[lpkmckenna]

Washington Post: 'Hate' designation irks gay marriage opponents.

I've been reading this thread over at Fark, and it amazes me that no one noticed this important statement by the Southern Poverty Law Center: "Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups." Simply being opposed to gay marriage doesn't get you labelled as a hate group either, clearly, since many prominent politicians and political groups don't get labelled as such (see the President). It is the name-calling and rhetoric of the FRC that is the reason for being labelled. The fact that the group itself can't understand the difference demonstrates that they really are nothing but idiots.

The FRC (also the National Organization for Marriage, both groups are laughably named) are being labelled hate groups because of their smear campaigns, not their religious beliefs. That fact is what is important.

Someday soon, these wingnuts will be remembered and mentioned in the same breath as other hate-mongers. History is a cruel master.

[Doofy]

Hey, McKenna... ...you realise that as soon as somebody agrees with you you've got yourself your own little hate group, no?

"Idiots"
"Wingnuts"

You don't see your own name-calling and rhetoric as hateful?

[lpkmckenna]

No.

[Railroader]

I'll bet the FRC doesn't either.

[stupendousman]

The SPLC is meandering from genuine civil rights protections that everyone agrees with, to left-wing political protectionism that will surely lose them some support.

I went to all the sites and all I can find is where the SPLC quoted one guy who has worked with the FRC, who did say some pretty controversial things. However, it's clear that they likely had already made up their mind that they where going to do whatever they could to try and punish groups who oppose things like "gay marriage."

They've got to stay in business and the fringier the racist loons get, the less their importance is felt and the fewer dollars they receive. They've got to find new sources of revenue and wealthy liberals are the biggest suckers for this sort of thing around.

I wonder how much George Soros is contributing to their coffers?

I'm making my own list of haters and adding the SPLC at the top for the groups opposition to free speech and their smear campaigns against those who choose to practice it.

[ebuddy]

I've been in debates with those quick to indict for hatred, bigotry, etc... and what I've found is no hatred or bigotry is necessary for the indictment. You can and will be labeled as such for nothing more than a contrarian opinion; another predictable bully tactic of the left who have spent more time demonizing dissenting views than they have formulating their own. If you do not see the right of homosexuals to marry as the single most important issue of our time, you are a hateful, bigoted, homophobe. It's as simple as that.

Of course, not to mention the fact that gay marriage proponents continue to marginalize the plight of those who've experienced genuine bigotry by comparing their inability to wed with the type of hatred that would render you to your own spot on a bus, in a restaurant, or on an auction block.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've been in debates with those quick to indict for hatred, bigotry, etc... and what I've found is no hatred or bigotry is necessary for the indictment. You can and will be labeled as such for nothing more than a contrarian opinion; another predictable bully tactic of the left who have spent more time demonizing dissenting views than they have formulating their own.

Interesting thing, that.
The left need to do this because the whole ethos is defined by what they're against, rather than what they're for. A quick reading of any of the main historical lefties will confirm this. To properly understand the average leftie, one must remember that their mind frames everything in the negative.

So technically, it's not actually a "bully" tactic... ...it's simply a feature of their inability to think constructively, rather than destructively - due to a severely low capacity for rational thought caused by a dangerously low IQ.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Someday soon, these wingnuts will be remembered and mentioned in the same breath as other hate-mongers. History is a cruel master.

I think you're right. I just put the SPLC on my list of hate-mongers. They started out with good intentions, but it looks like they are following the template that the for-profit race baiters have. Fight perceived hate with hate. Not a good game plan.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've been in debates with those quick to indict for hatred, bigotry, etc... and what I've found is no hatred or bigotry is necessary for the indictment. You can and will be labeled as such for nothing more than a contrarian opinion; another predictable bully tactic of the left who have spent more time demonizing dissenting views than they have formulating their own. If you do not see the right of homosexuals to marry as the single most important issue of our time, you are a hateful, bigoted, homophobe. It's as simple as that.

Yes, the left is going on and on about how Obama and Clinton are such hate-mongers. It's so annoying.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Interesting thing, that.
The left need to do this because the whole ethos is defined by what they're against, rather than what they're for.

