Thought for the Day

[broncofan]

I don't think he is personally a racist, though he is certainly inclined to minimise the role of racism on his own side and to believe stereotypes that confirm his political narrative about individual responsibility.

I agree though I'm sometimes nervous to make this category distinction just because I've been misunderstood doing it. There are people who even though they might not like being called racist, are more or less avowed racists. They use degrading language about minorities, they think minorities possess intrinsic characteristics, and see the world as being divided into different groups with antagonistic interests.

Then there are people who will occasionally engage in stereotyping without thinking they are and will minimize the effects of racism. They will agree in principle that racism is wrong but will define it out of existence except in obvious cases, which they'll acknowledge as though it's the epitome of enlightenment to do so.

It's not that I don't think the second category is wrong but it does sometimes leave a debate about whether one is minimizing racism or disagreeing about what its effects are. It also is less malicious so there's a greater chance they can be reached. I have a major problem with conspiracism but I'm not sure what the answer is there. I think you're right about the embarrassment thing....

[Nick Danger]

My thought for the day is that yes it's a little embarrassing you were caught making stuff up. I personally think it's worse to say the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax than to pretend to be a boy band member though I understand how embarrassment works. I find some of what you say entertaining though the political content is often highly delusional.

I also liked the fact that you could be kind of affable. This section could use some of that though without letting the personal narratives get too outlandish (or the views too abhorrent). The somewhat sterile and unfriendly one-upsmanship of political conversations gets a bit old though I'm not sure what the answer is. Not fiction but a bit of color and some good will goes a long way. Have we seen the last of you?

I should probably just go ahead and say, rather than imply, that the whole point of posting the Menudo picture and claiming to be ex-Menudo was to provide a frame of reference for truth vs deceit. Of course I wasn't in Menudo, I figured that much would be...pretty obvious (in fact, I rather thought YOU GUYS were embarassed by the fact you even bothered to call me out on it).

But that doesn't mean my neighbors and I didn't confront a huge corporation and get them to stop stinking up our neighborhood, or that I've made up anything else. I'm glad you enjoyed my story about jumping off the boat, it's an absolutely 100% true story and somewhere in Louisiana right now, there's probably some old man who was standing on that deck telling his grandchildren about that crazy guy who came flying out onto the deck and jumped overboard.

I truly don't get it - is it really that hard to swallow that someone could be a middle-aged middle class conservative? Sometimes you cats act as if I'm claiming to be the son of Zeus.

You (obviously) haven't seen the last of me, Bronco. Hell, I'm at your disposal! I'm always ready to jump into the conversation as soon as somebody says something that requires a conservative counterpoint. But since I am so often treated as an intrusive guest in any given liberal circle-jerk, I usually wait until someone yanks my chain before I start barking.

Swap 'Sandy Hook' for Auschwitz and ask yourself if you would be so lenient with someone telling you the Holocaust never happened.

Really Stavros? You went there? Are these two "events" so easily interchangable?

I'll tell you guys, I think Stavros may have lost it. Either that or he's taken a cue from the liberal media and decided to go full nazi on the virtue-signaling.

Nick's past pattern of behaviour seems to involve short periods of intense posting followed by long periods of silence. I suspect he starts because he needs a distraction and then gets bored with it eventually. I would be surprised if he's stopped out of embarrassment at getting caught out because he doesn't seem easily embarrassable. Perhaps he was just looking for a pretext to quit.

I agree that his contributions have been entertaining, despite the many dubious elements (some of which may be deliberate trolling). Discussions can get a bit sterile when people agree on most things, so it's good to have somebody different to spice things up. His approach is far preferable to someone like Mr Fanti, who just repeats the same things and never engages with anyone else's responses.

I don't think he is personally a racist, though he is certainly inclined to minimise the role of racism on his own side and to believe stereotypes that confirm his political narrative about individual responsibility. I think he is a Republican supporter for the reasons he says, though this involves being wilfully blind to many things.

It's hard to know how to deal with people like Nick. When people are firmly committed to believing certain things due to political motivations it is extremely difficult to shift them with any kind of evidence. I don't think it's constructive, however, to refuse to engage with people because some of their views are abhorrent. There's no doubt that Nick's views are far from being an outlier in today's Republican Party, so if we can't engage with him we can't engage with too many people on the other side.

