hmmm...the african american community notices the abortion issue

[billc]

to say this film is going to be controversial is an understatement. It is going to be controversial on several levels, but I will that to the posters here to hash that out. This film is about abortion and the African American community and it isn't going to shy away from the issue. Here is an article about the film, and two trailers from the film.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/a...lack-men-the-left-wont-celebrate/#more-498668

Watching both trailers gives a could view of what is going on in the movie.

 

[Ramirez]

Bill do you even read these links you post?

From that link

Though a single person murdered over political discourse is one too many, we dare the left to try to call us out on our fictional violence with their true-life record. Virtually every assassination, whether attempted or successful, has been carried out by left wingers

I am supposed to take this seriously with a statement like that?

So Allende was the right winger and Pinochet the left winger? Lummumba was a right winger and leftists assassinated him? How about McVeigh? And Breivik? Despite large parts of his manifesto being quoted from Mark Steyn ( a columnist you have defended as having "wisdom" on this board to me) was a left winger?

How can you possibly defend a demonstrably stupid and false statement like that?

 

[billc]

Breivik was a lefty, and not a christian. Macveigh, I know wasn't a christian his political leanings are not clear enough. True, he blew up a government building, but what were his stated end games. President Obamas friend and former employer, Bill Ayers also blew up government buildings and he was a lefty. Lummumba, who's he. And I believe Alfonso Rachel is talking about political murder here in the states. Foriegn countries are a different kettle of fish.

 

[Ramirez]

Breivik was a lefty.

only in your fevered imagination Bill, how do you explain his manifesto being full of admiration and quotes from right wingers like Steyn? Get real, you are being deluded here.

So Martin Luther King was a right winger? Medgar Evers? You are really pissing me off here Bill. How about James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner who were trying to get blacks to register for the vote and were lynched?

There is making an argument and being totally offensive and you are being offensive here.

 

[billc]

Now, here in the states, which makes it easier to define, a right winger believes in the Bill of rights, the constitution, and the declaration of independence. As many on other threads say, the right tries to preserve the established order, so those people trying ot preserve our founding principles would be on the right, and probably close to a conservative. A right winger here in the states believes that all men? and women are created equal, that each person is endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF hapiness. The tend to believe in the protection of the individual through the protection of individual rights and vigorous checks and balances and the seperation of powers in the government. They hold to three things, democracy, the rule of law and capitalism. The assasins in this country violated all of those things. Hence, they are on the left.

 

[Ramirez]

Now, here in the states, which makes it easier to define, a right winger believes in the Bill of rights, the constitution, and the declaration of independence. As many on other threads say, the right tries to preserve the established order, so those people trying ot preserve our founding principles would be on the right, and probably close to a conservative. A right winger here in the states believes that all men? and women are created equal, that each person is endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF hapiness. The tend to believe in the protection of the individual through the protection of individual rights and vigorous checks and balances and the seperation of powers in the government. They hold to three things, democracy, the rule of law and capitalism. The assasins in this country violated all of those things. Hence, they are on the left.

That is a definition you have made up to support your views. Does anyone else on the planet think Martin Luther King was a right winger? No, you are the only one.

 

[billc]

The last post is also why I am never sure how to classify macveigh. I would need to know what he wanted in the end to really be able to define what he may have been. He was anti-government when he blew up the building, but so was President Obama's friends, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, who was also Michelle Obama's friend. Did Macveigh want the government to violate the rights of other people, just the ones he decided instead of the ones he thought they were violating. If he believed in a governmnet that violated the rights of people, he would not have been on the right, specifically as it is defined in the U.S. Just by blowing up the federal building, he violated the beliefs in democracy, and the rule of law, and killing all those innocent people violated the protection of the individual. I would need to know more about Macviegh and his motivations.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...a point, but I don't think he would have considered himself a true lefty, even though he associated with a lot of left wingers. He was a very religous man obviously and he did believe in the founding principals.

 

[billc]

I don't think that he would have called for the government to impinge on the rights of others either. He wanted the rights of the individual respected, and he was fighting against government based discrimination.

 

[Ramirez]

The last post is also why I am never sure how to classify macveigh. I would need to know what he wanted in the end to really be able to define what he may have been. He was anti-government when he blew up the building, but so was President Obama's friends, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, who was also Michelle Obama's friend. Did Macveigh want the government to violate the rights of other people, just the ones he decided instead of the ones he thought they were violating. If he believed in a governmnet that violated the rights of people, he would not have been on the right, specifically as it is defined in the U.S. Just by blowing up the federal building, he violated the beliefs in democracy, and the rule of law, and killing all those innocent people violated the protection of the individual. I would need to know more about Macviegh and his motivations.

Screw your sophistry Bill. I am sick of the way you try to rationalize behavior like Breivik's as left wing or the assassination of King as left wing and polarize the argument. This is not some academic argument over Scotch at a university pub. PEOPLE ARE BEING KILLED. DO YOU GET IT?

