Quote :

"I don't think even a CE major could go 4 years and still have this must confidence in his own genius. Math major? "

Hey, I heard that. Watch it mister.

So I read the initial monologue, I have the following thoughts as a social conservative,

1.) I am in no way racist. It is for precisely that fact that I oppose affirmative action and other identity rather than merit based initiatives.

2.) I am not a big supporter of the war on drugs. Obviously it has been about as effective as the war on poverty. Besides, who are you kidding saying that drug abuse is just about "violent black markets" etc... I would guess that prescription drug abuse is also a huge problem, perhaps w/o the urban culture of inescapable poverty/crime, but the drug abuse is just as real and damaging to peoples lives. That said I'm not so convinced it is the government's business to meddle in it. Seems to me that junkies hurt themselves for the most part. Granted when kids are involved there are further questions. So long as the person is not infringing on other's liberty I'd like to see a more hands off approach by the feds.

I'd also like to see an end to the FDA, I think we would do better with some independent testing agencies. So long as the internet remains free it could very well serve as a better safe guard than the FDA which is to blinded by its lobbying influence to see clearly.

3.) I am much more concerned about self-serving politicians and government employees than any "junkie", "mexican" and or " a black". It is the politicians who seek to profit from these groups continued subjugation that gets me .

5/5/2008 3:24:08 PM

Quote :

"so one book is meant to refute all the work on the subject. "

Ever heard of Columbus, Galileo, Newton? I suggest you look into them...

5/5/2008 3:40:20 PM

what did columbus refute? Everyone knew the world was round when he set out on his course. If anything, Columbus was refuted by landing on a bulk of land he did not believe existed.

Yet somehow, a book published back in 2006 has yet to pick up any traction with political scientists or historians. What is your response after all to Kevin Phillips?

[Edited on May 5, 2008 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2008 3:41:50 PM

It's nothing more than an opinion, which doesn't make it so. The data suggests otherwise. Economic, not racial, issues had more to do with the shift in Republican strength in the south.

5/5/2008 3:45:08 PM

why don't you make a cult and call it "scientology v2" and start publicly attacking these social conservatives

5/5/2008 3:51:08 PM

So the opinion of the guy who mastered the strategy does not matter, but two political scientists who who have arrived at extremely different conclusions than the rest of the political and academic world are correct?

5/5/2008 3:51:54 PM

LiusClues sure does have great people skills

5/5/2008 4:09:37 PM

Quote :

"LiusClues sure does have great people skills"

You sure do have poor intellectual skills.

No reading comprehension.
No ability to write.
No ability to reason.

You're the quintessential message board troll! Congratulations at being 100% self-parody.

5/5/2008 4:37:41 PM

china is the best...usa sucks...all whites are dumb rednecks...etc...insert other liusclues logic

[Edited on May 5, 2008 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2008 4:50:53 PM

I think you just inadvertently validated his post.

5/5/2008 4:52:42 PM

Quote :

"I think you just inadvertently validated his post."

5/5/2008 5:01:31 PM

i just dont want liusclues to shoot up a school or mall or something cause dude is always in a hateful mood...i worry about him...he's got some serious emotional issues

5/5/2008 5:03:05 PM

I'm a pretty happy and jovial fellow. Imagining me as a hateful person is the only thing that keeps you feeling good about yourself. I'm better looking, faster, stronger, smarter, and more well-liked than you. How else could you justify your own existence unless you had SOMETHING to indict me on? Keep on dreamin', Twista.

5/5/2008 5:07:39 PM

theres a perfect example...behind the false outward appearances of the smilies, he feels the need to counteract his hatred with false hope by saying how good looking and smart he is...i mean who feels the need to say that except for somebody with rock bottom self esteem?

besides...the whole premise of this thread is to vent in a way-too-long post about how much you hate a certain group of people

but keep telling us you're not a hateful person!

5/5/2008 5:19:43 PM

More self-delusion from DreamTwista

5/5/2008 5:36:22 PM

how bout yall talk some issues...yall are worse than all the reverend wright bs

[Edited on May 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM. Reason : economy, iraq, etc]

5/5/2008 6:03:55 PM

so LuShitClues, you are trying to say you are the opposite of:

Quote :

"Jingoistic, flag waving, gay bashing, "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS HAS GONE TOO FAR, YOU CAN'T EVEN SAY NIGGER ANYMORE!", superstitious, judgmental, hypocritical pricks."

so basically if you hate all that so much, you are saying you are an:

AntiPatriot, flag burning, gay loving, PC HASNT COME FAR ENOUGH, AND I AM STILL ENCOURAGED TO SAY NIGGER ALL THE TIME, gullible, refrainer from judgement, who is a pure and honest nonhypocritical caring person.

wow, send me a postcard when you join the suicide bombing wing for alqaeda

5/5/2008 9:44:20 PM

i still think its funny he accuses the southern social conservative crowd for being PC; when it is the bleeding heart liberals that are all about equality, racial harmony, not offending other ethnicities, and PR.

