2016 American Presidential Campaign

[manboychef]

Dropper....you miss the point of what I wrote. I uphold the constitution. The problem is, it was written a very long time ago, and many things have changed since when it was written. The problem I see today is we have a bunch of people trying to change it for their own financial and political gains, when in reality it should be amended to help the american people.

God and love: Ghandi did quite a lot more and he is not just a list of his bad traits, or misdeeds.

 

[MrRoot]

Manboychef, if I would have to pick from US constitution and how it is interpreted in jurisdictions and between Universal Declaration of Human Rights I would go with latter.

 

[spacejunk]

Gandhi was a free loading bum that discriminated against black people, beat his wife and kids and consulted with Hitler on numerous occasions. I guess you can call these "achievements"?

Replace "Gandhi" with "the Pope" or "King George" and most of the main points would still stand.
You're not even trying any more, gawd'n'lurve.

 

[Just A Guy]

I would love for John McAfee / [MENTION=169169]stuffmonger[/MENTION] to chime in here. I know he was active on Bluelight today.

Personally, he makes me cheer, even if he is a bit of a nut. (Takes one to know one.)

 

[SKL]

You know there's a new tagging feature right? I f you want to draw his attention just [MENTION=169169]stuffmonger[/MENTION]

 

[GodandLove]

i'll agree to disagree.

alasdair

Feel free to disagree all you want, doesn't make what I posted any less true.

I just don't know if I should be laughing or crying over those comments

Same goes for you..... laugh, cry or both, don't matter to me.

It seems like GodandLube is being possessed by Trump or something...

I state facts, not wimpy ad hominems.

Replace "Gandhi" with "the Pope" or "King George" and most of the main points would still stand.
You're not even trying any more, gawd'n'lurve.

Or just leave 'Gandhi', 'Gandhi'.... because all the points are valid.

"Gandhi was a free loading bum" 100% factual, he basically lived off the kindness of strangers.

"Gandhi discriminated against blacks" 100% factual, he openly refereed to South Africans as "Kaffir", which is the equivalent of the N word.

"Gandhi beat his wife and kids" 100% factual, He even admits to this in his own autobiography.

"Gandhi consulted with Hitler" 100% factual, Google Hitler and Gandhi, you will find Gandhi's open letter to Hitler referring to him as his friend.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/irene-monroe/the-gandhi-none-of-us-kne_b_842941.html
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1983/3/7/the-truth-about-gandhi-pbtbhe-movie/
http://rev-elution.blogspot.com/2013/08/does-life-of-gandhi-change-our-views-of.html

 

[jammin83]

G&L youre kinda going off topic and bordering on trolling at this point. nobody really gives af about gandhi in this thread.

be grateful and stfu.

 

[GodandLove]

G&L youre kinda going off topic and bordering on trolling at this point. nobody really gives af about gandhi in this thread.

be grateful and stfu.

Are you illiterate or something? I was replying to 'other' people's post about Gandhi, it's not like I just posted all of that for my own gratification.

It would appear the only one trolling at this point is you.

 

[jammin83]

yeah bro, cant read. but i type and respond to posts on the internet.

 

[ColonelPanic]

I'm sorry, what exactly did Gandhi accomplish again? Oh that's right, he got himself assassinated.

Dumb criticism of Ghandi above aside, there's a good deal to criticise in Ghandi (Protip: You'll find this with most historical figures)
Not Ghandis fault directly but as soon as those tyrannical British colonists left India prospered oh no wait, it was divided along religious lines, lost ~250,000 sikhs, muslims and hindus to the sectarian violence the British garrissons had prevented and could have been prevented if Ghandi didn't believe everything to be a European Imperial conspiracy. His failure, or apathy, towards the muslim population led to their migration to a new homeland, Pakistan, which is now of course a nuclear flashpoint with both sides armed, having already fought 4 conventional wars. Do you know what the evil British plan was to prepare India for democratic self rule and grant independence when the transition could be made relatively peacefully? This was the plan for nearly all colonies (they're bloody expensive to maintain for one thing). There is much praise for Ghandi's efforts despite errors and India is a vital part of global democracy. It's just one of those democracies where warheads trump the needs of the people.

 

[Bardeaux]

Gandhi was a free loading bum" 100% factual, he basically lived off the kindness of strangers

As is custom with spiritual leaders in India. He also went on a 21 day hunger strike. Try it out. See what you're made of.

"Gandhi discriminated against blacks" 100% factual, he openly refereed to South Africans as "Kaffir", which is the equivalent of the N word.

Nelson Mandela (maybe you've heard of him) commended Ghandi as a pioneer of the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Perhaps Ghandi was speaking of those who chose to keep their chains? Che Guevara is accused of the same thing, yet fought in the trenches of Africa alongside noone but black rebels. Context.

"Gandhi beat his wife and kids" 100% factual, He even admits to this in his own autobiography.

