[JBnTX]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

...There are more white males in the south on welfare than any other demographic in the country. Households in the south headed by white males represent the largest percentage of welfare users in the entire country...

Then how come all that poor white trash doesn't have the same political clout that the blacks on welfare do?

[kirgi08]

[Bren]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

Then how come all that poor white trash doesn't have the same political clout that the blacks on welfare do?

There wasn't a poor white trash civil rights movement in the 60's that set out to make poor white trash the pets of white liberals. There isn't a whole industry of poor white trash marketing experts who make a living keeping that going, like Jesse and Al do. Just bad public relations.

[barbedwiresmile]

Originally Posted by Stevekozak

I don't disagree with all of it, but that is a pretty broad brush you are painting with there. I think your theory centers around that population being more or less uneducated, and that is no longer the case en toto.

Just to clarify, I don't think the dynamic I describe has anything to do with education level. I think it's more cultural. There remains in the South a deep and rather ironic identification with the state, manifesting more overtly in 'patriotism' and the worship of 'law enforcement', and more subtly in voting patterns and the enabling of big, intrusive government. Also ironic, historically speaking, is the current widespread support of prohibition.

[Stevekozak]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Just to clarify, I don't think the dynamic I describe has anything to do with education level. I think it's more cultural. There remains in the South a deep and rather ironic identification with the state, manifesting more overtly in 'patriotism' and the worship of 'law enforcement', and more subtly in voting patterns and the enabling of big, intrusive government. Also ironic, historically speaking, is the current widespread support of prohibition.

I understand your point. I guess it depends on what part of the South you are from. While Patriotism is a rampant theme from my family structure, moonshining was also a big part of family history going less deeply back than one might think. Worship of law enforcement and support of prohibition was really not part of the culture I grew up in (although drinking in church was widely discouraged!).

[Bren]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Just to clarify, I don't think the dynamic I describe has anything to do with education level. I think it's more cultural. There remains in the South a deep and rather ironic identification with the state, manifesting more overtly in 'patriotism' and the worship of 'law enforcement', and more subtly in voting patterns and the enabling of big, intrusive government. Also ironic, historically speaking, is the current widespread support of prohibition.

I don't think you know very much about the south that didn't come from your imagination.

[happyguy]

Wow! Poor white trash.

Who'd a thought?

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

[Cavalry Doc]

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

As a white, Southern male, I have to agree with Ivan on this. Even if you put aside the religious elements and focus on the pragmatic issues, this white Southern male demographic has supported big government through their unquestioning uniform and flag worship every step of the way. They support granting government unprecedented powers as long as drugs or terrorism is used as the motive. They support the Patriot Act and then wonder why a government thus empowered can enact gun control. In general, this is a group not particularly savvy in terms of pattern recognition. They are willing to sacrifice the fourth amendment and then wonder why the tenth and second are under attack. It's a group that is reliably pro-police, pro-prohibition, and pro-military adventurism in foreign policy. Then they sit around scratching their heads and looking for scapegoats as to why we have the largest and most expensive government in history.

Agreed. It's interesting that the states who are relatively decent on guns are also strict to harsh on dope: Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty

Agreed. It's interesting that the states who are relatively decent on guns are also strict to harsh on dope: Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

And isn't it funny that Washington State, after "legalizing" MJ under "personal freedom" is considering some very harsh gun laws?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Originally Posted by barbedwiresmile

Just to clarify, I don't think the dynamic I describe has anything to do with education level. I think it's more cultural.

I've lived in many states and have traveled in most other states. I think you hit it right. The lack of pattern recognition to which you refer in your other post is really evident to me in the South and the east coast. These two large regions often represent polar extremes in their own thinking.

I did not observe these extremes in the Midwest, but of course, this is speaking broadly. The West (not the west coast) probably recognizes that pattern the most.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Originally Posted by countrygun

And isn't it funny that Washington State, after "legalizing" MJ under "personal freedom" is considering some very harsh gun laws?

Yeah, with regard to BWS' pattern recognition, WA is similar to places like Alabama and Louisiana; however Washington's extremes can also be attributed to a strong geo-political element. You have Seattle, then you have east of the mountains.

In any case, I wouldn't really want to live in any of the aforementioned 3 states.

[TX OMFS]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

Did you buy into the war on women propaganda during the election?

No.

The R's are not pushing a war on women, which was really just prog speak for not wanting to pay for birth control and abortions.

There is, however, a cultural push to demasculinate men and claim women as being the same as a men. They've already got you walking lock step.

I don't believe in unicorns. I do believe in horses. The fact that unicorns are imaginary doesn't mean hoses are imaginary.

[hogship]

Originally Posted by TX OMFS

No.

The R's are not pushing a war on women, which was really just prog speak for not wanting to pay for birth control and abortions.

There is, however, a cultural push to demasculinate men and claim women as being the same as a men. They've already got you walking lock step.

I don't believe in unicorns. I do believe in horses. The fact that unicorns are imaginary doesn't mean hoses are imaginary.

Pretty powerful, TX......

I've been following this thread, and have not decided just how to respond to it. You covered a few points I was contemplating how to make, and did it well.

Yes, there is a war on manhood.

No, there isn't a war on women.

ooc

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by TX OMFS

No.

Okay, and I'm assuming you didn't buy into that because it was fabricated propaganda designed to convince people who didn't know any better, right?

Originally Posted by TX OMFS

There is, however, a cultural push to demasculinate men and claim women as being the same as a men.

Yes, there is a push to do this by a minority, as there is a push by small groups of people to do a lot of things. It doesn't mean there's a widespread war. You aren't able to understand the difference.

[barbedwiresmile]

Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty

I think you hit it right.

