White Nationalist Epithet Is A Smear

[bripat9643]

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

Yes, you answered. You said there are no ethical limitations on government. In other words, you condone slavery. So much for your personal ethics.

I’m sorry if my responses go over your head. You obviously aren’t understanding. Maybe instead of drawing false conclusions you should ask more questions and make sure you are following what’s going on.

Our government operates on laws that are based on the constitution and written by elected officials. Not on ethics. It doesn’t take a genius to know that the morals and values of the people are reflected in our laws and elected leaders... if they don’t follow the will of the people they lose power. Of the laws don’t reflect the will of the people they get changed.

Jim Crow wasn’t moral or ethical so it was changed. LGBT rights is a more recent example. The will of the majority determines what our government and laws do... not ethics

How do you not understand this?

On the one hand, you claim Jim Crow was changed because it wasn't ethical. On the other hand you just said that ethics do not determine our laws, the mob does.

Have you really ever thought about this issue?

Have you thought it through? You seem confused. I don’t think Jim Crow was ethical at all... yet it was law. So you tell me, how did that happen in a system that you claim has ethical limitations.

But you just said that ethics has nothing to do with the law.

 

[Slade3200]

Well “what’s up with that” is easy. Its a bullshit statement. I support issues that I think are smart, beneficial to my community, and those that align with my values. Some of those issues I agree with “left” wing solutions and for others I agree with “right” wing solutions. You like to paint me on one side and call it like it’s black and white, but that isn’t true or honest. I don’t think that’s the case for most people.

If you support policies that use the power of the government to take away from one person to give to another, and to force a person to work against his will for another...you support the values of slavery.

Well you just described exactly what taxation does. So does that mean if you support taxation which funds our military then you support slavery? Come on man you are off the rails.

There's nothing in inherent in taxation that mandates government to give the proceeds to someone who did nothing to earn it.

They give roads, mail service, education, safety, security etc ya know all the things you complain about illegals wanting and taking

They don't "give" anything. The services government provides all suck, and they cost several times what they should cost. So what's your point?

My point was in reply to another poster that said when the government takes from an individual to provide for others it is the same as slavery. Yet another thing that goes over your head. How old are you?

 

[Slade3200]

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

Yes, you answered. You said there are no ethical limitations on government. In other words, you condone slavery. So much for your personal ethics.

I’m sorry if my responses go over your head. You obviously aren’t understanding. Maybe instead of drawing false conclusions you should ask more questions and make sure you are following what’s going on.

Our government operates on laws that are based on the constitution and written by elected officials. Not on ethics. It doesn’t take a genius to know that the morals and values of the people are reflected in our laws and elected leaders... if they don’t follow the will of the people they lose power. Of the laws don’t reflect the will of the people they get changed.

Jim Crow wasn’t moral or ethical so it was changed. LGBT rights is a more recent example. The will of the majority determines what our government and laws do... not ethics

How do you not understand this?

On the one hand, you claim Jim Crow was changed because it wasn't ethical. On the other hand you just said that ethics do not determine our laws, the mob does.

Have you really ever thought about this issue?

Have you thought it through? You seem confused. I don’t think Jim Crow was ethical at all... yet it was law. So you tell me, how did that happen in a system that you claim has ethical limitations.

But you just said that ethics has nothing to do with the law.

Oh really, is that what I said?? Haha. It’s ok to admit you were wrong you don’t have to resort to making shit up.

 

[WEATHER53]

I’m white and love the USA
I guess that’s not good now

 

[Slade3200]

I’m white and love the USA
I guess that’s not good now

Sounds good to me

 

[WEATHER53]

I’m white and love the USA
I guess that’s not good now

Sounds good to me

I’m a victim.
What a lovely wallowing in a vat of bullshit.

 

[Slade3200]

I’m white and love the USA
I guess that’s not good now

Sounds good to me

I’m a victim.
What a lovely wallowing in a vat of bullshit.

It’s your choice whether you go into the “vat” or not

 

[boedicca]

What you really mean is that you keep sticking your foot in your mouth by posting what you actually believe and then you're stepping all over yourself trying to deny what you just posted.

So, please, explain to us, what would be your objection on ethical grounds to bringing back slavery?

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

And yet you support a leftwing ideology that has an end result of turning the masses into slaves of the state.

What's up with that?