I disagree with dick cheney's chrisitian value moral agenda but i almost guarantee he drops the N-bomb in private settings.

5/5/2008 10:14:23 PM

I'm pretty certain LuisClues is mocking social conservatives who complain about political correctness. So at this part:

Quote :

"Jingoistic, flag waving, gay bashing, "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS HAS GONE TOO FAR, YOU CAN'T EVEN SAY NIGGER ANYMORE!", superstitious, judgmental, hypocritical pricks."

he's saying the part in quotes is something ridiculous social conservatives would say.

5/5/2008 10:20:57 PM

Quote :

"i still think its funny he accuses the southern social conservative crowd for being PC; when it is the bleeding heart liberals that are all about equality, racial harmony, not offending other ethnicities, and PR. "

You drastically mis-read that line, he wasn't saying that at all.

5/5/2008 10:25:01 PM

lol ^ true. so you're right on that one morón. touché



but don't worry my friend Antonio, only the gays and hippies are PC.

5/5/2008 10:41:51 PM

Quote :

"If there can be such a thing as an unjust law, it implies there is a source of morality outside of the law."

Not necessarily. If two laws are in conflict with one another, then one of them must be wrong. I was looking at it from that angle. However, if you look at it from the angle you described, then yes, that would imply that the "justice" is derived from elsewhere. However, it is entirely possible that "justice" is determined by the body of laws. As such, that "justice" could be the basis for calling a particular law "unjust."

Quote :

"This is bullshit. The "voting" majority in Nazi Germany approved the moral standards that jews are evil and should be segregated. This does not mean it was right."

The morality of a person or society can't be called "right" or "wrong" in any way, because such a judgment requires a body of morality on which to base said decision. The fact is, Nazi Germany felt very much that is was right. Their laws said so. You disagree with that, and that's fine. I disagree with it, too. Morality, shockingly, is subjective.

5/5/2008 10:59:09 PM

Quote :

"Not necessarily. If two laws are in conflict with one another, then one of them must be wrong. I was looking at it from that angle. However, if you look at it from the angle you described, then yes, that would imply that the "justice" is derived from elsewhere. However, it is entirely possible that "justice" is determined by the body of laws. As such, that "justice" could be the basis for calling a particular law "unjust.""

Outside of an internal conflict of laws, how then do you propose to evaluate if a law is just or not? The only definition you provide by taking the position that justice is determined by the body of laws is whether the laws themselves say they are just. It's a circular definition - the laws are "just" because the laws say they're just. Or at least they don't conflict with each other.

It leads to a meaningless definition of "justice."

5/5/2008 11:26:05 PM

Legality does NOT equal Morality.

Anyone that thinks so is a tool for the system. This type of mind set is prevalent in the working class who are raised to respect authority. As educated members of society it is not necessarily right to recklessly break laws we do not agree with, however, it is vital that we take a step back and strive to ensure that our laws are just. Working to fix or change those that are not.

[Edited on May 5, 2008 at 11:57 PM. Reason : l]

5/5/2008 11:56:12 PM

Quote :

"don't worry my friend Antonio, only the gays and hippies are PC"

que?

5/6/2008 9:31:48 AM

blistering. i give it a 10/10. you just needed more numbers in there. don't let it consume you LuisClues. i did after John Kerry lost in 2004.

and was there a legitimate response. i got tired of reading the "it's not worth my time" comments and ad hominems so i just said to hell with it.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM. Reason : .]

5/7/2008 10:25:58 AM

Quote :

"Outside of an internal conflict of laws, how then do you propose to evaluate if a law is just or not?"

Why does such a thing matter?

5/7/2008 6:54:09 PM

Did you seriously just ask that?

5/7/2008 6:57:47 PM

yes, I did ask it. Why does it matter if a law is "just" in the context of whether or not a collective body of legislation represents a code of morals?

5/7/2008 7:02:04 PM

There are numerous examples of collective bodies of legislation enacting immoral laws.

5/7/2008 7:09:00 PM

Quote :

"Anybody who doesn't realize who LiusClues is should be taken out back and shot."

5/7/2008 7:21:04 PM

Quote :

"yes, I did ask it. Why does it matter if a law is "just" in the context of whether or not a collective body of legislation represents a code of morals?"

...because we're talking about evaluating moral vs. immoral laws, and therefore such a criterion is pretty much at the heart of such a discussion?

Or, more to the point, the fact that you end up with a circularity logically proves that the idea of laws defining morality makes it impossible to evaluate just vs. unjust laws. Because we admit the possibility of unjust laws - by your own account, in fact, this would imply your premise to be false.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 8:02 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2008 8:01:06 PM