I see you are now resorting to insults and personal attacks. Posters always resort to such tactics when they have nothing of substance left to contribute. It is a characteristic of the intolerant.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Right Wing Repugnants Once Argued Moral Grounds For Impeachment
- Thread starter Old Trapper
- Start date
I see you are now resorting to insults and personal attacks. Posters always resort to such tactics when they have nothing of substance left to contribute. It is a characteristic of the intolerant.
I don’t live in his state.
I know. I (and you) and other rational people understand quite clearly that one segment of society does not represent all of them. That simple truth seems to have been lost on some of our younger generations.
It's not a simple concept. It's not a concept at all.
Being a gun owner is a choice. Being gay isn't.
So that attempt at equivalence did a belly-flop. Wanna try something else?
If you don't oppose bigotry and intolerance, then you are of dubious moral character and you have questionable judgment as a human being.
Whether being a gun owner is a choice is irrelevant. You are deflecting from the real issue. If a liberal hates a person because he is a gun owner that is still an intolerant position that is not a reaction to anything the gun owner did. You refuse to admit liberal intolerance that is not caused by conservatives. A sign of partisan irrationality.
I oppose bigotry and intolerance. But I do not hate people because of it and I don't pretend my hatred of those people is somehow improving the situation rather than doubling the hatred.
Whether being a gun owner is a choice is irrelevant. You are deflecting from the real issue. If a liberal hates a person because he is a gun owner that is still an intolerant position that is not a reaction to anything the gun owner did. You refuse to admit liberal intolerance that is not caused by conservatives. A sign of partisan irrationality.
I oppose bigotry and intolerance. But I do not hate people because of it and I don't pretend my hatred of those people is somehow improving the situation rather than doubling the hatred.
I had to read that twice. That is an outstanding insight!
Notice the gratuitous use of improper nouns when actual names and events would suffice just as well.
Who is this mystery person to whom you're referring, and why do I get the sense you're leaving some key pieces of information out...exculpatory evidence that would undermine your position and argument?
The grammar Nazi.
There is no mystery person. It has occurred many times with different speakers. Again, deflecting from the issue because it does not fit your argument.
Old Trapper
Verified User
ers.You made my point. Believing others are looking down on them, questioning their intelligence, etc. creates a backlash. Whether your descriptions are correct is irrelevant, it still creates a hatred toward those disparaging them by saying "they lack integrity, moral values, and intelligence."
So, rather then face the truth, which you say is irrelevant, these "snowflakes" take their anger out on the country rather then face reality, and some introspection.
Even worse, to lump Republican voters with groups like "QAnon, White Supremacists, KKK, Russians" (which are such a small fraction of Americans) is the worst kind of partisan stereotyping.
Now you are sliding into your own fantasy world. There is only one way a certain group can support the beliefs of another group, in this case support for Trump, is if they have similar ideologies. Who is it that is spreading hatred for other races, or countries? Who is it that supports cutting benefits, and assistance, for the less fortunate, and still supports more being given to the wealthy? They are Republican voters, not Democratic Socialists, or Liberals.
I certainly agree with you about aristocrats, but Republicans are no more aristocrats than Democrats. One of the changes in recent years is that Democrats are just as likely to be high income earners as Republicans and in 2016 contributed a lot more money to the presidential campaign.
"High income" earners does not make one "aristocratic", it is generally speaking what one does with that "income" that determines ones aristocratic attitude. Have you ever heard of the "Billionaires Club" started by Gates, and Buffett? You will find nothing similar on the Republican side of the aisle. Oh for sure, there are philanthropies supported by Republicans, just not the "giving" of the left. More along the lines of "giving" by Trump.
I disliked conservatives because of their intolerance and sided with liberals on that issue. However, over the years I realized liberals had become (or always been) equally intolerant. Tolerance, support for civil liberties and civil rights was traditionally correlated with income level but that no longer seems true. The two sides are equally intolerant--just toward different groups.
On this I would like to see some source for your disinformation. One of the reasons I hate the 24/7 news cycle is that you can watch one hour, and then later watch another hour, and it is all the same bull shit. The same is true of this story. "Intolerance" is in the eyes of the beholder, and I see very little on the side of the Democrats. On the side of the Republicans it appears that anyone who is not a WASP is verbotten. If there is any intolerance on the side of the left it would be towards this attitude.
I am extremely intolerant of abortions, homosexual marriages, transgender, just as I am extremely intolerant of unjust wars, shooting unarmed people in the back simply because of their color, taking children from their mothers without just cause, adulterers, liars, etc. We all have our "intolerant" beliefs, it is just that some are more justifiable then others.
Old Trapper
Verified User
Click bait.
In neither link did any mob of politicians or media mob call for impeachment. Not even Pence.
Bubba WAS finally impeached though for the lie under oath.
You want presidents impeached for PAST immoral behavior? LOL...hypocrite. Get over your perfect self.
Tell me fool, where did I say I wanted him impeached for past behavior? When it was Clinton I thought he should have been impeached for selling high speed dual purpose computers to the Chinese. I also thought he should have been impeached for allowing Loral Corp. basically giving the Chinese our top secret missile guidance system, and then stopping any investigation into the matter. IMO, impeaching him over the Lewinsky affair was petty.
As to Trump, it is his consistent lying, his violations of the emoluments clause, among other wrongs, that, again in my opinion, falls into the realm of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Are you claiming a country can be communist and not have a socialist economic system.
Canada, Venezuela, and Germany are not communist.
