HOME | DD
BluePhoenixx β Che Meme
Published: 2012-07-10 01:42:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 7838; Favourites: 75; Downloads: 609
Redirect to original
Description
This is the prime example of liberal ignorance.Related content
Comments: 343
Well, you're stating that he murdered gay people, banned music, burned books and hated black people. And I want to see the evidence.
π: 0 β©: 1
Are you saying that you support a man you know nothing about and you don't believe me? Or do you actually want evidence because you are actually interested in the truth? I'm not going to waste my time giving you proof of something you won't believe anyways because evidence, logic, and proof mean nothing to people who already have their minds made up.
At any rate, here's a good article with sources at the bottom that gives a non biased accounting of the important points of his life and finishes up with the reality of his regime. This should get you started and will be a good gauge of your actual desire to see proof:
[link]
π: 0 β©: 1
Whoa, what a harsh way to respond to a simple request...sorry if I wasted your time.
Ok, first of all, the article's clearly biased: David Thornton is known for being both a conservative economic libertarian, and an anti-Democrat so he can't be neutral. Next, his sources come from both Humberto Fontova (Cuban exile) and Alvaro Vargas Llosa who are well known anti-communists, and Paul Berman article doesn't cite a single source, while Bruce Harris page has a comment at the bottom stating His views (contravening the standards of journalism), also the Time article can't be read if you're not a member, and the rest are not available anymore. Second, this article has nothing to do with the Che: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not harsh when it's the reality. I was seriously asking if you didn't know anything about him and yet you support him or if you were legitimately looking for evidence.
"...sorry if I wasted your time."
This is what I said verbatim, you tell me if I'm wasting my time: "I'm not going to waste my time giving you proof of something you won't believe anyways because evidence, logic, and proof mean nothing to people who already have their minds made up."
"Ok, first of all, the article's clearly biased:"
The majority of his article actually painted the heroic scene that libs like to see and when I first read it I thought it was just another pro Che article. It wasn't until the last few paragraphs when he let out his actual feelings and brought out the facts that Che supporters like to gloss over. Just because the writer has a bias, that doesn't mean that his facts are wrong.
I gave you that article to see if you were just going to make excuses, to test out the waters if you will, and you didn't disappoint. You're in denial about him and you aren't going to believe any amount of evidence or proof against him. Again, Just because the writers are against him, that doesn't mean that their reasonings and facts are wrong. It looks like you are on the other extreme and you only believe the pro Che bias. Do you really think that every account of his mass murders and bigotry are just made up to slander him? If that's your belief, I rest my case because you are beyond listening to facts at this point.
Did Che not say these things?:
"I'm here in Cuba's hills, alive and thirsting for blood."
"I really like killing."
"If in doubt, kill him."
Yeah, this guy is a real winner worthy of praise and admiration. Certainly the "hero" liberals deserve because this is what happens when you don't actually do your homework about the people and policies you support so fully, true to liberal form. You end up idolizing the worst in society and policies that do more harm than good at the end of the day.
In short, I'm not going to provide you with any amount of evidence because nothing will satisfy you no matter how legitimate the source is unless it is a pro Che writer, an anti-democracy writer, pro-Maxist/Communist, or an anti-conservative writer.
π: 0 β©: 0
The irony is delicious. And at the same time very, very sad. But those anarchist jackasses that co-opted the Occupy movement (and, for that matter, the unwashed--really unwashed--masses that make up the bulk of the Freeloader Fair) don't know their end from a hole in the ground.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's the problem... and what's even more ironic is that they like to pretend that the conservative base is the unintelligent group. Liberals are masters of projection. Everything they are, they wrongfully label conservatives as. It would be humorous if it wasn't so effective.
π: 0 β©: 2
But the conservatives do the same thing. In the end everyone loses.
π: 0 β©: 1
Scapegoating is all they can do.
π: 0 β©: 1
Lol, this man was a hero. He overthrew a brutal American-supported dictator and helped to install a government that improved the lives of Cubans across the Island. You sadly just don't seem to understand that. And labeling something as "liberal ignorance" immediately leaves people to believe that you are a conservative nut-job.
