Liberalism: The most bigoted ideology of all!

Dixie said:
Again, you are totally unwilling to engage in a respectful debate of ideas and work toward a solution. Your posts prove this over and over again. You are a bigoted stubborn liberal who thinks he is right about everything, and to hell with anyone on the right and what they think. This manifests itself into little tirades like you just displayed, because it's the last refuge of the bigoted.
Click to expand...

I am willing to compromise on several issues. Defense spending. Marginal tax rates. I would not object to modifications to welfare that created a WPA/CCC sort of system where recipients were required to work on public works projects. Getting the state out of the matrimonial business altogether is a compromise position from the accepted liberal one. Again... I have never seen you compromise on any issue, yet you certainly whine that others don't. Your just a noisy gadfly. pure and simple.
 
maineman said:
I am willing to compromise on several issues. Defense spending. Marginal tax rates. I would not object to modifications to welfare that created a WPA/CCC sort of system where recipients were required to work on public works projects. Getting the state out of the matrimonial business altogether is a compromise position from the accepted liberal one. Again... I have never seen you compromise on any issue, yet you certainly whine that others don't. Your just a noisy gadfly. pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Yes, we actually found we agreed one night, on how to resolve the 'gay marriage' issue.... then you proceeded to fight and argue the same old liberal talking points with me for another two pages. It was almost as if your mind could not comprehend that you had reached a reasonable solution with a rightie, and so you just kept on spewing liberal nonsense.

I'm fine with cutting Defense spending, but I reject the idea of gutting the military so we can build a bigger welfare state, and that is what liberals want to do. I think we need to cut Defense spending in proportion to all other spending, it ALL needs to be cut by about $1.6 trillion, according to the most recent reports. Marginal tax rates? You can set those anywhere you please, my argument has been, raising them in tough economic times is stupid. Woops... we find ourselves in agreement again on welfare reforms! Look out! This may call for two pages of liberal diatribe to cover that embarrassing fact up!

Throwing this out there again, since I guess you must have been asleep.... On A-N-Y Liberal social issue... put an initiative on the ballot in your state, and I will live by what the people of your state decide. That is as reasonable a compromise anyone can ask for, I believe. I do not wish to impose my personal views on the rest of society, I have no need to do so. But I also think the people and the state have the inalienable right to determine their own boundaries of moral construct. You can't get anymore conciliatory than that.
 
Some conservative adversaries are noble, on this board Damocles is an example.
Click to expand...

Damo is a Libertarian, which means he largely agrees with Liberals on social issues, and this is why you find him "noble."

But we're not really talking about this board, as this board doesn't control the 'body politic' in America. The argument I presented is, Liberalism as an ideology, is the most bigoted of all ideologies. And here's an example... in maineman's reply above... the first thing he mentions that he is willing to 'compromise' on is Defense spending.... well, Defense spending itself, is a liberal issue, raised by liberals, for the sake of advancing the liberal agenda. No on on the right is concerned with cutting military spending, and legitimately speaking, defense is the first and foremost priority of Federal government, so it's perfectly understandable we have a large defense budget. BUT... Liberals have raised this issue and beat the drums on it for years, so now... we have liberals trying to convince us they are "ready to compromise" ...just the mere fact that the right was willing to listen to their argument, is a compromise. We see this all the time, the Liberals control the dialogue, establish the issue, and nothing will do but we must accept their viewpoint as valid and legitimate, while they trash and bash anything the right says, whether it makes sense to do so or not.
 
Dixie said:
Damo is a Libertarian, which means he largely agrees with Liberals on social issues, and this is why you find him "noble."

But we're not really talking about this board, as this board doesn't control the 'body politic' in America. The argument I presented is, Liberalism as an ideology, is the most bigoted of all ideologies. And here's an example... in maineman's reply above... the first thing he mentions that he is willing to 'compromise' on is Defense spending.... well, Defense spending itself, is a liberal issue, raised by liberals, for the sake of advancing the liberal agenda. No on on the right is concerned with cutting military spending, and legitimately speaking, defense is the first and foremost priority of Federal government, so it's perfectly understandable we have a large defense budget. BUT... Liberals have raised this issue and beat the drums on it for years, so now... we have liberals trying to convince us they are "ready to compromise" ...just the mere fact that the right was willing to listen to their argument, is a compromise. We see this all the time, the Liberals control the dialogue, establish the issue, and nothing will do but we must accept their viewpoint as valid and legitimate, while they trash and bash anything the right says, whether it makes sense to do so or not.
Click to expand...

Bawahahaha, you are very funny.
 
Dixie, you describe yourself when you speak of an inability to admit to being wrong and when you describe how the dialogue is controlled and the adjenda is set.

Perfect example is from your post above where you quote me. You take the first sentence and reply to it, yet because its inconvient or impossable or uncomfortable for you... you failed to respond to or even quote my entire post.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, we actually found we agreed one night, on how to resolve the 'gay marriage' issue.... then you proceeded to fight and argue the same old liberal talking points with me for another two pages. It was almost as if your mind could not comprehend that you had reached a reasonable solution with a rightie, and so you just kept on spewing liberal nonsense.

I'm fine with cutting Defense spending, but I reject the idea of gutting the military so we can build a bigger welfare state, and that is what liberals want to do. I think we need to cut Defense spending in proportion to all other spending, it ALL needs to be cut by about $1.6 trillion, according to the most recent reports. Marginal tax rates? You can set those anywhere you please, my argument has been, raising them in tough economic times is stupid. Woops... we find ourselves in agreement again on welfare reforms! Look out! This may call for two pages of liberal diatribe to cover that embarrassing fact up!