You're a wise man, Flighty. Yes, ENGAGE the conservative force. Let it flow through you until you're flush with righteous indignation at the over-spending of the current administration.

Now though - I'm not sure where you guys got the impression that my racism or not-racism is on the table for discussion. My close friend Stan - a black, 6'4", 280-pound, tattoo-covered ex-Crip from Compton, would happily attest to the fact that I judge each man (quite harshly) on his own personal character. Oh sure, I know, you've got "a black friend" too. But my black friend is an actual friend, we're going to Tahoe in November and I recently spent 3 days sleeping on his couch while my house was painted.

My guess is that the reason you guys are so comfortable playing the race card against ME is because I'm not afraid to speak truthfully about race and race problems. Doesn't seem quite right to your liberal mindset, that someone could actually talk about these things without burying the truth under a mountain of pussyfooting and patronizing. Because that's what you're used to.

What I'd really like to express to you though, Flighty, about me, is that I am "firmly committed" to believing absolutely nothing whatsoever. I've spent my entire life in the shadow of my father, and made substantial efforts to be as far away from him politically as possible. But what I've found out as I've grown older is that my old man is no dumbass. I have RELUCTANTLY acquiesced to conservative views as I've come to realize that personal responsibility = societal responsibility = economic growth. You're either contributing or you're part of the problem. I used to be part of the problem. Now I'm contributing. But that didn't come about because I'm entrenched in some belief system. I don't believe in beliefs, I believe what my eyes and brain tell me.

You actually have a much better chance of changing MY mind about something than practically anyone else you've ever argued with on the internet, Flighty. If someone presents a solid argument to me, it doesn't matter where it falls on the political or moral spectrum, I will respect the argument itself. I'm WIDE OPEN to new information.

You guys just haven't provided any.

Discuss the abhorrence factor of my views as you will. I find it pretty lame that many people have no problem applying negative adjectives to my "views" without actually being able to provide a valid counter-argument against them. Of course, the standard for liberal arguments is pretty low these days - "We're liberals so we're right" is pretty much the full extent of it.

I will tell you this - if I'm bothering to argue about something you can rest assured that I have carefully considered my side of the argument. If I'm holding forth abhorrent views, that makes me an abhorrent person, and I'll own that if you can demonstrate it. But I view myself as a reasonable, philosophical, and compassionate person. I realize I'm a full-on hardass but you know, someone's got to be tough with you liberals and your child-like capacity for blind idealism.

Oh, regarding my posting patterns - I don't have a pattern. If I'm in a conversation I stay in it. When it's over I go away.

I agree though I'm sometimes nervous to make this category distinction just because I've been misunderstood doing it. There are people who even though they might not like being called racist, are more or less avowed racists. They use degrading language about minorities, they think minorities possess intrinsic characteristics, and see the world as being divided into different groups with antagonistic interests.

Then there are people who will occasionally engage in stereotyping without thinking they are and will minimize the effects of racism. They will agree in principle that racism is wrong but will define it out of existence except in obvious cases, which they'll acknowledge as though it's the epitome of enlightenment to do so.

It's not that I don't think the second category is wrong but it does sometimes leave a debate about whether one is minimizing racism or disagreeing about what its effects are. It also is less malicious so there's a greater chance they can be reached. I have a major problem with conspiracism but I'm not sure what the answer is there. I think you're right about the embarrassment thing....

I'd be interested in knowing, Bronco - what is your definition of "conspiracism?"

[filghy2]

My guess is that the reason you guys are so comfortable playing the race card against ME is because I'm not afraid to speak truthfully about race and race problems. Doesn't seem quite right to your liberal mindset, that someone could actually talk about these things without burying the truth under a mountain of pussyfooting and patronizing. Because that's what you're used to.

What I'd really like to express to you though, Flighty, about me, is that I am "firmly committed" to believing absolutely nothing whatsoever. I've spent my entire life in the shadow of my father, and made substantial efforts to be as far away from him politically as possible. But what I've found out as I've grown older is that my old man is no dumbass. I have RELUCTANTLY acquiesced to conservative views as I've come to realize that personal responsibility = societal responsibility = economic growth. You're either contributing or you're part of the problem. I used to be part of the problem. Now I'm contributing. But that didn't come about because I'm entrenched in some belief system. I don't believe in beliefs, I believe what my eyes and brain tell me.

