[Apparently unaware that the KKK is a Christian organization, and that the racist Democrats of the pre-civil rights era became the racist Republicans of the post-civil rights era]
So since you are anti religion that means you are an anarchist. Do you see the correlation between your argument and the one I just made. The KKK does what the KKK wants.
Many liberals believe in the new world order which is one reason while they fight against a national identity card.
The U.N. is a world government called a confedracy. It hopes to become stronger and works toward that goal like the federal government of the United States did before it. Since this is clearly the case I would say you are in a state of denial for saying it is not so. [...]
The KKK is a socialist organization. That is why they used to be Democrats in the south. I suspician that they still have a high number of members in the Democratic party which still supports segregation and still hates blacks. Anyone in the Democratic pary is probably a a fraud, a closet racist or is being hoodwinked.
[After someone points out the retardedness of his logic he replies with...]
Anarchist are against organized religion and so many of them are atheist.
The Southern Democrats were so opposed to the Civil Right Acts of the 60's that they filibustered it. The South did not abandon the Democratic party until a decade or so after the Civil Rights issue was resolved. Democrats still hate blacks as can be seen by their support of genocide through abortion that kills blacks at a rate three times that of whites. They have been more successful in keeping the Black population in check than the south under slavery or segregation.
27 comments
"So since you are anti religion that means you are an anarchist."
No, not at all. Do you even know what anarchist means?
"Anarchist are against organized religion and so many of them are atheist."
And the question is answered. No, you do not know what anarchist means.
Many liberals believe in the new world order which is one reason while they fight against a national identity card.
Wait, what? Wouldn't that mean we'd fight for a national identity card? Unless you're thinking of a different New World Order, the mandatory identity card thingee is one of the bad signs. Hell, according to your Left Behind books, it's a very bad thing. I don't know what the general liberal consensus is on these, but I'm pretty fervently against them.
And yes, the Social Security Number thing. I know.
I "suspician" Kerwin, at some point, had a severe brayne injury.
BTW Does he mean, 'anti-christ' instead of anarchist? See, cuz then it...he's saying......Pfft....I don't know.
Quote:
I suspician that they still have a high number of members in the Democratic party which still supports segregation and still hates blacks. Anyone in the Democratic pary is probably a a fraud, a closet racist or is being hoodwinked.
I suppose that that is why so many more people who identify as black are registered as democrats. Makes perfect sense there.
( Here are the statistics for Florida, and I suspect that it's similar elsewhere, but I'm to lazy to keep searching. 1M democratic blacks vs. 60K republican blacks for those too lazy to click the link)
BTW, the ONLY reason why southerners were democrats before the civil rights era and after the civil war was because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican who helped free the black people, and he also waged war against the south. After the 1960's many southerners recognized that the Republicans saw things their way, especially since one of their own, Lyndon Johnson, a southern democrat helped the Civil Rights movement.
Starts off with a strong fundie redefinition, proceeds to a tinfoil hat, jumps straight into an alternate bizarro universe and seamlessly segues into a final history revision. I suspect the poster is trying to sweep the awards.
Where do I begin? The first president to mention a "New World Order" was George Bush, Sr, just after the first Iraq war.
All the other statements are simply fucktarded and unworthy of comment.
Except, I would love to see you spout your racist horsehit on the corner of Woodward and Jefferson (Downtown Detroit)
<<< So since you are anti religion that means you are an anarchist. >>>
Atheist and anarchist are two separate terms. Learn the difference before you use either. Many atheists do tend strongly toward libertarian political views, and I do know a few who are anarchists (not in the "spread chaos" sense, merely in that they think there's nothing the private sector can't do better than government - and I am finding it harder and harder to disagree with them, personally), but while there is a positive correlation, it is not a valid generalization.
The KKK does what the KKK wants.
So do I. So do you. So does everyone, unless the threat of force intervenes. The difference is that unlike the KKK, what I want to do doesn't involve lynching people. I would hope that applies to you, but it's very hard to be sure based on your post.
<<< Many liberals believe in the new world order which is one reason while they fight against a national identity card. >>>
You'd have to define this "new world order" before I could tell you whether you were talking out of your ass or not.
<<< I suspician that they still have a high number of members in the Democratic party which still supports segregation and still hates blacks. Anyone in the Democratic pary is probably a a fraud, a closet racist or is being hoodwinked. >>>
What color is the sky in your world?
<<< Democrats still hate blacks as can be seen by their support of genocide through abortion >>>
If abortion is genocide, it's self-inflicted since women can choose whether or not to abort. Keeping abortion legal does not mean making it mandatory.
And last time I checked, all the Dixiecrats fled to the Republican Party when the rest of the Dems gave them the finger. Strom Thurmond, for instance.
"mad dog: I iss the old Republican party. They used to be cool!"
