talking points that piss you off

[Donerail]

"War on Christmas"

[Donerail]

"A woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her own body"

You don't agree with the principle of self-ownership?

The talking point pisses me off when used in situations that don't apply, or involve someone else (abortion).

Someone else being a bunch of cells... oh boy...

'Militant atheism'.

And it's brother talking point, "militant secularism" as Baroness Warsi put it...

We are all a bunch of cells.

And you just murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of cells; your own white blood cells are carrying out massacres of innocent bacteria. Where's your point?

[Donerail]

2. Almost anything with the words freedom or liberty in it

You are pissed off by freedom and liberty?

[Donerail]

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

[Donerail]

"The Democrats are the party of Science"

especially when said by liberal arts majors

It pisses you off because it's true.

Only if all of the scientific world consisted of evolution, embryonic stem cell research, and global warming. All of that together isn't worth terribly much when the left is constantly trying to divert educational resources toward arts and humanities fields and encouraging people to major in something other than hard science since whether a field is practical or useful should apparently not be a consideration (at least according to most of the people on this board). Most of the liberals who are complaining about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research don't even understand why we would want to fund it instead of using adult stem cells.

Are you saying that everyone should major in "hard science"?

[Donerail]

Democrats are the party of science because they are so often contrasted with the specific wing of the Republican Party who think that science is full of crap because they come up with things like evolution.

[Donerail]

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

[Donerail]

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

You mean a one party state, where a large majority of the ANC's supporters only support it because it was the "great liberator" (read terrorist group) organization. I have massive respect for Mandela, but not for any other ANC thugs who currently run the country.

DA, COPE, IFP, etc. are all fairly active, with the DA actually controlling the governance of Western Cape. And yes, when someone's shooting at you and violently oppressing you support the people who shoot back.

[Donerail]

South Africa is a better country now than in 1994

Global Warming

Cool! Now there's somebody we can talk to about all the talking points we hate, like "Black people are better off now than in 1964", "the 13th Amendment was a great idea", "Science is typically correct", things like that.

Whoa I'm not denying any of those things. But given the rise in AIDS, crime and corruption in SA since 1994, I find these rosy depictions of the rainbow nation gut-wrenching, as it seems to be going the way of Rhodesia. As for global warming I find the science behind it questionable, and often politically motivated.

You know what there hasn't been a rise in? Segregation. You know what else there hasn't been a rise in? Bantustans. Know what else? Forced removals. Know what else? Racist violence. Know what there has been a rise in? Multi-racial democratic elections.

As for global warming, what political motivation is there, asides from preventing more Democratic coastal states from flooding?

You mean a one party state, where a large majority of the ANC's supporters only support it because it was the "great liberator" (read terrorist group) organization. I have massive respect for Mandela, but not for any other ANC thugs who currently run the country.

DA, COPE, IFP, etc. are all fairly active, with the DA actually controlling the governance of Western Cape. And yes, when someone's shooting at you and violently oppressing you support the people who shoot back.

Unlike the ANC, the South African Police and Army never went out into areas where blacks lived and either bombed or necklaced them. Many of the black deaths during the apartheid era were caused by people on their own side, killing what they thought were "sell-outs" (read: people just trying to make their way in life). One final point, if South Africa is a beacon of multi-racial democracy, why doesn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hain, who used to pal around with terrorists, return to live there.

Are you familiar with the Sharpeville massacre? A crowd of unarmed black protesters was fired upon by South African police. 69 dead, 180 injured. Many of them were shot in the back as they were fleeing.

How about the Soweto Uprising, where 176-600 unarmed students were shot dead by police while protesting educational changes?

How about the squalor and slums of the Bantustans many black South Africans were forced into under apartheid?

How about the forced removals of tens of thousands of civilians from District Six and the bulldozing of their homes?

How about the political prisoners of Robben Island?

How about the destruction of Sophiatown, the occupation of Namibia (South-West Africa), the executions at Vlakplaas? You're attempting to defend an indefensible regime.

As for Hain, he seems to be pretty established politically in the UK, and (except for the alternative medicine thing/donations scandal) seems like a FF.
 
Also, I saw your comments in the thread on Louisiana and thought you'd appreciate this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

Denying that American Civil war was about Slavery.

While certainly there other issues at stake they all came down to one fundamental point - the strong structural differences in the economy and society of the South vis-a-vis the North and this was fundamentally due to slavery (and the Cotton-Export dependant economy it created).

You have a point.

What I was mostly referring to was the way it was taught in like eighth grade history.  A lot less focus on the economic part of the war and more on some sort of notion that the North was full of abolitionists and that the Union Army went down South because Slavery offended them so.

As someone who just finished 8th grade history, this is pretty much accurate. Abolitionist movement is trumped up, Lincoln is idolized, and rationale portrayed as "South like slavery. Lincoln no like slavery. South no like Lincoln. South leave. Lincoln decide to save black people. Lincoln's people burn Atlanta."

[Donerail]

Denying that American Civil war was about Slavery.

While certainly there other issues at stake they all came down to one fundamental point - the strong structural differences in the economy and society of the South vis-a-vis the North and this was fundamentally due to slavery (and the Cotton-Export dependant economy it created).

You have a point.

What I was mostly referring to was the way it was taught in like eighth grade history.  A lot less focus on the economic part of the war and more on some sort of notion that the North was full of abolitionists and that the Union Army went down South because Slavery offended them so.

As someone who just finished 8th grade history, this is pretty much accurate. Abolitionist movement is trumped up, Lincoln is idolized, and rationale portrayed as "South like slavery. Lincoln no like slavery. South no like Lincoln. South leave. Lincoln decide to save black people. Lincoln's people burn Atlanta."

I remember a discussion about this in a history class. It was more like

South evil, north nice, Davis bad man, Lincoln like God, south like Nazis, north help south, reconstruction a success.

We may have had a southern editor for our textbook. We got a question like "How was the South like the Patriots in the American Revolution?"

[Donerail]

So he is a nutty leftist, just not a nutty far-leftist?