The example I recall particularly is when I posted a chart showing the economic growth had been higher under Democrat administrations, and you made a pathetic excuse that the chart was not clear.

You actually have a much better chance of changing MY mind about something than practically anyone else you've ever argued with on the internet, Flighty. If someone presents a solid argument to me, it doesn't matter where it falls on the political or moral spectrum, I will respect the argument itself. I'm WIDE OPEN to new information.

You guys just haven't provided any.

Discuss the abhorrence factor of my views as you will. I find it pretty lame that many people have no problem applying negative adjectives to my "views" without actually being able to provide a valid counter-argument against them. Of course, the standard for liberal arguments is pretty low these days - "We're liberals so we're right" is pretty much the full extent of it.

I will tell you this - if I'm bothering to argue about something you can rest assured that I have carefully considered my side of the argument. If I'm holding forth abhorrent views, that makes me an abhorrent person, and I'll own that if you can demonstrate it. But I view myself as a reasonable, philosophical, and compassionate person. I realize I'm a full-on hardass but you know, someone's got to be tough with you liberals and your child-like capacity for blind idealism.

Oh, regarding my posting patterns - I don't have a pattern. If I'm in a conversation I stay in it. When it's over I go away.

Rumours of your demise were clearly exaggerated.

Why is it that every time I give you the benefit of the doubt you immediately make me regret it by responding in your usual arrogant way? If you really believe you are exceptionally open-minded then you are delusional and lacking in self-awareness. People have provided you with evidence on numerous occasions, and you have consistently made excuses for ignoring any inconvenient facts. Apart from personal anecdotes you rarely offer any evidence for your own claims.

One example is distinctly recall was when I posted a chart showing stronger economic growth under Democrat adminisitrations, and you made a pathetic excuse claiming that the chart was unclear,

I would not be surprised that you held different political views in the past. Former leftists often turn into the most committed rightists later in life, just as former alcoholics or smokers often turn into the most zealous opponents of drinking and smoking.

Your last point is also inconsistent with the facts. The record clearly shows that it was you who ended the discussion last time. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...r-Trump/page38
Between that and the recent discussions here you posted virtually nothing on politics for 2 1/2 years, even though there was no shortage of discussions you could have joined, as you did eventually. Your pattern has clearly been either floods or droughts.

[Laphroaig]

What I'd really like to express to you though, Flighty, about me, is that I am "firmly committed" to believing absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Other than the stupid conspiracy theories that you are "firmly committed to believing" and defending on here...

[Stavros]

When people are firmly committed to believing certain things due to political motivations it is extremely difficult to shift them with any kind of evidence. I don't think it's constructive, however, to refuse to engage with people because some of their views are abhorrent. There's no doubt that Nick's views are far from being an outlier in today's Republican Party, so if we can't engage with him we can't engage with too many people on the other side.

Surely the core problem is that 'they' refuse to engage with 'us' or anyone who does not share their loathing of what the US has become, citing all the buzzwords -'multi-culturalism', 'open borders', 'woke', 'gender fluid', 'radical left' etc.

Today it is the Republican party that has shut itself off from debate, and in doing so has created what in another context someone once called 'the Prison House of Language'. For 'open borders' as an attack on the USA you have Immigration, which has become one of the most toxic issues both sides of the Atlantic (and on Continental Europe too not just the UK) but which for that reason rarely receives the honest and open debate it needs if the US, the UK, Hungary and Greece are to find a just solution to 'the problem' -if it is a problem.

Multi-culturalism, Woke, Cancel Culture -again, words and terms being used to shut down debate rather than open it up, to imprison thought lest it be shown that Republicans themselves are involved in cancel culture, while appearing to reject the multiple cultures immigrants bring into the US, people who, politically, ought to find their home in the Republican rather than the Democrat party.

Thus the narrowing of its electoral base, the shrinking horizons of its policy options present a party and its supporters who refuse to even accept the evidence in front of them, that their base is too narrow to earn majority support, their retreat into the politics of extremes rather than middles a vote loser. Especially for those who believe the whole point of the American Dream is that anyone can make a success of their American adventure, regardless of 'race, creed, or sexual orientation' -to be told no, that White Privilege is what it says on the tin, is not a recruitment strategy but a losing strategy.

