Kinda agreeing with that whole bit of thought in the thread, using ol' Clint as the example given, that the individual actions of any of us will make it tough to pigeonhole people into some convenient ideology. I'm a right-wing nut-job, dithering moderate, raving leftie, and whacked-out libertarian all rolled into one, depending on how one were to look at my positions on numerous issues. That makes me a... what? Dunno. But I know which way I lean in general. I suspect that most of us are like this, to one extent or another.

It's just a continuation of the same line of thinking he started when he earlier joined this thread and, despite his latest protests to the contrary, said that only Conservatives can be racist:
http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/protrayvon_thugs_assault_78_year_old_man_in_racially_motivated_attack

Blah blah, Conservatives 100% bad, Liberals 100% good, blah blah, refusal to see that no ideology has a monopoly on either good or bad behavior, blah blah.

Edited to clean up the formatting.

Wow, this guy is long winded!...or long worded. Whatever, the point is he says a lot about nothing. Seriously, it's like a 2,000 word essay, broken into 10 parts, and doesn't go anywhere.

Edit: Kudos for remembering him though, I forget most of the screen names almost instantly.

And I just wanted to point out, I have NEVER held that "all Conservatives are racist" or even that all racists are Conservative. Those of you saying otherwise are doing a w3eird dance here where you take one quote of mine(ignoring the context and clarifications) literally and then you come back and read into whatever else I have said.

And I know as well as anyone here(probably better than most I will guess) how wrong and dangerous it is to broadly brush entire groups of people. All too often someone finds out I am a Liberal and they shout(text-shout) "9-11 WAS NOT AN INSIDE JOB AND OSWALD DID KILL JFK!", seemingly expecting me to disagree(which I do not). Back in the days of MySpace I would receive equal hate mail messages from Liberals and Conservatives. I am fairly Conservative when it comes to how we deal with heinous criminals who torture, rape and kill people and I do not buy into ANY Conspiracy theories which used to be a primarily Leftist thing until Glen Beck and the like came along.

But even so we cannot just ignore when significant numbers of either side Do conform to stereotypes, whether it be the fully-able-to-work-but-want-their"Obama-bucks" black men and women(though it is a bit sketchy to try to characterize them as "Liberals" since most of them did not vote even when Obama was running in 2008!) or the racist 'Tea-baggers' who call for Obama to be deported to an African country he never had citizenship or birth in.

Saying crazy things like '"Equal numbers of racists vote Liberal as they do Conservative' or 'Equal numbers of blacks voted for McCain as they did Obama.'...that does not move the discussion along or get us anywhere. First you have to make the case that Jackson, Sharpton and Holder ARE "racist". Good luck with that because, Fox News 'message of the day' declarations aside, I have never seen anyone make such a case. The closest you can get is by pointing out Al Sharpton's sometimes misguided efforts to expose 'police brutality' where none has occurred. In that way he is/was a sort of "racial ambulance-chaser" and the same thing could be said for Jackson to a degree. But that does not constitute "racism" so much as it displays an overzealous conviction that racism and corruption are a much bigger problem in our nations police than they actually are.

Hint: Rodney King was NOT a victim of police wrongdoing at all!

Fair enough. I should have stated that I do not know what other countries' Conservatives and Liberals are about(apart from Canada a bit, because they are our neighbors) and my posts should not be taken as pertaining to Conservatives around the globe. The original thread which this thread was a continuation of, was about American politics and goings on.

Thanks for the wish of luck, but it wasn't necessary.

Jackson: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/09/jesse-jackson-s/

Sharpton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUjlle7ZVo. He gets bonus points for homophobia.

Holder: the refusal to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at a Philadelphia polling place on the date of the November 2008 election, even with multiple witnesses and video evidence. Further, search for testimony from Christian Adams.

Is that enough? Can we move on toward trying to reduce this garbage from both sides? The first step is admittance and I think we have that one covered by now.

ROTFLMFAO!! Okay let me make sure I have this right: You think that Jesse Jackson saying something stupid(wouldn't be the first time) about Barrack Obama "trying to sound white" is reasonable evidence to warrant the conclusion that Jackson is racist? Really?!

If you had stopped there, it would have been worth a chuckle. But you went on and cited a video by a far Right-wing extremist, using un-cited sources and featuring a mix of different evangelists(some of which may sound a little like Sharpton) and actual Sharpton audio where he is talking about the usage of the word "cracker" and explicitly rejecting racism against whites!

I am sorry to be rude and laugh at you but when you step in it that badly...

Also, you seem to think that if any fails to or refuses to prosecute a particular case that YOU feel should be prosecuted, that = "racism"?! So most of FLA must be racist then for failing to prosecute G. Zimmerman? It could not be any other reason like lacking evidence, political maneuvering, etc.?

Lacking evidence? Video and eyewitness accounts aren't evidence of armed voter intimidation outside a polling place for a national election, after which Holder says he won't be prosecuting "my people" of the New Black Panthers, and which subsequently led to testimony from an attorney formerly from the Voter Rights division of the AG office to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights? Keep turning that blind eye. He's only the US Attorney General, and what could possibly go wrong with a person in that position refusing to prosecute "my people"?



Now, last I checked, Mr Zimmerman IS being prosecuted. Many legal experts/pundits think it ain't gonna fly; then again, there is still evidence not yet revealed to the public so we don't know for sure, and this is why these things are tried in the court of law. Sadly, the court of public opinion hasn't bothered to wait for the evidence and is making much ado out of something that may be completely different from what they think it is. Two people know for certain: Mr Zimmerman and the ghost of Mr Martin. The police probably have a decent, but not yet complete, picture by now. And the public is just making up whatever "truth" they feel like having.