Throwing this out there again, since I guess you must have been asleep.... On A-N-Y Liberal social issue... put an initiative on the ballot in your state, and I will live by what the people of your state decide. That is as reasonable a compromise anyone can ask for, I believe. I do not wish to impose my personal views on the rest of society, I have no need to do so. But I also think the people and the state have the inalienable right to determine their own boundaries of moral construct. You can't get anymore conciliatory than that.
Click to expand...


do you think that slavery should have been left up to the states to decide? what about civil rights? do you not think that some issues transcend states rights and need to be addressed by SCOTUS?
 
Dixie said:
Yep, a bold statement, but true. All we need to do, is examine the threads on this board... Class assignment; find the threads where DIXIE has accepted some degree of compromise to their original stated position. After you realize the impossibility of this task, watch FOX NEWS or other DIXIE sources, and see if you ever notice DIXIE compromising or trying to meet in the middle, on anything. You'll notice, the only time DIXIE IS willing to "meet in the middle" is when DIXIE IS so bizarrely extreme, "the middle" becomes the best possible (and only realistic) DIXIE outcome. .

When we encounter DIXIE in debate, regardless of the issue, DIXIE simply IS not willing to budge one iota, in order to resolve the issue. In DIXIE'S minds, DIXIE IS right and everyone else is wrong, end of discussion.

Until DIXIE begin to recognize DIXIE'S adversaries as a noble opposition, they will forever be stuck in the wilderness of hate and rage. No one is right 100% of the time, except for DIXIE!
Click to expand...


There...substitute the word "Liberals" with Dixie and his rant makes MUCH more sense.
 
Dixie said:
Go read some of ZappedInTheBrain's posts. Yes, liberals would LOVE to ban all guns. You realize this is not going to happen, so you revert to the old liberal standard of incrementalism. As I said before, you can all run around talking about how reasonable YOUR view is, you certainly haven't argued we should ban all guns..that's crazy talk. Let's just ban THIS gun or THAT clip... THIS ammo or THAT style... Pick it apart a little at a time... but you all want to ban ALL guns.
Click to expand...


What a total surprise...another post...ANOTHER BULLSHIT LIE FROM DIXIE about me and my comments.


I have NEVER called for BANNING ALL GUNS...can I be any clearer than that??

...but despite that fact, Dixie sure likes to continue to spread the lie that I do, doesn't he?
 
Dixie said:
I never said that. Here is what I said:

I'll go you one more... Legalized pot, or any other liberal social issue... get it on a state ballot and let the people decide... I'll live with their decision. That is about as 'open-minded' as anyone can be.

So why don't you stop accusing me of saying things I never said, so that you can pretend you are right about something?
Click to expand...


Why?

You won't stop accusing me of bullshit I never said.

Dixie sure does squeal loud when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't he?
 
Dixie said:
Regulate them how? Please specify what regulation would have prevented Sandy Hook or Aurora?

Butter knives could be used to massacre people. Should we ban those too? What about peroxide and pressure cookers?

When has the style or type of weapon been responsible for a massacre?

Let's be honest, liberals want to ban certain weapons because they believe they can do this, where they don't believe they can ban ALL weapons. It's incrementalism at it's finest. The liberal argument is, fewer guns = less gun violence. Therefore, NO guns = NO gun violence, and this is the ultimate objective of the liberal philosophy, because nothing else makes rational sense. Keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens does nothing to stop people from disobeying the law and using guns to commit violence.
Click to expand...


So now you're saying "let's be honest"??

Strange words coming from a guy who has YET to be honest in this entire thread.
 
Dixie said:
Yep, a bold statement, but true. All we need to do, is examine the threads on this board... Class assignment; find the threads where a Liberal has accepted some degree of compromise to their original stated position. After you realize the impossibility of this task, watch MSNBC or other liberal sources, and see if you ever notice any of them compromising or trying to meet in the middle, on anything. You'll notice, the only time they are willing to "meet in the middle" is when they are so bizarrely extreme, "the middle" becomes the best possible (and only realistic) liberal outcome. They'll back down on unconstitutionally taking our guns away, if we agree to let them ban ammo and clips... that sort of thing.

When we encounter a liberal in debate, regardless of the issue, they are simply not willing to budge one iota, in order to resolve the issue. In their minds, they are right and everyone else is wrong, end of discussion. Whenever a person from the right poses arguments for reforming Social Security, it's (in a liberal's mind) because the right wants old people to die in the streets. Whenever someone opposes gay marriage, it's because they are homophobes and hate gay people. If someone suggests we evaluate Affirmative Action, it's because they are racists who hate black people. If we oppose nationalized health care, we must not care about poor sick people. They have allowed their bigotry to cement these thoughts in their minds, and they can't see any other viewpoint as valid.

Until Liberals begin to recognize their adversaries as a noble opposition, they will forever be stuck in the wilderness of hate and rage. No one is right 100% o the time, except for Liberal BIGOTS!
Click to expand...
Dixie....projection is not just a job at the theater. :)
 
maineman said:
do you think that slavery should have been left up to the states to decide? what about civil rights? do you not think that some issues transcend states rights and need to be addressed by SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

That's exactly the way it WAS decided for years, decades! Then the Congress passed Amendments 13 and 14, which were then ratified by the States, and thus ended slavery in America. When we left this issue to SCOTUS to decide, they repeatedly upheld the institution of slavery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top