And, as they find themselves less appealing, what do they do? One one level, Riot and Sedition. But on the more sophisticted level, just as Congress passes Federal laws making it easier to vote, the States find ways to make it harder. As Congress votes to end Gerrymandering of District Boundaries, the States make it tighter. At some point, there must be a collision between 'the Feds' and the 'States', and as presently constituted, I wonder if the Supreme Court will decide that 'States Rights' trump Federal law every time, thus consolidating the age-old Confederate Dream of putting the Blacks in their place. It would be more honest if those States simply passed a law making it illegal for Black Americans to vote.

To let this all ride on a smile and a chuckle about the Mississippi, of all places, with people who can't tell the difference between a Sandy Hook Hoax and Belsen Baloney is to give them the space and the freedom they use to take away your Republic and by riot or stealth, mount a counter-revolution against the one that happened in 1776 which has failed them. Just a week ago, their leader continued to brag about his achievements, refusing to accept he lost the White House, the Senate and the House of Represenatives, because as Prison Governor, nobody gets released on his watch, or it will be the Apocalypse.

Americans need to take care, or they will end their days in stripes rather than strides.

[Nick Danger]

Other than the stupid conspiracy theories that you are "firmly committed to believing" and defending on here...

I support a few conspiracy "theories" and none of them are theories.

1. JFK was not assassinated by a lone gunman.
2. The FBI was, at a minimum negligent, and more likely complicit in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
3. Sandy Hook was a hoax.

I'll go to the mat on those, Laphro, and anyone who believes anything else about those particular subjects is a brainwashed media slave.

Rumours of your demise were clearly exaggerated.

Why is it that every time I give you the benefit of the doubt you immediately make me regret it by responding in your usual arrogant way? If you really believe you are exceptionally open-minded then you are delusional and lacking in self-awareness. People have provided you with evidence on numerous occasions, and you have consistently made excuses for ignoring any inconvenient facts. Apart from personal anecdotes you rarely offer any evidence for your own claims.

One example is distinctly recall was when I posted a chart showing stronger economic growth under Democrat adminisitrations, and you made a pathetic excuse claiming that the chart was unclear,

I would not be surprised that you held different political views in the past. Former leftists often turn into the most committed rightists later in life, just as former alcoholics or smokers often turn into the most zealous opponents of drinking and smoking.

Your last point is also inconsistent with the facts. The record clearly shows that it was you who ended the discussion last time. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...r-Trump/page38
Between that and the recent discussions here you posted virtually nothing on politics for 2 1/2 years, even though there was no shortage of discussions you could have joined, as you did eventually. Your pattern has clearly been either floods or droughts.

If I did end the discussion last time, Flighty, it's because the discussion was over. Nine times out of 10 it will be me who ends it, I'm just better at shutting people down than most. On the other hand, once I've made my point, I'm just fine if someone else has the last word. Rarely happens that way though, nobody on the internet has to accept that they've just been verbally owned, they can simply pretend it never happened and keep on chirping.

That's why I started my own thread actually, with the subject line left wide open. We could have chit-chatted about relevancies there non-stop, but as so often happens with liberals, you said one thing but ended up doing another - making your non-"Thought For The Day" replies to me in this thread instead of the one I made for that exact purpose.

I'm not a follower of any particular forum, Flighty. Not even this one, this one bores me with its laser focus on porn. In fact I'm not even present on any actual political forums, I merely confront liberals when I bump into them. If you missed me for a couple of years, that represents a failure on your part to present a point worth arguing against; no one has to twist my arm to drag me into a political debate. But if you have my attention and you actually want to keep it for some reason, you have to give me something. Something like a lot of well-intentioned but poorly-considered liberal hogwash. You guys are doing well.

You are definitely on to something with your theory about ex-liberals being the toughest conservatives. Know why? Because I remember what a joke my political beliefs were. They were based on nothing more than simplistic idealism, just as yours are now. As I've said before, nothing liberals say sounds dangerous and stupid, it all makes perfect sense when taken in the context of the way things SHOULD be. But eventually in life, I had to contend with the way things actually ARE.