Yes. If "left" you mean "liberal," then yes, we are defined by what we are against: censorship, intolerance, religious laws, pointless interference in private life, etc.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I went to all the sites and all I can find is where the SPLC quoted one guy who has worked with the FRC, who did say some pretty controversial things. However, it's clear that they likely had already made up their mind that they where going to do whatever they could to try and punish groups who oppose things like "gay marriage."

That's why they put the Mormon Church on the hate list, right? Oh wait, they didn't. what about the Southern Baptist Convention? Nope. The Catholic Church? No again.

How about we get to the FRC's own pamphlet: The TopTen Myths About Homosexuality. FRC is actually promoting these myths: gays are sluts, crazy, molesters, violent, diseased. All this is cherry-picked from studies they agreed with, instead of all studies collectively. BTW, here is the SPLC with their response: 10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked

Here's the SPLC's own list of 18 Anti-Gay Hate Groups, including the reasons these groups are included.

They've got to stay in business and the fringier the racist loons get, the less their importance is felt and the fewer dollars they receive. They've got to find new sources of revenue and wealthy liberals are the biggest suckers for this sort of thing around.

Hilarious. Lawyers are having trouble finding sources of income. What planet do you live on? Putting the FRC on a list generates no income, silly.

BTW, I don't think the racist loons are getting "fringier," whatever that means.

[lpkmckenna]

How's this for hate-mongering? Family Research Council: End Of DADT Means More Gay Rape In The Military

"Straight soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will be fellated in their sleep against their will."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's why they put the Mormon Church on the hate list, right? Oh wait, they didn't. what about the Southern Baptist Convention? Nope. The Catholic Church? No again.

No again, because they are trying their best to have some sort of "cover." The reason they don't name any of those organizations is because they have millions of members world-wide and their "cover" would be blown. They are pretty brave against relatively small groups the majority of the world don't pay much attention to though.

How about we get to the FRC's own pamphlet: The TopTen Myths About Homosexuality. FRC is actually promoting these myths: gays are sluts...

Hasn't there been studies showing more promiscuity among homosexuals?

crazy

Up until the psychiatric community started playing politics and dumped science 20 or 30 years ago, that's exactly how the medical profession classified them. If you've got a mental condition which only effects a small minority of humans, which causes you to be unable engage in normal societal/biological functions, and which if it was present in all humans might mean the end of our species, I'm guessing it's not all that strange to classify that as a serious mental condition, which yes, some might use the slang "crazy" to describe.

molesters

Saw the debunking before, and it's still a laugh-riot. If a man is only sexually attracted to male children, then he would be a homosexual pedophile (because he is not attracted to female genitalia) and just because a "regressed" molester has a "heterosexual" adult relationship, I think we all know that doesn't make him a heterosexual. Lot's of gay men have been in "heterosexual" adult relationships in order to hide their homosexuality. The whole "debunking" is based on a series of totally illogical assumptions.

I'm assuming that the studies that are being "debunked" show a greater percentage of male adult/male child molestation per capita as compared to the normally accepted population of homosexual to heterosexual adults and the only thing that can be done to combat that is what the illogical leftwing establishment normally does: change definitions, close their eyes, cover their ears and shout "Nuh-uh!!!"

...and that's pretty much the sort of "debunking" they do. I'm really not impressed.

What planet do you live on? Putting the FRC on a list generates no income, silly.

You apparently don't understand how fund raising works.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

How's this for hate-mongering? Family Research Council: End Of DADT Means More Gay Rape In The Military

"Straight soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will be fellated in their sleep against their will."

Does the military have a higher or lower percentage of homosexual sexual assaults as compared to population as a whole? If homosexuals aren't more likely to assault others, than there should only be about 3%, or let's even be generous and say 5% of all assaults homosexual in nature. Right?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, the left is going on and on about how Obama and Clinton are such hate-mongers. It's so annoying.

Actually, it's annoying they don't. You can parrot Obama's stance on gay marriage in this forum and be labeled a homophobe and bigot, but to slander the second-coming himself would be... too much apparently.

