The Many Faces of US Politics...

[trueblue1234]

It's weird. Sid's views in general would be somewhat in line with my own in a lot of aspects. But I just can't help but think what a c**k he is on this thread.

It's that I'm too unapologetic in my views, isn't it? I'm too "uppity"? I don't show enough "deference" for those with bigoted views?

Being unapologetic tends to make people who come from a background of privilege uncomfortable, alright.

And those who such views make uncomfortable should examine exacty why such views make them uncomfortable.

There are a hell of a lot of views posted on this thread that should make people very, very uncomfortable indeed, but mine aren't among them.

Naw it's just that you act like a c**k.

As I suspected, you didn't have much of a comeback.

You should probably read that line again to yourself and see who's acting what.

Don't worry. Mine was just an opinion. I just find the way you debate to be painful to read. You antagonize in my eyes rather than debate. J70 and Eamon would also share many of your views but they manage to say it without the hyperbole that you are prone to. But that's because they have a different approach. It's obvious you post to get into a row rather than a debate. As in, the actual row is more important than what your debating. With the others, rows happen, but they weren't the objective.

[RadioGAAGAA]

So by definition, A lot of Irish immigrants that choose to watch Fox News are stupid, radical, selfish and possibly racist.

If they watch Fox News and don't get their information from anywhere else, then unfortunately they cannot help but have their world view shaped (badly) by Fox.

No child is intrinsically racist. Its a learned behaviour.

[sid waddell]

It's weird. Sid's views in general would be somewhat in line with my own in a lot of aspects. But I just can't help but think what a c**k he is on this thread.

It's that I'm too unapologetic in my views, isn't it? I'm too "uppity"? I don't show enough "deference" for those with bigoted views?

Being unapologetic tends to make people who come from a background of privilege uncomfortable, alright.

And those who such views make uncomfortable should examine exacty why such views make them uncomfortable.

There are a hell of a lot of views posted on this thread that should make people very, very uncomfortable indeed, but mine aren't among them.

Naw it's just that you act like a c**k.

As I suspected, you didn't have much of a comeback.

You should probably read that line again to yourself and see who's acting what.

Don't worry. Mine was just an opinion. I just find the way you debate to be painful to read. You antagonize in my eyes rather than debate. J70 and Eamon would also share many of your views but they manage to say it without the hyperbole that you are prone to. But that's because they have a different approach. It's obvious you post to get into a row rather than a debate. As in, the actual row is more important than what your debating. With the others, rows happen, but they weren't the objective.

Being "antagonised" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

And what I mean by that is, it is a function of a certain personality type who, rather than being open to challenge in terms of the views they hold, decides to take offence when the stupidity of their views is pointed out and they cannot defend them.

That isn't my problem. It's the problem of the people who hold those stupid views.

See, it's quite interesting, because, for a while around 16/17 years ago I flirted with some views that I now recognise were idiotic and indeed bigoted. I moaned about "crazy feminists". I used to have idiotic views about workers' rights. I also had low-level internalised homophobia, in that I didn't have a problem with gayness per se, but I didn't like the gays "flaunting their gayness" or some such utter nonsense. I had quite the liking for professional contrarian "tell it like it is" types, who I now recognise as utter charlatans. I'd voice these sort of views quite stridently in say, sociology tutorials in college, where I'd be promptly told where to go by people who had a much better idea of what they were talking about than I did.

Within a short time, I recognised that these views that I was holding were utter bunkum. I didn't change my views because of "persuasion". I changed them because I made a fool of myself when I couldn't defend them, and other people made a fool of me by destroying what I had to say - they exposed that my views weren't based on reason or logic, they were based on internalised, learned prejudice.

I could have chosen to feel "antagonised" - in fact I did for a short time - but I then accepted those people who made a fool of me were dead right, and so I learned how to think, and changed my views.

[trueblue1234]

It's weird. Sid's views in general would be somewhat in line with my own in a lot of aspects. But I just can't help but think what a c**k he is on this thread.

It's that I'm too unapologetic in my views, isn't it? I'm too "uppity"? I don't show enough "deference" for those with bigoted views?

Being unapologetic tends to make people who come from a background of privilege uncomfortable, alright.

And those who such views make uncomfortable should examine exacty why such views make them uncomfortable.