This point you're constantly trying to make about Democrats being some kind of master stewards of public money is a perfect example. Look at the current macro-economic situation. Despite the BLM riots and the covid-19 epidemic, the USA still has enough money, after 4 years of the Trump administration, to hand out trillions of dollars to citizens.

But it's not the Trump administration who's handing it out. The reason we still have all that money is precisely because the Trump administration did NOT hand it out. Republicans have a firm understanding of the fact that when Democrats start crying "National Emergency," it means they're struggling with financing body mods and 5-dollar coffees.

So now we'll seemingly boom for a while. Everyone will have a little pocket money handed to them by the Democrats and they'll spend it on trips to the beach or the latest iPhone. Some scattered, irresponsible, lazy few will need it to pay bills, but for the most part the USA's $2 trillion (MY $2 trillion) in relief money is going to be spent on frivolities and socialist propaganda. Goddamn I'd love to own a beachfront iPhone store called Bernie's Place this summer! I'd paint it red and hire a graphics team to design a logo that subtly suggests a hammer and sickle.

I've said before that economic optimism is its own form of currency. I don't see any economic optimism happening, Flighty. I read a tweet from a liberal source recently that said, "I know that with Trump out of office our problems are over, so why do I feel like I'm at a horror show where the monster just died but there's 20 minutes left in the movie?" LOL - liberals, thinking, it's fun.

So yeah, Flighty, liberals do an excellent job at handing out money that conservatives have held back. They buy the support of the mouth-breathing masses with short-sighted solutions to long-term problems.

Bronco asked me once what I considered the core of conservatism. I should have thought about it a bit longer because it can really be summed up very briefly - Enforced Personal Responsibility. In order for our country to prosper, people have to be forced to do things they don't want to do, like work hard and live responsibly. Have you ever even CONSIDERED, Flighty, how strong our nation would be if ALL our citizens were properly motivated to contribute to the GDP instead of sucking government tit? "Work or die" is how you motivate the unmotivated in a capitalist economy.

You can't motivate people while you're giving them handouts, it simply doesn't work, and that's why liberal economics is a lost cause. Obamacare was only possible because Bush didn't care at all.

[broncofan]

Rumours of your demise were clearly exaggerated.

Why is it that every time I give you the benefit of the doubt you immediately make me regret it by responding in your usual arrogant way? If you really believe you are exceptionally open-minded then you are delusional and lacking in self-awareness. People have provided you with evidence on numerous occasions, and you have consistently made excuses for ignoring any inconvenient facts. Apart from personal anecdotes you rarely offer any evidence for your own claims.

Maybe I'm not putting enough thought into it but I have no faith at all in the coherence of his beliefs or the truth of his statements. I like the shtick, the personality, the banter, the anecdotes, and he seems good-natured until he spouts off about Sandy Hook or well several other subjects. Maybe I am like those people who said they wanted to vote for GW Bush over Kerry because they could have a beer with him. Liking someone who is glib and easy-going is part of a set of natural instincts that sets me up to be a sucker; like feeling bad for Donald Trump while he had covid even though I knew when he recovered he'd say a bunch of things that would condemn other people to death.

I was looking at that other thread and I think Nick said he couldn't bring himself to vote for McCain. I'm not a McCain fan but finding McCain tougher to vote for than Trump really is a kind of ideological and moral nihilism. Did he also say he wasn't able to vote for Romney? I'll have to look.

Nick, can you explain the point you were making about Menudo again bc I don't think I got it? They may have been a famous boy band but I had never heard of them, have had menudo which is a kind of soup served at Mexican restaurants, and am also curious why you saved the photo as 1986.

[broncofan]

I was looking at that other thread and I think Nick said he couldn't bring himself to vote for McCain. I'm not a McCain fan but finding McCain tougher to vote for than Trump really is a kind of ideological and moral nihilism. Did he also say he wasn't able to vote for Romney? I'll have to look.

I am not closed-minded. I'm a snow-white small business owner who was raised about 40 miles from the birthplace of the KKK. But that didn't stop me from voting for a black Democrat when given a choice between Obama and a grizzled war-hawk riding on little more than 50 years of ex-POW status, or Obama and an elitist religious fanatic. I may have even voted Democratic at that point no matter who was running, since I have a helpful understanding of the fact that the back-and-forth political cycle is necessary to keep our country strong.

