International I Hate Sports Club

Lewis wrote:I must say, I do question people who would willingly listen to the words of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

I have often thought seriously about relocating to England, where I am a citizen by descent. Would they treat someone with decency and respect over there if his SAT scores were in the top tenth of a percentile?

It depends how old you are. If you're an adult looking for employment then of course, they'd like to hear that. They always go for the best brains; the guys with the know-how. But if you're at high school with scores of moronic egoists only wanting to compete against each other in a stupid and vain manner in areas like popularity, "getting the chicks", alcohol consumption and, of course, competitive sports, then to reveal something like that would result in this - GEEK! GEEK! GEEK! GEEK! GET A LIFE! GEEK! Kids, eh. With them, not being a complete half-wit is something abnormal! I'd like to relocate to a country where the academic young could be respected and admired by their peers, not just subjected to torment by them because they don't enjoy all the idiotic crap like smoking and getting drunk. Don't start thinking that England is radically different to America - the jock culture may not be so big over here but there are plenty of other young idiots who will make academic achievement seem like something to be ashamed of!

Best regards,
i_like_1981

On the other hand, I might have more of a shot in Britain than would someone who was actually from Britain and spoke with a British accent. I could pretend it was only "soccer" that bored me, and that I loved "real-man sports" like baseball. I could carve out a niche for myself as a sort of eccentric country yokel who liked to watch "grown men playing rounders", a game that the Brits think is better left to little girls.

~~~~

Thank you so much for not over-reacting, i_like_1981, when I so rudely and arrogantly boasted about my SAT scores last night. I just get so sick of America sometimes. The thing is, there does not seem to be a place in the United States for me. If you want to get anywhere in the United States it seems like you have to be a natural leader, which I am not. I do believe I am quite smart, but my thinking is too abstract and wild to allow me to make sound decisions in the real world. However, I could be a terrific follower and role-player. But the United States is Volkswagen country, where only drivers are wanted. "Drivers" in my country are taught that greed is good (i.e. that individual financial success is what matters) and that followers are meant to be used and then put out with the rest of the garbage. Most importantly, girls only appreciate drivers.

There is a comment in the Guestbook by a certain "665321" made on 23.10.10 which typifies the way Americans view followers: Is it possible that some guys subconsciously desire to be dominated or usurped by other males under the guise of "teamwork"? The short answer to that is no. The reason to work cooperatively with others is that people's skill sets are complementary, and two people whose skill sets are complementary can probably accomplish five times as much working together as they could working alone. And if five people can work as a unit somehow, then the sky is the limit.

That is not to say I would ever support Communism, or fascism or the like. In those systems, scum rises, and the artificially constructed "teams" are managed by evil, greedy men who are more interested in dominating and usurping others than in accomplishing anything. Under Communism, people have the ideal of collective accomplishment forced upon them, and for the unsuccessful street-sweepers in a Communist society it proves a very awkward fit. (Just read Ayn Rand's Anthem some time and you'll get the idea. ) Another problem with Communism is that the ideal of individual accomplishment is supposed to disappear entirely, and I don't like the sound of that. A guy aspires to make some kind of mark on the world. Yet another problem is that the economic system doesn't work, and people end up starving.

However, I am not a fan of the GOP's vision for America either. It does not include me.

Unfortunately this GOP vision is conquering the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yydlX7c8HbY

You Might Be A Republican If you think we should stand by our North Korean allies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oEylpSsOsQ

God help us if she ever gets the keys to the White House.

To think that sometime in the future, North and South Korea plan to reunify. Yeah, given what's been happening recently, I can't see that happening any time soon. I can vaguely remember Germany reunifying about 20 years ago and I'm pretty sure they weren't shelling each other at all during their division. You'd have hoped that Communism's iron grip over the world ended with the Soviet Union falling, but no, still it goes on - the great beast has still not been put to rest.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Personally, I will prefer the unification under Pyongyang (I do have a political reasoning behind this, but I will not divulge much as it will be long)

Republicans are essentially anti-intellectual. Like the big part of America. But they have this inconsistency tha tif you came out of a good unviersity with first-class degrees, they treat you like a God (like they do with jocks). Someimtes, I feel America has a split personality.

You Might Be A Republican If you cry every five minutes and look like a tangerine. (Though I thought Boehner did O.K. in his speech)

I've recently been doing some reading on various American politicians so I can get a better understanding as to what Fat Man and co. argue about on here. It seems that I was born in the year Ronald Reagan took office. That happened a few months before I was born, though. Nonetheless, I'm interested to hear what any of our American members here think will happen in the next election. Do you reckon Obama will pull through or do you think the Republicans will get back into power again? Have the Republicans decided yet on who will represent them in the election, or am I talking too soon?

