The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[Fuzzy Bear]

When Trump said “there are fine people on both sides” he implied that some of the counter-protestors were not white nationalists. Of course, the media ignored the fact that a sizable portion of those protesting the statue’s removal were run of the mill conservatives and labeled everyone who showed up as “white nationalists” because a handful of actual Nazis showed up the night before and did their lame little tiki march. It became a much broader event.

The fact that Antifa showed no discrimination in attacking the demonstrators shows how irresponsible and outright false our media has become. There will be other posters who will respond to this assuredly by insulting me, continuing to perpetuate the “official” narrative, and then lament the division in the country in a typical three act Atlas play.

But to continue the trope that Trump endorsed white supremacy after Charlottesville, or that both sides were basically black and white in terms of the context of responsibility, than you’re either willfully or inadvertently only worsening the divide.

This.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What percentage of Democrats believe that homosexuals are "born that way" even when there is no scientific evidence to make that assertion?  What is the likelihood that such beliefs are, in fact, narrative-driven for political reasons?

Disgusting. What is the likelihood that Fuzzy ignoring myriad of scientific research and human experience is, in fact, narrative-driven for bigoted reasons and missing the times when they were making homosexuals miserable and abusing their human rights?

I don't ignore human experience, but the scientific research is just not there to state that particular conclusion.  If it were, this would be proclaimed from the rooftops.

Although I've posted this many times, I am opposed to sodomy laws, etc, and I'm opposed to discrimination against LGBT in housing, employment, etc.  I don't condone meanness and harassment (although to some, merely quoting Scripture on this subject is considered mean and harassing).  I'm not going to refute Scripture, however.  That's really what people are asking me to do.  That my God means little or nothing to many of these folks doesn't mean that I should view him as anything less than LORD. 

I've attempted, and will always attempt to put myself in the positions of others even when there is a chasm that can't be fully bridged, and try to assume the best of people.  I like to think people will do that in return, but there are some here (not Parrotguy, but others) that aren't interested in that one bit.  I'm posting this for the reasonable and the rational, and not for those who are as "scortched earth" oriented as the factions they despise.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The whole big picture hurt Hoover.

The Okies and Arkies that moved to California did, however, become the base of Reagan Democrats in central California.  The GOP lean in places like Bakersfield is the result of the descendents of the Okies and Arkies who brought their Southern heritage with them to California. 

TIL "Reagan Democrats" existed almost five decades before Reagan's Presidency.

Yes, there were some conservative Democrats in CA that either became Republicans, or remained Democrats, but supported Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan first ran for Governor in 1966 and some of those Okies and Arkies were still alive and they supported him.  Their kids were alive and voting by then, and they were in their prime voting years during Reagan's campaigns.

[Fuzzy Bear]

hated white folks,

Sure, I hate you. Please feel free to reference that fact.

[Fuzzy Bear]

So, yes, I've made my binary choice,

Well, you are choosing to destroy the lives of your own children.

Why was this guy not permabanned?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Ok. Let me make a serious statement, for once.

1. I, actually, understand where the Trump support is coming from. Yes, there are many people in the US who feel that "the elites" are usurping the power, do not care about them, do not share their values, etc. I, of course, do not share those sentiments, but I do see how this can be a strong feeling.

2. This feeling is not limited to the US, of course. In fact, in much of the world the same feeling of impotent rage against the elites that many Americans feel domestically is directed against all Americans as a group. Aren't Americans the worldwide "elite"? Many Russians, for instance, would, as a matter of course, answer in the affirmative. The world, in their worldview, is governed by the "Washington obkom".

3. Of course, there are no real elites governing the world. Society is a complex organism, and no group of people can control or direct it. Nor is there a cohesive group with alligned interests that could try to do so. The world, really, is a lot more chaotic than many people suppose.

4. Miraculously, this chaos over the last 70 years has been, at least in the "first world", resolved without major conflagrations that had been the norm for most of our history, and remain the norm in many places till now. This has been achieved, in great part, because after the catastrophe of the two world wars societies converged to some modicum of political and social moderation. They say that Mexicans are so polite (and Mexican conventions are those of exaggerated politeness) because 100 years ago an impolite word could have resulted in shooting. In a sense, the same has been true of our societies in general. We could continue to think whatever we thought of those not like us (be that socially, ethnically, religiously, racially or whatever) but we tended to hold our mouths under some control. Having survived the World Wars nobody was willing to risk provoking them anew.

5. Well, this is, increasingly, no longer the case. The generation which survived the wars is gone. Their children do not understand where the politeness conventions are coming from: they think these are elite plots to subdue the straight-talking simple folk.

6. Trump has done away with courtesies of the recent decades and his supporters love it. Well, I view my role here as educational. I am performing, of course and I am being nasty and offensive. I do this for a reason. You have insisted on taking away the veneer of civilization that has maintained peace. Well, live with it. Smell the urine. Alas, unless we collectively recoil, soon we all will be smelling blood.

Yes, I am scared. And I am screaming.