π: 0 β©: 2
Wait wait, you consider Che a hero and I'M the nut job?? hahahahahahaha
π: 0 β©: 1
You probably think George W. Bush was a hero
π: 0 β©: 1
Just like what the the US right wanted around that time "Hello Kettle, your black." Yeah I admit Che has his faults but around that era there wasn't really a deep understanding of such things, take the US where everyone whined how rock music was created by Satan and had a huge moral outcry, or Africian Americans having to fight for there civil rights, I am amused with someone that has "Ann Coulter" in there Favorite writers talking about the rights of blacks and gays.
But honestly The-Necromancer put it well better than I ever could.
Speaking of book burnings [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
If you had a clue about what you are talking about, I would consider your negative opinion about who I find interesting to read. This racist argument that's perpetuated is based on a lie that people like you are too lazy to actually look into. It's too easy to just believe what you want to hear rather than look up the facts yourself. The Democratic Party was, is, and will likely continue to be the home of far more racists than the GOP.
Let me educate you.
I spent nearly a whole semester of school on this subject because I was tired of liberal idiots like yourself claiming that conservatives are racists. I'm not going to do your homework for you but I suggest you look at the voting records on all civil rights issues. Every time it was passed either because of the Republicans or in cases where the Republicans had a minority in the House, the 80-90% of the Republicans were for it while only around 50-60% of the Democrats were for the bills. Take Civil Rights Act of 1964 as an example. 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. Furthermore, a few years later, it was Republican Richard Nixon who first put teeth behind affirmative action.
Remember Abe Lincoln? Remember Martin Luther King Jr.? Whoβs the only black American currently on the Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas. The first black Secretary of State? Colin Powell. The first black woman ever to be a Secretary of State? Condi Rice. All Republicans. And what do liberals call them? Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemima. Racist much?
Remember Jim Crow and his racist laws? Democrat. Republican. Remember George βsegregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation foreverβ Wallace standing in the door of an Alabama schoolhouse to keep black children from being able to go to school with whites? Democrat. Remember Bull Connor turning water hoses and dogs on civil rights protestors? Democrat.
The Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, in contrast to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. It was Abe Lincoln, a Republican President, who led the North to victory in the Civil War and freed the slaves while the Democrats did everything in their power to keep black Americans down.
1898 in Wilmington, N.C., Democrats murdered black Republicans so they could stage, βthe nationβs only recorded coup dβetat.β In 1922, Democrats in the Senate filibustered a Republican attempt to make lynching a federal crime. A little later on, FDR nominated former Klansman Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Contrast that to Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who actually sent troops to ensure that schools in Little Rock, Ark., were desegregated and ordered the βcomplete desegregation of the Armed Forces.β
Noticing any trends? Probably not because you're probably not reading this anymore since it disagrees with your warped world view. But I digress.
A Yale professor looked at voting record and had this to say: ββ¦(W)hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black. β¦In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black.β However you slice it, there are a lot more white Democrats than white Republicans willing to defect to the other side rather than vote for a black candidate.
A Stanford professor conducted another study and this is what was said about it: βBut for Democrats, race mattered β and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minorityβ¦.β Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. βHowever, their position is βprincipledβ in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues.β
Hereβs the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOPβs belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, theyβll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply wonβt. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennettβs condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans.
This is all despite the fact that for a large number of black Americans, the GOP is a much better fit than the Democratic Party. The GOP is the party thatβs friendly to religion, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, tough on crime, and for low taxes and school vouchers. Yet, so many black Americans have been deceived into sticking with the Democrats even though the Dems do so many things that are harmful to our country as a whole and to black Americans in particular.
π: 0 β©: 3
Ahh. One problem. You conflate "consevative" WITH "republican". In that era the Southron democrats WERE the 'conservatives'.
π: 0 β©: 1
Unless you want to make the case that only 20% of the Republicans were conservative and 40-50% of Democrats were also conservative, you really don't have a case. This is a common lie liberals like to tell themselves to excuse the actions of the past. This magical switch of parties is a joke. Parties change over time but they certainly don't do a 180.