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Yes, i_like_1981, it seems that you're a Reagan baby (as is my older daughter). I happen to be a Truman baby myself. I'm just an oldster. My younger daughter is a Bush baby. I said a Bush baby, not a bush baby.

Judging from Republican victories in the recent Congressional elections, President Obama seems to be in trouble. He could turn out to be a one-termer. But in American politics a lot can happen in two years. Possibly there could be a reaction against the freshman Republicans in Congress. We'll just have to wait to see what happens. If I were a betting man, though, I wouldn't bet on Obama's reelection chances.

The Republicans have not chosen their candiate to run against Obama. The results of primary elections held so Republican voters can choose their party's Presidential nomination will determine the front runner. (Actually, the primary elections are not all that's involved in the process.) Frequently other Presidential contenders in the primaries of certain states are eliminated before voters in other states have a chance to vote for them. Anyway, what this means is that no one can predict whom the Republicans will nominate to be their Presidential candidate. Poll after poll will be taken in the meantime to see who supposedly has the most support; and if you follow our news reports long enough, you will probably get tired of hearing about it all.

I just hope that Haley Barbour, the Republican Governor of the state of Mississippi who recently said in a Weekly Standard interview that Jim Crow "wasn't all that bad," doesn't win the Repubican Presidential nomination, should he decide to run. For that matter, I certainly hope that he isn't chosen to be the Vice-Presidential candidate (horrors!) at the 2012 Republican National Convention. "ABB" -- "Anybody but Barbour "

Earl wrote:I just hope that Haley Barbour, the Republican Governor of the state of Mississippi who recently said in a Weekly Standard interview that Jim Crow "wasn't all that bad..."

I've heard you make reference to these Jim Crow laws several times on this board. I presume these were the laws which enforced segregation between black and white people? If so, it's pretty shaming that somebody who wishes to run for president in this day and age would be condoning such bigotry that I'm sure most of you Americans are rather glad to have put behind you now. But I'm sure if such views get widely known about amongst the voting population then he won't be in with much of a chance. Over here in our country we have an extreme right-wing political party called the BNP who dislike the idea of anyone who's not fully British living in our country, and most rational people in our country are very much against them. Our country is a lot more interesting having had all these foreign influences - many British people enjoy having a Chinese or Indian takeaway or visiting a Chinatown if their city has one. Racism is not the answer to anything, really. We're all human. We all have faults and we all have strengths, and skin colour or creed do not change that fact. I can't understand why somebody would consider a person "inferior" just because of their skin colour.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Hopefully Romney or Huckabee will get the Republican nomination.

I think Obama will be re-nominated for the Democrats, if he hadn't repealed DADT he would have be doomed. As for 2012 I think Obama will be returned by a slim margin.

Since we are talking about the Republicans, I may as well chime in with my own take on American politics.

What Europeans should understand is that even though some liberal Americans, like me, may say that Republicans are "farther to the right" than most conservative parties in Europe, we usually don't mean that they are fascists. Republicans are "extreme" in a different kind of way. They are more like Thatcher, and by that I mean they are "pro-business." They merely take that to an extreme, which I don't believe you find in Europe. Never mind about the latent, untapped human potential that the poor could offer if you helped them get on their feet; never mind that most of the world is determined to fight climate change and sees it as a serious problem; we Americans are not going to allow for anything that might cause the slightest headache for our friends in the private sector. That's the GOP view.

So whereas fascists (like the BNP) are in favour of large-scale government involvement in people's lives, Republicans are in favour of very little government intrusion. Whereas fascists believe in a strong central government, Republicans believe in devolving power to the 50 state governments. I think it is a bit unfortunate that most people have tried to simplify politics using the concept of a "political spectrum", rather than just trying to see political parties for what they actually are. As a result you get Republicans saying that Hitler belonged on the extreme left (i.e., on the side of the Democrats), and you get Democrats saying that Hitler belonged on the extreme right (i.e., on the side of the Republicans). In reality the Nazis were very different from either the Republicans or the Democrats, but our one-dimensional "political spectrum" idea blinds us to the fact.

So whenever I say that Republicans are "farther to the right" than European conservatives, don't think that I mean they resemble Europe's more racist or fascist parties. Basically they are just "extremely" pro-business, pro-privatisation and anti-government.

