loner w/a boner Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 You miss the point. Uh, no, you do, just as you're missing this one. Leftists label conservatism (but not leftism) "polarizing" as a means of... Let's consider that for a moment, shall we? Helms is seen by some as one of those southern conservatives whose conservatism, professions of patriotism, etc. is used as an excuse for intolerance. He was polarizing. He gave no indication from what I can tell that he refuted the views he held pre '60s. and a few posts later: Fact is Helms was a polarizing figure. The politicians that opposed the Civil Rights Act at the time changed their opinion of it afterwards. Some for political reasons, some because eventually they saw it as helping greatly to heal some old wounds. Helms, as far as I know, never lked the act and my link talks about his describing it as one of the worst legislations. Now consider your response: As usual you have posted dishonest nonsense. "Polarizing" is simply not a matter of fact. Only leftists accuse others of being "polarizing" because it is always a bullshit obversation...Leftists such as yourself are ignorant and irrational and filled with hatred so you all scream hysterically at conservatives. Then you leftists hear the echoes of your own demented cries and say "Look! The conservative is 'polarizing'!" You hate Senator Helms because he is...You attempt to vandalize America and then blame your treason on those who love her. If you'll read YOUR OWN writing you'll see that you were directly inferring, and then directly stating that CS is a leftist, which he clearly is NOT. And using "all", "always", etc...are absolutist statements which cannot be true. Look at your words regarding CS: "dishonest, ignorant, irrational, filled with hatred demented, vandalize, treason". Dude, you've got personality disorder, see a therapist. What you're writing in response isn't logical, it's a cry for help. You may see this as a personal attack, but the ad homen statements I see here are from you, not me. While I agree this dialectic is used by many on the left, it's also used by global corporate neo-cons on the right. Nobody, including yourself, has any idea what is referred to here by the phrase "global corporate neo-cons on the right". Oh Omniscient one, please don't tell me what I do and do not have ideas about. Another ad homen, absolutist statement, "nobody, including yourself". Actually, you are probably the only one who doesn't have any idea. Actually, I think you have a very good idea and you can't psychologically deal with it. Hence the unbalanced outbursts. Just so you'll "have an idea what is referred to", I'll explain it: Globalist: supports the dissolving of national sovereignties and borders, not just economic. corporate: referring to multi-national corps. With head offices in one country, various manufacturing, distribution centers, etc...in other countries. Hence, no national loyalty neo-cons: basically "fascism lite". With a solid conservative base, but intellectually biased (do you need that one explained to you too?), politically ambitious (support invading countries simply because they don't favor us--even if they're not involved in directly hurting us, more focused on "polarizing" (had to use it) opposition instead of calmly and logically laying out an argument of the oppositions weaknesses / inconsistencies. Basically the internationalists (do you need to know that word?) who have sold us out, not protected our industries and manufacturing base, devalued our currency to the point it is worthless, fathers of corporate welfare, sponsoring all kinds of who-knows-what internationally that's gonna piss off a bunch more people. We are talking mostly about Republicans and not the socialist Democrats. The charge of "polarization" is a leftist charge directed exclusively at conservatives. A troll with over 1000 posts??? Hmmm... Everyone who follows American politics knows that. Everyone? That's right. Either I don't follow American politics or I'm being dishonest. Sad, very sad. Helms (albeit a "product of his generation") DID in fact make several derogatory statements about "negros". Name one and explain why you agree with steve that Sen. Helms' defining characteristic was his "racism". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I personally wouldn't say that his defining characteristic was racism, nor nowhere in my posts do I agree with CS on that particular statement. For me, his defining characteristic was his consistent, very well clarified, well spoken conservative values. As far as his racist statements go, Suadum has listed some, and there are many many more. Look 'em up yourself. Those of us who are not blinded by tribalism but rather who believe in truth and freedom will recognize from this article that Sen. Helms was a political hero of the first order: Yes, he was one of my political heroes, too, for his consistent conservative values. That doesn't make him perfect. I believe that a comprehensive reading of his positions and accomplishments will convince the intellectually honest that he is a political hero of the first order. That doesn't change his racism problem, nor does it make me "blinded by tribalism" or a "non-believer" in truth and freedom. It IS actually POSSIBLE for honest, decent, loving people to disagree on issues. Not all of those who don't think that your views are absolutely correct are traitors, dishonest, filled with hatred, etc...to quote you. In my opinion, a white Christian conservative who is NOT "dishonest, ignorant, irrational, filled with hatred demented, vandalize, treason" would apologize to CS for libelously BEARING FALSE WITNESS. Or does that commandment only apply to "them liberal Christ-killin' Jews" and not to us "white Christian conservatives"??? Then again, CS is a "negro". Not that I'm racist, no no no. I just mean, being a "negro" he's not like us white Christian conservatives. I mean, after all, "you know how they are". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loner w/a boner Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Not sure why, but the white quote boxes don't show and I've got the close quote boxes ending up on a separate line. I copied this into notepad and copied out into here to try to get rid of anything embedded. Didn't work. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Best Mexican in Thailand for me is the Blue Parrot in Pattaya...I made sure to stop there on every trip to the beach. To get back on topic...Helms can still go fuck himself and his racist mother in hell. (oh no you di-ent!) I know that place! I have a friend who swore by that place. He is part Mexican and says its as good as he's gotten in Compton where he's from. I grew up on Puerto Rican food and didn't try my first burrito till I got to LA. I got a chuckle off the 'home girl' thingy, very good :thumbup: You have it down. You didn't date a few 'sistahs' back in the day did you? As far as Helms, well, I stand by my post. I don't see any indication post '60s that he's changed his views on segregation and related matters on race. The fact he never uttered anything as strong as he did pre-Civl Rights is only being political astute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loner w/a boner Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Just curious: Are there any conservative Mexican restaurants that have swastikas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Going back to the 'tuna taco', it seems that all ethnic foods gets 'americanized'. They have to appeal to american taste buds and combine things to get us to eat it. Chow mein is actually an american chinese conconction I heard and not found in China, Hong Kong or Taiwan originally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Your post is too much of a mess for me to try to decipher. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 What rogie means is no aology is forth coming. I understood the post, so I don't know what is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loner w/a boner Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 mai pen rai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USVirgin Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Wow, maybe The Blue Parrot is worth a try! I mentioned Senor Pico in Bangers, but it really doesn't come close to anything here. But since Itsme and your friend are SoCals, the BP must be pretty good. Now if I could just get my ass down to Pattaya - I never much liked the place. BTW, some of the places I like here in SoCal are: Talpa (West LA - beer & wine only family place) La Serenata De Garibaldi (Boyle Heights - gourmetish) Antonio's (Melrose - gormetish) Enrique's (Long Beach - gourmetish, but fast) El Coyote (Park La Brea - old school Americanized food) La Cabana or Casablanca (Venice - just good) El Patio (Capo Beach - old school Americanized food) I was in Talpa just the other day. Same owner/beertender as when I used to go there nearly 30 years ago and eat at the bar next to Mexican day laborers. A lot less of them and more gringos now, though. Of course, it's all a matter of preference, which is what I like about Mexican food - there are so many different regional styles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 << You didn't date a few 'sistahs' back in the day did you? >> Does a cutie from L.A. who was so light folks used to ask her if she was Hawaiian count? Anyway, that was over 40 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.