You are disregarding everything else I mentioned that has nothing to do with that era based on that false narrative. Let's say that it's 100% true. That doesn't explain the current events and racial voting records of Democrats and Republicans. That doesn't explain why conservative world views are a better fit to the world views of the black community than liberal views.
π: 0 β©: 0
Sooo TL;DR:It's okay for Republicans to do all the things you claim liberals do, even though there's nothing showing liberals doing it?
Your logic amuses me.
π: 0 β©: 1
First, that's not how you use "TL;DR" and second, you obviously "DR" it because if you did read it, you would see all of the proof showing liberals doing it and the proof that Republicans don't do it. Next time you should probably read what you're responding to. If it's too long, skip it and and save yourself from looking ignorant by not commenting.
Your logic... well there is none.
π: 0 β©: 1
Then explain Terry Jones.
π: 0 β©: 1
What about Terry Jones? How about you explain why you don;t have a real response to the proof that liberals are the racists here? Oh because you would rather avoid the truth than admit it? Typical, ignorant liberal.
π: 0 β©: 1
I never said I was liberal. And Terry Jones tried to orchestrate the Koran burning.
Why don't you explain to me how that's neither racist, nor hypocritical?
π: 0 β©: 1
"I never said I was liberal."
You don't need to, your ignorance and rhetoric does that for you. If you're not a liberal, what are you?
Terry Jones isn't a symbol of conservatives. Terry Jones isn't plastered all over shirts and cars. Conservatives hate Terry Jones as much as liberals do. I'm not excusing him for his bigoted and hateful views. He is a hypocrite and a racist. It's you who can't admit that the Left idolizes a homophobic, racist who murders and burns books. You're a fool if you think Terry Jones is to the Right what Che Guevara is to the Left. How about you explain why Che is a symbol of the Left.
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay, well what about Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh? Hell even Glenn Beck is an out of the closet nutjob. They've all said some pretty ridiculous things that are racist or just downright silly. Are you gonna tell me they're justified in some way?
No probably not. You're just gonna keep screaming "Liberal" because you're afraid of your views being questioned.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm going to tell you that Coulter, Limbaugh, and Beck may have radical opinions in your eyes, but they aren't racist, they haven't burned books or even advocated it (in fact quite the opposite because education cures liberalism), and they haven't MURDERED anyone. You are trying to make an apples to oranges comparison. If all Che did was voice his opinion, like Coulter, Limbaugh, and Beck, I wouldn't care for a second that you people think of him as a hero... But that's not all Che did.
"No probably not. You're just gonna keep screaming 'Liberal' because you're afraid of your views being questioned."
Remember how it's you who can't answer a question while I've answered all of yours? Exactly. You're hypocritically projecting your own fears on to me. Why can't you answer what you are if you aren't a liberal? Because you are lying? Why don't you explain why Che is a symbol of the Left? Or are you too afraid of your views being questioned?
Before you say that I'm not facing your questions, you might want to answer mine first. Stop being a little bitch.
π: 0 β©: 0
"liberal idiots like yourself."
Not a liberal by the way, got to love the whole decrying liberals for everything thats wrong in the world today. I do admit I'm not wholely against the GOP I do admit Abe and others did good things in the past but that was a long time ago and its easy to see how distorted the party has become, granted I don't dislike republicians all togerther my favorate republican organization is Log Cabin Republicans for sure~
I do agree with them being friendly to religion, I mean my pagan friends get nothing but repression from Conservatives these days over there religion and I do look forward to the day the US has a buddhist President, so I for one welcome the GOP being friendly to religion.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Not a liberal by the way..."
It's funny how often I hear that from liberals who either don't want to admit it or don't even realize they are liberal. Also, they never say what they actually are, if not liberal... as you just did. Your comment was based in typical liberal rhetoric. If you don't think you are a liberal, you might want to think about the way you say things because your comment certainly reflects liberal brainwashing. What would you consider yourself then? Communist/Marxist like The-Necromancer? Even he admits that Communism/Marxism is in the liberal vein. "Old liberalism" in his words.