 

[Tez3]

Now, here in the states, which makes it easier to define, a right winger believes in the Bill of rights, the constitution, and the declaration of independence. As many on other threads say, the right tries to preserve the established order, so those people trying ot preserve our founding principles would be on the right, and probably close to a conservative. A right winger here in the states believes that all men? and women are created equal, that each person is endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF hapiness. The tend to believe in the protection of the individual through the protection of individual rights and vigorous checks and balances and the seperation of powers in the government. They hold to three things, democracy, the rule of law and capitalism. The assasins in this country violated all of those things. Hence, they are on the left.[/QUOTE]


Oh my giddy aunt, now that takes the biscuit!! I nearly spilled my wine over the keyboard at that one. That has to win the prize for the most ridiculous reason for painting someone as a 'lefty' because no right wing person could ever possibly gasp kill someone! Now we see why he thinks the Nazis, the Fascists, the Greek Colonels, Franco, the neo nazis etc etc are left wing....because wait for it, they kill people! Come off it mate, that's pure unadulterated pish lol.

 

[elder999]

Hmmm...a point, but I don't think he would have considered himself a true lefty, even though he associated with a lot of left wingers. He was a very religous man obviously and he did believe in the founding principals.

Martin was a commie, pure and simple, as I have posted elsewhere, or, at the very least, a socialist, and, had he not been killed, his follow up agenda would have demonstrated as much.

 

[billc]

A lot of religous people are on the left. James Earl Ray believed in state sponsered racism. That makes him not a right winger or a conservative. I'll post later, gotta go.

 

[Ramirez]

A lot of religous people are on the left. James Earl Ray believed in state sponsered racism. That makes him not a right winger or a conservative. I'll post later, gotta go.

Really? So you are trying to tell me Mandela was a right winger and the Apartheid regimes in South Africa were left wingers? Maybe you should stop surfing the internet and read about how children were dying in South Africa due to the color of their skin and stop posting such extremely stupid statements.

 

[Ramirez]

Lummumba, who's he.

Bill if you would like to present yourself as presenting an informed opinion (although all you ever seem to do is post links to other opinions), AT LEAST GET INFORMED!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba


http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/17/patrice-lumumba-50th-anniversary-assassination

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1805546.stm

 

[Ramirez]

while you are at it Bill, read up on the exploitation of the Belgian Congo.....then come back and tell me that all crimes were committed by socialists and not capitalists.


http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds...HWJK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312669900&sr=8-1

 

[billc]

Ramirez, unless you are in law enforcement, the military or a first responder, this is exactly like sitting in a university pub. I don't drink so it would be a non-alcoholic beverage. People ask why the killer didn't target muslims if he was so anti-muslim. He wanted the state to target the muslims and since the state wasn't doing that he targeted the apparatus and supporters of the state that wasn't doing what he wanted.

As to what a rightist is: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22626