(Anyway, I don't know much about the BNP apart from its morbid obsession with blood purity, so I apologise if my take on them was wrong...)

Cheers,
RF

PS--One of the reasons the Democrats are in so much trouble right now is that some people in our Party were calling for "single-payer health care." Republicans scored points against us by branding the idea "socialised medicine." But really, what they have branded "socialised medicine" is just the same form of health-care provision that you would find in most European countries. Republicans can't stand the idea that government should do anything at all for people. No matter how badly the private sector is doing at providing some particular service, like health-care, Republicans still insist on letting the private sector provide it.

recovering_fan wrote:(Anyway, I don't know much about the BNP apart from its morbid obsession with blood purity, so I apologise if my take on them was wrong...)

To be honest, I'm not really sure what their policies are either apart from promoting a British nation full of only British people and putting British people first on every issue. I'm not particularly interested in finding out either. They're the closest thing Britain has to a Nazi party, although I'm not sure they'd turn out to be quite as genocidal and merciless as the Nazis were. Nonetheless, I don't want to find out by seeing them getting voted into power. Extremists are a harmful influence and, in bad times when everyone's disillusioned with the incumbent government, must be resisted.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

i_like_1981 wrote:

Earl wrote:I just hope that Haley Barbour, the Republican Governor of the state of Mississippi who recently said in a Weekly Standard interview that Jim Crow "wasn't all that bad..."

I've heard you make reference to these Jim Crow laws several times on this board. I presume these were the laws which enforced segregation between black and white people? If so, it's pretty shaming that somebody who wishes to run for president in this day and age would be condoning such bigotry that I'm sure most of you Americans are rather glad to have put behind you now. But I'm sure if such views get widely known about amongst the voting population then he won't be in with much of a chance. Over here in our country we have an extreme right-wing political party called the BNP who dislike the idea of anyone who's not fully British living in our country, and most rational people in our country are very much against them. Our country is a lot more interesting having had all these foreign influences - many British people enjoy having a Chinese or Indian takeaway or visiting a Chinatown if their city has one. Racism is not the answer to anything, really. We're all human. We all have faults and we all have strengths, and skin colour or creed do not change that fact. I can't understand why somebody would consider a person "inferior" just because of their skin colour.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

I deeply appreciate your remarks, i_like_1981. Your presumption about Jim Crow laws is, indeed, correct. Black Americans were treated horribly under Jim Crow. A prominent U.S. historian once said that the Jim Crow laws bore an eerie similarity to the Nuremburg Decrees of Nazi Germany. Exclusion was the first step. History shows that the next step was genocide.

As a white man who grew up under Jim Crow, I have a personal interest in the subject of race relations. When I was in elementary school in Houston, my parents hired a black man who was a Korean War veteran to work for them as a gardener. A creek ran behind our home. I happened to be home from school with a cold when the following incident transpired. My dad was out of town when this happened. If I remember correctly, he may have been overseas conducting business in India. My mother was a housewife. While he was working in the backyard, the black gardener was bitten by a cottonmouth (or water mocassin). For those of you who don't live in the United States, a cottonmouth is a venomous snake found in swamps and other wet, lowland regions of the southeastern U.S. I distinctly remember my mother telling me that she was going to take him to the nearest hospital and that she would be home in time to cook dinner.

Well, she didn't get home in time to cook dinner. She came home late at night. I remember that when I greeted her at the front door, she was crying. She had taken the gardener to the nearest clinic, where he was refused treatment. Despite the fact that he was a combat veteran who had put his life on the line for this country (and, incidentally, was still suffering from shell shock). My mother never talked to me about this incident (if only because I never asked her about it). But years later my sister informed me of all the details. She told me he was refused treatment solely because of the color of his skin.

Our mom had to drive way across town to find a hospital that was willing to provide treatment for the gardener's snakebite. But even there he was mocked by white racist interns, and he had to wait for an entire hour before he received any treatment at all. Remember, he had just suffered a snakebite.

Racist attitudes were widespread. The father of a friend of mine in elementary school was an attorney who represented black clients in discrimination suits. My friend's father frequently received death threats. Several times his children had to be escorted to school by the police because of the threats his family had received from white segregationists.