Yes. If "left" you mean "liberal," then yes, we are defined by what we are against: censorship, intolerance, religious laws, pointless interference in private life, etc.

Evidence that liberals and progressives have quite a lot of reconciling to do yet.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes. If "left" you mean "liberal," then yes, we are defined by what we are against: censorship, intolerance, religious laws, pointless interference in private life, etc.

Basically, liberals are against the nanny state that conservatives want.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Basically, liberals are against the nanny state that conservatives want.

No, they want a different kind of nanny state. The Left very strongly endorses censorship and intolerance toward anyone not supporting their agenda, laws eliminating free exercise of religion (and perhaps establishing atheism as the national religion), interference with the personal lives of those they disagree with, confiscatory taxation to feed enormous government and pay off their chosen constituencies, etc.

The FRC can be a bunch of asshats at times, but it's preposterous to call them a hate group.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, they want a different kind of nanny state. The Left very strongly endorses censorship and intolerance toward anyone not supporting their agenda, laws eliminating free exercise of religion (and perhaps establishing atheism as the national religion), interference with the personal lives of those they disagree with, confiscatory taxation to feed enormous government and pay off their chosen constituencies, etc.

The FRC can be a bunch of asshats at times, but it's preposterous to call them a hate group.

I didn't say liberals were against nanny states. I said liberals are against the nanny state that conservatives want.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, they want a different kind of nanny state. The Left very strongly endorses censorship and intolerance toward anyone not supporting their agenda, laws eliminating free exercise of religion (and perhaps establishing atheism as the national religion), interference with the personal lives of those they disagree with, confiscatory taxation to feed enormous government and pay off their chosen constituencies, etc.

It's amazing to me the irony- all my life I've heard moonbats screech on forever about the 'eeeeeeevils' of the 'right wing' and how it's the right that wants to take everyone's freedoms away, etc etc. and yet, virtually EVERY threat to personal freedom I've ever encountered- a constant charge for confiscatory taxes, a constant call for crazy regulations, don't to this, you can't do that, you can't SAY this, you can't THINK that, this offends this person, this offends this religion (OTHER than Christianity or Judaism), this that and the other initiative that will end up costing you X Y and Z more money hoovered out of your wallet, it's evil if you make X amount of money therefore we want to take it, it's evil if you do this that or the other therefore we want to make it illegal... we want to cap how much money you can (LEGALLY!!) make just because we say it's unfair... we don't like that you drive this, that you live in X amount of space, that you use X amount of energy, we don't like X person because he/she says something we don't like therefore try to get the person fired/blacklisted etc., we want to take over this industry and that and hand the keys to the nanny state... on and on and on and on.... almost ALWAYS, from the left.

Yes, there are some things that the right champions in this sense too- like nosing into if gays can get married or not (which I strongly disagree with)- but IN REALITY, there's never been any real threat to my liberty, freedom, financial liberty, personal liberty, property etc. from the right, but various liberties are constantly under assault from the left.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's amazing to me the irony- all my life I've heard moonbats screech on forever about the 'eeeeeeevils' of the 'right wing' and how it's the right that wants to take everyone's freedoms away, etc etc. and yet, virtually EVERY threat to personal freedom I've ever encountered- a constant charge for confiscatory taxes, a constant call for crazy regulations, don't to this, you can't do that, you can't SAY this, you can't THINK that, this offends this person, this offends this religion (OTHER than Christianity or Judaism), this that and the other initiative that will end up costing you X Y and Z more money hoovered out of your wallet, it's evil if you make X amount of money therefore we want to take it, it's evil if you do this that or the other therefore we want to make it illegal... we want to cap how much money you can (LEGALLY!!) make just because we say it's unfair... we don't like that you drive this, that you live in X amount of space, that you use X amount of energy, we don't like X person because he/she says something we don't like therefore try to get the person fired/blacklisted etc., we want to take over this industry and that and hand the keys to the nanny state... on and on and on and on.... almost ALWAYS, from the left.

You've noticed too eh?