No one is calling for Communism except you by pretending "the left" is, just so you can have a straw man argument to debate.
What a fucking loser.
Then, I assume you favor legal marriage for polygamists as well as gays.
I do.
As long as it's between consenting adults, I don't care what the fuck you do with your love life. Marry as many people as you want. I don't see the appeal of multiple spouses personally, but if it is something that appeals to you, and everyone involved is of legal age and is consenting, marry the whole fucking world for all I care.
How other people live their love lives has nothing to do with me. It's none of my business. As long as everyone involved is of legal age and consenting, marry away!
He calls where he lives the Dirty South. It's definitely a millennial thing.
Dirty South is a 90's thing.
I am a Gen Xer...born in the 70's.
You think there aren't liberals today who don't support gay marriage? A simple Google search would let you know that's false
No, what happened was you talked out of your ass again, then put the onus on me to back-fill your credibility because you're too lazy and entitled to do it yourself.
Fuck off, loser.
We accommodated them?
Yes, we sure as shit did. We accommodated them by letting them run away from Bush, stopping only long enough to burn the Bush/Cheney shirts while stapling teabags to their faces and pretending to care about the deficit and debt.
The fact that the teabags weren't immediately excluded from the public debate and ridiculed for being poseurs is accommodation.
We let them re-brand and get away with it.
Then they did it again in 2015 when they took the teabags off because they didn't succeed in making Obama a one-term President nor did they achieve anything with the power they attained other than Sequestration (which they tried to undo!), and put on red hats and declared themselves MAGA. AND WE ACCOMMODATED THAT TOO.
So yeah...we've done nothing but accommodate the worst of society. Now you want me to accommodate their bigotry and intolerance? Why the fuck should I? Why should anyone?
The voters accommodated them by defeating 1,000 Democratic officials during the Obama years.
And what did you all achieve with that power you gained? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
That's why shortly before and when Trump declared his candidacy, suddenly the teabags re-branded themselves as "the freedom caucus" and declared themselves MAGA. And since then, nary a teabag has been seen adorning the face of middle-aged poor white trash.
So that was another re-brand that was accommodated.
Were we supposed to do something that prevented their freedom to vote and rebrand?
Yes, you were supposed to call them out for being full of shit, make them own the Bush the Dumber years they voted for twice, and then exclude them from public debate for the rest of their miserable lives.
So a decade ago you didn't consider yourself tolerant then is what you're acknowledging even though it was commonly commincated as a liberal position?
So once again, you're a fucking lying sack of shit.
So you're trying to represent CA's vote for Prop 8 of somehow proof that CA is intolerant despite being liberals.
Of course, the second you even dip a toe into Prop 8, a few things become clear:
1. Prop 8 was only voted for by 7,000,000 Californians, or 19% of the total population.
2. The Californians who voted for Prop 8 were almost all exclusively in the inland valley, where all of California's redneck racist assholes live.
3. The coasts and cities, where the liberals live, mostly voted against Prop 8
4. Prop 8 passed by only 600,000 votes, which is 2% of the population of the state.
So what we have here is a case of you being deliberately dishonest. You know that what pushed Prop 8 over the finish line was outside money from Mormons, and the racist, redneck inland valley part of CA, where liberals don't live. You're a resident of the state of CA (at least you claim to be, who really fuckin' knows?) and even you know there's a stark divide between the coast and the inland. You also know that out of the 37,000,000 people in the state, only 19% voted for Prop 8, and it only won by a margin of 600,000 votes, which is 2% of CA's total population.
So I want to know why you're using this deliberately dishonest, lie-by-omission argument in this debate? Is it because you can't actually formulate a counter-argument so you have to widen the parameters and shift the goalposts to accommodate your narcissism? Because that's what it looks like, bruh.
Last edited:
But if Robert Byrd were still alive, he would still be getting re-elected. With the accepted silence from the liberal left.
Robert Byrd renounced his racist past and supported Barack Obama.
When will y'all renounce your racist past?
I don't seem him trying to silence Minister Farrakhan or complaining about Democrats meeting with him after all his anti-semitism.
OMG FARRAKHAN! Let's trot out the same, tired boogeyman from the 1990's to distract from the fact that every argument you're making is in defense of intolerant Nazis and racist bigots.
A speaker opposing affirmative action is pretty specific (not vague). That is not just a hypothetical but something that has happened on several occasions going back many years. It is an actual thing.
Which is why you can't actually cite anything in particular. You just speak vaguely and generally, then bristle when asked for details. You're not a very detail-oriented person, and that's reflected in your poor work ethic.
By who did you mean the person's name? That is not important but one person who this was done to was a black guy who was a regent on the U. of California board --Ward Connerly.
1. It is important because otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.
2. I can't find any instance of protesters preventing Ward Connerly from speaking anywhere. In fact, all I see are videos of him giving speeches on campuses, including at an HBCU.
3. Connerly's minstrel show act is deliberately intended to provoke reaction.
I see you are now resorting to insults and personal attacks. Posters always resort to such tactics when they have nothing of substance left to contribute. It is a characteristic of the intolerant.
I am going to insult someone who has a strained relationship with the truth, yes. I make no bones about it. If you're a dishonest, lying, duplicitous sack of crap, I'm going to call you out on it.
And I didn't even insult you, I just noted that you are of poor character because you think truth is something you believe, when it's actually something you accept. You can't not believe in the truth; you either accept it, or you don't.
By pretending truth is something to believe in, you equate make-believe with truth.