Yeah but didn't you hear Bren? I know nothing about the South

I would add this, and it is likely true of other areas of the country as well: the average Southerner to whom I am referring (not the trailer park meth cooker of stereotype but the majority, the first or second post-rural generation suburbanite) is blissfully unaware of how "law" is made in the modern day kleptocracy. I do believe this problem effects most Americans. Were they to understand, any sympathies with enforcement would quickly be set aside. As it stands, however, a strong normalcy bias and generally naive view of politics and politicians works counter to serious purpose in discussing this issue. The nature of power politics really hasn't changed much over the millennia, and it's only the current legal framework that makes corruption more profitable than scheming and outright violence among the sociopaths that are attracted (as they always have been throughout human history) to 'government' rather than production. There seems to exist in the South, and perhaps throughout America, an idea that the "law" exists to somehow serve one's greater interests of safety and security, that the "law" is something to be respected, rather than the reality that the "law" is made cynically, with primary interests being the creation of barriers to marketplace entry; the creation of captive markets for sponsors; the pacification of voting blocks; and the enrichment of political insiders, their investments, and their kin.

The third and final characteristic of the modern Southerner, and indeed the modern American, is a deeply rooted economic ignorance that manifests in myriad ways - but most importantly for any discussion of politics, it manifests in a lack of understanding as to what a "job" is, why it exists, what sustains or expands it, and the difference between a job and a subsidized activity one may engage in while being given renumeration via political fiat. This misunderstanding runs rampant on GT, of course, given the demographic from which so many members are drawn.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

I assume that's your way of admitting you were wrong. After all, I think the above sentence, in one form or another, represents about 50% of your replies to my posts (or anyone's posts that you don't like).

No, I just realize that there is a huge philosophical and culteral difference in this country, and you and I are on different sides, and like everyone else, no one is moving from their side.

But, if it makes you feel better, it's more than obvious that yourside is winning and getting into a higher majority in this country every day. You can probably relax as it appears we are past the tipping point of people like you ever not being the ones who elect the President and a majority of Congress.

Or at least relax until you are out of other people's money.

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by series1811

No, I just realize that there is a huge philosophical and culteral difference in this country, and you and I are on different sides, and like everyone else, no one is moving from their side.

And people like you are the reason the left is winning that battle, you're just too ignorant to see it. Most Americans identify with republicans on fiscal issues, but many of those people vote on social issues.




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[JBnTX]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

And people like you are the reason the left is winning that battle, you're just too ignorant to see it. Most Americans identify with republicans on fiscal issues, but many of those people vote on social issues. ...

Name calling is a sure sign you're losing the conversation.

You guys are always so quick to blame all this country's problems on one single individual, just because he disagrees with you.

You call the American voters stupid and ignorant.
You can't find anything good to say about the republican party even though it's the only thing slowing down our nosedive into a socialist hell.

It's getting really old.

..

[sugarcreek]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

Yes, there is a push to do this by a minority...It doesn't mean there's a widespread war...

Effort then...

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

Name calling is a sure sign you're losing the conversation.

..

Who's winning or losing this conversation isn't debatable, the last two elections are proven formulas for the democrats. They're winning on social issues. You're on the wrong side of history, pal. If you honestly think another president will get elected while preaching about social issues, you are too far gone for me to convince you otherwise. Your head is in the sand, and you just refuse to accept the fact that a republican is no longer going to win unless they can steer clear of the preaching on social issues.

Originally Posted by JBnTX

You call the American voters stupid and ignorant.
..

No, I haven't. If you're going to make things up, just warn me ahead of time and I won't bother discussing that topic with you.

Originally Posted by JBnTX

You can't find anything good to say about the republican party

..

Uh, I've been saying nothing but good things about the majority of the party ever since I joined this forum. Contrarily, I have nothing good to say about the republicans who are far to the right on social issues, because they're ultimately costing us elections and consequently putting MY freedoms and MY money at risk.

[TX OMFS]

Originally Posted by sugarcreek

Effort then...

Exactly.

Call it whatever makes you feel good but it's real. Almost every TV show and movie emasculates a man/men, makes them look dumb or bumbling, or tries to make women the same as men.

Most music on the radio portrays men as slaves to their emotions (though there may be some truth to that...).

Esquire magazine and such can't wait to make men into women. Good little boys behave nicely and sit down to pee.

Liberal politicians are trying to make men irrelevant by substituting the state in all traditional male roles.

It's common and pervasive enough that we don't really even notice it.

When you see men portrayed in pop culture just ask yourself, "Would Sam Elliot do that?"

[TX OMFS]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

Who's winning or losing this conversation isn't debatable, the last two elections are proven formulas for the democrats. They're winning on social issues.

Agreed. The Democrats are wooing women quite well. Goes back to the OP; it's a failure of men.

Yes there is a "war" or whatever on manhood but men are half the population and have at least half the blame. Our society expects less of men, pop culture attacks men, men live up to the new low standard.

We aren't leading women well. If a stupid commerical about lady parts can convince women to vote D then we are failing somewhere. Also, if men have proven to be unreliable and selfish why wouldn't women vote for the state, the one thing that seems to be dependable & stable?

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by TX OMFS

Exactly.

Call it whatever makes you feel good but it's real. Almost every TV show and movie emasculates a man/men

Really? Almost every one of them, huh? So if I can name a whole bunch that don't, I assume you'll admit that you were just being fanatical and exaggerating, right?

[TX OMFS]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

Really? Almost every one of them, huh? So if I can name a whole bunch that don't, I assume you'll admit that you were just being fanatical and exaggerating, right?

Look, you're playing the word police game and avoiding the loftier discussion of ideas and concepts.

Still I'll indulge and answer your question: Yes. Start the list.