Well “what’s up with that” is easy. Its a bullshit statement. I support issues that I think are smart, beneficial to my community, and those that align with my values. Some of those issues I agree with “left” wing solutions and for others I agree with “right” wing solutions. You like to paint me on one side and call it like it’s black and white, but that isn’t true or honest. I don’t think that’s the case for most people.

If you support policies that use the power of the government to take away from one person to give to another, and to force a person to work against his will for another...you support the values of slavery.

Well you just described exactly what taxation does. So does that mean if you support taxation which funds our military then you support slavery? Come on man you are off the rails.

No, not all taxation. Some taxation, i.e. for National Defense, falls into the proper General Welfare category. It is not a transfer payment.

 

[Slade3200]

No wrong again, what I really mean is you have piss poor comprehension skills so when you come back trying to state “what I really mean” you just sound like an idiot.

My ethics would never support slavery... my personal ethics have nothing to do with the topic. You asked what ethical limitations exist for our government and I answered. You either didn’t understand the answer or you are trying to spin and distort it.

And yet you support a leftwing ideology that has an end result of turning the masses into slaves of the state.

What's up with that?

Well “what’s up with that” is easy. Its a bullshit statement. I support issues that I think are smart, beneficial to my community, and those that align with my values. Some of those issues I agree with “left” wing solutions and for others I agree with “right” wing solutions. You like to paint me on one side and call it like it’s black and white, but that isn’t true or honest. I don’t think that’s the case for most people.

If you support policies that use the power of the government to take away from one person to give to another, and to force a person to work against his will for another...you support the values of slavery.

Well you just described exactly what taxation does. So does that mean if you support taxation which funds our military then you support slavery? Come on man you are off the rails.

No, not all taxation. Some taxation, i.e. for National Defense, falls into the proper General Welfare category. It is not a transfer payment.

We weren’t talking about the constitution, we were talking about your statement that taking from some to provide for others is the same as slavery. Well that’s exactly what taxation and government does. It’s not slavery it’s society

 

[boedicca]

And yet you support a leftwing ideology that has an end result of turning the masses into slaves of the state.

What's up with that?

Well “what’s up with that” is easy. Its a bullshit statement. I support issues that I think are smart, beneficial to my community, and those that align with my values. Some of those issues I agree with “left” wing solutions and for others I agree with “right” wing solutions. You like to paint me on one side and call it like it’s black and white, but that isn’t true or honest. I don’t think that’s the case for most people.

If you support policies that use the power of the government to take away from one person to give to another, and to force a person to work against his will for another...you support the values of slavery.

Well you just described exactly what taxation does. So does that mean if you support taxation which funds our military then you support slavery? Come on man you are off the rails.

No, not all taxation. Some taxation, i.e. for National Defense, falls into the proper General Welfare category. It is not a transfer payment.

We weren’t talking about the constitution, we were talking about your statement that taking from some to provide for others is the same as slavery. Well that’s exactly what taxation and government does. It’s not slavery it’s society

Wrong. There is a vast difference between funding national defense and engaging in transfer payment fake charity done at the point of a gun.

 

[bendog]

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

Nationalist is not a smear when used by normal people in the proper sense of the word. It's a smear when you loons use the following bogus logic;

1. Some people are racists
2. Some people are white
3. Some people believe in Natinalism instead of Globalism.
4. There for white people are Racist White Nationalists (who believe in racial segregation).

It's not the proper useage of the word to describe those who believe a nation's social mores are diminished by citizens of one racial group or descended form immigrants form a specific region/race?

 

[boedicca]

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

Nationalist is not a smear when used by normal people in the proper sense of the word. It's a smear when you loons use the following bogus logic;

1. Some people are racists
2. Some people are white
3. Some people believe in Natinalism instead of Globalism.
4. There for white people are Racist White Nationalists (who believe in racial segregation).

It's not the proper useage of the word to describe those who believe a nation's social mores are diminished by citizens of one racial group or descended form immigrants form a specific region/race?

No, it's not a proper usage of the word. The left has tried to redefine it as such, but that doesn't make their definition valid.

 

[bendog]

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

Nationalist is not a smear when used by normal people in the proper sense of the word. It's a smear when you loons use the following bogus logic;

1. Some people are racists
2. Some people are white
3. Some people believe in Natinalism instead of Globalism.
4. There for white people are Racist White Nationalists (who believe in racial segregation).

It's not the proper useage of the word to describe those who believe a nation's social mores are diminished by citizens of one racial group or descended form immigrants form a specific region/race?

No, it's not a proper usage of the word. The left has tried to redefine it as such, but that doesn't make their definition valid.