So did every other red blooded American man in the 1950s.

Gandhi consulted with Hitler" 100% factual, Google Hitler and Gandhi, you will find Gandhi's open letter to Hitler referring to him as his friend.

ok

NSFW:

December 24, 1940
DEAR FRIEND,
That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
I hope you will have the time and desire to know how a good portion of humanity who have view living under the influence of that doctrine of universal friendship view your action. We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents. But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in universal friendliness. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity. Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms.
But ours is a unique position. We resist British Imperialism no less than Nazism. If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny. Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battle-field. Ours is an unarmed revolt against the British rule. But whether we convert them or not, we are determined to make their rule impossible by non-violent non-co-operation. It is a method in its nature indefensible. It is based on the knowledge that no spoliator can compass his end without a certain degree of co-operation, willing or compulsory, of the victim. Our rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls. They can have the former only by complete destruction of every Indian—man, woman and child. That all may not rise to that degree of heroism and that a fair amount of frightfulness can bend the back of revolt is true but the argument would be beside the point. For, if a fair number of men and women be found in India who would be prepared without any ill will against the spoliators to lay down their lives rather than bend the knee to them, they would have shown the way to freedom from the tyranny of violence. I ask you to believe me when I say that you will find an unexpected number of such men and women in India. They have been having that training for the past 20 years.
We have been trying for the past half a century to throw off the British rule. The movement of independence has been never so strong as now. The most powerful political organization, I mean the Indian National Congress, is trying to achieve this end. We have attained a very fair measure of success through non-violent effort. We were groping for the right means to combat the most organized violence in the world which the British power represents. You have challenged it. It remains to be seen which is the better organized, the German or the British. We know what the British heel means for us and the non-European races of the world. But we would never wish to end the British rule with German aid. We have found in non-violence a force which, if organized, can without doubt match itself against a combination of all the most violent forces in the world. In non-violent technique, as I have said, there is no such thing as defeat. It is all ‘do or die’ without killing or hurting. It can be used practically without money and obviously without the aid of science of destruction which you have brought to such perfection. It is a marvel to me that you do not see that it is nobody’s monopoly. If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud. They cannot take pride in a recital of cruel deed, however skilfully planned. I, therefore, appeal to you in the name of humanity to stop the war. You will lose nothing by referring all the matters of dispute between you and Great Britain to an international tribunal of your joint choice. If you attain success in the war, it will not prove that you were in the right. It will only prove that your power of destruction was greater. Whereas an award by an impartial tribunal will show as far as it is humanly possible which party was in the right.
You know that not long ago I made an appeal to every Briton to accept my method of non-violent resistance. I did it because the British know me as a friend though a rebel. I am a stranger to you and your people. I have not the courage to make you the appeal I made to every Briton. Not that it would not apply to you with the same force as to the British. But my present proposal is much simple because much more practical and familiar.
During this season when the hearts of the peoples of Europe yearn for peace, we have suspended even our own peaceful struggle. Is it too much to ask you to make an effort for peace during a time which may mean nothing to you personally but which must mean much to the millions of Europeans whose dumb cry for peace I hear, for my ears are attended to hearing the dumb millions? I had intended to address a joint appeal to you and Signor Mussolini, whom I had the privilege of meeting when I was in Rome during my visit to England as a delegate to the Round Table Conference. I hope that he will take this as addressed to him also with the necessary changes.

Your best bro,
Ghandi

 

[Droppersneck]

Dropper....you miss the point of what I wrote. I uphold the constitution. The problem is, it was written a very long time ago, and many things have changed since when it was written. The problem I see today is we have a bunch of people trying to change it for their own financial and political gains, when in reality it should be amended to help the american people.

God and love: Ghandi did quite a lot more and he is not just a list of his bad traits, or misdeeds.

The constitution is not a living breathing document. Those on the far left believe it is and would like to change it suite their political ideologies. As far as I am concerned the document is perfect in its current form and must be protected from activist judges aiming to destroy this nation and its core beliefs. I would not like to see the court too far left nor right, but I think it is better for the solidity of this nation when it leans right as conservatives simply maintain status quot. If Hilary wins and appoints 3 insane lefties we can kiss the second amendment good bye and globalization can be fully in placed.

 

[Just A Guy]

John McAfee live on Bluelight right now.

 

[Bardeaux]

The constitution is not a living breathing document. Those on the far left believe it is and would like to change it suite their political ideologies.

Like changing it to make English the official language or making religious recitements mandatory in schools? Don't pretend it's just the left.

As far as I am concerned the document is perfect in its current form

It's current form consists of several amendments to it. Therefore, the constitution can and should be changed from time to time. That's what you just said.

and must be protected from (left leaning) activist judges aiming to destroy this nation and its core beliefs.

ftfw

I would not like to see the court too far left nor right, but I think it is better for the solidity of this nation when it leans right as conservatives simply maintain status quot.