It's a shame that the left are too stupid to notice, else they'd probably hate themselves.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's amazing to me the irony-

We'll get back to irony - nay, hypocrisy - in a moment.

a constant charge for confiscatory taxes

Paying taxes doesn't take away any freedom.

a constant call for crazy regulations, don't to this, you can't do that, you can't SAY this, you can't THINK that, this offends this person, this offends this religion (OTHER than Christianity or Judaism)

Where are the specifics? Is it liberals trying to block mosques being built in the US? Is it liberals trying trying to stop abortion? Is it liberals trying to stop sex-ed in schools?

this that and the other initiative that will end up costing you X Y and Z more money hoovered out of your wallet, it's evil if you make X amount of money therefore we want to take it,

You keep going back to taxes. If you want to cut taxes, start with the bloated US military, then I'll take you seriously.

it's evil if you do this that or the other therefore we want to make it illegal...

Specifics? Name me something liberals want to ban? Guns? Most liberals only want gun control/licensing to keep guns from the hands of children, criminals, insane, etc. You need a license to have a dog, a car, a hot dog stand, etc. What part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand?

Now, name me something else liberals want to ban? Go ahead, I'll wait....

we want to cap how much money you can (LEGALLY!!) make just because we say it's unfair...

Back to this again?

we don't like that you drive this

Not liking people who drive Hummers isn't the same as banning Hummers. Try again.

that you live in X amount of space, that you use X amount of energy

Yeah, lots and lots of bills in Congress trying to ban energy use and big backyards. Try again.

we don't like X person because he/she says something we don't like therefore try to get the person fired/blacklisted etc.

Not liking people isn't against the law. Liberals aren't advocating censorship. Try again.

we want to take over this industry and that and hand the keys to the nanny state...

When the medical insurance industry takes your money, then refuses to pay out, that's an issue for government. When the financial industry takes your money, then invests in guaranteed losses, that's an issue for government.

on and on and on and on.... almost ALWAYS, from the left.

So you don't like taxes, and you don't like liberals because they dislike Hummers and Ann Coulter. Doesn't sound like liberals are the ban-happy people you say they are.

Yes, there are some things that the right champions in this sense too- like nosing into if gays can get married or not (which I strongly disagree with)

Maybe you're not being clear, but are you saying you admit they are being nosy, but agree with them?

but IN REALITY, there's never been any real threat to my liberty, freedom, financial liberty, personal liberty, property etc. from the right, but various liberties are constantly under assault from the left.

Sounds more like it's in your MIND, not REALITY. Irony, anyone?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

We'll get back to irony - nay, hypocrisy - in a moment.

Haha, get back to it? You didn't stray from hypocrisy through your entire rant! Isn't it a shame you can't have some dictator ban me for calling you moonbats out? (You KNOW you answered yes!)

Paying taxes doesn't take away any freedom.

Typical nanny-stater response.

Where are the specifics? Is it liberals trying to block mosques being built in the US? Is it liberals trying trying to stop abortion? Is it liberals trying to stop sex-ed in schools?

No, it's liberals whining about Christmas and displays of any religion they dislike- of course that doesn't include Islam, because that's not Christianity or Judaism, as I said. It's liberals having wrecked the school systems all over the country wherever they're predominately in charge of them. It's liberals doing everything they can to invite the third world into the poorest communities because they're afraid a head of lettuce is going to magically cost $100.

You keep going back to taxes. If you want to cut taxes, start with the bloated US military, then I'll take you seriously.

Again, typical nanny-stater. Maybe you can ban the military.

Specifics? Name me something liberals want to ban? Guns? Most liberals only want gun control/licensing to keep guns from the hands of children, criminals, insane, etc.

Haha! You did name the big one- guns. Not only have you moonbats WANTED to ban guns, you have- for many years in places like D.C. and NYC. And we saw the resulting crime waves, but then moonbats NEVER care about results, only what makes you feel good.

You've also tried to ban smoking, styrofoam, plastic bags (here in Cali, because you know, you're saaaaving the world or something) The United States flag (because it may offend someone! BOO HOO!) fast food, prayer in schools, free speech whenever you clowns say it might 'offend someone! BOO HOO!' corporal punishment, pesticides that have been shown to work but you clowns got your panties in an uproar over, pets (! San Francisco libs actually tried to ban them!) the use of public and private lands because some 'endangered' mold grows on it, etc. etc.