I would also like to make one more point concerning your original comment. You aren't even comparing apples to apples here. Saying that the killing of gays and blacks is on par with disagreeing with gay marriage and, as I just explained, the false premise of racism in the Republican party is ridiculous at best. Republican beliefs and actions are nowhere near Che's beliefs and actions.
π: 0 β©: 1
I would not talk to since she is fine example, how do communist lies pollute minds of people - have a look at her arguments here [link] , following to her testimonies, she considers communism as nationality, not to mention she denies Andrei Sakharov and other dissidents being Russians.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't like to ignore comments from people, even stupid people... It's a problem (haha). I think part of it is my inability to let people think that they are able to get away with writing nonsense or think they have made a valid point when they haven't.
At any rate, how do you tag someone in a comment like that so that their picture shows up?
π: 0 β©: 2
"she considers communism as nationality,"
I never even said that, if you even read the link so kindly provided my quotes back me up. I'd have responded personally but he blocks everyone that does not agree with his opinions to act like he uberpwned everyone in every debate.
βThe very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.β
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree, if someone has pleasure in proving own stupidity, it is that person's problem. Especially on American website with implied US federal law, including the unlimited freedom of speech.
It is nothing difficult, all you need to do is typing combination of words " iconusername " between colons without gaps and quotation marks.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah I hear ya. I always thought this was a UK website though by the way they spell words like "favourites" and such where we don't typically throw in a "U"
Let's see if I can get this to work.
π: 0 β©: 1
Some of the admins are British indeed, but most of them are Americans.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh nice. Good to know haha
π: 0 β©: 0
People love symbols and heroes, but they rarely know a lot about either.
π: 0 β©: 1
awesome!!!
I seriously think most people who wear these shirts are trying to look rebellious or cool.."Hip" which to me denotes shallowness and superficiality. They know little about what they are wearing..but they can wear it in our relatively free society.
Any Leftists who try to defend such historical people are fools and infected with relativism..they would have HATED living under such systems they prescribe. Or a few would enjoy the power they would wield over others..
π: 0 β©: 1
"I seriously think most people who wear these shirts are trying to look rebellious or cool..'Hip' which to me denotes shallowness and superficiality."
That statement seems to sum up liberals in a nut shell. That's really all they are. Shallow, superficial, children wanting attention through their looks and activities. There's really nothing deep about them or their ideology.
"they would have HATED living under such systems they prescribe."
Exactly. Well said.
π: 0 β©: 1
The thing is that the nature of the Left is to always look to the new and forget their own history(like the New Left laughing at the older American Socialists)..which shows that the ideology does not work or causes major problems in Social Democracies like our United States..(yes we are a Social Democracy thanks to Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ).
I can respect the elements of the non-Trotskyite Old Left that rebelled against the Bolsheviks(George Orwell is an example) but in the end even their ideas were misguided..in the early 1900's they had an excuse that no one knew what Socialism and its cousins would wrought..I would be an idealistic Left winger in that time..I'm lucky to live A hundred years later and see what it has wrought all across the board..
Check out the books Daniel Flynn's A Conservative History of the American Left and Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism..these are great books about the Left in America.
Remember.."Socialism is for the people, Not the Socialist! (Andrew Wilkow)"
π: 0 β©: 1
I was just replying to someone else about this mentality that they have. They look down on people for looking back and doing what has been done before. Well, guess what, we do that because those are the things that work. We don't like socialism because it has proven not to work. We don't like entitlements, because it has been shown that it doesn't help in the long run. We don't like this participation trophy attitude where there's no winners or losers because we live in the real world where there are winners and losers. We don't like taxation to pay for the policies that we don't agree with because NONE OF THOSE POLICIES WORK!! Here's a few little sayings that I just read the other day that applies to our political atmosphere right now:
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything the the government does not first take from somebody else.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
π: 0 β©: 1
All true statements. This should be obvious to most but few people even think for themselves..
True Conservatism realizes that life is not perfect, that man is flawed and that not everyone is going to or supposed to make it..it sounds cold hearted but it is a more sound basis for policy than the emotionally driven views of the Left..their views sound more humane yet coercion is needed to make it happen..not coercion of criminals but of the common man!!! External control of human nature rather than restraint from within, which is the basis of morality.