There are a hell of a lot of views posted on this thread that should make people very, very uncomfortable indeed, but mine aren't among them.

Naw it's just that you act like a c**k.

As I suspected, you didn't have much of a comeback.

You should probably read that line again to yourself and see who's acting what.

Don't worry. Mine was just an opinion. I just find the way you debate to be painful to read. You antagonize in my eyes rather than debate. J70 and Eamon would also share many of your views but they manage to say it without the hyperbole that you are prone to. But that's because they have a different approach. It's obvious you post to get into a row rather than a debate. As in, the actual row is more important than what your debating. With the others, rows happen, but they weren't the objective.

Being "antagonised" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

And what I mean by that is, it is a function of a certain personality type who, rather than being open to challenge in terms of the views they hold, decides to take offence when the stupidity of their views is pointed out and they cannot defend them.

That isn't my problem. It's the problem of the people who hold those stupid views.

See, it's quite interesting, because, for a while around 16/17 years ago I flirted with some views that I now recognise were idiotic and indeed bigoted. I moaned about "crazy feminists". I used to have idiotic views about workers' rights. I also had low-level internalised homophobia, in that I didn't have a problem with gayness per se, but I didn't like the gays "flaunting their gayness" or some such utter nonsense. I had quite the liking for professional contrarian "tell it like it is" types, who I now recognise as utter charlatans. I'd voice these sort of views quite stridently in say, sociology tutorials in college, where I'd be promptly told where to go by people who had a much better idea of what they were talking about than I did.

Within a short time, I recognised that these views that I was holding were utter bunkum. I didn't change my views because of "persuasion". I changed them because I made a fool of myself when I couldn't defend them, and other people made a fool of me by destroying what I had to say - they exposed that my views weren't based on reason or logic, they were based on internalised, learned prejudice.

I could have chosen to feel "antagonised", but instead I accepted those people who made a fool of me were dead right, and so I learned how to think, and changed my views.

That was you. Other people who might be open to debating and rational persuasion.  These people may become more entrenched when attacked in the manor you do. No one likes being told they are wrong. But there's a right way to do it in my eyes. 
Also the thing is that your not trying to antagonise me. I share most of your views (To an extent), I just don't particularly like how you present them.

[sid waddell]

It's weird. Sid's views in general would be somewhat in line with my own in a lot of aspects. But I just can't help but think what a c**k he is on this thread.

It's that I'm too unapologetic in my views, isn't it? I'm too "uppity"? I don't show enough "deference" for those with bigoted views?

Being unapologetic tends to make people who come from a background of privilege uncomfortable, alright.

And those who such views make uncomfortable should examine exacty why such views make them uncomfortable.

There are a hell of a lot of views posted on this thread that should make people very, very uncomfortable indeed, but mine aren't among them.

Naw it's just that you act like a c**k.

As I suspected, you didn't have much of a comeback.

You should probably read that line again to yourself and see who's acting what.

Don't worry. Mine was just an opinion. I just find the way you debate to be painful to read. You antagonize in my eyes rather than debate. J70 and Eamon would also share many of your views but they manage to say it without the hyperbole that you are prone to. But that's because they have a different approach. It's obvious you post to get into a row rather than a debate. As in, the actual row is more important than what your debating. With the others, rows happen, but they weren't the objective.

Being "antagonised" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

And what I mean by that is, it is a function of a certain personality type who, rather than being open to challenge in terms of the views they hold, decides to take offence when the stupidity of their views is pointed out and they cannot defend them.

That isn't my problem. It's the problem of the people who hold those stupid views.

See, it's quite interesting, because, for a while around 16/17 years ago I flirted with some views that I now recognise were idiotic and indeed bigoted. I moaned about "crazy feminists". I used to have idiotic views about workers' rights. I also had low-level internalised homophobia, in that I didn't have a problem with gayness per se, but I didn't like the gays "flaunting their gayness" or some such utter nonsense. I had quite the liking for professional contrarian "tell it like it is" types, who I now recognise as utter charlatans. I'd voice these sort of views quite stridently in say, sociology tutorials in college, where I'd be promptly told where to go by people who had a much better idea of what they were talking about than I did.

Within a short time, I recognised that these views that I was holding were utter bunkum. I didn't change my views because of "persuasion". I changed them because I made a fool of myself when I couldn't defend them, and other people made a fool of me by destroying what I had to say - they exposed that my views weren't based on reason or logic, they were based on internalised, learned prejudice.