Now quick, lie and pretend libs have never tried to ban anything. Even better, just try and blacklist anyone who points it out. Maybe if you could only install a dictator like Castro that you libs fawn over. That's another thing- again, you libs call everyone else fascists and the like, but I've NEVER seen conservatives go kiss the ass of some third world clown dictator. Meanwhile, libs fall all over the likes of Castro and Chavez, and wear T-shirts and idolize thugs like Che Guevara. Given your way, you'd have assholes like that IN CHARGE.

You need a license to have a dog, a car, a hot dog stand, etc. What part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand?

That's one of the dumbest quotes ever! Classic! Were you drunk when you typed that?

Back to this again?

I would never expect a liberal to understand that stealing someone's financial liberty is the same as enslaving them.

Not liking people who drive Hummers isn't the same as banning Hummers. Try again.

Liberals have indeed tried to ban SUVs in various localities! Do you work at being this ignorant?

Yeah, lots and lots of bills in Congress trying to ban energy use and big backyards. Try again.

Yes, like Cap and Trade, or more accurately known as, cap and tax. You moonbats just think it's being clever not to 'ban' energy, but to advocate for things that make it unnecessarily expensive, you know, like it is in places where nanny staters have already made it so you have to drive a friggen miniature clown car around to afford the horribly overpriced fuel costs. But not to worry, US moonbats are working on bringing that sort of 'freedom' here to the US as well. All part of saaaaaaaaaving the world.

Not liking people isn't against the law. Liberals aren't advocating censorship. Try again.

Who said it was always against the law? That's merely your dodge. Is it against the law for moonbats to use political correctness to stifle debate, and get people fired/blacklisted because they won't tow the liberal line? (Latest example was Juan Williams). No. Is it part of the left's tendencies toward authoritarianism in pursuit of your nanny-state goals? Yes.

When the medical insurance industry takes your money, then refuses to pay out, that's an issue for government. When the financial industry takes your money, then invests in guaranteed losses, that's an issue for government.

Yeah, but when the government takes your money- no wait, excuse me, someone else's money and does nothing with it but create titanic mountains of debt- that's just peachy! As long as you're getting even with someone for being more successful than you, then all the government fraud, waste, and outright theft is ALWAYS excused away. In fact, you probably can't wait to hand over even more of SOMEONE ELSE'S money, and more power to some clown in government, because those eeeeeevil companies are taking your money and not giving you something for it; even as you hand over more and more and more money to government that never gives you anything for it!

So you don't like taxes blather blather blather....

Yeah and so you never met a tax (on someone else) you didn't like and you don't like that people call you out for worshiping the nanny state. Maybe you can figure out a way to ban that.

[BadKosh]

Look at the states where liberals are the voting majority. Bankrupt, with poor, expensive school systems and massive welfare. Seems those in power are too stupid to protect the citizens they are supposed to represent. Its a lesson lost on the rank-n-file liberal democrats that their policies and political leanings have caused the damage. Why trust them?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Look at the states where liberals are the voting majority. Bankrupt, with poor, expensive school systems and massive welfare. Seems those in power are too stupid to protect the citizens they are supposed to represent. Its a lesson lost on the rank-n-file liberal democrats that their policies and political leanings have caused the damage. Why trust them?

The dynamic that leads to those outcomes is the fact that the electorate demands certain services, and then balks when it becomes clear that more taxes will be needed to pay for them (but still, they'd like those services).

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Look at the states where liberals are the voting majority. Bankrupt, with poor, expensive school systems and massive welfare. Seems those in power are too stupid to protect the citizens they are supposed to represent. Its a lesson lost on the rank-n-file liberal democrats that their policies and political leanings have caused the damage. Why trust them?

I'm pretty much ignorant on this topic, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this statement is ripe for a devastating response

[BadKosh]

So you think it's just a coincidence that Democrat/left-leaning states are broke, have lousy school systems and are too stupid to quit spending when they don't have the tax dollars?? California is a prime example.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So you think it's just a coincidence that Democrat/left-leaning states are broke, have lousy school systems and are too stupid to quit spending when they don't have the tax dollars?? California is a prime example.