You make is sound as if Donald Trump is the key to all problems facing the world

No, not Trump. Trump's supporters. The are the "deplorables". Trump is a run-of-the-mill scoundrel. His supporters are much worse.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hillary is scum honest for showing such contempt and loathing for millions of hard working, tax paying Americans with this deplorable prepared text. scum

Corrected.

There was a post stating that this guy was a mod during the 2016 campaign.  Wowsers!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hillary is scum for showing such contempt and loathing for millions of hard working, tax paying Americans with this deplorable prepared text.
Her so called apology is laughable.  She apologizes in percentages.
No wonder 2/3 of Americans don't trust Hillary.  
She may as well spend three days recovering because all she's been doing lately is hobnobbing with her multi-millionaire friends on Wall Street, with her hedge fund manager friends, raising money, and viscously attacking and demeaning millions of ordinary, hard working Americans, while her multi-millionaire friends on Wall Street laugh, and hobnobbing with multi-millionaire extreme leftist Hollywood actors.
Perhaps she can spend her down time erasing e-mails and writing more speeches viscously attacking ordinary, hard working, tax paying Americans.

What would you call people who are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc ?
They are obviously deplorable .... and that is a "mild" description of these people, compared to what I would call them.
No really .... I want you to answer the question .... What would you call these type of people ?
Give me a word or two to describe them.

Let me ask you what is more deplorable; a person uncomfortable with unfettered illegal immigration, or Bill Clinton who uses his position to get sex from young women while married?  
Hillary Clinton called 25% of America as "deplorable".  That's what she did.  And it's what she thinks.  And why they're "deplorable" is because they find both her and her husband deplorable and have a coherent argument to make in that regard.  Truthfully, this comment is far more reprehensible than Romney's 47% comment, or Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment; those comments were, at least to some degree, observations.  Hillary Clinton went way beyond that; she cast a judgement on a huge number of folks she doesn't know, and doesn't like, all because they don't like her.  "Out of the wellsprings of the heart, the mouth speaks."   This standard has been applied to Donald Trump.  It's time it be applied to Hillary Clinton.  Oddly enough, this is one of the most candid and honest statements she's made in all of her pubic life.

Once again Fuzzy, you twist reality and certain words to fit your "comfort" religious life that you so claim to boast about (in another thread).
What do I mean by "twisting" :

1) Hillary did not call "a person uncomfortable with unfettered illegal immigration" as deplorable.
She called those specific individuals that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
People can be "uncomfortable" about our current "illegal immigration" policies, and be good individuals with these concerns. They are NOT deplorables.
So stop twisting words and descriptions, to try and make it sound like the target of Clinton's statement includes the entire population of the planet.

2) Clinton almost immediately corrected herself and said that her "half" (50%) estimate of trump supporters, was incorrect. It is obviously smaller, but don't be fooled ..... the number of deplorables is still quite large among trump followers.

3) If you require a visual to get it through your thick-skull on EXACTLY who the deplorables are within trump's cult, WATCH THIS VIDEO :
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html

4) I don't condone anything that Bill Clinton did with other women. It is not anything I would support now, nor back then. (You see, I can at least tell the truth. Unlike you.)

Conclusion: You probably went to Church yesterday, but you need to attend again, tonight. You are obviously telling half-truths and being deceitful in your words, and thus are not honest with yourself or us. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Fuzzy Bear]

When I heard about the Mitt 47% speech in 2012 I was very disappointed and upset about it.  It was a terrible decision to even give this speech, and this speech should never have been made.

Mitt's statements and Mitt himself deserved to be criticized and condemned for sure, and they were, relentlessly, but I personally do not believe that Mitt's statements were degrading or vitriolic and were certainly not hateful like the statements made by Hillary about certain sectors of the American public.

Fair enough, although I think calling someone "scum" based on one statement they quickly walked back is a little unempathetic itself.  I'm a big believer in the idea that no one should be all about the worst thing they ever said/did.

I agree with this. We all make mistakes. Sometimes we say things in anger or are impaired (alcohol). I admit I have done this before (many moons ago), and later feel guilt. But it's usually a word or two, not going on-and-on throwing racist/sexist/bigoted bombs at someone.
And I have NEVER conducted myself anything close to what we see at some trump rallies. Watch this video if you want to see examples of this type of disgusting conduct: http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html
Only a person who consistently spews hatred (empasis added) towards others should be labeled as in "the basket."

Wowsers!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Because slamming as moochers the poor and the elderly is the same as slamming the racists, homophobes and anti-semites who are Trump's base.

Yeah, really. Romney seemed to cement himself as a heartless plutocrat with that comment, but Clinton here is just calling people out for what seems to be obvious, at least if you go by people at his rallies and polls showing the absurd beliefs of a sizable number of Trump supporters.

Plus, going by the numbers, she only really insulted like 20% of Americans, which is probably lowballing it in terms of # of sexists/racists/xenophobes/etc, whereas Romney basically said 47% of Americans were poor moochers that he didn't really care about appealing to.