When I became interested in national politics as a college freshman, I considered myself to be a liberal because of the issue of civil rights. The record of political conservatives on this issue was absolutely pathetic. The passage of civil rights legislation had long been stymied by a coalition of conservative Southern Democrats and northern conservative Republicans. During this period Texas had a Republican Senator named John Tower. He was the first Texas Republican to be elected to the U.S. Senate since Reconstruction. He voted with the Southern segregationists in Congress on virtually all legislation that was even remotely connected to race (including, of course, the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act). While voting time and time again against civil rights, he claimed to be a friend to black Texans. Yeah, right! Leading political conservatives were unrelenting in their criticism of the civil rights movement while hardly ever speaking a word against the White Citizens Council or the Ku Klux Klan. Political conservatives of the day (including Ronald Reagan) claimed that civil rights legislation was unconstitutional. (Funny, but none of them ever said that Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional.)

For the record, I don't consider myself to be a liberal today. At the risk of possibly offending some of the members and other readers of this forum, I am pro-life (in other words, against abortion except to save the life of the mother). I'm opposed to same-sex marriage. I don't believe that pornography should be legal. But I'm still not a conservative because of the reason I've just stated above (not to mention other reasons as well). I say this so no one will say that I'm simply bad-mouthing conservatives because I'm a liberal.

In the last ten years or so, I've noticed that leading conservatives are trying to rewrite history, specifically the record of their movement on civil rights. They make the disingenous claim that more Republican Senators than Democratic Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that therefore (supposedly) conservatives were in favor of civil rights. (Never mind that their hero Senator Barry Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that Goldwater delegates at the 1964 Republican National Convention removed the civil rights plank from their party's platform.) There is a paricular fact that these people choose to ignore; and that is, at this point in our country's history both political parties had a right wing and a left wing. Almost all of the Republican Senators who voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act were liberal Republicans (often called "Rockefeller Republicans"). These Republicans were despised by the conservatives in their party. And most (if not all) of the Democratic Senators who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Southern conservatives. These Southern conservative Democratic Senators were so reactionary that they make my Republican wife (who, incidentally, has always been opposed to racial bigotry) look like a bleeding-heart liberal. The key word here is "conservative." Almost all of the Congressmen who opposed civil rights legislation were CONSERVATIVES.

Beginning with Barry Goldwater as the party's Presidential candidate in 1964 and continuing with Richard Nixon in 1968, the Republicans began to welcome Southern segregationists into their party. The only reason why some of the leading Southern segregationist Democratic Congressmen did not join the Republican Party was because of the seniority system, which promoted Congressmen who were continually reelected to congressional committee chairmanships. Hence, the Republican Party ended up with leaders such as Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (and party chairman during the Clinton administration, incidentally), who has described himself as a former "James Eastland Democrat." Eastland was one of the leading segregationists in the U.S. Senate.

Thankfully, today there are laws in the United States against racial discrimination, NO THANKS TO CONSERVATIVES. What alarms me is that the disinformation campaign by political conservatives to whitewash their history is working. Younger voters don't realize that the two political parties had changed considerably since the civil rights era. In other words, today the Democratic Party is predominently liberal; and the Republican Party is predominently conservative. The very small conservative wing of the Democratic Party bears no resemblance to the segregationists of yesterday; and the liberal wing of the Republican Party is miniscule.

Lewis, I hope you're reading this. Glenn Beck, for example, claims that conservatives actually authored civil rights legislation during the 1950s and the 1960s. THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS LIE! Joseph Goebbels would be impressed, though. This tactic is taken straight out of his playbook. The Nazi propaganda chief once declared, â??If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.â?

P.S. Just thought I'd copy and paste another quotation, this one from Hitler himself: â??Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.â?

Earl wrote:I just hope that Haley Barbour, the Republican Governor of the state of Mississippi who recently said in a Weekly Standard interview that Jim Crow "wasn't all that bad," doesn't win the Repubican Presidential nomination, should he decide to run. For that matter, I certainly hope that he isn't chosen to be the Vice-Presidential candidate (horrors!) at the 2012 Republican National Convention. "ABB" -- "Anybody but Barbour "

Oh, I was not aware of that remark. I was skimming the thread.

Yeah, I guess there really are racists in the Republican Party--in its Southern branch, at least. I honestly thought they had died out with Strom Thurmond. Well, on behalf of the entire North I can assure you that that idiot from Mississippi will not win the Republican Presidential nomination. However, you do bring up a good point that they may nominate him for Vice President. I can just see Glenn Beck right now, assuring us that the racist views of a Vice President were "no big deal."

--RF

PS--That part about lies and whitewashing (in your more recent post) is even more alarming. It is reassuring to see there are still conservatives (which I consider you to be, based on your views on abortion and gays) who believe in truth and honesty, when many like Glenn Beck are resorting to propaganda.