You are in error.
The Difference Between Nationalism, Patriotism, Sectionalism, and Jingoism
Nationalism has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority. Sectionalism resembles nationalism in its suggestion of a geopolitical group pursuing its self-interest, but the group in question is usually smaller than an entire nation. Jingoism closely resembles nationalism in suggesting feelings of cultural superiority, but unlike nationalism, it always implies military aggressiveness
Definition of NATIONALISM

 

[boedicca]

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

Nationalist is not a smear when used by normal people in the proper sense of the word. It's a smear when you loons use the following bogus logic;

1. Some people are racists
2. Some people are white
3. Some people believe in Natinalism instead of Globalism.
4. There for white people are Racist White Nationalists (who believe in racial segregation).

It's not the proper useage of the word to describe those who believe a nation's social mores are diminished by citizens of one racial group or descended form immigrants form a specific region/race?

No, it's not a proper usage of the word. The left has tried to redefine it as such, but that doesn't make their definition valid.

You are in error.
The Difference Between Nationalism, Patriotism, Sectionalism, and Jingoism
Nationalism has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority. Sectionalism resembles nationalism in its suggestion of a geopolitical group pursuing its self-interest, but the group in question is usually smaller than an entire nation. Jingoism closely resembles nationalism in suggesting feelings of cultural superiority, but unlike nationalism, it always implies military aggressiveness
Definition of NATIONALISM

B'loney. The definition to which you linked merely indicates valuing one's own nation over others and valuing one's own culture over othercultures. That is not racism. I'll also note your leftwing lunacy that sees something sinister in individuals and nations acting in their own self-interest.

nationalism
noun

na·tion·al·ism | \ˈnash-nə-ˌli-zəm, ˈna-shə-nə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of nationalism


1: loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

2: a nationalist movement or government

 

[dudmuck]

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

Nationalist is not a smear when used by normal people in the proper sense of the word. It's a smear when you loons use the following bogus logic;

1. Some people are racists
2. Some people are white
3. Some people believe in Natinalism instead of Globalism.
4. There for white people are Racist White Nationalists (who believe in racial segregation).

It's not the proper useage of the word to describe those who believe a nation's social mores are diminished by citizens of one racial group or descended form immigrants form a specific region/race?

No, it's not a proper usage of the word. The left has tried to redefine it as such, but that doesn't make their definition valid.

You are in error.
The Difference Between Nationalism, Patriotism, Sectionalism, and Jingoism
Nationalism has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority. Sectionalism resembles nationalism in its suggestion of a geopolitical group pursuing its self-interest, but the group in question is usually smaller than an entire nation. Jingoism closely resembles nationalism in suggesting feelings of cultural superiority, but unlike nationalism, it always implies military aggressiveness
Definition of NATIONALISM

While knowing the true definitions of these terms is helpful. One must also keep in mind the true purpose of using these words. This is known as dog whistle politics. With all too effective results, as we've witnessed.

 

[bendog]

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

Nationalist is not a smear when used by normal people in the proper sense of the word. It's a smear when you loons use the following bogus logic;

1. Some people are racists
2. Some people are white
3. Some people believe in Natinalism instead of Globalism.
4. There for white people are Racist White Nationalists (who believe in racial segregation).

It's not the proper useage of the word to describe those who believe a nation's social mores are diminished by citizens of one racial group or descended form immigrants form a specific region/race?

No, it's not a proper usage of the word. The left has tried to redefine it as such, but that doesn't make their definition valid.

You are in error.
The Difference Between Nationalism, Patriotism, Sectionalism, and Jingoism
Nationalism has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority. Sectionalism resembles nationalism in its suggestion of a geopolitical group pursuing its self-interest, but the group in question is usually smaller than an entire nation. Jingoism closely resembles nationalism in suggesting feelings of cultural superiority, but unlike nationalism, it always implies military aggressiveness
Definition of NATIONALISM

B'loney. The definition to which you linked merely indicates valuing one's own nation over others and valuing one's own culture over othercultures. That is not racism. I'll also note your leftwing lunacy that sees something sinister in individuals and nations acting in their own self-interest.

nationalism
noun

na·tion·al·ism | \ˈnash-nə-ˌli-zəm, ˈna-shə-nə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of nationalism


1: loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

2: a nationalist movement or government

Yes, nationalist MOVEMENT OR GOVERNMENT. A nationalist movement does not need to include all citizens who are of a certain race or ethnicity, and Trump's does not. He does not accept judicial impartiality based on ethnicity.