It worships Power and the State..all for the "common good" and a "brotherhood of man"..But men with power will always be corrupted.
I'm glad there are younger people who understand this..as a Leftist in my twenties I understand the other side well..Figures I was Conservative as a little kid!
π: 0 β©: 1
Very true. It's too easy to just accept what people tell you, especially if it's something you want to hear.
You're right, conservatism is about and based on reality and realism, not fantasy and emotion like liberals. Conservatives realize that there are winners and losers in this world and that not everyone is created equal. That isn't to say that everyone shouldn't be treated equally and given respect. Liberals just don't understand that. They think that people should all feel good and that nobody should be allowed to fail. This "participation trophy" mentality, if you will, is such a crock. There's a reason why some people sit on the bench while others start and get the MVP trophy.
Again, I agree. Power corrupts and politicians will always be corrupt somewhere down the line. This is the failings of big government. There should be just enough to keep everyone in line and no more. There can't be too little because that's why we hopped the pond to start a new country here and there can't be too much because we the government can't even be trusted to tie its own shoes, let alone run everything in our lives.
It gives me hope that not all people my age are liberals, even though that's how it seems when you enter a university. I used to be a liberal in my teens... but then something happened... I grew up.
π: 0 β©: 1
Living life with its demands and exposure to reality will make one Conservative or at least shift to the "Right"..if they are brutally honest with themselves and the world around them..
The counter to that is that most people cant much bear reality as they say..so the delusion continues and comes back with a new face and designation.
We need more young people like yourself who realize this! If only to be a buffer against the rising tide of leftism.
π: 0 β©: 1
How true it is. It's easy to be a liberal when you are in school and when your mommy and daddy are paying for your life. It's easy to be a liberal when you don't have a company to run or even a job with an ounce of responsibility. It's easy to be a liberal when there are no consequences in your life.
I'm glad to see that I'm in good company in the political realm. I've noticed within the past few days that the most calm and the most logical people are the conservatives in the debate. Maybe it's my bias, but all too often, the liberal is the first one unhinge and lose control in any debate. If they only knew how that made them look... Im ok with it though, it solidifies my beliefs when they start acting like little children when they are cornered.
π: 0 β©: 1
Consequences. Thats exactly the point! Everything we do and don't do has consequences..you cant mock and dissect a culture for decades and then wonder why no one has any respect for anything anymore!
I should get into more debates but the truth is that there is little common ground on which to debate anymore with Leftists. They would die before conceding one point! They mock religion yet they have traded one for another..ideology!
The humanists had their century and they did everything the Monarchists and Church and Capitalists they despise did and then did it a step further.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think that's one of the major problems with liberalism. They want to take away all of the negative consequences of life no matter the cost. Abortion is a prime example. They want to be able to slut around irresponsibly and then kill any life they create if they don't want it. Then in their attempts to justify they make irrelevant arguments and demonize other solutions. All of a sudden the baby inside of them is magically their body, and all of a sudden adoption is more cruel to children than just killing them before they are born.
Again, that's another problem with liberals. You will never ever see them concede a point. If they know they are wrong they will always always push the goal back. Facts, statistics, and logic means nothing to them if it proves them wrong. There has to be some other explanation or some other variable that isn't considered. It has gotten to the point where recently I've been hearing the argument that statistics are unreliable and just another way of lying. ARE YOU KIDDING?? Any objective and quantifiable evidence is now being discredited because it simply doesn't fit their schemes. It can't be that they are just wrong, it's that math is all of a sudden unreliable.
It's funny that you mention that they have replaced religion with ideology. I have always compared it to that by saying that liberalism is the religion of the left. I could go on and on... I would love to see a liberal read this thread and see what they have to say about it, but chances are, they would never read anything that disagrees with their world view unless they are reading it with the intent to argue, not to understand.
π: 0 β©: 0
the Che phenomenon is a product of capitalist detournement as much as blind romanticism. it's a fad, and will pass in time...
π: 0 β©: 1
I couldn't agree more.
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>