of insecurity that prompted all the doting in the first place.
Any man who flatters himself for pedestalizing women as if adoration were a virtue could only be a dictatorial monster.
If I were a woman enduring your kowtowing to me while letting guests go unattended, I’d smack you with a frying pan and find a man with self-esteem.
I don’t claim to be conservative. You seriously got that impression?
You mean the rock upon which you built your church?
You beat your chest and say “We won’t be punished for it” and you say it’s not arrogance?
In order for your daughter not to be raped, you have to presume everyone would rape her and punish the crime before the fact. That’s essentially what you’re advocating I think: “You’re too likely to commit a crime, so I’m going to preemptively punish you by making you leave.” Is that a good attitude to have? It’s not american where we’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, or at least until we’ve actually done something wrong other than being born into a class of people who do more wrong than another class. That’s antipodal to the spirit of the constitution.
yes, I meant in general. Let’s look at dogma vs. open mind. The liberals have a party with a history of tendencies, positions they generally take. If they had open minds their members would be conservative more often than conservatives are liberal. They are two groups, each with different values, who struggle against each other.
The right also wants to be the savior, but not a religious savior, more like the hero, or the noble man. The one who makes the hard decisions, takes responsibily for necessary evils, and does not sacrifice himself. Ironically not a Christian savior. That why I called them more pagan. And I did not mean that as an insult.
Yes, sure.
The religious right is its own category. Perhaps communists would be the equivalent on the left. (me I am more an anarchist) But I don’t see the religous right having that much sway in the house, senate or executive. They had more power for a while, but they simply cannot turn to the democrats, so they have no good bluff to fuck with the neo cons who could give a shit about religion and don’t really care much about gay sex or marriage, for example.
IQ is not so simple…psychologytoday.com/us/blog … r-liberals
Sure. But we would not have defined parties if one side was open. Read any place where conservatives and liberals or left and right are having a dialogue. They tend to view each other as immoral. And it’s been that way since I was born.
They’re wheeler and dealers, the house and senate and presidents. But I don’t really think of them as having power. Their the white foam of the wave.
I have never seen it. I used to work in crack neighborhoods and saw nothing but nice young men trying to sell me crack. No one ever called me names or tried to fight or steal or anything. Now I live with a Hispanic population and still see no racism, except from white folks complaining about the intrusion of brown people. I ask them why and they have no good reason. My friend says it’s because they’re riding his dime on welfare, but it’s not true: hispanics are too hardworking to be riding welfare and most of them are whites, like his worthless sister.
My biggest problem is white trash and happily I’d trade them for more Hispanics. The guy who threw trash on my property was white. The guys racing up n down the road were white. The methheads are white. Round em up and send em back to Ireland or, lol, Australia lol! (prison colony joke) Seriously, I’d gladly trade some trailer trash for Hispanics… As hardworking as they are, they’d probably clean up the neighborhood. The worst thing about Hispanics is the large parties on holidays.
I have no clue what racism you’re referring to.
Terror prone? What is that? The Irish have the shortest fuses and probably a good definition of a Tasmanian Devil is an Irish Apache mix lol. Hell, Notre Dame’s logo is The Fighting Irish!
Why should I care? As long as they don’t gather in the aisle at the store jabberjawing, I’m cool.
That’s their problem.
They’ll figure it out.
Food is a function of the sun and I can’t see overwhelming it. Like I said before, prosperous people do not reproduce, so make them prosperous and there is no problem… except for the idea of someone getting something they don’t deserve.
This video was made to address that
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7TGWaHaUeU[/youtube]
They have a low center of gravity and tolerance for heat.
I really don’t know much about her situation. She has more rights because she’s a woman and not because she’s brown.
Sure, I guess.
I think what she is complaining about is she is a citizen and should be treated as such instead of being a 2nd class citizen.
I wouldn’t force them to learn our language, but I also wouldn’t cater to them by putting up signs in their language.
The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades. Moderator analyses showed that the relationship between intelligence and success is dependent on the age of the sample but there is little evidence of any historical trend in the relationship. emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-cont … search.pdf
It’s a meta, so there are links to other studies in the meta at the bottom. I think the highest correlation was .37, which isn’t a correlation. There are a lot of problems associated with being smart that preclude successful assimilation into society.
It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Yeah I guess any conspiracy ought to be busted up.
I’m pissed at old whites and young white trailer trash.