This seems pretty hard to take seriously or make any sense out of. You may have voted Democrat to help the back and forth cycle? Maybe there are some policies one party proposes that you like? It sounds to me like Romney and McCain were just too boring and it was better to vote for a draft-dodging crook who comes up with nicknames for everyone than an actual Republican.

Nobody called you on it but I guess the I have a Black friend defense kind of works if you show self-awareness while you're invoking it. And your friend happens to be an enormously large Black friend, who was in the Crips, and born in Compton. Would be awful if I came by with my Black friend who is also large but was in the Bloods. I'll tell him not to wear his red bandana when we hang out.

[Nick Danger]

Maybe I'm not putting enough thought into it but I have no faith at all in the coherence of his beliefs or the truth of his statements. I like the shtick, the personality, the banter, the anecdotes, and he seems good-natured until he spouts off about Sandy Hook or well several other subjects. Maybe I am like those people who said they wanted to vote for GW Bush over Kerry because they could have a beer with him. Liking someone who is glib and easy-going is part of a set of natural instincts that sets me up to be a sucker; like feeling bad for Donald Trump while he had covid even though I knew when he recovered he'd say a bunch of things that would condemn other people to death.

I was looking at that other thread and I think Nick said he couldn't bring himself to vote for McCain. I'm not a McCain fan but finding McCain tougher to vote for than Trump really is a kind of ideological and moral nihilism. Did he also say he wasn't able to vote for Romney? I'll have to look.

Nick, can you explain the point you were making about Menudo again bc I don't think I got it? They may have been a famous boy band but I had never heard of them, have had menudo which is a kind of soup served at Mexican restaurants, and am also curious why you saved the photo as 1986.

I didn't have as much an issue with McCain as I had with Sarah Palin. As you well know McCain has long since shuffled off this mortal coil. He probably would have outlived his Presidency but if he didn't, we would have had Palin, and that would truly be a dystopian nightmare. I didn't like McCain. I don't like anyone who plays up their veteran status - you did it, it's done, move on. And I did like Obama, still do in fact. I liked a lot of his ideas about LGBTQ issues, I liked the fact that he was black, and I'm certain he was the most personable President these United States have seen.



So sure I voted Democrat in '08. And I am, as I've said numerous times, just fine with the back and forth. The country needed some diaper changing behind Bush, he was as much a polarizing figure as Trump but the public has a short memory and people have forgotten.

It's this particular administration that bothers me. The President is a wind-up doll. The Vice-President is a mean-spirited, unqualified panderer. The Democratic congressional leadership just came off half a year of promoting violence in the streets behind what turned out to be a lie, and are now acting as if it never happened. It's an administration of hypocrites and criminals, who rode a wave of unprecedented media control to the White House. And when I say "unprecedented," I mean unprecedented in HISTORY, not just in the USA. Maybe Stalin or Kim Jong-Il had slightly tighter control of the press than does the current Democratic administration of the USA. Thanks Google.

Nobody called you on it but I guess the I have a Black friend defense kind of works if you show self-awareness while you're invoking it. And your friend happens to be an enormously large Black friend, who was in the Crips, and born in Compton. Would be awful if I came by with my Black friend who is also large but was in the Bloods. I'll tell him not to wear his red bandana when we hang out.

No, nobody called me on anything, you were merely discussing whether or not I was a racist among yourselves as if I wasn't even in the thread. I'm pretty sure my black friend can beat up your black friend. Hell, that's the main reason I hang out with him - that and the looks we get when we walk into a casino together.

Your vague insinuations that I'm full of shit are quite tired BTW, Bronco. This is the internet. You are more than welcome to believe or disbelieve anything you read. But I'm pretty sure that what bothers you the most about me is that you know deep down inside that I'm telling you the truth.

[Nick Danger]

Nick, can you explain the point you were making about Menudo again bc I don't think I got it? They may have been a famous boy band but I had never heard of them, have had menudo which is a kind of soup served at Mexican restaurants, and am also curious why you saved the photo as 1986.

Oh yeah, the point of that photo was, you were accusing me of being a liar. So I accommodated you. The reason it was titled "1986" is because it was originally titled "menudo_1986_australia_tour" or something to that effect. So I shortened it. You don't want to be too obvious about things when you're subtly manipulating the minds of liberals.