Meaning? ( See, I don’t mind your low post count or shortness of member status… I’ll talk to anyone. )
SA reminds me of a lot of conservatives I know who raise holy hell over others’ behavior, but declare their own commission of the same deeds an enlightened moral flexibility.
E.g., I knew a self-described conservative who openly cheated on his wife but hated Bill Clinton for doing the same. When I asked him how he could reconcile his deeds with his opinion on Clinton, he replied that his philandering proved that he wasn’t dull and old-fashioned, so it made him a better conservative.*
So SA not only blames the Beatles for the downfall of society (deftly declaring later that it was actually the Stones and the Who, as if that’s more reasonable), he happily partakes of this degenerate music** and is free of blame, because of the magical powers bestowed by declaring himself a conservative. It’s not unlike the amnesty claimed by some hypocritical Christians who are counting on Jebus to keep them out of hell after a lifetime of whooping it up.
SA is also adept at moving the goal posts as Mr. Svinlesha points out above.
- Actually, my friend’s first, hilariously lame defense was to claim that it was different for him, because he wasn’t the POTUS.
** SA, drugs and incivility did NOT start with the Rolling Stones (read about Charlie Parker and Miles Davis). Everyone knows that it was jazz that wrecked this country. I hope you degenerate beboppers are proud of yourselves.
This time I actually got what you were meaning - i’m just worried about this “Britain” place that produced such society-affecting bands. If America is bad, think about what they must be like!
Mr. S, thanks for saying so.
What can be said about Starving for Attention’s latest hits? Mr. S has already taken Starving out behind the woodshed, but at a meta-level this latest scrawl of feces on the wall by Starving illustrates his m.o. quite clearly. He actually has no idea what anyone has ever done to “ban” the klan or inner city gangs, but that doesn’t stop him from proposing that the white ones have been banned but the black ones haven’t. He has no qualms about further proposing that liberals would somehow be supportive of the black gangs, but not the white ones.
That is a tremendous feat: insinuating race-based liberal thinking into support for heinous criminal gangs!
One can clearly see that his premise, the idea that liberals have brought everything bad upon us, shapes his beliefs about what actually has happened in the world (a.k.a. reality). If you could force your mind to believe things like liberals support inner-city gangs, then your premise of bad liberalness would always be upheld. That type of distorted thinking is not exactly what we see with typical mental illness, but it differs as well from what the connotation of stupidity is.
Besides, he clearly is ignorant of the fact that when it comes to the Klan, liberals are supposed to be criticized for supporting their right to march in Skokie, IL. I mean, the worst of the worst of liberalness is inherent in the ACLU, right?
I’m always amazed and perplexed that Zoe is so supportive. What he has to say seems so at odds with what she tends to say she believes.
You know, I’m socially liberal as they come, and I (almost) never curse in public. I see nothing in the above statement that suggests any of the persons mentioned above are ‘liberals’. Were they wearing badges of some kind?
On the other hand, the railroaders I used to work with, depression-era offspring and staunch Republicans nearly all, would routinely cause the leaves to wilt on trees with their language.
In any event, where does Starving_Artist get off blaming any of this on me? Precisely how am I personally responsible for the crassness of his neighbors, again? If you don’t like how they speak, go up to them and tell them, and stop whining to us about it.
Likewise, if S_A is indeed so upset by foul language, why does he himself use it so, er, liberally?
You heard it here folks. Liberalism causes tailgating, apparently.
I don’t see much point in going any further. I think Mr. Svinlesha has summarized pretty well the incessant and tedious dishonesty of this poster. I believe S_A’s just messing with you, folks. I suggest we stop feeding him, er, unlike I just did.
Because they were swearing. Since they were swearing, they must have been liberals. People did not swear in the 1950s. Therefore, all swearing is due to liberals.
Of course, in the process of writing this I got to the part where he claims all this is the fault of the Beatles. Folks, there comes a moment in any discussion when you just have to accept someone is a lying idiot, and that post is that exact moment. Time to give up.
RickJay:
I almost never address SA directly anymore; I realized it’s simply a waste of time. He’s extraordinarily stubborn, and entirely immune logical argument or matters of fact.
But he is an interesting…“specimen”, I guess is the word, and it’s worth time to dissect his arguments for the edification of my fellow dopers.
My husband and I were in a Wendy’s in Chattanooga Tennessee a few weeks back. A small group of young white males spent the entire duration of our meal talking about the fucking faggots. He’s a fucking faggot, that one guy is a fucking faggot, are you a fucking faggot? I bet you are faggot faggot faggot.
Obviously, I felt all warm and fuzzy in the warm embrace of my fellow liberals. Obviously.
I think we’ve accumulated more than enough evidence to answer the question posed by the OP in the affirmative, and move on…
Don’t you see? We liberals have the power to degrade society as a whole, including people who would, outside of our evil influence, be fine upstanding conservatives.
I for one have very much missed your scalpel during your absence. This is true even though it makes me embarrased for the hatchet that I usually choose to wield.