I don't hold that comment against her at all. I'm actually slightly glad a politician didn't attempt to gloss over the fact that a large portion of our country are indeed bigoted assholes. I sure as hell am not making excuses for those people.

So which am I?

I'm a 59 year old father of 3, including an 11 year old special needs grandson my wife and I have adopted due to problems with his parents I'll not discuss here.

We attend a church that is conservative, but well-integrated.  My wife and I are stably employed stably in respectable occupations.  We're by no means rich, and the last decade has been tough, economically, but we work, pay taxes, and obey laws.  We have a conservative Biblical worldview on social issues, but a recognition that free market capitalism has not worked well for millions of Americans.  We make no bones about the fact that we believe that only through the blood of Jesus Christ can a person be saved; there are no two, three, or sixty paths to Eternal Life.

We've voted for Democrats and Republicans over the last 20 years.  We've been Obama voters and Bush voters.  I'm a union member, but I'm also a parent for whom the public school system has abysmally failed our youngest child, and for whom McKay Scholarships (which Teacher Unions oppose) has been an absolute Godsend for our son.  He is physically small, and was bullied at his school, which public school officials did nothing about.  So you can see how I'm of two minds on a number of things.

So where do I fit in here?  Am I deplorable?

Given your past questionable posts.....yes you are a deplorable.

I've had 10 posts reported and 1 post moderated when I suggested that another poster needed to find a relationship.  (Someone else suggested that poster "get laid" and it's still standing.

I hope folks read this and think about why Hillary lost.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I've had 10 posts reported and 1 post moderated when I suggested that another poster needed to find a relationship.  (Someone else suggested that poster "get laid" and it's still standing.

I hope folks read this and think about why Hillary lost.

To be fair, no one ever reported it, and that board was moving fast enough at that point in the election that it's not reasonable to expect a moderator to just stroll by and delete it on their own. If I was moderating that board at that time and I saw it or saw a report on it, I'd have deleted it (I deleted it now for that reason)

I wasn't complaining that the post was still standing.  I mentioned that to make another point.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why do people keep asking/thinking that the Dems key to winning is becoming a GOP clone?

Jim Webb is a liberal, and the most liberal you’re gonna get if you want a democrat in office.

Jim Webb is a liberal


Look at his Senate record

Yeah, if Jim Webb is a liberal, then I'm going to become a born again Christian.

Webb's record is more liberal than Clinton's was as President

And yet he was less liberal than every other Senate Democrat from 2007-2013, and even some Republicans officeholders (Charlie Crist, Chris Shays).

Jim Webb's ADA Ratings:

2007 -  85
2008 -  95
2009 - 100
2010 -  85
2011 -  90
2012 -  70

Those are not the ratings of a "conservative Democrat".

Come to Jesus, Brother!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why do people keep asking/thinking that the Dems key to winning is becoming a GOP clone?

Jim Webb is a liberal, and the most liberal you’re gonna get if you want a democrat in office.

Jim Webb is a liberal


Look at his Senate record

Yeah, if Jim Webb is a liberal, then I'm going to become a born again Christian.

Webb's record is more liberal than Clinton's was as President

And yet he was less liberal than every other Senate Democrat from 2007-2013, and even some Republicans officeholders (Charlie Crist, Chris Shays).

Jim Webb's ADA Ratings:

2007 -  85
2008 -  95
2009 - 100
2010 -  85
2011 -  90
2012 -  70

Those are not the ratings of a "conservative Democrat".

Come to Jesus, Brother!

Nice try. There's a difference between your voting records and your actual beliefs. Webb's 2016 campaign exposed his actual beliefs, which are far more conservative (and more conservative than Lincoln Chafee, mind you).

I might agree with that.  Webb's campaign did seem to be more conservative than his voting record while in the Senate.  I did take his non-endorsement of Clinton to be something more personal than philosophical; he just doesn't like Clinton.  He said that he wouldn't vote for Clinton, but he might vote for Trump.  I wonder how he ended up voting; I can't find anything showing he endorsed Trump or said he voted for him after the fact.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Because Jim Webb's voting record in 2007 is far more important to his present day ideology than his public statements in 2017.

If Jim Webb were running for office as a conservative anything today; whether it be a conservative Democrat or a Republican, people would point to those ADA ratings and the votes behind them and question his conservatism.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-promise-of-president-trump-jim-webb-1484868186

Webb's not wrong in this article, especially in terms of Affirmative Action.  Unfortunately, racial animosities HAVE grown during Trump's Administration, and Trump, as President, shoulders a significant part of the blame for that.

The more I read this article, the more I think Jim Webb was the President we needed.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The scripture Fuzzy Bear are describing what written by people who wanted to use it to trick people into falling for a scam in which the people who wrote it would benefit. Nothing in it is actually real.

We should ban Fuzzy Bear, and let ProudModerate2 stay.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That isn't happening. Please give examples.

And Facebook is not "the left"
[/quote]

Emphasis added.