Gave me a chuckle, Ted, but who are you pretending to be? Old White Southerner, Old Black Southerner, or are you supposed to be some guy from the North?
So since you are anti religion that means you are an anarchist.
Quite true. I am opposed to religion, therefore I am an anarchist* without a doubt.
*"Anarchist" has been redefined to mean "atheist" under the Fundie Word Redefinition Project.
(Of course, I'm technically an ignostic. I am a strong atheist when god = YHWH/Jehova/Jealous/Whatever They Call Him.)
Do you see the correlation between your argument and the one I just made. The KKK does what the KKK wants.
Quite true. The KKK is free to do whatever they want as long as they don't violate anyone elses' rights. Lynchings are right out, will have to be stopped, and were always wrong. Protesting in the streets because blacks are considered equal is their right; they can say what they want to say no matter how abhorrent it is.
Many liberals believe in the new world order which is one reason while they fight against a national identity card.
"New world order?" Look, stupid, the "new world order" only exists in your own fevered delusions. Plus, according to your delusions, wouldn't the NWO proponents be in favor of a national ID?
The U.N. is a world government called a confedracy.
Not really. The U.N. has essentially zero power over anything. It's not really a government.
It hopes to become stronger and works toward that goal like the federal government of the United States did before it.
Name one thing that the U.N. wants to do that none of its member nations want to do. What other entity is there that "wants" things?
Since this is clearly the case I would say you are in a state of denial for saying it is not so.
There should be a penalty for saying that something is "clearly the case" after providing no evidence whatsoever. If the person goes on to claim that his opponents are "in denial," he should be subjected to a Godwin-like automatic lose.
The KKK is a socialist organization.
And I'm a song from the sixties.
That is why they used to be Democrats in the south.
*Thwacks KB upside the head with a history textbook.*
I suspician that they still have a high number of members in the Democratic party which still supports segregation and still hates blacks.
I'm sorry, but Democrats were the key supporters of civil rights in the '60s. Today, most blacks are Democrats. If you want politicians who hate blacks, please travel one desk thataway to the Republican Party office.
Anyone in the Democratic pary is probably a a fraud, a closet racist or is being hoodwinked.
Oh drat, he's pizzened the well again. (Me, a closet racist??! )
After someone points out the retardedness of his logic he replies with...
Anarchist are against organized religion and so many of them are atheist.
"Anarchists" are against religion? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Southern Democrats were so opposed to the Civil Right Acts of the 60's that they filibustered it. The South did not abandon the Democratic party until a decade or so after the Civil Rights issue was resolved.
The South held onto the Democrats for some time since Lincoln had been a Republican. Eventually, they figured out that current Republicans made a better fit.
Democrats still hate blacks as can be seen by their support of genocide through abortion that kills blacks at a rate three times that of whites.
OK, first of all, abortion isn't genocide. Genocide requires killing someone, and a clump of cells doesn't count as "someone."
Second, no one is forcing blacks to abort. Therefore, there can be no program to reduce black populations through abortion. Democrats generally support womens' rights to control their own bodies, so they support legal abortion. Democrats would be strongly opposed to mandatory abortion. Let's review.
Maronan: Legal, Mandatory.
Legal, but not mandatory.
Kerwin Brown: MANDALORHGLE!
Maronan: No, no, "mandatory" and "legal" are to seperate words with very different meanings. Also, it's "legal," not "lorhgle."
They have been more successful in keeping the Black population in check than the south under slavery or segregation.
I'm afraid that this statement came from the wrong orifice. I see no need to address it.
Crosis wrote
"Atheist and anarchist are two separate terms. Learn the difference before you use either. Many atheists do tend strongly toward libertarian political views, and I do know a few who are anarchists (not in the "spread chaos" sense, merely in that they think there's nothing the private sector can't do better than government - and I am finding it harder and harder to disagree with them, personally), but while there is a positive correlation, it is not a valid generalization."
Actually, that's libertarian capitalism, not anarchism. Anarchism has several branches including, but not limited to: anarcho-communism, anarcho-mutualism, anarcho-individualism, anarcho-syndicalism, green anarchy, Christian anarchy, etc. There are also "anarcho-capitalists" but the majority of anarchists (including anarcho-individualists) do not accept them as "anarchists" because anarcho-capitalists are not opposed to some people depriving others of property and are not opposed to hierarchical structures in the workplace (top-down chain of command from CEO to grunt worker).
Most anarchists see this is as incompatible with anarchism so Libertarianism and 'anarcho'-capitalists are considered their own group whose anarchist legitimacy is questioned. Many anarchists favor gift economies except for anarcho-individualists and some anarcho-mutualists who believe in the market but consider themselves "anti-capitalist".
Aethism = arnachism, communisim, socialism, nazism, stalinism, and ad nausemism...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.