You don't own the language. And Orwell was not a liberal.

 

[boedicca]

Nationalist is not a smear when used by normal people in the proper sense of the word. It's a smear when you loons use the following bogus logic;

1. Some people are racists
2. Some people are white
3. Some people believe in Natinalism instead of Globalism.
4. There for white people are Racist White Nationalists (who believe in racial segregation).

It's not the proper useage of the word to describe those who believe a nation's social mores are diminished by citizens of one racial group or descended form immigrants form a specific region/race?

No, it's not a proper usage of the word. The left has tried to redefine it as such, but that doesn't make their definition valid.

You are in error.
The Difference Between Nationalism, Patriotism, Sectionalism, and Jingoism
Nationalism has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority. Sectionalism resembles nationalism in its suggestion of a geopolitical group pursuing its self-interest, but the group in question is usually smaller than an entire nation. Jingoism closely resembles nationalism in suggesting feelings of cultural superiority, but unlike nationalism, it always implies military aggressiveness
Definition of NATIONALISM

B'loney. The definition to which you linked merely indicates valuing one's own nation over others and valuing one's own culture over othercultures. That is not racism. I'll also note your leftwing lunacy that sees something sinister in individuals and nations acting in their own self-interest.

nationalism
noun

na·tion·al·ism | \ˈnash-nə-ˌli-zəm, ˈna-shə-nə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of nationalism


1: loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

2: a nationalist movement or government

Yes, nationalist MOVEMENT OR GOVERNMENT. A nationalist movement does not need to include all citizens who are of a certain race or ethnicity, and Trump's does not. He does not accept judicial impartiality based on ethnicity.

You don't own the language. And Orwell was not a liberal.

You don't own the language and you certainly don't understand the definition of Nationalism.

And Orwell was smart to not be a liberal-socialist-progressive.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm seeing the Left amping up their use of the epithet "White Nationalist" to smear any Caucasian who expresses patriotic views in support of the U.S. as a sovereign nation.

Calling someone a RACIST is worn out. Normal people see it for the fake "cry wolf" that it is. So now, the Prog-Dems are accusing Normal White people of being what is actually the roots of the Prog-Dem ideology: Neo-KKK.

Don't be fooled. The Real White Racists are the Democrat-Prog descendants of the Democrat Ku Klux Klan.

The reporter who spoke to Trump basically said that he had called himself a "nationalist" and this had emboldened White Nationalists. Now, there are clearly White Nationalists out there, some are on this forum and actually admit to being White Nationalists.

 

[Coyote]

Anyone that believes in the sovereignty of our country is labeled a nazi/nationalist to try to smear them. It’s ridiculous, and seen for what it is anymore.

"You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much," Trump said. "And you know what, we can’t have that."

The crowd began booing as Trump moved on to his preferred descriptor.

"You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, 'Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist. ... Use that word."

So, Trump himself is calling himself a nationalist. Smearing himself?

Nationalist is not a smear when used by normal people in the proper sense of the word. It's a smear when you loons use the following bogus logic;

1. Some people are racists
2. Some people are white
3. Some people believe in Natinalism instead of Globalism.
4. There for white people are Racist White Nationalists (who believe in racial segregation).

It's not the proper useage of the word to describe those who believe a nation's social mores are diminished by citizens of one racial group or descended form immigrants form a specific region/race?

No, it's not a proper usage of the word. The left has tried to redefine it as such, but that doesn't make their definition valid.

The left hasn't redefined it - the nationalists themselves have.

 

[boedicca]

I'm seeing the Left amping up their use of the epithet "White Nationalist" to smear any Caucasian who expresses patriotic views in support of the U.S. as a sovereign nation.

Calling someone a RACIST is worn out. Normal people see it for the fake "cry wolf" that it is. So now, the Prog-Dems are accusing Normal White people of being what is actually the roots of the Prog-Dem ideology: Neo-KKK.

Don't be fooled. The Real White Racists are the Democrat-Prog descendants of the Democrat Ku Klux Klan.

The reporter who spoke to Trump basically said that he had called himself a "nationalist" and this had emboldened White Nationalists. Now, there are clearly White Nationalists out there, some are on this forum and actually admit to being White Nationalists.

Just because some people admit to being White Nationalist (Segretationalists), doesn't make the terms Nationalist and Nationalism suspect when used by normal people.