http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8591#273593

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8591#273769

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8591#273783

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8591#273874

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8591#273882

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8591#273890

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8591#273892

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8591#273923

Please see previous posts and new comments below...

Who brought in the massive numbers of immigrants to create this conflict- the liberals on the left (Social Liberals) and the right (Small L Liberals). They disregarded and discredited the public in their concerns and now there is war. Now anything goes.

I think that it's possible to be "against bigotry" but still evil. As is China's encapsulation of Tibet. Those that "do good" for bad reasons. You could argue that China is just encouraging diversity in Tibet in the same way that multiculturalism and diversity policy operates in the west- in both cases evil is being done in the name of the good.

It seems the racist label is just designed to intimidate and terrorize people into silence.

Toni Lavis said- "He just likes to use these highly charged and loaded terms to demonise people who don't share his particular interpretation of 'conservatism', whilst at the same time handing down sermons from his moral high ground"

Answer- Bad dogs are the lowest of low. They don't do sermons or wear of gods authority. They are bad- fur dishevelled, infested, and black, eyes red, dripping tongue with blood, head belly tail low, elbows and knees.... sort of like the Irish.

Toni Lavis said- "he knows full well that not everybody who dislikes racism is communist, or even necessarily on the left"

Answer- I agree with this- but it wasn't the "right liberals" attacking "the Nazi's" at the St Kilda rally it was the Communists and later the left wing media

Toni Lavis said-

"//SteeleRedux said "don't use openly racist terms"- well... there are serious issues with immigration// Which can be discussed quite easily without being racist. If Bob Carr can do it, what's stopping anybody else? It's not hard: you just treat it as a numbers game; a qualitative rather than quantitative problem. So rather than 'there's too many black people' try 'the immigration intake is too high by x number of people and should be reduced by y%'."

Answer- Many people believe that the cultural values and family or genetic basis are important in the community.

This is a belief that is based on "race"- you can discredit and demonize believers as "Racist"- I believe- those that use the term "racist" are evil. Family is important. Race is an extension of family.

Social Liberalism is against preserving race- but they use the term "Racist"- Liberalism in this context is evil.

So in contradiction to Toni Lavis I believe that many of the issues with immigration cannot be discussed without reference to "race".

I believe Liberal perspective is incorrect-
but at least if "Liberals on the left and the right" avoid using the term "Racist" it's possible to tease out the issues. Anthropology seems to favour the "racist" view.

But if the Liberals have "a vested interest in not discussing the issues" the narrative starts to make sense.

The sad thing is many liberals (the vast majority) believe they are "doing the right thing"- these "do gooders" end up unknowingly helping the far left achieve their goals.

This leads to the debate between meritocracy and democracy- but that's another story

Steeley, whoa there boy.
No need for the tirade, that's MY job.
As for Mr Hitler, he was a traitor to his own kind, he had Jewish blood, look it up, his mother was raped by a mentally deranged very wealthy, twisted man who came from a lineage of the same ilk.
If you want confirmation, it's there right along side Mein Kampf.
It makes for interesting reading, although I have found the history and antics of this family to be WAAAAAY beyond the pale, by any measure of civility.
Still, I would question your stance on this matter and counsel you on your comments on or about CM.
Not to question your point, only your delivery.
I feel CM has made no more or less a point as most others on this topic.
Your response is such that it got me 'off my arse', and take issue.
I read 'every' entry others add to any topic I am subscribed to and usually just read them and move on without comment should I see fit.
Your response was one such that got my attention, (for the wrong reason).
But I respectfully sway to the the fact that it is called OLO.
Just thought you were a tad harsh on CM, when all is considered.

This year a reality check will pull some up fast
Election in both Federal and NSW and it seems likely both may see Conservatives currently infesting the LNP beaten badly
Not enough true right/conservatives exist in this country to hold federal government
We here[ OLO] live in a world not reflective of the real one
Too Trump, staggering under the weight of his own lies and mad promises, to mad supporters, is in for a year he wishes he could avoid
Reality knocks this year on a few doors here

Dear ALTRAV,

Tirade? Hardly.

As usual I return what is being served. If CM wants to shoot off the label 'contemptuous' then I would have thought 'pompous' was very much in the same vein or might it be said the same vernacular.

I mean how pompous do you have to be to make a statement like the one CM offered as his first post here;

“It's fairly easy to see how intelligent someone is- just cut and paste the text into MS Word and check the grade level of the writing.”

So the question is was my delivery that much different to his that you felt the label of tirade was appropriate for my post rather than his? I must admit I'm having a little difficulty seeing it if there was.

Perhaps it was my use of 'prig'. Well a prig is “a self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if they are superior to others”.

I suppose that could be equally applied to all three of us therefore I'm not sure I can be chastised for stating the bleeding obvious, CM is certainly a prig.

As to being harsh I suppose a case could be sustained although I would have thought I was more being direct, calling it as I see it, cutting to the chase, etc etc.

Indeed if those words were applied with little else then harsh would be appropriate. However in my opinion my saving grace is that I make every effort to articulate my reasons for applying the labels I have. No one has made the case that they are without merit.

Likewise no one has made the case that the term 'African breeders' when referring to immigrants isn't racist. The best that CM has come up with was that AC was “referring to those that have children but don't teach them virtue” which was patently absurd.

You may or may not appreciate the ludicrousness of you preaching moderation of language. However I have endevoured to give due response to the points you raised. Happy for you to take it or leave it.

//but it wasn't the "right liberals" attacking "the Nazi's" at the St Kilda rally it was the Communists and later the left wing media//

Yes, and pretty much everybody else. I mean try as hard as you might, you're never going to be able to convince me that ScoMo is a communist or member of the left wing media, and he condemned the juiced-up deadbeats at the St Kilda rally at least as much as any of your imaginary communists.

//Many people believe that the cultural values and family or genetic basis are important in the community.//

Good for them. Remarkably, most of them manage to not be racist.

//Family is important. Race is an extension of family.//

Yeah, because if you're not racist, it's because you're evil and you don't place importance on family.

XD

Do you actually think anybody will buy that, CM?

//I believe that many of the issues with immigration cannot be discussed without reference to "race".//

No, of course you don't. Not because you're racist, of course. Apparently that word isn't PC anymore and we can't use words that aren't PC without upsetting snowflakes. You're not racist, you're 'a member of the pro ethnic purity community'.

//Anthropology seems to favour the "racist" view.//

Anthropology is an academic field, not an ideology.

//The sad thing is many liberals (the vast majority) believe they are "doing the right thing"- these "do gooders" end up unknowingly helping the far left achieve their goals.//

Yeah, because we're all just big dumb thickos. With so many visionaries and geniuses on the conservative side compared to all us intellectual midgets, it's amazing they're not running the show by now.