So what are Rightists?
The prime focus in this paper has been on defining and explaining what Leftism is. It would nonetheless be remiss not to give also at least a skeletal outline of what Rightism is so I will now do that. If Leftism and Rightism are NOT mirror-images, as this paper asserts, some such account does appear necessary in order to complete the picture. I have, however, written one book and many previous papers for those who wish to study conservatism at greater length (See Ray, 1972b, 1973, 1974, 1979 & 1981).
Military Dictators?
In the late 20th century, it was a common rhetorical ploy of the more "revolutionary" Left in the "Western" world simply to ignore democracy as an alternative to Communism. Instead they would excuse the brutalities of Communism by pointing to the brutalities of the then numerous military dictatorships of Southern Europe and Latin America and pretend that such regimes were the only alternative to Communism. These regimes were led by generals who might in various ways be seen as conservative (though Peron was clearly Leftist) so do they tell us anything about conservatism?
Historically, most of the world has been ruled by military men and their successors (Sargon II of Assyria, Alexander of Macedon, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Frederick II of Prussia etc.) so it seems unlikely but perhaps the main point to note here is that the Hispanic dictatorships of the 20th century were very often created as a response to a perceived threat of a Communist takeover. This is particularly clear in the case of Spain, Chile and Argentina. They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active — blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the world is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were. They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries. They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative. What they were was essentially military. We have to range further than the Hispanic generals, therefore, if we are to find out what is quintessentially conservative.
It might be noted, however, that, centuries earlier, the parliamentary leaders of England — led by Fairfax, Cromwell etc. — did something similar to the Hispanic generals of the 20th century. Faced by an attempt on the part of the Stuart tyrant to abrogate their traditional rights, powers and liberties, they resorted to military means to overthrow the threat. There is no reason to argue that democracy cannot or must not use military means to defend itself or that Leftists or anyone else must be granted exclusive rights to the use of force and violence.
German Origins
What modern-day Rightists of the English-speaking world are, then, traces right back to the German invaders who overran Britannia around 1500 years ago and made it into England. They brought with them a very decentralized, largely tribal system of government that was very different from the Oriental despotisms that had ruled the civilized world for most of human history up to that time. And they liked their decentralized system very much. So much so that the system just kept on keeping on in England, century after century, despite many vicissitudes. Only the 20th century really shook it.
Where the English get their traditional dislike of unrestrained central power is not the main point or even an essential point of the present account. Nonetheless, tracing that dislike to the ultimately German descent of most of the English population might seem colossally perverse in view of Germany's recent experience. Was not Hitler a German and was he not almost the ultimate despot and centralizer of power in his own hands? One could quibble here by saying that Hitler was NOT a German (he was an Austrian) and the Israeli historian Unger (1965) has pointed out that Hitler was much less of a despot than Stalin was but neither of those points is really saying much in the present context.
The important thing here again is to see things with an historian's eye and realize that recent times are atypical. Right up until Bismarck's ascendancy in the late 19th century, Germany was remarkable for its degree of decentralization. What we now know as Germany was once always comprised of hundreds of independent States (kingdoms, principalities, Hanseatic cities etc.) of all shapes and sizes: States that were in fact so much in competition with one another in various ways that they were not infrequently at war with one-another.
And it was of course only the fractionated and competing centres of power existing in mediaeval Germany that enabled the successful emergence there of the most transforming and anti-authority event of the last 1000 years: The Protestant Reformation. Despite the almost immediate and certainly widespread popularity of his new teachings among Germans, Luther ran great risks and would almost certainly have been burnt at the stake like Savonarola, Hus and his other predecessors in religious rebellion had it not been for his (and our) good fortune that he was a Saxon. His Prince, Frederick III ("The Wise") of Saxony gave him constant protection. As one of the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, Frederick was strong enough and independent enough to protect Luther from Pope, from Emperor and from other German potentates.
So only after Bismarck engineered the defeat of the French at Sedan in 1870 did most of Germany become unified — with the Germans of the Austrian lands remaining independent even then. And to this day Germany has a Federal system very similar to that of their largely Germanic brethren in the United States, Canada and Australia — a system of State governments which markedly limits central (Federal) government power. So the German origins of the English do make their historic dislike of concentrated power at the Centre just one part of a larger picture.
In 1066, William of Normandy disrupted the traditional decentralized and competitive power structure of England to some degree but by the time of King John and Magna Carta it was back with a vengeance. Even in the reign of that great Tudor despot, Henry VIII, there were still in England great and powerful regional Lords and many less powerful but numerous local notables representing local interests that the King had to take great care with. Even Tudor central government power was highly contingent, far from absolute and much dependant on the popularity of the ruler among ordinary English people. And when the Stuarts, with their doctrine of "the divine right of Kings", ignored all that and tried to turn the English monarchy into something more like a centralized Oriental despotism, off came the head of the Stuart King.
A Conservative Revolution
And the parliamentarians who were responsible for beheading King Charles I in 1649 were perfectly articulate about why. They felt that Charles had attempted to destroy the ancient English governmental system or "constitution" and that he had tried to take away important rights and individual liberties that the English had always enjoyed — liberty from the arbitrary power of Kings, a right to representation in important decisions and a system of counterbalanced and competing powers rather than an all-powerful central government. It is to them that we can look for the first systematic statements of conservative ideals — ideals that persevere to this day. And they were both conservatives (wishing to conserve traditional rights and arrangements) and revolutionaries!


A BIT LONG BUT IT IS A GOOD PIECE ON THE RIGHT WING. I thought of examples of right wing violence and the author above and I both came up with the American revolution, securing individual rights, and I might mention WW2 as we fought the left wing socialists in Germany, italy and the what would have to be considered socialist government in Japan. The war in vietnam and the cold war would be another example, perhaps.

 

[billc]

On the political leanings of the murderer in Norway:

http://bigpeace.com/ginadathan/2011/08/04/anders-behring-breivik-the-psychology-of-a-terrorist/

also:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/anders_breivik_a_teachable_moment_on_fundamentalism.html

from the article:

Christian fundamentalism may vary, but whatever it is, it cannot involve murder or coercion. Terrorism is inconsistent with the fundamentals of Christianity. If someone murders to achieve his goal, he is not practicing Christianity.
How can I say that? The words and example of Christianity's founder yield no other conclusion.
After Jesus was betrayed, the mob came to take Him away. Peter drew his sword and struck the ear off the high priest's servant, Malchus. Jesus turned to Peter and said, "Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" Christ then touched the servant's ear and healed it. Rather than fight to establish His kingdom, Christ laid down his life as a sacrifice.

 

[billc]

Oh yeah, I never said the right never killed people, they have had to kill a lot of people throughout history, the reason they did it pertains to that individual liberty thing I wrote about earlier. In the clip I posted above, the early americans killed a lot of English before the let the colonies go, the Allies killed a lot of socialists before they surrendered and the cold war had a lot of killing by the right as they fought off the left.

 

[Ramirez]

Ramirez, unless you are in law enforcement, the military or a first responder, this is exactly like sitting in a university pub..

NO IT'S NOT. AS A FATHER OF 3 CHILDREN IT'S NOT YOUR RIGHT TO SPEW CRAP THAT MOTIVATES LUNATICS TO PUT MY CHILDREN IN HARM! I've had it! The polarization of politics that motivates people like Breiivik to kill innocent children because of their perceived left wing views is beyond the pale!

HE TARGETED THOSE CHILDREN BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THEY WERE LEFTISTS!

IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION , YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!