But I think in this instance maybe you're buying into the notion that since a person of one race killed a person of another race, then it must be racism; if that's not how you feel then I apologize for the mistake. But given your statement that racism requires Conservatism, how do you feel about Mr Zimmerman being <drumroll, please> a registered Democrat?

You should see things in MY country :oP

Nah but seriously... it might be an all topic forum, but since it isn't really related to gaming, must we really open such a subject on this kind of website :s ?
Avoid tensions people, for god sake !

Sigh, Hitler isn't a leftist, he was a fascist which in modern American terms makes him a conservative. The leftists at that point were the communists. And unfortunately, what he was selling isn't that much different from what the extreme far right is selling these days.

I haven't been following the OWS much lately as I'm not in the US, but I don't recall seeing any Jew bashing going on.

And Farrakhan is just a racist bigot, the only reason he's not included with the conservatives is because he's the wrong religion. If you actually listen to what he's saying he isn't that much different from the hate and bigotry you find on Fox.
I have to agree with you about Sharpton and Jackson. In my view there's very little that one could do to further damage their reputation.

As far as the voter intimidation goes, it's something that the right engages in regularly, it stinks no matter who is doing it, but it's definitely more common for conservatives to engage in it than liberals. Hence the large number of voter ID bills and such that pop up in liberal leaning states.

This is why the phrases "left" and "right" are a bunch of crap. It's really just a way to strawman people who disagree with you. Examples: "You're a leftist... like Stalin!" "You're a right winger... like Mussolini!" Nonsense.

But fine, tell me how you're breaking down pre-war Germany into "left" and "right"? You've got social democrats, (CLASSICAL) liberals, monarchists, socialists, communists, national socialists and so on. Who is on the "left" and the "right" there? I mean if you're going to end up putting the national socialists, classical liberals and monarchists on the same side of the aisle then you're basically admitting that the label means nothing. Google. It's the usual "Greedy Jews control everything" stuff. I think NOI is a good example, but if you want something better try the New Black Panther Party, which is not only racist as all hell, but is the ideological descendent of the rabidly left-wing Black Panther Party.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily calling the original BPP a racist organization, but the NBPP is for sure.

The stereotyping of "conservatives" is funny considering one of the major conservative candidates for POTUS this time around was a black man. So how Herman Cain can command any authority amongst conservatives if they're mostly racist is beyond me. Naturally those who associate with what they call "the left" tend to label people like him an "Uncle Tom" which is a rather different type of racism - but racism nonetheless.

But again, I'm more of the mind to altogether abandon these left/right splits and just call a spade a spade.

That has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. The point there is that the Nazis were never what we call liberals or refer to leftists in the manner we refer to them these days. It's about as useful as pointing out that the GOP isn't racist because of things that they did 50 or more years ago. It doesn't matter what they did back then, none of the GOP of that era is still holding office AFAIK.

National Socialists aren't leftists, socialists or liberals, they were a specific brand of fascism which is a large part of why they were aligned with Mussolini during WWII rather than Russia.

It's not funny, it's perfectly obvious. Being black in America is less of a big deal to conservatives than being a Muslim. The party itself doesn't even bother to pretend like it isn't the party of racism. What precisely do you think all the voter ID laws, immigration restrictions, anti-affirmative action, anti-Islam and such are about?

And it's also a bit like running Ms. Palin for VP, she was never qualified never going to win, but she was chosen to make the GOP look less bigoted even as they push for further erosion of a woman's right to govern her own body. Similar thing with Cain, he should never have been a serious candidate, I leave it up to you to figure out why he was taken at all seriously.

The bottom line is open racism and bigotry is wrong, no matter who does it. Are conservatives more guilty than liberals? It would seem that way in the US, at least.

This is why I'm an independent voter. I don't lean either way and make up my mind one issue at a time based on its merits, not the dick who's sponsoring it. And they're all dicks. You think any of them would take a paycut to promote American jobs? Even the ones who say they will take a paycut don't take a paycut.

That's related to our congress by the way, in case you're wondering. I would love to hear stories of Congress voting in paycuts for themselves, but I don't think that's happened since the Great Depression.

Huh, I didn't get that vibe at all. I mostly thought is was more of a "It isn't fair that 1% of the population have more than 50% of the wealth in the country, so they need to give me money to make it fair!" type of thing. To me it was just socialist rhetoric motivated by the current economic slump. I hadn't noticed any racial overtones in the Occupy Wall Street movement at all. Granted, I have pretty much entirely ignored the movement since last Fall, so maybe they have 'upped' their game to race-bashing to stay relevant.
Both sides tend to use race to push their agendas among certain segments of the electorate. Folks on the Left claim racism as a reason for restitution usually in the form of more government programs or laws. Folks on the Right claim reverse racism because certain ethnic groups are given more government hand-outs than other groups.

As for as racial violence, I think that sort of stupidity is fairly evenly distributed across the populace, regardless of political affiliation. I suppose if you don't include attacks on Caucasians made by other ethnic groups as racism (or the more often used term 'hate crime'), then the results would probably skew towards your conclusion; it is fact that, per capita, there are more white males registered as Republicans and that there are more minority males registered as Democrats.

I include all hate crimes as hate crimes. I'm not a liberal nor a conservative.