California is a prime example of what I just posted about, made worse by its referendum system that lets the public vote directly for spending propositions independent of tax policy.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So you think it's just a coincidence that Democrat/left-leaning states are broke, have lousy school systems and are too stupid to quit spending when they don't have the tax dollars?? California is a prime example.

Massachusetts currently has a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the nation, and things are looking up baby!

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So you think it's just a coincidence that Democrat/left-leaning states are broke, have lousy school systems and are too stupid to quit spending when they don't have the tax dollars?? California is a prime example.

Do you have any examples of this beyond CA? It's a pretty bold and definitive claim with little evidence.

And saying "blue" sates have the worst schools in America:

5 Best:
Maryland (Blue)
Massachusetts (Blue)
New York (Blue)
Virginia (not solid, but leaning Blue)
New Jersey (Blue)

5 Worst:
DC (Blue- but it's a mismash of local and federal control- not indicative of anything but itself)
Nevada (not solid, but leaning Blue)
Idaho (Red)
Mississippi (Red)
Nebraska (Red)

Your argument, to be blunt, it crap. There are more poor red states with lousy education than blue states by a pretty wide margin.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So you think it's just a coincidence that Democrat/left-leaning states are broke, have lousy school systems and are too stupid to quit spending when they don't have the tax dollars?? California is a prime example.

Texas is a blue state? When did that happen?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Do you have any examples of this beyond CA? It's a pretty bold and definitive claim with little evidence.

And saying "blue" sates have the worst schools in America:

5 Best:
Maryland (Blue)
Massachusetts (Blue)
New York (Blue)
Virginia (not solid, but leaning Blue)
New Jersey (Blue)

5 Worst:
DC (Blue- but it's a mismash of local and federal control- not indicative of anything but itself)
Nevada (not solid, but leaning Blue)
Idaho (Red)
Mississippi (Red)
Nebraska (Red)

Your argument, to be blunt, it crap. There are more poor red states with lousy education than blue states by a pretty wide margin.

Do you have a source for these school rankings by state?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

California is a prime example of what I just posted about, made worse by its referendum system that lets the public vote directly for spending propositions independent of tax policy.

Yeah, it's a poor system, but it's also symptomatic of the poor job done by the ruling elite in my state. If the legislature were half-way competent we wouldn't want to overrule them by voter propositions.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do you have a source for these school rankings by state?

2009 Education Week study. The data is pretty consistent with any other study done by pretty much any other group. Do you have any data that contradicts this or supports Mr. Kosh's absurd assertion?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

2009 Education Week study. The data is pretty consistent with any other study done by pretty much any other group. Do you have any data that contradicts this or supports Mr. Kosh's absurd assertion?

I generally avoid the red state/blue state comparisons because even the bluest of the blue; DC is comprised of 42% who identify themselves as liberal. It is a simpleton compartmentalization that often ignores more important demographics and offers very little if any, real analytical value IMO.

I take issue more with the potential metrics used in rating the States' educational achievement than the States themselves. I've seen no data to affirm or contradict your breakdown and I'm as apt to subscribe to Education Week as I am inclined to believe you are.

Is it this difficult to provide a link to the actual data?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I generally avoid the red state/blue state comparisons because even the bluest of the blue; DC is comprised of 42% who identify themselves as liberal. It is a simpleton compartmentalization that often ignores more important demographics and offers very little if any, real analytical value IMO.

None the less, I was responding to a post by Mr. Kosh claiming that liberal states all had failing schools. This was a response to his silly assertion rather than something I dreamed up myself.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I take issue more with the potential metrics used in rating the States' educational achievement than the States themselves. I've seen no data to affirm or contradict your breakdown and I'm as apt to subscribe to Education Week as I am inclined to believe you are.

Is it this difficult to provide a link to the actual data?