I disagree strongly with that statement. Of course, I’m thinking about Southern, and especially Mississippian, typical societal behavior. And you might argue that the South isn’t the whole country; technically that’s correct. I don’t think we can just brush it aside as some aberrant Southern thing though; the South is a large part of the U.S. and its conduct is a part of U.S. culture. The “black person as scapegoat” attitude was deeply ingrained in the white (MS) population at that time. The hateful behaviors (shown in the photos) were quite typical.
I looked back through the thread and the only reference to this I saw was about another poster and a comment he made in a different thread. I (for one) don’t see where you said (here) that it was what you wanted.
This thread, having taken a turn to the surreal, probably won’t last too much longer (though it will be referenced for eternity), but I just had to make sure that you, Yookeroo, and perhaps silent lurkers out there, know that my post was a whoosh and, yes, a jab at Starving Polecat. I’m not, last I checked, totally or just almost insane.
Ok. Thanks for letting me know that you weren’t going to play. And then partially playing anyway.
While I too wish JFK hadn’t been murdered, I, for one, thank the UK for giving us the Beatles, not only for the music, but also for long hair on men. My husband’s hair is much longer than mine, goes to the middle of his back, and I adore it. Oh, and he’s one of the sweetest, most gentle, kind, smart and civilized people I know. Even though he’s a liberal.
Not trying to make any political point here, I’m just genuinely interested in why you think it would be such a ‘hilariously lame defense’. Should we not ask higher standards of public office-holders than we do of other citizens and ourselves?
Let’s make this a nice circular argument, shall we? There were about 5,000 lynchings between 1880 and 1950 (and about a quarter of them were of white people). At the same time, blacks and poor whites were disenfranchised by state constitutions in the South. Due to the unfriendly conditions there, in the 20th century, about 7 million blacksleft the South and concrentrated in urban areas in the North, and on the coasts. Thus, the advent of urban ghettos, and the gangs and dreaded rap music were born. Thus, the blame for the Crips and Bloods can be laid at the feet of the social conservatives who were oppressing black in the South.
Now, as for the drugs, well, the facts would suggest a link between conservatives, who were in the State Department in the 1980’s, using the proceeds from drug sales in LA to fund the Contras, because as long as we stop the Commies, who cares about inner city blacks? Hence, the explosion of crack cocaine onto the scene and the rampant drug use you decry.
So you see, we can just as easily blame gangs and drugs on conservatives, and I have actually produced some checkable facts. How does it feel to have such social ills laid at your feet?
SA, are you not willing to admit any responsibility the right may hold for the things you currently find wrong with society? Is it always someone else’s fault?
Also, I’m afraid you lost me when you blamed the liberals for your inability to merge and drive properly.
I’m have no doubt that you are a delightful fellow when politics are not concerned. But once the topic is brought up your moral compass and world view seems to take a nosedive, which I’m sure is somehow the fault of liberals everywhere. I really lose patience for people who always want to blame the problems they face or the wrongs in the world on someone else.
No matter how badly you may want the world to return to the '50s and have people the world over play like Ozzie and Harriet…it isn’t going to happen.
You are leaving me no option other than to write you off as someone who cannot be reasoned with. Your experiences are no more valid than those of my father’s, and his are in stark contrast to yours. So I guess that makes it a wash. His experiences cancel out yours. So we are back to square one which leaves me to rely on actual historical reports and data which does not agree with what you have been claiming. So now, I have 2 sources disagreeing with you (my father, and you know…actual data).
Hell,** Starv**, you are a liberal, just one displaced in time. The views you present, favoring gradual, careful, and cautious change were precisely the liberal views of the time. No, your beef is with radicals. Troublemakers. From the American Revolution to this day, from Tom Paine on, radicals have been the shock troops, radicals have spoken the unspeakable and demanded the impossible. From child labor to the eight hour day, to Social Security and on to racial justice…it was the radicals that enabled the liberals to dare to squeek up.
Its like the good cop bad cop theory of political progress: you don’t like MLK? Well, would you rather deal with Malcolm X?
Your views are only “conservative” relative to your time and place, you have the advantage of living in an America that has already* been *changed, a change that arguably might not have heppened if radicals had not dared to insist. The world you seek to protect from radical change is, itself, a product of radicals.
And you didn’t even thank us!
And the change over all has been for the better. I’ll take the bad (though my definition is probably different than SA’s) because the good more than balances things out…and you are right 'luci, we DO have those damn radical liberals to thank for agitating things up and making the country a better place.
-XT
I have run the previous post throught the Snarkatect 9000 (Radio Shack, $19.99) and it detects no hint of irony. So, either its busted, or I owe XT a graceful and sincere response.
It’s probably busted. Yeah, that must be it.
There you go, twisting around the words of this great thinker.
He made it quite clear that it wasn’t “I Want to Hold Your Hand” that brought about the fall of American manners. It was “I Can’t Explain” and “As Tears Go By”. The results would have, apparently, been even worse if not for the erudite civility of conservative musicians like Ted Nugent.
In SA’s world view, conservatism and conservatives are never to blame for anything; if they are, they aren’t conservatives.