And you see nothing wrong with the status quo?

Totally anti-establishment breh

 

[ColonelPanic]

#curecancer

 

[GenericMind]

Does anyone else think the Republicans will simply refuse to nominate Trump at the convention regardless of the delegate count? I think they're just going to pick someone like Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan instead.

The only reason Hillary is even viable at this point with so a low net favorablity rating us because Trump's us horrendous too(both are bottom 3 if any candidate over the last 40 years). All the Republicans would have to do is nominate pretty much anyone else and they'd be virtually guaranteed a victory if the Dems pick Hillary.

 

[GenericMind]

God I hate the newest update to my keyboard & autocorrect app.

 

[Phil.McKeer]

The constitution is not a living breathing document. Those on the far left believe it is and would like to change it suite their political ideologies. As far as I am concerned the document is perfect in its current form and must be protected from activist judges aiming to destroy this nation and its core beliefs. I would not like to see the court too far left nor right, but I think it is better for the solidity of this nation when it leans right as conservatives simply maintain status quot. If Hilary wins and appoints 3 insane lefties we can kiss the second amendment good bye and globalization can be fully in placed.

This is an excellent specimen of right-wing mental gymnastics. You almost literally have to be lobotimized to be able to think this way but...let's break it down:

First of all, 27. No, it's not the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything. That's the number of times we've Amended (i.e. changed) the Constitution. News flash: it was designed that way. We're supposed to be able to change it, bruh. I guess no one told you that.

You've also been promoting the following logical formula in this forum for a while:

A. If Hillary (or any democrat really) wins, they will pick 3 liberal SCOTUS seats.
B. If that occurs, then the 2nd Amendment will be repealed by SCOTUS.
C. Thus, globalization will increase, or "be fully in placed" [sic].

When broken down into a logical argument it's obviously both invalid and unsound.

If by "globalization" you mean the neo-liberal, laissez-faire international trade deals that have made American workers compete with Chinese ones and offshored our entire industrial capacity and caused market failures affecting every sector of our economy, then BOTH Hillary and Donald will be bad picks, buddy. But if by "globalization" you mean more Muslims/assorted "other" or brown people moving here (which, as a gambling man, I assign a 51% probability that is what you mean when you use the term), then I guess Trump is your buddy, guy. He'll probably encourage pogroms against Muslims and then pretend he was just kidding.

 

[GodandLove]

As is custom with spiritual leaders in India.

Pan handling is a custom with fraudsters and beggars, no genuine Spiritual leader/ Yogi/Sadhu would expose themselves to such degradation.

Nelson Mandela (maybe you've heard of him) commended Ghandi as a pioneer of the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Perhaps Ghandi was speaking of those who chose to keep their chains? Che Guevara is accused of the same thing, yet fought in the trenches of Africa alongside noone but black rebels.

And? Is Nelson Mandela the emperor of black people? If he commended George Zimmerman would that make things all better for the black community in America? Last I checked Gandhi fought in no trenches, especially not alongside black rebels.

By the way, the context in which Gandhi used the word Kaffir was pretty straight forward. It was blatantly racist.

"We were then marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs [offensive term equivalent to the n-word],” Gandhi complained during one of his campaigns for the rights of Indians settled there. “We could understand not being classed with whites, but to be placed on the same level as the Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized — the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.”

Did you even read the links I provided?

So did every other red blooded American man in the 1950s.

Is that somehow supposed to make it okay? Red Blooded Americans never claimed to be non violent super gurus.

 

[Bardeaux]

Pan handling is a custom with fraudsters and beggars, no genuine Spiritual leader/ Yogi/Sadhu would expose themselves to such degradation.

This is just false. Do they work at McDonalds while they're not practicing?

And? Is Nelson Mandela the emperor of black people? If he commended George Zimmerman would that make things all better for the black community in America? Last I checked Gandhi fought in no trenches, especially not alongside black rebels.

By the way, the context in which Gandhi used the word Kaffir was pretty straight forward. It was blatantly racist.

I didn't imply Ghandi was an armed insurrectionist. I implied that (which he even states in his letter to Hitler) that it is his mission in life to befriend people of all ethnicities. Whether it was common practice to use the word (such as the word "negro" was in previous generations), or he used it with malice in mind, I don't believe Ghandi to be a genuine racist. He describes this in detail over and over.

To answer your condescending question, I'll answer with another question. If he were to show solidarity with the BLM movement as a non-violent display of resistance to institutionalized racism, would you still refer to him as a racist by modern standards?

Is that somehow supposed to make it okay? Red Blooded Americans never claimed to be non violent super gurus.

No it's to add context. It used to be ok to toss women off of cliffs for speaking out of turn. Social norms and folkways change. So to has the notion of spousal abuse.

I'm not saying Ghandi was a saint, or that he was perfect. But to blatantly state that he made no achievements during his lifetime due to a few character flaws is immensely short-sighted.