Sadly, the only link I can find is here, which just summarizes the data. You need to subscribe if you want a full analysis. However, this information is in-line with everything I've ever read anywhere on the subject, which is that the best schools in the country are generally in wealthy, left-leaning states. These states tend to have better educated populations who in turn insist on better education for their kids. I was speaking out against a wholly unfounded and frankly loopy claim by badkosh. I think the burden of proof is on him and you if you agree with him as it goes against all conventional wisdom.

[stupendousman]

Is there any word on any kind of action that's going to be taking place to pressure this newly determined hate group?

Are we going to have sit-ins to protest the SPLC? Where is their headquarters? Can we organize a march to show solidarity against their hateful attempts to limit the civil rights of normal, average American citizens? Are boycotts against the SPLC in order?

Really, I think it's time to send a message that we aren't going to take their bullying attempts to stifle people's rights and ensure that they are shamed from showing their faces amongst the rest of mainstream America.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Is there any word on any kind of action that's going to be taking place to pressure this newly determined hate group?

Are we going to have sit-ins to protest the SPLC? Where is their headquarters? Can we organize a march to show solidarity against their hateful attempts to limit the civil rights of normal, average American citizens? Are boycotts against the SPLC in order?

Really, I think it's time to send a message that we aren't going to take their bullying attempts to stifle people's rights and ensure that they are shamed from showing their faces amongst the rest of mainstream America.

Contact your local chapter of the KKK. They have a history of opposition to this dangerous and frankly un-American outfit and likely have plans in place to ride this new wave of patriotism. And the best part is you will get to wear a nifty uniform!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Contact your local chapter of the KKK. They have a history of opposition to this dangerous and frankly un-American outfit and likely have plans in place to ride this new wave of patriotism. And the best part is you will get to wear a nifty uniform!

Winner!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Contact your local chapter of the KKK. They have a history of opposition to this dangerous and frankly un-American outfit and likely have plans in place to ride this new wave of patriotism. And the best part is you will get to wear a nifty uniform!

Why would I contact one out of the mainstream hate group to protest another out of the mainstream hate group?

Frankly, your request makes little sense.

Fail.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why would I contact one out of the mainstream hate group to protest another out of the mainstream hate group?

Frankly, your request makes little sense.

Fail.

Don't you get it yet? Its only a hate group when its agenda is in opposition to the Preferred Ideology. Otherwise its a group of patriotic Americans expressing their first amendment rights in the name of compassion, tolerance, and equality.

If you don't agree with them, you will be generally labelled as the lowest common denominator whatever group its fashionable to hate, specifically targeted because of your beliefs, and mocked as a lessor citizen, which makes it fair game to use whatever vile tactics/descriptions necessary.

It won't be a hate group that targets you though, simply a group of people who don't like you for your beliefs, and persecute you for them. Because after all you are a racist, homophobic, bigoted wingnut. You deserve it. You'll find tolerance when you agree with them. You'll find equality when you give up the fruits of your labor to them. You'll find compassion when you too must find your livelihood's sustenance from the teet of government assistance, and subject to whatever politically correct conditions they present you with. Being rich is evil.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

None the less, I was responding to a post by Mr. Kosh claiming that liberal states all had failing schools. This was a response to his silly assertion rather than something I dreamed up myself.

Kosh made two points with regard to red states/blue states; the state of their education and the fact that they're "broke". You seized on the argument you felt had no merit while failing to address the fact that your state listings could second as a breakdown of the states with the best and worst debt conditions, your blue states topping the list of the most indebted states in the country. i.e. "broke".

Anyway, he probably could have said "blue districts" in the case of education because here in the US that's generally what you'll find; a few major cities polling blue with the remainder of cities in that State and throughout the country polling red. The public school system is administered at the city/county level broken into districts, not the State. Notwithstanding the fact that one could spin the point in the opposite direction to show 70% of the top 10 worst performing schools in the country are in blue states.

Sadly, the only link I can find is here, which just summarizes the data. You need to subscribe if you want a full analysis. However, this information is in-line with everything I've ever read anywhere on the subject, which is that the best schools in the country are generally in wealthy, left-leaning states.

Generally referred to as "whitebread" in that they are comprised of little to no diversity. This is what I mean when I say the red state/blue state arguments offer little to analyze because absolutely zero demographic (other than it being blue or red in this case) is considered. The schools achieving the worst are those in inner cities and rural areas where access to resources are challenged, blue or red.