I could have chosen to feel "antagonised", but instead I accepted those people who made a fool of me were dead right, and so I learned how to think, and changed my views.

That was you. Other people who might be open to debating and rational persuasion.  These people may become more entrenched when attacked in the manor you do. No one likes being told they are wrong. But there's a right way to do it in my eyes. 
Also the thing is that your not trying to antagonise me. I share most of your views (To an extent), I just don't particularly like how you present them.

I present my views very rationally. I look at the situation in America and say what I see. I'm not interested in whether I hurt people's feelings or not.

The truth is the best persuader. Sadly we are in a situation where a hell of a lot of people have been brainwashed into rejecting truth in favour of waging a weird right-wing cultural and racial identity war. Those people are not going to be persuaded unless they make the conscious decision in their own minds to reject such brainwashing, and the propensity of evidence on this forum shows that the posters who have bought into such insanity have no intention whatsoever of rejecting it.

Given that, one might as well expose the true insanity and extreme nature of their views.

[Main Street]

The GOP candidate for US Senate in Oregon

Well worth a watch for those unfamiliar with the lunacy of the Republican Party.

https://youtu.be/-GD19V4PUbY

I don't what the best part is: whether its her praying to Jesus to stop George Soros and his funding of all these nationwide protests and riots, whether the protesters are in fact suffering from the effects of ADHD drugs, or, right at the end, the fact that an army raised by Obama, which she thinks she heard about a few years ago, is hitting the streets of Oregon's towns!

Its like satire.

But as I said, a major party candidate for the United States Senate.

Half this country is off their f**king rockers.

Jo Rae Perkins got 50% of the Oregon republican primary vote, one could extrapolate that
at least 50% of republicans believe in the power and desperate need  of the biblical "warring angels" to wage war against George Soros who is Satan, public enemy  nr 1 and naturally is the one who's behind the civil protests and other social disturbances. Apart from Obama that is, who's Satan's agent and founded a secret army 2 years ago.
Because George Soros has not openly denied that he's satan, therefore it is true.
Aparrantly in Jo Rae's mindset, Satan would not tell a lie and deny he's Satan.

In the last Irish presidential election Peter Casey only had to mention the word "Traveller" and his vote received an immediate bigot/racist boost of 20%. What if he had held a bible under his arm when doing those interviews? perhaps he would have received the magical treble turbo boost of the bigot, the racist and the evangelical vote?

[whitey]

Sid.....it must be great to live in lala land.

You wouldn't last 2 minutes on the South Side of Chicago before you were either murdered or seriously assaulted by the people you claim solidarity with

[sid waddell]

Sid.....it must be great to live in lala land.

You wouldn't last 2 minutes on the South Side of Chicago before you were either murdered or seriously assaulted by the people you claim solidarity with

Again, this poster is trying to justify racism as rational - and it's far from the first time he's done it.

That's exactly what the Nazis did.

Quite the irony that somebody with literal Nazi ideology tells others they "live in lala land".

[Gabriel_Hurl]

And people talk about Bidens mental capacities being in question

[screenexile]

Wow!!!!

That's a stretch even for him

[whitey]

Wow!!!!

That's a stretch even for him

LOL-Twitter meltdown in progress

[J70]

WTF???

Although I don't know if we should even laugh...

This fuckwit IS president after all.

[J70]

Here's Exhibit A for Trump and the sleuths at OAN. Did the referee falll harder than Paolo DiCanio pushed him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9CLiDqYfLc

[macdanger2]

It's weird. Sid's views in general would be somewhat in line with my own in a lot of aspects. But I just can't help but think what a c**k he is on this thread.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly

[Eamonnca1]

It's weird. Sid's views in general would be somewhat in line with my own in a lot of aspects. But I just can't help but think what a c**k he is on this thread.

It's that I'm too unapologetic in my views, isn't it? I'm too "uppity"? I don't show enough "deference" for those with bigoted views?

Being unapologetic tends to make people who come from a background of privilege uncomfortable, alright.

And those who such views make uncomfortable should examine exacty why such views make them uncomfortable.

There are a hell of a lot of views posted on this thread that should make people very, very uncomfortable indeed, but mine aren't among them.

Naw it's just that you act like a c**k.

Take your beating!