In short, you countered what in your view was absurd with more absurdity.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Notwithstanding the fact that one could spin the point in the opposite direction to show 70% of the top 10 worst performing schools in the country are in blue states.

I'm confused. The list you link to does not support your assertion unless I am reading it wrong. If the worst schools are a the top of the list, than 60% are in red states. If they are at the bottom of the list, than 50% are in red states. If you look at the list in total, it's split 50-50. How do you read this to say 70% are in blue states?

For the record, I am using the 2008 electoral map as a reference, which is being generous to your side, as if we were to base it on the 2010 mid-terms, even more of the failing schools would be in states that voted republican.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm confused. The list you link to does not support your assertion unless I am reading it wrong. If the worst schools are a the top of the list, than 60% are in red states. If they are at the bottom of the list, than 50% are in red states. If you look at the list in total, it's split 50-50. How do you read this to say 70% are in blue states?

For the record, I am using the 2008 electoral map as a reference, which is being generous to your side, as if we were to base it on the 2010 mid-terms, even more of the failing schools would be in states that voted republican.

You could use the 2004 or 2008 electoral maps. To be clear, I was using the 2008 electoral map as well. My assertion was that if I were to spin it for the sake of indicating some red state/blue state phenomena, I could say 70% of the top 10 worst schools are in blue states. Reading from 100 as the worst, back 10 places -3 of the top 10 are in SC (red), the remainder in WI, OR, MN, CA, and NY; all blue states per 2004 and 2008 electoral maps.

Even looking at all 100 with its 50/50 split, your argument is invalidated. Strangely, South Carolina comprised the lion's share of the "red" states appearing on the list 37 times while the blue states show a much broader spread of failure.

[Doofy]

Why does everything in the pol lounge always revert back to red vs blue?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why does everything in the pol lounge always revert back to red vs blue?

It's generally a simpleton tactic used to compartmentalize ideology to make the point of the hour. I was challenging Paco on his use of absurdity to address the half of kosh's argument he felt was absurd while failing to address the other half of kosh's argument entirely; the argument that had much more merit.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You could use the 2004 or 2008 electoral maps. To be clear, I was using the 2008 electoral map as well. My assertion was that if I were to spin it for the sake of indicating some red state/blue state phenomena, I could say 70% of the top 10 worst schools are in blue states. Reading from 100 as the worst, back 10 places -3 of the top 10 are in SC (red), the remainder in WI, OR, MN, CA, and NY; all blue states per 2004 and 2008 electoral maps.

Even looking at all 100 with its 50/50 split, your argument is invalidated. Strangely, South Carolina comprised the lion's share of the "red" states appearing on the list 37 times while the blue states show a much broader spread of failure.

Map reading fail on my part. MN is is blue- I looked at it as red.

However you are missing the point of my argument, which was a retort to badkosh's assertion that blue (or democratic or liberal) states have worse schools than red (republican or conservative) states. In my initial list I showed that it was a mixed bag, just as your figures show. I would still contend, however, that the best school districts in America are in wealthy, liberal-leaning areas. I doubt you can contradict this. And this would be in direct contradiction to his argument and therefore needed to be challenged.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

However you are missing the point of my argument, which was a retort to badkosh's assertion that blue (or democratic or liberal) states have worse schools than red (republican or conservative) states. In my initial list I showed that it was a mixed bag, just as your figures show. I would still contend, however, that the best school districts in America are in wealthy, liberal-leaning areas. I doubt you can contradict this. And this would be in direct contradiction to his argument and therefore needed to be challenged.

I maintain it is "wealthy" and non-diverse that explains the phenomena having nothing to do with "left-leaning". The politics/education connection strikes me as more correlative than causal and IMO your reply to kosh was as absurd as you claimed his initial premise. Where he most definitely was not mistaken was the economic conditions of the states in question; the point you overlooked.

The fact that the left flock to wealthy, whitebread regions of the country is not something I'd contradict as this is the "gated-community" argument I've been making for years to counter the notion of the left's alleged monopoly on tolerance.